Dear Editor,
“By any objective measure, the amount of significant, often traumatic, change in organisations has grown tremendously over the past two decades.” This is the opening sentence of John Kotter’s book Leading Change (Harvard Business School Press).
Some twenty years later his words resonate more profoundly. The book explores the reasons for success or failure in transforming organisations. It is not the intention to distil its wisdom here, but merely to capture one or two perceptions that might bear semblance to current scenarios (albeit non-industry). For example: “Major change is usually impossible unless most employees are willing to help, often to the point of making short-term sacrifices.
But people will not make sacrifices, even if they are unhappy with the status quo, unless they think the potential benefits of change are attractive and unless they really believe that a transformation is possible.
Without credible communication, and a lot of it, employees’ hearts and minds are never captured.”
Almost as if being specific to Guyana, Kotter remarks: “Communication comes in both words and deeds. The latter is generally the most powerful form. Nothing undermines change more than behaviour by important individuals that is inconsistent with the verbal communication.”
But Kotter though focused on the US environment, also made the following observation: “Arrogant managers can over-evaluate their current performance… listen poorly, and learn slowly.”
However slowly, are there any lessons to be learnt locally? Implicated (possibly explicit) in the above is that if we managers are not seen or heard to be learning it is difficult to convince others that we can teach them to do so – in the instance of organisation in particular.
So, irrelevantly perhaps, some may ask, what should be the approach to correcting some of the perceived faultlines in the functioning of our public service? How effective would be a staff college catering for subordinates who could have little choice but to obey, and even mimic, the (errant?) supervision?
This is not the only instance where the ground is not the foundation – for change!
Yours faithfully,
E B John
