Question1: Suggestions to Improve Knowledge-Sharing
“Change is the only permanent thing in this world. Change is inevitable.” These are the two facts about change that makes it every man’s puzzle everyday. Since it is a two-edged blade that can harvest or destroy, rarely will it retain status quo, we can only hope that it can be determined before occurring on our faces to express our will. We somehow can, if change is stimulated by ourselves. But if we are the one who will respond to it, it might as well provide positive results for adverse effects or the fear of the unknown will close nowhere to surprise and excitement especially when we are used of seeing and doing things at present ways and within our estimates.
Accordingly, employees within a certain organization are confronted with a group of bosses, rules, responsibilities, accountabilities, problems and supports that are all confined with the possibility of change. Being in the lower part of the organizational structure, they are the ones who are vulnerable to change because they should follow and work hard to obtain employment or gain promotion. Different company resources like machineries, money or the top-level management, rank-in-file employees are sensitive, family-oriented and largely motivated by individual goals. Such characteristics the companies consider approaching the word that can dictate the success of company-led swings and shifts--- employee resistance.
In dictionary, resistance is defined as “a force that tends to oppose or retard motion.” Employees resort to resist if the company introduces change that minimizes their scope of authority, possibility of promotion or monetary benefits. In simple terms, employee resistance is likely to arise when change deprives them of a certain right or benefit they are enjoying or would likely to enjoy if change is not introduced. Obviously, resistance hampers the success inserted in the change pre-determined by the company. Because of this fact, managers opted to dedicate ample planning before the introduction, if not formation, of intended change.
Change can be planned or unplanned. Planned change is from the will of the organization to achieve positive results. It can be downsizing to cut costs, mandatory training to employees for efficiency or acquisition of a smaller company for larger market share. Unplanned change is likely to emerge from the outside. Government orders and new laws, environmental advisories and standards, competitor movements, supplier’s logistics or customer feedback are the common factors that affect the internal operations of a company.
Although there are many classification of change and it can take a separate discussion for it, suffice to know that most change happened because the company requires organizational development. The intention is to continuously improve the way people work in teams and the integration of such works in company objectives ( 2004). With technology being replaced by another within a short span of time, companies exploit these innovations to stay competitive, or at least, survive in the market. Such move exposed a company to a series of mutation, might be endless, that makes it vulnerable to change.
Question 2: Comments to Reaction of Consultants
The risk of sharing the information to competitors or also termed as leakage is too broad and too confident. The issue of leakage is not a big issue for the consulting firm because initially it has big clients who already have knowledge of basic, and for some, advanced investment strategies. As a result, the investment problems that clients throw to the firm are more complicated and largely intended for specific solution. When a consultant that previously involved in the project decided to leave the firm, it is his/ her right and privilege to use experiences and prior knowledge as benefit from servicing the firm. Otherwise, without participation and vigilance in the projects, he/ she may not acquire the right tools and information in competitor’s operations. The risk of leakage from a former insider should be treated as a natural situation where the firm has no control primarily due to complexity of acquiring knowledge and competency.
The problems in the current system such as it is time-consuming and should acquire a standard method for replacement is a creation of new methodology in solving client’s request/ order. However, it is a mere opinion of a single consultant which can undermine the problem-solving capabilities of others. Enabling a single methodology in solving the problem can minimize creative thinking and may impose bottlenecks of making proposals and decisions. The proposed system can be too bookish without adaptation to real changes in the operating environment. Instead of uplifting the knowledge of the firm, it may post threats to on slowing down the progress of projects and limit the options of consultants or groups. It can also imply process-based address to problems and issues instead on evaluating the services as result-driven organization. The latter is more appropriate if the firm expects to be a customer champion.
The issue of loosing individual identity is an appropriate reaction. Knowledge sharing between consultants can disrupt the proprietary upper hand of one from another which is the basis of promotion and other performance-based benefits that each can get. Another, one may not open him or herself to the ideas of others especially when accountability is pinpointed to specific employees. Sharing knowledge can aggravate the quality of service especially when sharers have different skills and experience or the client’s problem is very unique. The latter situation is not unusual because the firm is catering services to the high-end market which can be very demanding. Creativity also flames up confidence of individual consultants which aid their self-esteem on their work and prevents them from being bored. When job identity and individual knowledge are taken away, consultancy work may not be as exciting and rewarding.
Team members are open with each other primarily because of the same educational background and skill. However, older employees are more silent but more honest regarding storytelling about operational history and incidents that happened in the firm. Due to the small number of employees, each have their significant contribution in the organization that makes individuals sensitive to the feelings of others even to those under the rank-and-file and janitorial levels. Due to this, employees create a bond and support each other to compromise their request to others when needed. For example, the accountant can get the help of janitor when the designated employee is busy in the records room.
Ideas are not that accepted by the whole organization. If any, the idea of an employee regarding the improvement of his own task is possible. Managers are the once who initiate work issues like employee tardiness but there are times that inter-employee rumors tend to bypass managerial decision. Team goals can be revisited every meeting that makes fair accomplishment of members feasible. The working environment is simple that situate its strategy at easily manageable while the communication is fitted for easy recognition. The members can be also willing to take part to decision-making of operational issues that makes them creative and effective to some extent.
Question 3: The Risk of Corporate Change
To establish the presence of two-edged blade in change, the term risk is used. Although, at most instances, risk is held largely in a negative aspect, this is because there are only few people or company who are innovative and brave enough to take it. No wonder there are also few people or company who gained their wealth in gambling or speculative investment. But in context, it is taken with both positive and negative attributes. There is the risk of gain and risk of loss when change occurs; however, the first is commonly attached with opportunity. To avoid confusion, we shall refer to negative aspect when talking about risk.
In the case of a company, the inception of change activates the risk of resistance from employees. Risk largely involves the business risk wherein the objectives of the company are being emphasized (1998). The faster the workforce adopts to it, the faster the realization of success. Thus, company is less pressured and just need to realize the potential gains. But if resistance occurs, change will likely result to higher costs, unmotivated employees, reduced efficiency, and finally, the failure of the change to achieve its success-driven purpose. It created another problem rather to solve one. Thus, several companies are challenged to study the effects of change to employees before its implementation. Those managers who are numb or chose to be are likely to overlook the resistance risk which hurt their respective companies in several aspects.
Question 3: Required Cultural Changes
In a study, committed employees are likely to support the initiatives of the organization to change and will likely cooperate to types enumerated above ( 1986). It will be attained when the company is providing the employee to access organization's success in relation to change, status of job security, and efforts to communicate the change. Therefore, it is the task of the company to study the employee perceptions and attitudes towards it. In this view, unionized employee groups can be a useful tool in surveying the general pulse of the workforce. In Encyclopedia (2004 ), it is defined as the “association of workers for the purpose of improving their economic status and working conditions through collective bargaining with employers.” When an organization has this, it can reduce complexities of individual opinion and expedite the process of introducing the change.
The Journal (2005) commented, “In the world market effective communication is the key.” It is vital for companies to accurately and swiftly communicate its ideas to its employees. Effective communication entails the achievement of intention of the sender from the receiver’s feedback. As in the organization, effective communication is not obtained when change is resisted. The key is lost and the probability of the company to exist in the market is likely to vanish. Effective communication can be realized though provision of advance information prior to change, attached incentives, effective disclosure of adverse effects, clear and definite change goals, and systematic support to those affected. Noticeably, effective communication is the nucleus to settle conflicts of change.
Third, the most crucial person in times of change should be a leader not a manager. As exemplified in the case of Legert, the leader is wise enough, impliedly charismatic; to resolve disputes that may arise from merger and acquisition of other companies. Every leader should always keep the employees in mind especially when they are directly affected by the change. Issues like job security, responsibility and other employment conditions play a major part on employee’s reaction to change. Leaders should be the one who perceived change as not new to a company. They should also possess listening skills to be able to enumerate employee grievances and suggestions to attach more consensuses to management decisions. Empowerment will help employee accept company decisions. After listening, action must be taken. Unresolved issues should be solved and any disputes should be addressed. In doing so, the company can step to another process and implement change because past conflicts are remedied. The decision-making and problem-solving abilities of the leader are deemed important in this stage (1998).
In an article entitled, “Sell Employees on Change, as If They're Customers,” emphasized that employees have individual motivations so a company are expected to sell the change according to its features and benefits ( 2005). Further, the top-down approach is not effective in change implementation while too much control eradicates the individual creativity and self-esteem. Like marketing products, information is necessary to introduce its 4Ps: product, price, place and promotion. The product is the change, the price is the consequence of change, place is the people or department that is concerned and promotion is the supporting mechanism after the change. Like customers, employees should not be blame because of error arising from unfamiliarity of the new process. They need to be assisted and given time to study its features. Force creates resistance and managers should foster humility when initiating change.
0 comments:
Post a Comment