Deep Politics Forum

I recently had cause to analyze change management theory, which is the "philosophy" (usually sold by consultants to management for hefty fees) of how to drive through change in an organisation.

This change will commonly result in job losses and, for the employees who survive, a regimen of more work for less pay on inferior terms and conditions.

Classic change management theory divides an organisation's employees into different categories:

- Collaborators;

- Adopters;

- The Ambivalent;

- Resistors;

- Anarchists.

See a change management analysis detailing how "change agents" (ie managers and supervisors) should deal with each category of employee here.

Here are some excerpts of guidance given by a change management consultant:

- Collaborators: "These people need to be rewarded for their actions on behalf of the change";

- Adopters: "These people can be leveraged to help implement the changes across the organization and need to be rewarded for their intelligence";

- The Ambivalent: "The Ambivalent comprise the bulk of the staff in the organization and they do not care who is in charge or what changes are being made so long as they are left alone to get their jobs done as before. They have been jaded by the "reorg of the month" and all of the management fads that have been started and have failed. They believe that if they keep their heads down and do nothing, a new management strategy will come along to replace the current one and they will be left alone. They don't see how the new strategy will improve their lives. These are the people to focus on and help them become supporters and adopters of the new changes";

- Resistors: "if the Change Agent is unwilling to listen to the Resistors, or if the Resistors are unwilling to work with the Change Agent, then the Resistors will sabotage the changes and must be identified and terminated quickly so their actions do not influence others to become Resistors";

- Anarchists: "Anarchists are those who are against changing or not changing in equal measure. They hated the previous leaders and they hate the Change Agent. They believe that only they know what is right for the organization and will not compromise on their single-minded beliefs and purposes. Anarchists cannot be turned, and will sabotage the strategy and vision at every opportunity. Anarchists must be identified and terminated quickly so their actions do not influence others to become Resistors or Anarchists".

------------------------

Classic change management theory focuses on using the Collaborators and Adopters to persuade the mass of employees - "The Ambivalent" - to accept the proposals for change.

There may be limited engagement with "Resistors", but essentially change management theory recommends not bothering to attempt to persuade the "Resistors" and "Anarchists" to accept the change proposals. Instead, they are cast into the wilderness. Or, in mundane terms, "Resistors" and "Anarchists" are selected for redundancy.

So, the moral compass of C21st global financial capitalism declares Collaborators and Adopters (aka Lackeys) as Heroes, and Resistors and Anarchists as Heretics to be cast out.

The great mass of employees are seen as sheep to be manipulated into accepting change which harms their families, friends and themselves.

This change management model is highly revealing.

The fundamental assumptions it reveals are clearly those applied by the Powerful across our nations and continents, in all spheres of life.

Doesn't the concept of change management and the question of personal categorization require some form of comprehension of context before it can be answered? Can it be discussed in a vacuum?

I don't know what I am. Employers don't seem to want me in their work places.

Ed Jewett Wrote:Doesn't the concept of change management and the question of personal categorization require some form of comprehension of context before it can be answered? Can it be discussed in a vacuum?

The concept is restructuring an organisation, often to impose a regimen of more work for less pay on inferior terms and conditions.

My point is precisely that the assumptions explicit in change management also shine light on the attitudes of the powerful towards ordinary people. There is no vacuum in my analysis.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Ed Jewett Wrote:Doesn't the concept of change management and the question of personal categorization require some form of comprehension of context before it can be answered? Can it be discussed in a vacuum?

The concept is restructuring an organisation, often to impose a regimen of more work for less pay on inferior terms and conditions.

My point is precisely that the assumptions explicit in change management also shine light on the attitudes of the powerful towards ordinary people. There is no vacuum in my analysis.

Yes, and an apology for my hurried-and-incomplete reading. I imply no vacuums in your thinking, or spirit.

In the examples I can think of inside my own life within organizations*, I was a collaborator and even an instigator under the assumption that 1) increased efficiency and savings would allow the use of saved money and energy to be re-invested in some valid organizational goal that served an external and worthwhile purpose, that 2) "management" would be pleased to receive such ideas, and that 3) some small and appropriate "share" or reward would proceed into my pocket or career.

My experiences went dramatically in the opposite direction. I found my ideas spurned, rejected, the genesis of my diminishment in the organization, and a primary reason I left without reverting to anarchy. Eventually I ended up farther and farther from the center, on the fringe, soon unemployed.

*as a medical transcriptionist for a sizeable hospital; *as the sole staffer for an organization dually focused on providing continuing medical education and increased clout for the profession; * as a call center worker in a complex medical bureaucracy; * as someone working in the field of inter-agency coordination in crisis atmospheres.

The change management occurs when people with bright ideas and insights find enough capital to form a competitor, or even of them "secede" so as to leave the former organization able to chug onward into ineptitude.

Ed Jewett Wrote:The change management occurs when people with bright ideas and insights find enough capital to form a competitor, or even of them "secede" so as to leave the former organization able to chug onward into ineptitude.

Ed - yes, excellent.

In the spirit of the terminology employed by change management consultants in the opening post, I will suggest an appropriate change management label for the person displaying the behaviour you describe: a Revolutionary.

QED. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

That was supposed to read something like "when or if enough of them leave the former organization in an act of secession, allowing the former organization to wallow in its own ineptitude".

I got out of the management/enterprise studies when my boss borrowed my heavily-annotated copy of "A Passion For Excellence" and wouldn't return it. She bought me a new one. :banghead:

The problem with secession is that ineptitudinally-inclined organizations get subsidized, bailed out, learn to group together, or subscribe to the same management theory circles. Another is that secession or revolt too often becomes a habitual cycle, and the revolutionary gets labeled, or black-listed, or at least identified as someone who will not "go along to get along".

Change management in action.

Workers told 5.4 percent pay cut will "protect services".

Quote:Shropshire Council sacks all staff and offers pay cut deal

Tuesday 05 July 2011 Dismissal letters have been sent to around 6,500 people employed by Shropshire council, who have been told they will be immediately rehired if they accept a 5.4 per cent pay cut. The letter says all Shropshire council staff will be dismissed at the end of September and rehired immediately, but they must agree to a 5.4 per cent cut in their pay.

The blanket dismissal comes after the Conservative-led council and the public sector union Unison failed to reach agreement over changes to workers' pay and conditions.

The authority says it has to make savings of £76m due to reduced Government funding. It believes pay cuts would mean it would not have to make 400 permanent redundancies.

It is understood that Unison is balloting its members on strike action.

Move will 'protect services'
The council maintains the development means that more services will be protected. In a statement, Jackie Kelly, head of organisational development at Shropshire Council, said: "On Thursday 23 June, a meeting of the full Council decided to make changes to staff terms and conditions, in order to avoid large scale redundancies and protect services to the public.

"Although we failed to agree the changes with the Trade Unions, with Unison in particular raising objections, we are keeping dialogue going and continuing to meet with them to see if there is still a possibility of getting a collective agreement before 30 September to implement the necessary changes."

Source.

Are the coucillors also subjected to this pay cut or just the people who work?