Dealing with change

Joe Sacco

This will be a good test of how badly people can deal with change. A slight change of format to a forum and people are making such a big deal of it (moaning, waiting to see if others come across from the old forum)

Maybe they ought to teach "dealing with change" in schools. After all, it is going to happen to everyone during their life isn't it.

formerlyknownasbonj

The yoghurt knitters will always whinge. I have to deal with people who are resistant to change all the time in my job, they just need to shut up and to be grateful for what they're given and the fact that people are trying to improve their lives.

Smeggers

Tis funny how a forum can mirror life at work int it.

Think its quite pretty meself, but as this is only me first post on it, who am I to judge!

Joe Sacco

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

The yoghurt knitters will always whinge. I have to deal with people who are resistant to change all the time in my job, they just need to shut up and to be grateful for what they're given and the fact that people are trying to improve their lives.

Okay, so maybe best if you don't hold the "dealing with change" classes!

notanotherusername

At the moment, it's a bit like two schools merging into big super school. All the kids, so set in their ways (at such a young age), are having to discover there are other people out there with different traditions.

People are squaring up against each other as these traditions collide - "Soapbox is for arguments, everyone knows that!"

Umm - I think people need to chill a bit, give it time, and one day it will be as if this was always our home. And eventually, when Future come up with their next big idea, we will unite with our new found friends to grumble about it.

Cheers
Stephen

Peyote

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

Joe Sacco

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

Agree. Best way to get people to be happy with the change is to ensure the reasons behind the change are fully communicated and allow people to raise any issues they may have so they can at least feel considered before the change.

Don't remember that happening? (but then it is only a forum!)

Yorkshireman

I think I`m getting the hang of it now :?

boguSelecta

phpBB is an infinitely better forum application than that shitty asp forum used on C+

I'm glad it's changed. It's for the better...

Smeggers

Joe Sacco wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

Agree. Best way to get people to be happy with the change is to ensure the reasons behind the change are fully communicated and allow people to raise any issues they may have so they can at least feel considered before the change.

Don't remember that happening? (but then it is only a forum!)

I think most people these days see through the text book method of "handling change" Joe, it just comes across as totally contrived.

jibi

why can't we help to make the change easier, by suggesting what we would like the forum to do.

Like Active topics
More navigation Links etc etc

I use tabbed Firefox so have set it to enter a couple of the Forums on launch.

george

Rhythm Thief

I don't like it as much as the old place. Nowt to do with it being "new" (I've used this sort of forum before), it's because we seem to have lost the community spirit that was in C+. This will either return as more of us get used to it, or the whole forum will get too big. I think it'll just fragment into groups corresponding to the old C+, MBUK, Procycling etc. forums.

Flying_Monkey

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Smeggers

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Here Here - couldn't agree more.
(I speak as a MD of a company of 12)

Unkraut

Flying_Monkey wrote:

ISomeone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

:shock: That is worth a thread in its own right! I couldn't agree with you more about parasitic management gurus and their meaningless clap-trap. Talk about money for old rope...

Yorkshireman

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Well said! Bloody glad I`m retired .

Patrick Stevens

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

I agree totally. One of the most irritating features is that if you point out that something won't work because it hasn't been thought through, you are immediately accused of being resistant to change and some half wit comes out with some silly mantra like, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Joe Sacco

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Where have I said it is something only I can deal with? And education is not necessary, but communication definitely is. Managers have to manage changes and the effect it has on their teams, is it wrong for them to manage it, should then just ignore the team?

It is just obvious that some people are struggling with a change of forum. In the scheme of things I would have thought it to be a minor change in your life and one which is not worth getting too bothered about?

ankev1

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

I think you'll find that this is change for commerce's state. Probably some acne ridden management tit with a degree in accountancy at future worked out that if we all get lumped together we'll tend to fall for the ads more or something. From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

Unkraut

Seems to me that change agents have much the same popularity ratings as estate agents.

Joe Sacco

ankev1 wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

I think you'll find that this is change for commerce's state. Probably some acne ridden management tit with a degree in accountancy at future worked out that if we all get lumped together we'll tend to fall for the ads more or something. From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

Along with the fact that they will have to maintain just the one forum, rather than 2 completely different ones. From Futures point of view that would be a good move.

Smeggers

Joe Sacco wrote:

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Where have I said it is something only I can deal with? And education is not necessary, but communication definitely is. Managers have to manage changes and the effect it has on their teams, is it wrong for them to manage it, should then just ignore the team?

It is just obvious that some people are struggling with a change of forum. In the scheme of things I would have thought it to be a minor change in your life and one which is not worth getting too bothered about?

Aye, but as soon as your SEEN to be "managing" change, then it all falls apart.

Patrick Stevens

ankev1 wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

I think you'll find that this is change for commerce's state. Probably some acne ridden management tit with a degree in accountancy at future worked out that if we all get lumped together we'll tend to fall for the ads more or something. From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

No, the commercial logic is impeccable - the whole is of more value to advertisers than the sum of the parts. And, it's easier to run. It's exactly what I'd have done if I were clever enough to work at Future. It's the details that are flaky.

Joe Sacco

Patrick Stevens wrote:

ankev1 wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

I think you'll find that this is change for commerce's state. Probably some acne ridden management tit with a degree in accountancy at future worked out that if we all get lumped together we'll tend to fall for the ads more or something. From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

No, the commercial logic is impeccable - the whole is of more value to advertisers than the sum of the parts. And, it's easier to run. It's exactly what I'd have done if I were clever enough to work at Future. It's the details that are flaky.

Clever enough? You trying to butter them up for some reason?

speshcp

ankev1 wrote:

From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

They must have let an engineer loose:

"If it's not broken, fix it until it is." :twisted:

wafflycat

Flying_Monkey wrote:

I love the way management people talk about 'change' as if it's one thing which only they (being big macho management people) can deal with.

There are multiple components to consider, not least of which is whether a change makes things better or worse, and one component of this is the affective (emotional). Someone who is made to feel uncomfortable by change is not necessarily wrong, nor do they need to be 'educated' by some second-rate, over-priced neologism-spouting 'change-management' guru.

One change I would like to see is an end to self-satisfied managers bullshitting about change. Business language is just so much semantic onanism...

Bravo. And the change here does not seem to be one for any other reason than 'change for the sake of change' rather than a change to make an improvement for the users.

Joe Sacco

speshcp wrote:

ankev1 wrote:

From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

They must have let an engineer loose:

"If it's not broken, fix it until it is." :twisted:

Neither forum was broken. But by consolidating the 2 it makes it easier to maintain and easier to attract advertisers as the target audience is bigger. It may also brings new thoughts into the discussion as people cross over whereas before they probably stuck to either C+ or the other one.

Anyway, enough of the positives. I'm off to cyclechat.

boguSelecta

But the old C+ forum was broken! Ok, it wasn't completely broken, but it was shite. Sometimes it would just hang for ages, the search facility was next to useless and plenty of other things didn't work properly. "Not working properly" equates to broken as far as I'm concerned - you wouldn't put up with a new bike if it was sort of ridable but didn't ride properly....

domtyler

The whole move has been terribly managed from where I am sitting. There was precious little communication to the user community and zero time for people to accustom themselves to the new format leaving everyone feeling alienated and just trodden on.

Many users have lost their identities, usernames, posts, threads, post counts etc. etc.

Then there are the bugs that need to be ironed out in the new forum, why couldn't these have been sorted BEFORE forcing people off their old forums and onto the new ones?

Sorry, but if a migration was carried out in this fashion in my workplace there would be a host of people finding themselves wondering how to pay their mortgages next month. A total shambles guys, you have let a lot of people down.
________
CHEVROLET MALIBU SPECIFICATIONS

Patrick Stevens

Joe Sacco wrote:

Patrick Stevens wrote:

ankev1 wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Depends why the change happens surely? If it's change for changes sake then resistance is to be expected (and probably encouraged), if it's necessary change then yep, people will need to learn to deal with it.

I think you'll find that this is change for commerce's state. Probably some acne ridden management tit with a degree in accountancy at future worked out that if we all get lumped together we'll tend to fall for the ads more or something. From a user's point of view it is completely unnecessary change on the basis of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

No, the commercial logic is impeccable - the whole is of more value to advertisers than the sum of the parts. And, it's easier to run. It's exactly what I'd have done if I were clever enough to work at Future. It's the details that are flaky.

Clever enough? You trying to butter them up for some reason?

I was being facetious.

redshift

My whole job consists largely of responding well to change, otherwise things fall off air. It's not the 'change' per se that's the problem. It's change, badly communicated, poorly and inconsistently implemented, that's the problem. RavenBait uses the same software for the clubhouse, but that's a substantially more user-friendly place than this. Colour choice is poor. Code doesn't work, tags don't work, despite being switched on in profile.

If we're beta testing, then as domtyler says, the two should run parallel until the bugs are ironed out.