Abstract:
This paper revisits a workplace scenario where a poorly implemented process change led to dissatisfaction among employees. The focus is on reflecting upon the leadership approach that could have mitigated the challenges encountered during the transition. The paper explores the importance of understanding employee needs, fostering communication, and implementing changes in a phased manner. Additionally, it dives into the concept of risk-taking and experimentation in introducing new systems, considering trade-offs and potential benefits.
Poorly Implemented System and Actions as a Leader
When poorly implemented system is mentioned, it makes me recall a situation from my earlier professional engagement. The organization had a misguided attempt to streamline the workflow but rather resulted in significant dissatisfaction among employees. The organization aimed to integrate the Management by Objective (MBO) system into its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platform. However, the sudden replacement of the existing system without proper training or information led to complications and resistance from the staff.
The situation makes me wonder, what would have been the right action to do as a leader? Maybe a more effective leadership in such situation would have been to actively listen to employee needs and understand the difficulties they face with the current system. With this approach, it would show to the individual employees as well that the leadership do care about them and value their voice. This will make them be more involved with the process and thus result in them taking the ownership of the project. It also reduces the chance of rumors and security concerns. Implementing changes in small, manageable steps allows employees to adapt, requiring a leader to exercise patience. As the platform starts to roll out phase by phase – providing thorough training and highlighting the benefits of the new system are crucial for inspiring staff confidence. Without it, change is certain to result in resistance.
In a hypothetical scenario, where a parallel system is introduced alongside the existing one, the objective is to ease the transition. Details filled in the online MBO system can be automatically fetched and stored in the new ERP system. This manually by migrating the database periodically or setting up script to do so. This helps staff to gradually familiarize themselves through a test platform. This phased approach minimizes disruption and ensures staff familiarity before full implementation.
Despite the potential benefits, this strategy comes with trade-offs, including higher development and upkeep costs. Running two systems parallelly results in double the cost even if not, higher than the normal cost. But again, the experiment aims to enhance staff awareness, acceptance, and a sense of ownership over the new system. Employee feedback becomes integral, transforming the narrative from “I have to use it” to “This is my system.”
As a leader in this process, a methodical approach would start with a need analysis involving key stakeholders. Collaboration with IT, finance, and development units would follow vendor selection and a detailed user acceptability test. Clear communication about the implementation’s goals and benefits, together with a commitment from leadership, ensures organizational alignment. Openness to feedback, flexibility in incorporating necessary changes, and leadership’s active involvement in the new system’s workflow contribute to a successful transition.
In summary, this narrative underscores the importance of empathetic leadership, phased implementation, risk-taking, and continuous feedback in effectively introducing and integrating new systems within the workplace.
References
Ganesh, K., Mohapatra, S., Anbuudayasankar, S., & Sivakumar, P. (2014). Enterprise resource planning. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Hurley, R. (2012). The trustworthy leader: The first step toward creating high-trust organizations. Leader To Leader, 2012(66), 33-34.
Moore, M., & Dutton, P. (1978). Training Needs Analysis: Review and Critique. The Academy Of Management Review, 3(3), 532.
Stogdill, R. (1955). Interactions Among Superiors and Subordinates. Sociometry, 18(4), 296.
