Contrary to what the lengthy title suggests, this won't be a long epistle neither will it be an in-depth analysis. It won't hurl insults neither will it be political. This is so because the writer is a simple teacher that won't write authoritatively on issues he knows little about. But as learners of life, can't we all learn from the impasse and the little we know of?
Is there any alikeness between Wenger and Olubadan? Not really as Wenger heads an institution where he can be sacked any time while Olubadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, heads a cultural normative institution, a big monarch of the biggest city in West Africa. Wenger has failed Arsenal in a way ( even if the boards and players have their contributions too) but Olubadan is a successful monarch over a peaceful yet populated city. As spectators of history, where are the lessons from the current development in the city? Where has Wenger faltered and started fumbling?
The urgent moral of this anecdote is that the head is (no matter how strong, knowledgeable, powerful, tactical) as weak as the weakest link in the team. Check Wenger out, the once-great tactician has fielded at least one weak link in his first eleven in the last decade of his recent inglorious struggle. This weak-link syndrome has failed many great men e.g. Achilles and his heel ( even Jesus was betrayed by a Judas) , has failed conglomerates ( think Daewoo and Kodak companies), has failed nations, etc. And remember that the impasse in the city started because some chieftains actually accepted or, as reported, pleaded for the change. Are they the weak-link or the Monarch-chieftain relationship has weakened so?
Learn, that you are as strong as the weakest member of your team and also, the going-concern of your success as a team depends on the relationship and loyalty forged. A house divided against itself can't hold its sovereignty.
Except for the generic meaning of Ajumobi ( 'Collective parenting': I stand corrected) what else could link us to his Excellency, Governor Ajumobi's action? Change-Agent. To effect a change successfully, one needs to consult, sell ideas, identify sub-agents that will drive the force of the change. A political change, the manner and the approach, may differ a traditional change. But for every change, change-agent factors are overtly and covertly important. Definitely most people abhor changes therefore resistance will be abound. But it behooves the initiator of the change to thoroughly convince those individuals and turn them into loyalists of the cause. How do we achieve this?
The five building blocks of a successful change according to the Prosci Adkar model, are:
1. Awareness
2. Desire
3. Knowledge
4. Ability
5. Reinforcement
AWARENESS borders on the reason(s) for the urgency of that needed change and with the absence of collective awareness, efforts will amount to STATUS QUO. DESIRE is making it every stake holder's personal decision to effect the change and if this is not achieved, we have RESISTANCE. Next is the KNOWLEDGE enabling and driving the change and if absent, we have WRONG ACTIONS. ABILITY is empowering people to act on the vision and without ability, there will be FRUSTRATION. While making a change is difficult, sustaining it can be more difficult. That's why REINFORCEMENT addresses our brains' natural tendency to revert to the usual and without reinforcement, we have RETROGRESSION.
Are you faced with Status quo, Resistance, Wrong Actions, Frustration, or Retrogression while effecting a change at your little corner of the world? Or more than one of these at a time? Which one has his Excellency's change faced with? Trace it back to the preceding paragraph, ADKAR will show you what's amiss.
The impasse will be resolved by the court. We ain't here to pass judgement anyway. We just learn from the obvious foible from each quarter. Wenger, his Royal Highness, his Excellency, and US, we all have a little of other-selves in ourselves.
---toonday
On Toonday's Perspectives
Comments
Post a Comment