Post by seeingcrimson on Nov 23, 2014 15:24:02 GMT -5
Embracing change. Such an evocative phrase, conjuring up pleasant images of institutional harmony
and progress. But what happens when one does not necessarily agree with the change? What happens
when after careful consideration, one’s professional opinion is that a particular change is not only short
of optimal but is potentially damaging to the institution. Well then you are perhaps found to be
“resistant to change”; not something one wants to see on our remarkably evolved performance
management forms. At the risk of being seen as dusting off the book of Harvard fairy tales, there was a
time here not very long ago when a productively offered dissenting view was not only tolerated, it was
valued and expected. Harvard staff have historically been a uniquely dedicated lot, strongly committed
to the University’s mission and taking enormous pride in being associated with the excellence that is our
hallmark. This is not just another employer. These are not just jobs. I believe that we are losing this
invaluable trait in the current administrative climate.
Change management. Yet another phrase from the management-of-the-day checklist. At its best, the
process consists of identifying the true need for change, carefully gathering feedback from those who
will be affected, incorporating this feedback into the action, and then re-calibrating as needed once the
impact becomes clear and the results become known. We seem to be missing several key steps here
lately. Arguably, change management at Harvard recently consists of making decisions, communicating the
decisions to the community with variable degrees of clarity, efficacy, and forthrightness, and then
managing the negative reactions that result.
Perhaps a change in this dynamic is something we might all truly embrace.
and progress. But what happens when one does not necessarily agree with the change? What happens
when after careful consideration, one’s professional opinion is that a particular change is not only short
of optimal but is potentially damaging to the institution. Well then you are perhaps found to be
“resistant to change”; not something one wants to see on our remarkably evolved performance
management forms. At the risk of being seen as dusting off the book of Harvard fairy tales, there was a
time here not very long ago when a productively offered dissenting view was not only tolerated, it was
valued and expected. Harvard staff have historically been a uniquely dedicated lot, strongly committed
to the University’s mission and taking enormous pride in being associated with the excellence that is our
hallmark. This is not just another employer. These are not just jobs. I believe that we are losing this
invaluable trait in the current administrative climate.
Change management. Yet another phrase from the management-of-the-day checklist. At its best, the
process consists of identifying the true need for change, carefully gathering feedback from those who
will be affected, incorporating this feedback into the action, and then re-calibrating as needed once the
impact becomes clear and the results become known. We seem to be missing several key steps here
lately. Arguably, change management at Harvard recently consists of making decisions, communicating the
decisions to the community with variable degrees of clarity, efficacy, and forthrightness, and then
managing the negative reactions that result.
Perhaps a change in this dynamic is something we might all truly embrace.
