Leading Complex Change: How to Successfully Implement Change in an Organization - Research Paper Example

Introduction Change is possibly the only constant aspect in contemporary world, more so in modern industries that are striving desperately to remain afloat in the face of fresh challenges and opportunities that have surfaced due to globalization and liberalization. The situation has been made more complex with constant advancement of technology where existing products and production processes are becoming obsolete at a never before pace and industries are engaged in a continuous process of replacement and up-gradation of technology. However, change management as a separate organized field of study is relatively new and one must realize that managing complicated changes is not merely a cut and dried process where strict adherence to preset norms and procedures would be sufficient. It requires ample dose of creativity and an ability and penchant for tactfully handling human issues to ensure a smooth transition from one stage to another. Experts in the field of change management have identified four broad stages of leading a change and they are: To ascertain and comprehensively verify that the suggested change will indeed add value to the organization To carry out a cost-benefit analysis in terms of resources required and the risk involved in implementing the change – also referred to as Triage To draw up a proper plan and outline a strategy to implement the change with minimum disruption To sincerely implement the targeted change in accordance with the plan drawn up earlier while being open to suggestions and remaining flexible throughout the entire process Would the proposed change really add value? It has been observed that many a time organizations have gone for a change – it could be in the structure or style of management or in the nature of products or production processes – without really doing a detailed study about the benefits that would be derived from such a change. Managements have often fallen prey to passing fads in managerial science or marketing management and have opted for latest buzzwords under the false impression that these would serve as panacea and improve their performances and bottom-lines overnight. After spending lot of efforts, money and surely disrupting the otherwise smooth operation of organizations, the top levels have quite often realized the bitter truth that such changes were not warranted at all. So, before jumping into the cesspool of change, a change leader must undertake a thorough analysis of the existing structure and its strengths and weaknesses. The change leader at this stage must also consider all those aspects of the existing structure that have not yet been implemented but are in the process of gradual implementation, and consider the existing system in its totality, to judge whether it is capable of delivering expected results. If the existing system is actually capable of delivering the desired results, the change leader should declare that unambiguously and stick to the existing structure without going for the change. There may be few alterations in the existing structure that might be necessary. The change leader should state that too and generally try to add value to the organization by inducting those additions and alterations as that would be the most cost effective way forward for the entire organization. A true change leader is one that ushers in a change only when such a change favorably impacts the bottom-line of the organization with least possible degree of disruption. Triage If a proposed change is finally approved to be genuinely beneficial for the organization, the change leader should then proceed to calculate the quantity and value of resources that would be necessary to implement such a change and evaluate whether the change is of a simple nature or is a relatively complex affair. This evaluation is extremely necessary as any change quite obviously exposes the organization and each of its stakeholders to some form of risk and it becomes the responsibility of the change leader to make every category of stakeholder aware of the dangers and pitfalls associated with the proposed change. But such a risk evaluation is possible only when the nature of the proposed change is fully analyzed, that is, whether the change is transactional, transitional or transformational. Transactional Change A transactional change is least traumatic among the three and basically involves improving the existing production system through the introduction of superior machines and technology so that people continue doing what they have been doing, but in a more efficient manner. This, quite obviously, improves the bottom-line and the organization is able to recoup the additional investment in new technology within a relatively short period. The change leader faces least resistance while implementing this sort of a change as a clear communication about the nature of change and an assurance that none of the personnel would be deemed redundant after installation of new technology would be enough to dispel whatever misgiving the workers might be having about the proposed change. Necessary training of the existing personnel so that they are able to properly handle the more sophisticated machines must be arranged by the change leader to ensure that the organization is able to extract full advantage of the additional investment from the very first day of installation of such machines. Transitional Change But a majority of changes go beyond the simplified realms of transactional change and come under the category of transitional change. Some examples of transitional change are: Introduction of a new process of management where all stakeholders enjoy a higher level of participation in day to day running of business or, Opting for enterprise resource planning and consequent introduction of a radically new information technology backbone for smoother flow of relevant information throughout the organization Transitional changes such as those mentioned above entail a radically new approach to the work at hand and in most cases alters the hierarchical roles and relationships. As these sorts of changes are more fundamental in the sense that peoples’ roles and responsibilities get altered or attain new dimensions, the possibilities of failure are more while implementing such changes in organizations. Implementation of transactional changes also, quite obviously, requires greater planning and strategizing. But the saving grace is that a change leader will have some guidelines to follow as there will be several cases of similar transactional changes that have taken place earlier in other organizations. Transformational Change This happens to be the most complex change that an organization might hope to implement as there are no precedents that are available as guidelines or benchmarks. The change leader has to proceed forward only on the strength of logic, reasoning, vision and, of course, a passionate belief that such a change is the only salvation for the organization. A transformational change causes an inherent and vital shift in the focus and area of operation of an organization in and, as the name implies, the entire organization undergoes a thorough transformation in all spheres in the course of such a change. However, the biggest resistance to transformational change comes from within an organization and the bigger it is, the larger is the resistance. The reason is not very tough to decipher. The stakeholders in a large organization are obviously large in number and are well organized and geared to satisfy the current requirements and would loath to stray off the beaten path out of their comfort zones to spheres and activities that they are not acquainted about. This perhaps answers the conundrum that large organizations have seldom, if ever, ushered in paradigm shifts in any sphere of organized commercial endeavor. (Anderson, 2003) Planning and Executing Transactional Changes This is easiest when compared to the extent of planning that is necessary to implement the other two types of changes. If we consider installing a new machine as an example of transactional change, the planning gets reduced to three basic steps of: Planning the technical aspects of where and how the machine would be installed and how it would be synchronized with the rest of the production process and flow of materials Deciding upon the nature of training and selecting person that would be imparted training Winning the confidence of the employees through proper communication and well structured incentives Planning and Executing Transitional and Transformational Changes These two changes are much more complex in nature than transactional change and involve substantial resources and require elaborate planning as most of these changes require a paradigm shift not only in the technique or process of production but also in the attitude and approach towards work that all the employees of the organization had been having till now. This, as one realizes pretty easily, can never be attained within a week or fortnight or by initiating a month long training program. It is, on the contrary, a continuous process that has to be handled with utmost patience and caution by the leader of the change taking extreme care not to generate unwelcome hostility from the rank and file towards the envisaged change. The key to successful implementation of transitional or transformational change is to ensure unstinted support from all sections of stakeholders of an organization. It is always advisable to draw up a change map so that the entire effort remains firmly in line with the desired outcome. A change map would essentially consist of: Driver: What is actually forcing the organization to go for such a paradigm shift in its activities? Vision: There must be a clear idea as to what the desired state of affairs should be Current state: There must also be a clear idea as to how things are working now Energy field: The change leader should have a clear notion of the extent of resistance and support he would encountering while implementing the change. It would always be more helpful if individuals can be identified and categorized according the support or hostility towards the change. Stakeholder Analysis: The persons whose assistance would be absolutely essential for the implementation to be successful must be identified and their preferences must be noted for drawing up a full proof implementation strategy. Change Plan: Any change works at three levels and there must be discreet synchronized plans for each of these three levels: There should be a technical plan to directly tackle the engineering details of the proposed change and it should include plans for training personnel as well There should be a plan to tackle systemic changes in the form of new standards of performance, new methods of work flow and similar other details There should be a well thought out strategy to involve employees and other crucial stakeholders at every stage so that they remain an integral part of the entire change program and keep wholeheartedly supporting it till it is concluded successfully. Flexibility: Any change can be implemented gradually and the leader of change must have an open mind free of any biases or dogmas. At each stage the leader must evaluate the effectiveness of steps taken and be prepared to suitably alter the plan and strategy so that envisaged change can be implemented smoothly without the least possible hindrance. The leader must approach the entire problem having the broader picture in mind and should remain optimistic about the entire project as there would be numerous prophets of doomsday that would be out in their full strength denouncing the entire project. The leader of change should never lose hope and enthusiastically lead the flock of faithful to the promised domain of anticipated change. Dynamic models of change Change has seldom, if ever, progressed exactly as per plan. In fact, any change follows an erratic and uneven path and it is imperative for the change leader to be aware of several dynamic models of change so as to make sense from apparent chaos and remain steady on course for a successful and smooth implementation of change. A few such mental models are: The grief cycle: Elizabeth Kubler-Ross has described the mental turmoil that most of us endure when we suffer a major loss. Our reactions initially remain one of denial which morph successively into anger, an attempt to bargain for the best possible outcome, a sense of insecurity and consequent depression, finally acceptance of the inevitable which further dilutes into attempts towards adaptation to the changed norms of the immediate environment. A change leader must be fully awake to the issue that people need time and a supportive stance by the top management for them to go through the entire cycle and come out of it in a positive frame of mind. Any hurrying up of the process or a high handed or condescending approach by the change leader is bound to create negative consequences that might become extremely difficult to overcome. (Kubler-Ross, 1997) Complexity and chaos theory: This theory adopts an organic approach and presumes that organizations have a tendency to solve problems on their own. Thus change leaders often start initiating changes with groups they feel are most receptive to change. The point of initiation need not necessarily be the logical starting point but the underlying approach of such an approach is that if a change is initiated at a certain level, the effects are bound to percolate to other levels and finally result in a bigger change throughout the entire organization. So, under this approach, the leaders provide the initial spark and let the fire as it were gradually simmer and then glow before turning into a conflagration where the old is burnt to ashes while the new is ushered in with due dignity. Time span thinking: While keeping their focus firmly fixed on the long run, change leaders must think of short and medium terms too since some form of short term successes is absolutely necessary to keep the fire of enthusiasm burning among those that are actively involved in the process of change. Quality and acceptance criteria: One of the most crucial decisions a change leader has to take is to decide upon the composition of the planning team and the best way to form such a team is to involve those that have the necessary information and expertise and those without whose whole hearted support the envisaged change can never be successfully implemented. (Maier, 1982) Organization design models: Every organization has certain basic elements in its design and they are: structure, strategy, work and job descriptions, systems and processes, human resource, rewards and corporate culture. It is absolutely essential for every element in the structure to effectively synchronize and support each other. If the envisaged change disrupts this synchronization, the results will not only be disappointing but in some cases even disastrous. If the managerial approach shifts from focusing on an individual to focusing on a group, the reward system must also be suitably altered to support this change. Diffusion of innovation curve: Every individual is unique and the speed with which an individual will board the bandwagon of change depends a lot on individual concerns, fear of the unknown and an inherent reluctance to leave the comfort zone. The change leader should be able to quickly spot the early birds and take them on board to take advantage of their energy and enthusiasm to spread the winds of change throughout the organization. At the same time, the change leader should be patient about the late comers and invite them into the fold as and when these stragglers decide to join the mainstream. However, it is quite obvious that the change leader will always be on the lookout for opportunities to reduce the length and duration of the innovation curve – the shorter it is, the faster would the envisaged change be implemented successfully. Situation-appropriate change approaches In earlier years management implemented change through subjugation of the work force and nipping any hint of resistance in the bud. But those days of absolute command and control are long over and now change leaders have found innovative means to overcome resistance and even channelize some that energy towards more effective implementation of change. The methods generally adopted by modern day change leaders are: Directives: Participative management seems to be the flavor of the season but in many situations, directions imposed from higher levels of authority become necessary to save the day. Rewards and other consequences: Rewarding those that support change and punishing those that resist it can become a very powerful tool if put to use judiciously. Persuasion: Persuasion obviously is a very strong tool and has its obvious benefits as those that can be made to see their benefits that would arise from the proposed change would automatically become self motivated and would try to rope in many others in the change program. Education: Proper education and training of the workforce will automatically make them more receptive to the proposed change and thus the extent of resistance would naturally subside. Role redesign: By formally anointing earlier contributors as team leaders a paradigm positive shift in attitude is often brought about by change leaders when they go about ushering in fundamental changes in an organization. Involving opinion leaders: Every group, whether formal or informal, has an opinion leader and they must be involved in the change process else they would become almost insurmountable blocks in implementing change. Collaboration: It is perhaps needless to emphasize that there must be complete collaboration between change leaders, technical experts and those that would actually implement the change at basic level. Open information: There should be complete transparency about information related to change and there would not be any form of censorship in the sense that all information irrespective of whether it is supportive of the change or not would be available to enable reasonable persons to draw their own conclusions about the desirability of the anticipated change. Grassroots: It might be ideal in certain situations to adopt a bottoms-up approach while implementing change. This would involve and favorably mould all those whose resistance might make implementation of change a very difficult proposition. It has been observed in many change-implementation scenarios that it is initiated through directions from the top and gradually evolves into a more participative approach with the passage of time. Change leader must be a reflective practitioner A change leader must have an open mind and be prepared to innovate and be responsive to suggestions and suitably alter the thrust ahead so as to be able to implement changes successfully. A reflection on the current situation and introspection about the alternatives available always ensure that the project remains alive to the issues that confront it from time to time. (Schon, 1983) Make change everybody’s business It is an inherent desire for humans to opt for a stable environment and there is a natural aversion to change in each one of us. However, proper education makes us responsive to change and we are able to shorten our grief cycles that much more. But, the ideal situation would when each individual voluntarily becomes a change agent by recognizing and overcoming his or her personal resistances to proposed change. If and when such a situation actually materializes, every organization starts gaining immensely through rapid and successful implementation of beneficial fundamental changes. (McLagan, 2002) Bibliography Anderson, C. (2003). The innovator's dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Campbell, J. P. (1972). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Conner, D. (2004). Leading at the edge of chaos: How to create the nimble organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Galbraith, J. (2001). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands on guide for leaders at all levels. New York: AMACOM. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kubler-Ross, E. (1997). On death and dying. New York: Scribner. Maier, N. R. (1982). Psychology in industrial organisations. New York: Houghton Mifflin. McLagan, P. A. (2002). Change is everybody's business. San Francisco: Berrett-Kochler. Pinkola-Estes, C. (1992). Woman who run with wolves. New York: Ballantine Books. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Read More