The Successful Management of the Change for XYZ - Statistics Project Example

Course Title Course Supervisor Managing Change By February, 2009 Table of Contents 0.00 Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Discuss in detail the internal and external forces of change affecting XYZ Construction. 2.0 Identify and explain the objectives/goals of the new Managing Director 2.1 What is he trying to achieve? 2.2 What are the issues that he is trying to solve? 3.0 Elaborate on the strategies used to implement change in XYZ 3.1 The steps and tactics used. 4.0 Analyze the constraints faced by XYZ during the change process and suggest ways to overcome them. 4.1 Resistance to change due to loss of power and influence. 4.2 Internal conflicts between departments, etc 5.0 Explain the change approach(s)/type(s) used by XYZ. Alternatively, what other approach(s)/type(s) can be used by XYZ? Discuss. - Planned or spontaneous? - Episodic or continuous? - etc….(chap 1) 1.0 Introduction The following project titled ‘Change Management Plan for XYZ’ is aimed at examining the change management project that took place in XYZ. The first part will try to identify the need for change and its implications particularly on human behavior. The second part will try to develop a plan that addresses the human variables and potential resistance to this change. It will look at the respective reasons why people are resistant to change and the various methods to use in managing and motivating them to accept the change process. It will then dive into examining how this change process will be executed with particular attention to leadership style that can ensure continuous success of the process. Also, measures and ways to monitor the change process will be examined. The project will end with an examination of other change management methods that XYZ aught to have used, and the challenges that the organization may face in the foreseeable future spanning from the next five to ten years and possible contingent solutions to these problems. 1.1 Discuss in detail the internal and external forces of change affecting XYZ Construction For change to be successful, commitment is vital. According to Kotter, “Most people won’t go on the long march unless they see compelling reasons to do so and the reasons are producing expected results”. This question addresses the internal and external forces of change affecting XYZ construction 1.1.1Intrenal Forces Organisational paradigm according to Johnson & Scholes (1997) are those set of assumptions, beliefs which are rarely talked about, which are not considered problematic and most often managers in an organisation are unlikely to be explicit about it. It reflects the collective experience without which members of an organisation would have to do things their own way in different situations they face (Johnson 1992, Johnson &Scholes 1997). According to Dwyer & Kemp (2000:3), “the forces at work in the environment and the organisations capabilities in coping with these, are made sense of in terms of the individual experience of managers and the collective assumptions within the paradigm”. Figure one below summarises the cultural web and the organisational paradigm as construed by Johnson and Scholes (1997 Fig. 2.10, p. 69) These assumptions are more commonly observed in conversations, discussions between the different stakeholders in an organisation (Dwyer & Kemp 2000). In some situations assumptions are deeply embedded in an organisation and its’ members that it can only be manifested through peoples action (Dwyer & Kemp 2000). In all, these assumptions, ways of doing things are the backbone of the organisation (Johnson 1992, Johnson &Scholes 1997). In XYZ company, the internal factors affecting the change process as deduced from the case include the poor working relationship, less friendly workers who make cooperation and team work difficult, poor management and the autocratic management style of the previous director. The culture and the taken for granted assumptions were at the detriment of the organization’s goals and objectives. The situation was further complicated between internal conflict. For example, Estimation department often felt that, Design often makes job complex and costly while Design felt that, Estimation did not understand the technical aspects of what they were suggesting to customers. To sum up from the cultural web, the internal factors included power structure, routines and rituals, control systems etc. The external factors can be deduced from the PESTLE framework. Political economic social technological legal and environmental factors. The environment in which the XYZ is operating created a fertile ground for conflict of interest with suppliers and other contractors. According to Johnson et al (2005), the PESTEL framework can only be used to look at the future impact of environmental factors and that this impact might be different from the past. Thus an understanding of how the factors in the above framework may drive change is only a starting point (Johnson et al 2005).There is a need for an understanding of the key change drivers Thus, most deals were settled in a lawsuit. The economic environment had aggressive competition, and growing interest 2.0 Identify and explain the objectives/goals of the new Managing Director Organizational change or change in general can be defined from a variety of points depending on the perception of the user. An individual or employee in an organization may look at a new post or position as a change while higher management may feel it is unimportant. (Cao et al, 2000, p187). Changes viewed also by management may also not be looked upon as change by outsiders like competitors or suppliers. This has led to the categorizing of change in various ways, some of which include strategic and non-strategic change, incremental and radical change, changes of identity, co-ordination and control, planned and emergent change, change in terms of scale, human-centered change in terms of individual, group and inter-group or organizational level, quantum change and so on. (Cao et al, 2000, p187; Todnem, 2005, p372). Changes can also be structural, that is dealing with the physical alteration of an organization like its buildings and equipment or even employees. (Bennett & Durkin, 2000). On the other hand, it may be a change in process, that is, the way the related group of tasks are combined to create value for a target customer. (Cao et al, 2000, p188). A change can as well be in functions, that is, the decision system or policy and resource allocation duties of a particular element of an organization. There can also be changes in values, beliefs and human behavior in terms of social rules and relationships and so on. (Cao et al, 2000, p187). Lastly, there can be changes in the distribution of power and level of influence with an organization. These four types of change have different implications on the their total quality management as can be seen in the table below. The objectives of the new management appointed in 1996 were to Challenge the taken for granted assumptions as defined in Johnson and Scholes cultural web And create a new cultural environment so as to increase efficiency, through team building and employee’s enhancement and cooperation and consequently establishes a new paradigm. According to Organisational paradigm according to Johnson & Scholes (1997) are those set of assumptions, beliefs which are rarely talked about, which are not considered problematic and most often managers in an organisation are unlikely to be explicit about it. It reflects the collective experience without which members of an organisation would have to do things their own way in different situations they face (Johnson 1992, Johnson &Scholes 1997). 2.1 What is he trying to achieve? Organisational culture is a tool in the management strategic armory which appears to be invisible yet it influences “why” “how” “what” and “when” things are done in an organisation (Dwyer & Kemp 2000) or “it is the way things are being done here” (Johnson 1992:28, Johnson & Scholes 1997:66). It has been argued by Dwyer & Kemp (2000) that most traditional approach to organisational strategy ignores an important and powerful element of the organisation, that of culture. The new management of XYZ company was trying to achieve a new culture by challenging the previous taken for granted assumptions in the cultural web. 2.2 What are the issues that he is trying to solve? Johnson & Scholes (1997) contend that, using the organisation paradigm a new cultural environment can be created. This is so because, by looking at the cultural web, you see what the organisation is like “now” and you mimic how you want it to be in future. The difference is the change the organisation intends to make. The same idea was supported by Dwyer & Kemp (2000) when the researchers argued that, most organisations only look at the paradigm during a change process. These issues included, poor working relationship, less friendly workers, and the previous poor management.The rituals, stories and routines were detrimental to the organisation objectives. 3.0Elaborate on the strategies used to implement change in XYZ During a strategic change process, an organisation paradigm becomes quite useful because it identify within the cultural web what is now, how the organisation wants it to be. The difference between what it is and what the organisation wants it to be is the intended change (Johnson & Scholes 1997). Looking at the factors in each, you can begin to see the bigger picture of your culture: what is working, what isn’t working, and what needs to be changed (Johnson & Scholes 1997:68). Thus with, this the taken for granted assumptions are easily sorted and you start aligning organisational elements with one another, the strategy to reinforces or build the new way of doing things around here(Dwyer & Kemp 2000). The strategies used to implement change in an XYZ were broad and diverse. First of all the new management had to identify the need for change, this was communicated to all the necessary stakeholders to gain commitment, The steps run from the need of establishing a sense of urgency, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, planning for and creating short-term wins, consolidating improvements and producing still more change and finally institutionalizing new approaches. The new management had to train, and motivate employees, by convincing them the unknown future is better than now. For example, Kotter in the first phase of his change model, Kotter (1995) argues that, once the decision has been taken by top management to institute a major change, it is a major responsibility and quite important to rally the rest of the company behind this decision, change at this stage is hard because people view the current situation as safe and stable. To Kotter, the challenge now is on management to convince at least 75% of the organization to follow the idea. To the researcher, once you have succeeded in convincing at least 75% of the people that business in its usual form is unacceptable then, can the organization be considered as being on the right tract for the change process. This was the entire strategy used by the new management to challenge the taken for granted. Change strategy used was a gradual; once one step is completed the other one begins. To make the change process likely and feasible, the researcher talks of the need to exaggerate an existing problem in order to make communication for change much easier. Kotter (1995) stated that, it has to be made certain that, the present status quo seems more dangerous than launching into the unknown. At the second stage of Kotter change transformational model, Kotter emphasizes the importance of a certain mass that can drive the change within the company. The number of driving individuals has to grow over time. This group to Kotter has a core of top management and other participants. The researcher however guards of the possibilities of opposition opposing change. The implication here in my organisation is that, without a strong group of people who can drive change, the change process will never accumulate the momentum needed to evolve the organisation. Thus, it is of importance that, the number of change supporters should increase with time. During the change process, individuals in the organisation can be classified into, change promoters, potential change promoters, opponents and hidden opponents, the challenge then for the organisation during the change process will be to convert, hidden opponents and opponents into potential promoters and change promoters. Failure to do so will cause the change effort to fail. This again was used by the new management. 4.0Analyze the constraints faced by XYZ during the change process and suggest ways to overcome them. To successfully implement this change project at XYZ, it will be wise to first pre-empt the resistance for it and put in place contingent measures for its eventual management. It is very necessary for management of XYZ to ask what new values are critical to the new business process, what current behaviors inhibit change and wow will these be overcome. Normally, people resist change in every organization for a variety of reasons, some of which include: Rationality: Objectively this is not good for me. Fear: Bred by uncertainty it might not be good for me. Discomfort: It doesn’t feel right to me. Skepticism: Frankly I don’t believe you. Drawing from the above, we see that the reason some employees resisted change at XYZ was not different from this. Some employees were afraid to loose power, some were afraid of the unknown while others were discomfort able. However using the following method the new management overcome those resisting change. Incentives: This involves making the change process in the interest of all the stakeholders. It takes place in the form of appreciation (verbal or written), financial benefits, job promotion and enrichment etc. Information: The reason for the change should be well spelt and communicated to every involved party well in advance. Information dissemination in the change process is very vital as it reduces uncertainty in the actors involved. Indoctrination: People are usually resistant to change because they don’t know whether they will fit in the new design. Education and training of the change participants is a good contingent measure and was effectively used by the new management to manage its resistance. Intervention: Also, there is the need to intervene, support and reassure the change actors that they are taking the organization to higher heights. This reassurance gives motivation as the actors or employees of XYZ. Involvement: Generally, the most mistake change initiators make is giving out the feeling that the change is for the organization and not for the change actors or employees. It is always very important to rope everybody as a ‘changer’ and not as a ‘changee’ 4.1 Resistance to change due to loss of power and influence. To summarise, we can argue that, some employees resisted the change process in XYZ mostly because of the fear of the unknown. Most of these employees were afraid their powers will be curtailed by the new structure. However, through a series of training workshop, most employees we realized that at XYZ 1. People like to advance in careers and can be creative and innovative when given the opportunities. 2. Interpersonal interaction is very valuable particularly with peers and superiors within an organization. This makes for the formal and informal relationship features for the XYZ organizational growth. 3. Finally that for people to function effectively and efficiently, trust and cooperation and support is needed. This should be put in place to discourage the win-lose competition in XYZ. (Schneider et al. 1996). 4.2 Internal conflicts between departments, etc People also resisted change because of the conflict of interest between the various departments. The change process had to reduce previous functions of one department to the other, it requires an increase in most of the activities performed at the head office. However, the change was a gradual process. For change to be successful, change must be facilitated through From, the perspective of Incentives: This involves making the change process in the interest of all the stakeholders. It takes place in the form of appreciation (verbal or written), financial benefits, job promotion and enrichment etc. Information: The reason for the change should be well spelt and communicated to every involved party well in advance. Information dissemination in the change process is very vital as it reduces uncertainty in the actors involved. Indoctrination: People are usually resistant to change because they don’t know whether they will fit in the new design. Education and training of the change participants is a good contingent measure to manage its resistance. 5.0Types of Change Used by XYZ The successful management of the change for XYZ involved the taking of ‘critically systemic’ decisions with respect to the use of multiple methods in relation to the problems encountered. (Cao et al, 2000, p189). The effectiveness of process change can only be achieved if there are structure changes to support it. (Cao et al, 2000, p190). It is also relevant to know how the different elements in the change system relate or affect one another especially with regard to sequence and space. (Cao et al, 2000, p190). The management of change in every organization depends on how the organization is structured. (Hoogendoorn et al, p 15). This change process was managed in such a way as to cause very little friction while giving out clear cut division of responsibilities and roles to the respective change actors. To effectively manage this management change, we need to recognize the importance of blending the charismatic and instrumental dimensions of the change leader. (Graetz, 2000, p553) Strong interpersonal skills are a good tool and provide a nexus between the charismatic and instrumental roles of the change leader. (Graetz, 2000, p 553). Another type of change instituted by XYZ organization involved changing management activities from the start, involving people in the change campaign and communicating the change decisions to every affected party. It was that of total organizational change which was designed to simultaneously affect multiple policies, practices, procedures and levels of the organization. (Schneider et al. 1996). It was a change designed to sustain organizational health and vitality over time and affect the psychology of everyone in the organization. (Schneider et al. 1996). The change process has so many characteristics and again is dependent on how one looks at it. The first type can be characterized by rate of occurrence. To this category, we have types like continuous change, incremental change, bumpy incremental change, bumpy continuous change etc. (Todnem, 2005, p371). The second type is change characterized by how it comes. To this category, we have types like planned change, emergent change, contingent change and choice. (Todnem, 2005, p372). The third type is change characterized by scale. This is a mere widening of the scope of the current operations and involves processes like fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation. (Todnem, 2005, p377). Change generally occurs for a variety of reasons, be them reactive or proactive. It may occur because the present settings within a structure are not meeting the previewed objectives or simply because it is anticipated that there will be some evolution in technological, political and natural environment in which the organization in question is operating. This may bring with it a lot of implications both in the structure, boundaries, power distribution, incentives and general operations of the organization. (Weiss, 2005). It can be endogenous, particularly when management perceives a continuous low degree of performance. This is triggered by lack of consistency among activities in power, structure, control and strategy. (Choi, 1995, p 609). References Bennett, H., & Durkin M. (2000). The Effects of Organizational Change on Employee Psychological Attachments: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol 15, No 2 pp 126-147. MCB University Press. Cao, G., Clarke, S., Lehaney, B. (2000) A Systemic View of Organizational Change and Total Quality Management. The TQM Magazine Vol 12 No 3 pp. 186-193 MCB University Press. Choi, T. (1995). Conceptualizing Continuous Improvement: Implications for Organizational Change. Omega, International. Journal of. Mgmt Science. Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 607-624, 1995. Combs, G. M. (2002) Meeting the leadership of a diverse and pluralistic workplace: Implications of self-efficacy for diversity training. Journal of Leadership Studies. Vol 8, No 4 pp 1-16. Graetz, F. (2000) Strategic change leadership. Management Decision Vol 38, No 8, pp 550-562. Hoogendoorn, M,. Jonker, C. M., Schut M., Treur J Modelling the Organization of Organizational Change. Available on Website: http://www.cs.vu.nl/. Kellogg et al (2006), “Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Post bureaucratic Organizations”. Vol 17, no 1 pp 22-41. Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B. Z. (1990). The credibility factor: What followers expect from their leaders. Management Review, Vol. 79 Issue 1,P29 p5 Mattlis, S., Ozcelik H. (2004) Toxic Decision Process: A study of Emotion and Organizational Decision Making. Prastacos, G., So¨ Derquist, K., Spanos, Y., Wassenhove, L. (2002) An Integrated Framework for Managing Change in the New Competitive Landscape European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 55–71. Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a Climate and Culture for Sustainable Organizational Change. Organizational Dynamics, Vol 24, No 4 pp 7-19. Taylor, W. (1997) Leadership Challenges for Smaller Organizations: Self-perceptions of TQM Implementation Omega, International. Journal of. Management Science. Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 567-579. Todnem, R. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management. Vol 5, No 4 pp 369-380 University College, Edinburgh, UK Weiss, Marco (2007) Efficient Organizational Design. Balancing Incentives and Power. Bassingstoke: Palgrave. Johnson, G., (1992). Managing strategic change: strategy, culture and action. Long Range Planning 25 1, pp. 28–36. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K., (1997). Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Europe Johnson, G. et. al., (2006). Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Europe Read More