Let’s stay the same for a change

Maria Dweggah, WHO

It has become a familiar sight, clumps of staff here and there discussing their office move wondering why they have to move, where they will move, when will they move and how the move will affect their work, will they have work. Since I can remember, my organization has been on the move. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against change. Change when it has a purpose, with clear objectives, and when it makes sense is good. Change for change’s sake – or to convey a superficial impression of dynamism and flexibility – is not good. It destabilizes staff, creates undue anxiety and decreases productivity for substantial periods of time. Not to mention that it is neither cost effective nor efficient.

I have given many years’ thought to the question of change in my organization. I have come to the conclusion that change tends to distract and keep focus off the real problems. Better to change than to tackle. What better excuse for lack of results than “well, you see we are in the process of changing our name, our team, our mission, our workplan, our staff, our chief, our offices, our milestones, our kilometres, our high hanging fruits, our out of the box thinking, our sunrises and sunsets, our skills and competencies, and well, you see results are not yet evident.”

When people are constantly on the move they are kept off balance, they are more easily manipulated and are kept in constant fear of what will the next move bring. Just when the staff member finally settles into a new structure, a new unit with a new name with a new boss, with a new office number, in a new building, up, the move is on again.

In 1998, there was so much talk about change. The buzz words were change management, infusion of new blood, restructuring, cluster, decentralization. Change managers were hired to assist managers to manage the change. To keep informed, I read books on change by the experts of change—-from Harvard. The authors gave step by step approaches on how to effect change in an organization and cautioned against those most recalcitrant in the troops and how to deal with them. Unfortunately, some of the most fundamental steps were glossed over by the powers that be, such as keeping staff informed and involved in the process of change. Decisions were taken unilaterally, not very encouraging if you want staff to happily go along with the change plans. Those that were most vocal were seen as poor team players, old fogies set in their ways and a good number were helped out the door. Those that survived, survived to go through another change.

Since 1995, thousands of staff have been moved, well, let me be fair here, there have been thousands of moves, with some staff having moved four, five times, — from building to building, floor to floor, location to location—only to find themselves right back where they started. Constant movement of desks, chairs, computers, solitary plants precariously perched on top of overflowing boxes. Technical units that were grouped have since been regrouped and de-grouped; ADGs who were renamed Executive Directors became ADGs again; unit chiefs became coordinators, some renamed team leaders; departments have been clustered, de-clustered, re-clustered. Functions have been centralized, de-centralized, devolved, evolved, involved, dissolved.

The moves just don’t stop. I may not be a graduate of the Harvard School of Business or any of the other “Schools” but it does not take a Harvard type brain to figure out that this constant moving act cannot be good for business.

Well, if we can’t change, let’s reform. Let’s reform the way we reward staff for a job well done. Seems we need monetary encouragement to excel. Though pay for performance (PFP) approaches have not had a good track record elsewhere, the urge to change, to reform is just too overpowering. Seems the current step system is too automatic therefore the plan is to get rid of it and then leave it up to our first and second levels to decide the amount to award us for our performance and our competency development. Seems we will work better as individuals and team members when we are rewarded financially. I am not saying that money is not a motivator, I am saying in our organizations and the kind of staff we should be attracting and the kind of business we are in, money is not the motivator or at least should not be the sole motivator. The step system works. You do your job well, you get your step; you don’t do your job well, you shouldn’t. This is about accountability and responsibility on both staff and managers and not an automatic/it’s “my right” entitlement.

Fair treatment of staff, respect and equal application of the rules and regulations, promotional opportunities, decent contracts, credible performance management systems, access to training, work/life policies, simple respect of the individual and a hope of a career is what most people need for excellent performance. Loyalty is rewarded by loyalty.

Good old fashioned practices, behaviours, values, emotions seem to be disappearing substituted by here today, gone tomorrow schemes. In the age of machines, gadgets, pocket size computers, thumb size cameras, fingernail size telephones, we forget we are human, with basic human needs.