Networking Forum

FST, You've identified an interesting Federal government entity. In my over five years with the U.S. Access Board, the Interior Department's Liaison was clearly a change agent. Yet, despite his agressive, positive nature, the Board's Standards for Federal Outdoor Developed Areas underwent revision upon revision by the "higher-ups". Because of these delays, Federal Land Management, certain Federal Parks (not identified here) and individual Federal Historic Sites, Monuments and Memorials independently developed their own ADA compliance documentation. Now, that the "higher-ups" have either retired or returned to the private sector, the issue is now unification of the proposed Standards with those individual Federal entities who took the lead without considering all facets of the ADA. Hmmmm. This is not only true of Interior but other Cabinet Departments where change is critical to move the organization forward on ADA compliance. I believe, in the Federal government, change agents have but two options, specifically: -Develop strategically placed contacts within the agency in order to be able to move issues efficiently when the opportunity arises. -If, the "higher-up" is a Career Bureaucrat and, protects their status at all cost, a wait and see attitude is superior. Once that individual has moved out, be prepared to strike quickly to present your fresh ideas and, equally important, have the network in place to talk the talk and walk the walk on behalf of the idea on your behalf.

Yes, FTS, this is a tough issue.

I worked 28 years in the dairy business in Wiscosin. It was a conservative, traditional business environment.

During that time, I tried to help incorporate more contemporary models of management (a team approach instead of a top-down orientation, for istance). As I grew in job responsibility (eventually reaching the vice presidential level), I succeeed somewhat.

However, I've been away from the company for 14 years now, and, from what I can see from the outside looking in, it has reverted to its comfortable 1950s management style -- largely because successive CEOs are groomed internally from the ground up.

Based on those 28 years, I'd make these obervations:

1. A new hire just out of school can seldom be effective as a change agent. You first need to learn the business and get a handle on the decision makers to know what is possible to change --- and what is going to be tough to change.

2. If you have a solid track record of experience going into a new job, then, yes, perhaps you can change things more quickly, especially if you have the blessings of your superior and you were hired for a specific change effort.

3. Basic change does not occur unless the top management people totally buy into it. That's why it's perhaps easier to implement change when you have direct access to the top people in your organization.

4. You need to read the corporate culture, as reflected in the orientation of your boss and your bosss's boss, to determine what kind of change is doable and preferred. That will also give you an indication about how far you can go as a change agent and still be able to keep your job and be promotable.

5. Your boss and your boss's boss need to trust you. That means going out to lunch with them, golfing with them etc. They need to how you think. They need to know you have sound judgment. You need to communicate with them in a way they prefer.

6. A merger, acquisition, downsizing, new CEO -- any dramatic organizational change -- usually temporarily "unfreezes" an organization from past methods of "doing things." If you're in a position where you can spark change but are finding it difficult, anticipate those moments of "unfreezing" and be prepared to propose your change before the corporate climate again solidifies -- particularly if the change you propose helps carry out a new direction legitimized by a merger etc.

7. Try to get a feel for the corporate culture of the company, agency or organization before you accept a job. Does the company's values fit your values? If they don't, you may be fighting an uphill battle and eventually jeopardize your job security.

That last point is probably the most important bit of advice I can offer. See "Match Your Temperament With the Corporate Culture of Prospective Employers" at http://www.esight.org/view.cfm?x=281

Jim

My initial post had a few points. One was that a new employee may not intend to enter an organization as a change agent. Organizations sometimes use new positions to both meet affirmative action goals and address programmatic requirements or legal or regulatory mandates. Often the new hire doesn’t receive an adequate orientation to the organization. It would have been very interesting, in the three change agent positions I held, to receive an orientation from the mainstream leaders rather than peers advocating the change.

What I did in the Forest Service that gradually allowed me to make a difference was to identify people within the organization who were mainstream, who were doers, not managers, and to learn from them. I shadowed them in their jobs, asked questions, and identified places and processes where I could make a difference by working within existing processes. That took a number of years to do.

One thing about organizations, government agencies and I suspect business, is that they all have their perceived audiences. In my early years with the Forest Service, that perceived audience was Congress and the timber industry. Gradually over time Wilderness advocates, then Native American Tribes and environmental organizations became interested and involved in legal and procedural review of agency activities. That made a huge difference in how the agency reacted to external and internal calls for change.

Lessons learned. Perhaps I have had my fill of being a change agent. Next time around, I may look for a different type of situation. In my positions I was effective through building alliances, listening, learning, and indentifying non disruptive ways to make incremental changes or adjustments. I developed the credibility that I knew what I was talking about. I created opportunities to make a difference that didn’t previously exist.

Sometimes being a change agent is not easy. Some jobs are very fixed in what they want. Now it seems that if you don't fit in, people may not listen.

It may also depend on the type of jobs that you have. If it is a production type job, it may not be easy. Maybe a job that is a little bit more creative, flexible, is more able to be changed. Some jobs want a certain type of people, for a certain type of job. If you are different you may not fit in.

If you find a way to change and improve the work flow, that saves time or money or both, someone might listen to you. Do you think every type of job is open to change, or are there some that aren't?

Being a change agent is great but I totally agree with Jim; change cannot happen if there is not support from the top.

At a pass job, I tried to change the unprofessional manner in which the blind workers always behaved. Upper management did not see anything wrong with the blind workers' behavior. Change was very slow and I finally decided to give up because it was an up hill battle.

For some reason my post didn't post. Don't ask me why. Change is the big word these days. I guess I haven't been near the top to make change.

I think the work environment has changed. I don't feel that it has been as flexible as you like. But then maybe it is just the type of jobs that I have held. Is it only that you have to be in some sort of management position to make a change?

I believe you don't have to be in a management position to be either a change agent or a leader.

What you can reasonably change, however, does shift according to your position in the company. Management people have the opportunity to change policies and procedures. Online workers can perhaps eventually improve processes through team work.

In both cases, however, individuals can affect the corporate culture, at least within their own work unit, by how they interact with one another on a daily basis.

Jim

I believe you don't have to be in a management position to be either a change agent or a leader.

What you can reasonably change, however, does shift according to your position in the company. Management people have the opportunity to change policies and procedures. Online workers can perhaps eventually improve processes through team work.

In both cases, however, individuals can affect the corporate culture, at least within their own work unit, by how they interact with one another on a daily basis.

Jim

Change is a hard and scary thing for most people that I have interacted with both perfonally and professionally. I do beleive that as disabled individuals we must accept change easier than others due our positions. Thus, I have found change to be very difficult. The only way I have been successful at change is directly in my own job, which others have seen and decided to follow in the changes that I had made for myself to mmake the job more effecient or more organized. I have been quite amazed at the response of people who have stated that my work is "easier to read", which is broken into parts that make the work easier for me to see due to my visual impairement. Another change was implementing a database beccause the old technique of flippling through rolodex cards was just incredibly time consuming to me. Others could have created it as well, but no one wanted to take the time, learn the program and do the data entry. Once I did the work, EVERYONE loved it. Eight years later, that database has grown and is now used by everyone where I once worked. So an ambition on my part to make it easier for me because of my eyes, made everyone else like it because it was easier and faster... and THEY didn't have to do it! :) All in all, I have found that trying to make changes through upper management has been unsuccessful and just making my own job changes have been more successful.