Change Management in Organizational Development - Case Study Example

PLANNED CHANGE SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Change is inevitable and adaptability to change is mandatory for success or more appropriate to would befact that successful adaptability to change is critical for the survival. The mentioned phenomenon is universal with varying forms and magnitudes. Therefore, rapidly changing business environment with intensified competitiveness has made it important for businesses also to strap belts for change adaptability (By, 2005)). To assert importance many examples are present. For instance, Marks and Spencer, UK’s most successful retailer, failed to retains its customers when robust management resisted change (Mellahi, Jackson, & Sparks, 2002). In the contemporary business world, the change need can emerge from the individual-organizational, national, international or global level with respect to different domain such as technology, knowledge, process etc (Martin, 2006). In contrast to change that force businesses to adapt, well differentiable form of change is planned change; change that is intentionally brought into by organization’s members. Planned changes are brought by members within organization for many reasons such as solving problem, learning from experience, increasing efficiency to embrace to external change, to improve overall business conduct or perception etc (Cummings and Worley, 2009). Hence, planned change form an important constituent of the organizational development. The discussion herein develops detailed critical assessment of models of planned change following the given below format: SECTION I: Introduction SECTION II: Change Management in Organizational Development SECTION III: Planned Change SECTION IV: Case study Assessment SECTION V: Conclusion SECTION II: PLANNED CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNED CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Organizational development as a discipline of management has immense literature available. Organizational development is a broad term referring to increasing viability and the organizational relevance in the modern business world. OD revolves around the objective to improve organizational performance with measures that increases productivity. For the purpose OD accounts all activities that provide workers of an organization with improved environment to perform efficiently; hence increasing optimum utilization of resource for successful organization (McGunagle, 2012). To accommodate improvement OD deals with change management within organization. However, along with dealing with change management, OD is also undergoing change in itself. The change in OD is taking up focus from hows’ and whens’ of occurrence of change to behavioral sciences application in the change management field (Cummings and Worley, 2009). Hence, OD is now applied field of change that applies knowledge of behavioral science to improve the performance of organization by increasing capacity of change. Thus, comprehensive definition of OD is as follows: “OD is system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science to the planned development, improvement and reinforcement of strategies, structures and processes that lead to organization effectiveness” (Cummings and Worley, 2009, 2) Furthermore, OD is different from other planned change efforts for reasons such as other planned changes e.g. innovation etc as are intended to improve overall system and improve ability of an organization to evaluate position of its functioning as well as goals. SECTION III: PLANNED CHANGE PLANNED CHANGE Organizational development theory when explored about how factor of the change the literature has much dominance with respect to emergent and planned change (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). Though both forms have their respective positions and stance, clear description of type of change required in an organization and practices to embrace such change are evidently presented in the theories of planned change (Burnes, 2004). As noted earlier the planned change is distinguishable from other forms of change as it is generated intentionally by the member of the organization and therefore, identifies the stages that business has to pass through in order to achieve the required state (Eldrod II and Tippett, 2002). Planned Change aimed at improving organizational efficiency, is usually initiated by managers along with the support from the organizational development consultants. For planned change, the management clearly visualizes the desired state of organization as compared to the current state and develops plan to bridge gap. Planned change approach was coined in by Lewin the year 1946 that presented the planned theory of change (discussed in detail later) and thus formed the foundation stone that was further developed with respect to adaptability increased applicability (By, 2005). STEPS IN PLANNED CHANGE Broadly planned change follows the three basic phases or zones, namely; formulation of the strategy leading to implementation of the strategy and lastly to the outcome of the strategy. It is assumed that since planned change constitutes an internal effort therefore process is flows smoothly from the current state to desired state and disruption and distractions from the internal and external factors doesn’t does not imply. However, in reality it is not the case. Therefore, management has to undertake detailed assessment of process constituents in order to successfully embrace change (Sturdy & Grey, 2003). The detailed process of planned change is as follows: (CliffsNotes, n.d) Therefore, addressing each component mentioned in the cycle, manager(s) who intend(s) to bring planned change within organization can ensure least level of discrepancy within actual and desired status. TYPES OF PLANNED CHANGE Change needs can be identified as the need of various aspect of business. Adoption of the process of change shall be in line with suitability to organization for successful implementation of change (Cameron & Green, 2012). Different types of planned changes are identified in the image below and as image depicts though factors are identified differently as technological or structural etc; however, each one has impact on other factors as well as require coordination from other factors: (Daft and Marcic, 2006) PLANNED CHANGE THEORIES For implementing the required change in the domains depicted in the image above, general model of implementation remains same as the one mentioned in the steps and road map. However, the perspectives to embrace this change have variations leading to various theories of change. Theories of planned change are conceptual frameworks for building understanding related to the planned change implementation within an organization (Cummings and Worley, 2009). The framework addresses factors or activities that must take place for the successful initiation and achievement of change results. Planned change theory was first presented in 1946 by Lewin and formed basis of large number of extended models with applicability in the organizational environment (Burnes, 2004). Detailed assessment of two models with respective to strengths and weaknesses are discussed below: LEWIN’S CHANGE MODEL Kurt Lewin’s planned change model is one of the earliest depictions of planned change. Core of Lewin’s model is on the foundation that change occurs with alteration or modification in the forces that keeps the balance in behaviors (Olson & Eoyang, 2001). The quasi stationary equilibrium is the resultant state when set forces forcing change as well as those stressing status quo are at equal rest. Hence, in order to embrace planned change organization must reduce the pressure of status quo forces or increase the change proponent forces comparatively. Lewin had a view that to successfully embrace planned change it is advisable to reduce the status quo forces that pose resistance to change than incrementing forces that support change (Cummings and Worley, 2009). Lewin referred that a successful change is composed of three steps, which are discussed below: UNFREEZING As the name implies this phase is intended to reduce the forces that favor status quo. Lewin argued that in order to embrace change and make new behaviors part of behavioral conduct it is necessary to destabilize the status quo and develop realization about the de-motivation for the current performance from existing behaviors. Developing the psychological disconfirmation about the existing behavior would unfreeze the current equilibrium and hence pave way for the change forces to strengthen greater than status quo forces. Furthermore, Lewin was of view that shattering the shell of self righteousness and emotional stir up is important to unfreeze to move towards change (Marshak, 1993). Schein (1996) elaborated the unfreezing mode and stated that for unfreezing current equilibrium with disconfirmation it is necessary to develop following three feelings among the status quo force drivers: Developing disconfirmation among the force drivers about the status quo validity. Feeling of the discomfort and threatening the survival with the status quo And most importantly to develop feeling about the safety with respect to adopting change. Hence, developing these feelings among the status quo drivers would stir the force exerted for status quo thereby reducing the resistance for change. MOVING Once the existing behaviors have been accepted as the unsatisfying formulas, moving phase leads to shifting the behaviors to the new or required level with inducting behaviors, values and procedures etc. Thereby, moving group or organization to a new level of performance or set of behaviors by replace the existing dissatisfied ones (Schein, 1996). Schein (1996) elaborated the moving idea and stated that unfreezing the existing behaviors is not an end and it is induction of motivation for learning new things or behaviors. However, both researchers agree on fact that direction of the learning by dissatisfied-ones are not completely predictable due to level of complexities involved in human behaviors. REFREEZING Upon the achieving the adoption of desired behaviors and new satisfying equilibrium among the change driving and resisting forces, it is mandatory to freeze the new equilibrium. This refreezing is attained with help of the supporting mechanism such as asserting the accomplishment of desired change with rewards etc (Cummings and Worley, 2009). It is important to note that new behaviors shall be in congruence with personalities and other factors in order to be accepted as safe modes of performance otherwise would lead to another level of dissatisfaction (Schein, 1996). Though the three stage model gained popularity as organizational change model, however, Lewin’s perspective remained to form an integrated approach of four concepts i.e. three step change model along with Field Theory, Action Research Theory and the Group Dynamic Theory. Moreover, being the behavioral researcher Lewin’s work was aimed to provide combination of comprehensive approach allowing analysis, understanding as well implementing change at various levels from common group of people to organization and finally at societal level (Burnes, 2004). In addition, Lewin’s three stage model being broad categorization of the planned change process, hence, provides later researchers base for extending the concept with adding details to it such as Lippit, Watson and Westley developed seven-stage model or Kotter’s eight stage model etc, all can be zipped into three stage model of Lewis (Cummings and Worley, 2009) Strength Biggest strength of Lewin’s three stage model is the fact that despite considerable criticisms it still forms the basis for the planned change mechanism. The other strengths of the model are follows (Ford & Greer, 2005): The model has effectiveness in wide variety of domains and fields. Such as for developing structural, technological or even strategic change the model can be adopted to induce change with adding relevant respective details. The model addresses the importance of addressing the forces determining business conduct with behavioral forces being dominant among all .This identification associates the biggest strength to idea as inability to address the human factor in change can result in great difficulty to achieve desired results. Additional strength of the model remains in understanding of the impact of resistance, hence, suggesting to de-motivate the resistant factors and attract those forces to change proponents for successfully embracing change. Since model was primarily intended for resolving social problems, therefore, still retains the capacity of applicability in societal matters. Three-stage model strongly support the democratic values with greater emphasis on moral and ethical values. Limitation Despite the strength of the model that still makes it basis for extension Lewin’s three-stage model is posed with considerable criticisms in the past years. Some of these have been presented below (Anderson, 2010): Model is based on the assumption that organization is working in stable conditions. Whereas, though not always, most often it is not the case thereby forming reason for change requirement. Broadly defined process appears to be suitable for the small scale changes only as the large scale changes require extensive details to be addressed. Since organization is set of people therefore, the factors of politics and power game cannot be ignored. The model appears to ignore details about dealing with them to embrace the required change. Additionally, since change is required in human behaviors therefore, complexity of human behavior poses challenge of variation. Every individual has different capacity and interpretation therefore, embracing change can lead to greater variation in results than planned or expected. Finally, the new behaviors or changes shall have certain level of alignment or congruence with the persons forced to adopt change. In case of discrepancy between the two factors the resulting dis-confirmation will be of greater intensity. POSITIVE MODEL The positive model, as name implies, asserts the positive behavior and focus change on factors that organization is doing right. Based on the growing movement in organizational scholarship, Positive model asserts developing greater understanding of organization by its members about best performances of organization and improving on capabilities to achieve more productive results. It is in congruence with the expectation effect that states organization’s members tend to perform in direction that anticipates the desired results of expectation; hence, building positive expectation about the organization would result in members’ performing positively (Cummings and Worley, 2009). Positive model is based on the process of Appreciative Inquiry that infuses positive orientation need in social construction-ism. Sharing among the members of the organization regarding performances and values result perception about organization and so does for planned change. Such constructive inquiring refers to sharing positive vision about the potential of organization to perform by providing strong guideline with broader employee involvement (Cummings and Worley, 2009) Since based on the Appreciative Inquiry, positive model involves following five phases for planned-change (Cummings and Worley, 2009): INITIATE THE ENQUIRY As the name implies, it requires initiating the enquiry and forming subject of change. For the purpose, members of the organization will be identifying the factors that can be best addressed with organizational resources. If factors identified are able to develop vitality alignment with members then resulting change process will immediately develop positivity from employees about change (Cummings and Worley, 2009). INQUIRE BEST PRACTISES Among the identified factors and collected information, management within positive model is required to assess the factors that organizational members’ assume to have best energy to address. Upon identification, organization undertakes greater involvement from employees for the development of the pool of information that best describes the organization (Cummings and Worley, 2009). DISCOVER THE THEMES Once the broader domain of capacity has been identified, the organization further dissects the information collected in the second phase. For the purpose, detailed assessment of the information collected in the previous phase is conducted developing insight about the themes that generated best and most results in the view of employees. Hence, discovering and selecting the best performing themes (Cummings and Worley, 2009). ENVISION A PREFFERED FUTURE The assessed details land the organization on the next stage where the organization is able to challenge the current performance of the organization with the themes that promise the coercive future. Developing possibility proposition that bridges the gap between the current state of performance and visualized future, the organization sets forth an exciting, practical and possible future envisioned destination. This stage also identifies the critical aspects needs to be addressed in change process including processes and stakeholders (Cummings and Worley, 2009). DESIGN AND DELIVER WAYS TO CREATE FUTURE Envisioned future is given a road map in this stage constituting of activities, strategies and the plan for change. The planned change is hence implemented. Continuing the implementation phase the management undertakes the assessment for ensuring congruence between the goals and proactive employee involvement expectation. Hence, focusing on the positive aspect of possible growth the management implements the positive planned change taking the organization to better productivity with least resistance expected from employees. Strengths The main strength of this model is that it reduces the chances of resistance on part of employees and other personnel in organizations, as it involves the consensus of all parties and entities involved. The viewpoints of all parties involved in the overall process are given due consideration which in turn results in making the implementation of decisions and strategies easier (Cummings and Worley, 2009). Since the change direction has been initially defined by the employees therefore, employees’ participation is proactive for perceived better future. The model does not force employees to change their stance or practices by de-motivating them instead appreciates them to move ahead and at higher level of performance by updating and upgrading practices. The entire change process maintains focus on the employee involvement hence the level of discrepancy, if exist, is diluted with larger number of employees favoring the change. Limitations Limitations for the respective positive model are as follows (Cummings and Worley, 2009): The model initiates the inquiry with the positive practices only, hence, provides no solution to defects or deficiencies. As a matter of fact, it is not always fact all organizations are in stable state of performance as required for moving towards better destinations. Though the model picks up the most preferred domains as well as themes still these selection does not represent all employees’ priorities; therefore, resistance is not eliminated in all and hence requires to be addressed. Since requires change in behaviors therefore discrepancy in the suggestion of management and the employees will result in problems in decision making. In case the decisions are made in favor of suggestions from employees then power and politics from management is expected to develop friction while in otherwise case the defining characteristic of broader employee involvement will be violated. Hence, the positive model being the contemporary model of change that encourages greater involvement of employee base thereby increasing the chances of successful implementation of planned change. COMPARISON OF BOTH MODELS Since models are aimed to embrace the planned change, therefore, there exist similarities in both models. Similarly as the change is planned from different perspective therefore both models have some distinguishing factors. Similarity in the both remains at a very basic level of sharing objective i.e. objective of planned change. Second, both models follow procedure to identify the prospective area of change, followed by change implementation and closing of the process with evaluation and fixing (re-freezing) change. Both models accentuates the importance and role of behavioral sciences within organizational change implementation, appreciates employee involvement at various levels along with role of consultant for change process (Cummings and Worley, 2009). The distinction in both factors remains on certain dimensions such as the Three Stage model focuses on deficiency performance of employees overall or organization whereas the positive model asserts on improving the better part for better performance. The second differentiation rests that former emphasis the role of consultant at greater degree whereas the latter one puts emphasis on the combined role of employees along with consultant. Furthermore, differentiating factor is former initiates with de-motivating employees whereas the latter one focuses on the appreciating employees. This aforementioned factor also forms basis where contemporary model can be considered as more effective in contemporary business environment that has increased emphasis on the team based working format (Kritsonis, 2004). SECTION IV: CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT The section develops assessment of the cases study referring the planned change. For the purpose, the case study entitled AT&T and NCR – attempting to develop the global brand through common bond presented by Martin (2006, p. 365) has been considered. Of the case, the assessment retains focus on cultural change program that AT&T planned for AT&T- GIS (former NCR). AT&T and NCR – attempting to develop the global brand through common bond- CASE INTRODUCTION NCR was mid-sized western US Company that underwent considerable changes within time span of 1945-1979. Market events in 1990s forced many changes and one among those changes was hostile takeover of AT&T of NCR. Upon takeover, AT&T only took controlling the financial of the Scottish firm and didn’t intervene in product strategy as agreed for the period of two years. However, after two years AT&T developed plan to embrace radical changes in Overall Corporation in following domains (Martin, 2006): Global branding for the overall corporation under which the NCR was renamed as AT&T –Global Information System (AT&T-GIS). Embracing overall strategic level changes than just financial control. Cultural change placing central focus on employee and customers. CULTURAL CHANGE PROGRAM The cultural change program for AT&T- GIS had following elements (Martin, 2006): The common Bond- to enhance emphasis on best practices, the ethical conduct and greater empowerment for the employees and customers. The second element of the stated program aimed to further empower employees with flattening of structure and the culture. Various measures were taken to employee the planned change in AT&T- GIS. Some measures include education and communication session, interactive discussions and increased connectivity within organization to ensure employees views are heard and adhered. Moreover, various characteristics of the program were set to put greater emphasis on the mutuality that enforced positive anticipation about the program among employees considering it as necessity despite not being favorable for the entire employee base. The program further had the appreciation initiatives such as common bond champion awards etc (Martin, 2006). The cultural change had more US dominance and was planned and parented by the US head for the new division. UK managers had representation but the origin country had no representation at all. Moreover, management that represented local employee perspective was well ignored along with ignoring the consultants’ opinion on the program. The program was planned with results to be presented in month. Finally, as the CEO that planned, launched and led the program left organization resulted in discontinuation of program. (Martin, 2006) PLANNED CHANGE MODEL IN THE CASE STUDY In accordance with the case study details, the change program was planned. It was intended to change the overall organization. As the details present, the planned change can was based on the Lewin’s Three Stage Model. This inference has been based on the following rationales from the case: The case identified discrepancy in the required and the current state. The current state had localized branding as well as was incurring losses whereas the desired state was profitable arm along with global branding. The program was initiated by the top management. Unlike employees preferences that form the basis of the positive model. The case details also asserted that planned change developed the discomfort for the current status, followed by developing readiness for the newer practices. However, as the case notified it failed to continue to be endorsed as the long as the change initiator left the organization. Therefore, the planned change based on the model of the Lewin’s three stages failed for the criticisms that have been posed to the model itself. It ignored the organizational power and politics factor as stated that ignored management representative of local employees. Moreover, the CEO led the plan and ignored the emphasized role of the consultant. Hence, management considered that planned change process is following the smooth transition whereas the case was not as assumed and as the intense implementation measures undertaken for the empowerment of employees and customers failed for not accounting the views of employees. In addition to this, the extensive measure failed to make effect as the model inferred is also posed with criticism of being effective on small scale projects than extensive change as conducted in the case understudy. SECTION V: CONCLUSION CONCLUSION Inevitability of change needs no assertion and rapidly changing business environment requires organization to adapt to change either forced by external factors or self initiated by the managers. Planned changed form an important driving discipline of the organizational development that incorporates behavioral science in change management. Planned change, being form of change that is initiated by the management, follows general steps of plan initiation, implementation and outcome. However, different perspectives have been developed to enforce and embrace planned change. The discussion developed the detailed assessment of planned change theories of Lewin’s Three Stage Model and the Positive model and presented the strengths and limitations along with the comparison of the two models. The discussion for assessment of practical implementation of planned change developed assessment of case study of AT&T-GIS’s cultural change. Upon review the discussion identified Lewin’s model adopted for change in understudy case and hence the failure of the planned change was also traceable to the impact of limitations posed to model applied. Hence, planned change can also be concluded to results in failure if does not address to details. References Anderson, D. (2010). Beyond change management: Advanced strategies for todays transformational leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Bamford, D. R. and Forrester, P. L. (2003) ‘Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), 546–564 Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin planned approach to change – A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 976-1002. Burnes, B. (2004). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. Harlow: Prentice Hall. By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: a critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380 Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2012). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page. CliffsNotes. (n.d.) Steps in Planned Change. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-8944,articleId-8888.html Cummings, T., and Worley, C. (2009). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning Daft, R., and Marcic, D. (2006). Understanding Management. Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education Eldrod II, P. D. and Tippett, D. D. (2002). ‘The “death valley” of change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273–291 Ford, M. W., & Greer, B. M. (2005). Implementing planned change: An empirical comparison of theoretical perspectives. American Journal of Business, 20(2), 59-69. Kritsonis, A. (2004). Comparison of change theories. International journal of scholarly academic intellectual diversity, 8(1), 1-7. Marshak, R. J. (1993). Lewin meets Confucius: a review of the OD model of change. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 29(4), 393-415. Martin, G. (2006). Managing people and organizations in changing context. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. McGunagle, D. (2012). The definition of organizational development. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.globalstrategicmgmt.com/blog/bid/83518/The-Definition-Of-Organizational-Development Mellahi, K., Jackson, P., & Sparks, L. (2002). An exploratory study into failure in successful organizations: The case of Marks & Spencer. British Journal of Management, 13, 15–29. Olson, E. E., & Eoyang, G. H. (2001). Facilitating organization change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Schein, E. H. (1996). ‘Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towards a model of management learning’. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27–47. Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewins change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 9(1), 27-47. Sturdy, A., & Grey, C. (2003). Beneath and beyond organizational change management: exploring alternatives. Organization, 10(4), 651-662. Read More