There are at least two sorts of changes, perhaps more. The first sort is the type of change that life brings about, that you can do nothing about--innate change. We age, we grow older, we grow old. There are many changes connected to aging that we can merely observe in ourselves and others; we cannot stop the progression of time. Illness and death are part of the journey. We learn to accept this type of change, albeit grudgingly at times, mostly because there is nothing we can really do about it. At some point you realize that it's best not to think too much about it and to enjoy the days and years that are given you. Because not all people get that chance, as has become all too clear to me during the past decade.
The other type of change is external change. It is not a natural part of human life as is innate change, but it is a part of our lives that has consequences for us. It is often a type of change that can be forced upon you by a workplace or an organization, or by events in one's personal life that you have not instigated. It can be unsettling change, in that you have to react to it in one form or another, either passively or actively. Many choose the passive route, others choose the proactive route. Regardless, this type of change will affect your life and change it irrevocably--marriage, children, divorce, a major move, a bad job, a good job, retirement. They are changes we can choose, but sometimes they are not. And it is when this type of change is forced upon us that problems can arise.
During the past two decades or so, modern workplaces have put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the necessity for employees to be able to change (almost at a moment's notice). I remember when I took a year-long leadership course here in Oslo; the operative (Norwegian/Danish) word was 'endringsparat' (ready for change). As a leader, it was important that your employees were endringsparat. An entire module was dedicated to how to lead employees through major workplace changes, and how to deal with those employees who were resistant to change. It was an interesting module, to say the least. Discussions of major mergers came up, and our teacher took an informal poll of the class--how many had been through such a major change as a merger and felt that the outcome was successful. Only one or two people raised their hands. The majority did not, and when quizzed, told stories of fiascos and failures to communicate that torpedoed such workplace changes. There was massive resistance to the changes that ensued in the wake of the merger. What was not commented upon or discussed was the timescale involved in such major changes. How quickly do leaders expect employees to adapt to change? Mergers, for example, are such major changes that it wouldn't surprise me if it took a decade or more for employees to become used to the idea. I don't think most leaders look at this aspect--the length of time involved for employees to adapt to and to accept change. I think they should look more closely at exactly this aspect.
It is possible for employees to become weary and wary of change. Just hearing the word 'change' can be anathema for some employees, and I think that's because they feel that they have had no say in the matter. Yet another change has been forced on them, that they are expected to accept immediately. That can only lead to conflicts and failure to communicate. I think the time window for measuring the outcome of change should be long. I think management should allow at least five to ten years for employees to adapt to major changes. But that is rarely the case. It all has to be wrapped up nicely with a pretty bow, so the package can be displayed as a 'success'. But how do you measure that success? Did you talk to your employees?
I know several leaders who are young (in their forties) and older (around sixty or in their sixties). All of them have faced situations of major change that they have had to implement or are responsible for initiating. All of them have expressed mild to strong surprise that many of their employees appear to be resistant to those changes. They don't get it, they don't understand what they've done wrong. I try to tell them that perhaps their employees are weary of change. And that some are most likely wary of change. I was, during a period of too many changes about fifteen years ago. I listened to the svada (empty words, empty phrases, meaningless talk about great ambitions for this and that) and thought 'been there, done that'. So many times I can't count. How many times can you change yourself, start over, reinvent yourself, market yourself and your dreams, and to what end? Are we all to conquer the world? Most of us are good at what we do, and that should be enough. But in today's modern workplace, it's not, at least not for many modern workplace leaders. They have to do something, they have to effect change, they have to be remembered for such things. They have to 'motivate' their employees and make them endringsparat. It borders on hysterical. I prefer the non-hysterical approach.
Through all the years, there has been change, whether modern leaders see it or not. Workplaces change, not because of artificial changes forced on employees, but because the world around us changes. We communicate via internet and digital meetings because technology in the world has made it possible for us to do so. That changes a workplace. Emails changed workplaces for good. They also changed personal communication for good. Smart phones likewise. IT departments are large and necessary entities in most companies; just try living without your computer when it's down for two days. So changes have been implemented gradually over the years in response to the external world. It is the artificial changes, the forced and often unnecessary changes, that cause problems. Leaders who are truly interested in the wellbeing of their employees should learn to distinguish between what are necessary and what are unnecessary changes. The latter can wear down the morale and motivation of many employees, whether modern leaders like it or not.
