Sometimes I have to wonder whether an organisation that is steeped in so much tradition really does have the ability to change.
When I am feeling positive, I truly believe in the power of small groups of "changers". They are the people inspired to rock the boat and shake the tree. When I am feeling a little overwhelmed, I can question how many boat rockers it takes to either sink the boat or get rid of the people. Am I talking garbled nonsense? Okay, possibly so, but if you have a collective of people who all agree that a, or multiple business processes need to change, and rapidly, then what are the roadblocks?
Some I've encountered over the years- and more recently:
- Over-engineering a solution to create the "silver bullet"
- Fear of failure
- Fear of success
- Fear of authority
- Fear of job security
- Apathy
- Fear of change
There is a very big problem with this though. While we argue over the "right terminology", or squabble over whether Systems is included, or if we have consulted everyone, we generally tend to miss the most blindingly obvious and simple solution. Sometimes, the simple solution isn't 100%, but if we are only starting at "half way there" then anything has to be an improvement.
Iterative service and process design allows for flexibility, for customisation, for tailoring on the fly, but with defined required outcomes.
Fear of failure, success, authority, security and/or change: I have put this all under the one larger heading of "Fear". It might sound fluffy, soft or trite but the fact is that no matter how technically capable we are, no matter how many policies we know by heart, or projects we have delivered, we are all just humans beings trying to get through eight hours a day. Sometimes the instinctual kick back against a new way of doing things might not be because it is bad, but because we don't want to change what we already know so well.
Sometimes introducing a a new process means by default that we will be asked to do more, service more clients, answer more calls. This, on an organisational level can be a success, because it indicates growth. On a personal level it can be disastrous, because growth isn't always reflected in hiring of more staff to support the process change, rather there is "streamlining, down-sizing" whatever word you want to use- it means more work.
Sometimes, introducing change means introducing transparent accountability.
This is where the fear of failure becomes a reality. If you are given more work, in the same amount of time, there will come a point where it's possible to drop the ball- or face authority and ask for support. This whole process allows staff to question their security:
"What if I can't do the work? What if they don't hire more people? What if I ask for help and there isn't any? What if I get blamed for this not working? What if my boss thinks I'm incompetent cause I can't use this process?"
It's a rant and a rave that I have heard in many "open forums" for staff dealing with "transition" or the change of organisational processes- and it is the one that sits at the very heart of any organisation being able to rapidly respond to change requirements.
Staff need to feel that in a changing environment, they have the support to grow, adapt, question or challenge the change. Staff need to feel that they are part of the driving force behind the change. Mostly, staff need to know that change inevitably always includes mistakes, and mistakes are great when you have a culture of accepting flaws as part of the learning process.
This may be an ideal- la-la-land that doesn't exist in the corporate technical environment, but I truly believe that it can be created. In fact, I can say with great passion and simmering anger, that if we do not create this kind of culture, we will face the biggest threat of all, to ANY organisation facing change; apathy.
Apathy is a tricky one. Sometimes, like with the organisation I work for- you can be "changed out"- completely devoid of the ability to deal with anymore change purely because everything is constantly changing.
Lets face it, humans are creatures of habit, and so if there is no time to form any, you can have a collective feeling of free-falling or being rudderless. This can make it hard to start again, or build on what you had. I have seen masters of change stumble under this kind of weight.
The only way to combat this is to actually stop for a second and take stock. (If you haven't noticed, this is what I am trying to do right now!)
The other kind of apathy is much more dangerous, cancerous and can truly infect an organisation until it is beyond repair. It's the apathy that really is about not caring anymore.
The only way to stop it, is to offer a remedy or cut it out entirely. I really wish it was that simple. It's so easy to sit behind a desk and analyse this and come up with clear cut answers, but to re-iterate, we are dealing with people, and dealing with people, means dealing with peoples feelings.
So, this war I talk about, may not just be about change, but more about recognising that if we want anything to change at all, maybe we should stop talking about the technology. Maybe, we need to lose the labelling altogether and just listen to what people are really saying.
