Since the early 1990s, when “Change Management” became two words we use together comfortably, the idea of managing individuals through change in the workplace has matured considerably.  We now have maturity models, processes, templates, and detailed plans complete with measurements that assure us that our change efforts have been successful. I would suggest that much of this work has greatly enhanced how we manage technoogy and process projects. Focusing on how and when we give people training, how we communicate to them about what’s coming, and how they provide feedback, following the traditional ‘transmission model’ of communications, has its usefulness.

However, when it comes to changing ‘how we work’, management is an ambitious term for what is naturally a messy and turbulant process. Cultures emerge, grow, change, and die over time through collective efforts (or lack thereof) from all sorts of forces. Even worse for the management-minded, culture resists measurement – as soon as you turn a telescope on it you it moves (changes) and eludes you.  That makes it exciting for social scientists and frustrating for management scientists – although often frustrating in a ‘good way’ 🙂

I suggest we need to bring together social sciences and management sciences to effectively think about this phenomena.  But….. social scientists will need to wrap their heads around the manage pespective that values ‘hard numbers and proof points’, and management scientists (and practicioners) will need to be open to different ways of seeing and valuing progress.  It remains to be seen if that’s a gulf that can be crossed in managemnet consulting and in industry, as well as in academia.