中层经理如何化解下属对改革的抵触？

    亲爱的安妮：去年底，我所在公司的最高管理层宣布了2013年重大战略调整计划，要求我们这些中层管理者负责确保每个员工都支持这一计划。细节就不多说了，但有一点，这个新计划将导致日常工作发生重大变化，而这些变化很不受我的团队欢迎。过去几周下属们对改革怨声载道——有些在理，有些没道理——抱怨新方法行不通，不公平，等等。

    我理解，在一定程度上，人们需要时间来调整，但我不能等了。本季度末将进行第一次“验收”。有一个工作组本应协调这些工作，但从他们那里我得不到任何回答。我知道情况很复杂，你有什么建议吗？——密歇根中间人

    亲爱的密歇根中间人：这方面的文章很多，因为正如乔治•布朗所言，“员工对改革的抵触是导致新战略失败的最大单一因素。”布朗是芝加哥顾问公司Blue Canyon Partners的首席执行官，这家公司为财富500强公司提供咨询，如何让改革更具说服力。最近，他完成了一个研究项目，详细研究了什么可行、什么不可行。这项研究产生了四大结论。

    首先，外部力量很少会导致一项战略性调整失败。布朗说：“我们发现最值得注意的是，当我们询问经理和员工他们面临什么样的障碍时，答案很少会是这个点子不好，也不会是来自竞争对手或客户的阻碍。”事实上，几乎所有的回答都认为阻碍来自于内部：“问题在于内部抵触或缺乏领导力，或者两者兼而有之。”

    第二项发现：如果要进行一项重大变革，最高管理层必须要经常参与到给员工鼓劲的过程中来。“高管必须说清楚变革计划，”布朗表示。“现实情况往往是，最高管理层说：‘好，我们就这么办。’然后将执行推给中层管理者，自己就开始关注下一件事了。”是不是似曾相识？

    至于你说的工作组不回应你的问题，布朗听后并不觉得意外。布朗说：“负责执行新计划的团队最好是公司里‘最优秀的团队’，而不是由一些目前公司不知道该如何安排的人组成。”在他研究的很多公司中，工作组成员都是一些公司不知道该安排到哪里去的人，“要么是临近退休，要么是在重组中被卸职的，要么是其他正好闲着的人。但事实上你需要的是将最好的人安排到这里。”

    新战略失败的第四大原因是：在规划重大改革时，最高管理层往往不考虑“改革影响的范围之广可能远超最初设想，”布朗表示。“在美国，我们往往会过于乐观。在日本公司里，通常会规划应急资金，并在最后期限上留有一定的灵活性，因为他们知道总会有一些意外情况出现。如果不在整个过程中留出一点余地，这些意外会导致新战略失败。”

    Dear Annie: Late last year, the top management at my company unveiled a major strategy change for 2013, and put those of us in middle management in charge of making sure everyone who reports to us is on board with the new approach. Without going into too much detail, I'll just say that this new direction requires big changes in how things get done on a day-to-day basis, and these changes are extremely unpopular with my team. I've spent the past few weeks listening to complaints -- some fairly legitimate, others just stupid -- about the new order of things, why it won't work, why it's not fair, etc., etc.

    I understand that, to some extent, it will just take time for people to adjust, but time is one luxury I haven't got. The first "goalpost" (target result) is looming at the end of the quarter. Meanwhile, there is a task force that is supposedly coordinating everyone's efforts, but I can't get them to answer any questions. I realize this is a complicated situation, but do you have any advice? —Michigan Middleman

     Dear M.M.: Volumes have been written about this, because, as George F. Brown, Jr. observes, "the single biggest cause of failed strategies is employee resistance to change." Brown is CEO of Blue Canyon Partners, a Chicago consulting firm that advises Fortune 500 companies on how to make change stick. He recently completed an exhaustive research project on what works and what doesn't. The study yielded four main conclusions.

    First, external forces rarely cause a strategy shift to fail. "The most remarkable thing we found is that, when we asked executives and employees what barriers they faced, it was never that the idea wasn't good, or that competitors or customers got in the way," says Brown. Instead, in almost all cases, the enemy was within: "Internal resistance, or a failure of leadership, or both, were to blame."

    A second finding: For a major change to happen, top management has to be constantly, and visibly, involved in cheering on the troops. "Senior executives have to sell it," says Brown. "Too often, what happens is that the people at the top say, 'Yup, let's do this,' dump the implementation on middle management, and turn their attention to the next thing." Sound familiar?

    As for the task force you say isn't responding to your questions, Brown isn't surprised to hear it. "The team that is supposed to be running the implementation of the new plan had better be the 'A team,' not the organization's current crop of homeless," Brown says. At many of the companies he studied, those task forces were made up of people the company didn't know what to do with, "either because they were nearing retirement, or had been displaced by a reorganization, or what have you. But you really need your best people on this."

    A fourth cause of new strategies flaming out: In planning for major change, top managers often do not take into account that "the implications of the change will be far more extensive than anyone originally guessed," says Brown. "In the U.S., we tend to see things through rose-colored glasses. In Japanese companies, for example, it's common to plan for contingency funding and extra flexibility on deadlines because they know there will be surprises. If you don't build some slack into the process, those surprises can wreck your new strategy."