The Role of Change Agents in Managing Changes - Literature review Example

21827 Change Management University of Technology, Sydney School of Management Group Case Study Cover Sheet – Page 1 of 1 These cover sheets (or an EXACT COPY) MUST BE ATTACHED to the front of your assignment We declare that the work in this assignment is our own original work. All ideas, sources, and works are clearly acknowledged and accurately cited and referenced. We have kept a hard copy and soft copy of this assignment. Student Full Name Student ID Percentage (e.g. 50%, 80%, 100%) Signature Juan Emilio del Rosario 11104128 100% David William 11134234 100% Nadia Eritsyan 11188822 100% Mashael Sultan 11362199 100% NOTE: ensure there is group consensus with the percentage mark given to each person in the group Class Day and Time THURSDAY, 3Pm – 6Pm Name of assignment: Case Study on Nokia (Group) Number of words (exact): 3905 (includes headings/sub-headings, referencing) Approximately 3800 words, which is in accordance with 3,500 words + 10% (350 words) = 3,850 words Date submitted: 12 – APRIL - 2012 Lecturer's Name: DR. JONATHAN PRATT Introduction The topic of change management is part of the wider topic of social change (Lewin, 1951; 1958). Recognising the necessity for change throughout the organisation and guiding the organisation through the change is one of the most important and widely acknowledged responsibilities that challenge leadership in the organisation. This concept is even more crucial in recent times with the upheavals that have been happening. These include globalisation; the unsettling impact of innovative technology, the development of e-commerce, and the increasing interconnectedness of distant financial markets all are hastening the speed of contemporary business worldwide. In addition to this is deregulation, emergent economies within the Pacific Rim, political instability, and record numbers of scientific innovation that has led to new products and applications. These all combine to produce turbulence in the market and also ‘disruptive phase shifts’ in the performance of business (Burke and Trahant, 2000: xi). The necessity of dealing with phase shifts that are disruptive applies to public as well as private sector organisations. Such literature is helpful for managers who need to contend with this change by assisting in the understanding of factors that cause the organisational change, what paradigms other organisations are using to deal with this change and lessons learned. This reflective essay will attempt to answer four questions; what assumptions change agents hold when managing change; the way in which these assumptions influence processes and results of the organisational change initiative; how my personal perspective has changed and the implications of that to the future of organisational change. Perspectives of Managing Change There are some assumptions drawn about the relationship of an organisation with the environment in any theory of organisational change. This relationship is outlined by Dooley (1997), Hage (1999), and Haveman (2000) and describes an organisation as; A living entity that changes or develops according to events as they fluctuate while also influencing the environment. When the environment is secure a mechanistic organisation may serve but when there is instability and uncertainty in the markets then a more organic organisation would be better. A body that adjusts to its surroundings through principles of survival for the fittest. Those with a low quality framework or practises tend to go out of business when competitive resources are scarce and lead to both intended and unintended variation in a sequence of variation-selection-retention. A body that influences and is influenced by its environment (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Zucker, 1987). The ability to transform the way the organisation processes information defines it. A political animal in which there are departments that handle the major challenges that accost the organisation and these become the governing areas and wield power to maintain that ascendancy. This can also be described as resource dependency theory. Change at individual level to do with theories is fundamental to the mentality on accomplishment of change in the organisation. The issue that arises with any debate about change is the many forms in which it occurs regardless of the pertinent sector. There are many different approaches adopted by managers in the management of change which makes it an intricate process to compare the change processes. This is further complicated by context, type, and exigency of change. What lies beneath an initial approach to change are the assumptions held by the originator on the character of the people or systems to be changed. The premise that people are rational is the basis of Chin and Benne’s first meta-strategy. This implies that once they understand that a certain change is advantageous to them, they will adopt that change in the light of self-interest. This policy is based on the assumption that if the argument for change and the rationale behind it are effectively presented to the group, then support is inevitable due to their self-interest. Impact of Assumptions on the Processes and Outcomes of Organisational Change The structural-functional perspective was the first approach to design of the organisation proposed which makes it the first perspective to do with change. It consists of various theories that seek solutions to some of the issues that arise and these theories are manifold. They include hard systems, cybernetics, critical systems heuristics, systems dynamics, soft systems and post modern systems thinking (Jackson, 2003). This perspective promotes thinking on structural arrangements as well as functional inter-relationships within the organisation. A theory associated with this perspective is Ledford’s Large Scale Organisational Change which examines three aspects; Depth of change: This affects the basic characteristics of the organisation, such as basic beliefs, values, and identity. Size of organisation: these are intricate changes involving the interaction of many people in various ways. Pervasiveness of change: these are changes that permeate the entire organisation, including many of its sub-units and sub-systems. Dissatisfaction with the structural-functional perspective led to development of the multiple constituencies perspective. This perspective was at first linked to the work of Cyert and March (1963) but it later emerged that a number of theories are linked to the actions and intentions of people rather than system exploits per se. The multiple constituencies perspective describes the manner in which intricate organisations have to settle objectives with various stakeholders whose needs are overlapping and sometimes contradictory. Theories associated with this perspective include Lewin’s three-stage model. The three stages in this model are unfreeze, change, and refreeze which refers to identifying the issue that requires changing, initiating the change and then re-establishing the status quo. The organisational development perspective is largely adopted by academics and practitioners. It has a lot in common with the two preceding perspectives due to its affiliation with systems approach and emphasis on stakeholders and governance (Buchanan and Dawson, 2007). It is differentiated from them however by the methodology employed in action research as well as the ethical approach used to improve organisations via the human resource. This is the first perspective that views individuals as a developable resource rather than as a cost. This perspective was developed from a human relations approach emphasising personal as well as group development. In contrast to the earlier perspectives, it is of the opinion that utmost competence and effectiveness cannot be attained through handling assignments, processes and client’s needs and failing to take care of management quality, communication, leadership, motivation, values, leadership and culture. Since the organisational development perspective was a product of human resource theory, it consists of structural functionalism as well as behavioural research. There are two major contributors to this point of view and these are a focus on social characteristics as well as its methodology that emphasises humanistic principles of development and change. The Fishbone Diagram is a way of identifying issues in an organisation that require change and is a holistic way to identify the key problem areas and assess what can be done about them. The last perspective is Creativity and Volition: a Critical Theory of Change. It is not perceived as unified like the others due to the fact that it does not propose resolutions to problems of change. It however is more detailed in its demonstration that the human resources rather than the system is in the ascendancy when it comes to theories of change. This contrasts with the other perspectives which reify human conduct; while this one argues that individuals are the chief agents of change. The other perspectives also emphasise rational change which has consequences when designing and planning for change in a succession of events. Yet change initiatives that ignore developing processes stemming from disruptions, conflict, and uncertainty rather than from accord and security mean that intervention strategies will not have the intended effect and will be of limited use. The main criticism to the Critical Theory is that it is short on solutions and therefore is not useful as a source of intervention strategies. It does however encourage people to pause and reflect before embarking on a course of action. One theory associated with this perspective is Weisbord’s Six Box Model which consists of six questions that an organisation needs to answer. These boxes are Purpose of the organisation; Structure; Rewards; Helpful Mechanisms; Relationships; and all these revolve around the Leadership of the organisation. Change in My Personal Perspective of Change At the beginning of the semester, my knowledge on the change in organisations was a lot more shallow than it is now. I have learned that each perspective includes many theories that may have assumptions in common as well as methods and approaches. These include an emphasis on systems and structures as found in the structural-functional perspective. The multiple constituencies perspective focuses on governance while there is stress on behavioural improvement in the personal and organisational development perspective. The Creativity and Volition: a Critical Theory of Change is about constant critique. This can be summarised as systems, governance, behaviour, and critique. In order for change to be understood, it is important to comprehend these interlinked arguments. This means that since the beginning of the semester, I have learned to explain the advantages and disadvantages of change as explained in the structural-functional perspective. Also, I have conducted an examination of how multiple constituencies perspective supplies the basis for which stakeholders can be involved in intricate change initiatives. The value of the human resource has been explored and the organisational developmental interventions examined. This includes the limitations the perspectives place on planned change initiatives. I have also come to an appreciation as to why organisation change may be depicted by flux, uncertainty, and conflict. The source of creativity must also be considered and the appreciation of the role of Critical Theory as is used to comprehend organisational change. Implications of Present Perspective to the Future of Organisational Change Every perspective encompasses theories that are precursors of change intervention. This phrase implies actions of change that occur at strategic level to assist in making an organisation more effective. This implies that a perspective can be viewed as a comprehensive model of how to understand a subject. These theories within perspectives are proposed by proponents of the perspective through construction of methodologies designed to gauge the accuracy of the theories. This does not mean that the perspective is not susceptible to criticism exactly because of the assumptions contained therein about the reality of organisations. Each therefore has value as a change outline but there is no certainty to any of them. Perspectives therefore are useful as a pathway to understanding organisational change; a way to navigate the conceptual difficulties encountered along the way. Conclusion The convergent and divergent factors that participate in the change process need to be balanced according to Dooley (1997). This balance must be organic rather than linear and additive (Kotter, 1998; Christensen and Overdorf ,2000) while other researchers focus on a methodical and wide-ranging point of view as well as acknowledgement of the effort and time necessary to realise transformational change. While change is indeed not a linear process, it is still pertinent to examine all information that is available in order to recognise what changes are necessary in order to prepare the organisation for present and future success. A few general strategies can be identified in this process. This includes the following; Creation of a collective purpose. Creating an environment that fosters inquisition, erudition, trialling, and deviating views. Improvement of communication both extra-organisationally and inter-organisationally. This includes all forms of communication including innovative technology. An inculcation of rapid feedback mechanisms that can be used for self-reference and self-control. Encouragement of new ideas through diversity, integration, specialisation, and differentiation. Creation of values that are shared and action principles. Establish boundaries that are specific, significant structurally and behaviourally but limit the number of these. There must be long-term strategies for the implementation of change, which would alternate times of intensive change with periods where consolidation occurs. With this we are able to look forward to a future that includes self-discovery within organisations that are aware of how institutional culture affects change. It will therefore be possible to lay groundwork in anticipation of change and be more adaptable. Opportunities can be constructed in which interaction leads to development of innovative mental models, and homeostasis is created as well as balance with external forces within the internal environment. References Buchanan, D. and Dawson, P. (2007), ‘Discourse and Audience: Organizational Change as Multi-Story Process‘, Journal of Management Studies, 44(5). Burke, W. Warner, and William Trahant. 2000. Business Climate Shifts: Profiles of Change Makers. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael Overdorf. 2000. Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change. Harvard Business Review 78(2 March-April):66-78. Dooley, Kevin. 1997. A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organizational Change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 1(1):69-97. Hage, J.T. 1999. Organizational Innovation and Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology 25:597-622. Haveman, Heather A. 2000. The Future of Organizational Sociology: Forging Ties Among Paradigms. Contemporary Sociology 29(3):476-486. Jackson. M.C. (2003), Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kotter, John P. 1998. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. In Harvard Business Review on Change. Pp. 1-20. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. (Originally published in HBR 1995 (March-April)). Lewin, Kurt. 1958. Group Decisions and Social Change. In Readings in Social Psychology. Eleanor E. Maccobby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (eds.). Pp. 330-344. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lewin, Kurt, 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. Dorwin Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper. Powell, W.W., and P. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zucker, L.G. 1987. Institutional Theories of Organization. American Sociological Review 95:445-446. Appendix I 21827 CHANGE MANAGEMENT GRADING SHEET FOR WRITTEN REPORTS (INDIVIDUAL) CRITERIA (WEIGHT) FAIL (F) PASS CONCEDED (PC) PASS (P) CREDIT (C) DISTINCTION (D) HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) CONTENT (/40) Assignment does not clearly address topic. Material taken from sources without relating to question. No demonstration of familiarity with readings and displays significant misunderstanding. Assignment does not clearly address topic. Familiarity with only some readings and limited understanding of abstract ideas and issues (emphasis on specific detail). Assignment addresses topic. Familiarity with most readings however limited understanding of abstract ideas and issues (emphasis on specific detail). Assignment addresses topic. Some familiarity with issues however more descriptive than analytical. Assignment addresses topic. Demonstrated familiarity with issues raised in readings. Assignment addresses topic. Demonstrated familiarity with issues raised in readings. ARGUMENT/ STRUCTURE (/20) Argument can be followed with difficulty or not at all. Argument consists of sections taken from readings and strung together with little or no authorial input. Series of facts apparently unrelated to question and/or each other. No thesis statement/statement of purpose. Introduction only vaguely related to topic. No clear conclusion. Poor paragraphing. Inappropriate topic sentences. Argument difficult to follow. Strong focus on detail, but difficulty in developing detail into a specific argument. Inclusion of irrelevant detail. Strong tendency for argument to assume the form of a summary of all points for followed by all points against. Vague thesis statement/statement of purpose. Introduction unfocussed and over-generalised. Conclusion may introduce new material, or contain writer’s opinion. Some topic sentences may not relate to content of paragraph. Generally coherent argument presented, but focus on summarizing readings rather than developing argument. Argument is descriptive rather than analytical. Strong focus on detail at expense of generalisation. Some irrelevant material may be presented that does not constitute a major part of the argument. Argument may assume the form of a summary of all points for followed by all points against. Generally appropriate structure: Clear thesis statement. Introduction may be over-generalised. Conclusion relates to thesis statement. Generally coherent argument developed, but information is not well integrated. Argument tends to be descriptive rather than analytical, although attempt at analysis is made. Appropriate structure: clear thesis statement and a conclusion that relates to the thesis statement. Generally coherent argument developed, but occasional problem with information that is not well integrated. Argument is analytic. Appropriate structure: clear thesis statement and a conclusion that relates to the thesis statement. Coherent argument clearly developed throughout essay. All information relates clearly to argument. Strong analytic argument. Appropriate structure: clear thesis statement and a conclusion that relates to the thesis statement. USE OF EVIDENCE (/20) Author’s voice not distinguished from sources. No citations. Sections taken from sources without acknowledgement. Presentation of contradictory information without citation of contradiction. Author’s voice not distinguished from sources. Occasional citations, but usually inaccurate in form. Some summaries and paraphrases follow the original too closely. Little or no evaluation of evidence: all is presented of equal value. Some difficulty in distinguishing writer’s voice from other voices. Citation generally present, but minor inaccuracies in form. Some summaries and paraphrases may follow too closely. Evidence that does not support argument ignored or noted without comment OR all evidence may be accorded equal value. Writer’s voice presents argument. Evidence taken from readings used to support writer’s position. Limited attempt to deal with evidence that does not support position. Citation largely used appropriately. Evidence appropriately summarized in writer’s own words however order of information tends to follow that of source. Writer’s voice presents argument. Evidence from readings supports writer’s position; evidence that does not support is acknowledged but inadequate reasons for dismissal presented. Citation used appropriately. Evidence appropriately summarized in the writer’s own words. Writer’s voice presents argument. Evidence from readings supports writer’s position; evidence that does not support is acknowledged and dismissed with reasons. Citations used appropriately. Evidence appropriately summarized in the writer’s own words. CRITERIA (WEIGHT) FAIL (F) PASS CONCEDED (PC) PASS (P) CREDIT (C) DISTINCTION (D) HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) LANGUAGE (/20) Limited use of vocabulary and sentence structures. Problems with cohesion caused by frequent misuse or omission of linkers. Frequent errors in tense and aspect, subject/verb agreement, word formation. Errors are intrusive and interfere with comprehension. Extensive use of inappropriate register. Basic vocabulary and sentence structure usually accurate, however some errors in tense, word class, subject/verb agreement. Complex structures marked by greater number of errors. Problems with cohesion within or between sentences because of misuse or omission of linking words. In general, errors are noticeable but do not prevent comprehension. Extensive use of inappropriate register. Basic vocabulary and sentence structure accurately and appropriately used. More complex structures marked by a greater number of errors. Some problem with cohesion within or between sentences because of misuse or omission of linking words. Errors in word formation occur, but are only slightly intrusive. In general, errors do not significantly interfere with comprehension. Some use of inappropriate register: (e.g. contractions, first and second person pronouns, informal language) Range of vocabulary and sentence structure used. Cohesion in general is appropriately managed, though occasional problems caused by misuse or omission of linking words. Some errors in sentence structure, word form, word order, but in general not intrusive. Occasional use of inappropriate register (e.g. contractions, first and second person pronouns) Range of vocabulary and sentence structures used. Cohesion in general appropriately managed. A few minor errors in sentence structure, word form, word order. Errors neither frequent nor intrusive. Appropriate academic register is generally used: language is generally objective and authoritative. Wide range of vocabulary and sentence structure used. High degree of cohesion. High level of accuracy in sentence level grammar. No significant errors in word formation. Appropriate academic register is used: language is objective and authoritative STRENGTHS OF THIS PAPER The language is strong with a wide range of vocabulary and sentence structure used. Grammar achieves a high level of accuracy, and the language used is objective and authoritative. The writer’s voice is present in presenting the arguments with appropriate referencing done to support the writer’s arguments. The essay follows a coherent path, using the four questions as a guide and there is a flow from the beginning to the end. WEAKNESSES OF THIS PAPER The essay may be more descriptive than analytical with limited information given on each subject. The writer’s own opinions are limited to what they have learned and the conclusions drawn. There is some familiarity with the topic raised but more descriptive than analytical. LESS PENALTIES (E.g. late submission, no Turnitin originality report, or no peer assessment (individual only)) (%) FINAL GRADE (/100) C After the critique from the peer review, I increased added information on the various theories that are associated with the assumptions. This included the Lewin’s, Ledford and Weisbord models. I also did an examination of what the future of organizational change might look like in light of what has been learned. Read More