When talking about “change” it’s hard not to think about our current President. For a while, change was synonymous with “Barack Obama.” Leaving aside the ongoing debate about how much “change” Obama really stood for, it seems to me that his experience (and really any President trying to change anything in the public sphere) and the American government structure in general in built to resist change.
I largely want to mention the United States Senate. Our readings all discuss change through the eyes of a manager. How can a singular individual work to implement change in an organization? When a single individual or small group is chosen to implement change from a top down approach, they can make it happen. Whether it’s successful or not can be a debate, but implementing change is possible. My question is what happens when only the members of the organization have to work as a whole to implement change and the only people they are really responsible to are themselves.
The “American People” as a whole are theoretically able to hold Senators and Congressmen accountable for their actions, but this is hardly the case. The rules and structure of Congress are designed and enforced by Congressmen, they are really responsible only to themselves, so how can you implement change in a set-up such as this. Organizational change be forced from the outside by a CEO, or someone appointed for the specific purpose to implement change, but how can a manager enforce change on a group that has to want change? The thought of change scares most organizations and if it is required to vote on implementing any meaningful change it will be a massive uphill battle.
The framework for change outlined by DDA, Bolman and Deal, et al. do not discuss how to change organizations that can only change themselves from the inside. Has anyone had experience with this?
I largely want to mention the United States Senate. Our readings all discuss change through the eyes of a manager. How can a singular individual work to implement change in an organization? When a single individual or small group is chosen to implement change from a top down approach, they can make it happen. Whether it’s successful or not can be a debate, but implementing change is possible. My question is what happens when only the members of the organization have to work as a whole to implement change and the only people they are really responsible to are themselves.
The “American People” as a whole are theoretically able to hold Senators and Congressmen accountable for their actions, but this is hardly the case. The rules and structure of Congress are designed and enforced by Congressmen, they are really responsible only to themselves, so how can you implement change in a set-up such as this. Organizational change be forced from the outside by a CEO, or someone appointed for the specific purpose to implement change, but how can a manager enforce change on a group that has to want change? The thought of change scares most organizations and if it is required to vote on implementing any meaningful change it will be a massive uphill battle.
The framework for change outlined by DDA, Bolman and Deal, et al. do not discuss how to change organizations that can only change themselves from the inside. Has anyone had experience with this?
-Brandon
No comments:
Post a Comment