Comparing Different Change Management Models - Literature review Example

Comparing Different Change Management Models Introduction The management of change remains a critical aspect of every organization and involves the application of different theoretical models that have been developed. Change can either make or break an organization and the success is dependent on the approach that is adopted by the management. Human resource management is instrumental in every decision made as all factors affecting the motivation of the employees upsets the department. As such, any change management approach adopted must consider the implications that it will have on human resource management and the overall productivity of the human resource (Ali, 2013). In this paper, Lewin change management, the McKinsey 7-S and the Kotter 8 step change models will be comparatively discussed and their impacts on human resource management evaluated. Comparison of change management models Change management is considered as one of the oldest professions in management and this explains the development of a number of models to guide the process of managing change. Though the models are more in number, this paper will compare three models of change management, highlighting their benefits and weaknesses to an organization. The Lewin change management model In this model, Kurt unfroze a cube of ice, changes its size and shape and refroze thereafter as a way of change management. By following the steps highlighted by Kurt, organisations have the opportunity to implement their intended change without resistance. However, Kurt appreciated the fact that change cannot succeed with the motivation of the employees (Martín-Alcázar, Romero-Fernández & Sánchez-Gardey, 2012). During the unfreeze stage, the attitude and motivation of the employees is worked on as a way of making them easily identify and accept the changes. Communication is an important component of this change as the management involves and engages the employees in formulating the nature of the intended changes. Through proper communication channels, motivation and the change of the attitude of the employees, an organization empowers its people to embrace the new ways introduced. It also allows the management with an opportunity to identify the challenges and issues that may create resistance among the employees and middle level managers (Singh, 2013). After successfully refreezing and changing the ways of working, an organization moves to the third stable stage known as the refreeze in which operations are resumed and normalcy gained under new structures. At this stage, the benefits of the change begin to manifest themselves and the confidence of the investors and the employees on the management of the organization increases. However, the long term success of the change implemented requires the appraisal, reward and reinforcement of employee efforts by the management. This stage does not just end with the success of the changes but its incorporation into the culture of the organization, a time when the change can be considered successfully frozen (Martín-Alcázar, Romero-Fernández & Sánchez-Gardey, 2012). Though the Kurt Lewin change management model is preferred in most organisations, it takes a long period of time to fully implement and the benefits to be realized. However, its ease of implementation has made it more common among managers as compared to McKinsey 7 model and other change management models (Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo & Shafiq, 2012). McKinsey 7-S model As compared to the Kurt Lewin change model, the McKinsey 7-S model adopts a holistic approach that involves the incorporation of a number of shared values within the organization. Developed in 1987 by four management gurus, the model uses seven agents of change which include the shared values, the strategy adopted by the organization, management structures and systems, style, skills and staff of the employees. As compared to Kurt Lewin management model, the 7-S model is considered more valuable and application in different organizational situations. Apart from blanket change management, the model enables manages to facilitate the organizational change by involving all employees and the resources involved. The model also allows for the implementation of new strategies without affecting the success of previously adopted strategies by organization (Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo & Shafiq, 2012). The implementation of change must also be on an informed basis with information on the areas to affect on completion of the approach adopted. With this model, it is easier for an organization to identify the department and sections of operation that will be affected both in the short and long term. Change in some organization involves mergers and acquisition, steps that must be properly managed in order to ensure the success of the initiative. With this 7-S model, mergers of values, skills, styles and staffs of the organization are critical in the success of any merger or acquisition (Lewis, 2012). Despite the benefits of the model that have been highlighted, its application to multi-departmental organisations and multinationals may be limited. Though Lewin model has been applied to such organisations with success, the application of this model will affect other departments due to its interrelated nature. The model also ignores the differences that may arise from the different departments in an organization or from two organisations that are in the merger process. While the Lewin Kurt model has been successfully cited in a number of situations, the level of failure with the 7-S model is relatively high. This makes it less preferred by multinationals and big organisations that cannot consider failure as an option in the management of change (Pichault & Schoenaers, 2003). Kotter’s 8 step change model According to this model created by John Kotter of Harvard University, the implementation of change in an organization can only succeed if it’s handled from a campaign perspective. In this case, the managers work overboard to convince the employees on the benefits of the intended change not only to the organization but also to their positions. by convincing the employees on the need for change to occur, this model uses eight stages in which intended change is handled by the managers and the employees alike. After the identification of the intended change, the management must increase its urgency by demonstrating to the employees and the stakeholders why the time for new approaches is nigh (Spencer & Winn, 2005). Once this urgency is created, the management must create team tasked with the implementation of the change and the development of a vision that will guide the process. This team will also be tasked with handling the process of communication in which the information is passed to the employees and their input requested. The Kotter model appreciates the need for empowering the employees and using them as the agents of change, a stage that is believed to eliminate any form of resistance (Van de Ven, & Sun, 2011). Once the ground for change is developed and the employee’s engagement and endorsement acquired, the Kotter model provides for the creation of short term goals. Such goals will guide the implementation of change and provide insights into the expected long and short term results. Following the establishment of the short and long term stage, the next stage highlights the need for consistency in order to ensure that the change succeeds. Finally, the change adopted should be made permanent, a step that resembles the refreeze stage of Kurt Lewin model in which the idea is frozen into the entire organization (Singh, 2013). Kotter model is easier to implement as compared to the 7-S model and this explains its common implementation in organisations. While the other two models focuses on change, the Kotter model places emphasises on the preparation and acceptance of change within an organization. This increases the possibility of success as all members of the organization are involved and prepared for the plans before they are actually implemented. This makes it easier for the employees, the management and the stakeholders to make a transition to the new system and further enhance the performance of the organization. However, the Kotter model has many steps that increases the changes of skipping some of them, a situation that may cause further failure to the intended change to the organization (Pichault & Schoenaers, 2003). The complete implementation of the model is also time-consuming due to the steps involved and the costs of implementing them and involving the employees. From this discussion, it is evident that only the Kurt Lewin model ensures that the change is integrated into the culture of the organization in the refreeze stage. As a result, the success of change implementation using the Kurt Lewin model is more likely to succeed as compared to the other two models as it is integrated into the culture of the organization (Lewis, 2012). Implication of the change management models to human resource management The implementation of any change within an organization must appreciate the role that the employees play in the success of the intended changes. As a result, the human resource department is instrumental in the entire change process and the different models comparatively discussed in the paper have implication to the department. Kurt Lewin model enables human resource department to direct, manage and control the implementation of change. As a result, the human resource practices must be remodelled to reflect the need for learning the essence of the intended change and the impacts that it has on the organization (Singh, 2013). During the unfreeze stage of the Lewin change management model, the employees of the organization are also unfroze and their attitude changed to reflect the actual situations that will be created by then new environment. As a result, functions such as employee training, appraisal and recruitment will be defined in line with the intended changes (Palatková, 2011). Apart from the direction of the processes, approaching change through Lewin’s angle enables the human resource department to predict and appropriately manage any form of resistance that may arise and affect the success of the processes. Human resource practices must be able to recognize, appreciate and respond to the resistance, which have the potential to stall the process of implementing change. The employee performance appraisal systems must be validated and their effectiveness determined. This is due to the impacts that biased approaches may have on the employee motivation and performance after the appraisal process (Singh, 2013). This results into the development of fallacious perception towards an employee which ultimately contributes to bias in the system. In other cases, appraisers tend to form positive attitude and reviews towards those who act and behave like themselves. This is guided by the ‘similar to me effect’ which affects the credibility of the appraisal system. Other appraisal systems adopt the horn effect, which creates for appraisal based on negative effects or features that are perceived by the appraiser. In most cases, the adoption of the horn effect has been attributed to the generation of lower ratings than may be the case (Palatková, 2011). The adoption of positive appraisal systems in an organization has been attributed by the ability of the company to achieve its strategic objectives efficiently. When effectively done, performance appraisal improves the morale of the employees and this increases their determination to achieve the objectives of the organization. Performance appraisal can also act as a tool that guides the budgeting process. This is due to its ability to enable an organization determine the employees that need salary increment, promotion and demotion. A complete picture of the exact performance of different departments in an organization can also assist in the process of setting goals. This is essential in the current business environment where dynamism determines success and competitiveness (Burnes, 2004). Kotter’s and McKinsey 7-S model also have significant implications on the human resource practices of an organization that intends to implement change. Strategic planning processes must also be iterative and incorporate the internal and external capabilities of the organization, a role that is considered cross divisional. Due to the fact that it aligns the organization with the challenges within the external market, strategic planning can only succeed through the help of the human resource department. While the managers will be engaged in the process of developing the strategic plan, there will be need for the selection, recruitment and training of people with the right qualifications to implement the strategic decisions (Palatková, 2011). No department within the organization is well placed to manage the process of employee recruitment and training as compared to the human resource department. These roles can only be achieved and affected if the department is engaged in the process of making the plans and thus understands the needs of the organization and the reason behind the strategic plan. Though the Kurt Lewin change management model is preferred in most organisations, it takes a long period of time to fully implement and the benefits to be realized. However, its ease of implementation has made it more common among managers as compared to McKinsey 7 model and other change management models (Burnes, 2004). Conclusion Change management is critical in the success of any organization during normal operations, mergers and even acquisition as it eliminates any situations that can affect the processes involved. A number of models have been developed to guide the process of managing change in organization including the McKinsey 7-S model, Kotter 8-step model and the Kurt Lewin model. These three models have significant differences that make them preferred or otherwise in certain organizational setup. However, Kurt Lewin change model remain the best option due to few steps involved and its ability to integrate the change adopted into the culture of the organization. The three models significantly affect the operations and practices adopted by the human resource management department as has been highlighted in the paper. References Ali, N 2013, The Changing HRM practices through CMP model (A Comparative Case study on American and Asian Companies), IBA Business Review, 8, 2, pp. 142-161. Appelbaum, S, Habashy, S, Malo, J, & Shafiq, H 2012, Back to the future: revisiting Kotters 1996 change model, Journal of Management Development, 31, 8, p. 764. Burnes, B 2004, Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal, Journal of Management Studies, 41, 6, pp. 977-1002. Lewis, A 2012, Finding a model for managing changes, Training & Development (1839-8561), 39, 5, pp. 6-7. Martín-Alcázar, F, Romero-Fernández, P, & Sánchez-Gardey, G 2012, Transforming Human Resource Management Systems to Cope with Diversity, Journal Of Business Ethics, 107, 4, pp. 511-531. Palatková, M 2011, The 7-S-McKinsey Model: an Implementation Tool of a Destination Marketing Strategy in the Czech Republic’, Global Management Journal, 3, 1/2, pp. 44-54. Pichault, F, & Schoenaers, F 2003, HRM Practices in a Process of Organisational Change: A Contextualist Perspective, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 1, pp. 120-143. Singh, A 2013, A Study of Role of McKinseys 7S Framework in Achieving Organizational Excellence, Organization Development Journal, 31, 3, pp. 39-50. Spencer, M, & Winn, B 2005, Evaluating the Success of Strategic Change against Kotters Eight Steps, Planning For Higher Education, 33, 2, pp. 15-22. Van de Ven, A, & Sun, K 2011, Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change, Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 3, pp. 58-74. Read More