After two consecutive weeks of feeling depressed about losing the battle of change, there is finally some light that came along this week. We have some interns from university, they are currently doing industrial training in my department. They maybe immature inexperience but they are at least young fresh and breathe new air in the way we see things.

Remember we are talking about paradigm shift? They are the new breed of "y" generation that will join the workforce soon and when they come, stay back sit tight cause you have no other choice but to launch into paradigm shift!! They challenge the way you view life, they challenge the way you work, they even challenge the reason why certain work needs to be done. They no longer abey order just because they are told. They are like a new wave that is slowly but constantly eroding your shore line. Before you know it, the shore line could be totally different from the original one when you turn around and look at it. It may or may not be a good thing only time will tell. However, for the timebeing I am just going to sit back and enjoy the wave that is coming my way!!

A lost battle-Part 2

It seems to be a common practice that people in an organisation who lead the changes are always those that are high in the hierarchy. If a change is to be implemented in a department normally the department head will become the leader, when a change is to occur in a whole organisation, the CEO could be the leader. However, what is not realised is that these people may be highly effective in their own area of expertise but they may not be the right candidate to plan, lead or implement a change.

Typically those who are in such position are normally people who have been in the organisation for quite some time or have been working for a long while. They may lack the enthusiasm, passion or even the charisma to implement a change. Who is to lead a change has a far reaching consequences, it could decide whether the change could be implemented successfully. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the CEO or head of department should not lead a change, they must of course one way or another be involved in a change but what i am trying to say is just that if a change is to happen in a department, it does not necessary always follow that the head of department lead the change. There could be other people who are in a better position to do so. Think about it and look around you, how many times did you see a good idea be destroyed by the person who is implementing it.

Who to lead a change seems to be the first logical question in change management. However, this question is either not answered or analysed sufficiently in actual corporate world.

A lost battle

I realise there are people who are just resistant to change no matter what you do. What do you do then? I have a case and after trying everything by getting him involved in the change steering committee, by counselling, by hanging a carrot in front of him. It just doesn't work. What make the matter worse is that the repercussion of not changing is not there. there is no one at the end of the tunnel carrying a whip. I wonder in the historical data of the organisation, has anyone been asked to leave? Has anyone who is not performing asked to leave?



Perhaps it is time for us to think long and hard about this. If there are people who are not with us in the change process, what do we do? If tagging them along means slowing us down tremendously in this rapidly changing world, what do we do? when do we draw a line to say enough is enough? How many times do we have to ignore the indifference uncoporation and cynicism before we do something?



This is perhaps the first wuation that needs to be answered when a change intiative is first started!!

A non compelling case?

How do you create a compelling case for your stakeholders to agree with you? What if the compelling case put forward is still not compelling enough then what do you do?

That's what happened to me this week. How can I convince someone who does not report to me. I have put forward something which I think is compelling enough yet it was not enough to convince the counter part what do i do next? Do I force my way through? Or do I bypass him and go to his boss? Or does that mean that the change proposed is not urgent enough and is a course that does not worth pursuing?

I am not sure which is which and I am not sure which course I should take at the moment.