CAREER COACH

Change is a good thing when everyone is involved

There are steps managers, employees can take to adapt to new work conditions

By VIRGINIA GALT

When employees of Toronto's Delta Chelsea Hotel found themselves with fewer summer business travellers but a lot of restless children climbing the walls, they did not have to be sold on the business case for change. They helped plan the redesign.

As a result of their suggestions, the hotel installed a waterslide. It also set up a games room for teenagers and appointed a "kids' concierge." It stocked family suites with bunk beds and bubble bath and provides babysitting and supervised children's "summer camp" activities, with one proviso: campers must be toilet trained.

By actively participating in the planning process, the employees secured themselves more work by bringing in new business, and contributed to the introduction of more creative changes than the managers might have devised without consultation, William Pallett, senior vice-president of people and quality at Toronto-based Delta Hotels, said in an interview this week.

Not all organizations are as comfortable with the concept of collaborative decision making, said management consultant Edmond Mellina in an interview. Even so, there are steps managers and employees can take to influence and adapt to new working conditions.
Change is easier for all concerned when those most affected have a measure of control over the implementation, said Mr. Mellina, president of Toronto-based TRANSITUS Inc.

At Delta Hotels, when the organization has to adapt to shifting market conditions, consultation with employees and brainstorming sessions are an essential part of the process, Mr. Pallett said. "If you don't spend that time, you will misfire on the execution and you'll have to circle back."

Mr. Mellina said those managers who do not like to engage in extensive management by consensus should still fly proposed changes by a trusted group of "influence leaders" -- those employees who might not necessarily hold formal titles but who enjoy the respect of their peers.

Executives and managers who think they can create change by issuing edicts are deluding themselves, Mr. Mellina said, because, ultimately, the power lies in the hands of the employees responsible for executing those changes.

"They might become fully engaged, they might resist passively or they might actively sabotage the initiative," he said. "They might also comply grudgingly while looking for a better environment."

It is a mistake, as well, for senior executives to assume that middle managers will automatically carry out an imposed change because "that's what they are paid to do, to support the big boys."

A good leader will provide opportunities for line managers to question, challenge and propose alternatives. And these managers, in turn, should be receptive to suggestions from employees.

Careers can be made or derailed over the management -- or mismanagement -- of change, Mr. Mellina said. Managers who cannot deploy the troops will be regarded as ineffective, and employees who vociferously resist change risk being written off as unco-operative.

But should employees just quietly comply, even if they know the change won't work?

"If you believe a change won't work, you should raise your concerns with managers you trust, managers who have demonstrated they welcome constructive input from employees [and] who don't surround themselves with yes people," Mr. Mellina said. "The key is to be constructive, always."

"Before delving into your concerns, stress the aspects of the change you feel good about. Then talk about your concerns and explain why you are worried. Propose alternative approaches and listen to what management has to say. . .

"You might convince management to adapt their plan, and as a result you will become a hero. You might change your mind as a result of the open discussions or you might agree to disagree," he said.