Listen to the language that any leader, consultant, or HR professional uses, and you’ll hear them expound at length about how “we” need to change “them.” That says it all: the fact is, no one likes to be changed, even if the change is ultimately beneficial.

Ron Ashkenas (auteur van ‘In Search of Simplicity’ – red.) argues that the reason most change management initiatives fail is due to stunted managerial capability to implement change. He points out that in many organizations the responsibility for change initiatives has come to rest with HR, and not with the line supervisors and managers.

However, I believe that there’s a deeper, more fundamental problem with the way we frame the whole notion of change management. In fact, I propose that we dispense with the concept of “change management” entirely.

History shows that’s a recipe guaranteed to foment fear, resistance, and — ultimately — failure. Many factors underlie that failure. Research shows that there’s actually a decrease in cognitive function when people feel as though they lack control over their work environment. Moreover, repetitive change initiatives — particularly ones that include layoffs — inevitably lead to cynicism and often to a kind of learned helplessness.

A far more effective approach would be to actually involve workers in solving business problems. As Dan Pink writes in his book Drive, the autonomy and skill development that comes with solving problems for oneself will do more to overcome resistance and motivate change than any strategy a cloistered HR professional or consultant can develop. […]

• Lees verder op: Harvard Business Review
• Original blogpost by: Daniel Markovitz (auteur van o.a. “A Factory of One”)