The three certainties in life are death, taxes, and
change. Change in the workplace is virtually a daily occurrence.
Why so much change? Are we that bad now? Could we be that much
better? We’ll never know unless we change! But which ones are the
needed and good changes and which ones are the changes for the sake of
change? Ideally, every decision maker should use an impartial set of
criteria to perform a cost/benefit analysis and come to a rational
decision. But we all know that ’rational’ and ‘impartial’ doesn’t always
happen.
I’ve heard it said that change for the sake of change can be
a recipe for disaster. I don’t know about that. If you change something
and it doesn’t work, you can always change back. Plus, you’ve learned
what doesn’t work. Learning is never a bad thing. Not an ideal
scenario for sure, but a recipe for disaster? I don’t think so.
I think change for the sake of change is entirely about
something different. Change for the sake of change is all about
ego. For example, what happens when new decision makers start their
roles? Old/established = bad. New/different = good. It’s
irrelevant whether the change may be needed or beneficial. The end game
here is about putting one’s own stamp on the department/organization. If
the first change doesn’t work well, no matter. We’ll just change
again! We’ll keep changing until we get it right, which will never happen
because we can never be content with where we are because we risk getting left
behind.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of times when
change is needed and good. Figuring out what types of changes to
potentially make is the easy part. The bigger challenge for decision
makers is putting aside their egos and be in a position to actually make an
open-minded, impartial decision. Much easier said than done. At
times I think one of the bravest and most self-confident acts a decision maker
can make is to admit when something is functioning well and does not need to
change. How ironic.
No comments:
Post a Comment