Overcoming Resistance to Change – Isn’t It Obvious?

3 thoughts on “Overcoming Resistance to Change – Isn’t It Obvious?”

  1. Agree with you, Luis, change management is probably the most important aspect. I guess all would agree the social computing tools are as good as their adoption. On the other hand, the new way of looking at work is much more fundamental in terms of the change, and its interesting this understanding is coming now, because this means that the tools have now been understood by organizations.

    1. Hi Atul, thanks for the wonderful commentary! I surely agree with you that this is all starting to become more about shaping behaviours, inspire a new culture of doing business (One of openly sharing your knowledge, of bringing up clarity and visibility, etc. etc.) and eventually change the way we do work, wherever we may well be, with whoever.

      That’s why to me it’s never been about the tools, nor processes, but more about improving and augmenting the already existing working experiences of knowledge workers, helping them increase their own productivity levels, so they can focus and work harder on the more difficult problems to solve. That’s, to me, where social tools kick in, for sure. And why they have a lovely place awaiting for them in every single corporate business…

      Thanks again for the feedback!

  2. Hey, Luis. Long time, no speak – heh. I agree change management is not only important, but absolutely necessary to moving any kind of meaningful adoption in an enterprise. I would also add that risk management is an important component and, in fact, the two of them go hand-in-hand. Managing any kind of meaningful change requires managing the risk inherent in “upsetting the apple cart”. Would you agree?

    I also agree it’s (essentially) all about the people. However, I like to say as well, “It’s not about the tools, but it’s about the tools.” By that, I mean nothing of what we contemplate would be possible without the existence of at least a certain class of tools, most notably computers, intranets, etc. By themselves, they are useless and, in that sense, it is surely not about them. However, without them we wouldn’t be able to effect the widespread kinds of changes we are hoping to see in our organizations. They are enablers of change, but they are not determinaters of change. As an example, it is quite possible for one organization to outperform another despite the other having vastly superior tools. My favorite analogy for this is a piano. An accomplished pianist can play beautifully on a $200 upright, while someone with no talent couldn’t successfully render the simplest of melodies on a Steinway or other fine piano. Yet even the pianist couldn’t replicate the sound without an actual piano (the requisite tool).

    Can’t wait to read your next two cents re IBM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *