The Power For
Change
By STEVE HOUCHIN |
|
|
|
|
|
When asked about their biggest challenge, most
managers cite the never-ending battle to get their employees to
accept change. If this sounds all too familiar, read on.
53 years ago, psychologists Lester Coch and John
French first demonstrated that including employees in the planning
and decision-making process was the key strategy in "Overcoming
Resistance to Change," the name of their study at Harwood Manufacturing
Corporation, an Appalachian maker of pajamas. In 1972, Alfred Morrow,
the CEO of Hardwood at the time of the study, lamented in his book,
The Failure of Success, that after 25 years, managers
still had not learned this most important lesson about engaging
employees in helping make the changes necessary to remain (or become)
successful.
We modern day leaders find our organizations in
the midst of an era where the only thing that seems not to change
is the need for change itself. With so much experience, one might
assume that we finally learned the Harwood lesson. Not so! The Center
for Creative Leadership, and Discovery Learning collected and analyzed
Decision Styles Surveys completed by 41,000 middle and upper level
managers between 1985 and 1999. The participants in the study were
asked to review 16 cases and then select a decision style from five
style options, ranging from autocratic to consensual. A shockingly
low 24% of the respondents chose the consensual style in those cases
where it was deemed by experts to be the most effective.
Why? With over 50 years of experience, why are we still struggling
to develop associates that embrace the chances needed for personal
and organizational success? The answer: the very power and control
that is essential to managerial effectiveness. To be successful,
managers must be comfortable with having and using the power and
control granted them by the organization. In fact, managers whose
need to be liked by their associates overshadows their willingness
to exercise power and control, may be well advised to find another
line of work for the sake of their associates, their company, and
themselves. In essence, management is all about having the "power
to control."
However, what significantly influences the positive
or negative outcome of exercising the power to control is the manager's
"power motivation," as described by David McClelland in
his book, Power: The Inner Experience. Why is the power inherent
in your position important to you? Is it because nobody knows as
much as you; nobody can do it as well as you; it's your foundation
for future promotions; it's simply a rush? If you answer yes to
any of these questions, you may have a higher than desired level
of "personalized power" motivation. You use power
to control others mainly for your own self-interest. Therefore,
you have difficulty sharing your power with your associates, because
it seems to you to go against your own self-interests, e.g., "they
won't respect me." You make the decisions, you determine how
things will be done; you tell; you seldom ask. Then you wonder by
people are so resistant to your edicts for change.
Everyone, manager or not, enjoys having the power
to control. It is the basis for our sense of mastery and confidence,
and enhances our self-esteem. Motivated by a need for personalized
power, managers who refuse to share power by failing to collaborate
and involve associates in planning and decision making are literally
blocking their associates' access to these fundamental, psychological
needs. It is the loss of one's sense of mastery and confidence that
people resist, not change. Exclusion from the planning and decision
making also sends a message of disrespect, creating resentment toward
managers' actions, good and bad.
On the other hand, we all have known managers
whose associates always seem enthusiastic and ready to take on the
next challenge. What is the difference? It is very likely that these
"inspiring" managers exercise power and control from a
"socialized power" motivation. Does seeing your
personal influence help the organization succeed, watching your
associates grow in their ability to contribute, and making the world
a better place for your customers constitute a source of personal
pride and satisfaction? If you can truthfully answer yes, you tend
exercise power and control for the good of others, not just yourself.
Your power motivation enables you to comfortably share power and
control by involving your associates in the planning and decision
making that always should accompany complex change. Associate involvement
always trumps management dictates when implementing change. The
personal payoff is this: those managers whose socialized power motive
dominates, rise to higher organizational levels at younger ages
than managers having a personalized power motive.
The fact is our behavior is a mix of both power
motives, as well as a need to be liked. If our dominate motive is
to be liked, we will likely fail as managers. If it is personalized
power, we will enjoy some success (unless our associates are Gen
X'ers), but we will plateau well short of our dreams and wonder
why. But if we can wire (or rewire) our value system to be in sync
with a socialized power motive, we will become change agents and
our associates will call us "leaders."
Involving people in planning and decision
making when change is required worked in an Appalachian pajama factory
over 50 years ago. It will work for you, if you attitude about power
and control are in the right proportions. Are they?
Copyright 2002 International Leadership Associates
|