Change management has been considered something of a formal business discipline since the 1980s. At that time, business journalists were beginning to study the challenges of bridging “persistent and troubling gap[s] between the inherent value of the technology they develop and their ability to put it to work effectively.” We knew then that managing change effectively, such that we derive actual value from the technology we invest in, was a difficult undertaking. Nevertheless, we considered it a necessary evil.

ç焊割管理一直被认为是自上世纪80年代正式商用纪律的东西。 那时，商业记者开始研究弥合“他们开发的技术的内在价值与使其有效运行的能力之间的持久和令人不安的鸿沟”的挑战。 那时，我们知道有效地管理变更，以便从所投资的技术中获得实际价值是一项艰巨的任务。 但是，我们认为这是必要的邪恶。

Editor’s note: The Tonkean team has written about how you can eliminate change management in a new eBook, which you can download here.

编者注：Tonkean团队撰写了有关如何消除新电子书中的变更管理的文章，您可以在此处下载。

Since then, however, as companies have become increasingly reliant on packaged software applications to drive internal processes — abiding by the “There’s an app for that!” philosophy — the difficulty of educating and convincing employees to use new technological systems has only increased, while the value-add of implementing new technology has dropped. Because the apps we purchase can’t natively accommodate whatever existing technological systems we’ve already deployed, they inevitably require subjecting employees to more and more disruptive, exhausting change. This has resulted in a steady rise in what Prosci calls “change saturation.” In its 2018 Best Practices in Change Management Report, Procsi found that more than 73% of companies had reached this saturation point, where “the number of changes you’re implementing exceeds the capacity of individuals in your organization to effectively adopt and use those changes.”

但是，自那时以来，随着公司越来越依赖打包的软件应用程序来驱动内部流程-遵守“为此而设计的应用程序！” 理念-教育和说服员工使用新技术系统的难度仅在增加，而实施新技术的附加值却在下降。 由于我们购买的应用程序本身无法适应我们已经部署的任何现有技术系统，因此不可避免地需要使员工承受越来越多的破坏性且艰巨的变革。 这导致Prosci称之为“变化饱和度”的稳步上升。 Procsi在其《 2018年变更管理最佳实践报告》中发现，超过73％的公司已经达到饱和点，“您正在实施的变更数量超出了组织中个人有效采用和使用这些变更的能力” 。”

That hasn’t stopped companies from continuing to purchase and introduce new apps into their operational infrastructure. But forcing employees to change their day-to-day behavior after they’ve already hit the saturation point is risky. As more companies are beginning to understand, it results in employees becoming frustrated and resentful — so much so that they simply stop working as hard to achieve their companies’ goals. It’s largely for this reason that, as McKinsey & Co. wrote last year, improving change management processes without burning employees out, such that they stop working as hard as they otherwise would, has become “a critical competitive advantage” for companies in the market today.

这并没有阻止公司继续购买并将新的应用程序引入其运营基础架构。 但是，强迫员工在达到饱和点后改变其日常行为是有风险的。 随着越来越多的公司开始理解，这会导致员工感到沮丧和不满-如此之多，以至于他们只是为了实现公司的目标而停止努力工作。 很大程度上是因为这个原因，正如麦肯锡公司( McKinsey＆Co. )去年所写的那样，改进变更管理流程而不会导致员工的精疲力尽，从而使他们像以往那样努力地停止工作，已成为市场公司的“至关重要的竞争优势”。今天。

Unfortunately, no one’s really been able to figure out how to introduce and facilitate technological change within their organizations in such a seamless manner. Most of us are stuck in a pernicious cycle.

不幸的是，没有人真正能够弄清楚如何以这种无缝的方式在组织内部引入和促进技术变革。 我们大多数人陷入一个恶性循环。

Luckily, there is a solution, and it’s relatively simple.

幸运的是，有一个解决方案，而且相对简单。

为了不仅改善我们的变更管理流程，而且完全消除它们的需要，我们必须开始思考“以人为本”。 (To not only improve our change management processes but eliminate the need for them altogether, we have to start thinking “people first.”)

In other words, when we endeavor to improve or redesign our internal systems and processes, we should consider first and foremost the needs and priorities of our employees rather than myopically seek to increase our top or bottom lines. The best technology solution is not one that saves or makes your company a bit of money, but that empowers employees and makes their lives easier.

换句话说，当我们努力改善或重新设计内部系统和流程时，我们应该首先考虑员工的需求和优先事项，而不是近视地寻求增加我们的顶峰或底线。 最好的技术解决方案不是节省或使您的公司赚钱的一种解决方案，而是可以赋予​​员工权力并使他们的生活更轻松的解决方案。

Few companies implement technology so empathetically.

很少有公司如此富有同情心地实施技术。

Consider, for example, the way most companies today go about implementing automation software into their workflows. Automation software is, for a variety of reasons, the next truly revolutionary piece of technology. Utilized correctly — as a means of empowering employees — it’s a perfect example of technology that could eliminate the need for change management. But most everyone who shops for automation software goes about it the wrong way. Folks may use tools like robotic process automation (RPA), for example, to automate individual tasks or replace people, but in the end, RPA still requires employees to adapt to its unique and sometimes beguiling demands. Automation so applied, in fact, leads to more, not less, change management. It also results in more frustration, dejection and burnout. Consider, for example, what happens when you automate away someone’s job inside an organization. Sure, doing so might save some money on your bottom line, but it also requires everyone who relied upon or collaborated with that employee to learn a new way of carrying out their essential functions. It also places a new kind of burden on leadership, as even the mere existence of technology whose purpose is to replace people requires change management, namely in the form of placating, repurposing and eventually replacing workers.

例如，考虑一下当今大多数公司在其工作流程中实施自动化软件的方式。 出于多种原因，自动化软件是下一个真正革命性的技术。 正确使用-作为增强员工能力的一种手段-这是可以消除变更管理需求的技术的完美典范。 但是，大多数购买自动化软件的人都是错误的做法。 人们可以使用诸如机器人流程自动化( RPA )之类的工具来自动化单个任务或替换人员，但是最终，RPA仍然要求员工适应其独特的，有时是令人困惑的需求。 实际上，如此应用的自动化可以带来更多而不是更少的变更管理。 它还会导致更多的挫败感，沮丧感和倦怠感。 例如，考虑一下当您将某人的工作自动化到组织内部时会发生什么。 当然，这样做可能会节省一些底线，但是这也需要依赖或与该员工合作的每个人学习执行其基本职能的新方法。 这也给领导层带来了新的负担，因为即使是仅以替换人为目的的技术的存在，也需要变更管理，即以安放，重新安置并最终替换工人的形式。

But forcing employees to change their day-to-day behavior after they’ve already hit the saturation point is risky.

但是，强迫员工在达到饱和点后改变其日常行为是有风险的。

All told, such platforms can frustrate and encumber, rather than liberate and empower.

总而言之，这样的平台会令人沮丧和阻碍，而不是解放和授权。

We need to apply technology like automation in a way that works for our people, rather than the other way around.

我们需要以一种对我们的员工有效的方式来应用自动化等技术，而不是相反。

The technology we invest in and use to drive our internal systems should augment and empower our people, not simply replace them.

我们投资并用于驱动内部系统的技术应该增强并增强我们的员工的能力，而不仅仅是取代他们。

Most forms of automation software, for example, can be implemented on top of the existing systems and tools people are already using. It can integrate with and connect many different kinds of platforms and applications, and in the process adapt to workers’ preferences and processes instead of placing that onus on employees.

例如，大多数形式的自动化软件都可以在人们已经使用的现有系统和工具之上实施。 它可以与许多不同类型的平台和应用程序集成和连接，并且在此过程中可以适应员工的喜好和流程，而不是将这些责任放在员工身上。

Such platforms allow COOs and process designers to finally use technology to support employees, as opposed to replace or require more work of them, all without ever forcing folks to learn to use new tech.

这样的平台使首席运营官和流程设计人员最终可以使用技术来支持员工，而不是替换或要求他们做更多的工作，而这一切都不会迫使人们学习使用新技术。

Eliminating your organization’s need for cumbersome change management is a matter of seeking out and implementing technology solutions that adapt to and prioritize employees’ needs and workstyles.

消除组织对繁琐的变更管理的需求，是寻找并实施适合并优先考虑员工需求和工作风格的技术解决方案的问题。

But, again, our ability to use automation to this end depends first on stakeholders recognizing the importance of investing in technology that makes employees’ lives easier.

但是，同样，我们为此目的使用自动化的能力首先取决于利益相关者，他们认识到投资于使员工的生活更轻松的技术的重要性。

And we’re a long way from that currently. The proliferation of packaged, cloud-based apps and the rise of the now-universal there’s-an-app-for-that mentality has had the unintended consequence of rendering us subservient to static, uncompromising pieces of technology. It’s a paradox: We invest in technology to make our lives easier, but that technology only further complicates and burdens our day-to-day existence.

目前，我们还有很长的路要走。 打包的，基于云的应用程序的激增以及如今普遍存在的一种应用程序的心态产生了意想不到的后果，使我们对静态，不妥协的技术有所了解。 这是一个悖论：我们在技术上进行投资以使我们的生活更轻松，但是技术只会使我们的日常生活进一步复杂化并加重负担。

To break that cycle, we must begin to prioritize empathy. So, next time your company runs into a bottleneck or begins to consider a change initiative, instead of asking yourself, “What technology do I need to solve this problem?” push yourself to consider the more productive, people-first question, “What do my people need?”

为了打破这一循环，我们必须开始优先处理同理心。 因此，下一次您的公司遇到瓶颈或开始考虑变更计划时，无需问自己：“我需要哪种技术来解决此问题？” 让自己考虑一个更具生产力，以人为本的问题，“我的人民需要什么？”

A version of this originally appeared on Forbes.

该版本的最初版本出现在《福布斯》上。