In return we got a huge amount of goodwill up front. I don't know what happened to it, I simply wasn't there. But one thing I know: people dislike bad news in their face but they hate bull****ters. That's the change that needs to be made.
Start ups like John Holland and Forstaff go through
that honeymoon period.
Everyone is glad to have a job and will do what it takes to keep it. There's plenty of co-operation on both sides and the will to make it a success is huge. Hourly rates are low, management know what targets to set and what it takes to get there. The goodwill is enormous. There's an agreement in place that all parties are happy about and everyone makes a dollar.....You beauty!!
So what comes undone to spoil the party? .....You're right,it's
change.
Like most situations, people become disenchanted when a change does not advantage them. Some changes are good, but there is always someone or a group who feels aggrieved by a change. This usually doesn't come from the founding group , it comes from those who come in as expansion takes place.
The founders knew "how things worked", what to do, just "to get the job completed on time and sometimes without reward for their "can do" attitude.
The flexibility introduced from the outset gets resented by the later troops when they feel that management now use it unfairly, whether they do or not.
Management, on the other hand, tend to make promises they can't keep. This is not to say they are being dishonest, rather to say that change involves the client who isn't necessarily as considerate as the employer. Trying to be fair is the hardest part as the client can undermine managements best efforts.
The union (s) get involved because their members ask for help. Talks between the parties serve only to identify the separation for agreement between them.
That's the end of your goodwill.
You may have your divisive client to thank for that and perhaps the wishes of an undeserved few that ask for more than they are prepared to give.