Yesterday I had a very interesting telephone call from a friend who outlined some changes he was making to his work team. After an hour of listening to his proposals and the reasons why he was changing people’s work objectives and targets I couldn’t fault his logic.

The research for the “need to change” had taken six months and loads of statistics analysed and, as a result, the proposed alterations in people’s jobs and deliverables were both logical and led by market expectations.

I then asked “So what’s the next step?”
I’ve called a meeting of the team at the start of January and I’m going to tell them”.
“And what do you think their reaction will be?” I asked
“Some will agree and some will hate it…but they’ll just have to do it!“

It took me some time to explain to my friend that whilst he had spent six months of research into generating his ideas he was proposing to give those affected just a few hours to understand the logic and accept it. In fact he was hoping for universal acclamation and presumably “thanks” for his hard work and his proposals.

Too often those that plan team restructure have lived with their thoughts for many months. Their thought have gone through the process of  rejecting some ideas and accepting others to create a logical outcome. When introducing change there needs to be an understanding that those affected will move through similar thought processes and need time to do so.

This is because resistance to change is built into the very structure of most companies.

Maria has left and after the story it’s probably a good time to look at her journey before a full post-mortem is held.

a) On arrival she alienated her team
b) She developed relationships at work that were not prepared to support her when times got difficult at work
c) She restructured her team for effect as opposed to focussing on long-term results
d) She introduced Quick wins that did not include her boss’s sought after results
e) She introduced employees that she had worked with in the past

That is not to say that everything she did was bad, it wasn’t. During her time she had some success with the introductions on a new process for hiring employees, she helped the Sales Director restructure his area and she increased productivity.

The problem was that the positive aspects of her work were not sufficiently large enough to outweigh the negatives and as a result the “perception” of her work was seen to be negative. It’s worth considering that negative aspects often have a greater impact than positives where considerations of capability at work are concerned.

So Maria’s job lasted around six months before she decided that her career would be better served by finding another position to move to. The question that we might all have is “Has she learnt from her mistakes or will they be repeated again?

Further info on job transitions can be found at:
http://assimilating-talent.com

Maria has battled into work for the first time this week as a result of the inclement weather and has immediately sent an email to all staff stating that any time taken off as a result of the snow must be made up within a four week period.

As she had a difficult journey into work Maria has just left work to return home and has pointedly stated to those in her team that all this last week she has been “working from home”.

Her team have concluded that she meant that her email will not apply to her.

I am detecting that Maria’s reputation amongst her team and some other key influence centres (people) within the company is not entirely positive. Indeed Maria is considered by some to be somewhat opportunistic and self-serving. (One person has suggested that being self-serving in most departments is acceptable it’s unfortunate for someone in HR. An interesting observation!)