Managing Organisational Change Issues - Essay Example

Managing Change Name: College: Course: Tutor: Date: Organizations today operate in an environment that has become increasingly complex. The external environment of business, characterised by shifting drivers of change (both external and internal), is now in a permanent state of flux and only rationally adaptive organizations are now able to succeed (Proehl, 2001). We see these influences constantly at play in the case of GK Printers. Drivers of change have been categorized into two groups: external drivers of change, and internal drivers of change. External drivers of change emanate from the political-legal, economic, socio-cultural and technological forces prevalent in the firm’s macro-environment. In the case of GK Printers, we see these external drivers of change very much at play, in all the three phases of change within that organization (Proehl, 2001). In the first phase of change, which involved strategy formulation, we see the influence of economic and technological forces in driving change. Orders at GK Printers began to dwindle as the emerging economic recession began to bite. Concurrent with the economic challenges posed, we see the emergence of newer computerised printing systems that offered a cheaper and better product and more efficient production processes. We also see the intensification of competitive pressures for GK Printers as more rivals got into the printing market. Collectively, these external environmental shifts led to reduced demand, sales, and earnings for the printers, calling for urgent steps to be taken to redress the situation. In the third phase of the company’s change process, we also see external drivers at play in the form of increasing competitive pressures, with customers became more demanding especially with regards to pricing and delivery. This led to reduced volumes which impacted on the company’s turnover and profits, but also raised costs. The result of this was a blueprint that reoriented the firm’s strategy towards the production of high, value added products – e.g. glossy promotional material, develop new key capabilities (graphic design), become faster and more flexible, junk their old-fashioned image, and acquire modern equipment. Internal drivers of change on the other hand derive from the firm’s microenvironment / internal environment and may arise from factors such as knowledge diffusion within the organization, or the influence of special interest groups within the organization, among other factors (Proehl, 2001). At the second phase of GK’s change process, we can discern the influence of internal change drivers, with improved customer demand placing a strain on the company’s costing, invoicing, and production scheduling systems thereby affecting its customer service levels. The result of this was that a change management team made up of six members was set up, eventually midwifing the implementation of a computerised business system (CBS) that addressed the weaknesses in the company’s internal systems as outlined. There are various types of change that can take place in organizations. According to Ackerman (1997), there are three types of change which include developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change. Additionally, change may be classified as being either emergent or planned. It may also be episodic or continuous. According to Ackerman (1997), developmental change usually involves either improving or correcting certain aspects of the organization, and most commonly involves the amelioration of processes or skills. This type of change is incremental, and may either be planned or emergent. Planned change is change that arises out of a deliberate and conscionable decision by the organization’s managers and other stakeholders. It therefore involves an active ongoing and insightful analysis of the environment in which the organization operates (Dawson, 1996). It anticipates likely changes based on this environmental scanning and analysis, and proposes measures to forestall any potential threat or exploit potential opportunities before they blow out or become apparent to others. Emergent change on the other hand occurs spontaneously and in an unplanned fashion (Dawson, 1996). The first level of change at GK Printers was not proactive but reactive. It was not the result of the firm actively scanning the environment for economic, technological or competitive pressures that had the potential to affect it and forestalling the threats before they could happen, but the firm was forced by external factors beyond its control to move towards implementing the dictated changes. For this reason, the change can be described as emergent rather than planned. Later however, we see the change being actively planned for and implemented. We see a crisis committee being formed which comes up with a blueprint for change, which is eventually implemented successfully. At the second and third levels of the company’s change process however, the type of change shifts from one that is emergent to one that is planned. In line with the definition of developmental change as given by Ackerman (1997), we see developmental change at GK Printers during the second phase of its change process. This involved an improvement of existing skills and processes, namely invoicing, production scheduling and costing systems as well as customer care skills. The second type of change that Ackerman (1997) defines is transitional change. Unlike developmental change which is incremental, this type of change is radical, and seeks to attain a certain known desired state that is different from the current one. It is episodic, and planned. According to Weick and Quinn (1999), episodic change is “infrequent, discontinuous and intentional (while continuous change) is ongoing, evolving and cumulative.” We see evidence of continuous change at GK Printers at the second and third levels of its change process, although at the first level the change is primarily episodic. Kurt Lewin (1951) has typified transitional change as occurring in three phases, as outlined in his freeze-change-refreeze model. In building upon this freeze-change-refreeze model, Schein (1987) states the freezing stage involves disconfiming the expectations of the organization’s stakeholders (such as employees). It also is associated with the creation of anxiety, but also the provision of a psychological safety net whose aim is to transform the anxiety into motivation to change. Schein (1987) further states that the change stage involves moving to the desired new position, while the refreezing stage involves integrating the changes in the individuals’ personalities and in their relationships. We see transitional change at the company when the manual processes are replaced with computerised printing systems. During the change process, we can also observe the three stages of the freeze-change-refreeze model at work. At the freeze stage, we see the management engaging the employees by informing then of the change and explaining the need for the change. We see the provision of psychological safety nets through training and inclusiveness, which transform anxiety into motivation to support the change process (Nadler and Tushman, 1989). The third type of change identified by Ackerman (1997) is transformational change. Transformational change is also radical and not incremental, and often results in an organization that has a radically different structure, strategy, processes, or culture. One consequence of transformational change may be an organization that is rationally adaptive. The first level of the company’s strategy involved changes to the company’s strategy and processes, bringing about a company that later began operating on a developmental mode. At that level, we see the company’s strategy shift towards the production of high, value added products – e.g. glossy promotional material, develop new key capabilities (graphic design), become faster and more flexible, junk their old-fashioned image, and acquire modern equipment. Viewed in that light, the change could also be described as transformational. The process of change very often leads to failure when not properly managed. This is because most people, for various reasons, are satisfied with the status quo and feel threatened by change. For that reason, they are likely to resist the change process. Kusmierek identifies five barriers to effective change management, which include psychological barriers, resource barriers, practical barriers, value barriers, and power barriers. Resource barriers arise when inadequate resources are allocated for the change process. In the absence of enough resources to implement the desired changes, stakeholders tend to resist the change process. Value barriers on their part arise when the change process is likely to introduce a new cultural outlook or new values that conflict with those they currently hold, leading the stakeholders to resist the change. Practical barriers to change mostly arise when the desired changes require employees to have additional skills or qualifications which they currently don’t possess. Psychological barriers are those which threaten the emotional security of the employees. For example, the introduction of new automated systems may trigger the fear that some of them would be laid off. Power barriers on the other hand are those barriers that arise when the change involves stripping off stakeholders (managers) of some of their authority. For example, transitioning to an organic structure may require some of the duties of managers to be delegated to junior employees. Consequently, they will try to resist the change in order to maintain the status quo with which they are comfortable (Kusmierek). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979, p.85) have identified four reasons why such resistance to change may take place. They give these reasons as “misunderstandings (inadequate information about the change, or due to communication problems), parochial self-interest among the organizational members (how they stand to lose or benefit, rather than how the organization stands to gain), low tolerance to change (most people prefer stability and have a fear of the unknown), and different assessment of the process by the organizational members.” To be successful therefore, GK Printers needs to have identified these potential sources of resistance to its change process and dealt with them. Various strategies for handling resistance could be used by the firm, which include “manipulation and cooption, persuasion and negotiation, education and communication, use of coercion, participation and involvement, and facilitation and support.” From the case study, we see the use of some of these strategies. In particular, we see the extensive use of education and communication, facilitation and support, and participation and involvement. We see the Managing Director and the Printing Manager discussing with the employees the planned changes before any steps are taken to implement the changes. We also see the formation of change management teams to implement the changes which are inclusive and draw participation from the employees themselves. The result of this is that employees owned the change process. Additionally, we see the employees undergoing training on how to operate the automated printing systems, as well as on effective team-building. We also see resources being deployed to support the change process, for example at the third phase of the change when additional design staffs are hired, but also when the required computer-based systems are provided. We also see enough time allocated for the change process. It is allowed to run systematically to the end and is not rushed. In addition, to identifying the likely forms of resistance and effectively handling them, Kotter (1996, p.21) states that for the change process to be successful there must be eight ingredients. According to Kotter (1996), for effective change the organization involved has to create a sense of urgency. This involves an examination of the firm’s external environment, and the identification of potential flashpoints and opportunities. Secondly, the organization must also put in place a change management team that will implement the change process. Such a team must be cohesive enough and able to work well. In addition, the team must have enough authority and commitment to lead the change process (Kotter, 1996). Thirdly, Kotter (1996) states that the organization must come up with a vision of the desired end state as well as a strategy for the change. The vision should be inspiring and engaging enough and the strategies will aim at achieving this vision. The fourth ingredient that Kotter (1996) suggests should be present for an effective change process is that there must be extensive communication within the organization about the vision, and strategies. Employees should be given opportunities for feedback. Additionally, the managers and members of the change team should model the new behaviour which the change process aims to achieve. In addition, the organization needs to empower all the stakeholders involved in the change process to carry out their bit. Towards this end, obstacles towards the achievement of the established goals should be eliminated, and risk-taking encouraged (Kotter, 1996). Kotter (1996) also states that for the change process to be effective, the organization must generate short term wins. The short term wins must be planned for and should be visible when attained, with employees contributing towards the successful attainment of such wins being rewarded. Finally, Kotter (1996) states that the organization should build upon the changes made and that these should be anchored in the organization’s strategy. This could be done through hiring people that fit in with the desired end state, changing the organization’s systems and structures to fit in with the desired end state, and developing and promoting people who are most likely to advance the change. Looking at the change process at GK Printers, we see most of these ingredients of change as elaborated by Kotter (1996). We see the formation of effective change management teams especially at the first and second levels of the change process. We also see effective communication being employed, and support from the top management being given as well as the implementation being strategy-driven. We see the obstacles that are likely to stand in the way of successful implementation being eliminated, resources (in the form of adequate time, extra personnel, and the required systems) being provided, and the employees being encouraged to think freely. We also see short term wins at GK Printers being made and employees being included in the change process. However, one shortcoming of GK Printer’s change process is that the organization failed to build on the successes it had achieved and also failed to reinforce the changes by anchoring them in its strategy and culture, especially as relates to behavioural changes. This led to conflict during the third level of the change process. To be successful therefore, the printer must be careful to reinforce the changes in its culture. References "'10 Good reasons why people resist change: and practical strategies that win the day'," Dallas Business Journal 23.52 (August 18, 2000): 52. Ackerman, L 1997, “Development, transition or transformation: the question of change in organizations”, in: Van Eynde, D., Hoy, J and Van Eynde, D (eds) Organisation Development Classics, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Collins LK, and Frances MH, 1998, "Leveraging organizational transformation through incremental and radical approaches to change: three case studies," Total Quality Management 9.n4-5: S30 (5).  Dawson, SJ, 1996, Analysing organisations, Hampshire: Macmillan Kotter J, 1996, Leading change, Boston, MA: Harvard business school press. Kotter, J P & Schlesinger, L.A, 1979, “Choosing Strategies for Change”, Harvard Business Review, pp.85-92. Krause, TR, 2008, "Assessing readiness for change: why do some organizations respond to change more readily than others? (Leadership)," Occupational Hazards 70.3: 24(2) Kusmierek K, 2001, Understanding and addressing resistance to organizational change, University of Michigan, retrieved on 22 May 2009 from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~marvp/facultynetwork/whitepapers/kusmierekresistance.html Levasseur, RE, 2005, "People skills: change management tools--leading teams," Interfaces 35.2: 179(2).  Lewin K, 1951, Field theory in social science, New York: Harper row. Maurer R, 1996, "Put resistance to work for you," HRMagazine 41.n4: 75(4). Mintzberg H, 1989, Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organizations, Chicago: Free Press. Nadler D and Tushman M, 1989, “Organisational framebending”, Academy of Management Executive, 3: 194-202. Pollock T, 1993, "Ten ways to put change across," Supervision 54.n10: 25(2). Proehl R, 2001, Organizational change in the human services, New York: SAGE. Schein E, 1987, Process consultation, vol II, Wokingham: Addison-Wesley. Weick KE, and Quinn RE, 1999, “Organisational change and development”, Annual Review of Psychology, 50, p361-86. Read More