Change? Why do most people think change is bad? Sometimes, in fact quite often, it improves things. Maybe change could improve things at Oakwell. Results wise it can't get much worse. After 40 years in small business I've always been amazed at the degree of resistance to change in most staff. So much so that in our company mission statement we had a list of sayings that were banned. One of them was "But we've always done it that way" said in a pathetic whining tone of voice. My God if we had never changed anything we would still be using a typewriter to send out letters, and a big thick leather bound book to do the accounts, with an ivory quill dipped in ink. Change is the catalyst for progress, the start point for something new. If ever there was a time in our (BFC's) history when we need change, it's now. We're still in with a good chance of staying up, we've got new owners with new ideas, we may have slightly more funds available than 12 months ago, we've got a decent fan base for the "size" of our club, we're debt free as far as I know. Change is obviously needed, I'm sure we all could see that on the field. I would have preferred Hecky to have been involved in that change, but as things stand it seems not. I hope his leaving can be the catalyst to provoke more radical change. Whoever comes in may improve things, we may stay up, we may consolidate next season. It doesn't always have to be bad, it could be good. It might rain on Saturday, but on the other hand the sun may come out. We don't know yet.
Not really related to changes at the club but the reason employees don't like change is that it affects them. Usually when an employer makes changes to how things at the company is run it makes a change to the employees workload. Extra work for them, a change in hours, loss of jobs even. Far too often employers make changes without properly considering or really caring about the way it will effect the employees because business comes first and the employees are just robots. I'm not saying that is the case in your company but in one's ive worked at it has been and it's never been those making the decisions who have had to do the extra work or change their hours
Nothing personal but that attitude is exactly the one I've been complaining about for 40 years. Of course change affects staff, it affects everything. Sometimes, in some companies, it may have the effect you describe. But often, change enables progress, success, pay rises, profit sharing, promotion, bonuses, growth, new markets, new products, new customers. You know, positive things like that. My point is that change doesn't have to be bad. It could be, but it doesn't have to be.
Interesting. In my experience change usually is instigated by an employee within a workplace rather that those running it at the top. Quite often those at a higher level can be resistant to change as well. You are right though. Effective change is vital for every organisation. If embraced by all, all usually benefit.
But more often than not the big changes ARE bad for the employee as the bosses care less and less about the people and more and more about money. It's greed
Couldn't agree more mate. That's the best type of change. The problem is finding an employee with the imagination, and sometimes the courage, to suggest change which may affect his fellow workers. Anyway, this thread is turning into a business management discussion. My point was, as I'm sure you know, that the imminent change at Oakwell may not be as bad as many fans think. It might be change for the better. It had better be!
Yours may have done, and if so I'm sorry it was like that for you. My experience is that that type of boss doesn't get far, in small to medium organisations at least. Most bosses are not daft and realise that the "people" are their most important asset.
Interesting that when companies put up prices and they write to tell you they never say it's a price "increase". It is a "revision", a "change" or a "new" price. Sorry I'm straying from the point but thought I would just mention this.