Q&A explores change in the workplace with Christina Tangora Schlachter, coauthor along with Terry H. Hildebrandt, of on Leading Business Change for Dummies.
Q: What is the basic premise behind “Business Change for Dummies”? What are you hoping to accomplish with the book?
A: If a leader has been in the corporate world long enough, he or she has most likely been part of some type of change — mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, and downsizing to name a few. The premise behind the book is that anyone can announce a change in an organization, but making meaningful change that lasts takes a toolbox full of everything from setting a vision and communicating it, to managing personal stress levels and motivating your MVPs. Our goal is to give leaders these tools so their next change produces the results they want to see in a practical, easy to read book.
Q: One of your beliefs is the hierarchy of the corporate world has disappeared with Boss A no longer telling Employee B what to do. Now everybody takes the reins as needed. That seems almost like a socialistic form of capitalism. Has the corporate world really become a series of individual workers?
A: I think we are moving more to the intra-preuner model — employees being their own boss or working as a small team within a larger company. This is partly driven by technology breaking down communication and information barriers, and partly driven by Generation X-ers who often are seen as individualistic and more flexible with work, changing positions much more frequently than their parents did (even in light of the recession). This is only going to increase as Millennial-generation workers enter the workforce, those who are often seen as creative, craving more flexibility, and wanting meaningful careers — something the Boss A to Employee B model rarely fosters. In addition, the American workforce in particular has generally shifted from a top-down manufacturing model to an information-based model where engineers, creative artists, consultants, finance professionals, and many service workers now hold the future of the company in their hands. ‘Boss A’ is no longer the supreme dictator but rather a facilitator to make sure that the real producers have the right tools to do their jobs.
Q: Why should employers embrace this kind of business change? What advantages are there to large decentralized corporations to embrace this?
A: I think the multi-generational workforce is going to force the movement to a culture that is open to frequent meaningful change (see my above comment). Many employees these days would not think twice about questioning a decision when they don’t understand or disagree with the direction of the decision. The business change we talk about in the book is not only a roadmap, but a way to make being open to change a part of the culture. The advantage is that a more engaged workforce creates a company that the best and brightest employees want to work for since these superstars know the organization is willing and able to move fast, think fast, and make change last. Any company that does not create a change-ready environment that rewards and recognizes making smart, fast, and meaningful decisions and change is going to be faced with a stagnant workforce.
Q: How does a corporation identify people who are able to embrace their leadership change, especially if the leadership of a company is trained in traditional methods? How does an employer quantify which employees have this potential?
A: I like to call these individuals the forward thinkers and early adopters. They are the ones positively questioning the status-quo and can be in a formal leadership position or an informal leadership role. To quantify this potential, regardless of the leadership badge an employee may wear, employers should measure if these individuals can influence people and build relationships at all levels of the organization, facilitate discussion and encourage communication within their teams, and make and take ownership for decisions.
Q: What’s interesting about the book — and this impression could be wrong — is it seems to want to create traditional leaders but develop them in non-traditional ways? Is that correct? The book seems to suggest that being an advocate for change will help you become a leader but are you now a non-traditional leader?
A: I would hate for traditional companies to get a bad reputation. The benefit of a traditional leadership structure is consistency. The big piece of advice I hope the more traditional leadership-styled managers take away from the book is to guard against labeling new ideas as “that’s not the way things have always been done in the past.” Simply asking employees in the organization for their ideas on how to solve problems gives an alternative view that may just become the new way things are done around here. Don’t let great ideas get caught up in paperwork and approvals.
