The Relevance of Organisational Change - Essay Example

While stressing the relevance of organisational change, change management gurus often quote Charles Darwin, who famously said, “It is not the most intelligent of the species that survive the longest, it is the most adaptable”. The need to adapt to the environment is not just for living organisms, it is for modern organisations as well. In the present times of globalisation, stiff competition for market space, rapidly advancing technology, frequent mergers and acquisitions, an organisation needs to reinvent itself in pace with the times if it has to survive and flourish. Changes usually have to be organisation-wide, where the entire structure, processes, strategies or culture and sometimes even the very mission statement of the organisation might need to be transformed, depending on the sector to which the organisation belongs, and the outcomes it has set out to achieve. Change could be proactive, where an organisation is aware that in order to stay ahead of competition it has to continuously re-invent itself, and thus the reasons for change, the time frame in which to make them and the resources required are within the control of the organisation. Proactive changes are not drastic or rushed, so the management has the time to conduct change while not confusing the staff. Change can also be reactive, where there are external factors beyond the organisation’s control, like market equations or immediate customer demands that dictate the transformation and even the very survival of the organisation may sometimes be at stake. Reactive changes usually have a very tight schedule, and a lot of change happens in a really short time. This is where the management has to be extra careful while planning and implementing a change, or the staff may be overwhelmed by change and try to resist it. But no matter what type and extent of change, change means a deviation from how things were done before and this could understandably lead to confusion, which is pointed out by Moran and Avergun. But change is so much an inevitable part of the game if an organisation has to stay competitive that there has been extensive research in the field of managing change, so that a successful transition can be made from the original state to the desired state. One of the theories of change is as follows: “An early model of change developed by Kurt Lewin (1951) described change as a three-stage process. The first stage he called "unfreezing". It involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set". Defence mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage the change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion. We are aware that the old ways are being challenged but we do not have a clear picture to replace them with yet. The third and final stage he called "refreezing". The new mind set is crystallizing and ones comfort level is returning to previous levels”.(Wikepedia) We first examine the statement if change is indeed chaotic and confusing for all members of all organisations that are gearing to make the change. This is important also because at its core, change management involves implementing new procedures, technologies, and overcoming resistance to change, which are all fundamentally human resource management issues. This can be achieved by looking at the following aspects: i. Increasing cultural diversity of employees: In a world which is slowly shrinking, most organisations, especially multi-nationals, have a pool of employees spread across the world or they decide to outsource part of the staff internationally, where the new employees are from a different part of the world. This means immense cultural diversity, and makes it a challenge to implement a uniform, organisation-wide change, where all employees would understand and agree with the change. ii. Radically new technologies: Employees can be overwhelmed with the rapid advancement of technology, which could be challenging to work with in the absence of proper guidance, and make them feel inadequate if they cannot get used to the new technology fast enough. iii. The point of origin of change: Change is mostly planned and initiated in the upper echelons of the organisation, because the need for change can be perceived by only those who have access to the bigger picture, or the external challenges like market forces and increasing competition. They know how the change would affect the organisation as a whole, but there is usually no clear concept in the higher management about how the change would affect the worker on the floor, and hence they are often unable to communicate the consequences of change adequately, leaving the staff confused: “Many change projects are designed and launched at such a high level in the organisation that all the planning is unrelated to the everyday, operational details that make up the lives of most workers. In such cases, the decision-makers often have no idea how changes will actually make anyones life or job, or even the function of a whole department, different. Yet that is all that people need to know before they can embrace and support a change”. ( William Bridges and Associates, 2005) iv. Various reactions of the staff to change depending on: 1 a) Place in organisation: high up or lower down: Typically the lower a person is on the corporate rung, the more the change stands to affect his or her life, because they often follow policies and procedures in their day-to-day work, and this could be drastically changed, leaving them clueless. They do not have a holistic perspective, are likely to not see the reason behind the change, and not keen to step into unfamiliar territory. Fear of the unknown is a known deterrent for such people. Some may also be too cynical, because of various reasons like failed previous change initiatives and may react negatively to change. 1b) Different teams have different viewpoints: As…….puts it , most organisations try to protect the core or centre of their business, like systems and operations, by shielding it from turbulence in the environment, these are overseen by the buffer team consisting of the upper management, staff or support functions and are in turn connected to perimeter teams like sales, marketing, customer service and so on. The three types of teams have different concerns, the core teams are concerned with “how” to find a solution, the buffer teams are involved with “what” needs to change and “how”, but it is only the top management which goes into the “why” aspect of change. But if a change has to be successful all these categories of teams need to coordinate. This process of the coordination can be expected to be chaotic for all the three teams, because they have different ways of looking at the change in the organisation. 2a) Personality type: Different people react differently to change, the more process-oriented a person, the more difficult he or she is going to find to adjust to changes in the workplace. This is especially true of people working in organizations involved in health services and nursing, administration, public sector and government departments, utilities and services because the majority of the employees in this sector tend to be the reliable, steady and habitual type and changes in their work processes can leave them feeling overwhelmed. More adaptable types are typically less habitual and excited at the prospect of change, but such people are usually found in the management levels. v. The reasons behind various employee reactions: a) Sense of loss: According to Riches (1998), employees in an organisation undergoing change experience a sense of loss, either because they are actually facing tangible loss in terms of losing incentives or, intangible, emotional losses like losing a valued colleague to right-sizing, or even losing the sense of security that familiar procedures brought to them, which have now been totally transformed into the unfamiliar. b) People are truly too busy to change: As Wesley (1996) puts it, though “often seen as an excuse to cover personal resistance, this common cry of distress may be an honest reflection. If an organisation has put off major change until long after its work processes are outmoded, increasing portions of each persons day must be spent correcting errors, solving problems, and walking important papers through the system. Unfortunately, not to change in this case means that theres less and less time for productive work. Things get worse before they get better”. c) Unclear change vision: Most successful organisations have their structural designs determining the definitions, placement, and co-ordinations of employees and procedures figured out pretty early in their life cycle, and thus the common reaction to a issue requiring a change solution is usually to resolve the “means” to sort it out rather than on “why” it needs to be looked into or “what” exactly needs to be changed. This leads to skewered management focus, and an unclear change vision, which means that they cannot appropriately translate or summarise it for the understanding of the employees in their departments. vi. The various stages of employee reactions: Depending on what employees feel about the organisation as it was before the change, they can have different emotions which could also have an effect on their productivity and adaptability to change. “An individuals attitude toward a change tends to evolve as they become more familiar with it. The stages a person goes through can consist of: apprehension, denial, anger, resentment, depression, cognitive dissonance, compliance, acceptance, and internalisation. This emotional framework is a derivative of work by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book "On Death and Dying" which dealt with the phases people experience when faced with the loss of family member or friend.” (Wikipedia) Thus we see that it is quite possible for employees to be overwhelmed by the changes happening around them in the organisation. The way and extent they accept the changes, and the time frame in which they do so determines the success of the change process. But surely change need not always lead to confusion and chaos. At the very least there has to be a method in the madness for the change operation to succeed and for the organisation to move from an existing state to a “desired state”. In order to figure out how to make change in an organisation a successful operation which is understood and supported by all and prevent people in the organisation from feeling overwhelmed, following needs to be clearly understood: 1. The circumstances needing change : Why the change needs to occur is a question that must be thoroughly and specifically addressed before embarking on a change. This would mean that the management has to be totally convinced of the need for change and should be able to strongly communicate the urgency for this change. 2. The desired outcome: Once the reason for change has been identified, a clear picture needs to be drawn out as to the targeted outcome, and details of how each and every aspect of the organisation would be affected needs to be worked out. This would help the management have a clear concept of and be able to spell out to the employees exactly what the change would mean in terms of the day-to-day work, as well as prospects and benefits for each of them. 3. Change plan: The change should occur according to a particular plan, which could be flexible according to the demands of the moment during the change, but this flexibility would always keep in mind the final desired outcome and the pictured impact. A plan in place would also help the management in involving the employees in the process of change, and since it would be a flexible plan, employee input can be easily incorporated. 4. Change methods:Change for the better can be brought about by following the dictum of various schools of thought, be it Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering, or Organisational culture change and so on, but the change methods adopted for each organisation needs to be unique. The method an organisation would adopt would depend on the particular issues it has to combat, the sector it belongs to, the demographics of its employees, and the state to which it wants to transform. Knowing and applying specific methods helps the management to benefit from years of research in dealing with not only the technical aspects of change but also the crucial human issues. 5. Change communication: For employees to truly understand, feel in control and confident during the change process and to actually contribute to it, they need to be told exactly why the change is being made, how it is to be made, what are the plans in place, how it would affect them and what they can do to help. How this communication is handled, how much and to how many in an organisation this information is conveyed defines the nature of success the change project can achieve. Once the above factors which can help bring about a smooth transition have been identified, it is then time to identify the communication strategies, because communication is the most direct and visible way to keep the employees focused on and supportive of the change. The communication process can be mapped out using the ADKAR model developed by Jeff Hiatt (1998, 2006] for individual change management, because these steps are crucial if a person has to change towards a given target, which would help him adapt to the changes in the organisation. “The ADKAR model developed by Jeff Hiatt (1998, 2006] for individual change management presents five building blocks that an individual must obtain to realize change successfully. These include awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement. It is the managements job to create an environment in which people can go through these stages as quickly as possible, including: Building awareness of why the change is needed, Creating desire to support and participate in the change, developing knowledge of how to change, fostering ability to implement new skills and behaviours, and providing reinforcements to sustain the change”. (Wikipedia) It is also important that the urgency of the need to change is conveyed strongly, and be definable in a one-minute statement, so that employees can grasp the gist of it easily. The sense of loss that an employee faces during an organisational change needs to be acknowledged by the management, because denying it leaves them mistrustful and disoriented. Accepting that change does involve a loss and weighing it against the reasons why it is necessary would help those under transition to accept and commit towards the change. Employees need encouragement and support at this juncture and need to be made to feel part of the team, not under duress to perform in the changed circumstances instantly. Management also needs to understand that different people have different capacities for change, and give them the time and space to commit towards the transition and not impose sharp deadlines. According to Dr. Malcolm Slovin, installation of suggestion boxes, feedback mechanisms, centres for innovation, anonymous opinion polls, and discussion forums are the need of the hour, and make the employee feel more in control. Mandatory rues and policies click into place once the change has been accepted and committed towards by a significant majority of the organisation. In conclusion the discussion can be summed up as follows: “Attitudes towards change result from a complex interplay of emotions and cognitive processes. Because of this complexity everyone reacts to change differently. On the positive side, change is seen as akin to opportunity, rejuvenation, progress, innovation, and growth. But just as legitimately, change can also be seen as akin to instability, upheaval, unpredictability, threat, and disorientation. Whether employees perceive change with fear, anxiety and demoralization, or with excitement and confidence, or somewhere in between, depends partially on the individuals psychological makeup, partially on managements actions, and partially on the specific nature of the change”.(Wikipedia) Bennis, W.G., Benne,K.D., Chin, R.,(Eds.), 1969.The Planning of Change (2nd Edition). New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bridges, W. 1995. Managing Organisational Transitions. Managing Organisational Change. Burke, W. Warner (ed.). New York: American Management, pp. 20-28. Kotter, John P. 1998.Winning at Change. Leader to Leader. (10),pp. 27-33 Mclagan. P.A., 2003. Distributed Intelligence: Change Is Everybodys Business. Heres How to Get People to Take Personal Responsibility. T&D. 57( 2). Newell, A., Simon, H. A., 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Nickols, F. 2000. Change Management 101: A Primer, BNET Think Tank, [Internet], Available from:http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid=59542&promo=100200 [cited 5 September, 2006] Riches, A.1998. The Four Emotional Stages of Change, Anne Riches.[Internet] Available from:http://www.anneriches.com.au/article-ct3.html [cited 5 September, 2006] Slovin, M. Dr.1996. Thinking Change Management? Change Culture First, Management First, [Internet] Available from: http://www.managementfirst.com/change_management/articles/change_culture.php [ cited 5 September, 2006] Thompson, J.D.,1967.Organisations in Action. New York : McGraw-Hill. Wesley, D., 1996. Leading Your Organisation Through Change, [Internet],Available from: http://changecraft.com/Articles/leading.htm. Change Craft, ChangeCraft™ Corporation. [ cited 5 September, 2006] Wikipedia, Change management.[Internet], Available from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management, [ cited 5 September, 2006] William Bridges and Associates, 1997. The Three Questions, William Bridges and Associates, [Internet], Available from:http://www.wmbridges.com/resources/article-three_questions.html, [ cited 5 September, 2006] Read More