The Nature of Organizational Change and Features of Change Management - Coursework Example

THE NATURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Introduction Change management is defined in many ways, usually with the qualifiers “planned”, “using theoretical models”, “structured”, and so forth. However, in several readings these did not seem to apply, especially in the case of “reactive” change management. Therefore, this study will adopt the definition by Business Dictionary.com, which described change management as “Minimizing resistance to organizational change through involvement of key players and stakeholders.” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/change-management.html). In real-life business situations, seldom is change management conducted in a rigidly structured, systematically planned and precisely executed manner. The most significant change management events are conducted in response to unexpected developments that require decisive and timely action. For instance, the current financial crisis was not in any analyst’s sights two years ago. Definitely, while management may have planned for contingencies, there was no way for anyone – not the government nor the most astute economic research institutions – to have forecasted the effects of what turned out to be a financial crisis unparalleled in history. The most thorough preparation that would have been done could have sufficiently addressed this situation. Responding to its challenge would have been unplanned, less-than-systematic, hurriedly executed change management. However change management is undertaken, it still involves the elements suggested by the definition above: it would have been met with some resistance by members of the organization, the resistance would have needed to be minimized, and the effort would have involved the concerted effort of stakeholders and key people within and outside the organization. Organisational change: Proactive or Reactive? Change management therefore involves three states: a future, desired state that is the result of change; the present state which is to be abandoned or modified; and the change process to get from the present to the future state. There are two schools of thought as to how change management should be carried out. One states that change management should be proactive, and another that states it should be reactive. Proactive change management is anticipatory, that is, even before the change becomes imperative, the need for it is foreseen and the desired modifications forecasted. By anticipating the need for change, it is theorized that the company will be able to achieve maximum results with minimum resistance. Reactive change management, on the other hand, is usually viewed as remedial in nature, a change process undertaken in response to stimuli in the environment. In the extreme, some detractors call it a “knee-jerk reaction”, emphasizing the lack of preparation and the element of surprise. Reactive change management is often given the connotation of poor managerial foresight and incompetence. Upon examination of the various models and theories of change, it is apparent that some of these models lean more towards the proactive feature of change management, while others exhibit more of the characteristics of the reactive. Following are six change management theories, three exemplifying each side, in order to illustrate these features. Three Proactive Models: Lewin’s Change Theory (The Three-Step Model) Probably few change theorists have as profound an effect in the field of organizational change as Kurt Lewin, who adopted the systems concept of homeostasis or dynamic stability (Nichols, 2008). Three steps are involved in Lewin’s model, concisely encapsulized in three words: “unfreezing, moving, refreezing.” Unfreezing involves detaching people and dismantling systems that pertain to the previous, undesired, state or behaviour. Moving involves the introduction of the new, desired, state or behaviour. This stage is not just in the form of a formal endorsement or an order; rather, the alternative must be presented as “a clear and appealing option for a new pattern of behaviour.” It is at this stage when acceptance by the members of the unit is engendered and any concerns addressed or dispelled. Finally, freezing indicates the necessity of reinforcing the changed state or behaviour in the organization, which usually requires some form of positive reinforcement. This theory is clearly proactive, particularly because of the “unfreezing” stage. It should be noted that this model does not contemplate the possibility of the change being initiated when the persons or systems are in an “unfrozen” state. The deliberate deconstruction of an existing behaviour or process indicates that the status quo has not been challenged, but is currently operating under normal conditions. Had an external sudden or unexpected stimulus prompted the change, then there would have been no “unfreezing” stage to speak of. The change introduced is one that is considered to be a strategic move that undergoes planning, execution, and evaluation. Bullock and Batten’s planned change theory R.J. Bullock and D. Batten introduced a four-stage process for introducing change. Their theory hews closely to the area of project management from which it is derived. These stages are exploration, planning, action, and integration for planned change. Exploration involves an assessment of the environment and identification of a prospective need for change. This stage also involves preliminary preparations and securing of resources, whether material or human (such as the need for technical or managerial expertise in effecting the change.) The second step, planning, involves the conceptualization and formulation of a course of action by which the change may be introduced. This stage also involves working out the logistics and schedules for introducing the planned change. The third step, action, is when the plan is executed or actualized. During this stage, there is constant feedback, and when the feedback so warrants, a series of minor adjustments in the plan. Finally, upon the completion of the execution phase comes the fourth step, integration. Integration occurs when the changes introduced have been aligned or “made integral” to the organization as a whole. At this stage some degree of formalization is achieved, in the form of policies and standard operating procedures that are institutionalized in the organization. It is apparent form this description that Bullock and Batten’s theory is also, like Lewin, proactive in the sense that the initiation comes from an exploration of the prevailing environment, not by any compelling event or stimulus. There is sufficient time for planning and effecting the change, and for formalizing the result. Like the management of a project, there is a definite beginning and an end, and a clear progression of planned stages in between. Kotter’s Eight-Step Theory Another formidable theory that is popularly resorted to is that by John P. Kotter. This model provides a greater detail to the change process in that its application requires eight steps. These involve: (1) establishing a sense of urgency; (2) forming a powerful guiding coalition; (3) creating a vision; (4) communicating the vision; (5) empowering others to act on the vision; (6) generating short-term wins; (7) consolidating improvements and producing still more change; and (5) institutionalizing the approach. It is evident from this approach that the model seeks to implement an existing plan for change. The steps appear to hew closer to the implementation phase of strategic management, where a vision is created (step 3) and communicated (step 4), and short-term goals are determined and attained (step 7). It is also noticeable that the focus of the model is not on managerial action, but rather the behavioural dimension involving the followers (i.e., that they feel the urgency, they coalesce, they are informed and empowered, and are encouraged by the sense of fulfilment of short-term achievements. The long-term and anticipatory nature of this model is again quickly seen. Strategic management is inherently long-term in duration, broadly encompassing in scope, and visionary in motivation. All of these are present in the steps of Kotter’s model; the very need to identify short-term wins indicates the need to maintain the members’ interest and direction, both of which tend to be lost during long-term implementation. The Kotter model is thus proactive in approach. Three Reactive Models: Senge’s Systemic Model In this model, Senge and his research collaborators likened organizational change to the changes undergone by biological systems. Like living organisms, organizations respond to change variably depending upon the make-up and culture. Therefore, Senge et al recommended that change managers: (1) start small; (2) grow steadily; (3) do not plan the whole thing; and (4) expect challenges. This model is keenly sensitive to the unpredictability of human dynamics. While it does not disregard the importance of planning, it does not subscribe to the thinking that plans are capable of assessing all the information and forecasting all outcomes accurately. By starting small and growing steadily, uncertainties in all the variable elements, both internal and external to the organization, are gradually factored in and addressed a few at a time. In this way, the manager is not overwhelmed by the confusion of too many events happening at once. This is a good model to adopt for organizations that are just starting out, because it allows the leadership to test the waters and adjust to the need for change as they become necessary. This is the reason why the model is a reactive model, because it introduces modifications in tandem with the events or stimuli as they occur. Unnecessary changes are not introduced. Carnall’s Change Management Model Carnall’s model puts emphasis on managerial skills to handle change. It promotes the position that three skills should be present throughout the managerial hierarchy. These are managing transitions effectively, dealing with organizational cultures, and managing organizational politics. Essentially, transitions have a more confined scope and a shorter duration than what would normally be attributed to “organizational change”. Transition is getting from one status or condition to another. In managing the transition, the manager is supposed to assist his subordinates in understanding and learning the implications of the change, in a spirit of openness and a willingness to assume a certain amount of risk. By managing the organizational culture, the manager is supposed to engender greater adaptability and tolerance, where people are more willing to share information and exercise greater autonomy. And to manage organizational politics, the manager must be aware, without being judgmental, of the different informal groups within the organization, and their interests and agendas. The manager will aim in this case to build coalitions and control the agendas in order to ensure that the imbalance created by the introduced change will not foster animosities among the groups. The skill required of the change manager is not so much the logistics or resources, not so much the steps and procedures, as it is the openness, cultural orientation and political agendas of the persons affected by the change. This is reactive change management, because the manager skilfully manoeuvres through the aforementioned variables and executes the change process depending upon how situations develop, until the change is accepted and implemented. Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model David Nadler and Michael Tushman of Columbia University view the organization as an open system (Input-Process-Output-Feedback model), such that its subsystems are prone to influences from the external environment. The congruence model seeks to capture the dynamics of fluid relationships that govern these organizational elements, which is almost entirely ignored by the traditional, hierarchical approach. It states that for one to fully understand an organization’s performance, one should first understand the organization as a system consisting of four basic elements: (1) The input it draws from both internal and external sources (2) The strategy it employs to translate its vision into a set of decisions about where and how to compete, or, in the case of a government agency, the public policy results it wants to achieve (3) Its output – the products and services it creates in order to fulfil its strategic objectives (4) The critical transformation process through which people, working within the context of both formal and informal arrangements, convert input into output. (Wyman, 2009) In determining whether the congruence model may be classified as proactive or reactive, one must consider its reliance on the concept of fit. This states that the organization’s performance rests upon the alignment of each of its components: the work, people, structure, and culture. The greater the congruence, the higher the performance. The congruence model, in effect suggests that it is the interaction among the components that is more important than the components themselves. Since this level of interaction, or congruence, could never be a matter of total certainty over time, then it could not totally be the subject of advanced planning and anticipatory management. There will be a substantial element of uncertainty that could only be responded to reactively, because the interplay of the largely subjective human element and the informal organization predetermination to any useful degree. Conclusion: Change Management, Proactive or Reactive? The question is posed in the alternative – either proactive or reactive. In actuality, there is no exclusivity of one approach versus the other. Change management must be both proactive and reactive. There are elements in the external environment that may be forecast with a reasonable amount of certainty to pose some particular threat or opportunity to the organization. It is management’s job to prudently survey the environment to take advantage of these opportunities and mitigate these effects in the longer term. Conditions that are inevitable may be addressed by well-planned, proactive change management. This foresight could save the organization future costs and allow it to take full advantage of favourable opportunities. On the other hand, as the foregoing models suggest, there are always elements that are not susceptible of forecasting in the reasonable future. The environment always presents an element of risk, at times more pronounced than at others. Risk is always a result of uncertainty, and where uncertainty exists then accurate planning is compromised. For these, the organization must be capable of reactive change management in responding to unforeseen challenges. Actually, effective organizational change management should cover the full continuum from strategic, proactive, change to tactical, reactive, change. One can prepare for the long-term, but must always expect the sudden, short-term, developments. Let the recent crisis be a lesson. REFERENCES Daniels, Christine. Evaluation of the Reallocation of Corporate Topic Group resources to Strategic Programmes and Front-line Delivery: Pilot investigation of Process Safety Unit. Health and Safety Laboratory, Buxton, Derbyshire, 2006. Iqbal, Javed. Toward a Framework for Implementation of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Initiative. School of Business and Management, Impact College, Manchester. Kritsonis, Alicia, “Comparison of Change Theories.” International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, vol. 8, no. 1, 2004 Lewin, Kurt. “Group Decision and Social Change”, 1958, in Swanson, G.E. Newcomb, T.M. and Hostly, T.L. Readings in Social Psychology, New York Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Nichols, Fred. Change Management 101: A Primer. Distance Consulting LLC. 2008. 23 May 2009. Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S.J., “A New Framework for Managing Change”, The TQM Magazine, vol. 19 no. 6, 2007, pp. 572-589, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Schein, Edgar H. Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes Towards a Model of Managed Learning. MIT Sloan School of Management. 23 May 2009. Stone, Danice. Social Cognitive Theory. University of South Florida. 23 May 2009. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2002). The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-298. Systemic Methods. Systemic Methods.com. 23 May 2009. Wyman, Oliver. The Congruence Model; A Roadmap for understanding Organizational Performance. Delta Organization and Leadership, 2009. Read More