Taking charge of change is a sine qua non requirement of the contemporary professional and as much as it seems a worn phrase, whoever does not assume it as a commitment will be very close to extinction.
Currently, assuming that change is an external variable, alien to the natural balance of organizations, is denying the obvious, you are so immersed in it that it is often confused with the inability to perceive it. There is no doubt, a change occurs every day and if it is not the consequence of a third party, the responsibility of generating it falls on each individual.
But change is more often a topic worthy of an article, or important seminar, than a true fact in organizations, it is generally assumed that it is closely related to technological transformations, levels of command or reduction of staff, which occur Because of high-level decisions that respond to strategic plans, different market orientations or political pressures, it is seldom understood that organizational change is the consequence of the conscious use of the human capacity to innovate, to add value to the process, and that is precisely the reason why some companies lose ideas that others will later develop successfully.
After an objective selection process, the recruited talent's mission is not only to use their knowledge appropriately to start the task, to which must be added the responsibility to become familiar enough with the process to improve or optimize it. brevity, all for the benefit of the organization.
However, even when this should be the case in theory, most of the talent faces expressions such as: "this has never been done in this company", "their approach does not fit our culture", "we do not consider it necessary which suggests "," we have worked well so far ", or simply" you had better leave things as they are ".
The question may be asked: Is this not precisely the beginning of change? There can be no change if something different from what is usually being done is not done, for example, electricity was adopted when the culture was to light with candles. The horse was still a means of mass transportation when the car was introduced, anyone could have said "we have been well mobilized until now, why replace the horse?", Twenty years ago most of the professionals only had the telephone number of the office to communicate, today it is impossible to imagine them without a cell phone. It is simple, whenever a new idea arises, something is being proposed that has not been tried before. It is precisely this that makes it "new", so it is logical to understand that there is no data to support any prediction of success or failure.An idea cannot be rejected simply because no one has had the opportunity to experience it before.
It is common for organizations to experience a period of calm where apparently the processes flow easily, even more so that one has the impression of having reached an optimum level in the operation whose accuracy does not allow one more step or one less step. The above obviously cannot be applied to all fields, but in some of them the arrogance of perfection prevents the proposal of innovative ways of doing things.
And here it is imperatively necessary to quote Joel Barker. Some companies embrace their paradigms with such certainty that they end up giving it a dominant rank of such magnitude that it transforms them into the paradigm and this translates into a corporate paralysis that prevents transforming existing schemes based on the fact that this is the only way in which the company has to work, which more than being respected by workers becomes a kind of doctrine, sometimes confused with the true spirit of business mysticism.
When you are deeply involved with something in particular, you lose the ability to objectively judge the process and only those who have no commitment to it can offer new ideas, transformations that will give you dynamism. However, the prevailing organizational culture in our society often puts barriers to any approach that puts the status quo at risk, as Barker points out, rejecting the changes it constantly proclaims.
New employees often easily observe "dead spots," "bottlenecks," or "reworks," regardless of their level within the organization, quickly devising novel methods to correct such failures, but few often make significant changes to the processes, because they must not only convince their superiors of the benefits, but must also face the obstacles that the company developed throughout its exercise in order to leave the responsibility and merit of improvements.
The discourse that invites employees to innovate, be creative and participate actively in their exercise is contradictory, if it is contrasted with the common practice of using organizational culture as an excuse to reject or postpone any initiative that is proposed, even more so, if it attempts against the level of influence or power radius that is possessed within a particular process or area.
In the same way it happens during the selection process, in the interview and induction the individual is exhorted to use all their talent to add value to the company, the contribution and its importance are magnified, as well as reference is made to the firm conviction of the organization in offering its support to any initiative, but once hired the proposals are often forgotten and the employee is practically forced to merge with the system to the point of becoming just one more. And it is precisely at that point where the professional stops and evaluates her condition, she wonders if she has to settle for being an employee or if she must fight to stay employable.
When the employee is absorbed into the system without previously having a high level of identification with the company, there is a risk of minimizing the strategic responsibility that any position should possess, this translates into the possession of such operational personnel that It practically works by inertia, plunging the organization into a lethargy that will end up turning it into an obsolete entity.
Obviously, the flight of talents occurs more frequently in those companies where the employee feels suffocated with internal policies, those that prevent him from transforming his environment and translating the concept of competitiveness into his area, when he observes that the apathy to generate revolutions is even greater than the need to stay on the market.
This allows us to suppose that there are companies where innovation is prohibited, where day-to-day life is subjected to a routine of relative successes and common mistakes, organizations whose myopia prevents them from understanding that the leader's steps will not always have to be followed, since they must be also protagonists and set the tone.
But their paradigmatic paralysis is not entirely negative for society, these companies become great talent providers, the one that without realizing trains and develops so that other organizations benefit from their ability to generate ideas and create, where the structures are flexible and are always attentive to listening to opinions, those that do not think they are perfect but assume with responsibility that they are perfectible. In the contemporary company, rigidity and centralism of power are not tools to manage, since it is easily understood that it is not about holding people with power, but granting power to people.
Although it could be understood that the above is part of the work cycle, which refers to brain drain, it does not seem entirely smart to waste talent and put the intellectual capital of the company at risk.
The basis of all business is to generate profits, these appear when all its resources are well managed and administered, when reason prevails over emotion and both results and management are objectively valued. The human resource is more than an asset for the company, it is the company itself and organizational growth will depend on its development. Therefore, when talent is prevented from innovating, putting aside the value of creativity and its contribution to the business, it is not only cutting off the individual's own initiative, motivation and elements of coincidence that allow him to identify with the company., you are being given reasons to visualize new horizons and leave.
However, it is obvious that not all companies can offer their employees options to constantly innovate in the business, whether due to the type of market they serve, the product or the service they offer; And this translates into different signs of dissatisfaction that can be observed individually or collectively. In these cases, although paradigmatic paralysis is not ruled out, the limitation responds to reasons outside the company, so the implementation of cultural, creative and recreational activities can replace the impossibility of offering employees a source to explore and exploit. their ability to add value to the process.
Some organizations do not invest in the development of their personnel based on the assumption that they will leave once the opportunity to do so arises, ignoring that it is the responsibility of the company to promote and motivate the identification of its people; This, together with routine and the direct or indirect prohibition of generating ideas, reduces the possibility of introducing significant changes that will benefit the business.
Although it is unusual, there are still companies where change is only a topic of conversation, worth discussing, comparing and sharing, but not practicing, where extraordinary talent is wasted even though it is a fundamental requirement to enter them, organizations where Innovating is urgent and necessary, but whose rigidity and lack of strategic vision prevent him from warning that, if he does not risk introducing the changes that his talent proposes, they are destined to disappear.
Once the importance of assimilating change and the responsibility that companies have in facilitating processes to stay in constant innovation are understood, it is not very serious to suppose that it is an exclusive practice of organizations to prevent their people from contributing ideas and adding value to administrative management, because, in some cases, it is the same employees who have been prohibited from innovating.
Just as companies cling to what they tend to call "their culture", each individual has a particular way of observing the world and externalizing or keeping their ideas or thoughts hidden and even spending time generating them, it is precisely because the use of that free will that some workers decide to keep a low profile in their jobs, trying not to stand out for their ingenuity or be left out for their disinterest, simply repeating the experiences that have been successful over and over again, under the false belief that the future may resemble the past.
The strictly operational work allows the development of a routine-oriented behavior, as well as the low expectations of personal growth, the fear of being considered obsolete and the lack of achievement orientation become essential ingredients to create a human team that rejects the change as simple as this is.
Just as some companies have not only understood that change is the rule and not the exception, and they constantly offer resources to their employees to develop initiatives that are closer to the vision and mission of the business, thereby motivating the need to keep updated; In some cases, the processes of insertion in the world of constant transformations obviate an undeniable fact: it is part of human nature to resist changes, even when it causes them.
Stability and the possibility of predicting the future, or at least projecting it with the slightest error, have accompanied its most important protagonists throughout history, even religions relied on it to maintain their power for a long time, creating in the individual a kind of code that has been stealthily transferred by generations, which only few have managed to overcome thus beginning the famous revolutions; unfortunately it has not always been possible for them to see their proposals in practice and consolidated as part of society, as they ended up being persecuted, expelled or killed by those who do not want to participate in them.
There are many examples to illustrate the above, perhaps the most famous is the case of Galileo, because when everyone was convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe, he observed that it was moving. Galileo was harshly attacked, criticized, and even tortured for such a claim, and now, centuries later, it is easy to understand why such an abomination occurred: the individuals of his time were so cut off by his paradigm that it was not exactly accepting the researcher's idea that It motivated them to resist, but the fact that everything they believed to be true would cease to be true, everything they considered stable and safe would disappear.
Precisely in the previous example you can see the responsibility that the individual has in the changes and how the apathy of the common can delay the development of a whole society, and without realizing that it is feasible to count those who have made a difference, being the result an insignificant portion of the sum when compared to those who remained immersed in the routine, and this has happened at any time in our history.
For this reason, the statement that ensures that the changes were gradual in the past and that the 20th century is the beginning of everything that each person has to face today is not entirely true. Without wishing to make use of elaborate historical precedents, man has undergone changes from appearance to the present: glaciations, earthquakes, avalanches, predators, floods, wars, invasions, volcanic eruptions, etc., while continuing to add to this the cultural changes, of language, of beliefs, of social demands, inventions… and all have been overcome, with or without resistance today, each past situation was assimilated with such ease that it is difficult to accept the natural fact mentioned in previous paragraphs.
The human being is the key piece of the companies, without him the organizations would be empty, inert and cold monuments. However, the need to remain stable and safe has prevented people from realizing an also undeniable fact: changing does not mean ceasing to be, it is improving what one is without losing the essence. If an individual totally changed, who would it be? Another individual oblivious to his principle, but if he generates changes in what he considers weak of himself, the transformation is an improvement.
The previous concept is susceptible to be applied in organizations, employees should see the change more as an improvement than as an element you distorted the environment, created or planned to devastate the stability achieved.
However, the loss of possibilities for change can in turn be considered a distorted element, since it threatens human nature also, in states of constant monotony, where activities are repeated in a persevering way, the individual presents needs for challenge and improvement, otherwise you become depressed.
This is how some elements that make up the individual dilemma of change end up contradicting each other. In the first place, there are people who try to prevent change from happening, thus forbidding themselves to innovate; but the routine generates boredom between them and the need for change arises, either to generate it or accept it.
Therefore, it can be said that sooner or later the individual ends up adapting to the new demands of his environment, because in the end - as in the case of Galileo - reality still prevails against those who want to eradicate it, thereby allowing it to achieve the next level, so resisting is just a delaying process
When organizations like their people have understood that change is an immeasurable reality, typical of the very nature of the universe and whose constant renewal and questioning bring the company closer and closer to the proper balance of those who, without showing perfection, seek to increase their knowledge and with them explore and exploit new sources of wealth and wealth; it is not possible to prohibit anyone from innovating.
The organizations that learn are in constant exchange with the revolutions, they know that what is true today may be a chimera tomorrow and vice versa, so they are more dedicated to the vision they have of the future than to the photography they keep of the present., they know that there will be elements that due to their condition or nature at the time they observe it will not change, but that in the immediate future its existence could be questioned and, upon realizing its obsolescence, becoming only the memory of the good old times, without it meaning longing for them.
It is a fact, the only constant is change and for those who assume it every day is a challenge that at the end represents the reward of having passed the test, no matter how similar it was to the past.
For a significant number of companies, change is a competitive advantage that, if not present, would detract from the very existence of the organization; companies where the most basic position of its structure is involved up to the most complex, who contribute with the same effectiveness ideas that can enrich the processes, their services or products, where synergy is not a strange word extracted from a textbook, or an important seminar, but it is one of the most precious values of its people.
It is impossible to imagine technology companies where innovation is not "daily bread", as well as companies in the automotive, telecommunications or systems industries, since their markets are designed to always be one step ahead, but does it apply only to them? Can you be consistent with change in other companies?
Change does not mean becoming an entity completely different from what it is now, that would be closer to being a reengineering –in the most radical aspect of it- than a transformation. Change in organizations must be a process that aims at improvement, that inspires innovation and fuels creativity to stay in the target market or explore new markets, it must be a comparative and competitive advantage, where it evolves without losing identity, unless it really represents a quantum jump.
In all companies, innovation is present, all have the same opportunity to add value to their processes in a constant and sustained way, only it will depend on the level of identification reached by its members, the timeliness and the sharpness of the changes that are proposed.
It is said that once a formula has been reached to carry out a process perfectly, it must be discarded, because the arrogance of the accuracy prevents observing the possibility of improving and continuing to evolve.
There are surprising examples of these transformations, since just two decades ago cell phones represented large pieces of metal and plastic whose independence barely reached 15 minutes and their weight exceeded one kilogram, today they fit on the wrist and can extend their operation by more than a week did they stop being cell phones because of it? Not! Perhaps they became the beginning of what will actually be their highest level. Likewise, it happened with the T model, yesterday it hardly differed from the carts, today any vehicle, no matter how simple it is, offers comfort to those who drive it and is very far from its predecessor; all these revolutions were introduced by people who understood the need to constantly offer improvements, to innovate without changing the essence,the same ones that served as shock waves that excited the imagination of users and competitors and led the business world to the constant struggle to keep moving.
Therefore, change has, for those who see it as a tool, the ability to adjust to the needs, dreams or expectations of those who administer and manage it, either by turning a newspaper kiosk into an "information center" or by those who observe it. that the future of telecommunications is in the development of genetics.
Change is a cyclical innovation process, whether subtle or radical, everything that is new produces the transformation of what is known and this leads to adding a step in evolution, which undergoes the process again and continues advancing; In reality, no matter how much it is prohibited to innovate, the change will eventually prevail, this is what happened in the past and this will be the future, in fact the very denial of change is the indirect acceptance of its existence, people cannot oppose something that does not exist.
For all of the above, it is possible to understand the very fact that points to change as a constant, an upward spiral in which one is not a spectator but a protagonist, one is not the effect but the cause.
When organizations reach that level of maturity, change is not an enemy but an ally; the need to add value is part of the performance of those who make it up, and this affects the quality of their results. It is not a question, then, of subtracting value from the level reached in the present, but of observing it as part of the process that serves as a foundation for subsequent levels.
Any change, however small, is the sum of an idea that came to fruition, backed by a directive open to listening to its people, by people motivated to develop their creativity, by companies where the only thing that is prohibited, in of transformations, is to prohibit innovation.
