When change-management efforts fail, it’s worth pondering if it was really a lack of efforts that ruined everything. That is, maybe it’s less about what leaders did and more about what they didn’t do.
This week, I’ve been sharing a series of posts featuring what 25 senior executives at leading organizations told me about how they manage change. Their insights come from an article I wrote some years back, but they are just as relevant now.
Today, in the series’ third and final post, I want to highlight the role that leadership and communication play when managing change.
Read below what execs from Verizon, MassMutual, Novartis, and other big companies have to say about leading and communicating change. (Note that companies and titles reflect people’s roles at the time the article was published. In fact, today almost none of the 25 executives interviewed work for the same corporation and even fewer hold the same job. You know, things change. To view their full comments, and those of other executives, check out the original article, “Will Your People Be Ready?”.) Continue reading
Is it better for a company to develop a sea of generalists or specialists?
The ideal answer is probably yes—in the sense that you want to have a mix of both types of workers. But given limited resources, which would yield a better workforce?
This week, I’m sharing a series of posts featuring what 25 senior executives at leading organizations told me about how they manage change, including answers to the question above. Their insights come from an article I wrote some years back, but they are just as relevant now.
Change’s Impact on L&D
Today, in the series’ second installment, I want to focus on how change influences learning and development efforts, and vice versa.
Read below what execs from Caterpillar, Shell, General Mills, Deloitte, and other big companies have to say about how L&D and change management intersect. (Note that companies and titles reflect people’s roles at the time the article was published. In fact, almost none of the 25 executives interviewed work for the same corporation and even fewer hold the same job today. You know, things change. To view their full comments, and those of other executives, check out the original article, “Will Your People Be Ready?”.) Continue reading
Change makes me nervous. There, I said it.
It unsettles me for the same reason it unsettles you—because as much as today might suck, tomorrow could suck worse. (Want proof? Watch CNN’s political coverage.)
Of course, you’re not supposed to actually admit your insecurity. In job interviews, during work meetings, and when speaking with colleagues, you’re expected to talk about how change brings fresh possibilities and new opportunities. You’re supposed to spout some bullshit about how you thrive in uncertainty and ambiguity. Bring it, yo! You’re an effing change agent! And don’t change agents love change?
No! Change agents like when they initiate change. But they’re just as likely as anyone to get the jitters, maybe even more so, when someone else grabs the wheel to careen down a new road. Still, when an organization tinkers with people’s routines, you know the response it wants: Yes we can!
Yes we can! But do we want to?
Take what’s happening at IBM right now. The company’s Chief Marketing Officer Michelle Peluso recently announced that U.S. marketing staff may no longer work remotely or out of smaller district offices. (Supposedly, the new policy will extend to many more workers.) Employees have 30 days to decide whether to report/relocate to one of six “strategic” locations: Austin, San Francisco, New York, Cambridge (Mass), Atlanta, and Raleigh. What’s more, they will not get to choose the city. Continue reading
“I’m a millennial. We catch on quickly.”
I’m not a millennial, but when I overheard a coworker say the above one day, I also caught on quickly. I sensed immediately that my colleague was serious about her declaration. Her tone came with no humor, no self-deprecation, no doubt about the virtues of youth.
I rolled my eyes. Not because my colleague isn’t terrific and a quick learner. She is. Nor because her remark tapped into a stereotype about her cohort. Rather, it was because she felt it was relevant to bring up the stereotype in the first place.
Now, before you roll your own eyes anticipating a blog post bashing, praising, or analyzing millennials, hold on. I have no interest in rehashing something you’ve probably read 45 times in Fast Company (or on Fast Company if you’re a millennial).
I’m more concerned with a broader question: When do generational clichés in the workplace make sense? Continue reading
I hate when HR practitioners transform into the fashion police. Most HR peeps hate it, too. No one’s dream job is hatching policies outlining how many inches a skirt should leave above the knee or what to do when—oh no!—a bra strap peeks through.
Speaking of, “I had to ask one employee to wear a bra” or cover up “to keep from distracting the male employees who were complaining about her bralessness,” one CEO recently told SHRM. (Apparently, fellow female colleagues didn’t mind the extra bounce?)
Bra-gate aside, I’m currently engaged in a conversation on LinkedIn about dress codes. The thread includes an HR professional seeking help with drafting a policy. I wanted to know: “Has there been a downside to the company’s current lack of rules? Is there really a need for a policy?”
I asked especially because, as I said yesterday, businesses are sometimes too eager to pass rules when none are necessary. (Perhaps there should be a policy around crafting policies?)
The HR pro explained that this workplace already has an unofficial business-casual policy, but “the casual part occurs more than the business.” No surprise there. According to a recent OfficeTeam survey:
- Dressing too casually accounts for 47% of all dress-code violations cited by managers,
- Showing too much skin accounts for 32% of complaints, and
- Having visible tattoos and piercings comes in third, at 6%.
Still, what really caught my attention was an explanation of the company owner’s philosophy: When people don’t dress for success, it’s OK to withhold raises and other financial incentives. Continue reading
Do you check your work email outside of work? Gallup says that you probably do. Maybe you’re excited to tell your colleague about a new Excel trick you learned. Perhaps you want to remove an item from your plate. (Listen up: Your plate will always be just as full no matter what you do.) Or maybe your boss or company has a policy—probably unstated—that you reply to messages while on the toilet, in the shower, and during your sleep.
It’s especially because of the last reason that France recently enacted a new law to “ensure respect for rest periods” and maintain “balance between work and family and personal life,” according to the French Ministry of Labor. The “right to disconnect” provision states that companies with more than 50 employees must create a system to prevent work emails from intruding on employees’ lives during nights, weekends, and vacations.
Fact vs Problem
Good intentions, for sure, but you know about the road to hell—it’s paved by governments and HR departments. It seems that French lawmakers are acting like misguided HR practitioners by trying to engineer the workplace through well-meaning but meaningless rules.
Too often, government and corporate leaders rush to pass new directives to solve what they see perceive—or misperceive—as problems. In this case, people are checking work emails at various times. That’s a fact, but is it a problem? Consider these Gallup findings:
- Seventy percent of Americans say that using a computer, tablet, or smartphone to work remotely outside of business hours has been a positive development.
- What’s more, 1/3 say that they check their work emails frequently.
- What’s even more, 17 percent of those people are likelier to report better overall lives compared to those who never check email outside of work.
- Still, many of them also say they have more stress.
So what does all this mean? Continue reading