MenuProduct searchSearch
Home » Simply Open Blog » When the party is over

When the party is over

The strained relationship between feel-good culture and consequences

Humans are creatures of habit. Many of us do not like change. We prefer to stick with what we know and the skills we have. Trying new things is well outside our comfort zone. Which scares us. We even flounder sometimes here at TELE. We become comfortable in our routines. We stick with the tools we know and interact with the same people we have grown to know and appreciate. It is comfortable. And inevitably leads to problems.

Change is a law of nature. Whoever resists change still changes (as a result of external forces, for better or worse). This applies to people and companies alike. Constant change is uncomfortable, because you cannot simply rest on your laurels. Because you need to stay curious. Keep your eyes and ears open and interact with others. When we are inspired and we conquer challenges, we gain from the experience. We learn, make mistakes, and develop new ideas and strategies. This is how we grow. It only works, however, when everyone is on board. Only then can the organisation develop as a whole.

The limits of harmony

But what to do when not everyone in the company of the future is courageous enough to face change? What does an organisation do when things become dicey, when achievement of the vision is not supported by all, but rather is seen as an assault on personal comfort? When some employees fear change, do not get on board, or simply refuse? When it seriously hinders the progress of the company?

This brings a new organisation without hierarchies to its limits. After all, clear rules and clear awareness of sanctions are often lacking in democratic structures with a feel-good culture. As long as everything is going well, we all like each other. We are friends and we have fun. But friends do not hurt one another.

The black sheep is unpopular

What to do then when speaking uncomfortable truths becomes necessary? How to make decisions with far-reaching consequences? And how to communicate and explain these decisions? Deciding the fates of other employees. Terminating people?

And who does such a thing, when no one wants to?

  • Does a superior entity need to “intervene” until the “wheel” is round again?
  • Does it make sense to override the meticulously built up, democratic structures for a time?
  • Or is it better to rework the rules and processes of the organisation so that even uncomfortable decisions cannot be shoved to the side?
  • Is an entirely different set of rules needed for crisis situations?
  • Are more courageous leaders needed for these processes?
  • How can companies of the future communicate better, so that all employees are on board with and work toward a common vision?
  • Does this require a democratic vision developed by all?

We have asked plenty of questions. We are excited for the answers and the future they will bring. Do you have any more ideas? We would be happy to hear from you.

 

;