Hi All,

I have a question which I trust will stimulate some debate!

For some time I've been thinking that using the phrase "Change Management" implies some form of difficulty, even resistance, is expected with any change programme. As a consequence the approach people take might even go so far as to promote resistance!

I'm curious to know what others think.

Cheers

Martin

Martin,

Great topic...thanks!

I concur with your sense that the term "change management" has come to carry the implicit message that something needs attention...and the "something" is probably not good news.

And, to a very real extent, those in our business are partially responsible for allowing the language to become pejorative instead of exciting and compelling.

Resistance is an expected and desired part of the introduction of any new order of things (see below). The pejorative aspect creeps in when those who must implement or be part of the change are left in the dark until it is time for implementation of the change. Managing change then becomes a damage control initiative, focused on dealing with the unintended consequences of inadequate involvement of key stakeholders early and often.

Maybe we can all do a better job at helping leaders get their arms around the simple notion that change management is an integral part of any improvement strategy, not a sales and marketing project.

Jeff
www.anthonyconsulting.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In a backhanded way, resistance defends the organization, born of honest attempts to maintain the organization's integrity. Since quality improvement constitutes a real change for the organization at many levels, we should expect fierce resistance. Resistance is the litmus test for harmfulness, a test of whether the proposed changes will help or harm the organization. Once we work through and address the fears that spawned the resistance, our organizations can truly be open to adopting a new philosophy."
William H. Braswell, Jr.
The Politics of Change in Quality

It has that implication - but usually only in organizations that are constantly in reactive mode.

Change management is supposed to be a proactive approach to ensuring that any change goes smoothly. Part of that is acknowledging human nature - that there will always be some people who don't know how to ride the tide of change or who are simply completely resistant to any change.

Resistance to change in an organization is a result of individual people who are not provided with ongoing feedback about a requirement that they must either learn how to ride changes or GTFO.

Now - I do not mean to imply that all changes are good. It's simply that they are inevitable. If one is going to live and work in this world, one needs to learn how to ride with the changes.

Martin,
Interesting question. You're right in that resistance immediately results when we start talking about change management. But I suggest it's not the term itself, but the reason that's prompting the need for change management, that is, the "change" itself that brings on the resistance.

The management part of that phrase is the positive part. The change will be there regardless. As human beings we all need to learn how to manage that change. How we manage it can help us negotiate our day-to-day responsibilities. At work, helping our employees learn how to manage change benefits them and the company.

That said, I think it's an interesting phrase, The management part of the phrase is misleading. Can we really "manage" change? Workplace change isn't fluid. We have no control over it. We can only control our reactions to it -- which is probably how the idea of "managing" change originated. It's a softer approach to something that many people fear.

Thanks for the discussion.

http://www.media-partners.com/

How about calling it "Change Leadership" instead?

Working in a technology company, I find the term "change management" means different things to different people - from project managers to coders to training staff, we all interpret that phrase differently - and we're all using correctly.

Any other suggestions out there for a more accurate and uniquely performance focused term?