Change Management Done Wrong

Bill Brady and the financial institution he works for is an interesting one. An infusion of young blood has led to the presence of potential upheaval. The new EVP has some of the same ideas as Bill but the time horizon for change is immediate rather than gradual. It would also seem that age discrimination might be at issue given the propensity for the new EVP to hire younger people with the attrition that is about to occur quite likely affecting older and more experienced workers much more significantly. While being ambitious and bold is typically a good thing, being reckless and brash is less than wise.

As stated in the introduction, the changes desired by the EVP are many of the same changes that were suggested by Bill in the past. However, the time horizon in question is much more constricted. The only saving grace, it would seem, is that Claire is at least somewhat diligent in making decisions and changes, although the budgets and compliance with the changes overall will apparently be demanded, not just asked for. Beyond the attrition and other personnel changes that will occur, there will be procedural and process changes that involve conflating similar tasks, using automation when it is an option and so forth. Much of that is actually not a bad idea. However, there are two major problems that can or will arise. First, massive swings and changes in personnel will be unsettling, as stated repeatedly in the case study, and personnel swings that clearly favor younger people will probably bring accusations, rightly or wrongly, of age discrimination. Further, the shift towards automation and use of technology will surely not favor the more mature and seasoned people because computers and technology are at level that was unthinkable just twenty years ago when the World Wide Web became prominent for common users.

An alternative to the proposed path that will address both problems would be to slow things down and to base the attrition (and hiring of new people) on merit . . . not age. The pattern in place right now is rather concerning and it will lead to litigation if not metered. If the younger people are simply better, that is fine. For example, the younger people will be more tech-savvy and that will be an asset given the changes involved. However, merit or something other than age must be the basis for employment decisions. If tenure is used, it will not favor the young. The other alternatives are to leave things as is (which is not workable) and to only avoid the age discrimination implications. On the whole, taking a gradual but business-wise approach is best. Taking a jarring and immediate approach will be disruptive and the productivity lost from that will sap (if not wipe out) any gains made, at least in the short-term (EEOC, 2017).

When it comes to implementation, the reviews of every department and how they can be aligned to the new strategy is a good move. However, that new strategy would be problematic to catastrophic if implemented as stated in the case study. Even in the best of circumstances, change management can be a minefield. This is especially true when speaking of workers who have been at the firm for one or more decades and when the change is immediate and sudden. It may be frustrating for the EVP for the change to take the time that will be needed. However, doing thing suddenly and seemingly only with dollars in mind will not be received well. There will be a lot of acrimony (if not litigation) from those that get spurned and the people that remain will most likely turn against each other and/or resist the change directly or subtly.