LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
The root cause of failed change is
“Organize” means to arrange components in such a way that they operate together
as a unit.
That requires defining what the “unit” is and why it should exist – in other words,
what its purpose is. As purpose gets defined differently, a corresponding
organization must be made for it.
Disorganization refers to failures in that making. Whether the failure is in idea,
predisposition, integrity, quality, deployment or durability, disorganization results in
problematic symptoms such as in compatibility, quality, relevance, risk, and of
One easy way to create disorganization is to commit an organization to solving the
An even easier way to create disorganization is to make the organization less
important than the problem. If the problem is to Change, then the purpose is To
Change, and without a proper organization, success is mostly imaginary.
Production-side “Change” can have three
different modification objectives
• Tailor the same thing as before, to a new environment
• Do the same thing as before, somewhere else
• If you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t matter how you get there
• Use the same things in new ways, or get the same result from new things
• Everything old is new again
The complexity of Success or Failure
Complexity is a major issue whenever change needs to occur in an
environment, organization or system.
Each of those three structures has a behavior that reflects a balance (good or
bad) of multiple internal factors that influence each other.
As a result, we have to respect that altering one factor may generate stresses
(good or bad) on the other factors that are different from the current state.
And, the more different factors are simultaneously involved, the harder it is
to predict the overall outcome of the alteration.
Regardless, many familiar overall outcomes characteristically reflect the
dominance of a single variable factor.
The following shows a compilation of five major characteristic results and
their respective influencers.
Laws of Intended Consequences
The maturity model shows that organizational issues are fundamental to any other
expectation of success.
Of those, personal priorities and personal relationships are often the most powerful
influences on whether individuals can effectively adjust their current engagement
with the in-place organization, so as to enable and defend the upcoming
requirements placed on a transitional organization.
Personal adjustment in effect creates or “delivers” the critical resource for the
viability and feasibility of any farther-looking design or plan of change.
And, the further up the maturity scale we go, the more critical the reliance
becomes on Knowledge and then Awareness as differentiators and stabilizers.
In short, success in change is dominated by matters of Perspective.
In turn, this is why the essential model for executing managed change is a