It appears that the smell of alleged corruption is once again permeating through the halls of power. Recently in Canberra and now in NSW and it has been implied in the media in Victoria. Other States, from time to time, have also shared in the blame. Both sides of the political aisle have been implicated.

Add to this atrocious behaviour by our elected leaders, is the reality that both major parties will do anything and say anything to grab power and then hang onto it. Promise something to get into power then do the opposite, or arguably worse, pull out the secret agenda that underlines their particular world-view.

All of this in one of the supposedly most advanced democracies on earth.

Obviously something is broken.

Maybe we need a new model of leadership; a new model of accountability; and a new standard of honesty and service to its constituency.

Maybe, we the non-politicians, should band together as concerned constituents, in a national debate without politicians, to craft and define what we demand of our leaders. We do not want politicians telling us what is good for us. We need politicians that listen to the people and then make happen what we want. And we should hold them accountable for how well they give us what we want.

The disciplines to Enterprise Transformation success vary depending on the context, time available, nature of the transformation and resources allocated.

However, if you apply all the appropriate processes and techniques, then success will look like the following:

• Your project, new system, new business initiative, strategy or whatever the change outcome was will have been implemented effectively and successfully.
• Your project, new system, new business initiative, strategy or whatever the change outcome was will have been implemented on time and on budget.
• Your people will feel they know why the change was required.
• The change will integrate effectively and efficiently with all parts of the organisation and stakeholder environments that it’s meant to.
• All of your people will feel comfortable they were involved in the change journey and had plenty of opportunity to contribute and make any comments they felt were warranted.
• There is a feeling of a shared common purpose and desire for the change to happen.
• During the change program, everyone knew what they were meant to do.
• Everybody will be skilled and trained in using the new processes, as well as all of the systems that were underpinning your change initiative.
• Consequently people will feel supported, capable and comfortable in accepting the new processes and systems, as well as any other components of the change initiative. They will feel part of it all, as opposed to feeling like they are standing outside looking in.
• There will be ample and adequate documentation and induction processes for new people who join your organisation. This will include information explaining what the change was all about and the benefits those changes delivered. Access to training material on the organisation’s Intranet (where available and practical) will be made easy and its use will also be easy and effective.
• People will be experiencing a more effective way of doing their work: a better way, a more efficient way, a more meaningful way - with more accurate information available to them.
• Risks were managed well.
• There were no rogue issues.
• Information about the change was readily available and accessible by all who needed it.
• As a result of the change journey, your people will feel they contributed value. This will enhance their self-esteem, enhance their motivation, and will engender a more ‘respectful culture’ within the organisation.

An article in HBR (http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/forget-the-strategy-powerpoint/) proposes a more meaningful way of presenting a corporation's Vision statement.

The problem with this approach is that it is too simplistic.

Firstly, is it a statement for its PR value in the market or is it intended to motivate staff? Generally consumers don't care about the company; they care about the value they're getting from it for their invested time and money.

Secondly, it appears that the vision is driving what the corporation 'will be'. A Vision statement in a multiple-shareholder corporation is an enabler, not an objective. In other words, a Vision is a picture of the corporation at some time in the future delivering the corporation's mission - not the other way around.

In a private single-shareholder enterprise, the Vision can be anything it wants and defined any way it wants. It only needs to live with the consequences of its 'vision'.

Thirdly, in order to make a Vision statement meaningful, it has to enable decision-making. A one-line or even one-page Vision statement means that management must subjectively (but with well-meaning intent) interpret the one line or one page. This is fraught with danger.

To be more effective, a Vision statement needs to explain or define the Vision for all key parts of the organisation: What will our market look like in the 'new world'? What will our products and services be composed of? What are the future characteristics of our channels, support requirements, communications and promotions, human resources, systems and processes, and our structure and management? Only with this sort of clarity, can management make decisions that help take the organisation toward its vision. Only with this level of detail can a corporation justify a significant change to its vision when circumstances change over time.

Without practiced responses to legitimate instances of objections, negativity or resistance (ONR), responses to it will in likelihood be inconsistent, contradictory and sometimes counterproductive.

ONR when not addressed and or negated; can fester and permanently poison the culture of the change initiative and thereby lower the likelihood of its successful implementation.
Realistically, not all instances of ONR are of equal importance or validity.

ONR issues are commonly (but by no means exclusively) raised on the basis of perception rather than fact, thereby making them subjective. However for the perceiver, perception is often 'fact'.

ONR from a customer stakeholder that spends $100 per annum is less important than the ONR issues raised by a customer that is responsible for 60% of the organisation's revenues or effort.

The ONR issues raised by the board or CEO or CFO or COO have more weight than almost any other ONR issues raised by any other stakeholder. That doesn't mean that their (or any other) ONR issues are legitimate; just that their voice has more impact and immediacy. After all, if their ONR issues are not resolved, then they can terminate a change initiative.

Although you may reasonably choose to prioritise certain ONR issues over others, be aware that even an ant-bite can cause injury. People feel particularly peeved when they get the message that what they have to say is irrelevant or unimportant. 'Small people' can have loud voices and can influence if they turn their mind to it - so ignore ONR at your peril.

Just letting the followers to this blog know that I am now also posting/publishing to my LinkedIn page at http://au.linkedin.com/pub/dr-jack-jacoby/0/145/426/.

My LinkedIn page has in excess of 1000 followers and will accommodate my professional-related views while this blog will contain more personal views of stuff although each site will cross-pollinate from the other.

Apologies to all if this is a hassle.