The two parameters of any change management risk assessment are first of all to change the legacy assessment; then the current assessment.
Absolutely unconsciously consider – not to mention conviction – a change initiative that does not seriously refer to your organization' try to change the history.
The shocking thing is that so many companies – especially in North America – do this and are eager to make the next change plan without reporting and not conducting a change management risk assessment – especially if there is no assessment of what was done last time and not What to do, and why.
You need to gain this knowledge and insight now because it can help you repeat past mistakes and fail your current initiative.
Your organization'' change preparation is best represented by your organization' the legacy of the change initiative [both work and job ineffective] because it provides an important early indicator.
You also need to look at the scars left by successful and unsuccessful initiatives, as this is critical to understanding and resolving the scar tissue left by previous initiatives.
The “current assessment” has two aspects: organizational preparation and personal change preparation.
In this article, we will focus on the people side, because individuals' preparation for change is more complicated than it seems:
# Who will be assessed for change preparation
#When will it be evaluated?
#How will they evaluate and on what criteria?
These issues were addressed by considering the “six phases of interest” identified by Pat Zigarmi and Judd Hoskstra, who are co-authors of organizational change experts and Ken Blanchard's “Leader through Change” program.
They co-authored an excellent article: “Leadership Strategies for Change”, based on the results and results of a major study conducted by Blanchard in 2008, including how more than 900 training and HR leaders respond to change.
They emphasize the need for change leadership, involving people at all levels – in other words, participating in informal networks and informal organizations. Their conclusion is that for those who become "persistent", as leaders of change, you must expect to resolve and resolve various levels and levels of problems and identify them as six stages. Attention:
 Information question – What is the change and why?
 Personal Concerns – How will this change affect me personally, will I win or lose?
 Implementation issues – What do I do first, how to manage all the details?
 Impact problems – Efforts are worthwhile. Does the change make a difference?
 Collaboration issues – Who else should participate, how do we spread the word?
 Refine the problem – How can we make the change better?
Another aspect to consider in any form of personal change readiness assessment is the “ready for change” between management and non-management employees.
In short, the smaller the power and formal impact of employees, the less information they have and the greater their concerns. A study by Jim Walters Jim Walters, Director of Customer Relations at Rochester Utilities, shows that [in the utility sector] there are three major gaps between management and non-management employees:
 Compared with non-management employees, management staff are not prepared for change.
 There are significant differences between management and non-management employees. Task and impact related change issues.
 Management employees have more power than non-management employees.
Therefore, individual judgments about change readiness need to take into account these identified stages of interest and the different perspectives and priorities that non-management employees may have compared to management employees – all in the context of transforming heritage and scar organization. Let's leave a trial of change management from the past.Ultimate Cleaning Business Package, Click here!