The Importance of the Hard Side of Change Management - Essay Example

? Management Alternatives Management Alternatives Sirkin et al’s article about Change Management may have been short in length in tackling such a complex management topic such as change management but the population of their subjects which included 225 companies when the study was conducted was comprehensive. The management approach in change management shortly termed as DICE (project duration, particularly the time between project reviews; performance integrity, or the capabilities of project teams; the commitment of both senior executives and the staff whom the change will affect the most; and the additional effort that employees must make to cope with the change) also proved to be effective in dealing, managing and implementing change with a proven success of 1,000 change management initiatives worldwide. This manifests that Sirkin et al’s DICE is not just any other theory concocted by the fancy of academicians but in fact have in fact proved to be grounded on reality. The article focused on the importance of the hard side of change management which could be directly or indirectly quantified as a critical factor in the success of change management over soft side (communication, motivation, etch). The article stressed that the hard factors should be addressed first because failure to address such will result in failure that soft initiatives of change could not even take off because the initiative has already failed. The recommendations/conclusion to address change was also realistic and cognizant of the problems which change initiatives faces in the real world that is why it resulted to an overwhelming success when applied to the real world. The article however was published in 2005 and discussed a study that was conducted in 1992 and completed in 1994. While the change management approach of DICE was unquestionably successful, it was conducted aeon ago. It goes without saying that the business reality today is way different compared to 1994. Businesses today are already globalized and highly competitive where customers are increasingly getting sophisticated to name few changes in business environment that is different when Sirkin et al’s study was conducted. Thus, the study may have been more relevant if a revisit or a review on its efficacy was conducted to check if it is still valid in today’s present reality. The article could have been timely if it had integrated more recent studies about change management. One of those more recent studies is the Murthy’s concept of change management that dealt with the soft factors of change management which Sirkin et al touched in their articles. The article focused on the importance of people in implementing change in any business organization because “it is the people who will ultimately cause the change to be a success or a failure. The implications of change on individuals are important without which we can never really hope to manage large scale change effectively” (Murthy 2007: 23). According to Murthy, to effectively implement individual change, there are four approaches to make such change successful; they are behavioral, cognitive and psychodynamic. Murthy’s behavioral approach is to make the reward strategies right to make individuals receptive to change. Basically this entails understanding how individuals perceive change and to understand what makes an individual tick. These approaches are important because without understanding an individual’s behavior, no amount of reward strategy can be successful. The cognitive approach is to link goals to motivation. When an individual is already understood on how he or she perceives change and has already identified the factors that will motivate the individual to be receptive to change, such willingness to adapt to change should be aligned with the organizational goals. The psychodynamic approach is to treat people as individuals and understand their emotional states as well as your own (Murthy 2007). Simply put, treat others in the same manner we would like to be treated when we implement change. Another thought about change management is Golkar’s interdisciplinary approach about change management that touched a lot of things but somewhat differed in the approach of Sirkin et al which viewed the varying perspectives of managers as unhealthy in dealing change. Golkar viewed these varying perspectives as a necessary diversity of change and part of the organization’s evolution or improvement. They vary in a way that Sirkin et al saw varying perspectives as a problem while Golkar treated it as a healthy ingredient for the company to improve in the process of change. Instead of a threat, Golkar’s concept about change saw it as an opportunity to reach an organizational goal (2013). Golkar also touched the necessity of soft factors in change management such as the importance of communicating information about the intended change to motivate employees affected by it. The study posits that resistance will be reduced once the employees are informed and motivated. The population of Golkar’s study was not as comprehensive of Sirkin et al’s 1,200 companies, but it is however more recent being recently conducted (2013) compared to Sirkin et al’s study which was concluded in 1994. Lastly, Atkinson recommended to manage change by cultivating a positive risk culture is interesting to contrast with Golkar’s change management perspective which saw change as necessary and an opportunity (2013). Unlike Golkar who accepted change as part of a business organization’s evolution and improvement, Atkinson viewed it as inimical to the organization’s well-being that it should be seen as a risk and therefore, should be managed. Atkinson’s approach is somewhat unorthodox because Risk Management is a separate discipline in management and is often applied to projects, supply chain and process. In this study, the research transcended to include change as risk and just like any risk, mitigating strategies should also be embedded in the organization to lessen its impact. Atkinson even cautioned that disregarding the risk posed by change can also lead to failure in managing it in the same manner that Sirkin et al argued the necessity of managing hard factors to avert failures early. Between the two, Atkinson’s study however is more recent and more grounded to reality as it factored in the study recent developments in organizational realities such as the potency of risk in undermining the organization not to mention that it was conducted in the year 2013 compared to Sirkin et al’s study which was concluded in 1994 whose realities were different from today. These studies conducted by Murthy, Golkar, Atkinson including Sirkin tackled the different aspects of change management. These studies however could have gained from each study had these studies been more integrated to make the scope, depth and coverage more comprehensive. Nevertheless, these studies provided any student of management a snapshot on the different aspects of change management which is helpful in understanding and dealing with the evolving change in organizations. Bibliography Atkinson, P 2013, 'Managing change and building a positive risk culture', Management Services, 57, 2, pp. 9-13, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 August 2013. Golkar, H 2013, 'TODAY CHANGE MANAGEMENT IS NECESSARY AND REQUIREMENT FOR ORGANIZATIONS', Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 4, 10, pp. 458-468, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 August 2013. Murthy, C.S.V. 2007. "Change Management”. Global Media.  Sirkin, Harold L.; Keenan, Perry; Jackson Alan 2013 .” The Hard Side of Change Management”. Harvard Business Review. Read More