Change Management - Models of Change - Case Study Example

MODELS OF CHANGE - AN EVALUATION Introduction Change management is said to be the process of aligning an organization's people and culture with transformations in its business strategy, structure and systems. Change essentially involves moving from the known to the unknown. (Cummins. Worley: 1993). Thus change is required to achieve a symbiosis between people, processes, structure and culture. The differential perceptions between these provide the dynamics for change management. Organizational development implies application of behavioral sciences to the business holistically for planned development of strategies, structure and processes for improving the effectiveness of the organization. (Cummings. Worley: 1993). Organizational development and change management are concurrent fields which have a common basis and aim that of overall progress of the organization. However each field has specific nuances which are being discussed herein. (Davis: 1998). The aim of change management is to enhance organizational competitiveness. This can be achieved by strategic change and congruence in various facets of an organization, such as aligning the people, processes structures and culture. Change management is designed to change behavior before attitudes. (Davis: 1998). It is commonly believed that a large number of projects fail to achieve the expectations of the senior management. (Responding to Change). A survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and MORI carried out in the late 1990's revealed that 9 out of 10 barriers to change were related to people and included lack of change management skills, ineffective communications and resistance by employees. (Responding to Change). The phenomenon of organizational change is complex as it involves a number of inter related factors to include the stake holders, the people and the technologies. The key factors in change management are what are known as the softer issues of transforming behavior and training of the staff to accept change. (Responding to Change). Research in the field of change indicates that change is frequent in organisations with major transformations ocurring once in three years whilst smaller changes are seen to occur frequently. (Change Management : 2006). Studying various models of change thus assume importance. Two models of change popularly known as the Lewin Model and the Bullock model are being examined herein. Lewin Model of Change - Salient Features Kurt Lewin's model of change evolves from the social-psychological approach to change management which had its matrix in Lewin's observations in the area of field theory, action science, group dynamics and organizational development. The main theme of the model is that an individual is shaped by the social environment rather than his genes. Thus the model entails three steps of unfreezing from the present state, moving to the new state and refreezing in the new state. The first state involves creating dissatisfaction, while the second stage involves organizing and mobilizing resources for change and the final stage, embedding the transformation in the organization. (Change Management : 2006). Thus a transformation from an existing quasi equilibrium to a new quasi equilibrium takes place as indicated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Transition and Forces of Change State A as seen in Figure 1 depicts the status quo of a social system which is held by two sets of forces which are shown by the arrows, that of change and status quo, which results in constancy at L2. In State B change is achieved by increasing forces for change and decreasing resistance thereby accomplishing change through high tension. While State C which takes up limited energy is as proposed by Lewin, wherein the resisting forces are reduced by a number of initiatives which consumes lesser energy than that required to expand the forces of change. (Schumacher). Thus learning is the primary mode of bringing about behavioral changes in people which is undertaken by increasing knowledge and broadening horizons of people affected, motivating them to move to a new culture and acquisition of new skills. Bridges has indicated a developed model of the Lewin approach wherein change and transition are separated. Thus change is said to be situational in the form of the externalities of the site, persons and processes, while transition is internalizing the processes of change. (Bridges : 1991). The process of change transition involves a number of steps in the Lewin model. The first step of unfreezing or preparing the people for change can be undertaken through a number of measures such as exposing or creating a crisis, inspiring people to achieve extraordinary results, command them to move, providing stark evidence to change, shaking people from the comfort zone, educating them to change, telling people what to do, redesigning the organization for change, providing a formal objective, visioning as well as holistic planning. (Neill: 2002). In mobilizing people for change similar strategies can be used such as inspiring, coaching, commanding, educating, facilitating, initiating the first steps, involving, opening the space for dialogue, restructuring, restabilising step by step and so on. While refreezing will involve providing evidence that change is real, rewarding change, institutionalizing change, providing a rosy picture of the future, using formal rituals and socializing to build change into the social system of the organization. (Neill: 2002). The rites of passage is another explanation of the Lewin model where in a three to five stage process of change integration of the new with the old is carried out smoothly. (Neill: 2005). Bullock and Batten's Model - Phases of Planned Change A model developed by R J Bullock and D Batten derived from project management entails a varied process to bring about planned change in an organization which includes four phases, exploration, planning, action and integration. (Bullock. Batten: 1985). Exploration entails managers attempting to confirm the need for change and securing the resources for the same. These resources could vary from physical and financial to managerial in terms of assistance to bring about transformation. The exploration phase entails a discussion of the planned process of change by all the participants. This involvement establishes the need for change and resources are committed. Participants denote their active involvement and roles and responsibilities of each are fully recorded to seek their commitment to change. Goal setting is said to be an important facet of this phase of change. (Akins: 2003). The next step involves creating a plan for change to include a set of key decision makers and experts for planning in detail. During the integration phase issues and opportunities for change are discussed and a commitment for change is generated. In this phase goals are established and a plan is prepared for implementation of change. The feasibility of achieving these plans is discussed and the final plan approved. The positivity of change is thus reinforced. (Akins: 2003). The third stage involves implementing change with adequate scope for review based on feedback. In the action phase implementation takes place. The emphasis is on action and not discussion. Progress could be discussed during this phase and there may be a need to return to the exploration phase to discuss alternative strategies. (Akins: 2003). In the final phase integration takes place with the change assimilated and aligned to the needs of the organization by formalization of the processes through the policies and procedures. (Reactive vs. Proactive Change: 2005). Consolidation takes place in the final phase of integration so that the behaviors are reinforced and the outside change agent's role is gradually reduced. This ensures that the positive changes are maintained after the external stimulus is reduced and application of new skills is reinforced and communication is fostered. (Akins: 2003). The Bullock and Batten model of change is a planned model which simplifies change and removes the fear of difficulties associated with it. (Bullock. Batten: 1985). Thus change is presented as controllable, having a formal logic, a linear, sequential process directed by the management with a stable background. There is a degree of assurance in the process of such change. However there are associated problems of the process being methodical and slow, providing resistance and hence conflict, effects are frequently unpredictable and it has a lot of paper work involved. (Lewis: 2005). A discussion of the models of change reveals that there may be different pace at which employees transcend change thus there is a need for ensuring effective leadership during this process, which understands the variations in communication interventions for different stages, parts of the organization and the people within. (Browne: 2005). Models of Change - An Evaluation through Examples The models of change can be evaluated by viewing perspectives of two notional organizations, ABC Corporation which is resistant to change and XYZ Corporation which is open to change. An audit of ABC reveals that the organization had not been prepared for the forthcoming change, thus there was resistance amongst the labor unions which did not trust the management, the executive did not have faith or had not learned the importance of the processes of change, the company also lacked the skills to understand and implement change. There was also no team perspective. The first step recommended by the auditor was planned team building and management development. (Burnes: 2003) On the other hand, the case of XYZ Corporation was that of effective conduct of planned change through an integrated approach. The management was totally involved in the process of change and had discussed it with all the participants over a sustained period of three months. A number of sub groups were made and the plans evolved. This had developed confidence of all the managers and the staff in the successful conduct of change and when the action phase took place this moved rapidly though with some problems which were soon overcome with strong support of the management as well as the employees. (Burnes: 2003). Taking the cue from the above two live cases from the automobile sector, of the different models of change management undertaken by Toyota Motor Corporation, the Japanese automobile giant and MG Rover, the British automobile company which went into closure in 2005 would provide a deeper perspective of the impact of importance of change management. The automobile sector was undergoing a change with greater emphasis on economies of scale and globalised production. To integrate its global staff into the Toyota model of production, Toyota Corporation undertook specific programmes which resulted in assimilation of people of different cultures in its model. One of the key strategies was training a global work force, thus the company established training centers in Georgetown, Kentucky United States, Burnaston, Britain and in Thailand. The trainers in these centers were drawn from Japan. The aim was to pass on the skills which in the original Japanese companies had been passed on from generation to generation and incorporate the workers in other regions into the Toyota culture. The sessions are very elaborate and well structured. These involved the use of demonstration videos, mock assembly lines, exercises and lectures. The aim was to incorporate all workers in, "the Toyota Way." Such training programmes also incorporated the suppliers. This developed a pride in all the Toyota workers in different plants in the World as the Indian worker in Toyota India remarked that he was proud to be a Toyota India employee. (Kageyama: 2006). On the other hand the management at MG Rover failed to anticipate the changes forthcoming in the global method of automobile business and did not prepare its workers or the stake holders to adapt to them. Summarizing the reasons for the failure of MG Rover would reveal that the basic measures to implement change were totally ignored and there was a lack of recognition of the need for change, investment in the processes of transformation in terms of creating economies of scale or development of the product and a failure of the leadership to sustain the change. While the government had controlling interests in the firm it fostered the status quo rather than promote innovation. (Berkeley: 2005). Thus the management of MG Rover fell between the dilemma of whether change is driven by strategy or strategy is a product of change and ended up doing nothing. That this is an iterative process was ignored. (Burnes: 1997). Variation in Models of Change While the basic premises of the models of change by Lewin and Bullock and Batten remain sound, the pace and frequency of transformations in modern organizations necessitates a review of the rather slow processes which are present therein. Thus a need to seek answers in the more interventionist and active strategies for change is felt. Kotter's eight steps for successful change offers a model for proactive change. These steps involve the following (Kotter : 1996):- (a) Establish a spirit of urgency. (b) Create a coordinated approach and coalition. (c) Develop a vision and strategy. (d) Communicate the vision. (e) Empower the actions to be taken. (f) Achieve short term goals effectively. (g) Consolidate gains and create the basis for more change. (h) Embed the changes in the culture of the organization. Conclusion Change is a social process in a dynamic business organization. As it involves people and resources, there is a need to ensure that it is undertaken in a planned and structured manner with the congruence of all elements of an organization for smooth implementation. The two models of change examined above are proactive processes which if undertaken by the management will ensure that the organization proceeds through the transition process smoothly, retaining balance. Where the nature of change is likely to affect the attitudes and behavior of persons, the Lewin model based on a socio psychological approach appears to be more beneficial. On the other hand for a transformation which is in the nature of management of a project, the Bullock and Batten model may be more appropriate. It is therefore essential that having envisaged the need for change, the management adopts a suitable model to implement change by analyzing the nature and type of resistance that is likely to be encountered and its suitability from the point of reducing resistance and enhancing speed of transformation. References 1. Berkeley, Nigel. Donnelly, Tom. David Morris. Et Al. Industrial Restructuring and the State: the Case of MG Rover. Local Economy,Vol. 20, No. 4, 360-371, November 2005 2. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions. Reading, MA: Perseus. 3. Browne, Neville. (2003). Leading Change - Guidelines for Managers. RGU. Aberdeen 4. Bullock, RJ, and Batten, D. (1985). It's just a phase we're going through: a review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group and Organization Studies, 10, December, 383-412. 5. Burnes, Bernard. (2003). Managing Change and Changing Managers from ABC to XYZ. Journal of Management Development. Vol 22. No 7 2003. 6. Burnes, Bernard. (1997). Organizational Choice and Organizational change. Management Decision, Vol 35. No 10. 1997. 7. Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization development and change (5th Ed.). St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 8. Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 9. Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951. 10. Change management http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/changemmt/chngmgmt.htm. (Accessed 10 May 2006). 11. Davis, Miles K. Change Management: You're your Father's OD. http://www.odnetwork.org/confgallery/notyourfathersod.html. (Accessed 10 May 2006). 12. Kageyama, Yuri. (2006). Toyota gives the world lessons in making cars. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/18/business/teach.php (Accessed 11 May 2006) 13. Neill, James. (2002). Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze or Square-Blob-Star Model of Change. http://www.wilderdom.com/theory/UnfreezeChangeRefreeze.html (Accessed 10 May 2006). 14. Neill, James. 2005. Rites of Passage. http://www.wilderdom.com/rites/. (Accessed 11 May 2006) 15. Lewis, Sarah. (2005). The Role of HR in Planned and Emergent Change: the Same or Different Jemstone Consultancy. http://www.dcu.ie/hr/conference/SarahLewis%20Presentation.ppt#7 (Accessed 11 May 2006). 16. Reactive vs. Proactive Change. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-Sa/Reactive-vs-Proactive-Change.html(Accessed 10 May 2006). 17. Responding to Change http://www.pwcglobal.com/extweb/challenges.nsf/docid/2cfd7413df2869c685257013005891ba. (Accessed 10 May 2006). 18. Schumacher, Wolf D. Managing Barriers to Business Reengineering Success Change Management Intervention Models. http://www.prosci.com/w_4.htm. (Accessed 10 May 2006). Read More