Differences between the Planned and Processual Models of Organizational Change - Coursework Example

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PLANNED AND PROCESSUAL MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE By Student’s Name Code + Name of Course Professor/Tutor Institution City/State Date Differences Between the Planned and Processual Models of Organizational Change Many businesses are familiar with the “change management” theory. Businesses have different ways of managing change. The success of arriving at the change greatly depends on the nature of the organization, the nature of change, and the involved individuals. A great part of this relies on how far the individuals within the business comprehend the process of change. There are different approaches to looking at changes in any organization. The processual model for comprehending organisational change addresses how a business moves from one step to the next. The sequential issues are comprehended within a wider contextual framework, which accepts the retrospective and historical analyses and the expectations in the future before and after the incident, and the present progressive change processes. The processual model is grounded on the supposition that modification is multifaceted and chaotic many times (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2008, p. 13). The approach recognizes that the unexpected, unintended, and unforeseen will occur and that subsequently, change in the organization ought not to be scaled down to a catalogue of simple successive phases. On the other hand, planned change commonly referred as the prescriptive approach was formulated by Kurt Lewin to differentiate change, which was consciously worked upon and planned by a business to avoid some kinds of change, which might come about by impulse, by accident, or, which might be enforced by an organisation. This essay analyses and contrasts the two processes as applied by businesses. Dawson’s processual model for comprehending organizational change shows the significance of context and temporality. The perspective looks at the culture and history of the organisations, power interplays, political processes and decision-making, which involves individuals in negotiations. These negotiations and communications may be reinterpreted or .misinterpreted in ways that cause more confusion, uncertainties, and ambiguities. (Dawson & Andriopoulos 2014, p. 189). The processual approach also demonstrates that where these kinds of multiple interpretations exist, there may be a need to resolve them progressively through cooperative processes of sense making (Langley & Tsoukas 2010, p. 4), while at the same time sustaining contradictory interpretations between various groups (Buchanan & Badham 2008, p. 18). This comprises sensitivity to the manner in which individuals create sense and bring their sense familiarities that concern change and the way they are influenced by the historical legacy and context within which the changes occur. The processual model also looks at the way the narratives of change both explain and shape the processes in question (Buchanan & Dawson 2007, p. 670). For instance, the sacking of the night shift and hegemonic management power at Washdale Manufacturing mirrors the sense making and sense-giving approach used in a processual approach to organizational change. The sacking of the night shifts shows the political and ethical issues in managing change. The management wanted to address the high incidences of machine breakdown. Under the approach, the management has to investigate the cause of the change first. In the case, the management at company had not realized that the nightshift had changed their patterns of work to allow some ‘sleep time’ at first. The high incidences of machine breakdown at night more than any other times compelled the management to install a monitoring system as the first step. Unfreezing entailed the precursors to the imminent major change programs in the organization. The activities involved controls, which were made to implement a new design of work giving the night shift employees little time to adjust to the common practices. Often, the changeover often takes some time as the individuals take time to adapt to the new direction and engage in the change proactively (Andriopoulos & Dawson 2009, p. 69). The case does not just demonstrate how various groups of worker may react differently to changes in the organization, but also the context in sense making of employee attitudes and behaviour. In this manner, the fine processual accounts were used to give narrative descriptions of the progressively developing and multifaceted dynamics of the individuals in the organisation. The organization, in this case, used both a power-coercive approach and employee involvement to overcome resistance, which occurred during the change initiative. In the processual approach, complexity is not avoided as the process endeavours to accept the past, the present and the future (Sarayreh, Khudair & Alabed 2013, p. 626). The process studies and documents people’s behaviour within the organization as their activities and behaviours unfold in due course (Langley & Tsoukas 2010, p. 2). The substance of the change in the process connotes the defining attributes, materiality, timeframe (breaks and starts from thoughts to operations), social perception, and the type and scale of change (from small to large radical initiatives of change) and perceived centrality. The change at the General Motors also represents a processual approach to organizational change. The case saw the introduction of cellular work plans in GM Elizabeth Complex in Southern Australia. The issues represented derive from the processual approach emphasis on the significance of progressive timeframes and the unified dynamics between politics, substance and context of change. In the case, the entire process from the start where it was clear of the possibility of restructuring operations in cellular form to the end. Gaining the commitment of the employees to change was a major attribute of PM’s plan. Important in the strategy was the 5-year plan, which was established to enhance the environment of industrial relations. All objectives were attained and comprised a significant contextual attribute, which enabled management to obtain employee affirmation and participation in the change strategy. In addition, the change in the employee’s attitude and the development of a more collaborative rather than a confrontational trend in industrial relations necessitated a long-term commitment to a management ideal grounded on consultative decision-making and collaborative implementation. Collaborative implementation was particularly significant in demonstrating the worth given to employee participation in solving problems. The case study shows that establishing an environment that accommodates employee involvement assists organization to remove the common barriers linked with key change programs. In such a situation, external support assisted the senior management to support the suggested changes. Usually, the external environment is analysed both in relation to the future, now, and past in the processual approach. The external context comprises the political events, market and legislation (Buchanan & Badham 2008, p. 14). The political changes consider that politics of change, which are influenced by external political activity and the internal politics. The external political events include politicians’ lobbying, strategic collaborations, positioning in the market, competitor and stakeholder deliberations, etc. The internal context of change assesses the human resources (teamwork, work relations); administrative elements (work structures and job designs); technology tools, plant, machinery); service or product (e.g. main business venture); culture and history (for example contextual development of shared assumptions and beliefs). Thus, change is a dynamic and randomly characterized by internal political activity whereby events unfold through messy processes (Dawson 2013, p 253). Extreme consultations, resistance, negotiation, and conflicts that happens within and between individuals and groups during the organizational change processes characterize the events. Therefore, the management of change is challenging because it necessitates suspending many things at the same time. Planned Approach Kurt Lewin, a social scientist and physicist, developed an alternative model for understanding change in organizations. The approach is the three-staged process called Unfreeze -Modification- Refreeze (Burnes 2004, p. 978). Lewin described organizational change using the analogy of altering the shape of an ice block. In the analogy, Lewin asks about what one should do when he wants to create a cone of ice out of the large block of ice. To do this, one has to melt the ice first to ensure it is responsive to change (unfreezing). The ice must then be molten into the desired shape (change). Lastly, the new shape is solidified (refreeze). The process is different from the processual process because change is analysed as a process with dissimilar stages. Change involves preparing for what is coming and making a plan to control the transition (Burnes 2004, p. 310). There is a lot of reflection before making a change. The processual process often causes a lot of unnecessary chaos and turmoil in the start. Under the planned approach, before starting any effective change process, the organization must first begin by comprehending the reason for the change. As Lewin describes, before a change can be effected, the motivation for change must be created. A change agent needs help to re-assess many underlying assumptions about him or herself in relations to other workers. The situation marks the unfreezing stage from where change starts. The first stage of change (unfreezing) marks the preparations for the organization to accept the need for the changes. The process comprises breaking down the present status quo before building up a new model of operation. A point to be considered is to develop a compelling message, which shows why the presently used approach of doing things ought to stop. At this point, the one can frame the context of the change such as dwindling sales figures, undesirable financial results, appalling customer satisfaction surveys, etc. (Burnes 2004, p. 980). These factors show that things ought to change in a way, which all people can comprehend. A successful preparation of the organization needs to begin at its core. There is a need to challenge the behaviours, values, beliefs, and values, which presently define it. The organization must examine and prepare for change the existing foundations to avoid the whole organization from collapsing. The initial parts of the unfreezing process of change is often the most stressful and challenging. When the organization begins rationalizing the way operations are executed, employees may evoke strong reactions concerning the changes (Hossan 2015, p. 53). By compelling the organization to re-assess its core, the management creates a controlled crisis, which sequentially can generate a robust motivation to establish a new equilibrium. Without the motivation, the organization may not get the participation needed to effect any significant change. In creating the necessity for change, the organization should develop a compelling message describing the reasons for the change. The organization ought to use its strategy and vision as supporting evidence and emphasize the “why.” After the indecision generated in the unfreezing phase, the change stage is when individuals start to resolve their indecision and assess new ways of doing things. The people begin to believe and carry themselves around in support of the new direction. The changeover from unfreeze to change often takes some time as the individuals take time to adapt to the new direction and engage in the change proactively. The practical action necessitated during change is effective and regular communication. This should happen throughout the planning and implementation phases of the changes. To make the change is acceptable and ensure the contribution of making the change effective, people need to comprehend how the changes will benefit them. Thus, the benefits should be described, and the people prepared for the oncoming changes. Rumours should be dispelled, and questions answered honestly and candidly. In doing so, the employees will need to be involved in the process. Not all people will accept the developments just because the change is mandatory and will benefit the firm. This is a collective assumption and drawback, which should be averted. Most of those who appear to benefit from status quo will be genuinely harmed by change (Burnes 2004, p. 312). It might take others a long period to recognize the advantages that change brings. The management needs to foresee and manage the situations. Change necessitates time and communication as the two keys to success. Individuals need time to comprehend the changes, and they also wish to feel as highly connected to the organization in the entire transitional period. Therefore, the management of change calls for a lot of effort, time and hands-on management. Without changing the group routines and norms, the change of individual behaviour will not be sustained. When the changes take shape, and workers have embraced the new working patterns, the organization can refreeze. The outward signals of refreezing are a steady organization chart, reliable job descriptions, etc. The refreeze period also needs to assist people, and the business institutionalize or internalize the changes. This suggests ensuring that the changes are regularly applied and that they are integrated into the daily business. Important steps to be taken during unfreezing comprise anchoring the changes in the organization culture while identifying the reinforcements as well as the barriers to change. The organization will need to identify ways of sustaining the change. This could be achieved by ensuring the support of leaders, developing a reward system and establishing feedback systems. The organization structure should be changed as necessary and backed by training and support to keep all employees supported and informed. With the newfound stability, employees will feel more comfortable and confident with the new models of working. With the positive reinforcement of expected outcomes, an appraisal of effectiveness can be conducted to assess whether new approaches to things have been adopted. Unlike the processual model, the rationale for developing a new atmosphere of stability in the changing world is often questioned in a planned approach. Although change is unending in numerous organizations, the refreezing stage is still critical. Without it, workers are ensnared in a transition trap whereby they are uncertain how matters should be handled. Thus, nothing can be done in full capacity (Hossan 2015, p. 53). Without a new frozen state, it is quite a challenge to handle the subsequent change initiative successfully. It is difficult to convince people that something ought to be changed if the most current changes have not sunk in. Change will be regarded as change for the sake of change while the motivation needed to implement new changes will be absent. To sum up, businesses often use different ways to manage change. Businesses that use the processual model for comprehending organisational change pursue various sequential dynamics to comprehend the changes in a wider contextual framework, which considers the past, now and the oncoming days. On the other hand, the planned change originally designed by Kurt Lewin is considered as the change adopted by a business aiming to avoid changes brought impulsively or accidentally, or, which might be enforced by an organisation. The processual approach was used at Washdale Manufacturing to address the problem experienced during the nightshift. The approach is characterized by a lot of sense making and sense giving before arriving at decisions. The processual approach lays emphasis on the significance of progressive timeframes and the unified dynamics between the politics, substance and context of change. The process is distinct from the processual process because change is often analysed as a process with dissimilar stages. The processual process often causes a lot of unnecessary chaos and turmoil while under the planned approach, before starting any effective change process, the organization must first start by comprehending the reason for the change. Bibliography Alvesson, M & Sveningsson, S 2008. Changing Organizational Culture: Cultural Change Work in Progress. Routledge. Andriopoulos, C & Dawson, P 2009. Managing change, creativity, and innovation. Sage. Buchanan, D & Dawson, P 2007,'Discourse and audience: Organizational change as multi-story process,’ Journal of Management Studies, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 669-686. Buchanan, DA & Badham, RJ 2008. Power, Politics, and Organizational Change. Sage. Burnes, B 2004, ‘Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?’ Journal of change management, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 309-325. Burnes, B 2004, ‘Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re‐appraisal,’ Journal of Management studies, Vol. 41, no.6, pp.977-1002. Dawson, P 2013, ‘The use of time in the design, conduct, and write-up of longitudinal processual case study research,’ Handbook of Longitudinal Research Methods: Studying Organizations, pp. 249-268. Dawson, P M 2008, ‘People and process: making sense of change management,’ ICOMS, pp. 1-12. Hossan, C, 2015, ‘Applicability of Lewin's Change Management Theory in Australian Local Government,’ International Journal of business and Management, vol. 10, no. 6, p.53. Langley, A & Tsoukas, H 2010, ‘Introducing “perspectives on process organization studies,’ Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing, pp. 1-26. Sarayreh, BH, Khudair, H & Alabed, E 2013, ‘Comparative study: The Kurt Lewin of change management,’ International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, Vol. 2, no. 4, pp.626-629. Read More