It is inherently difficult for an organization to make architectural changes (including technical architecture, business architecture, organizational structure) and the chances of success are low. I’m looking to businesses to sort out some notable signs of failure. We focus on the signs first, because they are superficial and easier to observe than the cause.
When business leaders’ leadership is too weak, it is difficult for companies to make architectural changes. In the Chengping era, everything can be carried out in an orderly manner according to the original trajectory, at which time the ability of leaders is not very important. But in times of structural change, the upheaval is so great that without a strong leader, businesses are bound to be in huge turmoil, with conservatives and reformists fighting. Intensify the conflict, the worse it gets.
When business leaders have a bad temper, it can be difficult to make structural changes. If leaders have a bad temper, most employees are already on the verge of breaking out of the company, and big changes can lead to turnover. And this kind of active departure of employees, usually better employees (after all, it is easier to find a job outside), leaving is usually worse. Reverse elimination, the worse it gets.
When corporate finances are large, it is often difficult to make architectural changes. A big tone, said is “people give people, want money to give money” business, usually will soon fail, the script is all: a group of people, spend a sum of money, make a bunch of broken things, and then walk away from this group of people. To think about structural change, internal change is the key, how to make a change in their own people, and let the people who can not change do not get in the way, or even leave (active or passive), this is the core task. But the rich’s “spend money can solve any problem” mindset is too strong to easily ignore the soft (but crucial) things. Enterprise change needs to pay attention to the internal changes, rich and atmospheric enterprises are difficult to be so detailed.
When a business leader is a professional manager, it is difficult to make “deep” structural changes. This does not blame professional managers, they are innocent. They were kidnapped by short-term performance, had to cut back on their sources, and were unable to make big changes, because the changes hurt and left his future uncertain. Some professional managers, carrying the board’s expectations, simply give companies special effects drugs, but these special effects drugs seem to work in the short term, in the long run will make the company’s health worse. If the business leader is still the founder of the business, it is different, the enterprise is his own, he is willing to “take the time” to properly and correctly re-cultivate his children, at any cost and time.
When an enterprise is a rigid enterprise with a state-owned enterprise, it is difficult to make structural changes. When people are uncertain, structural change cannot succeed. And the state-owned enterprises and other institutional rigid enterprises within the relationship is complex, the interests of entanglements, cutting and constantly incquisitive, you do not know “who who is who is who.” Some institutional rigidity led to the lack of vitality of the enterprise tried to use the “fish effect” to stimulate the vitality of enterprises, but in fact, as long as the system is rigid, the outside to find whether it is mackerel or what raw seafood, are dying very quickly, we die together. The organization is not dynamic, the enterprise is not profitable.
Enterprises are on the uphill, it is difficult to make structural changes, employees will feel that there is no need to find trouble: “Good why toss?” “Purely full and dry.” Perhaps we will not resist in our actions, but we will not actively do, purely to deal with things, so of course the effect is not good. Produce only a bunch of PPTs and reports.
“In a stable period or a slight recession, it is also very difficult to make successful structural changes, because this time everyone is particularly sensitive, for fear that their own department or performance will be the focus of the company, and then bad luck.” So between departments and between personnel into an enemy consciousness, other departments (people) things, we have to secretly pull the hind legs, after all, as long as they perform well, we will be compared. Structural changes will undoubtedly open up a battleground of “land and power struggles, responsibilities and problems”.
I write so many negative thoughts in one breath, not because I’m guessing, but because I’m knowledgeable. Having said so many symptoms for half a day, my conclusion is simple: there are many signs that companies are struggling to make successful architectural changes, but the reasons for wearing them are all human.