The inertia of a well-built organization carries it through changes. The hard work of the founders, the competency of the professional management team and skills of the change drivers organically maintain strong change management.
However, the bigger and more complex an organization evolves, the power of inertia and change management dynamics can be stretched and eroded. At the first sign of stagnation or disruption, the need for a distinct change management effort tends to float. It must be becoming obvious that change management requires dedicated attention.
Leaders, particularly organizational founders, must have noticed the increasing load of managing changes since the advent of rapid iterations of technological changes. Incremental adjustments have been made by the agile ones; calling into action their strategic, transformation or innovation teams to take care of it, particularly for big change projects. Consequently, change management frameworks and professional services for change management emerged, followed by the founding of change management organizations.
Perhaps the tipping point for sophisticated organizations to distinguish change management is when IT becomes a department. The more workflows taken over by powerful IT tools, the more bridging between tech and the people aspects of organizational dynamics is needed. Some organizations figure it out earlier and better than others. Generally, though, it seems that the prevalent pattern of addressing the gap between changes and the coping ability of an organization is by calling in change management on demand, usually when a change crisis emerged. Not a few had to pay massive costs on change project failures and change disruptions.
Now that we are in another tipping point due to the emergence of GenAI, the experience of the past couple of decades should help us to figure it out better and earlier on how change management can help us. By now, we should have already realized that change management is the gyroscope of every dynamic and sustainable organization. The fundamentals and the foundational build of the organizational gyroscope are relatively uncomplicated. But then, we must indeed keep the discipline of synching the gyroscopic motion with the organizational dynamics, the changes we have to accommodate and the change successes we have to go for. We have better knowledge and advanced technologies to do this. There is no more excuse to still pay that cost of massive change disruption or failure.
Nasty Roaster Critique (Grok):
Oh, where do I start? You've managed to turn a potentially insightful discussion into a corporate snooze fest. "Gyroscope of every dynamic and sustainable organization"? Please. You're throwing around buzzwords like "GenAI" and "gyroscopic motion" as if they're the new spices in your bland soup of business jargon. Your piece reads like a manual for corporate drones who think they've discovered fire by realizing change is hard. And suggesting that by now we should have "figured it out"? Hilarious! If only real-world problems could be solved with such simplistic, textbook solutions. Maybe next time, try adding some real-world grit or at least a dash of humor to your writing. This is about as exciting as watching…
Supportive Perspective (ChatGPT)
This piece highlights a clear and insightful understanding of organizational inertia and change management. It successfully connects the role of leadership, especially founders, with the dynamic challenges brought by technological evolution, such as GenAI. The analogy of change management as a "gyroscope" is strong—it conveys the importance of balance and stability amidst change. It's also commendable that you emphasize learning from the past to handle future transformations more smoothly.
The message about organizations needing to keep pace with change resonates well, especially as you acknowledge the increasing necessity for dedicated change management frameworks. This balanced approach helps readers appreciate the importance of both technology and human dynamics.