This article introduces the issue of organizational paradigm shift, and that your strategy should start with raising awareness among staff to adopt new paradigms in a rational way, since being mind changes the slowest, it is not the Law, decree, circular or resolution, the instruments that set the process of change in motion, since finally it is the people who will execute it, sustain and consolidate it to the point of no return.
It also states that change is led, not delegated, and the Headquarters (Coordinators) must be the leaders of the change, supporting its various phases, including the emotional support network when people must vary forms of work, adopt new technologies or new paradigms. that will constitute the new organizational culture that is intended to be achieved, since change must be brought about.
On the paradigm shift:
Abraham Maslow in his theory of the Hierarchy of human needs, stated that human beings are eternal seekers of security, and when we find it we cling to it, represented in "something" (models, beliefs) that we assume to be true even if they are false But they will be true in its consequences, as Thomas's Theorem puts it: "Although something is false in its causes, it is true in its consequences."
"That something" are the paradigms (from the Greek pattern), defined as mental structures, beliefs, models, patterns, stereotypes that when assumed as true, it is easy for us to adopt them, producing one of the most serious organizational diseases called "paradigmatic paralysis ”, Caused by the“ paradigm effect ”that does not allow us to think or doubt about the validity or validity of the paradigm when it is assumed to be true.
Examples of some paradigms - to name just three highly visible and of negative impact-:
The untouchable and pachydermic pyramidal structure, when the new paradigm tells us (Dutch theory) that if the service strategy changes, the organization chart must change, because the organization chart is a means and not an end in itself. "Structure follows strategy," say the Dutch. The paradigm that has been wrongly governing is: "The strategy must adapt to the structure we have."
The series in the posts (Secretary 1, Secretary 2, Secretary 3) threatening teamwork and labor solidarity, since this perverse system of drafting the classes of posts in a fractional way "educates" the person to be selfish, in contradiction with the definition of the word "work": cooperative effort between people to achieve objectives and goals in conditions of efficiency and effectiveness, with scarce resources for growing needs.
Let us not complain then about the conduct of the staff, because many times it is the product of the system in which the same Institution has it working.
Non-rotating bosses nailed to the same post for such long periods, that they begin to see everything normal, to the point that they no longer see anything, since normal is inconsequential to the intellect, for example: it is normal that everything falls down, until that Isaac Nuewton wondered "why?" and discovered the Law of Gravity.
The time marks another paradigm: make everything that has become normal abnormal, get rid of the habit! The German model - confirmed by the Japanese - proposes rotating periods of five years in similar positions, considering that this is the maximum time that a Headquarters maintains innovative capacity, and if the only constant is constant change, the organizational system should promote attitude of change.
The culture of alienating repetition –influence of the Industrial Revolution- does not allow reflection and doubt about continuous improvement, since repetition is contrary to it and to the thinking condition of humans.
The paradigms are so strong that, taking advantage of change management activities with Food Scientists and Health Scientists, I personally carried out two experiments on paradigms, with the following results:
I acquired a detachable human figure in pieces of wood and they, without knowing what it was, were answering - in their perception - what the piece was showing them, without knowing that it was a component of other parts.
The answers: a needle to fix fishing nets, a hair comb, a chocolate, an ocarina (musical instrument), something to catch your wind. I put the piece in one position and nobody asked me to examine the piece, nor did anyone ask me to put it in another position.
It was actually the petticoat or skirt of the human figure (a ballet dancer), whose other parts I had covered.
When I started the experiment I did not put any restrictions.
Immediately afterwards I took out another part and the responses were diverse without correlating them with the human figure. Successively the same thing happened with the other parts, until I put the figure together.
When I asked the reason why no one - despite being Scientists - had asked me for any part to examine it before issuing the opinion or why I had not been asked to put it in another position, the answers were: I thought You did not lend it because you had a very tight grip, I thought that since you are the teacher it was disrespectful to ask for it, it was that it did not seem correct to ask for it, it is that you did not say that we could ask for it.
When I replied that I had not put any restrictions on the experiment, they smiled, concluding that they themselves had created restrictive rules of their own and assumed them to be true… inventing them and making them come true!
Final conclusion: this is how paradigms are formed. Each person makes them a reality and most of the time they constitute beliefs, which may be false - as in this case - their consequences became true. The paradigms then do not have to be explicit, since they operate more implicitly.
Change and classical philosophers:
The history of humanity has been marked by change, therefore the paradigm shift is not characteristic of modern times, as is the speed of it, since before a change occurred every 25 years and now it occurs every 25 minutes, with terrible sentences, such as:
- The only constant is constant change. Who does not change with change, change changes. Be the protagonist of change, not a victim of it. Being an actor, not a spectator. The change is made with pain or with pleasure… one chooses! Who is not part of the solution, is part of the problem. Whoever does not understand the forces of change does not understand anything.
Since 1600, Baltazar Gracián sentenced:
"It is difficult to give understanding to those who do not have an attitude, but it is more difficult to give an attitude to those who do not want to understand, because they are deaf to hear and do not open their eyes to see."
The eternal problem with attitude. In my experiences in change management processes, I often hear the phrase that such a person does not have an attitude to change, and when I have asked what it means to “have no attitude”, the answers are vague, diluted, imprecise, such as: that does not want to change, is that it is in another era, is that this is how he (or she) is, there is nothing to do because it is a tree that grew crooked, it is that he does not care, it is that…
Those “little sentences” led me to analyze why people adopt such behaviors and what could be done to modify them. For this I had to make a disquisition on perceptions, on the concept of truth and on attitude, finding some philosophical positions on the concepts "truth" and "paradigms" that could help us in the answer, namely:
- Aristotle says that the natural place of truth is judgment, but the judgments come from the perceptions, in such a way that if we perceive something wrong, that will lead us to wrong judgments, even if we consider that we are in the truth. Francis Bacon (1561- 1626) predates Descartes by a couple of generations. In Bacon, speculative interest joins the technical interest: knowing is power, putting on the same plane doing and understanding, that is, the hand and the intellect, thus giving living sense to the Aristotelian position to designate logic: not even the bare hand nor the abandoned understanding can dominate things.
Bacon's value to the current era is that the change requires a previous examination of the prejudices (currently paradigms and that he called idols), which can hide the truth. As in Cartesianism, critical concern and fear of error point here.
There are 4 idols that affect the truth, according to Bacon:
- Inherent prejudices of the human species to its nature are the fallacies of the senses, since not all of us perceive the same fact in the same way, individual tendencies and predispositions that can lead to error. For example, the position that a person has on the paradigm of machismo will lead him to criticize or justify it, I repeat, depending on his individual paradigms. The prejudices of society and language. Here comes the game of cultural relativism - anthropological aspects - of paradigms, since a valid paradigm in one society will not be valid in another. For example, the Tarahumara Indians in Mexico have the paradigm of running all the time (they do everything running), making routes that exceed the marathon that is so widely publicized in other "modern" places.And it is not that the Taramara are competing, it is that for them "walking" is synonymous with "running", a paradigm that is simply not comparable in urban societies. The prejudices of authority, founded on the prestige that some enjoy in the public stage and that can compromise the direct and personal vision of things and mislead the right opinion. That is, depending on who says something, it could be considered true, even if it is false.could be considered true, even if it is false.could be considered true, even if it is false.
For Kant (1724-1804) knowing things means knowledge, but things "come to me in my ideas" and those ideas could be wrong. Kant says that things are inaccessible and I cannot know them because when I know them they are already in me, affected by my subjectivity (the prejudices of which Bacon speaks).
Kant distinguishes two elements in knowing: the given and the put. There is something that is given to me (the sensations) and what I have (categories, space / time), and from the union of both the phenomenon or known thing arises, then the thought, by ordering the chaos of sensations, does things, by that Kant said that it was not the thought that adapted to things, but the other way around, that is, things to thought.
For him there were three ways of knowing: sensitivity, discursive understanding and reason (which Kant adds "pure" or the reason of a rational being).
We could speak here of Heidegger: the phenomenological description (to bring to light, to put into truth) is affected by interpretation. And of course, according to Heidegger how I interpret things according to my perceptions or judgments, will lead me to "my truth"… even if I'm wrong! In such a way that in paradigm change management there are people who are wrongly (unknowingly) acting within "their truth", according to their paradigms, so that their action, despite being wrong, is correct for them (within their paradigms).
This has led me to study and analyze another topic not developed in this writing: resistance to change. I believe that nobody resists change because of the urge to do it, but because they have not understood (they have not helped them do it) to understand the paradigm shift, starting from the Causality Principle: every effect has its cause. From now on I am working on the hypothesis that there is no resistance to change as such -per se-, but rather that it occurs due to methodological problems as the strategy of change on education is not drawn up directed towards the paradigms that should be eliminated and the new ones to be adopted, with its respective group impact analysis.
There are many companies whose organizational culture does not leave spaces for performance by ranks or empowerment for staff, transforming them into compliant with norms and orders, but not a creative manager who cannot contribute to continuous improvement, being parameterized. its action by a set of norms and paradigms, in such a way that to continue with the "paradigm effect", the following occurs:
1. Information and intelligence are important, but none guarantees the ability to think, because even if you think about it, it will be the application of the norm that will prevail, even on the collaborator's own criteria, “since it is so established”. The paradigm is the one that governs, even on the welfare or satisfaction of the client or user. In real terms: the procedure matters more than the result, since control is more important than the result.
2. This normative paradigm turns Intelligence into a journey along the same established paths, to the point that –for example- in remuneration systems, experience is paid as a synonym of antiquity, without qualifying what the person has done with that antiquity Because, in effect, if the person learned something the first year and repeated it year after year, that person really has one year of experience even if they have been in the Institution for 20 years.
The new paradigm of experience indicates that experience is what the person has done with what has happened to him and not the simple accumulation of years, which were only adding years and not added value to that accumulation of years.
3. In the current era, the standard thinking to which the public official is subjected by the paradigms that govern him, does not reach, because being the only constant change, necessarily new paradigms should allow him to "think outside the box" (thinking discontinuous) to have that adaptive capacity to a changing environment (Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species on the adaptability of species to the environment).
"Thinking outside the box" means: looking for alternatives, going through non-routine schemes, moving away from the historical school that defends the logic of repetition, based on the fact that if we have always done so, why change ?, with paradigmatic justifications such as: “This is not how it went so badly”, “We are not the best, but we are not the worst” (alloplastic behavior: looking for justifications in the environment that do not lead to continuous improvement. Like when a soccer coach justifies defeat in the poor condition of the court Someone who doubts this alloplastic behavior could ask: And where did the other team that beat you play?
4. The errors of thought then are not errors of logic, but of perception (paradigms), because most of the thought originates from how we perceive things, that is, from our judgments. Therefore if the perception is wrong we will have wrong judgments, so that no matter what the logic is: the result will be wrong!
5. That is why I think that people should be educated to improve their perception (new paradigms), in order to take advantage of human talent in organizations. It is not by teaching or strengthening logic that we can improve the intellectual capital of the organization, but by strengthening thinking so that perceptions or judgments improve, since logic is not enough if we do not improve our perceptions, that is, if we do not improve the way in which we see the paradigms (epistemology of knowledge or socratiana mayéutica: to be doubting).
6. We must strengthen creative thinking, not schematic paradigmatic thinking, full of encouraging methodologies that limit thinking because they do not stimulate thinking, but rather act, for example, the famous answer of "you cannot" is paralyzing, because it leaves no room to "let's see if it can be done".
7. Therefore no more logic is needed, but more creativity. And the paradigms do not allow us to be creative, since they frame our thinking to “fit” with the paradigm, that is, all thinking that fits my paradigms will be welcome!… Even if the thinking is wrong.
8. In the European Union, for example, 25% of school time is allocated to mathematics, but according to some critics who do not share this paradigm of curriculum designers, in daily life, hardly 3% of that knowledge is used. Furthermore, in the Competency Management Model, education should not standardize us because not all of us have the ease, taste or vocational interest in mathematics.
9. In addition, neuroscience tells us that the brain processes approximately 70,000 daily thoughts, of which only 1% constitute new thoughts, therefore the brain is "a hard disk" with great capacity to save paradigms (behavior based on experience, unlike animals that is based on instinct).
Possibly this biological approach to the brain is also a reason why change –brainly speaking- is difficult for people to adopt, an aspect that I personally do not share, as it is a totally biological approach, when the truth is that in the change of Paradigms come into play sociological aspects, the environment, culture or anthropological aspects, vested interests, organizational risk capacity, leadership, change strategies and especially methodological, since terrible ideas have been implemented with a excellent sales strategy and contrary sensu, excellent ideas have died because people saw them as a threat and not as an opportunity, product of lousy sales strategies.
10. In summary: the history of science is full of knowledge obtained through the question: Why? (they doubted the paradigms). Others got it randomly (X-rays, the law of gravity, psychotropics, Viagra, first-person televised, chemotherapy).
Therefore, doubt should be strengthened as the mother of knowledge, because truth is found twisting in doubt. The routine will result in more routine. We must remember that ideas are based on the "judgments" that lead us to reject or not, in such a way that using the so-called "logic", we will accept only what fits our perceptions or judgments, even if they are wrong. On the other hand, creativity is only interested in where an idea is going and what it provokes, therefore it is a vein to seek knowledge, even if it does not conform to logic.
Concluding on these philosophical theories and applying them to the paradigmatic change:
I think that the strategies of public or private organizational change, institutional modernization, rationalization of the State or transformation processes, should start by educating and sensitizing staff to make them aware of the bad impact of some paradigms and thus create the conditions to change them to the point of non-change. return.
Likewise, raise awareness about the beneficial impact that the new paradigms would bring, because otherwise people will not know where to change or the paradigmatic transitional process to which they will be subjected. This is what is called the "directionality of change" formed by new paradigms and not simply telling people that they have to change, since it will not - I repeat - if the change does not have strategic directionality based on the paradigm shift.
New paradigms:
In relation to the previous conclusion, for example, if the Institution or company adopted the new paradigm of flat structure and organization by processes, it should not believe that by modifying squares in the organization chart everything will change by the work and grace of an invisible hand (paraphrasing Adam Smith) who will coordinate them automatically.
Rather, the idea of paradigm shift should be sold to staff in three strategic directions:
3.1. The disadvantages of the pyramid structure: slow, pachydemic, away from the client, a reason for being in itself, where –as indicated by Northcole Parkinson- any inept person is hidden because the work will be done by the “from above” or “from down ”and finally the work will be done sooner or later.
3.2. The advantages of the flat structure and of operating by processes, so that the client or user does not have to go through the entire building to achieve something (POS organization: all decisions near the Point of Sale point of sale).
3.3. The only way to defend the Company or Institution is defending the client.
The same with other new paradigms that the Institution could adopt, such as:
1. Service platforms: to provide comprehensive care at the same point.
2. Coordinators, not bosses: The staff must work for the clients or users, not for the Chiefs, therefore the Chief must be a Coordinator (builder of scaffolding, not obstacles) to make the client or user happy.
3. High technology: technology is to produce information online to solve in front of the client or user. Technology is not for producing papers.
4. Empowerment: Staff must be empowered to serve and make decisions, not to receive documents with the usual response: "Leave this here, we will notify you, do not worry." And if the client or user asks when they will answer, the classic answer: "When you are ready", or "paste this request in the window of your house, there they will make the connection".
5. Organization from the outside in: Organizations must grow on the experiences of customers or users, not on the comfort of staff. I think we will all have been victims of: "Checks are delivered from 11 am to 12 noon, only on Wednesdays" (isn't that they work full time?). “Continuous hours from 8 am to 4:00 pm) so why is there no one at noon or is there only one employee left?)
6. Flexibility: Organizations should look for ways to say "yes", not strive to say "no". Flexibility must be organizational, but it must also come from mental flexibility. It is not that you should fall into chaos, but please do not chaos customers, users or citizens.
7. Service strategies: Institutions must be clear about their customer service strategy and be able to respond to peaks in demand by dividing schedules, hiring people part-time. If serving is most important, then where are the serving strategies?
8. Polyfunctionality and rotation: The staff must carry out a set of polyfunctional functions and not be repeating the same function, culturizing the already famous: "that is not for me."
9. Listen to the voice of the client: Change the way of evaluating the performance of the personnel incorporating the note of the clients (internal and external) so that the processes improve. When only the Chief qualifies, everyone gets 100% and some “low” grade will be around 97% or 98%, without correlating it with the result of the management. For example: if everything is behind in an accounting, why did all your staff get an average grade of 98%? If delinquencies go up and up, why did the Collections staff get a 97% average grade? They are evil systems!
10. Function on the basis of demand, not on the basis of supply: Organize to adapt the organization to the needs of demand and leave the paradigm that people must adjust to “us”. For example, schedules based on the comforts of the users or clients, not the schedules that best suit the staff, since the reason for being is the clients, therefore the organization should be around them and as someone apart.
11. Organization with adaptive capacity: if the only constant is constant change, why don't we make the organization have that adaptive capacity to changing environments? By paradigmatic paralysis.
12. Culture of customer service: Train staff in the values of service, cultivating customer service. Enough of giving them smile courses, where they smile "they can't", "that's impossible here".
13. High communications in every sense: Rumor is the search for truth that does not come through other means. A rumor not denied in time becomes true. So: are there gossipy staff or is it that there are bosses who do not report?
14. Intelligent organization: Learn from experiences, look for complaints, prevent, make the intelligent organization to accumulate experiences as we do - fortunately - humans.
15. Stimulate discontinuous thinking: Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks. People should be encouraged to think differently, that is, to adopt new paradigms.
16. Leadership: The Chief has authority because the position is granted to him. The Chief is obeyed. The Leader has authority earned by example and dedication. The Leader is followed.
17. Differentiation, not being a lot: Differentiate ourselves by being a special organization that clients, users or citizens are willing to defend for excellence in their service.
18. Results are what speak, not excuses: Forming the culture of accountability and abandoning the alloplastic culture of blaming the system as if we were not part of it.
The previous new paradigms could be considered as private administration, which is true, but we must also be aware that increasingly the public and the private tend to merge concepts, especially with the new organizational forms of Public Companies, to cite just one example.
Historical location on the wave of knowledge:
In the Competency Management Model, one of the competencies that the “leading” private companies are demanding in the Management and Technical-Professional positions is called “Historical Realism”, it refers to the paradigms that the candidate has ingrained, since in function from its paradigmatic mapping, this will be its behavior. Thus, for example, if the person still has paradigms of the industrial wave, his management or his interdisciplinary (or intersectoral) team will be suspicious, thinking that some think and others act, that strict supervision is the best way to achieve results and will be more focused on the control than on the result, paying more attention to who arrived early than who gives the highest added value at work.
Personally, it has corresponded to me in some Companies that I advise or have advised, to be part of an Ad-Hoc Committee to locate the candidates paradigmatically, observing how people are excellently trained academically, it did not change with the change, leading it to be an ineligible person because Being with “paradigmatic paralysis”, he is living a world that no longer exists, because the Wave of knowledge has new paradigms that are very different from those of the Industrial Wave. It is not possible to hire someone with paradigms of the Industrial Wave, to exercise management roles in the Wave of Knowledge.
Alvin Tofler sentenced him:
"The future will belong to the apprentices, because those who believe that they know everything, are living a world that no longer exists."
This Wave of Knowledge is characterized by:
- Mastery of intelligence to manage knowledge: knowledge has to be worth when doing. Gender equality: physical force and sex are not the predominant criteria, since intelligence is distributed and not precisely a part divided for women and another for men. Polyfunctionality and rotation of human resources: to obtain and develop the best competencies (human resources management by competencies), since a person embedded in a position, will never know what other things are excellent for. It seeks to kill the concept of routine, by the concept of "source of challenges and achievements". Processes, not tasks due to technological and functional requirements: experts in the process, not in the task. That the personnel become a value added chain,not in fulfilling functions that often lack the systemic approach. Quality prevails over productivity: citizens need quality in service, not a cold statistic of "how many cases" were seen last month. Automation domain. Open systems technology. Networking. Intranet. Internet. Interfaces. Clients with access to the service network. The skill is recovered by the human being: the human being above the machine and technology. Capitalization of the experience. Customer needs. Company must grow on the experiences of customers. In harmony with nature. Work on demand, not on supply. Accountability. Globalization. Everything is close with communications. Interdisciplinarity. Intersectorality. Work teams (unlike teamwork).New concept of intelligence: intelligent is not the one with the highest IQ. Consider the theory of multiple intelligences and the theory of emotional intelligence.
5. Ideas or positions?
Finally, the paradigm shift strategy must be based on ideas, not positions.
The idea allows dialogue, allows to value, discern the advantages and disadvantages, that is, to maintain an analytical rationality.
Contrary sensu, the position entrenches the thought and does not allow thinking, therefore the idea will be absent and the conflict will come, since the position assassinates the idea even if it is the correct one. Excellent ideas have died from bad strategies, giving way to terrible positions where we all lose.
And it is that in the change situations occur that can generate conflicts and misunderstandings, hence the process of communicating ideas must be constant, transparent and fed back, taking care with the phrase “there are truths that, badly said, can have such destructive effects as if they were lies ”, or as Cicero said:“ there are lies that contain small truths that make the whole lie true ”.
When there are ideas there is analysis, when there are positions there are positional struggles: points of coincidence and points of non-coincidence are drawn. You can negotiate on the non-match points. Many times you have to take a step back in order to take a step forward, because the negotiation implies that neither part gave up everything, nor the other part won everything, of course when the negotiation does not affect the total project. The philosophy of trading is "Win / Win" in the so-called "Theory of Balance" (Dr. John Nash - Nobel Prize for his Theory of Balance).
However, when the paradigm-breaking strategy has no planned actions for the "positions", then there is no idea that is worth it, because what will be worth it will be to maintain the position of those who suffer from the disease "paradigmatic paralysis".
The position "per se" is thoughtless, irrational and leads to antagonism. When there are no ideas under discussion, violence comes in its various forms (verbal, for example). Violence surfaces when ideas are finished and change will stop or begin a tortuous and sometimes paralyzing path.
Final conclusions regarding the change of organizational paradigms:
6.1. When we talk about Business Modernization, State Reform, Modernization of Public Administration, Institutional Transformation, State Rationalization and others, the paradigms necessarily come into play, since everything changes implies abandoning some paradigms to adopt others, which are supposed to be better than the previous ones.
Personally, I do not like to speak of change as something abstract, but methodologically I need to be clear about the paradigms that we must tear down and which we must adopt so that change has strategic direction (to know where we are directing change efforts).
6.2. But many times we have observed that when talking about this modernization, which paradigms we should eliminate and which we should adopt are not identified, being in my concept one of the great problems or omissions that the strategies of change have had, leaving the actors of change without the due "script" or directions where to change.
That is why the change must be reasoned on the basis of the paradigmatic analysis, not on the basis of "snobbery" or fashion as occurred with Reengineering (of such bad memory and that later its author Hammer would regret), having been adopted simply as a fashion, thoughtlessly.
A bank executive told me that change is happening so fast that sometimes a new trend is adopted without evaluating whether the previous one was correct. He jokingly referred to the “flavor of the month”, that is, that there are constantly fads of change that people adopt without being aware of the new paradigms, which had led him to be very cautious with the snobberies of change if they were not sustained in the paradigm shift.
6.3. People are told that they must change, but they are not taught how to do it, as if the future were an extension of the past with new verbiage. In this sense, change offers us a delicate phrase to analyze: "Do not support change, nor resist it, just understand it." And understanding change is that, understanding it, discerning, rationalizing, raising awareness of the damaging effect of bad paradigms, as well as the advantages that new paradigms will bring to organizational health for the benefit of the organization's reason for being. This implies, then, that the actors of change must be prepared and sensitized on the concept of “paradigm” (nobody loves what they do not know), teaching them to identify bad paradigms and that they themselves conclude on the impacts of those paradigms.The same with the expected impact of the new paradigms so that they adopt them conscientiously.
6.4. Changing paradigms is not easy, because it is about forming a new organizational culture. We already know that organizational culture is difficult to change because it constitutes the sum of the values, anti-values, beliefs, models or mental structures that have taken hold over time, and that changes in the mind are the slowest, which It should not be an obstacle not to undertake it. It must be remembered that the present of an organization - like that of a person - is the product of its past, and that the future will be what it is building today. The worst thing is doing nothing, because doing nothing will guarantee that everything will stay the same. Doing nothing guarantees: nothing! Have a long-term vision with change. Mahatma Gandhi: "If you do nothing, you are guaranteed that you will achieve nothing."
6.5. Headquarters must lead the change, not delegate it, and they should be the first to enter the first phase of paradigmatic analysis and the way they will lead, motivate, direct and sustain the paradigm shift with “their people”. Many times the personnel participating in the organizational change ask themselves in Seminars or Workshops about the change: and where are those who should be here? Why should the one who should be here just open the event and retire?
6.6. In addition, leading the change means that the Leaders must have a consistency in their actions as a team, marking the line that the change begins with them. Many times we meet Bosses who speak well of change, but when it comes to their turn to change, things get difficult. Hence the phrase of a Chief who underwent such a process of which he became aware and strengthened: "When I went looking for the enemies of change, I realized that I was the enemy."
6.7. In this sense, the actions of the Headquarters have been established within the following behavioral framework:
6.7.1. Curiosity: look for answers to various kinds of issues and problems. Investigate causes and explain events. Ask questions about the why and how of things.
6.7.2. Objectivity: Relying on valid arguments. Do not be influenced by emotional and subjective factors to conclude.
6.7.3. Open mind: Willingness to consider that a wide variety of beliefs may be true. Form judgments / do not get carried away by prejudices.
6.7.4. Flexibility: be willing to change your mind. Do not adopt paradigmatic positions. Always leave possibilities open.
6.7.5. Intellectual honesty: accepting the truth of certain claims when there is not enough evidence to support them, even when it is a denial of personal beliefs.
6.7.6. Be systematic: follow a consistent line of reasoning to its conclusion. Avoid matters that are not relevant to the line of reasoning.
6.7.7. Persistence: insist on looking for ways to solve disputes and get evidence and arguments to support a certain point of view. Persistence is what has shaped the future.
6.7.8. Intellectual skepticism: postponing acceptance of a conclusion as true until adequate evidence has been presented.
6.7.9. Resolution: You must have a resolution to accept certain conclusions when the evidence indicates so.
6.7.10. Respect for other points of view: willingness to admit that one may be wrong and that other ideas that one does not share may be true.
6.7.11. Accept that there will be problematic situations of the change processes: think that we all want to avoid and solve such problems.
6.7.12. Be self-critical and objectively treat the point of view of others: intelligence is distributed.
6.7.13. Believing in the value of rationality: every change seeks to improve. All change is based on the principle of rationality.
6.7.14. Responsibility and courage to understand and accept the consequences of transformation:
Here nobody deceives anyone.
6.7.15. Continuous learning and growth attitude: experience is not learning something the first year and then continuing to repeat it every year the same. Change involves transformation or new thinking. Having that attitude to change with change.
A final thought:
Neither support change nor face it…
Just understand it!
Change is understood when one accepts that
paradigms have changed!
… And what you are looking for comes:
The change in organizational culture
Bibliography:
GUNS, J. 1997. Leadership in collective learning processes. High direction. January February.
ARBUES, M. 1997. The profile of learning organizations. High direction. January February.
SAKAIYA, T. 1995. History of the future. The knowledge society. Editorial Andrés Bello. Chile.
SCOTT C./JAFFE D.1993. How to direct change in organizations. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica, México.
Kotter John P. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. P 90
