Replying to LO24672 --
>However, there are times where the change is truly only beneficial for the
>organization and not necessarily the people within.
Nancy, thank you very much speaking up. I can imagine the tough situation
you are in and think that you describe more the rule than the exception,
well your case is really extreme, but that illustrates your point.
Let me make two assumptions: First, you are not a victim of some others
decisions, but you have agreed freely into this engagement. Second, your
motivation is to let the organization you are working for truly benefit
from your work (although the employees may not).
How do you know, that you have reached your goal? Well, in the foreground
SAP is implemented and work the intended way. But behind that: How do you
know, that the organization benefits from this change? Would you be
satisfied if the selling price for the organization on the market is
sufficiently higher than without the implementation?
In my eyes, and nobody need to follow me here, the organization consists
at least of three equally important, because necessary for sustainablilty,
those working in the organization and
A compromise on any of the three will harm the organization as a whole. It
is in order to reduce such harm, that I view resistance as an asset worth
exactly the harm avoided.
Besides, what does 'WIIFM' stand for?
[Host's Note: WIIFM = "What's in it for me?" ..Rick]
"Winfried Dressler" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.