<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Organization Transformation &amp; Engagement of People?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html</link>
	<description>Effectiveness in Human Resources, Leadership and Personal Success Strategies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:47:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Crisp</title>
		<link>http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html/comment-page-1#comment-261</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Crisp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html#comment-261</guid>
		<description>I suppose I should add, there are lots of examples of changes that do stick - some outstanding which can be found on the Plexus (Complexity organization site) - see blog roll or &lt;html&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.plexusinstitute.com/&quot; target= &quot;_blank&quot;  rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HERE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/html&gt;. Unfortunately I think they are still the minority by a long ways. Most efforts fail, but that&#039;s the nature of complexity - it&#039;s tons of trial and error and then suddenly something works. A key strategy referred to as &#039;Positive Deviance&#039; is to look for and copy the very few that work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose I should add, there are lots of examples of changes that do stick &#8211; some outstanding which can be found on the Plexus (Complexity organization site) &#8211; see blog roll or <html><a href="http://www.plexusinstitute.com/" target= "_blank"  rel="nofollow">HERE</a></html>. Unfortunately I think they are still the minority by a long ways. Most efforts fail, but that&#8217;s the nature of complexity &#8211; it&#8217;s tons of trial and error and then suddenly something works. A key strategy referred to as &#8216;Positive Deviance&#8217; is to look for and copy the very few that work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Crisp</title>
		<link>http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html/comment-page-1#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Crisp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html#comment-260</guid>
		<description>Hi Barbara,
Thanks for your comment/question. It&#039;s a great one and one more people should be asking instead of jumping on &#039;flavor of the month&#039; solutions that don&#039;t last. The short answer is most likely that &#039;the rich get richer and poor stay poor&#039; (although if you look at it in North America it&#039;s more like the &#039;the rich get rich a lot faster than the poor, but even the poor make some progress.&#039;) 

I think everyone benefits to a degree, but for it to last, you need to reach a critical mass. One CEO or a couple on the top team can encourage improvement, but it won&#039;t last unless the majority buy in, so if one key person leaves there&#039;s still a group to carry on. The common name for this is &quot;culture.&quot; I take that to mean &#039;a critical mass of habits and expectations&#039; in the organization so that if a nasty CEO arrives, they don&#039;t last and don&#039;t sink the good behaviors entirely. They can still do lots of damage, like Chainsaw Al did at Sunbeam, but if the underlying culture is strong enough, others will re-emerge after the storm and keep things going... that is, if the basic survivability is there for the organization to avoid bankruptcy. 

Unfortunately this resilience of culture is a handicap to positive change, too, so it&#039;s truly like trying to turn the big ship - slow, almost imperceptible progress until you build enough momentum. That can make even the most dedicated change agents lose hope at times. But we soldier on because that&#039;s what we do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Barbara,<br />
Thanks for your comment/question. It&#8217;s a great one and one more people should be asking instead of jumping on &#8216;flavor of the month&#8217; solutions that don&#8217;t last. The short answer is most likely that &#8216;the rich get richer and poor stay poor&#8217; (although if you look at it in North America it&#8217;s more like the &#8216;the rich get rich a lot faster than the poor, but even the poor make some progress.&#8217;) </p>
<p>I think everyone benefits to a degree, but for it to last, you need to reach a critical mass. One CEO or a couple on the top team can encourage improvement, but it won&#8217;t last unless the majority buy in, so if one key person leaves there&#8217;s still a group to carry on. The common name for this is &#8220;culture.&#8221; I take that to mean &#8216;a critical mass of habits and expectations&#8217; in the organization so that if a nasty CEO arrives, they don&#8217;t last and don&#8217;t sink the good behaviors entirely. They can still do lots of damage, like Chainsaw Al did at Sunbeam, but if the underlying culture is strong enough, others will re-emerge after the storm and keep things going&#8230; that is, if the basic survivability is there for the organization to avoid bankruptcy. </p>
<p>Unfortunately this resilience of culture is a handicap to positive change, too, so it&#8217;s truly like trying to turn the big ship &#8211; slow, almost imperceptible progress until you build enough momentum. That can make even the most dedicated change agents lose hope at times. But we soldier on because that&#8217;s what we do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barbara Berry</title>
		<link>http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html/comment-page-1#comment-259</link>
		<dc:creator>Barbara Berry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.balance-and-results.com/organization-transformation-engagement-of-people.html#comment-259</guid>
		<description>Are there sustainable transformation results using complexity science principles?  After many years of working with this science in organizations, i am beginning to question whether an organization can sustain cultural transformation. 

A few of the factors for lack of sustainability seem to be:

Ownership or CEO turnover during the slow process of  of developing collactive/shared thinking

Lack of effective leadership.

Individual fear of change leads to  sabotage

Time commitment to new learning 

I welcome your comment.

Barbara Berry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are there sustainable transformation results using complexity science principles?  After many years of working with this science in organizations, i am beginning to question whether an organization can sustain cultural transformation. </p>
<p>A few of the factors for lack of sustainability seem to be:</p>
<p>Ownership or CEO turnover during the slow process of  of developing collactive/shared thinking</p>
<p>Lack of effective leadership.</p>
<p>Individual fear of change leads to  sabotage</p>
<p>Time commitment to new learning </p>
<p>I welcome your comment.</p>
<p>Barbara Berry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
