| GISdevelopment.net ---> GITA 1998 ---> People Issues |
Change Management: it’s More than Attitude
Farid M. Nacer
Principal
Infolead Consulting
75 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203
Tel: 303-765-0516
Email: fnacer@infoleadconsutling.com
Ray Garrido
Principal
Collaborative Resources
10680 Olalla Valley Rd., Olalla, WA 98359
Tel: 253-857-6723
Email: rgarrido@infoleadconsulting.com
Farid M. Nacer
Principal
Infolead Consulting
75 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203
Tel: 303-765-0516
Email: fnacer@infoleadconsutling.com
Ray Garrido
Principal
Collaborative Resources
10680 Olalla Valley Rd., Olalla, WA 98359
Tel: 253-857-6723
Email: rgarrido@infoleadconsulting.com
Technology in the New Utility
The opportunities and challenges promised by competition in the utility industry have been looming for several years. Utilities throughout North America have been scrambling to establish their position within the upcoming marketplace as evidenced by the wave of mergers and acquisitions that have swept the industry over the past three to four years.
Fundamental to all of these new organizations is the notion that information technology will allow them to reach economies of scale that will make them more competitive. While many utilities are still focusing on improving their customer information and billing systems, there is renewed interest in the application of information technology to improve the efficiency of service provision. In particular, AM/FM, Work Management, Trouble Outage Analysis, and Computer Aided Dispatch systems are being used to shore up the utility’s ability to provide flexible and responsive service to its customers.
These systems, however, are expected to deliver benefits that directly affect the utility’s bottom line. No longer is it enough for these systems to improve productivity. Utility executives are now asking how the implementation of such systems will increase revenues and improve profit margins.
This shift in expectations has drastically altered the manner in which these systems are implemented within utilities. Because of the rate of change within the industry, utility executives expect implementations to be in a matter of months not years. Furthermore, they expect that the new systems will be fully integrated with other systems within the organization.
As a result of these pressures, several large utilities are now in the process of implementing various combinations of AM/FM, Work Management, Trouble Outage Analysis, Computer Aided Dispatch, Materials Management, and Customer Information Systems within a timeframe of eighteen to twenty-four months. The furious pace that is required to meet this schedule has meant that many implementations are forced to forgo such “luxuries” as detailed specifications and pilot projects in favor of focus groups and rapid prototyping.
Impact on Social Systems
Few utilities, however, have expanded the same energy dealing with the social systems of their organizations. Because of the furious pace of technology deployment, traditional communication and training programs have proved less than optimal in preparing employees for the changing work environment. Instead, utilities have embraced various employee improvement programs intended to “teach” empowerment, leadership, creative thinking, and other traits needed by the new business. These programs, however, have not generated the expected results.
Reasons for Failure
There have been volumes written on why organizations fail in their attempts to transform themselves. Perhaps none summarize it better than John P. Kotter, a Professor of Leadership at the Harvard Business School. In his latest book, “Leading Change”, Kotter lists eight errors that many organizations make. They are as follows:
Within the specific environment of utilities, we have seen two other common mistakes that we would like to add to Kotter’s list:
The Nature of Change
One manager described her organization as being “in a constant state of change”. By doing so, she expressed one of the most common misstatements about change. Inasmuch as change is used to transform an organization, change is a process rather than a state. Because the manager was often unaware of or misunderstood her organization’s vision, change seemed to become an end in itself.
The Path of Change
Change happens in different ways in different settings. However, all organizational change must go through the same three stages. These are:
Stage 1: Identifying the need for change
Stage 2: Defining the goal of change
Stage 3: Implementing change
Identifying the need for change is a critical step in determining the right strategy for change. The need is defined in terms of its impact on the organization and its people. This definition includes a measurement of the severity of the need as well as its urgency. Defining the goal of change or vision for the organization is equally critical to establishing the path of change. The vision provides the organization with the “stamina” to carry it through obstacles and potential early failures.
The implementation of change must be tailored to the specific conditions within the organization. It must take into account the strength of the need for change as well as the organizational resistance to change.
The dynamics involved in choosing the correct method of implementing change is best described by Paul Strebel in “The Complete MBA Companion”, a collection of writing reflecting the latest management thinking from several of the world’s leading business schools. In his paper, Strebel proposes the model shown in Figure 1, “Model for Change as Proposed by Paul Strebel.” The model suggests that change driven from the bottom up is most appropriate for organizations that are fairly open to change. It also suggests that experimentation must decrease as the force of change gets stronger.
Figure 1 – Model for Change as Proposed by Paul Strebel
One of the most interesting things about this model is that it provides a rational framework for understanding the many buzzwords that seem to permeate every business discussion these days. It also differentiates in the most concise manner we have encountered between the various techniques for affecting change within organizations. Readers interested in more details should consult the reference listed at the end of this paper.
Change in the Utility Industry
Where North American utilities fall in the spectrum defined by Strebel’s model is a matter of debate, particularly for electric and gas distribution companies. In the US, the pace of deregulation has been uneven from State to State. And it is not uncommon for executives from the same company to have radically different perspectives on how their company is likely to be affected by deregulation and competition. However, our experience would lead us to the following generalizations:
Figure 2 – Change in Utilities
Path of Change in Utilities
The trends shown in Figure 2 imply that utilities have limited choices in terms of the techniques at their disposal for effecting change. Assuming that they are able to lower resistance to change as the need for change become stronger (i.e., as the forces of deregulation and competition become more and more tangible), we expect the optimal path of change within most utilities to be as follows:
Figure 3 – Techniques for Change in Utilities
Overcoming Resistance to Change
It has been our experience that while utility executives see resistance to change as the most likely obstacle to successful transformation, they often fail to understand the nature or reason for this resistance. Such seemingly obvious factors as age, education and length of employment are decidedly not accurate measures of the ability of any one individual to accept and assimilate change.
Only by understanding why there is resistance is it possible to devise the appropriate means of overcoming it. While it is conceivable that individuals may seem motivated by irrational motives, our experience has been that even those can often be related to one of the following reasons:
It should be clear from reviewing Table 1 that resistance to change requires a combination of remedies. For example, dealing with the “turf’ battles that may arise during when significant changes are implemented within an organization may require that the individuals be included in several activities such as participating in decision-making and actively contributing to the change initiative. But it may also require that the organization display clear leadership and show its resolve to have the changes implemented.
Table 1 – Causes and Potential Remedies for Change Resistance
This resolve is particularly important in ensuring that obstacles are overcome swiftly. Failure to do so often undermines the effectiveness of the initiative.
Ensuring the Legitimacy of Change
It is critical that organizations going through change ensure that the change initiative is legitimate and that it can withstand resistance due to differences in philosophy or to doubts about its validity. Consider the following example.
An executive faced fierce resistance from his staff to one of his initiatives. He believed his company should invest in one particular line of business. His staff believed the strategy behind the initiative was flawed and would not support any of the changes needed to implement the new business functions. After several rounds of promotions and demotions, the executive concluded that his staff suffered from an “attitude problem” that could be corrected through a series of workshops designed to teach “the power of positive thinking.” Needless to day, the results were anything but positive. In the words of one staff, “it was bad enough that no one listened to my opinion but that workshop showed me how far off the company’s thinking was.” Within a few months the brightest employees and managers had found employment elsewhere and the executive was left to ponder where he had gone wrong. Two years later, the company abandoned the new business after revenues failed to materialize.
This example illustrates several points. First, there is always the possibility that the strategy behind the change is invalid. In other words, when analyzing resistance to change, it is important to isolate resistance to bad change.
Secondly, and more relevant to this paper, is the fact that change must be legitimized if it is to stand any chance of being accepted. Where the executive in the above example had gone wrong was in not involving any of his staff in the thought process that led to the new business strategy. He did lay the foundation for why the business needed to diversi~ and what the diversification would lead to. In other words, he failed to make sure that his organization understood why change was necessary and what would result from it.
A Model for Change in Utilities
The three stages to implement change presented earlier in this paper can be refined into the model shown in Figure 4, “Model for Change in Utilities”. The model, which was adapted from work by Kevin Boyle and Sue Pisha, breaks the process into a planning phase and an implementation phase.
Figure 4 – A40delfor Change in Utilities (adapted fiorn work by Kevin Boyle and Sue Pisha)
Planning for Change
The Drivers of Change
The planning phase is initiated by the awareness of outside forces exerting pressure on the organization’s systems. These pressures may come from customers, unions, shareholders, technology, competitors, and regulators. In many instances, there will be interplay between the various these forces. For examples, technological advances may give competitors advantages that may cause a utility to lose customers. At the same time, the same advances in technology may cause unions to look for ways to avoid any negative impacts on their members.
Utilities with significant unionized labor have to deal with special challenges and opportunities. Traditionally, the relationship between unions and management has been mostly adversarial. Organizations contemplating significantly deployment of technology have had a particularly difficult time dealing with the typical escalation of conflict with unions. Often, the resulting mistrust spreads within the ranks of each camp. Managers become wary of the “grand plan” their executives charge them with implementing. At the same time, rank and file union members worry about the ability of union leadership to protect them from the impeding changes.
In many utilities, the role of unions has been changing to that of partner. These utilities and their unions have realized the mutual benefits of cooperation. This cooperation has taken many forms ranging from joint committees working on specific issues like safety to broad coalitions studying enterprise-wide work redesign. Instead of acting purely from the outside, unions are taking a more active role in shaping the future of their members.
Defining the Goals of Change
Once the change drivers are identified, the organization must define what it should strive to become. This is usually accomplished by developing a vision for the organization. While developing the vision may result in the one-line statements about energy, customers and service so fashionable in the industry today, the process is anything but simple.
Often, residual tensions and conflicts can undermine the process of defining common goals. For that reason, we recommend that a “neutral” party facilitate the work session. The facilitator should be familiar with a variety of consensus building, mediation, and leadership training techniques.
Specifying the Means of Change
The base of support developed during the process of identifying common goals provides a foundation for devising ways to implement changes within the enterprise. These changes should capitalize on the strengths of all stakeholders. However, all decisions should have the clear and firm backing of the coalition formed to define the company’s vision.
Completing the designs necessary to implement change will require the knowledge and experience of a variety of employees. These employees should represent all the parties in the coalition including management and unions. In many cases planning teams have been formed with cross-department, cross-level representatives. The work of these groups is to address change, resources and desired outcomes and to develop a framework for actionable plans that take into account the various interests and needs of the entire organization.
Assessing the Impact of Change
Too often, change is addressed only from a technological and economic standpoint. Hundreds of pages will be devoted to the intricacies of database design, network protocols, and software standards. Careful accounting will be made of various costs and benefits. At the same time, the impact of that technology on the social systems of the organization receives the lightest of treatments beyond accounting for the number of positions eliminated. At a minimum, we recommend that the change be specified in terms of its impact on the following components of the social structures of the organization:
Even in its mildest form, change can devastate a workforce that is ill prepared for it. Organizations should take deliberate steps to educate, train or retrain, and inform all individuals impacted by change. The challenge for these organizations is not to eliminate the impact of change. It is to derive new opportunities from the process of change. Employees whose positions have been eliminated can become the resources for new corporate ventures. Limitations with technology can foster better teamwork.
This stage of the process is particularly important in addressing any resistance to change within the organization. Training should be provided at all levels of the organization. The most effective training is often not that which is provided not by vendors or consultants. We have seen that first-line supervisors and even union representatives can much more successful at educating staff. Since these individuals typically do have the required proficiency to train other, their own training must address communications skills as well as specific technologies. These individuals should also be well educated on various aspects of the change initiative since they will often be called upon to explain such fundamentals as the reasons and the benefits of the change. We have also noted that involving these types of individuals in this manner demonstrates the validity of the change initiative to potential detractors.
Improving the Means of Change
It is perfectly healthy and advisable to reexamine the goals of the change initiative, the means of implementation, and their impacts on the organization on a periodic basis. This analysis will provide an opportunity to refine and redirect, if and when necessary, the efforts of the organization. The change improvement program should be more than an audit of the results of the change. It must provide a practical and effective way to identify, evaluate, and incorporate, if possible, new opportunities.
Conclusion
The pace of change within utilities will accelerate over the next several years. This will present challenges that utility executives must confront with the right information and the right partners. As computer technology makes further inroads in unionized areas of the business like field construction, executives will need to rely on unions for the success of their strategies. New approaches to joint partnerships, including mutual gains bargaining and enterprise compacts, can serve the interests of both management and unions. The inclusion of unions in technology planning will serve another more immediate and constructive purpose. It will drastically change a process, which for too long, has celebrated technical achievements and overlooked human anguish.
Bibliography
The opportunities and challenges promised by competition in the utility industry have been looming for several years. Utilities throughout North America have been scrambling to establish their position within the upcoming marketplace as evidenced by the wave of mergers and acquisitions that have swept the industry over the past three to four years.
Fundamental to all of these new organizations is the notion that information technology will allow them to reach economies of scale that will make them more competitive. While many utilities are still focusing on improving their customer information and billing systems, there is renewed interest in the application of information technology to improve the efficiency of service provision. In particular, AM/FM, Work Management, Trouble Outage Analysis, and Computer Aided Dispatch systems are being used to shore up the utility’s ability to provide flexible and responsive service to its customers.
These systems, however, are expected to deliver benefits that directly affect the utility’s bottom line. No longer is it enough for these systems to improve productivity. Utility executives are now asking how the implementation of such systems will increase revenues and improve profit margins.
This shift in expectations has drastically altered the manner in which these systems are implemented within utilities. Because of the rate of change within the industry, utility executives expect implementations to be in a matter of months not years. Furthermore, they expect that the new systems will be fully integrated with other systems within the organization.
As a result of these pressures, several large utilities are now in the process of implementing various combinations of AM/FM, Work Management, Trouble Outage Analysis, Computer Aided Dispatch, Materials Management, and Customer Information Systems within a timeframe of eighteen to twenty-four months. The furious pace that is required to meet this schedule has meant that many implementations are forced to forgo such “luxuries” as detailed specifications and pilot projects in favor of focus groups and rapid prototyping.
Impact on Social Systems
Few utilities, however, have expanded the same energy dealing with the social systems of their organizations. Because of the furious pace of technology deployment, traditional communication and training programs have proved less than optimal in preparing employees for the changing work environment. Instead, utilities have embraced various employee improvement programs intended to “teach” empowerment, leadership, creative thinking, and other traits needed by the new business. These programs, however, have not generated the expected results.
Reasons for Failure
There have been volumes written on why organizations fail in their attempts to transform themselves. Perhaps none summarize it better than John P. Kotter, a Professor of Leadership at the Harvard Business School. In his latest book, “Leading Change”, Kotter lists eight errors that many organizations make. They are as follows:
- Allowing too much complacency.
- Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition.
- Underestimating the power of vision.
- Under-communicating the vision.
- Permitting obstacles to block the new vision.
- Failing to create short-term wins.
- Declaring victory too soon.
- Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture.
Within the specific environment of utilities, we have seen two other common mistakes that we would like to add to Kotter’s list:
- Failure to appreciate the resistance to change.
- Failure to involve unions in the guiding coalition.
The Nature of Change
One manager described her organization as being “in a constant state of change”. By doing so, she expressed one of the most common misstatements about change. Inasmuch as change is used to transform an organization, change is a process rather than a state. Because the manager was often unaware of or misunderstood her organization’s vision, change seemed to become an end in itself.
The Path of Change
Change happens in different ways in different settings. However, all organizational change must go through the same three stages. These are:
Stage 1: Identifying the need for change
Stage 2: Defining the goal of change
Stage 3: Implementing change
Identifying the need for change is a critical step in determining the right strategy for change. The need is defined in terms of its impact on the organization and its people. This definition includes a measurement of the severity of the need as well as its urgency. Defining the goal of change or vision for the organization is equally critical to establishing the path of change. The vision provides the organization with the “stamina” to carry it through obstacles and potential early failures.
The implementation of change must be tailored to the specific conditions within the organization. It must take into account the strength of the need for change as well as the organizational resistance to change.
The dynamics involved in choosing the correct method of implementing change is best described by Paul Strebel in “The Complete MBA Companion”, a collection of writing reflecting the latest management thinking from several of the world’s leading business schools. In his paper, Strebel proposes the model shown in Figure 1, “Model for Change as Proposed by Paul Strebel.” The model suggests that change driven from the bottom up is most appropriate for organizations that are fairly open to change. It also suggests that experimentation must decrease as the force of change gets stronger.
Figure 1 – Model for Change as Proposed by Paul Strebel
One of the most interesting things about this model is that it provides a rational framework for understanding the many buzzwords that seem to permeate every business discussion these days. It also differentiates in the most concise manner we have encountered between the various techniques for affecting change within organizations. Readers interested in more details should consult the reference listed at the end of this paper.
Change in the Utility Industry
Where North American utilities fall in the spectrum defined by Strebel’s model is a matter of debate, particularly for electric and gas distribution companies. In the US, the pace of deregulation has been uneven from State to State. And it is not uncommon for executives from the same company to have radically different perspectives on how their company is likely to be affected by deregulation and competition. However, our experience would lead us to the following generalizations:
- Utilities have and continue to be more closed to change than other industries.
- The track record of other recently deregulated industries (e.g., telecommunications and airlines) leads us to believe that utilities will further improve their ability to deal with change. Some of those improvements, however, will undoubtfully be the result of the more adaptive companies “exporting” their culture through mergers and acquisitions.
- The requirement to adopt a new business model will continue to get stronger over the next decade.
Figure 2 – Change in Utilities
Path of Change in Utilities
The trends shown in Figure 2 imply that utilities have limited choices in terms of the techniques at their disposal for effecting change. Assuming that they are able to lower resistance to change as the need for change become stronger (i.e., as the forces of deregulation and competition become more and more tangible), we expect the optimal path of change within most utilities to be as follows:
- Radical leadership
- Process reengineering
- Rapid adaptation
Figure 3 – Techniques for Change in Utilities
Overcoming Resistance to Change
It has been our experience that while utility executives see resistance to change as the most likely obstacle to successful transformation, they often fail to understand the nature or reason for this resistance. Such seemingly obvious factors as age, education and length of employment are decidedly not accurate measures of the ability of any one individual to accept and assimilate change.
Only by understanding why there is resistance is it possible to devise the appropriate means of overcoming it. While it is conceivable that individuals may seem motivated by irrational motives, our experience has been that even those can often be related to one of the following reasons:
- Inertia: The resistance is passive and most likely due to a lack of sense of urgency.
- Uncertainty/Fear: The resistance is most likely due to a sense of uncertainty or fear about the future.
- Understanding: The resistance is most likely due to a the lack of understanding of the reasons for or goals of the change.
- Work Balancing: The resistance is most likely due to, a perceived or real increase or decrease in work or responsibilities.
- Work Quality: The resistance is most likely due to a perceived or real decrease in quality of the work environment.
- Economics: The resistance is most likely due to a perceived or real loss of economic benefit as a result of the change.
- Power: The resistance is most likely due to a perceived or real loss of power as a result of the change. This may lead to turf protection and/or turf battles.
- Decision-Making: The resistance is most likely a reaction to the perceived or real absence of a participatory decision-making process.
- Philosophy: The resistance is most likely due to the belief that the approach chosen is not the best one.
- Validity: The resistance is most likely due to the belief that the approach chosen is not a valid one and will not produce the desired effects.
- Education – Explain why the change is needed and what it will achieve.
- Communication – Inform individuals of what will be accomplished, when, and by whom.
- Participation – Provide an opportunity to participate in decision-making.
- Contribution – Define how the individual can contribute to the overall success of the effort.
- Demonstration – Provide evidence of the validity of the change.
- Leadership – Provide guidance and direction. Showing resolve and the willingness to deal with obstacles.
It should be clear from reviewing Table 1 that resistance to change requires a combination of remedies. For example, dealing with the “turf’ battles that may arise during when significant changes are implemented within an organization may require that the individuals be included in several activities such as participating in decision-making and actively contributing to the change initiative. But it may also require that the organization display clear leadership and show its resolve to have the changes implemented.
Table 1 – Causes and Potential Remedies for Change Resistance
This resolve is particularly important in ensuring that obstacles are overcome swiftly. Failure to do so often undermines the effectiveness of the initiative.
Ensuring the Legitimacy of Change
It is critical that organizations going through change ensure that the change initiative is legitimate and that it can withstand resistance due to differences in philosophy or to doubts about its validity. Consider the following example.
An executive faced fierce resistance from his staff to one of his initiatives. He believed his company should invest in one particular line of business. His staff believed the strategy behind the initiative was flawed and would not support any of the changes needed to implement the new business functions. After several rounds of promotions and demotions, the executive concluded that his staff suffered from an “attitude problem” that could be corrected through a series of workshops designed to teach “the power of positive thinking.” Needless to day, the results were anything but positive. In the words of one staff, “it was bad enough that no one listened to my opinion but that workshop showed me how far off the company’s thinking was.” Within a few months the brightest employees and managers had found employment elsewhere and the executive was left to ponder where he had gone wrong. Two years later, the company abandoned the new business after revenues failed to materialize.
This example illustrates several points. First, there is always the possibility that the strategy behind the change is invalid. In other words, when analyzing resistance to change, it is important to isolate resistance to bad change.
Secondly, and more relevant to this paper, is the fact that change must be legitimized if it is to stand any chance of being accepted. Where the executive in the above example had gone wrong was in not involving any of his staff in the thought process that led to the new business strategy. He did lay the foundation for why the business needed to diversi~ and what the diversification would lead to. In other words, he failed to make sure that his organization understood why change was necessary and what would result from it.
A Model for Change in Utilities
The three stages to implement change presented earlier in this paper can be refined into the model shown in Figure 4, “Model for Change in Utilities”. The model, which was adapted from work by Kevin Boyle and Sue Pisha, breaks the process into a planning phase and an implementation phase.
Figure 4 – A40delfor Change in Utilities (adapted fiorn work by Kevin Boyle and Sue Pisha)
Planning for Change
The Drivers of Change
The planning phase is initiated by the awareness of outside forces exerting pressure on the organization’s systems. These pressures may come from customers, unions, shareholders, technology, competitors, and regulators. In many instances, there will be interplay between the various these forces. For examples, technological advances may give competitors advantages that may cause a utility to lose customers. At the same time, the same advances in technology may cause unions to look for ways to avoid any negative impacts on their members.
Utilities with significant unionized labor have to deal with special challenges and opportunities. Traditionally, the relationship between unions and management has been mostly adversarial. Organizations contemplating significantly deployment of technology have had a particularly difficult time dealing with the typical escalation of conflict with unions. Often, the resulting mistrust spreads within the ranks of each camp. Managers become wary of the “grand plan” their executives charge them with implementing. At the same time, rank and file union members worry about the ability of union leadership to protect them from the impeding changes.
In many utilities, the role of unions has been changing to that of partner. These utilities and their unions have realized the mutual benefits of cooperation. This cooperation has taken many forms ranging from joint committees working on specific issues like safety to broad coalitions studying enterprise-wide work redesign. Instead of acting purely from the outside, unions are taking a more active role in shaping the future of their members.
Defining the Goals of Change
Once the change drivers are identified, the organization must define what it should strive to become. This is usually accomplished by developing a vision for the organization. While developing the vision may result in the one-line statements about energy, customers and service so fashionable in the industry today, the process is anything but simple.
- First, the process of defining the vision requires involvement from all entities with a stake in the result of that process.
- Second, each party to the process must understand what its interests are in the results.
- Third, each party must also clearly understand the interests of all other parties.
- Finally, all parties must identi~ and build upon their common goals.
Often, residual tensions and conflicts can undermine the process of defining common goals. For that reason, we recommend that a “neutral” party facilitate the work session. The facilitator should be familiar with a variety of consensus building, mediation, and leadership training techniques.
Specifying the Means of Change
The base of support developed during the process of identifying common goals provides a foundation for devising ways to implement changes within the enterprise. These changes should capitalize on the strengths of all stakeholders. However, all decisions should have the clear and firm backing of the coalition formed to define the company’s vision.
Completing the designs necessary to implement change will require the knowledge and experience of a variety of employees. These employees should represent all the parties in the coalition including management and unions. In many cases planning teams have been formed with cross-department, cross-level representatives. The work of these groups is to address change, resources and desired outcomes and to develop a framework for actionable plans that take into account the various interests and needs of the entire organization.
Assessing the Impact of Change
Too often, change is addressed only from a technological and economic standpoint. Hundreds of pages will be devoted to the intricacies of database design, network protocols, and software standards. Careful accounting will be made of various costs and benefits. At the same time, the impact of that technology on the social systems of the organization receives the lightest of treatments beyond accounting for the number of positions eliminated. At a minimum, we recommend that the change be specified in terms of its impact on the following components of the social structures of the organization:
- Work processes
- Decision-making processes
- Staff level changes
- Employee skills and responsibilities
- Employee training and education requirements
- Continuous improvement opportunities
- Implementation challenges (including potential resistance to change)
- Implementation opportunities
Even in its mildest form, change can devastate a workforce that is ill prepared for it. Organizations should take deliberate steps to educate, train or retrain, and inform all individuals impacted by change. The challenge for these organizations is not to eliminate the impact of change. It is to derive new opportunities from the process of change. Employees whose positions have been eliminated can become the resources for new corporate ventures. Limitations with technology can foster better teamwork.
This stage of the process is particularly important in addressing any resistance to change within the organization. Training should be provided at all levels of the organization. The most effective training is often not that which is provided not by vendors or consultants. We have seen that first-line supervisors and even union representatives can much more successful at educating staff. Since these individuals typically do have the required proficiency to train other, their own training must address communications skills as well as specific technologies. These individuals should also be well educated on various aspects of the change initiative since they will often be called upon to explain such fundamentals as the reasons and the benefits of the change. We have also noted that involving these types of individuals in this manner demonstrates the validity of the change initiative to potential detractors.
Improving the Means of Change
It is perfectly healthy and advisable to reexamine the goals of the change initiative, the means of implementation, and their impacts on the organization on a periodic basis. This analysis will provide an opportunity to refine and redirect, if and when necessary, the efforts of the organization. The change improvement program should be more than an audit of the results of the change. It must provide a practical and effective way to identify, evaluate, and incorporate, if possible, new opportunities.
Conclusion
The pace of change within utilities will accelerate over the next several years. This will present challenges that utility executives must confront with the right information and the right partners. As computer technology makes further inroads in unionized areas of the business like field construction, executives will need to rely on unions for the success of their strategies. New approaches to joint partnerships, including mutual gains bargaining and enterprise compacts, can serve the interests of both management and unions. The inclusion of unions in technology planning will serve another more immediate and constructive purpose. It will drastically change a process, which for too long, has celebrated technical achievements and overlooked human anguish.
Bibliography
- Bluestone, Barry and Irving, Negotiating the Future: A Labor Perspective on American Business, Basic Books, New York, 1992.
- Nadler D. A., Champions of Change, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1998.
- Kotter J. P., A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Managemen\ Free Press, New York, 1990.
- Kotter, J. P. and Heskett, J. L., Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press, New York, 1992.
- Kotter, J. L., Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1996.
- The Complete MBA Companion, ed. Tim Dickson, Pitman Publishing, Lanham, Maryland, 1997.
- Unions, Management and C)uality – Opportunities for Innovation and Excellence, ed. Edward Cohen-Rosenthal, Irwin Professional Publishing