How Would Motivate the Members of the Organization to Adapt and Accept Continuous Change - Assignment Example

Running Head: [short [institute of affiliation] I. Change theories explained and assessed A. Lewin’s three-step change model Kurt Lewin has devised a model for change which is done by three steps (1951). This three-step model includes unfreezing the status quo, movement and refreezing the status quo. Lewin points out that when changing the status quo, there are relative forces that influence the movement—these forces are classified as restraining forces and driving forces. Driving forces are factors that prompt change to occur; on the contrary, restraining forces are factors that hinder change’s occurrence. Unfreezing The first step to managing a change within the organization is to unfreeze the prevailing norms within the company. In order to unfreeze these prevailing norms, or the status quo, overcoming resistance among individuals and conformity among groups is crucial. In Lewin’s model, the shift to a desired state can be done by one of the three: lowering the restraining forces to change; increasing the driving forces to get into the desired state; or both. The change in leadership entails a new vision. And in order to carry out this vision, there are specific steps the new leadership lays out which will be the cause of individual resistances within the corporation. The first alternative is to increase the driving forces. Driving forces usually come in the form of incentive, for employees to accept and comply to change. It may assume other forms, but driving forces are the usual motivating forces behind the transition. Another alternative is to decrease the restraining forces to change. As change prompts uncertainty, people tend to protect their interests and resort into power struggles. By eliminating these sorts of restraining forces in the form of employee counseling, seminars and educational programs, forces that hinder change due to individual resistance can be neutralized. In the extreme cases where the resistance is high, status quo can be unfreezed by combining the two approaches: eliminating the restraining forces, and increasing the driving forces. In this way, the incentive to accept change plus measures to lower down the resistance among employees will work in order to unfreeze the status quo. Movement When the status quo is unfreezed, and employees are set for the change that is to happen within the company, the new leadership can enact the changes. When new leadership entails new vision for the company, the changes that may come can include changes in the corporate objectives, thus there will be changes in corporate strategies. These changes in strategies usually require changes in organizational structure and a change in the processes within the organization. Significant HR policies can be impacted in the change, such as changes in job descriptions and the roles that employees will perform. Even when the status quo is unfreezed, this movement has to be accompanied with educational programs in order to communicate to employees the changes that are happening, and the reasons behind them. While movement occur, it is best to keep employees informed about the set of changes that will have to happen in line with this change in leadership, and change in the course of how things are done within the organization. Refreezing Even when the changes have already taken place, the new leadership should see to it that these will have to be part of the current norms within the company to ensure sustainability in the longer term. This step is what Lewin considers as refreezing the status quo. By constant monitoring and reinforcement, the new situation should become the new norms of how things are done. This is to make sure that the changes will not be temporary, but part of a longer term plan in order for the organization to reach its objectives. B. Action research Action research is another theory as regards change. According to Shani and Pasmore, action research “is a change process based on the systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on the findings (1985, pp. 438-448).” Action research is comprised of five steps which include: diagnosis, analysis, feedback, action, and evaluation—as tailored to the scientific method. When problems occur, the organization is said to be diagnosed first in order to determine whether the problem is the problem itself or just a symptom to a larger problem. After it has been diagnosed, analysis follows where the causes of the problems have been identified. After the findings have determined the causes of the problem, these are communicated to employees—the feedback step. As alternative courses of actions have been presented to employees, the chosen recommendation is enacted by the employees in order to address the problem. Lastly, evaluation will measure the plan’s effectiveness in addressing the problem. The major benefit of action research is that it is systematic in enacting change which is based on a problem that the company faces. Because the change is based on a systematic process as response to a problem and the analysis considered objective. However, according to the authors change that is prompted by action research is not problem-centered but solution-oriented as the change is prompted not by the analysis of the problem, but the solution that will be recommended for the course of action. C. Organizational development Organizational development, according to Farias and Johnson cannot be coined as a single concept; rather it is a collection of planned-change interventions that are based on the humanistic-democratic values that aim to impact organizational effectiveness and overall well-being of the employees (2000, 376-379). According to Cummings and Worley, organizational development paradigm emphasizes collaboration and participation in relation to processes, the spirit of inquiry and human and organizational growth (1993). Organizational development incorporates the following values, although the emphasis lies more on collaboration: “respect for people; trust and support; power equalization; confrontation; and participation (Cummings and Worley 1993).” These values that serve as guide are apparent in the planned-change interventions that the organizational development paradigm comprises. The values that the organizational development holds emphasize processes that are usually responses to problems. The change that occurs by means of organizational development is according to interventions that aim to improve the environment of the organization based on values. Also, this improvement is based on the problems that arise and needed to be modified on the basis of the values of the organizational development paradigm. II. Choice of change theory: what best to put into practice Among the theories of change, the one I can consider best to put into practice is Lewin’s three step model. This model can be applied to any change in general, whether the root is a problem or an opportunity that prompts the change—a major difference compared to action research and organizational development. The two latter theories are more focused on problems to address which is the major point for the change’s occurrence. In contrast to action research, Lewin’s model can be less rigid, or more flexible when implementing change. As action research is based on the scientific gathering of data in order to determine the problem or concern that could prompt change, Lewin’s model focuses on the movement of one status quo and does not require a specific problem when managing planned change. This is also its advantage in contrast to organizational development, where the approaches that are related to it are centered to specific problems. III. Other considerations A. How would you then anticipate the effects of change on your organization and the individuals within it? 1. Sources of resistance to change anticipated According to Hall in his book “Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes”, an organization in itself leans more toward conservatism rather than change (1987, p.29). As organizations prefer conservatism than innovation, by their very nature, resistances to any effort on effecting change are sure to appear. According to Katz and Kahn in their book “Social Psychology of Organizations,” there are six major sources of organizational resistance. These include: “structural inertia, limited focus of change, group inertia, limited focus of change, group inertia, threat to expertise, threat to established power relationships, and threat to established resource allocations (1978, pp. 714-715)”. Anticipating the effects of change will require a change agent to determine the relative strength of these sources of resistance, and how to address them. Structural inertia is reflected by the relevant norms and routines that guarantee the stability within the organization; because change disrupts this structural inertia, organizational resistance occurs. Limited focus of change on the other hand is a major source of resistance when the change is made to affect only a small system within the company, which in reality will affect larger systems that are related with it. The resistance to change is a result of the incongruence of change in the larger system with the small system which is the focus. When structural inertia is determined by the relevant routines that are set by the structure of the organization, group inertia is determined by the norms that are accepted and practiced by different groups within the organization. Change may face resistance when it is not largely accepted according to group norms. Threat to expertise on the other hand, focuses on the impact of change to the relevance of some specialized groups’ expertise. If there are groups which will face reduction in relevance to the activities and operations of the organization due to the change, this should be considered. Any change within the organization will tend to reshuffle the concentration of power and distribution of authority within the organization. This is the threat to established power relationships. As resistance occurs in relation to change, this can be one of the sources as people with substantial authority who are threatened to give up their positions due to change will be a cause of resistance. Threats to established resource allocation is somehow related to threat to established power relationships, only that the former’s concern is about the adjustments in the resources that a group will have to face in relation to change. The change may be perceived by some groups as a catalyst for lower budgets allocations to their divisions, or transfer of substantial manpower from their group that more tasks will be incorporated in individual jobs. This is one of the sources of resistance where the change agent can look into in anticipating the effect of change. B. What steps would you then have to take to implement the change to reduce any negative effects of change on the organization? 1. Steps to implement the change In order to effect this reorganization within the company, change management should be utilized in order to shift the status quo to a desired state in the future. Bartol, in her book Management: A Pacific Rim focus, illustrates a process of change management in eight steps (2001, pp.360-363). a) Bartol’s Eight-Step change model 1. gain recognition of the problem or opportunity Before anything else, management has to spot a problem or an opportunity which prompts change to occur. As management has recognized either a problem or an opportunity that will require the company to act upon it either to gain competitive advantage or to address weaknesses within the organization, this is the starting point for any change. 2. line up powerful sponsors In order to backup the planned change, the most powerful sponsors, usually the key people, who are the executives, are to be informed about the planned change, and to gather their support in order for the change to be communicated to the rest of the company. 3. develop and communicate a vision In this part, the vision of changing the organizational structure has to be developed and communicated, first to those people who can pass around the information. In developing a vision, it could be helpful to involve the rest of the company in order for them not to feel like the vision is a top-down command. It is to enable them to know the situation of the company and to feel like being more involved to what is happening, which makes them more receptive to the changes that will be enforced in line with the vision. 4. empower others to act out the vision By giving the proper authority to people who are capable of communicating the desired vision about the change in organizational structure, these people will have better chance to act out the vision. This may entail choosing the right people to conduct seminars and trainings to inform the other employees about the changes, and form a certain system to create these changes. Employees should be encouraged to act out the vision and adhere to the changes that are taking place within the company. 5. prepare to overcome resistance The more change is being anticipated in advance, the more it would make resistance more intense because personal interests are at stake, also because of the perceived uncertainty of the future work status quo. Thus, resistance should be overcome by coming up with rewards system, as discussed in the next step. 6. plan for and reward visible progress In operant behaviorism, the desired behavior is reinforced in order to encourage repetition, and undesired behavior is punished in order to discourage repetition. But a more humane, in line with motivation, way is to do the former which is to reward visible progress as planned change is carried on. This would mean that the desired behavior is appreciated by management, thus should be maintained. 7. consolidate improvements and facilitate further change By telling the employees about the improvements and where the organization has gone so far and the benefits that are effected by this change, employees will see it as a good and necessary process that lead them for the better. By encouraging change in other areas of improvements, and soliciting ideas from employees in order to improve operations apart from the change in structure, better workplace environment will be fostered. 8. monitor and institutionalize changes When the change is not reinforced for the long time as such that it becomes part of the corporate culture, there is a huge tendency for the employees to go back to previous practices which could make things a lot worse than before. By continually reinforcing the changes until the time it becomes part of the new status quo, it is wise to always remind the employees of the benefits of the new structure, as well as the good things that cross-functional work teams, in our case have contributed to the operations of the company. The employees have to see the result to, as well as the improvements that the change will do for the company in the long-term. C. How would you monitor trends affecting your organization and prepare your organization for the changes these trends would influence? 1. Monitoring trends and overcoming resistance to change According to Kotter and Schlesinger in their article “Choosing Strategies for Change”, there are six ways of overcoming resistance to change. A choice of this or a combination of these depending on the situation and the relative advantage and drawbacks to the organization will help the organization prepare from changes in trends. These include “education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and explicit and implicit coercion (Harvard Business Review 1979, p.111).” These methods offer both advantages and disadvantages for every situation. According to the article, education and communication can be most commonly used “where there is a lack of information or inaccurate information and analysis (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” The major advantage of this method according to them is that when people become informed and see the point and logic that requires the change, people will be more cooperative in terms of implementation. However, the drawbacks according to them, is that this method will be very time-consuming which will have a significant effect on productivity of the organization, as many people are involved in the process. Participation and involvement is one of the methods that they recommend to only in situations “where the initiators do not have all the information they need to design the change, and where others have considerable power to resist (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” According to the authors, the major advantage of this method will be that “people who participate will be committed to implementing change, and any relevant information they have will be integrated into the change plan (1979, p.111).” As for the drawbacks, the method will be very time-consuming if inappropriate modifications to the change plan are given by the participants. Facilitation and support proves to be the only good approach with adjustment problems, according to Kotter and Schlesinger (p.111). However, this method can usually be employed in situations “where people are resisting because of adjustment problems (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” Expensive resource consumption, according to the authors, in the form of time, finances and personnel is the major drawback, with the thought that the method has a potential to fail in the process. Negotiation and agreement are most commonly used “where someone or some group will clearly lose out in a change, and where that group has considerable power to resist (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” A major advantage of this method is that this can be a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111). As for its disadvantage, like facilitation and support, the method can be very expensive “if it alerts others to negotiate for compliance (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” In situations “where other tactics will not work or are too expensive (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111),” manipulation and co-optation can be a resort. According to the article, “it can be a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to resistance problems (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111).” However, if the people see through the manipulation, problems such as lack of trust and integrity as perception of the organization’s management will arise. As for explicit and implicit coercion, which is commonly used “where speed is essential and the change initiators possess considerable power (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979, p.111),” the advantage can be that it an approach that addresses the issue of speed of action and it any resistance can be overcome. However, as the authors point out, the adverse effect is that people maybe disheartened and angry at the initiators, which can result in many motivation-related problems in the future. When change is in place and resistance is overcome by employing one of the methods above, the best way to motivate the people is to show the relevance of the change to the people, and continuously rewarding them for modifying their behaviors in relation to change. By continuous reinforcement through rewards system, change can be put in place and be maintained. Reference List Bartol, K. Martin, D., Tein, M. & Matthews, G. (2001). Management: A Pacific Rim Focus. Australia: McGraw-Hill Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization Development and Change. 5th ed. Minneapolis: West. Farias, G. & Johnson, H. (2000 September). Organizational Development and Change Management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, pp. 376-379. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/36/3/376 Hall, R. H. (1987). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Kotter, J. P. & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979 March-April). "Choosing Strategies for Change." Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Press. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row. Margulies, N. & Wallace, J. (1973). Organizational Change: Techniques and Applications. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman Shani, A. B. & Pasmore, W. A. (1985). Organization Inquiry: Towards a New Model of the Action Research Process. In Warrick, D. D. (ed.), Contemporary Organization Development: Current Thinking and Applications (pp. 438-48). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Read More