Unfortunately, in practice I often experience the complete opposite. One tries to integrate the employees as late as possible. What is the reason for this?
One reason for this is the feeling of being seen as a “bad manager”, because at the time of communication no solution can be named. This assumption probably originates from the Tayloristic understanding of leadership (planning and control by an “all-knowing” leader).
⇒ In fact, however, it is precisely this early involvement that is usually perceived as “good leadership” – it must of course be accompanied by good communication. Early information followed by integration into the solution process has a collegial, trust-building and transparent effect.
Another motive can be the feeling that these constant meetings with many employees would cause unnecessary costs and also uncertainty and are therefore inefficient.
⇒ In fact, from my own experience, I am firmly convinced that a subsequent or later integration of employees is much more costly, because then …
… even more (and unnecessary!) resistance must be overcome.
… the collective intelligence of the employees can only be used insufficiently.
… the change process as a whole usually takes longer.
… sometimes the change goal is not achieved at all.
For me, change projects are part of everyday life. And experience has taught me that the best results are clearly achieved with open, honest communication and very early involvement of the employees. q.e.d.
Are you faced with the challenge of making your business model more sustainable so that you will still be successful tomorrow? And to actually implement this change in your company? Then please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.