Fear of change.

[iluvtofly 0]

(Sorry if this turns into a rant.)

Just how terrified are you of your routine changing?

So things are supposed to be changing a bit at work today. We had a girl move away, so they are changing who has what reponsibilities to make up for us being shorthanded (we were a bit shorthanded before she even left). Today was supposed to be the day those changes got implimented. Well, before people even started their new duties they were already bitching and complaining and saying how other people aren't going to be able to do what they're supposed to be doing now. They haven't even given the changes a try. Now maybe it's because I've only worked here for 7 months, not years like most of these people. But I feel change is good. If you don't swap it up every now and then people become complacent with what they're doing and mistakes are made without anyone noticing them. It just bothers me that everyone is in such a horrible mood over something they haven't even given a chance to see if it will work or not.

[piisfish 136]

my girlfriend usually says to me : If you fear the change, you will have both the fear AND the change

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[iluvtofly 0]

I like that saying...maybe I'll print it up really big and hang it in my cube.

I will say, it's pretty sad when myself and the one girl who is the same as as me are the only ones not complaining. It has now gotten to the point that people are complaining that they don't want to sit next to certain people (they try to keep everyone who is working on similar stuff sitting together, and with the changes people are having to move desks). I feel like I'm back in elementary school right now.

[Arvoitus 1]

If its change for the sake of change then I see it as pointless waste of energy. If there is an actual benefit in going through with the change then I don't mind doing it.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[jtval 0]

Quote

I like that saying...maybe I'll print it up really big and hang it in my cube.

Embrace the Change. Fear the Cube.

My photos

My Videos

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I voted boobies but...

Maybe they have been around long enough to know management is a bunch of morons.

When Julie worked for RJ Reynolds, their way of covering for the people that didn't do their jobs was to re-align the territories about ever 2 yrs. Since Julie did her job, and well, she would end up with the shittyest ones because they knew she would get them straightened out. The slackers would coast into a new territory that looked great and the cycle started again.

[iluvtofly 0]

I think it might be the exact opposite problem. The people complaining the most of the ones who don't do jack shit now and are being moved to something where they will actually have to do some work.

I'm actually happy about the fact that I'm getting a little more work to do. I was getting pretty bored.

[MikeJD 0]

Quote

we were a bit shorthanded before she even left

There's the giveaway for me.

Change in itself can be fine. Resourcing crisis panic measures dressed up as 'change' - not so much. Too often, managers have pressure from higher up to say they can produce the same results with fewer people. To justify that they have to present some kind of plan as to how they're going to do it, regardless of whether or not it makes sense in real terms.

But of course you're right that whatever the reason, bitching about it isn't going to make it go any smoother!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I feel change is good.

I used to hear that all the time in the workplace. And sometimes it's true. But not always. A few people seem to like change just for the sake of change, and don't actually pay any attention to whether or not it's going to be harmful overall. A change may be good for one particular department, but then be detrimental to numerous other departments. You can't just say that "all change is good". That's bullshit. Each change has to be judged on its own merits and demerits.

Sure, people will bitch about change, even if it's good change. Then you do it anyway and let them adjust. But that doesn't mean that you should ignore the complaints, because their concerns might actually be valid.

Here's an example. In a computer department we used to have the library produce a centralized list of all the programs, which was used by everyone in the entire department to access the programs. They got the bright idea that they could save money by running that report monthly instead of daily. All change is good, right? So they made the change. But because of the highly dynamic environment, now the report was no longer current on a daily basis, and many people had to run their own copy to get the info they needed. So overall, this expensive report was now being run 10 times more often than before, instead of just once. So was that still a good change? Absolutely not. You had to look at the totality of the effects and aftereffects, before deciding whether or not that was a good change. We then went back to just a single daily run of the report, which was commonly accessible by everyone. No change was needed - it was already being done in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Often, there's a good reason why "it's always been done that way", and if you don't understand that "why", then you should do some research before proposing something different.

[iluvtofly 0]

Quote

Quote

we were a bit shorthanded before she even left

There's the giveaway for me.

Change in itself can be fine. Resourcing crisis panic measures dressed up as 'change' - not so much. Too often, managers have pressure from higher up to say they can produce the same results with fewer people. To justify that they have to present some kind of plan as to how they're going to do it, regardless of whether or not it makes sense in real terms.

But of course you're right that whatever the reason, bitching about it isn't going to make it go any smoother!

Well they are working on hiring another person. So we won't be permanently shorthanded. In fact I'm trying to get apollard the job.

[airtwardo 6]

Too much change can be a bad thing, it's heavy and makes holes in my pockets!



Most people get comfortable in a routine, that's both good and bad. Complacency comes just after bored in the dictionary.

Major life changes cause stress, the whole fear of 'unknown territory' is hard-wired into our survival mechanism.

We're experiencing that here at home, wife's airline is merging with another major, and lots of changes are happening fast and will be for the foreseeable future.

She was very 'comfortable' with the way things were and staring into the black hole ahead that's filled with the unknown, has her and many fellow employees carrying around a case and a half of cautious concern that's weighing heavily.

I keep trying to emphasize concentrating on the positive, pointing out in most cases the fears we manifest are unfounded.

At 'this' point in time, there is just as much chance of the changes making things better than there is of it making them worse...see how things play out before making a judgement.

Concentrating on the 'possible' negative aspects focuses you the wrong way and can poison the process...'self fulfilling prophecies' so to speak.

I keep telling her it's like getting a new pair of boots...a little uncomfortable until ya get 'em broke in, but once you do ya forget all about the 'old' pair.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[airtwardo 6]

No change was needed - it was already being done in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Often, there's a good reason why "it's always been done that way", and if you don't understand that "why", then you should do some research before proposing something different.

~I got into a heated debate with management when I worked in aerospace manufacturing. Management was from the 'all change is good' school of thought.

I kept proposing we 'change the way we change things'


You're dead on John, and I always had difficulty explaining to management that in many circumstances there IS a reason things are done the way they are. Given the available resources, the 'task' usually morphs itself into the most streamlined and efficient system.

It only makes good sense to consider changing the 'resources' to make the 'task' more efficient, merely changing the process isn't always better...and one needs to understand fully how changes in one area will effect other areas.

Thing is, it's cheaper to change small parts of a system than the whole thing...on paper anyway.

The company paid a ton for some high priced consultants to come in observe for a few weeks, and make recommendations...

I was in production control and scheduling...the consultants held meetings with each department to explain the changes to be implemented. Ten minutes in I told them it wasn't going to work...told them why, then got spanked for being negative.

JIT or the 'just in time' method of inventory control and scheduling was a new concept at the time, it basically reduces the need for large stocks of raw material being bought and inventoried on a manufacturing site.

Works wonderfully when making mass amounts of theoretical widgets...not so much with stealth fighter and space shuttle parts.

What those guys didn't understand was the complicated flow of balancing the intricate engineering requirements to manufacture (time) with hard delivery schedules (money) in regard to the need of re-working an item to pass aerospace inspection. Tolerances for the space shuttle are quite a bit different than at 'widgets are us'

Often if a part is being hung up with manufacturing problems, it's contractually cost efficient to just start making a new one, keeping the 1st one in production for a later delivery date...can't DO that without raw material on hand.

Just too many variables to be factored in under that type of manufacturing environment.

Three years into it with continuous missed delivery schedules they shit-canned JIT.

Literally TENS of MILLIONS wasted.



Fortunately along with the JIT program, a whole lotta mahogany row got shit-canned as well!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I got into a heated debate with management when I worked in aerospace manufacturing. Management was from the 'all change is good' school of thought...

The company paid a ton for some high priced consultants to come in observe for a few weeks, and make recommendations...

Three years into it with continuous missed delivery schedules they shit-canned JIT.

I had the exact same experience with my computer work. A fancy new computer database software system was proposed by management. I helped evaluate it, and wrote programs against the new system duplicating our existing programs, and compared the run time statistics. The new system was significantly slower than the old system, and harder to program - the compiler would only identify one error at at time, which was about 20 years behind the times. My recommendation was "don't buy it". But management wanted to spend millions of dollars and build a new castle! And I was getting in their way. So the new system was purchased anyway, millions spent on the software, millions spent on conversion, and when it was all done, it was worse than what we started with. But management claimed victory anyway.

Such is the business world.

[ryoder 1,411]

Quote

I used to hear that all the time in the workplace. And sometimes it's true. But not always. A few people seem to like change just for the sake of change, and don't actually pay any attention to whether or not it's going to be harmful overall. A change may be good for one particular department, but then be detrimental to numerous other departments. You can't just say that "all change is good". That's bullshit. Each change has to be judged on its own merits and demerits.

Sure, people will bitch about change, even if it's good change. Then you do it anyway and let them adjust. But that doesn't mean that you should ignore the complaints, because their concerns might actually be valid.

Absolutely!
A couple years ago my division of a large company got a new director.
One of the first things the moron did was to completely re-organize the entire division with no input whatsoever from the managers or anyone else in the division.
The result was total chaos with no one sure of who was in charge of what, and many responsibilities were completely overlooked, and the only people who knew anything about them were RIF'd as part of the same re-org.

If there had been any concept of mgt responsibility in this company, the jackass would have been fired.

Is it any wonder this company went down the tubes and was bought out by another company?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wmw999 2,172]

My brother was on the evaluation team for a new corporate headquarters for an unnamed fairly major corporation. They downselected from 10 citites, and then to one.

They had the results sent back to them for re-evaluation, because the president of operations was sure they'd missed something. Nope, nothing missed -- they went right down their criteria (pre-cleared).

So they moved to a more expensive city anyway, and were just told to make the evaluation numbers match. It's no wonder my brother left that company shortly after they moved him to the new city. Lucky for him he likes it there (and even luckier his wife likes it there).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Yeah....we went through the JIT-shit, too in the communications business. Freakin' bean counters cost the company more money than they saved...by far.

My, how they puffed up their chests telling everyone how much money was going to be saved...the upper dogs fell for it.

It didn't work for us either. We told them that up front. Most of the push back came from us poor bozos in the field. After implementation, we were having to face irate and vein-popping mad customers who couldn't get what they needed when they needed it.

Took one helluva long time and a couple of major customers saying, "Screw you. We're buying from your competitor from now on", to convince the upper dogs that they screwed up in implementing it in the first place.

No heads rolled, though. They were just "re-assigned".

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Bertt 0]

This sounds like the kind of change that works best for executives who want to pay the worker-bees less so they can put more change in their own pockets.

You don't have to outrun the bear.