I was going to jot a quick, reactive reply to Artemis' questions when I
suddenly realized that I actually respond differently to one than the
other. He asked:
>Shou[l]d change be [manageable] through a list of behavioural recipes and
>managerial competenc[i]es or not?
>Is it dangerous [to] assume change [i]s a simple phenomenon attached as a
>sub theme to organisational behaviour?
To the second question, I want to answer resoundingly, "Yes!" -- it is
very dangerous to assume organizational change is a "simple phenomenon."
I can assure you, from long, hard-won experience, that it is not!
To the first question, after some further reflection, I have to say,
"Maybe." It depends upon how complex and deep the managerial competencies
are. Now I assume, from his second question and the use of the word
"recipes" in the first, that Artemis is thinking about simple, formulaic,
training-program-like lists of competencies when he writes this first
question. If so, then I change my answer to "No." I don't believe that
the competencies required to lead an organization through change are
simple and shallow. Of course this is a bit self serving for me to say,
since it means that my competencies (leading organizations through change
is what I do) are somehow "special."
On the other hand, is what I do so "special" that others cannot acquire
the competencies to do it? Of course not. I have taught others to do
what I do, and there are some competency areas which, if mastered, will
certainly improve the chances of success. And there are even some
"recipes" (relatively straightforward process models, techniques,
teaching materials, etc.) that are very useful to me in my work.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>