Peter Drucker advised that in order to survive, companies need to: “innovate or die.” He also wrote that, “Entrepreneurs see change as the norm and as healthy. Usually, they do not bring about the change themselves. But . . . the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity.”
The quote is from Drucker Apps (“an ongoing conversation about bettering society through effective management and responsible leadership”) from The Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University.
Strategic knowledge management is perhaps the most entrepreneurial of work. Each of us – in his or her own way- must establish how we win over the sceptics and then, ideally, turn them into advocates.
As entrepreneurs, we have the opportunity to help companies survive. To do our best with that opportunity, I would suggest – with Drucker – that healthy change is a critical tool in our entrepreneurial toolbox. And change management – no matter how tired some are of the phrase (call it something else if you have to!) – is the way we lead change.
Guy St. Clair is the Series Editor for 
I wish to agree with Guy and Drucker when it come to change management. Organization have to go through a metamorphosis as the business environment is not static. Organization learning and innovation comes handy in this aspect. Managers and those who are managed will experience change to enable fit in the new business environment and that’s when it is important to embrace the change and manage it accordingly. I look forward to SMR International Special report on change management.
Send to me directly
Since the blog posts linked to other media (like the LinkedIn groups I belong to) don’t send comments back to this site, when there’s a comment it stays there. I’m taking the liberty of posting Larry Hiner’s comment here:
Lawrence Hiner III, Psy.D. • I guess we’ve all seen dozens of change models over the years; many of them are cyclical in that the results of one round of change generally leads to the next. Or, after a change’s outcomes are measured, modifications occur to more closely align the change to the intended outcomes.
Further, I’d like to focus on two aspects of change that I believe are relevant: pace and scope.
With respect to scope, changes (like Christensen’s innovations) can be incremental or disruptive. Disruptive changes generally impact more process – and more people’s lives – and usually demand a longer, more formal, intentional approach. Incremental changes may also require a lot of energy (depending on how rigid the status quo is maintained); but generally are less, well, disruptive.
Regarding pace, I think that we must be aware that – while the rate of change certainly accelerates with far-reaching communications technologies like the internet, smart phones, tablets, and the like – some changes (incremental or disruptive) occur at faster or slower paces than others. Additionally, the various agents to a particular change may proceed at different speeds. In innovation circles, this is known as, “turbulence.”
…just some tidbits for your consideration…
Larry
Thanks so much, Larry, for your good thoughts. As my partners and I continue to explore change management, we intrigued with some of the very things you refer to, and particularly how social media networking is being put to work in the larger change-management construct. In fact Cindy and Dale and I were just speaking about the social media/change management connection yesterday and hope we’ll come up with something to think about before too long. Thanks again. Guy
Like Geoffrey’s comment about metamorphosis in the business environment. One of the neatest tricks for smoothing the change (and you’re right, Geoffrey, there’s nothing static about the business environment) is the whole idea of alliances and change agents. No matter how high my opinion of myself is, I find that change leadership really works best with others are working with me and as a team, we’re bring the changes forward. Thanks for contributing, Geoffrey
Dont ever try to over-sell the concept of change. “Selling” change to people is not a sustainable strategy for success. Usually when the senior management tries selling them a change, they accede, but quietly laugh at it. Instead, change needs to be understood and managed in a way that people can cope effectively with it. Change can be unsettling, so the manager logically needs to be a settling influence.
Well said, Suresh. I think where our real skill with change management comes into play is in linking the “selling” idea with the “building alliances” framework. In hierarchical organizations (and there are so many of them!), it’s really difficult to get people in senior management positions and people NOT in senior management positions on the same page with respect to change. That’s why people like John Kotter, Rosabet Moss Kanter, Rick Maurer, and, yes, Guy St. Clair are always pushing to get the people who will be affected by the change (or at least their representatives) into the discussion before the change management process gets too far along. That’s how the real buy-in (the “selling”) gets accomplished. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.