Justify the feasibility of the proposed way to implement changes When reporting changes, a member of the project team sometimes concentrates on explaining how to implement them, ignoring alternative options. Not understanding why this particular method was chosen,

Know how to say “no” and justify your refusals If you want to be sincere with subordinates, learn to say “no”. Managers often do not like to refuse requests, fearing in this way to reduce the motivation of employees. In fact, if a person does not receive any

Ask any manager in their thirties who has experience in a major restructuring of the firm about the difficulties encountered, and he will surely say that it was very difficult. However, it is difficult for most of us to comprehend the complexity of the problems that arise. We are correct in our reasoning, but we underestimate the extreme seriousness of the task, especially its first stage - instilling in people a sense of the need for change.

Implementing change will require many employees to join forces, take initiative and be willing to make sacrifices. This is true for firms trying to get out of the crisis, and for those who aspire to be among the industry leaders, and for applicants for sole leadership. To make a fundamental change in a company with a hundred employees, you need at least two dozen people who are ready to work, regardless of the time. And if the total number of employees is a thousand times greater, then there should be at least 15,000 enthusiasts.

Without realizing the need for change, it is impossible to coordinate efforts. When complacency reigns in the team, restructuring usually fails because of an insufficient number of interested people. With little understanding of the urgency for reform, it is difficult to create a group of leaders with sufficient authority and trust from workers. And without such a core, it is impossible to lead the changes and involve the most influential administrators in the development and promotion of the ultimate goals of the reform. In rare cases, enthusiasts, surrounded by complacent people, manage to determine the strategic direction of change, reorganize and cut personnel. If these administrators hold key positions, then there is a real opportunity to carry out important actions, such as acquiring another firm or introducing a new wage system. If the greater part of the collective does not share the sense of urgency for change, then the impulse for perestroika is doomed sooner or later to dry up and the main part of what was planned will remain unfulfilled. At the same time, the expenditure of effort invested in the implementation of the process or in promoting its necessity does not matter. Ordinary workers always find ways to avoid cooperation with the reformers if it is a project that is useless or erroneous from their point of view.

An example of complacency

One large multinational pharmaceutical company has had to deal with too many problems in recent years. Real growth in sales and net income fell short of expectations. The firm was criticized in the press, especially after excessive staff cuts, which worsened the already difficult moral climate in the team. There has been no significant increase in share capital over the past six years. Compared with the mid-1980s, the number of complaints about product quality increased, and one large customer preferred to work with other firms. Some investors have threatened to withdraw a significant portion of deposits, which would lead to a fall in the share price by 5-10%. The current position of the company seemed very depressing, especially since its past successes could be proud of.

Knowing that the company is highly competitive, you probably expected to see a boardroom environment reminiscent of a World War II war headquarters. At the command post, the generals jerkily issue orders every two minutes to troops on full alert, and now a massive attack on the enemy is unfolding on the screen. However, in reality there is nothing like it. The board is nothing like a command post, and the “generals” of the business deal with issues at such a pace that even baseball seems to be a fast-paced game. Many do not seem to be ready to act on the first signal during working hours, and there is no need to talk about round-the-clock readiness. There is no sense of danger, no understanding that competitors are ready to take advantage of any company weakness. Orders are not perceived as a mandatory combat mission. Actions against competitors evoke poorly armed guerrillas with air rifles. Much more dramatic than the battles in the company itself: workers are at war with managers, managers are at war with workers, the commercial department is up in arms against the production department - sickeningly disgusting.

In private conversations, employees willingly, albeit with reservations, acknowledge the existence of problems. They refer to similar problems throughout the industry, to the individual successes of their company, to the fact that the culprits should be looked for in another division, that the boss is stupid and does not allow employees to take the initiative.

Walk into a typical management meeting at such a company, and you will have doubts about the reliability of the data collected about the items of income, gross proceeds, stock price of the company, customer complaints, competitiveness and team environment, indicating an unfavorable state of affairs. At these meetings, one rarely hears about the poor performance of the company. The issues under consideration are of little importance, and the discussion is languid, without emotion. The intensity of the discussion only increases when managers compete for resources or justify their own failures. From time to time, one can hear in speeches sincere satisfaction with the progress of affairs (which is most amazing of all!).

After spending a couple of days in the company, you begin to wonder if these people are in their right mind.

In such a company saturated with complacency, interest in change is lost extremely quickly. One speaker talks about the unacceptably long development of a new product and, instead of proposing measures to speed it up, in less than twenty minutes, changes the conversation in another direction. The next one offers a new approach to the use of information technology () and immediately praises the existing IT department with its outdated information system. Even when the idea of ​​change belongs to the CEO, his proposal is often drowned in the quicksand of complacency.

If you believe that the described case does not apply directly to you, since nothing like this happens in your company, then I would strongly advise you to take a closer look. Such situations are possible almost everywhere. The customer credit department is doing a very poor job, and its management doesn't give the slightest sign that they have a problem. The French branch has fallen off the charts, but its management looks quite satisfied with the current situation.

Countless times I've heard from senior executives that every person on their team is fully aware of the need for important changes. And every time I was convinced that in reality for half of this "team" the preservation of the status quo would be quite acceptable. Speaking in public, these people advocate the official course, meaninglessly repeating the words of the boss. But in private conversations, you can hear something completely different: “Once the recession ends, we will do well,” “Once last year’s cost-cutting measures begin to take effect, performance will go up,” and, of course, “The firm is responsible for the difficulties experienced by such then the department, but in my unit everything is in order.

Question. How widespread is this complacency?

Answer. Extraordinarily wide.

Question. Why do people behave like this?

Answer. The reasons can be very diverse.

Sometimes I take twenty-five-year-old MBA students to some genial, struggling but stubborn company. From their remarks, we can conclude that the company is run by people who are not distinguished by special intelligence. I ask about my impressions and hear in response a peremptory conclusion: “If the company is in a deplorable state, and there is practically no understanding of the urgency of change, then its managers are a herd of oafs.” Proposed course of action: "Fire everyone and put us in their place." The MBA student's diagnosis associating complacency with professional unsuitability doesn't quite fit my practice. I have seen surprisingly little understanding of the need for change in very smart people, acting from the best of intentions. I distinctly remember attending a meeting of a dozen senior managers at a European company in deep crisis; there was a discussion at the highest professional level - you could think that you were at Harvard. Indeed, many of those gathered around the table had degrees from the best educational institutions in the world. Unfortunately, neither the analysis of "mistakes" allegedly committed by competitors, nor the rather abstract discussion of "strategy" touched on any of the firm's sore problems. As expected, the meeting ended without making any significant decision, because it is impossible to take it without discussing the real issues. I believe that most of the participants in that meeting were not satisfied with him. No, they weren't stupid. And yet they approved of the decisions made, as they were not ready for change (if we take the “scale of intuitive feeling of overdue change” as 100 points, then the average coefficient of the participants would not exceed 50).

There are at least nine reasons for this complacency (see Figure 3.1). The first is the absence of conspicuous signs of a crisis. The balance of payments was positive. The threat of layoffs did not hang over workers. Bankruptcy was not on the doorstep. There were no people willing to take over the company. The tone of reviews about her in the press was rather calm. However, a seasoned analyst could see evidence of a crisis in steadily declining market share and margins, but that's another matter. The crux of the matter is that employees did not notice the threat that was approaching like a tornado, and this was one of the reasons for the low awareness of the urgent need for change.

Secondly, the meeting described took place in a room that literally screamed about success. The money spent on the purchase of a nine-meter mahogany table would be enough to buy three new Audis and one Buick. The drapery of the walls, the woolen carpets, the furniture and the interior, in their beauty, corresponded to the fantastic sums spent on them. The entire administrative building was decorated in the same style, especially the executive rooms: marble floors, expensive furniture, thick carpets and an abundance of oil paintings. The impact on the subconscious was certain: everything convinced the visitor of the prosperity of the company, victory over competitors and, consequently, of the correctness of the chosen path. So, you can relax, take a break for lunch.

Third, the criteria for evaluating the performance of managers were oriented toward low standards. Getting acquainted with different departments of the company, I repeatedly heard the same thing: "Over the past year, profit has increased by 10%." However, it was not mentioned that over the five-year period, profits fell by 30%, while the average for the industry over the past twelve months, profits increased by about 20%.

Fourthly, the structure of the household company is organized in such a way that the efforts of employees are concentrated on solving narrowly functional private tasks without taking into account the interests of the company as a whole. To evaluate the performance of employees, the marketing department used its own criteria, the production department used completely different criteria, the personnel department used third ones, etc. Only the CEO was responsible for both total sales, net income, and return on equity of the company. Although the downward trend in the company's key performance indicators continued, it was impossible to find anyone personally responsible for this.

Fifth, for internal planning and control, systems were used that reduced the level of requirements for employees of departments in the performance of their tasks. Marketing staff reported that their tasks for the current year were completed by 94% last year. How does this happen? For example, the task is set: "To conduct a new advertising campaign by June 15." And increasing the market share for any product manufactured by the company is not considered a worthy goal.

Sixthly, there was practically no feedback from clients and other stakeholders, which would have made it possible to more objectively assess the performance of employees; instead, internal scoring systems operated, giving false data. The average manager or employee might not meet a complaining customer, an angry shareholder, a frustrated supplier for a whole month. I think that in this firm one could find those who, having worked here all their lives, never even spoke on the phone with a dissatisfied client or partner.

Seventh, there have been cases where young enterprising employees have tried to get feedback from customers in order to determine performance indicators based on their opinion. The company was extremely afraid of such initiatives, and the "culprits" soon became outcasts. From the point of view of the existing corporate culture, such behavior was seen as going against its norms, because it could offend someone, undermine discipline or cause friction (i.e., lead to honest, impartial discussions).

Eighth, the development of complacency was facilitated by a very inherent human tendency to fence off unpleasant things, as if they did not exist. A life full of complex tasks is much more difficult than a carefree existence. As a rule, we all believe that we are burdened enough with our own problems, and therefore we do not look for extra work. When difficulties approach, we prefer to brush them aside as long as we can do so with impunity.

Ninth, there are people who are not prone to any of these kinds of complacency, who care about the prospects of the firm; but their vigilance can also be lulled by soothing remarks from senior managers such as: “Well, yes, it’s not easy for the company now, but it would not hurt to remember everything that we managed to do.” Those who have vivid memories of the 1960s know a more striking example - numerous reports of military successes and the imminent US victory in Vietnam. Although soothing conversations are sometimes hypocritical, more often they stem from self-satisfaction built on past successes.

The mentioned problems arise both for the company as a whole and for departments or individual employees, for the most part in connection with past successes, which provide an excess of resources, reduce the sharpness of vision of problems and lead to self-isolation. Individual workers begin to overestimate their own role, firms develop a vicious corporate culture. Inflated self-esteem of managers and equanimity of employees are additional (to the nine listed) reasons leading to complacency. The combination of these factors can lead to an unwillingness to change that neither the shocks experienced by the firm nor smart and skilled management can overcome. I think many managers believe that the problem of complacency would not arise at all if other employees adopted their skills. make a career, achieve a strong position and readiness to act at any moment. According to another point of view, employees themselves are able to cope with the task; the manager's role is limited to informing employees about the poor quality of products, the deteriorating financial situation of the company and the lack of productivity growth. Here and there, there is an underestimation of the insidious forces inherent in the organization as a whole, which operate in almost any firm. For those who are making deep changes, here is some good practical advice: Avoid underestimating the forces that lead to complacency and help maintain the status quo.

Strengthening the sense of the need for change

In order to stimulate people's willingness to work for change, the causes of complacency must either be eliminated or their impact minimized. To do this, there are the following methods: the fight against manifestations of extravagance (say, the liquidation of their own aircraft fleet from large corporations); raising standards, both officially approved and determined in the course of work; replacement of performance accounting information systems that give erroneous indicators; all-round expansion of the feedback network with the outside world and the involvement of each employee in it, if possible; encouraging frank discussions in meetings and people willing to take on problems; war with unreasonable optimism imposed from above.

When working in organizations that require renewal, all competent managers take some necessary action. However, they are often not consistent enough in implementing these measures. While a group of customers is invited to the annual management meetings, it usually doesn't get to the point of holding such meetings on a regular basis, say once a week or daily, to bring product complaints to every employee. Perhaps these annual administrative meetings are held in not too expensive apartments, but at the end of them the leading administrators return to offices that even Louis XIV would not refuse. At the level of the executive committee, one or two fairly frank discussions of urgent problems can take place, but the spirit of bureaucratic optimism continues to reign in the newspaper produced by the company.

Creating the mood for change in a company requires decisive action, even risky, and this requires the ability to lead. Limited measures, such as the presence of a small, representative group of consumers at the annual management meeting, usually do not work because of the overwhelming preponderance of complacency forces. Decisive actions are things like putting things in order on the balance sheet, making the huge losses incurred in the quarter clear. Or selling a fashionable headquarters and moving into a building that looks more like a field command post. Or setting a hard two-year deadline for their managers to join the group of leaders in the industry market - otherwise, investors will withdraw their capital, which can lead to bankruptcy. Or the dependence of an additional payment of half the official salary of ten leading managers on the achievement of established product quality standards. Or inviting consultants to collect reliable information and then discuss it in meetings, despite the fact that some managers will be very affected by this. Table 3.1 lists nine main ways to instill a sense of the need for change.

Table 3.1. Ways to Prepare a Firm for Change

Examples of such decisive action are not very common, as living in a corporate culture based on over-administration and a lack of capable leadership has led people to the conclusion that “shocks” are unwise. If responsible leaders have been in the same organization for a long time, they have reason to fear being accused of creating the very difficulties to which they have drawn attention. It is no coincidence that transformation often begins with the appointment of a new person to a key position who does not need to justify his past actions.

For those who have been formed in a managerial culture that considers control of everyone and everything to be the main virtue, the greatest difficulty is strengthening in employees the readiness for change and the desire to participate in them. Taking decisive action to eradicate complacency can lead to conflict and anxiety among employees, at least initially. Genuine leaders act because they are confident that the released energy can be used to achieve very important goals. However, to some managers whose wealth has been based on three or four decades of careful and measured policies, encouraging a sense of the need for change often seems too risky or downright stupid.

If the highest level of management consists exclusively of cautious managers, then none of them will dare to set people up too much for reforms and the transformations will never be cardinal. In such cases, the board of directors has the right to find people capable of being leaders and appoint them to key positions. If they shy away from making responsible decisions, as they sometimes do, it will signify their unsuitability for a job that is of the utmost importance in the eyes of the board of directors.

The meaning of crises

Clear crises can do a good job of drawing attention to pressing issues and convincing the team of the need for change. Doing business the old fashioned way is not easy when "the building is on fire." But in our world, where the pace of change is accelerating, the strategy of "fire" would hardly be justified. Getting people's attention is good, but the damage will be prohibitive.

Since it is impossible not to notice the economic crisis, one can often hear that deep changes should only be started after the painful problems of the enterprise have become so acute that it causes large losses. While this view may be appropriate for deep and difficult reforms, it seems to me that it does not apply to most situations where it is necessary.

I have seen some executives successfully begin to change the organizational structure or solve a quality problem at a time when the firm was making record profits. They were successful because employees were constantly kept informed of emerging problems (decline in market presence despite rising profits), impending dangers (entry of new competitors pursuing increasingly aggressive policies), or the possible prospects arising from the introduction of new technologies or the exit to new markets. Good luck was also promoted by the promotion of ambitious goals, exacerbating dissatisfaction with the usual course of affairs. A merciless war with manifestations of luxury, soothing conversations, poor information systems and much more has played its role. In favorable times, getting people to pay attention to the pressing problems of the organization is not easy, but it is quite possible.

One of Japan's biggest entrepreneurs was constantly fighting complacency among his managers; despite their record earnings, he gave them difficult five-year assignments. Whenever subordinates fell into a state of complacency and complacency at the sight of numerous achievements, he put forward a task like this: “Within four years, we need to double the annual income!” He was trusted, so employees could not brush aside such declarations. The goals set by the entrepreneur were never “sucked out of thin air”, but were set taking into account the real intensity of labor, corresponding to the full dedication of workers, so his plans always turned out to be justified. Arguing them, he appealed to the main moral virtues characteristic of his managers. This is how the businessman dealt with his growing complacency, periodically using his five-year assignments as weapons, like waves of air raids on enemy fortifications.

Genuine leaders often provoke their own kind of artificial crises, without waiting for their natural onset. As one of these leaders, Harry chose not to argue with his managers (as he used to) and approved their plan, although he considered the project's income and expenditure figures unrealistic. This resulted in a 30% drop in gross revenue compared to what was expected, causing a stir. Ellen did the same. She adopted an unrealistic, in her opinion, plan that promised the launch of important new products; the plan failed miserably, but she remained firm and never intervened to prevent it. As a result, everyone was convinced that it was no longer possible to conduct business in the old way.

Some hope that the large losses from the artificial crisis will awaken people from their hibernation. For example, the CEO of a well-known corporation cleaned up the balance sheet and financed several new projects, which caused a current deficit of about a billion dollars. However, this situation did not become critical, since a long-term contract was previously concluded, which provided the corporation with a large cash inflow.

The adverse effects of significant financial shocks, both natural and man-made, are to deplete a firm's resources and narrow its room for manoeuvre. You will be able to get employees' attention on issues that need to be addressed if the firm loses a couple of billion dollars, but then you will have far less funds at your disposal to support new initiatives. Assuming that a natural financial threat is the most appropriate moment to initiate change, then given a choice, it is much wiser to act without waiting for it to strike. A provoked crisis does less harm to people than a natural one. However, it is much better for employees to see for themselves (if at all possible) even before it begins, what prospects the reforms open for them and what painful losses await them in the event of a threat that this situation is fraught with.

The role of middle and lower managers

When the object of reform is a factory, sales department, or basic production unit that is part of a larger organization, the central role in this process belongs to the middle and lower managers at the head of these units. It is they who should fight with complacency and increase the "combat readiness" of the team. It is they who will have to create a team of reformers, develop strategic goals, convince people, and so on. If a department has sufficient autonomy within the organization, then managers can act without regard to what is going on in other departments. The only question is is not it they enjoy such autonomy.

When a small unit in a complacency-ridden firm lacks sufficient autonomy (which is not uncommon these days), all attempts at change can be doomed from the start. Sooner or later, inertia in various guises will make itself felt; it does not matter what exactly the leaders of perestroika are doing in the lower divisions. In this situation, forcing transformations can be a fatal mistake. Then the leaders, realizing their position, come to the conclusion that they have only one thing left: not to “twitch” and wait until some strong personality takes over the transformation of the entire company. So they sit back and let the very forces of inertia that are so hostile to their being take over. With power, senior leaders are usually the key to fighting inertia. However, this does not always happen. In some cases, courageous and competent figures in the middle or lower levels of the hierarchy help create the conditions for reform.

I like to cite as an example the story of one middle manager from a large company that offered services in the tourism business. This woman had to fight with almost no outside help with the top managers of the company, armed with data about the deterioration of the already precarious position of the company. She was given the unusual task of setting up a new distribution channel and used this as an excuse to bring in consultants. With her tacit approval, the consultants kept repeating that the firm would not be able to effectively use the new channel until it solved half a dozen of the root problems. Seeing the results of her work, other middle managers began to look for cover, but she continued to follow the chosen line. With her political prudence, she diverted to the consultants much of the criticism and anger caused by her refusal to veer off track. She had an amazing talent for speaking out to the public: “I am truly surprised. Did the consultants mess something up or does it really matter? “I can't believe they could send the report to all of the people listed. We did not give such an order”; “Do you believe this is true? Not? But Jerry and Alice believe. Have you ever tried to talk about this topic together?

If there is unanimous adherence to the status quo among cautious and conservative senior managers, then any "revolutionary impulse" coming from the lower levels of the administrative hierarchy is bound to fail. However, I have never managed to meet such an organization where the top management would unanimously oppose changes. Even in the most inert organizations, 20-30% of the management staff give the impression of people who are aware that their enterprise uses its capabilities far from being fully used; they strive to change something, but feel bound hand and foot. When initiatives for change come from middle managers, this will give reform leaders a weapon to fight complacency: then they can not be accused of "bad play" or subversion.

For those middle managers who can't find a way to wake a firm in need of reform whose top executives don't have the qualities of leadership, moving to another company may be the best solution for promotion. In the current economic climate, many people are tied to their jobs, even if their firm is treading water. They try to convince themselves that they are still lucky: despite constant cuts, wages are regularly paid and ballot pay is guaranteed. This position is understandable. However, in the 21st century, life will require from everyone the ability to learn and improve their skills throughout their careers. One of the many problems in organizations that have settled on their laurels is their inflexibility and conservatism, which serve as an obstacle to staff training.

Working from bell to bell, receiving the usual salary, treating professional development as a secondary occupation and leaving the company unprepared for the challenges of the time is, at best, a local and short-sighted strategy. Such approaches rarely lead to lasting success these days; this applies both to the companies themselves and to their employees.

What degree of readiness for change is considered sufficient?

Regardless of who initiates the transformation and how, most firms find it difficult to successfully move through stages two through four until most managers are fully convinced that the status quo cannot be maintained. And for the implementation of the seventh and eighth stages, even stronger support will be required: it is necessary that approximately 75% of the total number of management personnel and, in fact, all top managers, strongly believe that profound changes are imperative.

The first steps in the direction are possible without broad support. However, the struggle with complacency creates anxiety among employees, so it is tempting to skip the first stage and start the process of change from any of the subsequent ones. I know cases where some start by creating a group of reformers, others first of all try to formulate a vision of perestroika, still others simply try to change something (reorganize the structure, reduce staff, acquire other firms, etc.). But one way or another, they will inevitably face the problems of fighting inertia and complacency. Change advocates are sometimes feverishly active—this happens when the unpreparedness of people for change prevents the formation of a team of leaders with sufficient authority, whose task is to lead and direct the process. Sometimes it takes years to get the ball rolling, and the acquisitions made only add fuel to the fire, spurring more effort and commitment to success before it becomes apparent that all initiatives are up in the air.

Even when reformers take decisive action against corporate complacency, they often err on the side of thinking the task is done, when in reality much of the work remains to be done. I have watched even exceptionally talented leaders fall into this trap. Teammates can only reinforce the delusion by painting the manager, for example: “Each of us is ready to move on. People understand that the current situation requires change. Among the workers there are few who are satisfied with what they have. Isn't that right, Phil? Am I right, Carol?” Then, despite the lack of the necessary foundation for this, a decision is made to continue the transformation, and subsequently one has to regret such a decision.

Outsiders can help. It does not hurt to get the opinion of knowledgeable consumers, suppliers or shareholders. Is there an adequate level of awareness of the urgency of change? Have you been able to wake people up from hibernation? Just do not ask employees from your company about this, because they have the same motives for not considering reality as the person responsible for the changes. And don't limit your interview outside the firm to a small circle of friends. You need to ask those who are familiar with the state of affairs in your company, even those who have friction with it. Finally, and most importantly, having mustered the courage, listen to these people.

If you do all this, you will see that some employees are not sufficiently informed to form an informed judgment, while others are pursuing selfish goals. However, the picture can be fully clarified by conducting a fairly broad survey. The essence of the matter is to use information from outside to "cure myopia" of their own employees. In today's environment, corporate myopia can spell disaster for the firm.

Imagine a company that does not introduce any innovations. All business processes are set up, the business works like clockwork, bringing sufficient dividends to shareholders, a stable income for staff and a product of the required quality and price for customers. Such an ideal organization, the dream of any manager, and employee too. But is it possible in real life? How many times have we observed that everything just “settled down”, acquired the desired look, began to bring pleasure from achieving the goals set. And suddenly - time! Something is happening. And the usual way of acting becomes impossible, and, if you like it or not, you have to change something. As a rule, you don't want to do this. On the contrary, I want to postpone the decision-making as far as possible in the hope that, what if it all the same somehow resolves, and it will be possible to continue to live as before. So it turns out that the introduction of innovations is most often a forced measure, when you really don’t want to, but you need to. Otherwise it will be worse. Well, since changes in our lives are inevitable, it is wiser not to hide our heads in the sand, but to try to manage them. It’s even better to plan and start them in advance, before life pushes you towards it. When there are no special prerequisites, and in general, nothing could be done.

How do you know when it's time?

A typical description of a revolutionary situation, when the tops cannot, and the bottoms do not want to live in the old way, in our case suggests that we missed all the weak signals, hints and signs. Or resting on our laurels, or enjoying stability and peace, or stubbornly pretending that we do not see anything and everything is fine.
The advantage of picking up weak signals about the need for upcoming changes is that there is time to think, to calculate different options, to discuss possible scenarios. In general, approach the matter with feeling, with sense, with arrangement. If life has already given a kick and accelerated, then there is no more time to think, you need to run as fast as you can to rectify the situation. That is why it is always worthwhile to carefully observe what is happening and note those events and phenomena that in the future may lead to inevitable changes.

What are these weak signals?

• "A Fly in Amber or Frozen Time". If more and more often you begin to experience a feeling of “déjà vu”, when, for example, participating in meetings or meetings, you know exactly what this or that person will say now, how others will react to it, and how it will all end. You know by heart both your questions and your own arguments, and you know that your opponents also know them, but, nevertheless, all participants in the process continue to play the roles once assigned to them or assumed. If you increasingly feel that time has stopped or looped, then this is one of the important symptoms of the need for change.
• "The magnificence of the swamp or nobody needs anything." When leaders are in no hurry to give instructions, and if they do, they “forget” to control. When subordinates do not try to take the initiative, but about the few assignments they quickly forget. When, on the whole, everyone is happy, and even ordinary troublemakers are tired of generating ideas, they almost resigned themselves to the fact that no one needs anything and come up with initiatives purely out of habit or inertia.
• "Look around, who do you see around or who are these people." If somehow it suddenly turns out that the number of those people whom you would like to see nearby is gradually and imperceptibly decreasing, and more and more “diverse and wrong” are observed nearby, and this seems to happen by itself, and there is a possibility that not far away the hour when there may not be a single ally around at all.
• "Everything rushes past or missed opportunities." How many times lately have you received proposals that do not fit into the usual order of things and require you to go beyond the boundaries of your usual ideas? And how many times have you, without looking, refused new opportunities, immediately forgetting those who turned to you with them? If in such situations you understand that you don’t want to start something new, since there are enough current worries, then this is another weak signal that changes will still happen, but without your desire.
• "Lost time or why all this?". If you suddenly realize that what you are doing is meaningless and you know for sure that you are wasting time on something, but you continue to do it, because otherwise you will have to explain it somehow, and possibly have trouble.
• "Accumulated fatigue or the same thing all the time." If it suddenly turns out that you have become annoyed by things that were previously perceived calmly. Or you realize that what you used to calmly endure, you can no longer endure, you are terribly tired of it. What used to be exciting is now boring.
• "All sorts of misfortunes." When literally everything goes awry, ranging from minor disasters, like a train that went out from under your nose, incomplete change, lost keys, running out of gas, a bruise from falling on ice, etc. within one day to more serious shocks.
• "Increase in incidence". Unconscious dissatisfaction can find a way out not only in emotional and behavioral characteristics. It can also show up physically. The body says “no” to such a life and, going into illness, forcibly changes the situation. The body needs a way out of a frustrating situation, and if this is not done consciously, then it happens at an unconscious level.

So, great. We realized that change is inevitable. And if we do not start them ourselves, then a little later life will force them to do it, but according to a tougher scenario. But what to do? Where to begin? What changes are needed in each specific case?

Well, if you have noted one or two weak signals of impending change. Then this is where you should start. If time has stopped, as in the first case, then the logical question is, why continue to do this. In this case, the changes will be aimed at adjusting the goals and possibly the ways to achieve them. If no one needs anything, as in the second case, then perhaps it's time to change the staff. If you understand that you are missing out on the opportunities that life gives you, as in the fourth case, then it is probably worth taking a closer look at them and perhaps setting priorities differently, giving up something that absorbs time.

But what if you see almost all of the above around you? What to do in this case? What to change?

The first two actions are universal for any situations when changes are ripe, but not yet fully realized, and the readiness to act has not yet been formed.

First, stop doing things that bring frustration. This does not mean that you need to give up on your goal just because you can’t achieve it every time. It just means that you need to act differently. But until it is clear exactly how to act differently, you need to stop trying and not waste your energy on something that still does not give a result.

Secondly, while there will be an awareness of the essence and specific mechanisms of change, all attention should be paid to openness to the new. Do not miss a single opportunity that will not slow down to appear. Feel like a vessel that is able to contain everything new and even completely renew its contents.

The next step is understanding the depth of the necessary changes. Change can be global or local. Before all the possibilities of local changes have been exhausted, global changes usually do not begin. Indeed, who would think of repurposing a business if it is obvious that the business processes used are far from perfect? However, there are situations when it's time to stop trying to improve the situation, and it's time to completely change it. In everyday life, we all have encountered such situations more than once. For example, at some point you need to stop painting, screwing, reinforcing something, but you just need to throw out all the rubbish, make a complete repair and buy new furniture.

What could change be?

Next, it is important to understand exactly what changes are needed. To do this, it makes sense to consider all possible options for change and answer the question: which of them are really needed. In most cases, the changes relate to 5 areas:

1) Goals.
The first question to always start thinking about change is – how relevant are our goals, do we still want to achieve them? Perhaps we have already achieved what we wanted and it's time to set new goals? Or, on the contrary, has the situation changed so much that it no longer makes sense to achieve goals once set? Or have new priorities emerged that require setting new goals?

By the mid-2000s, one large company began to realize that its approaches to providing a social package were outdated and needed to be revised. Since the beginning of the 1990s, this company has tried its best to retain qualified personnel. To this end, various benefits were gradually introduced that provided social protection for employees. In fact, the company has assumed the functions of the state to support the socially unprotected segments of the population. Gradually, the state began to provide its citizens with more and more support, and the social package of the company in many respects began to duplicate the benefits provided by the state. Moreover, the goals of ensuring the survival of their workers were no longer there. Now the question of increasing labor productivity and business profitability is on the agenda. In such conditions, the company came to the conclusion that it is necessary to change the goals of providing a social package to employees from social protection to social motivation, eliminating duplication of state benefits, and providing a social package, including depending on the results of work. The change in goals led to the need to introduce new principles for providing a social package, which became a major innovation for the company.

So, the presence of actual goals allows us to answer the question “WHY are we doing something?” at any given time. Perhaps, for the sake of which we started something once, it is no longer relevant and it is time to set other goals? Perhaps the situation has changed or new factors have appeared that affect our goals?

2) Activities.
The second global opportunity for change is to change the very subject of activity. To honestly answer the question, is it time to do something else? Not in what we have been doing so far, but in what will allow us to better achieve our goals.

Let's continue the previous example. The company, realizing the need to change goals, went further. After analyzing the set of existing benefits for employees, she came to the conclusion that some of these benefits do not work to achieve new goals, moreover, they hinder their achievement. For example, the provision of various types of material assistance forms a dependent mood among the staff. People are accustomed to receiving a variety of additional payments that are in no way related to the results of their work, but are tied to the level of well-being of their family. And in order to increase it, you do not need to work more efficiently and productively, but it is enough to convincingly describe your troubles. Thus, it was decided to abandon most types of material assistance, either completely or replacing it with benefits aimed at developing such employee qualities that will help him show higher production results (healthy lifestyle, responsibility, stress resistance).

So, the subject of activity directly depends on the goals. And the main question in this regard is: “WHAT will we do to achieve our goals?”

3) People
Sometimes changes are necessary because people who are involved in a process are so used to the existing situation that they are simply not able to change their view of it or the way they act. Sometimes it is enough just to introduce new people into the system for the process of change to be launched. New people are not weighed down by the experience of working in a particular organization, they do not know that it is impossible to do something according to the general opinion, and besides, they can start acting in a way that is unusual for the company. It is also important that new people restart the process of group dynamics. This means that the established roles in the team are shifting, and the process of winning a place under the sun begins anew. The threat of losing their won position wakes up even the sleepiest employees. And although their efforts are often unconstructive and not aimed at improving work at all, nevertheless, the very fact of a shake-up allows you to move the situation off the dead center.

The management of the company, realizing the need for change, announced a new course and a new policy for the company in relation to the client base. Several development guidelines were put forward, which boiled down mainly to the idea of ​​a new look at customer focus. One of the postulates of the new policy was the thesis that the employees of the company interacting with each other should also treat each other as customers. The concept of an internal client was introduced. In all speeches, the management stated that it is necessary to respect customers and each other. The workers did not argue, believing that the management, of course, was right. That's just the usual corporate culture meant intrigue, gossip and a public showdown, sometimes in front of customers and partners. It never occurred to anyone that such behavior was contrary to the new policy. The management continued to pronounce the correct slogans from the podium, the employees gradually got used to them and could, on occasion, make the correct speech. In the practice of daily communication, nothing has changed. After some time, the leadership began to express concern that, despite the clearly formulated goals, the situation somehow does not change much and positive changes are not visible. Managers expected that middle management and ordinary employees themselves would be able to translate the set goals into concrete actions and change work behavior and general attitude. But it turned out that the main changes are required in the little things that no one notices for a long time and is used to them. The situation cleared up when a new person took the place of the resigned HR director. With a fresh look, he quickly assessed the cause of the problem and offered the management a rather radical solution: to change several of the most obvious violators of business ethics, taking in their place people with a completely different value system, a higher cultural level. The decision seemed adequate, especially since the candidates proposed for replacement had long caused various complaints of an emotional nature, however, with a sufficient level of professionalism, there were no particular complaints about their work. Despite the fact that the separation was fraught with conflicts and scandals, it still happened. The dismissed ones showed themselves in all their glory, which the new leader used to demonstrate to the entire team of examples of how not to behave if you share the declared principles of customer orientation. As a result, the replacement of only three people (in a team of 100 people) led to an understanding of what exactly the management was trying to convey to the staff for quite a long time.

So, it's always good to ask yourself, is it time to achieve our goals with other people? Who are they and what should they be? Who will we work with next?

4) Processes
If, in answering the previous questions, we realized that our goals are relevant, there is no need to change the subject of activity, and our team is able to cope with the planned, but at the same time the feeling of the need for change remains, then most likely it is necessary to take a closer look at ways to achieve the set goals. , to the procedures and algorithms used. To answer the question of whether process changes are required, we need to assess whether we are satisfied with the results obtained. Do we end up with what we expect?
If changes are required by processes and procedures, then such changes are not so global and their implementation does not lead to such radical transformations as in the first three cases. However, this does not mean that changing processes is simple and easy. An improperly organized work process can directly harm the achievement of goals.

The real estate agency drew attention to the fact that in the presence of a large number of applications, there are few transactions. That is, the ratio of the number of customers who applied to the number of customers who made a deal is low and continues to fall. With the help of consultants, the entire process of working with potential clients was analyzed. It turned out that the biggest annoyance among customers is the company's information policy. Managers were required to collect cell phone numbers from all customers who applied and enter them into the ledger. Also, the provision of standard contracts to clients at their request was allowed only in exchange for the client's passport data. Also, the rules provided for a mandatory weekly phone call to all customers who applied. At the same time, the rules did not regulate in any way how to identify customer requests. When the results of the analysis were discussed with middle management, the proposed changes were strongly criticized under the slogan “We have always done this. It cannot be that such nonsense is the reason for our failures! But, despite the obvious misunderstanding on the part of the leaders, the changes were nevertheless launched and even approved by the rank and file staff (who actually had to listen to the customers' complaints about “stupid rules”). The new algorithm for working with customers who applied was as follows:

• description of available offers,
• tracking the reaction of a potential client and concretization of those proposals that aroused interest
• answers to all customer questions, including the provision of standard documents for processing a transaction
• providing the necessary contacts and an offer to contact if you have additional questions.

In such cases, when the goals, the activity itself and the team can be preserved, but the methods used need to be changed, the changes relate most often to business processes. That is, as a result of the changes, we will do something differently. And so the main question with such changes is: “HOW? How are we going to act?

The fifth direction of change is rather atypical and not often needed. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that we are doing everything right: the goal, the means, the people, and the activity itself do not require changes. And the feeling of the need for change is caused by the fact that the place of application of efforts was chosen inappropriately. And the place in the broad sense of the word. This may be the area of ​​presence or coverage, geographic location, location among the immediate environment (what are the neighbors around), and even an organization / company. The history of recent years knows many cases when a team of professionals left one organization and either became part of another company (holding), or created something new, while continuing to do the same.

In one company, it has historically developed that the financial unit of the company dealt with motivation issues. Moreover, the financial director made decisions on the bonus system, and on the composition of the social package, and on bonuses, and on issues of moral motivation (thanks, competitions and awarding the winners). For more than 10 years, this situation suited everyone and no one thought that it was wrong and that all other companies are doing it differently. The appearance of weak signals of the need for change at first went unnoticed. At first, many managers (and, as it turned out, employees too) became irritated that their efforts to achieve the goals set by management remained without material reward. But the tasks were set by the head, reports were also submitted to the head, and the financial unit calculated bonuses without taking into account these tasks. Then a conflict suddenly broke out over a place in the competition. The offended employee assured that the criteria used are one-sided, take into account only money, but do not affect his contribution to business development. This case gave rise to conversations in the team that gratitude in the company is given only to sellers, that is, to those who make a profit, and for some reason everyone else is ignored. The HR director has long been concerned that he is practically excluded from the company's motivation system. But earlier his attempts to draw the attention of management to this issue did not find a response. After the cases described, the manager himself started a conversation that perhaps the financial department is not the best place to implement the company's motivation system. Due to the professional mentality, financiers consider any issue only from the position of money. In general, this is justified, but in this case a broader and more systematic approach is needed. As a result, the change in the company was that the entire department that dealt with motivation as part of the financial department was transferred to the personnel service. The functions of the department have not changed much, but the new accountability has made it possible not to be limited only to the financial component of motivation.

So, it is quite possible that if you do something in another place, then everything will work out. In other words, WHERE is the place that will allow us to realize our plans?

Once the changes are realized, it's time to act. Of course, the process of change itself will differ significantly depending on the direction of the upcoming changes. But life without change is impossible, and the whole question is how to consider change - as an annoying hindrance in life, or vice versa, as something that makes life rich and interesting. And with some practice, preparing for the upcoming changes becomes an exciting detective story, when by observing yourself and your surroundings, you begin to understand the causes and consequences of events and their relationships. In other words, by becoming aware of the need for change, we take the first step towards effective change management.

On our planet you will not find a person who would not strive for at least the slightest change. Our whole life is a continuous growth and improvement. But, not everyone can turn their desire for change into reality. To do this, you need to have some qualities and knowledge. Therefore, in this article we have collected 7 simple tips that will help you make changes effective.

1. Recognize the need for change.

Many people want to change something but don't realize the importance of it. It is necessary to reflect, weigh all the benefits that you will receive through change, and then you will understand how important it is for you. Understanding the importance and the urgent need for change will give you an emotional impetus to action, mobilize your strength and energy and direct them to the result.

2. Don't run away from something - move towards something.

When you want to get rid of something through changes in your life, you need to strive not for this, but for what you will get as a result. For example, a person wants to get rid of poverty. He struggles in vain with poverty, and all his thoughts, and with them his inner energy, are directed to one word - "poverty." As a result, he stands still, if not in a worse position. The situation is quite different for a person who, instead of fighting poverty, sets himself the goal of increasing his income and streamlining his expenses. Such a person clearly knows what he wants and directs his energy towards creating wealth, and not destroying poverty.

3. Don't give up.

The most important changes in our lives take a lot of time and effort, which is why most people give up. Initially, it is important to tune in to the fact that the path of change will be difficult and figure out how you will act in certain situations. If you are mentally prepared for any difficulties, and promise yourself that you will not give up, you will be able to follow this path to the end.

4. Set a time frame.

Simple changes can take years or decades if you don't limit yourself to a specific time frame. So your subconscious mind will be able to mobilize the full potential of the soul and body, and you will work to the maximum during this period.

Consider an example - 2 girls want to change their appearance by losing weight. They decide to have the body of their dreams. The first one enrolls in a gym, tries to eat right, periodically breaks down and is disappointed in her abilities. Every Monday he starts running again, but still does not reach the result. The other one is booking a trip to Egypt, buying a chic and expensive swimsuit 2 sizes smaller. She understands that 2 months before leaving, she needs to get into a swimsuit at all costs, on which she spent her entire salary. Therefore, even if she does not get the desired result, during these 2 months she will give all her best and get closer to realizing her dream.

5. Constancy.

Without constant and hard work, it is an axiom not to achieve what you want. Therefore, at least a small step towards change, you must do daily. Do not leave your work, even if everything went completely different from what you originally imagined. The problem of inconstancy is not so much that you miss some important steps. The fact is that having allowed yourself laziness once, the second time you will already do it without remorse, and on the third time you will generally forget about your movement forward.

6. Manage fear.

It is natural for every person to feel fear, especially when it comes to major changes in life. For example, if a person wants to change jobs, it is quite normal that he feels fear and anxiety about how everything will go, whether he will be able to get along in a new team, whether he will be able to get the right position. This is fine. But, the problem appears when fear begins to fetter and guide actions. Don't let the emotion of fear take control of you, otherwise you will start to give in under its onslaught, and the changes will not bring the desired effect.

7. Believe in the success of your actions.

Your optimistic attitude determines the level of your energy and strength. Therefore, every day set yourself up for positive thoughts, believe in your success, and you will be able to go through all the difficulties on the way to the result. Change scares, excites, seems unattainable, but all this can be overcome with a positive attitude!

Life changes can take it to a higher level. Don't put it off until tomorrow - start acting today and your efforts will be rewarded!