 |
 |
I have to admit that transformation is an organic process to the transforming organisation. The changes (whether evolutionary or revolutionary) has to be launched based on the context of the organisation with respect to time. This will mean that the "state of affairs" and tendancy/ orientation of each part of the organisation should be measured and monitored continuously. The process is very intensive and extensive across the organisation. Very powerful leaders can implement transformation. Their power is not just given but amassed from the length and breadth of the organisation from time to time. The transformation process is so dynamic that, it is not always best to predict and plan beyond what is feasible. There is a limit to the "load" the organisation can digest on the transformation diet. The speed of transformation should be a function of the organisations ability to digest. Transformation is to be led from the centre of the organisation than from the top or bottom or the periphery. The dynamic centre of the organisation is always the level of dynamic equilibrium of various dynamic forces acting on the dynamic organsiation. I have found this from our business transformation programme. Our current level of growth could not have been predicted when we started. And if we had predicted that "people would have laughed at" at that time and "faith" in the growth rate would have been feeble. We continuously "stretched" and "pole vaulted" from where we were time to time. We scanned the present more than the past, we streched or vaulted to the future from the present. This transformation strategy resulted in excellent transformation control. Ahmet Murat SUMER wrote: > Fist of all I'm sorry that I couldn't have time to check my mails > because of the high working tempo. > > I think its very important to chose change strategy. Because both cases > you may face with problems. > > If you want to manage your organization by process, or strategies, or > projects you will need to change your organizational structure. If you > change that as a relution you will see a high resistance to change. In > that case you need to prepare people to incoming change. This may need > enrich skills of people. At least people have learn why they need to > change, how it will go on and what they will be. Also one of the > important thing is that we have to change habits, especially ones that > will endanger the transformation process. These need to be in an > evolutionary process. However, if you chose an evolutionary process > people will encounter with both the old and the new systems. I think, > the trick at that case chosing the timing. When will we change the > habits, when will we change the organizational structure ...etc? > > Because of the problems that people see both systems characteristics at > the same time, this forces us to thing "Is a revolution needed?" > Evolution process will bring a long resistance time. If you don't chose > right strategies to get rid of resistance. Otherwise revulution will be > necessary, despite its powerfull resistance. > > >I will share that some change needs an evolutionary process, while > others > >needs a revolutionary process. The choice of the process is a function > of > >the context acting on the organisation, its people and the leader. > >Revolutionary change is quick and effective than the evolutionary > process. > >Key transformation areas should not be subjected to evolutionary > process. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com