Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@CompuServe.COM> picks up the thread with
>A. The original questions came from a person who was already committed to
>being a change agent, and was struggling for ways to be taken seriously.
>In my view, as long as he is conscious of the connection between his
>current role and his future goal, the risk of 'co-opting' is not big. On
>the other hand, he may find that his original viewpooints are legitimately
>altered by a deeper or richer understanding of the situation. Is this
>co-opting? No, just sound learning. As for the second part of the
>question, the whole point is to be a part of the environment. One cannot
>easily be an effective change agent from outside, only from inside.
One approach I have found effective is to spend the early part of the
management assignment assessing and reporting on the baseline environment
such as major issues and their root causes. Then involve the executive
team by presenting possible alternatives and engaging debate on the pros
and cons of each. Part of the pros and cons is the presentation of what
the affected staff think about possible courses of action. Then selecting
the consensus view.
Successful implementation then builds confidence among executives and
staff that the approach is sound. Although this takes longer than just
presenting the magic pill, it usually results in higher quality and more
sustainable changes, in my experience.
>B. The transition from achiever to change agent happens all the time when
>people move from individual achiever to mentor and participant in
>empowerment relationships. Most companies are familiar with this
>transition. This transition in behavior is a powerful way for a good
>achiever to multiply their force for effective functioning.
The implication of a transition is that the person has changed in some
fundamental way. I believe this will generate a stall while everyone waits
to see of this changed behaviour is the result of the latest management
school and will wear off like some cheap perfume.
IMHO the behaviour should be consistent with the change agents "principle
center". What can be different is the propensity to action. Most people
will get involved in changes that "make sense" to them. These do not need
continuous pressure, just facilitation, to keep going.
If the actions involve "traditional" tactics such as just organization
changes then their likely acceptance will be high but at a superficial
level (low expectation for any real difference). Reactions? ...Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>