The Processes of Change and Change Management in a Consulting Engineering Organisation - Essay Example

Table of Contents Introduction 1 Limitations of the Reductionist View 1 Issues of Managing Critical Thinkers 2 A Successful Strategy for this Organisation 4 Long-term Objectives for Change Management Strategy 5 Conclusions 7 References 9 Introduction This assignment explores the processes of change and change management in a consulting engineering organisation, using principles from the systemic approach as described by Senge (1990). Where relevant, comparisons are made to alternative judgements which might be made by following reductionist reasoning. The assignment ends with recommendations for effective future management of change and change processes, and how benefits of both reductionist and systemic thinking can be gained. Limitations of the reductionist view The reductionist view to change management can be criticised as offering solutions which only work in the short term, or may even create long-term problems bigger than that which they were originally used to solve (ibid). This is because the strategy is short-term and assumes a simple link of cause and effect. On the other hand, systemic thinking attempts to structure a long-term solution. Using outside consultants, for example, may be a good reductionist response but in systemic thinking terms it limits the opportunities for that system to learn to solve its own problems. Senge explains the different responses from reductionist and systemic views in chapter 4. Whether understanding a city or a living creature, he argues that a holistic approach is the only effective cure for problems. However, Senge does not mention that complex systems could benefit from short and long term solutions. In nature and in business, some things do develop in separate units and short-term changes are possible in some cases without unintended long-term effects. Manufacturing units, for instance, are complex units made up of many interacting units such as people, departments, technology, routines and structure (Fernandez, McCarthy & Rakotobe-Joel, 2001). The whole system or the whole organization is reduced to manageable individual parts. By studying the individual manageable parts, the leaders or the managers can formulate rules about the behaviour of the whole system. Thus, adopting a reductionst approach can at times be beneficial for organization such as Delap & Waller because it has several functional departments with dispersed locations. Cameron & Green (2004. p.131) recently wrote about all of Senge’s ideas from the Fifth Discipline, including extra ideas he has added in journal publications or speeches between 1990 and 2004. Cameron and Green concluded that systemic thinking is a great ideal. However, in the current economic conditions they also warned that systemic thinking may be “a bitter pill for managers struggling to make change happen despite massive odds”. In other words, it is a good idea but it takes time and commitment that managers might be scared to give if they are in a fragile short-term state. Cameron and Green (ibid) conclude that those interested in “rapid large-scale organizational change are “unlikely to find any reassurance or support” from Senge's ideas. Issues of managing critical thinkers This company employs a large body of professionals employed for their creativity and critical thinking abilities. Critical thinkers often work in a reductionist manner by considering themselves separate even if they are aware of the larger system. Many people in the company might think of themselves as part of the consulting section, or part of the design section and identify themselves in these roles. Responses to change in the system depend on people making an evaluation of how relevant and desirable that change is to their area, these responses ranging from enthusiasm to sabotage. Such professionals like the consultant or the designers, apart from being efficient in their chosen line, should also have the quality of effective peer teaching and mentoring (Dooley, 1998). This would to some extent reduce the effect of the reductionist approach, and they would feel a part of the whole system. Management which allows employees to find their own solutions using whatever method they want is a worthwhile goal. Such introspection and self-awareness, if correctly managed, can be a bonus to the company because it makes full use of existing talent. It may also allow successful development of what Senge describes as a personal vision. This skill is known as inner mastery and when the individuals develop this, they appear as leaders worthy of trust (Dooley, 1998). This helps the individuals to maintain a focused, grounded approach and remain calm and composed amidst chaos and stress. Once they develop the skill of inner mastery, they are able to sense and make a connection with others, because they are completely in touch with themselves. This is what Senge describes as personal vision. However, professionals might not like being managed in a reductionist style. Senge (1990) links this to employees trying to avoid risk. If employees do not think a change is a good idea, they will try to avoid or adapt it. Even though these employees are acting for what they see as the good of the company, having employees disobey management and make their own uncoordinated efforts is a risk. Consultation also increases the likelihood of enthusiasm or compliance for a change initiative as it feels more owned. Despite the ideals of systemic thinking, Cameron & Green's (2004) evaluation of it as an idealistic goal seems fair because D&W has experienced growth without systemic thinking. Because it has worked well so far, there is little motivation to make radical changes to their ways of working. Instead, keeping systemic thinking as a target (i.e. acknowledging it cannot always be used for day-to-day problem solving) for the future seems a best practice approach. A successful strategy for this organisation Senge (1990) admits that all systems are simplifications. While systemic thinking reduces the simplification and allows one to analyse more information, it requires more time and information. Time and information obviously also cost money and as the company is split across a number of sites and work in teams, reductionist working may be the best way to perform many tasks. Systemic thinking may not be relevant if team decisions have an influence that extends only within the team. Commitment to either single strategy is a risk. Working with reductionist thinking alone risks short-sightedness, while storing bigger problems that need to be dealt with later. However, if one worked solely in the systemic paradigm, time and money could be wasted in trying to look too deeply at things which could be simple. However, listening to and valuing employees does not mean that managers become less important, or that employees have too much power in the company. Part of valuing and being honest with employees is being able to scrutinise their ideas. Cameron & Green (2004) emphasize that it is important to be open with employees. Managers should consult whenever possible. By doing this, they gain trust for the times they need people to just “do as they are told‟Managers cannot always tell the employees what to do, but they cannot always explain their reasons either. If managers explain when they can, it will make them seem more trustworthy. This means employees will do as they are told more often even if their superiors cannot give reasons – as long as they still explain that there is not enough time to adequately explain. Long-term objectives for the organisation’s change management strategy So far, this assignment has considered forming satisfactory responses to change and change management in this company. A long-term objective must, however, be an exceptional level of response. This means employees are enthusiastic about change and try to help make things better without being told to. This is a risk - if employees are given more power, they might do things what they think is right and not what the management wants. Hence, managers need to make it explicitly clear what employees absolutely can never do, rather than trust them to behave responsibly. They need to know the rules that can never be broken, and those which can be questioned. A good manager is important in this process. Such an approach requires consistency. One of Senge’s main criticisms of managing using a reductionist paradigm is that actions and consequences can be significantly distanced in time. By building a consistent long-term vision, this scenario may be reduced. Both reductionist and systemic thinking can work if managers link them together. This means that normal employees do not have to worry about the more academic or philosophical problems. Instead, employees can just get on with the job however they choose but know that managers will listen to good ideas. Managers work as a “go between”, and the whole system can be modelled as a component of many parts working together. Lack of consistency can create problems because the others in the organization are watching and waiting for an oppurtunity to attack (McCormack, 2009). Things under this situation could also be exaggerated or assumed which only compounds the problems. Hence, what matters in maintaining consistency is, to set suitable examples because over time such examples spread to others. When such consistency comes from senior and visible position, its value is enhanced. Finally, any successful change regardless of reductionist or systemic thinking paradigms relies on building a shared sense of need – making people believe that change is worth the hassle. Given this company’s privileged position of being firmly established in the industry, the main point of leverage would appear to be industrial decline. The effect of this was most noticeably felt in the need to reduce staff numbers. This may provide the incentive for all staff to join in the sense of urgency and work towards developing effective processes for meeting the challenge. One key factor may be employee turnover. To form a true learning organisation relies on developing the employability of current staff so that they can grow with demands. This will increase their potential to quickly exploit any upturns in the industry due to an increased breadth and depth of skills. It also lets them branch out and use current staff in new areas when demand for core services reduces. There may even be a public relations bonus, such as in Senge’s example of the People Express airline which grew in popularity with customers due to the way it valued its staff. Conclusions In conclusion, change in this work environment may be best understood using a systemic approach but change can also benefit from reductionist reasoning in some cases. Equipping employees with the skills to switch between reductionist and systemic methods to meet the demands of a task as and when necessary will ultimately strengthen the entire organisation. Changing the current reductionist supply/demand model of human resourcing to a systemic model may also help the company become what Senge calls a “learning organisation‟. This will keep long-term costs down without having to risk job security or low morale, commonly associated with staff turnover. Reference list Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. Cameron, E. & Green, M. (2004) Making sense of change management. London: Kogan Dooley, J 1998, 'A Whole-Person/Systemic Approach to Organization Change Management'. retrieved online February 14, 2009 from: http://www.well.com/user/dooley/change.pdf Fernandez, P McCarthy, IP & Rakotobe-Joel, T 2001, 'An evolutionary approach to benchmarking', Benchmarking: An International Journal 8 (4), 281-305 McCormack, C 2009, 'Management and the “Positive Consistency” principle'. retrieved online February 14, 2009 from: http://colmmccormack.com/PositiveConsistencyArticle.pdf Read More