Organizational Change and Consultancy Skills - Coursework Example

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND CONSULTANCY SKILLS Organizational Change and Consultancy Skills [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Organizational Change and Consultancy Skills In the article rythem of change the athour states that Dispelling the concept that today's business situation is one of constant change, Huy and Mintzberg advise managers to understand that we distinguish our environment to be in continuous change for the reason that we have a tendency to notice just those things that do change. despite the fact that conceding that a number of significant changes have taken place in current decades, thses changes point out that constancy as well as stability actually shape the origin of our experience, providing the contextual significance of change. And since a lot of things continue to be stable, change has to be managed by means of a deep approval of stability. Therefore, at times change is logically resisted; for example, when an organization ought to only persist to pursue a completely good strategy. Having gained with an in-depth familiarity with a lot of organizational-change situations (a number of gleaned from their experiences as consultants or while working in managerial capacities, others as component of research projects to follow the strategies essentially used by companies over a lot of decades), the authors present a structure in which practical, coherent approaches to view points concerning change can be found. Even though a lot of attention is given to the kind of change that is forced severely from the top, Huy and Mintzberg strongly believe that this point view ought to be tempered by means of the realization that useful organizational change frequently emerges unintentionally (organic change) or develops in a additional organized manner (systematic change). For the reason that dramatic change on it’s own can be just a drama, systematic change by itself, it can also be numbing, and organic change devoid of the other two can be disorganized, the authors disagree that they ought to be collective or, more frequently, sequenced as well as paced over time, thus aciving a rhythm of change. When functioning in a type of dynamic symbiosis, theatrical change can as an alternative make available impetus, systematic change can encourage order, and organic change can produce enthusiasm. The authors exemplify their structure among older as well as newer examples, saying that this highlights a different vital point: The crisis by means of change is the present. Today's fascination with change seems to be blind managers to the reality that the essential processes of change and stability do not change. In this article the athours Quy Nguyen Huy, start the articles with with sugestions for managers: turn off the excitement and gaze out the window. The advice is vital, they say, throughout these hyper-turbulent times, as soon as managers take critically the job of frequently initiating and adjusting to modify, and when the current wisdom agrees that change, via definition, is good as well as resistance to change is not agood idea . The fact is a lot of things have remained unaffected all the way through our current history. This, certainly, is a excellent thing, say the authors, for the reason that extended and persistent change means revolution. Although they are not advocating inactivity, the authors offer a structure whereby one can increase pragmatic, logical approaches to thinking concerning change. They emphsis on three types of change processes. Even though a lot of thought is put into the type of change that is forced radically from the top, Huy and Mintzberg think this view to be tempered by means of the awareness that accomplished organizational change commonly emerges accidentally (organic change) or develops in a new orderly fashion (systematic change). Dramatic change ought to be initiated in times of disaster or of immense opportunity when power is determined and there is enormous slack to be leveraged. It can be any where from rationalizing costs, reformation the organization as well as repositioning strategy to reframing the organization’s state of mind and invigorating its culture. Typically, dramatic change is commanded from the leadership, in the anticipation of fulfillment by everybody else. Systematic change is much slower, a smaller amount ambitious, a lot more focused, and a lot more cautiously constructed than dramatic change. Frequently it is promoted by means of staff groups as well as consultants who usally are suppose to look after planning as well as organizational development. Over the years, a lot of approaches to systematic change seem to appear, as well as quality development, work reprogramming, benchmarking, strategic planning, as well as so on. As the temperament of these approaches seem to completely suggests, systematic change draws a great deal on method, and, in that sense, change is techincally imported to the organization. Organic change seems to take place from the ranks exclusive of being officially managed. It frequently involves untidy processes by means of indistinct labels similar to venturing, learning as well as politicking and is nurtured after the scenes in the “skunkworks” of large organizations like 3M or Intel as well as people who satred their organization s from a small rooms like Apple and Dell Computers. The authors’ conclusion hichlights the fact that neither dramatic nor systematic nor organic change works well in segregation. Dramatic change has to be evenhanded by means of order as well as engagement all the way through the organization. Systematic approaches have necessitate of leadership as well as completely depends on broad engagement. And organic change, despite the fact that maybe the most normal of the three approaches, has to be manifested ultimately in a systematic way this compltely supported by strong leadership. Where as in the Nature of Organisational Change’s aim is to explore the ways in which change affects individuals and groups in the organisations. It presents some of the key issues in the processes of change with a particular emphasis on planned change where senior members of an organisation will indicate change at various levels, sometimes with consultants, designed to have a specific outcome. unit 1 The aim of this unit is to explore the ways in which change affects individuals and groups in the organisations. It presents some of the key issues in the processes of change with a particular emphasis on planned change where senior members of an organisation will indicate change at various levels, sometimes with consultants, designed to have a specific outcome. The unit further describes the issues of resistance to change the unit suggests that Nevis suggest that change agents should value resistance because resisters to the change may be: Sensitive to flaws in the change plan. They may have an awareness of things that are likely to go wrong and are inappropriate. They may also have a strong sense of the history of the organisation, and their feeling that the organisation is going where it has 'gone before' (we tried that ten years ago and it did not work then). These issues should sensitise the change agent to problems and issues that are lodged in the organisation’s history, and the need to handle the processes of change in innovative ways. Sensitive to latent and unanticipated consequences of the change which are not obvious to the champions of the change. As we have discussed, change is always more complex than its initial design parameters suggest and there are likely to be dysfunctional aspects of the change that are not immediately obvious. People who are resistant to the change may be in a situation in which one of the underlying features of their resistance is their awareness of these latent consequences.Reactive to changes that effect the integrity of the system or the organisation itself. They may, for example be resistant because they see the change as causing mission drift in the organisation or that it will have profound effects on members’ autonomy or competence or personal integrity. For these reasons Nevis suggests that “all resistance is mobilisation of energy” with the resistors being in a dynamic state. He suggests that those who resist are to be seen as “bundles of energy...” with a real contribution to make to the change process if the resistors are engaged in dialogue. It is also likely to be the case that once resistors understand the issues and feel that they have been understood as well they will actually become strong supporters. People who resist change often care for the organisation. They are much more powerful in the dialectic of change than those who are merely apathetic. At the same time we do not wish to make out that resistance to change is heroic. Resistance to change has both positive and negative affective and cognitive elements. Resistance therefore may well have a valuable part to play in the decision making process as well as producing negative and problematic aspects. We have already seen that it is crucial to facilitate readiness for change, and how important it is to build psychological safety nets into the change process, especially the unfreezing stage. In managing resistance to change, the proper management of the unfreezing stage is essential to prevent negative and blocking resistance from manifesting itself. Any group or individual can resist change of course, though it often seems to be more prevalent among the middle levels of senior management, who may be frightened of losing their power. These are some of the key issues to consider in looking at the complexity of resistance to change. In the last section we looked at a model for managing change. We saw that, the lack of provision of psychological safety nets can cause considerable problems. Managers, in their efforts to implement change quickly and without resistance, often do not understand why people find change frustrating. This can be because they do not understand what it is that threatens and motivates employees. If they do, they can manage the change process in order to prevent too much resistance breaking out in the first place, thus channelling the energy. The unit also gives importance to the causes of resistance by giving ArthurBedeian et al (1980) four common causes of resistance to change. They are 1 Parochial self-interest - individuals may have benefited from the ‘status quo’ for a long time in terms of power, prestige, financial rewards etc, and be frightened of losing these benefits. 2 Misunderstanding and lack of trust - if managers withhold information about the change or information is distorted or incorrect, then uncertainty is created. This becomes a vicious circle of increasing defensiveness and fear, thus reducing even more the chances of communication. 3 Contradictory assessments - particularly when information needs are inadequate, people will differ in their perceptions of what change will mean. This can lead to confrontation. 4 Low tolerance of change - some individuals have a very low tolerance of the uncertainty that comes with change, although it varies among individuals. Managers therefore need to understand the above reasons in order to create psychological safety nets that can prevent resistance to change, and to deal with resistance if it does occur. Managing Resistance The work of Coch and French (1948) many years ago has shown us that a participative approach to change e.g. creating and stating clear goals, valuing the contributions at all levels of the workforce and rewarding them accordingly tend to produce the best results during the change process. Kotter and Schlesinger have continued their work . They have generated six methods for managing resistance. Their approach tends to emphasise participation and communication: 1 Education and communication - if management and employees have a good trusting relationship, it will be possible to instigate training programmes and group discussions 2 Participation and involvement - if management can harness the involvement of knowledgeable employees, it will be possible to reduce the level of fear 3 Facilitation and support - it may be useful to use face-to-face counselling and therapy 4 Negotiation and agreement - if powerful employees resist change, a compromise may be reached 5 Manipulation and co-optation - if resistance is very powerful, management may try to manipulate resistors, perhaps by lying to them, or to placate them - this is not likely to work in the long term 6 Explicit and implicit coercion - this involves the use of threats to stifle resistors, firing or demoting them Whereas in the unit the nature of organizational change the levels of change is highlighted . This can be elaborated by looking at the work of Golembiewski et al. They suggest that there are three fundamental approaches to change - Alpha, Beta and Gamma. They suggest that: Alpha change is fairly superficial, sometimes referred to as “beauty parlour” approaches to change. It really only looks at symptoms and is essentially reactive change applied over a wide range of issues. In that sense although the change may have short term useful affects it never gets to be embedded deeply into the organization. An example, from IT driven change at this level would be the installation of web/online access to all desktops in an office situation. This might well increase efficiency and even in some cases effectiveness in the production of required materials - although it can lead to an excess of information - but little else. Beta change is change which goes rather deeper than alpha. It is liable to be much more systematic and planned and can be organization-wide in its implications. It is, however, essentially single-loop in its intent - it gets an improved state of organizational operation but essentially the organisation and its members do not undergo fundamental change - they are shaken but not stirred. In IT driven change Process Improvement would be an example of this level of change. Davenport suggests that it has these characteristics - it is incremental, it starts with where the organisation is at the time of change, implementation takes a short time, it requires bottom-up participation, its scope is fairly narrow and its level of risk is contained. (Davenport 1993:11) Gamma change is fundamental change. The organisation undergoes a paradigm shift so that the organisation turns out to be fundamentally different. There is significant culture change and the members of the organisation learn to relate to each other in very different ways. Stacey for example discusses the distinction between what he calls “ordinary” and “extraordinary” management. In the former, change processes are handled in a linear, management driven, rational and incremental way - so that the learning “is done before doing and embodied in documents.” (Stacey 1996:509) In the latter, change is handled in ad hoc, complex, political ways with an emphasis on creativity - so that learning” is done in the action. It is real time reflection-in-action. “ (Stacey 1996:509). An organisation which moves from “ordinary” to “extraordinary” management - and he discusses many other implication of the two approaches - would be undergoing a paradigm shift. This would be the essence of a gamma transformational change effort. In IT driven change an example would be Process Innovation which, Davenport suggests, is radical change. It is immediate (i.e. not incremental) but because it is radical it has a long time span. It is top-down driven with a broad, cross-functional scope and is therefore high risk. (Davenport 1993: 11) Indeed - and note the metaphor - he suggests that “process innovation and the organisation change it occasions are equivalent to radical surgery. They are the triple bypass operation, the removal of a large malignancy, the transplanted organ ... Process innovation can only be accomplished when the leaders of an organisation believe and can demonstrate that current modes of operation are a threat to the survival of the company.” (1993:17). Despite all the hyperbole, the last sentence is probably correct for all Gamma change. The implications of looking at change in terms of these three levels are important for our exploration of approaches to planned change and will inform Unit 3. Another way of thinking about levels of change is to explore the differences between the intended (or manifest) and unintended (or latent) levels of change. Because change always involves human beings with their ability to interpret and understand action there is always the possibility that change which is undertaken for the very best of motives has latent consequences in terms of the way that it is understood by organisational members. For example: In some universities in the UK there have been valiant attempts to develop a philosophy of Customer Care in relation to students. This has meant, at the intended level, that students are given high levels of administrative and academic support and are generally treated with the ‘respect’ that is accorded to the ‘customer’. Although this has had many benefits there have been some unintended consequences. One is that some students in some universities - where the contract has not been made as explicit as it needs to be - are beginning to expect that they have a “right” to be given academic support. The result of this is that their ability to learn autonomously is actually reduced. Obviously change agents cannot predict every latent consequence (they would not be latent if they could). However when they begin to arise they can either be used (if they have positive connotations) as a new, spontaneous resource - or they need to be managed carefully. In the case given above, for example, this could be done by careful boundary management and by careful definition of mutual rights and expectations in the situation. References Bedeian A Armenakis A and Gilson R (1980) On the Measurement and Control of Beta Change Academy of Management Review 5 Coch L and French J R P (1948) Overcoming Resistance to Change, Human Relations 1 512-532 Davenport T H (1993) Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work Through Information Technology Boston: Harvard Business School Press Davidson, J, O’C. (1994) The sources and limits of resistance in a privatized utility in J. M Jermier, D. Knights, W. R. Nord Resistance and power in organizations London: Routledge. Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., and Yeager, S. (1976) Measuring Change and Persistence in Human Affairs: Types of Generated Designs Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 12:133-157 Kotter J P and Schlesinger (1979) Choosing Strategy for Change, Harvard Business Review March/April Nevis EC (1987), Organizational Consulting: A Gestalt Approach Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Press Stacey R D (1996) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics (second edition) London: Pitman Publishing Read More