Many current change and transformation programs often lack ethical management practices that consider the social environment of the workplace. There is often an overemphasis on project plans while neglecting the engagement of employees who will be affected by the change. This approach can lead to uncertainty and disillusionment throughout the organization, ultimately contributing to failure[1]. After more than 20 years of experience in change management consulting, we find ourselves in strong agreement with Sally Hopper’s findings.
However, what exactly does it entail to undergo an ethical transformation?
In essence, an ethical transformation goes beyond the mechanics of change management; it places people and ethical considerations at the center of the process. It seeks not only the achievement of business objectives but also the well-being of all stakeholders involved.
Ethical management of individuals involves conducting oneself and making decisions in a manner that is morally principled, fair, and respectful towards the people.
It entails several ethical guidelines:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
|
Ethical management of individuals is not only a moral imperative but can also lead to positive outcomes in terms of employee morale, engagement, and long-term organizational success. It helps create a workplace culture built on trust, fairness, and respect, which can ultimately benefit both individuals and the organization as a whole.
The traditional change management approaches tend to the classic conditioning (Pavlovian conditioning) that states behavior as an automatic, conditioned response paired with specific stimuli. People can use classical conditioning to exploit others for their gain. A prominent example of this occurs in advertising[2]. This may work on a controlled environment, but in working environment is far from linear or controlled. It is incredibly unpredictable like S. Hopper says.
When attempting to align with the intentions of senior leaders within their teams, there’s often a temptation to provide instructions in the following manner: “This is the sole plan for the company, and it represents the most effective means of achieving our objectives. We have thoroughly considered and sought consulting advice on it, so please be mindful of all the advantages it offers and, implement it promptly.”
This mindset poses a risk to the project, prompting the need for a traditional Change Management approach to craft a plan that can be more easily accepted by all, a process we refer to as the “Damage Control Change Plan.” Sally emphasizes: “We (the change management team) optimistically try to smooth things over and save face rather than admit that we hadn’t anticipated this reaction or appreciated the power relations at play[3]”
[1] Cfr. How can change and transformation be more ethical?, S.Hopper, en https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/transformation-ethical/
[2] Cfr. Ibraheem Rehman; Navid Mahabadi; Terrence Sanvictores; Chaudhry I. Rehman. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/
[3] Cfr. How can change and transformation be more ethical? S. Hopper, in https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/transformation-ethical<