Change paradox: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "If we take it as read that a management initiative will be driven by some theory or other; that is to say, designed to prove a proposition that already exists in the mind of a..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If we take it as read that a management initiative will be driven by some theory or other; that is to say, designed to prove a proposition that already exists in the mind of an executive, and the thoughts of executive who get to test propositions that already exist in their minds are once at or near the summit of the organisation, we quickly start to see the paradoxical notion of “change from the top”. | {{a|devil|}}If we take it as read that a management initiative will be driven by some theory or other; that is to say, designed to prove a proposition that already exists in the mind of an executive, and the thoughts of executive who get to test propositions that already exist in their minds are once at or near the summit of the organisation, we quickly start to see the paradoxical notion of “change from the top”. | ||
No employee survey, no well-being outreach, no human resources questionnaire in history has been designed to prove out the point that the executive suite is populated by a bunch of glad-handing dilettantes, that the upper layers of senior mmanagementadd no value and stunt the organisation’s forward progress, much less that human resources is in itself a pernicious waste of space. I dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try. | No employee survey, no well-being outreach, no human resources questionnaire in history has been designed to prove out the point that the executive suite is populated by a bunch of glad-handing dilettantes, that the upper layers of senior mmanagementadd no value and stunt the organisation’s forward progress, much less that human resources is in itself a pernicious waste of space. I dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try. | ||
But this is the thing: change comes from fracture, disruption and when shafts of light are thrown unexpectedly by unintentionally broken windows to iilluminate | But this is the thing: change comes from fracture, disruption and when shafts of light are thrown unexpectedly by unintentionally broken windows to iilluminate old problems or new opportunities in wholly unexpected ways. | ||
If you are a leader in your organisation, your thought leadership — to the extent it is directed toward organizational change, is bunk. | |||
{{C|paradox}} | |||
Revision as of 19:54, 22 October 2021
|
If we take it as read that a management initiative will be driven by some theory or other; that is to say, designed to prove a proposition that already exists in the mind of an executive, and the thoughts of executive who get to test propositions that already exist in their minds are once at or near the summit of the organisation, we quickly start to see the paradoxical notion of “change from the top”.
No employee survey, no well-being outreach, no human resources questionnaire in history has been designed to prove out the point that the executive suite is populated by a bunch of glad-handing dilettantes, that the upper layers of senior mmanagementadd no value and stunt the organisation’s forward progress, much less that human resources is in itself a pernicious waste of space. I dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try.
But this is the thing: change comes from fracture, disruption and when shafts of light are thrown unexpectedly by unintentionally broken windows to iilluminate old problems or new opportunities in wholly unexpected ways.
If you are a leader in your organisation, your thought leadership — to the extent it is directed toward organizational change, is bunk.