????親愛(ài)的安妮：去年底，我所在公司的最高管理層宣布了2013年重大戰(zhàn)略調(diào)整計(jì)劃，要求我們這些中層管理者負(fù)責(zé)確保每個(gè)員工都支持這一計(jì)劃。細(xì)節(jié)就不多說(shuō)了，但有一點(diǎn)，這個(gè)新計(jì)劃將導(dǎo)致日常工作發(fā)生重大變化，而這些變化很不受我的團(tuán)隊(duì)歡迎。過(guò)去幾周下屬們對(duì)改革怨聲載道——有些在理，有些沒(méi)道理——抱怨新方法行不通，不公平，等等。

????我理解，在一定程度上，人們需要時(shí)間來(lái)調(diào)整，但我不能等了。本季度末將進(jìn)行第一次“驗(yàn)收”。有一個(gè)工作組本應(yīng)協(xié)調(diào)這些工作，但從他們那里我得不到任何回答。我知道情況很復(fù)雜，你有什么建議嗎？——密歇根中間人

????親愛(ài)的密歇根中間人：這方面的文章很多，因?yàn)檎鐔讨?布朗所言，“員工對(duì)改革的抵觸是導(dǎo)致新戰(zhàn)略失敗的最大單一因素?！辈祭适侵ゼ痈珙檰?wèn)公司Blue Canyon Partners的首席執(zhí)行官，這家公司為財(cái)富500強(qiáng)公司提供咨詢(xún)，如何讓改革更具說(shuō)服力。最近，他完成了一個(gè)研究項(xiàng)目，詳細(xì)研究了什么可行、什么不可行。這項(xiàng)研究產(chǎn)生了四大結(jié)論。

????首先，外部力量很少會(huì)導(dǎo)致一項(xiàng)戰(zhàn)略性調(diào)整失敗。布朗說(shuō)：“我們發(fā)現(xiàn)最值得注意的是，當(dāng)我們?cè)儐?wèn)經(jīng)理和員工他們面臨什么樣的障礙時(shí)，答案很少會(huì)是這個(gè)點(diǎn)子不好，也不會(huì)是來(lái)自競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手或客戶的阻礙?！笔聦?shí)上，幾乎所有的回答都認(rèn)為阻礙來(lái)自于內(nèi)部：“問(wèn)題在于內(nèi)部抵觸或缺乏領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，或者兩者兼而有之?！?/p>

????第二項(xiàng)發(fā)現(xiàn)：如果要進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)重大變革，最高管理層必須要經(jīng)常參與到給員工鼓勁的過(guò)程中來(lái)?！案吖鼙仨氄f(shuō)清楚變革計(jì)劃，”布朗表示?！艾F(xiàn)實(shí)情況往往是，最高管理層說(shuō)：‘好，我們就這么辦?！缓髮?zhí)行推給中層管理者，自己就開(kāi)始關(guān)注下一件事了?！笔遣皇撬圃嘧R(shí)？

????至于你說(shuō)的工作組不回應(yīng)你的問(wèn)題，布朗聽(tīng)后并不覺(jué)得意外。布朗說(shuō)：“負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行新計(jì)劃的團(tuán)隊(duì)最好是公司里‘最優(yōu)秀的團(tuán)隊(duì)’，而不是由一些目前公司不知道該如何安排的人組成?！痹谒芯康暮芏喙局校ぷ鹘M成員都是一些公司不知道該安排到哪里去的人，“要么是臨近退休，要么是在重組中被卸職的，要么是其他正好閑著的人。但事實(shí)上你需要的是將最好的人安排到這里?！?/p>

????新戰(zhàn)略失敗的第四大原因是：在規(guī)劃重大改革時(shí)，最高管理層往往不考慮“改革影響的范圍之廣可能遠(yuǎn)超最初設(shè)想，”布朗表示?！霸诿绹?guó)，我們往往會(huì)過(guò)于樂(lè)觀。在日本公司里，通常會(huì)規(guī)劃應(yīng)急資金，并在最后期限上留有一定的靈活性，因?yàn)樗麄冎揽倳?huì)有一些意外情況出現(xiàn)。如果不在整個(gè)過(guò)程中留出一點(diǎn)余地，這些意外會(huì)導(dǎo)致新戰(zhàn)略失敗?！?/p>

????Dear Annie: Late last year, the top management at my company unveiled a major strategy change for 2013, and put those of us in middle management in charge of making sure everyone who reports to us is on board with the new approach. Without going into too much detail, I'll just say that this new direction requires big changes in how things get done on a day-to-day basis, and these changes are extremely unpopular with my team. I've spent the past few weeks listening to complaints -- some fairly legitimate, others just stupid -- about the new order of things, why it won't work, why it's not fair, etc., etc.

????I understand that, to some extent, it will just take time for people to adjust, but time is one luxury I haven't got. The first "goalpost" (target result) is looming at the end of the quarter. Meanwhile, there is a task force that is supposedly coordinating everyone's efforts, but I can't get them to answer any questions. I realize this is a complicated situation, but do you have any advice? —Michigan Middleman

?????Dear M.M.: Volumes have been written about this, because, as George F. Brown, Jr. observes, "the single biggest cause of failed strategies is employee resistance to change." Brown is CEO of Blue Canyon Partners, a Chicago consulting firm that advises Fortune 500 companies on how to make change stick. He recently completed an exhaustive research project on what works and what doesn't. The study yielded four main conclusions.

????First, external forces rarely cause a strategy shift to fail. "The most remarkable thing we found is that, when we asked executives and employees what barriers they faced, it was never that the idea wasn't good, or that competitors or customers got in the way," says Brown. Instead, in almost all cases, the enemy was within: "Internal resistance, or a failure of leadership, or both, were to blame."

????A second finding: For a major change to happen, top management has to be constantly, and visibly, involved in cheering on the troops. "Senior executives have to sell it," says Brown. "Too often, what happens is that the people at the top say, 'Yup, let's do this,' dump the implementation on middle management, and turn their attention to the next thing." Sound familiar?

????As for the task force you say isn't responding to your questions, Brown isn't surprised to hear it. "The team that is supposed to be running the implementation of the new plan had better be the 'A team,' not the organization's current crop of homeless," Brown says. At many of the companies he studied, those task forces were made up of people the company didn't know what to do with, "either because they were nearing retirement, or had been displaced by a reorganization, or what have you. But you really need your best people on this."

????A fourth cause of new strategies flaming out: In planning for major change, top managers often do not take into account that "the implications of the change will be far more extensive than anyone originally guessed," says Brown. "In the U.S., we tend to see things through rose-colored glasses. In Japanese companies, for example, it's common to plan for contingency funding and extra flexibility on deadlines because they know there will be surprises. If you don't build some slack into the process, those surprises can wreck your new strategy."