“Change” for What and Why?

The so-called rhetoric and metaphor of “only unchanging phenomenon is change itself” escalates its reputation with the intensity of pandemic since the last year. Particularly, with the end of Cold War dramatically identified with the broke down of Berlin Wall in 1989 followed by the fragmentation of the USSR, the concept of change was increasingly perceived as a positive search for a better attempt. That was actually a reflection of Fukuyama’s thesis on “end of history” championed by neo-liberal assumptions to bring the world in general wealth, peace and prosperity. Despite positive perception of neo-liberalism stated in “There is no alternative approach”, the results proved just the opposite with poverty, huge income gap and security risks. In spite of such negative impacts and lessened expectation of 1990s, the concept of “change” remained as a hope in the millennium. The most used way to manage change at a high speed and intensity has been “shock therapy” via drastic events influencing individual human beings and international community as such 9/11, 2008 financial crisis and recent pandemic, Covid 19. All these three major shocking waves, not mentioning H1N1, “Greater Middle East Project”, Sars” etc., were menacing security, economy and health of the people, that’s to say the first layer of Maslow pyramid of humanity. Because of that highly ascending pace of change, we are facing around 90 different physical walls between countries and communities, two times more than the period before 1990s. The number of loss in many civil wars and social violence are also drastically higher that those before 1990s as well. At that point, one has to ask question of why such positively expected “change” is lost. What was the exact reason for such a failure? That question is also substantial, given the fact that pandemic stimulates faster and deeper path of change compared to previous periods, menacing future if not well controlled.

Undoubtedly, continuous change causes new problems and conflicts that require different ways to deal with at every stage. In that context, to manage change is like controlling time and external factors to a certain extent. Thus, agile adopting and pro-actively leading could be two major options for an effective alignment with change. For organizations, adopting and management of change lies behind the culture (DNA) of the company. Although external circumstances seem to be catalyzer of the change, it is in fact organization’s internal dynamics used as ready-assets for change management. In other words, organization’s level of awareness to shift status quo, its willingness to adopt new way of doing business, its knowledge and ability for interpreting and forecasting future competency for sustainable and competitive advantage determine success rate of change. Besides, energy for regular reinforcement to make change permanent characteristic of organization is also crucial for internalizing change as a natural reflex of organizational behavior. If organizations develop their consciousness for unprecedented level of change, survival and sustainability of business will be kept in safe. Moreover, making instant and continuous challenge to status quo and comfort zone as a DNA of organization, endorsement of risk-taking approach, creative ideas and innovation are important. To achieve such an organizational maturity and corporate development, investing in mutual trust and respect at all levels of management team is essential.

Therefore, despite circumstances are shown as natural excuse for organizations’ fault for adopting to change, change is in fact a behavior and dynamic from inside to outside. Thus, organization’s rational analysis and understanding of futuristic SWOT unlimited and unbiased to current success/situation of the company, leadership team’s logical exemption from wishful thinking in addition to collaborative/constructive team work will be key results to manage change. To manage expectations and real consequences of “change”, DNA of the organization is to be continuously kept agile and responsive to challenge current “status quo”. To conclude, the strength of corporate values and believed harmony in shared objectives will be key for successful change management, in so far as wholeness and intensity of change can only be covered with a collective thinking and coherent consciousness of the leadership team and organization, going beyond total sum of separate individual efforts. Change is, not to build new Berlin walls among different stakeholders for the sake of one another, on the contrary it is more to build social and transforming bridges (DNAs) among generations, segments for inclusiveness, and elimination of alienation. Simply, because sustainable and continuous change focus culture could not be constructed in spite of or instead of some, both for the sake of us who is always “together stronger”.