Why Planned Change Programs May Be Harmful to Organizations - Literature review Example

Critically discuss the view that planned change programmes may be harmful to organizations. In your answer, please consider alternatives to planned change. Also, please draw on relevant scholarly literature on organizational change management, continuity and creativity.” “Critically discuss the view that planned change programmes may be harmful to organizations. In your answer, please consider alternatives to planned change. Also, please draw on relevant scholarly literature on organizational change management, continuity and creativity.” Introduction In modern market change is inevitable for all organizations. In fact it is only through change that an organization can secure its competitiveness. However, the implementation of change plans can be a challenging task, depending on the organizational structure and culture. Moreover, the requirements of change plans are usually high; not all organizations are able to respond effectively to the needs of these plans unless appropriate preparation has been made in advance. In addition, it has bene proved that under certain conditions change programmes can harm the organization; this problem is most common in organizations where change is attempted using a planned change programme. The specific phenomenon is explored in this paper. The literature review developed for this study has verified the view that planned change programmes can be, in certain cases, harmful for organizations. In this context, a series of alternatives to planned change programmes is presented below; through these alternatives an organization can promote change without being exposed to risks, at least severe ones. It should be noted that in all organizations change management has many aspects. In this paper emphasis is given to two of these aspects, as more critical in securing organizational change: continuity and creativity. Change as part of the business environment In regard to business activities, change is a term used for showing the transition ‘from a current state of the business to a future state’ (Rashid et al. 2004, p.2). From a similar point of view change is considered as an indication of ‘the differentiation of an organization from its environment’ (Cao et al. 2000, p.5). Two are the key factors that have led organizations to incorporate change in their strategies: ‘a) the globalization and b) the liberalization of markets’ (Rashid et al. 2004, p.2). Globalization, as a phenomenon, has been rapidly expanded in markets worldwide. Due to globalization the terms of competition in the global market have been changed: only those firms that are willing to promote change and innovation are able to secure their competitiveness (Rashid et al. 2004). On the other hand, the free access to markets for businesses in all industries has certain limitations: indeed, in practice there are markets that are hostile for foreign firms. These are, usually, the markets of countries where government intervenes continuously in business operations, aiming to have the full control of market’s characteristics and performance (Rashid et al. 2004). The firms that aim to enter countries with such culture need to align their strategies accordingly; supporting change and innovation can help these firms to face market challenges, including inequality and unfairness (Rashid et al. 2004). According to Barbu & Nastase (2010) in modern organizations change is likely to refer to specific aspects of each organization, such as ‘economic, social and cultural’ (Barbu & Nastase 2010, p.129). Moreover, the above researchers explain that global market is characterized by ‘extensive anarchy’ (Barbu & Nastase 2010, p.130). This anarchy, as combined with economic instability in markets worldwide, creates a crisis (Barbu & Nastase 2010). Firms are expected to face severe difficulties in surviving within such crisis; making change a critical part of their strategy can help firms to survive, despite the global crisis (Barbu & Nastase 2010). In other words, change is an indispensable part of the business environment. However, change programmes have been often found to be related to a series of challenges/ risks, as analyzed below. In this context, the emphasis on innovation, as supported by creativity, could help the organization to overcome resistance to change and to stabilize its market position (Amagoh 2008). Planned Change Programmes – Are they harmful for organizations? The implementation of a change programme in a particular organization needs to be developed gradually; otherwise, the chances for failures are high. Particular attention should be paid in case of emergent organizational problems. Such situations are also described as organizational crises. For facing such crises an organization has to implement a change plan that consists of two, major, phases: a) initially, a ‘save-the-ship approach is used’ (Kotter 1996, p.25). It is the phase during which managers take decisions that aim to protect the business from major losses and to stabilize organizational income at a particular level (Kotter 1996). In other words, in the above phase the survival of the firm is set as the priority; b) at the next level, a ‘new strategy should be introduced’ (Kotter 1996, p.25). This strategy can be fully differentiated from the firm’s past strategies or it can be aligned with the firm’s current policies, being differentiated only at some points from the previous strategic choices of the organization (Kotter 1996). The first type of strategy is related to extensive change, meaning that the appearance of resistance to the relevant plans is quite possible. From a similar point of view Cummings & Worley (2008) have noted that introducing change in a business can be quite difficult unless the following two techniques are used in advance: a) creation of ‘readiness for change’ (Cummings & Worley 2008, p.165) and b) introduction of measures for ‘overcoming resistance’ (Cummings & Worley 2008, p.165). Making a business to be ready for change implies the development of the following activity: the firm’s existing working conditions are made so bad that ‘employees are highly dissatisfied’ (Cummings & Worley 2008, p.165). In such climate, employees are expected to welcome change. However, because the resistance to organizational change cannot be fully avoided, managers who are involved in the promotion of change plans should have prepared in advance, i.e. before the implementation of change plans, policies for managing resistance to these plans (Cummings & Worley 2008). The issues highlighted above by Cummings & Worley in regard to the management of change in modern organizations verify the view that planned change plans can harm an organization. This harm can mostly occur during the preparation of the business to be ready for change, as explained above. Making an organization’s operations and working conditions bad in purpose in order to introduce change can have a severe implication: the limitation of the firm’s profits, because of the deterioration of its operations, can reach such level that the recovery from the damage caused may need a lot of time. This view is made clear through the following example: IBM has used the above practice for implementing change; however, the damage caused to the organization because of this practice was so extensive that the survival of the firm was threatened (Cummings & Worley 2008, p.165). In GM also a similar problem appeared when change was attempted using the particular practice (Cummings & Worley 2008, p.165). In addition, Anderson & Anderson (2010) note that planned change may not result to any benefits for the organization in the following case: if the targets set are quite difficult to be achieved, i.e. when the change attempted is major. In such case the chances for failure are many (Anderson & Anderson 2010, p.23). For avoiding such risks change managers should try to set targets that are feasible, both in regard to their cost and the resources required (Anderson & Anderson 2010). According to Sengupta & Bhattacharya (2006) the implementation of change in organizations can be successful only if the relevant process is designed and initiated by a manager who has exceptional leading skills. A manager is a successful leader when it has the following characteristics: he is able to give the right guidelines for the achievement of the desired goals, he is able ‘to create the vision for change’ (Sengupta & Bhattacharya 2006, p.174) and he can inspire employees to focus on team-work and to the support of innovation (Sengupta & Bhattacharya 2006). When having these skills a manager is able to establish radical changes within his organization. Under the above terms, planned change programmes could have few chances to be successful, threatening the position of an organization unless they are developed by managers who have all qualities of a good leader, as these qualities were described above. At this point, reference should be made to the following fact: change, as part of the business environment, can be affected by all elements of the particular culture. Emphasis should be given, specifically, to culture which can impact on the effectiveness of change plans within organizations in the following way: if the culture of an organization is opposed to innovation, then it would be rather difficult for this organization to support change (Rashid et al. 2004, p.9). Moreover, Smollan & Sayers (2009) noted that organizational change can be related to various parts of a business. Therefore, in order for change plans to be successfully established in each organization it would be necessary for these plans to be aligned with the characteristics of the part of the organization to which they refer. For example, if a change plan involves in the culture of an organization, then the plan should be appropriately customized so that it is not opposed to existing culture of the organization (Smollan & Sayers 2009, p.2). Vodafone has used the above practice in regard to its unit in New Zealand; in the above firm, change was successfully implemented because the culture of the firm was ‘casual and fun’ (Smollan & Sayers 2009, p.4); in such climate change was easily implemented, as resistance was quite low, almost non-existent (Smollan & Sayers 2009, p.4). Lunenburg (2011) has supported that in the context of each organization culture has a key role, defining the organization’s values and objectives. However, the relationship between culture and change can be multi-dimensional. In other words, in certain change plans the role of culture in affecting the implementation of the plan can be increased; even this ‘gift’ cannot be considered as multi-valuable (Lunenburg 2011). For example, for certain organizations culture is standardized, a fact that lead to the limitation of the options available to the firm’s managers to implement change. The following example verifies this view: Virgin has been a company with a popular brand; the company has focused on change but the means used for the implementation of change have been often proved as inappropriate (Lunenberg (2011). The particular fact, i.e. the close relationship between culture and change, has another implication: the needs of the business in terms of change are not fully implemented in once. Also, while waiting for potential changes in the organization culture a change manager cannot proceed to the next phase, since such approach would eliminate the value of change as part of the organization. It should be noted that all change plans are likely to face resistance. Even the change plans that are initially welcomed by employees and those that help the organization to face certain of its critical problems tend to lead to resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger 2005). The specific phenomenon could be considered as expected because of the following reason: organization, as a business and social unit, is related not only to economics but also to emotions (Kotter & Schlesinger 2005). Emotions are not standardized but they can change periodically, and unexpectedly, under the influence of events in a person’s external environment or just as a result of changes in the person’s mood, a problem which is more intensive in people who face severe problems and who are highly vulnerable to the changes in their environment (Kotter & Schlesinger 2005). From a similar point of view O’Leary supported that the responses of employees to change can be highly differentiated depending on the treatment of the employer to each one of them (O’Leary 2003). O’Leary refers to the interviews given by employees who work in companies where change plans have been established; the participants, 100 in total, showed different emotions in regard to the change initiated in their organization: other employees have replied to the interviews answer by using expressions that show paternalism while others have revealed a cynicism (O’Leary 2003). Because of the above views, meaning the views included in the study of Kotter & Schlesinger 2005 and O’Leary (2003) it could be supported that change programmes are related to the following risk: the emotions of employees in regard to the attempted change can change anytime leading the change plan to turbulences, even to a complete failure. In such case, the particular plan can harm the organization because the funds that had invested in the specific plan are lost. The damage can be higher if there is no time available for using an alternative scheme, i.e. a scheme replacing the change programme. Alternatives to Planned Change A problem that change managers have often to face when trying to design change programmes is the following: in case of the programme’s failure could an alternative scheme be used? And which would be the characteristics of such scheme? Ogbonna & Lloyd (1998) offer a possible solution: according to the above researchers instead of establishing a change programme change managers could introduce a mechanism for achieving the control of the organization’s culture. By acquiring the control of the organizational culture change managers would be able to monitor business practices so that alterations are made on these practices without such intervention to be made clear to employees or other stakeholders (Ogbonna & Lloyd (1998, p.275). Downsizing is another option available to managers for promoting change in organizations without using a change programme. Through downsizing managers can reduce existing staff by merging organizational departments (Mone 1997). Indeed, downsizing can help to improve business performance due to the following fact: employees that are informed on the specific organizational strategy are likely to increase their performance for avoiding the dismissal (Mone 1997). According to the above, instead of promoting a change programme a manager could just reduce the staff, a fact that would allow him to alternate existing business practices without implementing a change programme (Mone 1997). Moreover, the actions of managers can have various consequences. This view is aligned with the management theory based on functionalism, a theory that promotes the following idea: in modern organizations changes are unavoidable and they can be related ‘both to functions and dysfunctions’ (Harris & Ogbonna 2002, p.35). Another theory developed in this field, the theory developed by interactionalists is based on the view that the decisions and the activities of managers are always expected to have unexpected outcomes (Harris & Ogbonna 2002, p.35). Under these terms, alternatives in regard to change programmes should be always available, since the exact consequences of managerial mistakes cannot be estimated in advance. Continuity and creativity in organizational change management Within the organizational environment, innovation requires the existence of creativity; depending on the level of creativity used in various organizational processes, an organization is able to introduce practices which are unique, i.e. they are innovative (Barbu & Nastase 2010). More specifically, creativity helps towards the identification of innovative practices/ products; then, innovation, which has been achieved with the help of creativity, supports organizational change, either at low or at high level (Barbu & Nastase 2010, p.133). In other words, creativity is linked with change in the following way: creativity innovation change. Also change has been also found to be related to crisis. The relevant view is based on the following fact: in periods of organizational crisis managers are likely to put all their efforts in identifying plans that could help their organizations to exit the crisis (Barbu & Nastase 2010, p.133). It is during such periods that the creativity of managers reaches its highest levels, meaning that managers tend to be creative when being under pressure and when they have to identify a solution within a quite short period of time (Barbu & Nastase 2010, p.133). According to the specific facts, a new sequence of organizational elements can be developed: crisis creativity innovation change. Another factor that can highly affect change is continuity. When referring to continuity, as related to change, emphasis is given to the transfer of innovative practices from one organizational department to the other, i.e. to the expansion of innovation across the organization (Hana 2012). Securing continuity in regard to change can be a difficult task for a manager due to the following facts: a) the conditions in the external organizational environment tend to change continuously; b) in the internal environment also unexpected failures can impact the performance of one or more organizational sectors, leading to turbulences that cannot be easily controlled (Hana 2012). Under such conditions, the promotion of continuity, as related to change, could be secured only in the following way: by ensuring that creativity is kept high in organizational departments (Hana 2012). The role of the change manager in the development of the above task is critical, at the level that the change manager has the power to make alterations on the organization’s change programme and to suggest alterations, if necessary, so that the flexibility and the effectiveness of the specific programme is increased. Conclusion The development of effective change plans is depended on various factors. Most commonly, the estimation of these plans’ cost and time is proved as non-accurate, a fact that leads to severe problems during the implementation of these plans. Creativity and innovation can help businesses to develop their competitiveness by establishing a competitive advantage. However, the specific activity is usually very difficult. The most major problem in regard to a firm’s efforts to emphasize on innovation is the following: as the relevant plan is in progress a series of failures may appear, such as delays in the delivery of part of the project, lack of resources and for funds to support the continuity of the project and so on. If the manager who monitors the relevant activity does not take appropriate measures with no delay, then change would not be implemented. The literature review developed for this study has revealed that change plans are unavoidable but they can harm the organization unless their aspects are fully reviewed in advance, i.e. before starting the implementation of these plans (Barbu & Nastase 2010). Also, it has been revealed that innovation cannot be achieved without employing creativity. In other words, the following equation could be developed: innovation + creativity = change. The dependency of change on innovation and creativity has an important implication: change cannot be promoted unless both of the elements of the first part of the equation are positive. This fact broadens the context of change, making it more vulnerable to the internal organizational development, where innovation and creativity appear. References Amagoh, F. (2008) Perspectives on Organizational Change: Systems and Complexity Theories. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1-14 Anderson, D. & Anderson, L. (2010) Beyond Change Management: Advanced Strategies for Todays Transformational Leaders. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Barbu, M. & Nastase, M. (2010) Change Leadership and the Worldwide Crisis. Review of International Comparative Management 11(1), 129-138 Cameron, E. & Green, M. (2009) Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page Publishers Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2008) Organization development & change. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Hana, U. (2012) The Process of Knowledge Continuity Ensuring. Journal of Competitiveness 4(2), 38-48 Harris, L. & Ogbonna, E. (2002) The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes. British Journal of Management 13, 31-49 Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. (2005) Choosing strategies for change. Managing People 41-53 Kotter, J. (1996) Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Lunenburg, F. (2011) Understanding Organizational Culture: A Key Leadership Asset. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL. 29(4), 1-12 Mone, M. (1997) HOW WE GOT ALONG AFTER THE DOWNSIZING: POST-DOWNSIZING TRUST AS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. Public Administration Quarterly 21(3), 309-336 Ogbonna, E. & Lloyd, H. (1998) Managing Organizational Culture: Compliance or Genuine Change? 273-288 O’Leary, M. (2003) From paternalism to cynicism: Narratives of a newspaper company. Human Relations 56(6), 685-704 Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M. & Rahman, A. (2004) The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(2), 161-179 Sengupta, N. & Bhattacharya, M. (2006) Managing Change In Organizations. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Smollan, R. & Sayers, J. (2009) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND EMOTIONS: A QUALITATIVE STUDY. Journal of Change Management 9(4), 435-457 Read More