????親愛的安妮：去年底，我所在公司的最高管理層宣布了2013年重大戰(zhàn)略調整計劃，要求我們這些中層管理者負責確保每個員工都支持這一計劃。細節(jié)就不多說了，但有一點，這個新計劃將導致日常工作發(fā)生重大變化，而這些變化很不受我的團隊歡迎。過去幾周下屬們對改革怨聲載道——有些在理，有些沒道理——抱怨新方法行不通，不公平，等等。

????我理解，在一定程度上，人們需要時間來調整，但我不能等了。本季度末將進行第一次“驗收”。有一個工作組本應協(xié)調這些工作，但從他們那里我得不到任何回答。我知道情況很復雜，你有什么建議嗎？——密歇根中間人

????親愛的密歇根中間人：這方面的文章很多，因為正如喬治?布朗所言，“員工對改革的抵觸是導致新戰(zhàn)略失敗的最大單一因素。”布朗是芝加哥顧問公司Blue Canyon Partners的首席執(zhí)行官，這家公司為財富500強公司提供咨詢，如何讓改革更具說服力。最近，他完成了一個研究項目，詳細研究了什么可行、什么不可行。這項研究產(chǎn)生了四大結論。

????首先，外部力量很少會導致一項戰(zhàn)略性調整失敗。布朗說：“我們發(fā)現(xiàn)最值得注意的是，當我們詢問經(jīng)理和員工他們面臨什么樣的障礙時，答案很少會是這個點子不好，也不會是來自競爭對手或客戶的阻礙。”事實上，幾乎所有的回答都認為阻礙來自于內(nèi)部：“問題在于內(nèi)部抵觸或缺乏領導力，或者兩者兼而有之。”

????第二項發(fā)現(xiàn)：如果要進行一項重大變革，最高管理層必須要經(jīng)常參與到給員工鼓勁的過程中來。“高管必須說清楚變革計劃，”布朗表示。“現(xiàn)實情況往往是，最高管理層說：‘好，我們就這么辦。’然后將執(zhí)行推給中層管理者，自己就開始關注下一件事了。”是不是似曾相識？

????至于你說的工作組不回應你的問題，布朗聽后并不覺得意外。布朗說：“負責執(zhí)行新計劃的團隊最好是公司里‘最優(yōu)秀的團隊’，而不是由一些目前公司不知道該如何安排的人組成。”在他研究的很多公司中，工作組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。但事實上你需要的是將最好的人安排到這里。”

????新戰(zhàn)略失敗的第四大原因是：在規(guī)劃重大改革時，最高管理層往往不考慮“改革影響的范圍之廣可能遠超最初設想，”布朗表示。“在美國，我們往往會過于樂觀。在日本公司里，通常會規(guī)劃應急資金，并在最后期限上留有一定的靈活性，因為他們知道總會有一些意外情況出現(xiàn)。如果不在整個過程中留出一點余地，這些意外會導致新戰(zhàn)略失敗。”

????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."