Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1419
July 25, 2015
Knowledge is the Power, Is your Knowledge Management System Powerful?
Knowledge is an asset to every organization and its integrity, availability and confidentiality can be crucial to how the organization functions or maintains its services and products. But how to manage such intangible asset more effectively?
Knowledge Management System: It really depends on what you actually need to provide in support of your lines of business. Any knowledge management system has these basic components: data entry; data storage; data retrieval; and results management. Access is a fairly rigid data base that may not be suitable in this case, if you wish to store and retrieve datasets for “policy and procedure documents and other needed documents necessary for business continuity.” Perhaps a relational database would make better sense for your group since this will allow your administrator to retrieve all related documents with a minimum of queries. This will avoid the need for hyperlinks and will allow for better management of the available information. Data entry on relational databases is more work, but will allow for better information management. Finally data mining is not the same as data retrieval. You are talking about data retrieval and if you wish this process to lead to “elevated systems level thinking,” then you had better look how the data will be stored, retrieved, and displayed.
Configuration Management systems are usually the tools for the information management. You need to provide up-to-date access to company information to the key individuals. Software designers often use such systems, and they can be complex. You may want to look around and see what is out there. Developing your own may be more work than you need to do, depending on the complexity of your information. The real bugaboo that most companies find with having a configuration management system is the employees' willingness to use it, especially during the development phase of a project/product. Each iteration of a product should be stored in the configuration system to ensure that two people are not doing the same work, and a person's work that is done is not lost in some computer glitch. Employees have been reticent about "publishing" half finished work for fear of criticism. Another reason for not using the system is the additional effort to search for the information.
Often Knowledge Management is mixed with technology management and document management. Russell Ackoff places wisdom after understanding which came after knowledge – so a wisdom-base will be built on an understanding-base which in turn rests on a knowledge-base (then information-base and finally a data-base). However, in many legacy organizations, their methods and procedures/knowledge base were so large and its internal search capabilities so limited that using it was a dreadful chore. Without knowing more about the types of activities to be supported, Even in a small firm, variations between the amounts and types of data needed to support different lines of business can be impossible to efficiently rationalize from an IT/systems perspective.
Knowledge needs to be managed more systematically. Perhaps in organizations there seems to be the "expectation" that if you have a great business in one place and it's working ok then knowledge, ideas, solutions and advice will easily transfer and that piece of the jigsaw will fit snugly into somewhere else. There is no hard asset that you can buy today that will guarantee the success of your organization, data, information, knowledge and wisdom are the different stages of information life cycle that organizations need to manage more effectively and improve its business capability maturity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Can Your Culture Help People Become WHO They Are?
Culture is the collective mind, value, attitude, habit, and your business brand. There are many different perspectives of culture are presented along with diverse ways and means of dealing with it. At high-mature digital organizations, cultures management, talent management and performance management have been integrated into a holistic people management approach. The goal behind building a great culture is whether your culture can help people become who they are?
Culture is the way how we think and do things around here’: but HOW you do what you do is a result of your culture - WHO you are. The definition of culture is 'The Attitudes, Feelings, Values and Behaviors that characterize and inform a group and its members' - but ultimately it is WHO you are and not What you do or HOW you do it. Culture is the aggregate of all employees' attitudes and behaviours. As such, it changes constantly as events happen and people come and go. It's not something that can be defined and implemented by the employer; rules can only enable and constrain culture. It is the Attitudes, Feelings, Values and Behaviors. Your culture guides and informs How you do What you do, and should point you to WHY you do it. Your brand and your success all come from your people.
Successful culture change helps people become who they already are. By encouraging people to focus on who they are, and pursue the autonomy and mastery, the great culture catalyzes positive attitude and behaviors; but discourage the negativity and unprofessionalism. All the conversations about culture, we need to remember that it is the policies, procedures, rewards and retributions that drive advanced mind and good behavior and it is the employee behavior that expresses "culture." Gestalt approaches to culture change encourage a new sense of collective mindfulness, a new sense of acceptance and comfort in the flux of life. Imposing visions on people produces resistance; mindfulness, in the sense of expanded awareness of possibilities, produces a kind of playful experimentation and a willingness to embrace and forge new change.
The spirit of organization comes from the top: An unenlightened leader who has a low level of self knowledge, self-actualization, or emotional intelligence in the broad sense of what cannot take a team or a company to a place which requires those things. It just doesn't happen! Or managers are taught that they have greater knowledge, and then they go foist it upon their people. In that environment, the self-actualization of people can't occur. It speaks to Maslow's Hierarchy of need and how most managers are impeding progress up the pyramid rather than helping their people reach the summit. And there are no shortcuts to get to that state, it’s a process and it takes time and a real commitment to get there. Plus the willingness to open up and change. Only then does that person really become more effective, but many will not want to take that path or believe that it is necessary. And you wonder why engagement levels stay so low?
Being humans we should have one big advantage - knowing about our own nature. People have no problem with change! They have problems with uncertainty, risk and fear. So building a culture of learning, innovation and risk-tolerance means that everyone involved owns and becomes more aware of their own impact on the culture of the organisation around them, rather than having change foisted on them, with well-set principles, but not so rigid processes, people are inspired to strengthen their strength, to become who they are, and unleash the talent potential which is well aligned with business’s goals and purpose, to create synergy and accelerate business growth and maturity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Leverage Systems Thinking in Digital Paradigm Shift
Systems Thinking is the tool to leverage balance and flexibility across the spectrum of digital paradigm and digital paradox.
Just as the industrial revolution did a century and a half ago, the digital revolution is reshaping the way we live our lives and the way we work. It’s forcing a fundamental digital transformation of business and our society. Success in the digital world demands Systems thinking, the systematic approach to manage business and the multi-disciplinary understanding about the digital business ecosystem.
Converting from the mechanistic paradigm to the systems paradigm requires starting with new system oriented beliefs and thought processes. The mechanistic production metaphor is replaced with organic service metaphor, technology centrism becomes multi-disciplinary, the linear system perception is replaced by complex adaptive systems, a goal-seeking system becomes purposeful, and technical behavior is replaced by socio-technical behavior. The organizations that have hit the heights of success in the digital world aren’t those that have determinedly followed the old models and ways of thinking; it’s those that have forged a new path. Paradigms at strategic level should be a fundamental area of ST. Paradigms make or break an organization. As a business, supporting multiple paradigmatics of demand means working with multi-sided forms of demand supported by correspondingly multi-sided platforms. What now has to be understood are the complex dynamics of the ecosystem within which the business is competing and with which the business is unavoidably entangled - dynamics driven more by horizontal linkages than by vertical (sovereign) accountabilities.
A collection of people who think innovatively can adapt instantly, who give the company a competitive edge. It also means managing people well and as technology develops, creating the right mix of automation and human creativity. The fire of innovation, adaptability and creativity is fuelled by cognitive diversity, when people with a wide range of perspectives work together; not just people of different ages and gender, but people who are different across every dimension with different backgrounds, physical characteristics, life experiences and personalities. It’s important to explore the "Systems thinking and cognition"spectrum. At digital ecosystem, there is an intimate interplay spectrum across the (1) living/actioning "systems[-of-systems]" out there, and the ST attempts for identification/abstraction/elaboration, and (2) living/actioning with "world-cognition" spectrum and respective "cognitive" processes and layers (across the aggregate levels of any kind of "actors").
The software engineering mind is shifted from industrial mode to digital mode: The software engineering mind is experiencing the agile shift from being reactive to proactive; from centralized to distributed; from monolithic to mosaic; from process driven to customer-centered. Now the systemic, critical thinking, distributed, objective selection, contextual, design, and strategic and tactical thinking associated with purposeful systems prevail. The technical structure expands to include all aspects of software realization, not just software development. The usually ignored nontechnical, human aspects of software engineering are deemed equally important as the technical or hard component. Now, large-scale software systems, much to the lament of the technologists, are as much or more human systems than technical systems.
Systems Thinking engenders new actions as part of the process of creating cross-disciplined understanding. What is powerful about Systems Thinking is that it’s concerned with wholes changes of the scope, thereby engendering new action systems as part of the process of creating understanding. From software management perspective, the next step is to identify the mindset, the technical and nontechnical strategies and tactics needed to realize the new software engineering approach. This would include Systems Engineering, concurrent engineering, project design, quality engineering, strategic and tactical planning, joint optimization, systems ecology, and quality factors. Once the project machine with its disdain for human issues is dismantled, projects will become socio-technical systems that drive out of fears and create new cultures with positive attitudes, behaviors, and values. Leadership will prevail over technical management, generalists over specialists, open systems concepts will focus on meeting the needs of the environment, socialization will improve the collaboration, communication, cooperation, and coordination, and software economics will increase customer value. No longer will partially closed projects react to budget and schedule pressure by implementing defect prone, poor quality, immature systems that provide minimal customer value.
ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of digital dynamic and digital paradox. It is true that technology grows exponentially even in case of paradigm shift. It is also true that the growth of technology may trigger a paradigm shift. ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of a "local"/"specific" to "global"/ "holistic"/ "systemic" (boundaryless /trans-epistemic)/ "whole-systems" elaboration:- Society is forced to "grow out" of a paradigm because of changes in the physical world or other major shifts in daily reality.- A new paradigm arises out of new knowledge, such as the age of enlightenment and customer-centricity.
The world becomes even more paradoxical, balance is a leverage for problem-solving and in-depth understanding about economic and social systems: Paradox is also an attribute of thought and language, at this reality, the world we live in. But the strange thing is: every advance is science is about dealing with paradox (and maintaining that these are not real paradoxes). Even logic, our strongest language, itself is fundamentally paradoxical. The system thinking and views of business world are more balance and it is sensitive of the emergent factors; it keeps flow, from valley deep to mountain top; from small river into the sea; it generates the variety of options to deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty of the digital world.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Just as the industrial revolution did a century and a half ago, the digital revolution is reshaping the way we live our lives and the way we work. It’s forcing a fundamental digital transformation of business and our society. Success in the digital world demands Systems thinking, the systematic approach to manage business and the multi-disciplinary understanding about the digital business ecosystem.
Converting from the mechanistic paradigm to the systems paradigm requires starting with new system oriented beliefs and thought processes. The mechanistic production metaphor is replaced with organic service metaphor, technology centrism becomes multi-disciplinary, the linear system perception is replaced by complex adaptive systems, a goal-seeking system becomes purposeful, and technical behavior is replaced by socio-technical behavior. The organizations that have hit the heights of success in the digital world aren’t those that have determinedly followed the old models and ways of thinking; it’s those that have forged a new path. Paradigms at strategic level should be a fundamental area of ST. Paradigms make or break an organization. As a business, supporting multiple paradigmatics of demand means working with multi-sided forms of demand supported by correspondingly multi-sided platforms. What now has to be understood are the complex dynamics of the ecosystem within which the business is competing and with which the business is unavoidably entangled - dynamics driven more by horizontal linkages than by vertical (sovereign) accountabilities.
A collection of people who think innovatively can adapt instantly, who give the company a competitive edge. It also means managing people well and as technology develops, creating the right mix of automation and human creativity. The fire of innovation, adaptability and creativity is fuelled by cognitive diversity, when people with a wide range of perspectives work together; not just people of different ages and gender, but people who are different across every dimension with different backgrounds, physical characteristics, life experiences and personalities. It’s important to explore the "Systems thinking and cognition"spectrum. At digital ecosystem, there is an intimate interplay spectrum across the (1) living/actioning "systems[-of-systems]" out there, and the ST attempts for identification/abstraction/elaboration, and (2) living/actioning with "world-cognition" spectrum and respective "cognitive" processes and layers (across the aggregate levels of any kind of "actors").
The software engineering mind is shifted from industrial mode to digital mode: The software engineering mind is experiencing the agile shift from being reactive to proactive; from centralized to distributed; from monolithic to mosaic; from process driven to customer-centered. Now the systemic, critical thinking, distributed, objective selection, contextual, design, and strategic and tactical thinking associated with purposeful systems prevail. The technical structure expands to include all aspects of software realization, not just software development. The usually ignored nontechnical, human aspects of software engineering are deemed equally important as the technical or hard component. Now, large-scale software systems, much to the lament of the technologists, are as much or more human systems than technical systems.
Systems Thinking engenders new actions as part of the process of creating cross-disciplined understanding. What is powerful about Systems Thinking is that it’s concerned with wholes changes of the scope, thereby engendering new action systems as part of the process of creating understanding. From software management perspective, the next step is to identify the mindset, the technical and nontechnical strategies and tactics needed to realize the new software engineering approach. This would include Systems Engineering, concurrent engineering, project design, quality engineering, strategic and tactical planning, joint optimization, systems ecology, and quality factors. Once the project machine with its disdain for human issues is dismantled, projects will become socio-technical systems that drive out of fears and create new cultures with positive attitudes, behaviors, and values. Leadership will prevail over technical management, generalists over specialists, open systems concepts will focus on meeting the needs of the environment, socialization will improve the collaboration, communication, cooperation, and coordination, and software economics will increase customer value. No longer will partially closed projects react to budget and schedule pressure by implementing defect prone, poor quality, immature systems that provide minimal customer value.
ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of digital dynamic and digital paradox. It is true that technology grows exponentially even in case of paradigm shift. It is also true that the growth of technology may trigger a paradigm shift. ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of a "local"/"specific" to "global"/ "holistic"/ "systemic" (boundaryless /trans-epistemic)/ "whole-systems" elaboration:- Society is forced to "grow out" of a paradigm because of changes in the physical world or other major shifts in daily reality.- A new paradigm arises out of new knowledge, such as the age of enlightenment and customer-centricity.
The world becomes even more paradoxical, balance is a leverage for problem-solving and in-depth understanding about economic and social systems: Paradox is also an attribute of thought and language, at this reality, the world we live in. But the strange thing is: every advance is science is about dealing with paradox (and maintaining that these are not real paradoxes). Even logic, our strongest language, itself is fundamentally paradoxical. The system thinking and views of business world are more balance and it is sensitive of the emergent factors; it keeps flow, from valley deep to mountain top; from small river into the sea; it generates the variety of options to deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty of the digital world.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Leverage Systems Thinking in Exploring Digital Dynamic
Just as the industrial revolution did a century and a half ago, the digital revolution is reshaping the way we live our lives and the way we work. It’s forcing a fundamental digital transformation of business and our society. Success in the digital world demands Systems thinking, the systematic approach to manage business and the multi-disciplinary understanding about business ecosystem.
Converting from the mechanistic paradigm to the systems paradigm requires starting with new system oriented beliefs and thought processes. The mechanistic production metaphor is replaced with organic service metaphor, technology centrism becomes multi-disciplinary, the linear system perception is replaced by complex adaptive systems, a goal seeking system becomes purposeful, and technical behavior is replaced by socio-technical behavior. The organizations that have hit the heights of success in the digital world aren’t those that have determinedly followed the old models and ways of thinking; it’s those that have forged a new path. Paradigms at strategic level should be fundamental area of ST. Paradigms make or break an organization. As a business, supporting multiple paradigmatics of demand means working with multi-sided forms of demand supported by correspondingly multi-sided platforms. What now has to be understood are the complex dynamics of the ecosystem within which the business is competing and with which the business is unavoidably entangled - dynamics driven more by horizontal linkages than by vertical (sovereign) accountabilities.
A collection of people who think innovatively, can adapt instantly, who give the company a competitive edge. It also means managing people well and as technology develops, creating the right mix of automation and human creativity. The fire of innovation, adaptability and creativity is fuelled by cognitive diversity, when people with a wide range of perspectives work together; not just people of different ages and gender, but people who are different across every dimension with different backgrounds, physical characteristics, life experiences and personalities. It’s important to explore the "Systems thinking and cognition"spectrum. At digital ecosystem, there is an intimate interplay spectrum across the (1) living/actioning "systems[-of-systems]" out there, and the ST attempts for identification/abstraction/elaboration, and (2) living/actioning with "world-cognition" spectrum and respective "cognitive" processes and layers (across the aggregate levels of any kind of "actors").
The software engineering mind is shifted from industrial mode to digital mode: The software engineering mind needs to be shift from being reactive to proactive; from centralized to distributed; from monolithic to mosaic; from process driven to customer-centered. Now the systemic, critical thinking, distributed, objective selection, contextual, design, and strategic and tactical thinking associated with a purposeful systems prevail. The technical structure expands to include all aspects of software realization, not just software development. The usually ignored nontechnical, human aspects of software engineering are deemed equally important as the technical or hard component. Now, large-scale software systems, much to the lament of the technologists, are as much or more human systems than technical systems.
Systems Thinking engenders new action systems as part of process of creating cross-disciplined understanding. What is powerful about Systems Thinking is that it’s concerned with wholes changes of the scope, thereby engendering new action systems as part of the process of creating understanding. From software management perspective, the next step is to identify the mindset, the technical and nontechnical strategies and tactics needed to realize the new software engineering approach. This would include Systems Engineering, concurrent engineering, project design, quality engineering, strategic and tactical planning, joint optimization, systems ecology, and quality factors including security, safety, and survivability. Once the project machine with its disdain for human issues is dismantled, projects will become socio-technical systems that drive out of fears and create new cultures with positive attitudes, behaviors, and values. Leadership will prevail over technical management, generalists over specialists, open systems concepts will focus on meeting the needs of the environment, socialization will improve the collaboration, communication, cooperation, and coordination, and software economics will increase customer value. No longer will partially closed projects react to budget and schedule pressure by implementing defect prone, poor quality, immature systems that provide minimal customer value.
ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of digital dynamic and digital paradox. It is true that technology grows exponentially even in case of paradigm shift. It is also true that the growth of technology may trigger a paradigm shift. ST is the tool to bring balance and flexibility across the spectrum of a "local"/"specific" to "global"/ "holistic"/ "systemic" (boundaryless /transepistemic)/ "whole-systems" elaboration:- Society is forced to "grow out" of a paradigm because of changes in the physical world or other major shifts in daily reality.- A new paradigm arises out of new knowledge, such as the age of enlightenment and customer-centric.
The world becomes even more paradoxical, balance is a leverage for problem solving: Paradox is also an attribute of thought and language, as this reality, the world we live in. But the strange thing is: every advance is science is about dealing with paradox (and maintaining that these are not a real paradoxes). Even logic, our strongest language, itself is fundamentally paradoxical. The system thinking and views of business world are more balances and it is sensitive of the emergent factors; it keeps flow, from valley deep to mountain top; from small river into the sea; it generates the variety of options to deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty of the digital world.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
July 24, 2015
The Digital Footprint of “Digital Master”
Digital Master is a Bridge Book to Mind Industrial era and Digital Era; and A Play Book to Shape Game-changing Digital Mindsets.
Many organizations are rushing into the digital journey, what is digital? Just like what that classic fable "Six Men and Elephant" perceived, most of the businesses only grasp the piece of truth, but often misunderstanding the entire story: for some, digital means the latest digital technology or cool gadget; for others, digital means a fancy website or UX interface, but they are missing the big picture about digitalization. The book "Digital Master" helps reimagine and reinvent business via weaving a holistic picture of the digital organization and providing a step-by-step guideline in digital transformation. “Digital Master: Debunk the Myths of Enterprise Digital Maturity” has been published around six months, and it overall receives the positive feedback and gains the good reputation as:
A Guide Book to Debunk the Myths of Enterprise Digital Maturity.A Bridge Book to Mind Industrial era and Digital Era.A Play Book to Shape Game-changing Digital Mindsets.A Framework to Orchestrate Dynamic Digital Capabilities.An Ongoing Book to write the new Chapter of Digital Innovation.It’s time to trace its own “digital footprint” for conveniencing readers to dig through and discover many colors and shades to become a “Digital Master”:
Digital Master Featured URLs: Digital Master Home Page.Goodreads Author’s Home PageDigital Master at FlipboardDigital Master at TwitterDigital Master Author Home PageDigital Master on LinkedinDigital Master on Future of CIO BlogDigital Master Introduction, Fun Quiz on SlideshareDigital Master Introduction on Youtube
Digital Master Online Order Links:Digital Master on AmazonDigital Master on B&NDigital Master on Apple iTunesDigital Master on LuLuDigital Master on Google BooksDigital Master on KOBODigital Master on FeedbooksDigital Master on BOLFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Business Performance Measurement: How to Take a Holistic Approach
A holistic approach is based on simple principles, and well align the strategic level of measure with operational level metrics.
As Drucker wisely pointed out, “you can only manage what you measure.” The purpose to define performance metrics is to monitor the business progress and performance. But there are two levels of performance measurement: at strategic level, organizations concern about long-term business result, business capability building, customer satisfaction and employee engagement; at operational level, business needs to take care of quarterly financial result, employees’ weekly report, customers’ purchasing transaction and more. So how shall you not only measure right, but measure the right things right?
A holistic approach is important in order to set up a strategy for performance measurement definition. The holistic approach means to well align the strategic level of measure with operational level metrics. The holistic approach is fundamental to avoid "a one size fits all solution" that will only bring businesses to potential disasters. A holistic approach based on simple principles and categories will allow to move down to techniques and tool boxes as you propose them. The ultimate goal is to implement business strategy effectively through well defining the right set of measures at both strategic and tactical level. The holistic approach from top down is excellent. But the tactical level of measures has to be in alignment with the business goals to be of value. The "one size fits all solution" is incorrect. The whole issue is to have a starting point and the performance metrics that come first at a strategic level are doing the job. They serve as headings to of chapters of measures that will be defined at tactical and operational levels. Doing so leaders may stay away from micromanagement and burn-out, thanks to a holistic approach, complemented by a cascade of smaller objectives and measurements that must always help you keep "the end" in mind: to make sure business goals on track.
Taking systematic approach to measurement can avoid blind-spots in performance: It's fair to say that any organization that didn't have a systematic approach to measurement and analysis in both strategic level and operational level has a giant blind spot that is impairing their performance. In addition to having some kind of basic measure in each level, it's critical for the company to share that information among its primary stakeholders (leaders at the top, managers at the middle, and employees at frontline). Having the right performance indicators is very important. But acting on what those indicators are telling you is vital to sustaining and improving results. It's also important to be able to follow at least a few performance metrics very closely. By that you should measure, follow up and take action on a weekly basis. Then you have some others metrics that are followed more infrequent, monthly, quarterly etc.
An organization also needs to define the set of measures that helps it make informed decisions.The people in the organization need to know and understand why the data are being collected and analyzed, as well as what decisions will be made based upon the data. If the measures are ever used to evaluate or punish someone, you can forget ever being able to have good data from that point forward. Surely, there are also different types of decisions: strategic decisions made by senior leadership team to keep business growth or drive leapfrogging transformation; operational level decisions made by middle management to “keep the light on,” and get project on track; or the tactical decisions made by frontline worker for daily business transaction. The measurement for Internal Process Quality, either for decision-making or strategy execution, is an excellent category, but the definition will vary considerably from business to business, or from department to department. Defining appropriate measurements and analytic techniques is a process in and of itself. And many times it is not properly performed. The ultimate goal is to define the right set of measures that can be used to make informed decisions. The people in the organization need to know and understand why the data are being collected and analyzed, as well as what decisions will be made based upon the data. The distinction between the decision quality and the outcome is important as well. If the decision-making process is well designed, well executed and well measured, you have the highest probability of getting the best outcome in the state of knowledge accessible at the time of decision.
Well defining the right set of metrics will never be an easy job, but alway keep in mind of the simplicity principles, and do not confuse the means with the end. If the organization is focused on improving and competing in the future, having everyone committed to the success is pivotal. Metrics helps you keep on the right track of the business objectives, but it is the means to the end, not the end itself.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
As Drucker wisely pointed out, “you can only manage what you measure.” The purpose to define performance metrics is to monitor the business progress and performance. But there are two levels of performance measurement: at strategic level, organizations concern about long-term business result, business capability building, customer satisfaction and employee engagement; at operational level, business needs to take care of quarterly financial result, employees’ weekly report, customers’ purchasing transaction and more. So how shall you not only measure right, but measure the right things right?
A holistic approach is important in order to set up a strategy for performance measurement definition. The holistic approach means to well align the strategic level of measure with operational level metrics. The holistic approach is fundamental to avoid "a one size fits all solution" that will only bring businesses to potential disasters. A holistic approach based on simple principles and categories will allow to move down to techniques and tool boxes as you propose them. The ultimate goal is to implement business strategy effectively through well defining the right set of measures at both strategic and tactical level. The holistic approach from top down is excellent. But the tactical level of measures has to be in alignment with the business goals to be of value. The "one size fits all solution" is incorrect. The whole issue is to have a starting point and the performance metrics that come first at a strategic level are doing the job. They serve as headings to of chapters of measures that will be defined at tactical and operational levels. Doing so leaders may stay away from micromanagement and burn-out, thanks to a holistic approach, complemented by a cascade of smaller objectives and measurements that must always help you keep "the end" in mind: to make sure business goals on track.
Taking systematic approach to measurement can avoid blind-spots in performance: It's fair to say that any organization that didn't have a systematic approach to measurement and analysis in both strategic level and operational level has a giant blind spot that is impairing their performance. In addition to having some kind of basic measure in each level, it's critical for the company to share that information among its primary stakeholders (leaders at the top, managers at the middle, and employees at frontline). Having the right performance indicators is very important. But acting on what those indicators are telling you is vital to sustaining and improving results. It's also important to be able to follow at least a few performance metrics very closely. By that you should measure, follow up and take action on a weekly basis. Then you have some others metrics that are followed more infrequent, monthly, quarterly etc.
An organization also needs to define the set of measures that helps it make informed decisions.The people in the organization need to know and understand why the data are being collected and analyzed, as well as what decisions will be made based upon the data. If the measures are ever used to evaluate or punish someone, you can forget ever being able to have good data from that point forward. Surely, there are also different types of decisions: strategic decisions made by senior leadership team to keep business growth or drive leapfrogging transformation; operational level decisions made by middle management to “keep the light on,” and get project on track; or the tactical decisions made by frontline worker for daily business transaction. The measurement for Internal Process Quality, either for decision-making or strategy execution, is an excellent category, but the definition will vary considerably from business to business, or from department to department. Defining appropriate measurements and analytic techniques is a process in and of itself. And many times it is not properly performed. The ultimate goal is to define the right set of measures that can be used to make informed decisions. The people in the organization need to know and understand why the data are being collected and analyzed, as well as what decisions will be made based upon the data. The distinction between the decision quality and the outcome is important as well. If the decision-making process is well designed, well executed and well measured, you have the highest probability of getting the best outcome in the state of knowledge accessible at the time of decision.
Well defining the right set of metrics will never be an easy job, but alway keep in mind of the simplicity principles, and do not confuse the means with the end. If the organization is focused on improving and competing in the future, having everyone committed to the success is pivotal. Metrics helps you keep on the right track of the business objectives, but it is the means to the end, not the end itself.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
What are your biggest Challenges with Holacracy at the Moment?
One of the goals behind Holacracy is about improving employee engagement to encourage purpose discovery, autonomy, and mastery.
“Holacracy is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously.” (www.holacracy.org). However, organizations have been using the pyramidal organizational structure for so long (since the industrial revolution), there’s no overnight shift for either mindset or structure change. Now Holacracy model is still under experimentation and learning stage, what are your biggest problems with Holacracy at the moment?
Holacracy as a concept is progressive, but how to get it work in detail takes learning and practicing: The first question is are you sure what you're using is close to Holacracy? Holacracy has a very specific set of rules that are meant to address a lot of issues and create checks and balances in a distributed authority system. It makes sense that using only some of the rules would create holes and imbalance that are normally addressed through adopting the entirety of the rules. Holacracy is not at odds with the notion of worker cooperatives. Holacracy is attempting to solve a different problem than what the cooperatives model is attempting to solve. There's absolutely no reason why a cooperative can't run with Holacracy and in fact it would be a very powerful choice for any cooperative to do so. Distributing ownership and distributing decision-making authority is a beautiful synergy for a digital organization to take on to harness agility. But the matter in details are: How do projects get assigned or prioritized, or what is the intake process for projects? Is it strictly through the proposal process that new projects are identified and prioritized? And how do individuals in other circles propose work that sits in a domain outside of their circle?
Holacracy provides the free choice for employees to select the projects they would like to work on, can this process go smoothly without sacrificing efficiency or losing manageability? One key difference between the traditional hierarchy and Holacracy is that you can only request/ask another role to take a project, you cannot strictly "assign" it to them. When you request a project, the question for the person in the other role is "would it make sense for my role to take that project, given the role's purpose and accountabilities?" If the answer is "yes," then the person must accept the project. Otherwise, they can simply decline it. If they don't take the project, they might be requested to explain what another project they would take to express their role's purpose and accountability. It's everyone's duty in Holacracy to define projects for their role. Here is a list of the basic partner duties: And if you're not satisfied with the project another role takes, and you think they should be working on something different, it might be that you need to propose changing their role's purpose and accountabilities to better fit the need that you sense. You can propose that change in a governance meeting. So one of the goals behind Holacracy is about improving employee engagement to encourage purpose discovery, autonomy, and mastery.
The problems usually aren't with Holacracy itself but are a result of it. For example, one of the problems the organizations has at the moment is with remuneration. Without job titles, it’s very hard to apply the compensation to an employee. Without a hierarchy, it's hard for an employee to get a proper incentive. Even if building your own solution stay up to you, you may use Holacracry to clearly organize the specific work about compensations; setting a specific project, creating roles and adding relevant accountabilities for ongoing needs, editing policies. Everyone is bringing a unique value to the organization and the compensation must reflect that value brought. There needs to have a system in place, where each partner could assess their value compared to others and assess the accuracy of such assessment. It is based on the agility principles that humans are very good when comparing two things, hopefully, it’s an apple to apple comparison; not about apple to orange comparison.
There are two types of tensions: operational and governance tensions in practicing Holacracy, how to handle them? There are specific processes to deal with these two types of tensions. Governance tensions are tensions related to the clarity of roles and policies of the circle. it's the tension you have when it is not clear who has to do what or how things are supposed to be done. This type of tension is resolved in the circle governance meeting. Operational tensions are tensions related to the decisions or actions of roles, it is clear already who has to do what, you just need them to do it. This type of tension is resolved in a tactical meeting or directly from role to role. Processing of a tension that results in a request of a project from another role happens in tactical (operational) meeting, or directly to the person filling that role. If there is no confusion about who can do what, then there is no need to have a governance meeting for it. As to how circles can create work for roles outside of their circle: the whole organization is linked via double links. Tactical or governance tensions are brought to higher circles by the rep links and down to lower circles by the lead links. Using these double links, a role can have a tension resolved anywhere in the organization. defining or agreeing to work on projects is separate from the prioritization. There are many levers for prioritization, including each individual making that decision, being required to give transparency into your priorities, and align to circle priorities. One useful distinction is that because you prioritize work separately from taking it on, it allows you to be able to take on more work and then decide if it is important or not, rather than always responding to the latest thing or always dropping the latest thing because people are always busy. Anyone can define a project at any time, but it doesn't necessarily give you more people or funds either, so it is safe for everyone to be deciding what work makes sense to them.
Under Holacracy structure, how to handle workplace conflict. What people's anecdotal experience is, around how alternative management structures fare in terms of workplace health and safety complaints about workplace stress and bullying. How Holacracy deals with the legislative environment that gives employees access to external complaint resolution. Whether external investigators, or legislators, can handle alternative management, or how to set and follow the rules to manage the conflict issues. Opening up the tensions should mean things can be resolved, but does the system understand alternative management? Does it lower the stats?
Holacracy is good, but you can not expect every employee to be of a same level of maturity to adapt to it. You need to build the high-mature, and high - collaborative team, before you build the self-management initiative. You can’t overcome all these challenges without trying and failing, but fail fast and fail forward, with the goals to improve organizational agility and harness the culture of learning and innovation. And it is the means to the end - to achieve high performing business result and build high-level business competency.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
“Holacracy is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously.” (www.holacracy.org). However, organizations have been using the pyramidal organizational structure for so long (since the industrial revolution), there’s no overnight shift for either mindset or structure change. Now Holacracy model is still under experimentation and learning stage, what are your biggest problems with Holacracy at the moment?
Holacracy as a concept is progressive, but how to get it work in detail takes learning and practicing: The first question is are you sure what you're using is close to Holacracy? Holacracy has a very specific set of rules that are meant to address a lot of issues and create checks and balances in a distributed authority system. It makes sense that using only some of the rules would create holes and imbalance that are normally addressed through adopting the entirety of the rules. Holacracy is not at odds with the notion of worker cooperatives. Holacracy is attempting to solve a different problem than what the cooperatives model is attempting to solve. There's absolutely no reason why a cooperative can't run with Holacracy and in fact it would be a very powerful choice for any cooperative to do so. Distributing ownership and distributing decision-making authority is a beautiful synergy for a digital organization to take on to harness agility. But the matter in details are: How do projects get assigned or prioritized, or what is the intake process for projects? Is it strictly through the proposal process that new projects are identified and prioritized? And how do individuals in other circles propose work that sits in a domain outside of their circle?
Holacracy provides the free choice for employees to select the projects they would like to work on, can this process go smoothly without sacrificing efficiency or losing manageability? One key difference between the traditional hierarchy and Holacracy is that you can only request/ask another role to take a project, you cannot strictly "assign" it to them. When you request a project, the question for the person in the other role is "would it make sense for my role to take that project, given the role's purpose and accountabilities?" If the answer is "yes," then the person must accept the project. Otherwise, they can simply decline it. If they don't take the project, they might be requested to explain what another project they would take to express their role's purpose and accountability. It's everyone's duty in Holacracy to define projects for their role. Here is a list of the basic partner duties: And if you're not satisfied with the project another role takes, and you think they should be working on something different, it might be that you need to propose changing their role's purpose and accountabilities to better fit the need that you sense. You can propose that change in a governance meeting. So one of the goals behind Holacracy is about improving employee engagement to encourage purpose discovery, autonomy, and mastery.
The problems usually aren't with Holacracy itself but are a result of it. For example, one of the problems the organizations has at the moment is with remuneration. Without job titles, it’s very hard to apply the compensation to an employee. Without a hierarchy, it's hard for an employee to get a proper incentive. Even if building your own solution stay up to you, you may use Holacracry to clearly organize the specific work about compensations; setting a specific project, creating roles and adding relevant accountabilities for ongoing needs, editing policies. Everyone is bringing a unique value to the organization and the compensation must reflect that value brought. There needs to have a system in place, where each partner could assess their value compared to others and assess the accuracy of such assessment. It is based on the agility principles that humans are very good when comparing two things, hopefully, it’s an apple to apple comparison; not about apple to orange comparison.
There are two types of tensions: operational and governance tensions in practicing Holacracy, how to handle them? There are specific processes to deal with these two types of tensions. Governance tensions are tensions related to the clarity of roles and policies of the circle. it's the tension you have when it is not clear who has to do what or how things are supposed to be done. This type of tension is resolved in the circle governance meeting. Operational tensions are tensions related to the decisions or actions of roles, it is clear already who has to do what, you just need them to do it. This type of tension is resolved in a tactical meeting or directly from role to role. Processing of a tension that results in a request of a project from another role happens in tactical (operational) meeting, or directly to the person filling that role. If there is no confusion about who can do what, then there is no need to have a governance meeting for it. As to how circles can create work for roles outside of their circle: the whole organization is linked via double links. Tactical or governance tensions are brought to higher circles by the rep links and down to lower circles by the lead links. Using these double links, a role can have a tension resolved anywhere in the organization. defining or agreeing to work on projects is separate from the prioritization. There are many levers for prioritization, including each individual making that decision, being required to give transparency into your priorities, and align to circle priorities. One useful distinction is that because you prioritize work separately from taking it on, it allows you to be able to take on more work and then decide if it is important or not, rather than always responding to the latest thing or always dropping the latest thing because people are always busy. Anyone can define a project at any time, but it doesn't necessarily give you more people or funds either, so it is safe for everyone to be deciding what work makes sense to them.Under Holacracy structure, how to handle workplace conflict. What people's anecdotal experience is, around how alternative management structures fare in terms of workplace health and safety complaints about workplace stress and bullying. How Holacracy deals with the legislative environment that gives employees access to external complaint resolution. Whether external investigators, or legislators, can handle alternative management, or how to set and follow the rules to manage the conflict issues. Opening up the tensions should mean things can be resolved, but does the system understand alternative management? Does it lower the stats?
Holacracy is good, but you can not expect every employee to be of a same level of maturity to adapt to it. You need to build the high-mature, and high - collaborative team, before you build the self-management initiative. You can’t overcome all these challenges without trying and failing, but fail fast and fail forward, with the goals to improve organizational agility and harness the culture of learning and innovation. And it is the means to the end - to achieve high performing business result and build high-level business competency.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
July 23, 2015
How to Leverage Systems Thinking in Catching the True Wisdom
Wisdom is often abstract, and System Thinking is the ability to think conceptually on the higher level.
Systems Thinking is to understand the interconnectivity between parts and whole. Wisdom is the insightful quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the inner quality of being wise. By practicing Systems Thinking, can contemporary leaders and workers have better chance to grasp the true wisdom, not just “conventional wisdom”? By practicing Systems Thinking, can business managers and professionals make sound judgement, build good strategy or make better decisions?
Wisdom ought to be common and available to the masses. Wisdom is being tied intricately with good living. So, if wisdom is not common, then the masses don't even have a chance. People struggle for wisdom. Wisdom ought to be 'commonly' available. But in the context of Systems Thinking, there is a huge difference in what ST wisdom stands for - and that is possibly what makes it 'uncommon' in the sense of being difficult to 'acquire.' Rational wisdom is the usual meaning of the term 'wisdom' - it means accumulative wisdom that grows with age - or 'learning from past experience.' But often such “conventional wisdoms” is lagging behind the internet speed, not an ultimate wisdom, they need to continue to be refined via the full “learning, de-learning and relearning” cycle, therefore, Systems Thinking is a good thought process to help see the forest for the trees.
In ST, the true wisdom often comes from a willingness to let go of past learning. So, non-intuitively ST wisdom is not derived from 'accumulating' - but in observing the changing context of relationships - and in many cases, that means 'letting go of accumulated traditional wisdom.' The reason people are struggling for wisdom, because it means that one has to make a huge effort to get beyond rational linear thinking - what all educational systems groom us to do - and the 'rational wisdom' that comes as part of that package. But true wisdom is transcendental knowledge which often comes through nonlinear thinking and abstract of insight by practicing systems thinking or out-of-box thinking. Unlearning is difficult. And the difficulty grows exponentially with age. So ST wisdom is more difficult to acquire with age. Rational wisdom - we assume - is easier to acquire with age!
The process of acquiring human wisdom possess some systemic weakness. Wisdom like trust is hard to acquire, easy to lose faith with, and impossible to retrieve once faith in its insight is lost. Systems that apply a shaken paradigm of wisdom cannot, by virtue of the complexity of interwoven wisdom applied, magically become unshakable. But that seems to be what is being asked of systems thinkers: To become common wisdom or common sense? People can develop common sense with experience. They can develop empathy and emotional intelligence. Does it need an empathy wrapper to bond into the community? With today's complexity, ambiguity and interdependence of business dynamic, the collective wisdom via bridging the cognitive and experience gaps becomes more crucial to breakdown the group thinking or being called conventional wisdom.
Wisdom is often abstract, and System Thinking is the ability to think conceptually on the higher level. Systems Thinking can only be appreciated by a (relatively small) finite group of people who have the ability to think conceptually on this level. Fewer really understand it well and even less can practically deploy it successfully. As we learn and understand more about our world, which is a lot more complex than we realize, the need for systems thinking, to continue to improve it, will increase - but this uncommon sense will remain the domain of only a few. The gap between "raising awareness" and "internalization" is not a single step but requires ongoing communication and effort. With the advent of modern technology and communication channels, many more people can be reached with greater ease.
Wisdom is an umbrella term, at its best, it is the amalgamation of thought, analysis, planning, prediction of consequences, and so on. Ultimately, wisdom is all about making 'distinctions' between what works - and what does not work - in the real world. Systems Thinking definitely helps reach and manage wisdom more systematically.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Systems Thinking is to understand the interconnectivity between parts and whole. Wisdom is the insightful quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the inner quality of being wise. By practicing Systems Thinking, can contemporary leaders and workers have better chance to grasp the true wisdom, not just “conventional wisdom”? By practicing Systems Thinking, can business managers and professionals make sound judgement, build good strategy or make better decisions?
Wisdom ought to be common and available to the masses. Wisdom is being tied intricately with good living. So, if wisdom is not common, then the masses don't even have a chance. People struggle for wisdom. Wisdom ought to be 'commonly' available. But in the context of Systems Thinking, there is a huge difference in what ST wisdom stands for - and that is possibly what makes it 'uncommon' in the sense of being difficult to 'acquire.' Rational wisdom is the usual meaning of the term 'wisdom' - it means accumulative wisdom that grows with age - or 'learning from past experience.' But often such “conventional wisdoms” is lagging behind the internet speed, not an ultimate wisdom, they need to continue to be refined via the full “learning, de-learning and relearning” cycle, therefore, Systems Thinking is a good thought process to help see the forest for the trees.
In ST, the true wisdom often comes from a willingness to let go of past learning. So, non-intuitively ST wisdom is not derived from 'accumulating' - but in observing the changing context of relationships - and in many cases, that means 'letting go of accumulated traditional wisdom.' The reason people are struggling for wisdom, because it means that one has to make a huge effort to get beyond rational linear thinking - what all educational systems groom us to do - and the 'rational wisdom' that comes as part of that package. But true wisdom is transcendental knowledge which often comes through nonlinear thinking and abstract of insight by practicing systems thinking or out-of-box thinking. Unlearning is difficult. And the difficulty grows exponentially with age. So ST wisdom is more difficult to acquire with age. Rational wisdom - we assume - is easier to acquire with age!
The process of acquiring human wisdom possess some systemic weakness. Wisdom like trust is hard to acquire, easy to lose faith with, and impossible to retrieve once faith in its insight is lost. Systems that apply a shaken paradigm of wisdom cannot, by virtue of the complexity of interwoven wisdom applied, magically become unshakable. But that seems to be what is being asked of systems thinkers: To become common wisdom or common sense? People can develop common sense with experience. They can develop empathy and emotional intelligence. Does it need an empathy wrapper to bond into the community? With today's complexity, ambiguity and interdependence of business dynamic, the collective wisdom via bridging the cognitive and experience gaps becomes more crucial to breakdown the group thinking or being called conventional wisdom.
Wisdom is often abstract, and System Thinking is the ability to think conceptually on the higher level. Systems Thinking can only be appreciated by a (relatively small) finite group of people who have the ability to think conceptually on this level. Fewer really understand it well and even less can practically deploy it successfully. As we learn and understand more about our world, which is a lot more complex than we realize, the need for systems thinking, to continue to improve it, will increase - but this uncommon sense will remain the domain of only a few. The gap between "raising awareness" and "internalization" is not a single step but requires ongoing communication and effort. With the advent of modern technology and communication channels, many more people can be reached with greater ease.
Wisdom is an umbrella term, at its best, it is the amalgamation of thought, analysis, planning, prediction of consequences, and so on. Ultimately, wisdom is all about making 'distinctions' between what works - and what does not work - in the real world. Systems Thinking definitely helps reach and manage wisdom more systematically.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Leverage Systems Thinking is Catching the True Wisdom
Systems Thinking is to understand the interconnectivity between parts and whole. Wisdom is the insightful quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the inner quality of being wise. By practicing System Thinking, can contemporary people have better chance to grasp the true wisdom, not just “conventional wisdom”?
Wisdom ought to be common and available to the masses. Wisdom is being tied intricately with good living. So, if wisdom is not common, then the masses don't even have a chance. People struggle for wisdom. Wisdom ought to be 'commonly' available. But in the context of Systems Thinking, there is a huge difference in what ST wisdom stands for - and that is possibly what makes it 'uncommon' in the sense of being difficult to 'acquire.' Rational wisdom is the usual meaning of the term 'wisdom' - it means accumulative wisdom that grows with age - or 'learning from past experience.' But often such “conventional wisdoms” is lagging behind the internet speed, not an ultimate wisdom, they need to continue to be refined via the full “learning, de-learning and relearning” cycle, therefore, Systems Thinking is a good thought process to help see the forest for the trees.
In ST, the true wisdom often comes from a willingness to let go of past learning. So, non-intuitively ST wisdom is not derived from 'accumulating' - but in observing the changing context of relationships - and in many cases, that means 'letting go of accumulated traditional wisdom.' The reason people are struggling for wisdom, because it means that one has to make a huge effort to get beyond rational linear thinking - what all educational systems groom us to do - and the 'rational wisdom' that comes as part of that package, but wisdom is transcendental knowledge which often comes through nonlinear thinking and abstract of insight. Unlearning is difficult. And the difficulty grows exponentially with age. So ST wisdom is more difficult to acquire with age. Rational wisdom - we assume - is easier to acquire with age!
The process of acquiring human wisdom possess some systemic weakness. Wisdom like trust is hard to acquire, easy to lose faith with and impossible to retrieve once faith in its insight is lost. Systems that apply a shaken paradigm of wisdom cannot, by virtue of the complexity of interwoven wisdom applied, magically become unshakable. But that seems to be what is being asked of systems thinkers.To become common wisdom, or common sense? People can develop common sense with experience. They can develop empathy and emotional intelligence. Does it need an empathy wrapper to bond into the community?
Wisdom is often abstract, and System Thinking is the ability to think conceptually on the higher level. Systems Thinking can only be appreciated by a (relatively small) finite group of people who have the ability to think conceptually on this level. Fewer really understand it well and even less can practically deploy it successfully. As we learn and understand more about our world (which is a lot more complex than we realize, the need for systems thinking, to continue to improve it, will increase - but this uncommon sense will remain the domain of only a few. The gap between "raising awareness" and "internalization" is not a single step but requires ongoing communication and effort. With the advent of modern technology and communication channels, many more people can be reached with greater ease.
Wisdom is an umbrella term, at its best, it is the amalgamation of thought, analysis, planning, prediction of consequences, and so on. Ultimately, wisdom is all about making 'distinctions' between what works - and what does not work - in the real world. Systems Thinking definitely helps reach and manage wisdom more systematically.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Five Principles to Manage Changes
There are many reasons for changes, and even more reasons for resistance to changes as well: It may be a shift in power, a need to learn new skills, to manage a different team, etc. What’re the psychology behind the change? What would be a good way to empower change capabilities? And what are the principles to manage change, not as a one-time project, but as an ongoing capabilities?
Change Management Principle #1: Reduce anxiety to increase adaptation. It can be puzzling, particularly when you know the individual or group of people have the skills, knowledge and experience to make a change and yet they resist. Is a lack of real consultation, communication and involvement in the process, is it personalities or a worry that any resulting restructure will result in a less favorable position or redundancy. While there are a few adventurous, novelty-seeking souls who enjoy constant change, the majority of people are wary of the 'new'. In business, the 'new' is often costly in terms of effort, time, money, and even physical discomfort; the way to deal with these people who say "no" really depends on each individual case - there is usually a reason (objective or subjective) for the push-back. a) explain clearly what are the benefits and what are problems if change doesn't happen, b) engage them, let them know what is in stake, what is their "piece" of the cake, but also inform them clearly if they don't cooperate them might end up with nothing, c) engage your change agents (from the change supporters crowds) to exercise some additional push trying to convince change resistants, d) give them time to think, compare, analyze and decide what level they would cooperate, e) if still resisting to change, isolate them from the project / department influence and benefits, f) if still resisting and impacting negatively to the others who support changes, then remove them.
Change Management Principles #2: Respect their opinions and point of view. Resistance can often be tempered by information - resistance is often based on misinformation. When the provision of the information fails to resolve the resistance, or makes it worse, but confirming the resistors fears then you have to force compliance or marginalize - neither or easy or palatable options. Involve them in the process and ask for their input on how it could be improved. Listen to their suggestions and wherever possible, incorporate these in the plan. Communicate carefully the reasons for the change and be honest about the impact - positive & negative - on them as individuals. Ask them to suggest ways by which they could help. This way, whilst they may still not like it, they have been communicated to, consulted, listened to and had the opportunity to improve the plan. As a manager, you have to understand the human psychology to help people become more successful in their roles by helping and supporting them in overcoming the friction to changes, and this must be done with understanding and sensitivity, the employees must understand any honest/candid disclosure will not be used against them. It must be remembered the goal is to solely help them become more effective, not to find flaws in their work or character. Experienced staff are hard to come by and hold a lot of departmental wisdom, so know your staff, spend time with them, use change champions to drive the change in the workplace.
Change Management Principle #3: The spirit of change comes from the top: Change must be embraced by the leadership in a company and messages from the Leadership should be distributed company-wide, not just through supervisory level personnel. There should be no opportunity for misinterpretation of the goals of "The Company" and that support is needed and expected by all. Clear goals and the plan for achieving them is all part of 'Change Management." If it's a 'surprise' to the staffers, don't be surprised if they don't support. Instead, Leadership should inspire them through the change process to the top of the hill. The 'CAVE DWELLERS' will catch on fast that their negativity will not be helping anyone in the journey. So, get onboard, grab hands and we all make it up the hill. If you keep dragging your feet you may lose your grip on things and fall off the mountain.
Change Management Principle #4: Clarify the Agreement with Alignment. Often change initiatives include plenty of disagreement, but within a shared goal, and unless someone was taking up the position just to oppose, the most creative and brilliant ideas came out of that as well as actual follow-through. Both the “Nay sayers” and “Yay sayers” are equally dangerous when it comes to deep and far-reaching change. How you create an authentic context that allows for agreement and disagreement to work equally towards the desired result is the question. Naysayers or skeptics have a valuable point of view about the change that needs to be listened to and considered. This feedback can be very important in shaping the change effort to increase its success. Resistance is not only opposition to something, but is also an "attraction" or a strong connection to something that is viewed as being lost or minimized by the change. The perceived value of the change is less than that of the status quo. Take the time to learn what the "resistors" may be more attracted to rather than viewing them as opposing things. What we term resistance is not always effectively managed by increasing the force of the "push" against them, but also by increasing the "pull" with a compelling future that resonates with their interest/needs and goals. It’s never been able to create a large enough context of alignment unless each individual first experiences genuine alignment between their personal aims and the organizational ones. ACCEPTANCE, not ALIGNMENT, should be shared, letting them know when the train leaves the station.
Change Management Principle #5: Following the logical scenario for Change Management: It’s best to go for involvement in buy-in. Focus on those that are supportive and give the laggards every opportunity to join in, but do not put your attention on those that resist. Eventually, the gap between the behavior of the resistors and the adaptors will be too great for them and they will feel the pressure to join in or leave. And this way your change initiative moves forward in the direction you need it. If communication and preparation regarding the change included discussion of the external drivers causing the change and everyone deals in reality, then making everyone 'comfortable' is not the objective. But management does need to make them safe to take the risk of change. A quick evaluation of their circumstances should identify risks to their safety. If there is a legitimate issue; they do not have the skills to meet the risk, or are in the line of being blamed for a bad outcome, then it needs to be addressed first. Inherent in any change is a risk and many organizations believe employees must be comfortable and this is a disservice. Keeping a clear vision through the difficult moments of change is extremely challenging. It sometimes seems easier and less time-consuming to just “impose” a decision in a “like it or lump it way,” on communication to break down mistrust, resentment, insecurity. It's easy to see success where new working practices, systems, and action plans are concerned. It's the essential and fundamental change that transforms the organization at the level of a more positive culture, staff well-being and their loyalty towards its management that is far harder. Not least because even with the accepted measures of culture change, you are dealing with a time lapse from the point of change to manifesting it 'in the whole.' And in fact, things may appear to get worse before they get better, all of which needs explaining up-front. If you just change the form and not the essence, the form will sooner or later revert back to (or close to) its original condition. Even with the most compelling change plan, it is first about raising the consciousness of the managers and leaders - to help them be more in touch with their personal experience of what is really going on and connect more with their own values that they may or may not be supporting, and then they are more able to enrol others in better expressing their values and transforming their personal experience day to day:Different teams to assess and identify the needs or reasons for change.The teams’ change identification needs in the “transformation” of vision or message.Hold regular meetings to set goals together and monitor implementationEngage them in the change team where possible to improve their participation.Set rewards and incentives for positive change attitude.The impact of any software system or process changes by making it “more “humane” and user-friendly.Training needs and respond to these needs
Change Management has a very wide scope and is a relatively new area of expertise. It needs to focus on coordination and facilitation, not bullying and forcing. The speed of change is increasing, therefore, the change capability needs to be cultivated, not for its own sake, but for improving organizational efficiency, effectiveness and agility. "In any given moment we have the choice, to step forward into growth or step back into comfort"- A. Maslow
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
