Software Engineering, Project Management, and Effectiveness
Why do many leadership efforts and organizational change initiatives fail? Are there any new insights that might shape new management practices? David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz summarize some counterintuitive conclusions in their article, "The Neuroscience of Leadership", in "strategy+business" magazine.
Leading and Influencing Mindful ChangeRock and Schwartz write the following:
"Managers who understand the recent breakthroughs in cognitive science can lead and influence mindful change: organizational transformation that takes into account the physiological nature of the brain, and the ways in which it predisposes people to resist some forms of leadership and accept others. this does not imply that management - of change or anything else - is a science. There is a great deal of art and craft in it. But several conclusions about organizational change can be drawn that make the art and craft far more effective. These conclusions would have been considered counterintuitive or downright wrong only a few years ago."
Counterintuitive ConclusionsRock and Schwartz identify the following conclusions:
Key Take AwaysI'm not actually surprised by the conclusions. I see these conclusions show up in my day to day at Microsoft. If I were to distill the most important points, I think they are:
PingBack from http://msdnrss.thecoderblogs.com/2008/01/02/counterintuitive-conclusions/
If you coach others or you need to encourage change or if you need to change yourself, the key is to