“We are getting less than 40 hours of work from a large number of our K.C.-based EMPLOYEES. The parking lot is sparsely used at 8:00 A.M.; likewise at 5 P.M. As managers – you either do not know what your EMPLOYEES are doing, or you do not CARE. You have created expectations on the work effort that allowed this to happen inside Cerner, creating a very unhealthy environment. In either case, you have a problem and you will fix it or I will replace you. NEVER in my career have I allowed a team that worked for me to think they had a 40-hour job. I have allowed YOU to create a culture that is permitting this. NO LONGER.”
This weeks blog focuses in on what it means to be both a change agent while trying to be supportive through a contentious policy challenge from senior manager. We all have been there, especially in the military and in life, contentious emails sent from the leadership without consideration of underlying data. The immediate response from myself is typically defensive, leading to disagreements publicly and a reduction in performance. After reading the above excerpt from the senior manager, there are some key factors to consider; how to become a change agent and enforce the policy while contain the morale of the organization, in 30 days. Leaders are fearful of change that is centralized around based on “Bureaucracy, Bosses and Policies (BBP),” this makes changes from this excerpt extremely diffcult to manage and contain (de Caluwe & Vermaak, 2003).
A change agent is a role that all humans will have to become. Change agent leadership "it is the capacity to move into the future while preserving the values and the mission (Baer and Bushway, 2015).” As such, even changing of duty hours or enforcing standards can be defensive and confrontational for most. Using supportive communication from mid-level leadership to influence change in the organization from BBP is a method that can lead to ownership from the employees. Laying out a 30 day strategy to adapt change from the bosses email above is important but I have to do so smartly to benefit the whole while enforcing policy. The 8 attributes of supportive communication (Whetten & Cameron, 2016) could change behavior if done correctly and therefore help me in the problem solving.
My detailed plan to implant the idea of change in my employees is broken down into 4 parts. Part 1 of this strategy (week-1), would be focused in on seeking feedback. This feedback would be aimed at identifying the problem and symptoms not the person. I need to take ownership of the problem and the solution up front, not hiding from the problem or masking it with discontent to the BBP. It is important that folks understand what is the measurable and what the reason is. Week-1 could involve non-directive counseling and surveys, attempting to isolate special needs and circumstances from the majority. I need to get a complete “sight picture” on the problem, understanding all the details, arguments and restraints the actual problems definition.
Part 2 (week 2) of the strategy is solve the masses first, the results from the surveys equips me with the necessary information to generate alternative/evaluate alternatives. The masses may not have Again using the 8 attributes combined in a problem solving methods I can focus in one the descriptive problem without solving the prescriptive answer in vacuum leadership. This week is my analysis time, this is normally where I fail in my career. I do not give the analysis time to work and discover where the results demonstrate where the trends are. I often to be reactionary instead of thoughtful, this does influence a change.
Part 3 (week 3) of the “get-well” strategy is focused in on the outliers, the special needs employees and the case-by-case. Are there circumstances of which the values of the company are challenged by the values of the person? It is during this week, where supportive communication used poorly can easily erode productivity from the employee. For example, in my career, recently I had an Airman that had to continuously leave work early because his wife had a severe case of Acute Mountain Sickness and she would pass out while trying to get to pick the kids up from school. This special case requires that I walked a delicate line between being a supervisor while being supportive. I had to own the process while also trying to be supportive. Together, we determined a solution that benefited both the Air Force and the member. It is during this week when I am trying to determine the locus of control from the member and develop strategies that are cooperative.
Finally Week 4, this week is trial and error through slow change, the expectation is that by the last work day consumption of the change has occurred. Many of the Airman forget this part of day-to-day policies, they want answers to change NOW. Employees morale cannot be changed in an hour, their values cannot be influenced in a day and change of influence has to take time. The change agent needs to influence and convince that the change is ongoing in the positive direction. I need to influence my Airman/employees that I “see" and understand that they are completing the task. Following-up on the masses and the case-by-case; holding both them and me accountbable for the implementation of the alternatives that WE determined together. After the strategy takes affect, I would hold regular climate assessments to ensure that change is sticking and not just an artifact of the “change for the time”.
References
Baer, L. L., Duin, A. H., & Bushway, D. (2015). Change agent leadership. Planning for Higher Education, 43(3), 1-11.
de Caluwé, L. & Vermaak, H. (2003). Why change is complicated. In Learning to change: A guide for organization change agents (pp. 6-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781452229584.n2
Whetton, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills, 9th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment