Change Management review

The determinants and Impediments of change In each branch of change management have been considered and addressed. Some elements fall outside the scope of the literature review and research. The literature review is structured in such a way that echoes this integration as illustrated in the following diagram (Figure M). Figure XX: Areas within and outside the research boundaries leading to organizational responsiveness to change. Figure XX: Areas within and outside the research boundaries leading to organizational responsiveness to change. People Management Leadership Organizational Context.
Culture. Organizational Learning. Knowledge Management. Change Management. Change Management Change Management is neither an art nor a science; it is an individual process relying solely on the organization, individuals within the organization (employees), leadership style and management of the organization (middle and top managers), organizational culture, and a variety of external Influences Including environmental, technological and social. The scope for change management within an organization to fail is huge; however the scope for effectiveness is as wide if approached logistically.
It is important to keep in mind that change management is not an art or a science but each area and issue of change management is completely individualistic. Many authors have written and researched within the academic area of change application, and how it can be applied strategically to assist the organization. The work that these authors within the field of change management bring to the academic discussion have been studied, analyses, criticized and presented here in an attempt to both inform the reader and support the research and subsequent analysis.

Organizational Dynamics Systems Theory The concept of the ‘organization’ is not abstract from the idea of systems theory. The organization exists within an environment, has Inputs (l), Processes (P) and Outputs (O) taking into account both formal and informal subsystems and processes. Combined together this presents a system that is both effective and theoretically sound. “A system is an organized collection of parts interacting in certain ways to achieve certain goals. Any change in any part of the system will produce different effects” (Hellhole, 2006).
As Hellhole (2006) identifies change can occur at an individual (l, P or O) level and see effective results, however the argument can also be constructed to assume that when change management is handled holistically, changing all the individual parts of the working cog model, a better result is often seen. Theory in this area is rather limited, however Senior and Swales (2010) present the following illustration (Figure 10) which builds upon the work of Child (1973) focused on the intangible elements of organizational operations. “Systems thinking” is relevant to highlight here.
Whilst it is possible for change to be approached from n individual (l, P or O) level, as well as a holistic stance, systems thinking looks at the concept of ‘does it need changing to enhance the overall level of organizational effectiveness’. An example that may be given here to help explain and contextual this point is that of a maintenance company repaving a road. One element of the system may be to fill the hole with a temporary road surface which is followed up by the removal of this and re-surfacing to correct standards a week later.
It could be argued that both elements of the process could be enhanced but the systems hinging viewpoint would maintain that removing stage one would enhance effectiveness, reduce cost and wastage, as well as the crucial element of satisfying customer demand. The author finds this theory and viewpoint interesting and will return to this concept at a later point. Figure 10: The Organization as a System – adapted from the work of Senior and Swales (2010) A key area that the author feels is missing from Senior and Swales (2010) model is feedback.
Organizations are subject to change and influence from the external environment; this therefore requires a agree of planning and control, which is most effective if informed with feedback. Removing the feedback loop from the ‘organization’ almost takes the model back to the classical theorists that considered organizations as rational but closed systems (Hellhole, 2006). Through the addition of the feedback loop the system becomes open as well as debatable more ‘open’ to change.
Hayes (2002) expands on this concept of open systems commenting that, “Open-systems theory provides such a framework and views organizations as a system of interrelated components that transact with a larger environment. From the perspective of open systems, some of the main characteristics of organizations are that they are: embedded within a larger system, able to avoid entropy, regulated by feedback, subject to equability, cyclical McKinney and the AS model can be used here to look at the infrastructure of the organization, in addition to the informal and formal processes that is presented above.
An analysis of the internal environment from this perspective adds to the depth of analysis that can be undertaken. The AS model encompasses the areas of Structure, Systems, Style, Staff, Skills, Strategy and Shared Values providing a useful LOL to merge both tangible and intangible organizational elements. At the analysis stages of this research it will be interesting to return to the idea of change at both an individual (l, P and O) and organizational level and contrast this to what is observed within the case studies, and the influence that this holds over organizational readiness and responsiveness to change.
The concept of organizational systems theory is Just one very small part of the evolution of organization theory. This links with the changes in development of change management theory addressed revisions due to culture and influencing factors throughout the eras. The question can always be asked that is everything that the business doing contributing to fulfilling the customer’s demands? The author would suggest that this is not necessarily always a requirement, however this could be debated further.
Contingency Theory – Mechanistic and Organic Organizations Before the theories and application of change management are examined and analyses, the author believes it to be of importance to examine organizational dynamics as briefly highlighted above within Section 3. 4. 1 . There are three main viewpoints; open yester theory, contingency theory, and congruence model for organizational assessment. Open systems theory as previously discussed looks as the organization as having Inputs, Processes and Outputs and is made ‘open’ through the inclusion of a feedback loop.
This basic approach was enhanced through the work of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lora’s (1967) who identify that organizations do not exist and operate within a vacuum, and investigated the relationship between the internal structure and the environments in which they operate (external environment). Their results, characterized due to the degree of internal formality, internal structure and external stability results in what they term ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ organizations. They described firms that operated in stable environments as ‘mechanistic’ because they were characterized by many rules and procedures and were dominated by a hierarchy of authority. The firms that operated in less stable environments were described as ‘organic’ because they tended to have a free-flowing, De-centralized and adaptive internal organization” (Hayes, 2002). Mechanistic Organizational Characteristics Organic Organizational Characteristics 1 . Specialized tasks, narrow in scope 1 . Common tasks and interdependencies 2. Tasks rigidly defined 2. Tasks adjusted and redefined as required 3.
Strict hierarchy of authority 3. Less adherence to formal authority and rules 4. Centralized knowledge and control 4. Decentralized knowledge and control 5. Hierarchical communication 5. Network communication, diffused channels Table 18: Characteristics of Burns and Stalker’s (1961) Contingency Theory – Mechanistic and Organic Organizations There are a range of critics around congruence theory; some agree and identify with the ‘alignment’ that this model (2000) for example, disagree arguing that the explanation for organizational operation is not clear enough.
The author does not have a specific view on this matter. It has not been unknown for alignment to be criticized within the field due to the fact that it is very difficult to apply in practice. It is clear within both the work of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Child (1973) that changes to one or more of either the internal or external elements will have an impact upon other elements that therefore may also require change subsequently.
This was highlighted and expanded upon by the work of Cotter (1980) who in essence merges open systems theory and interagency theory creating an integrative model of organizational dynamics. He uses his model comprised of six structural elements and key organizational processes to address impacts upon the organization in both the short, medium and long term time Figure 1 1: Cotter’s integrative model of organizational dynamics. Source: Cotter (1980) Table 19: Cotter’s integrative model of organizational dynamics.
Source: Cotter (1980) Cotter’s (1980) work can be used to look at readiness and responsiveness from an organizational dynamics perspective. In the short term Cotter comments that organizational effectiveness is enhanced and determined by he speed with which the organization can control and respond to any of the six structural elements before they start to have an impact on one of the other areas. However using the integrative model for a long term approach the idea of readiness is very much at the core.
Adaptability to the six structural elements will be the determinant of effectiveness; this requires organizations to put into place tools and techniques that will help evaluate elements that determine which structural element will ’emerge as the driving force that shapes the development of the company (Hayes, 2002). Adaptability is important because it determines whether or not the organization will be able to maintain the required degree of alignment over the long term.
Over the longer term, therefore, the focus of change management needs to ensure that the structural elements of the organization are as adaptable as possible” (Hayes, 2002). The organizational dynamics need to support the organizations ability to be both ready and responsive to change; readiness helps support the long term strategy whilst responsiveness will assist in the rectification of the cause-effect relationships that interlink the organizational system together.
Congruence Model – the focus towards strategy As the thinking behind organizational management developed the importance of strategy increased amongst firms; a few years after the development of the above organizational dynamic models Needle and Dustman (1982) entered into the academic arena with their take on systems theory, the difference being a strategic focus adopted. Some of the elements of the congruence model are derived from work by Alleviate (1965) and Katz and Kahn (1966) (both cited in Hayes, 2002).
The congruence model is in effect a different take on open systems theory. Its main preference is its focus towards strategy and strategic management through assessing the congruency of the organizational components on organizational effectiveness. A distinct difference between the work of Needle and Dustman (1982) and open systems theory is that the integrative model focuses in some depth around the relationship between all of the components within the transformational process.
This and allows the authors to propose a model that’s key concept, of congruence or alignment between the organization, the environment and the internal components of the organization, aids organizational diagnoses and the development of change management strategies. Needle and Dustman play specific emphasis towards the four components that they believe create the transformation process (informal organization, formal organization, task, individual); they look specifically at the relationship between each of these components (six fits’ as discussed in Table 20) and that influence on the organization as a whole.
This is illustrated by the directional arrows in Figure 12 below. Relationship between… Example areas for consideration Individual Formal Organization What extent are individual needs met by the formal organizational arrangement? For example – Personal Learning Styles (Briggs Myers and Briggs Myers, 1980; Honey and Uniform, 2000), Team Roles (Beeline, AAA), and specific HER elements such as Individual appraisal processes (CHIP, AAA; Armstrong, 2009; Armstrong and Baron, 2004). Individual Task To what extent do individuals have the skills necessary to meet task demands and to what extend do the tasks satisfy individual needs?
Individual Informal Organization To what extent does the informal organization satisfy the needs of the individuals or make best use of their talents? For example is the individual’s Learning Style or personality type understood and utilized within the team, and organizational context (Briggs Myers and Briggs Myers, 1980; Butterflies, 2008). Task Formal Organization To what extent are the formal organizational arrangements adequate to meet the demands of the task? Task Informal Organization To what extent does the informal organization facilitate task performance?
For example the work of John Adair looking at Task, Team, and Individual (1996). Formal Organization Informal Organization To what extent are the goals, rewards and structures of the informal organization consistent with those of the formal organization. Table 20 : Areas for consideration between the ‘six fits’ of the transformation process in the Congruence Model. Adapted from: Hayes (2002) One element that strikes as being predominant, and harmonies with the opinion of the author, is that of the individual.
This model takes into consideration an area that most other models merely merge with other organizational elements. Here the individual is given specific credit and attention, and is focused on in terms of interaction with the formal organization, the informal organization, and the organizational tasks. The individual is seen as a personalized resource to the cuisines that brings individual skills and knowledge that help to equip and shape the organization. The author has a specific interest in the role of the individual (Butterflies, 2008; Section 3. 3. ), but it is also an important element for authors such as Hellhole (2006), and is therefore a significant ingredient within the congruence model to draw the reader’s attention towards. Hellhole (2006) comments, “Increasingly, there is recognition that organizational success depends largely on the skills and commitment of a knowledge-based workforce and that organizational ultras conducive to high performance are central to sustaining success beyond the short term”. Figure 12: Needle and Dustman’s (1980) Congruence Model. Source: Needle and strategy before the transformation process.
This inevitability requires that management have looked at and decided on the appropriate strategy in advance; it almost contradicts the process as one would assume that the strategic direction would follow the process and possibly the output. With the inclusion of the feedback loop it could be considered that this is the case and its position here is deliberate fitting with the experiential learning cycle of Kola (1984). At the application stages of this research when the case studies are looked at it will be interesting to see where this features in the reality of the organizations.
All of the models looked at and discussed above can only ever be a simplification of reality. In terms of change management it is the ability to take these models and look at their use in turning ability to become an appropriate conceptual framework for taking an existing situation and managing the desired change within the applicable circumstances. Out of all of the models looked at the author feels that the congruence model is the cost applicable within the research to be carried out.
This is mainly due to its strategic focus, and consideration of the individual. As previously mentioned the models only become applicable and useful if application as a conceptual framework can be adopted. This will be applied and analyses within the findings chapter (Section 5). Drivers for change There are many drivers for change and these are dependent upon on the area of change that you address. This is such a huge topic and an in-depth analysis far exceeds the scope that the topic can occupy within this thesis.
It is hoped that the main drivers for change for each organization will become apparent within the case study analysis as these are very personal and dependent on both the organization and the industry that the organization is operating within. The following drivers for change are included to provide context and provide some food for thought; these have been taken from the text ‘Understanding Change’, by Hellhole (2006). Competition Globalization Demands for greater transparency and accountability Global Sustainability Technology The e-economy The consumer revolution The social context Knowledge Management Future organizational trends
Changing industrial relations climate and employment legislation Stereotypical social attitudes The rise of the stakeholder Degree at which innovation progresses Demographics and Social fragmentation they believe to be the 10 top drivers for organizational change in 2010; whilst these make interesting reading for the author, the author is of particular support with the tenth; “a new war for talent commences”. This picks up on what the author has been trying to convey throughout the sections on Personnel Management (Section 3. ) and Knowledge Management (Section 3. 3). Not only are there external drivers for change UT internal ones too. As people recover from the economic crisis they will begin to drive forward organizational change in a bid to better themselves and get credit and assurance of their work to the organization. Organizations need to bear this is mind and respond appropriately. The ten top drivers for organizational change as identified by Bloomberg Businesslike (2010) are: ” 1 . Consumer preferences will remain “reset” based on values, not pricier.
Energy costs will continue to increase in the medium termed. U. S. Tax policy could erode the competitive positioning of U. S. Companies. Innovation happens for emerging market consumers, not in emerging markets 05. A new return to vertical integration gains traction 06. Industry shifts create competitive shifts 07. Increases in information requires more Judgment from decision makers 08. Markets reward long-term strategic focuses. Economic recovery wont mean recovery for everyone 010. A new war for talent commences” Bloomberg Businesslike (2010).
Kurt Lenin; group focused change theory Kurt Lenin can be quoted as saying “Group life is never without change” (1947). Predominantly Kurt Lenin presents us with a change management theory revolving round the concept of unfreezing – change – and refreezing which presents a high- level approach to change. This has specific relationships back to the school of personnel management due to its importance for change in group settings as highlighted by Lenin in his work ‘Frontiers in Group dynamics’ addressing the art of social science of social equilibrium and social change (1947).
Linen’s work is not only applicable in a group setting it also holds great importance for the individual context too as well as large communities of practice and teams (Lenin, 1947). Through use of he model there is scope for management to make a radical change, minimize disruption of operations and ensure that the change becomes a permanent and rooted element of the organization through the re-freezing stage.
The model, very focused around getting people to change as opposed to changing an organization, consists of three stages: Unfreezing – This is based upon the assumption that there is a need to change as present practices may have become outdated, slow, ineffective, expensive etc…. The need to instigate the unfreezing stage is typically based upon an assumption that the status quo is no longer desirable or positive; exulting from this there is often a motivation for change, the team unites, recognizes the need for change and begins the process of change management.
It is essential there is some degree of confidence amongst the team that the change will be implemented and fulfilled successfully in order to achieve group ‘buy-in’ and a positive Psychological Contract. The Change – Normal change management theories and principles generally come into play here. Whilst the team may all be on common stress will develop, individuals will have different ideas of the perceived outcomes, expectations will not be managed, the Psychological Contract diminish etc… This is a time of exploration of opportunities where goals and objectives are set and implementation for change is developed.
Lenin stresses the fact that it is essential as with any other change management theory that goals, objectives and plans for implementation are continually assessed and reassessed in order to generate the best possible outcomes. It is important to note here that whilst the objectives are important for Lenin this does not necessarily form the most essential stage. His focus upon change within groups provides a perspective that is more in line with the needs of individuals and maintain positive relationships and focus, in order to bring about a successful re- freezing stage as described below.
Re-freezing – At the completion of the change discussions when implementation has been rolled out across all involved, Lenin identifies the need for re-freezing. “Change will only reach its full effect if it’s made permanent” (Lenin, 1947). As in the re-freezing of a liquid it is important to cement or solidify the change making it an official procedure of the organization; in drawing specific attention to the completion of the project and the new processes re-freezing would therefore inhibit individuals returning to the old ways as existed pre-change process.
Refreezing is the heart of this model. Lenin (1947) comments, “A change towards a higher level of group performance is frequently short-lived, after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. ” Figure 13: Kurt Linen’s model of unfreezing and re-freezing.
Source: Adapted from Lenin (1947) Right Sizing There are various authors who have looked into the correlation between the size of the firm in terms of personnel and effectiveness in organizational performance. There is however still a heightened awareness that there are additional variables that impose upon organizational effectiveness namely technology; it is said that this could possibly account for up to fifty per cent of the variability in result findings which lead to an inconclusive theory being proposed (Senior and Swales, 2010).
Culture, leadership style, and politics all have an influence on the correlation teens size and organizational performance. Child (1988) who investigated into the correlation between size and performance concluded that the leadership style operated within the organization was relevant to the size of the organization (number of employees employed). It was the leadership style and subsequent influence into the structure that Child’s (1988) sees as having an impact upon organizational effectiveness including role specialization and formalization.
Senior and Swales (2010) summaries the work of Child (1988); large organizations with a higher degree of bureaucracy structure were in general better performed. Bureaucracy did not work for the smaller organization who had a better degree of performance with a more informal leadership style. “In organizations with below 2,000 people performance was assumed to be better in those that have little formal structure more bureaucracy and superior performance was greater” (Senior and Swales, 2010). Several external driving forces for change (Section 3. 4. ) such as the current economic climate and recent recession which have occurred at both local, regional, national and even international levels have created a heightened degree of urgency or organizations to increase efficiency; many are doing this through operations management and seeing the organizations as a clearly defined set of inputs, processes and outputs. The author is of the belief that for successful change management to occur the process of managing change must occur holistically, which can also occur when viewed through the strategic lens.
Both the immediate survival and long term sustenance of any organization heavily depends on organizational responsiveness to its external environment and its ability to face the external challenge. A huge problem facing strategic re-focusing of operations creates opposition due to an emotional connection to common practice challenged by the need to change for survival (Balloon and Hope-Halley, 2008, Sense, 1993). With the distinct lack of literature on right sizing the author has conceptualized a model that illustrates where the concept of right-sizing fits into the organization.
Taking the multi-lens perspective approach (Regional and Sprinter, 1996) and essential elements of organizational management the author proposes that the concept of right sizing is situated predominately within the cognitive lens. Figure 14: Position of right sizing within the organization Right sizing would normally e linked to the structural view of the organization. The Rational Lens considers the structure of the organization as an ought-to-be scenario.
The Cognitive Lens considers right sizing as what is practicably possible scenario. The Rational Lens considers culture and corporate politics as an impediment to change which is what many change managers attempt to override or ignore. With the cognitive lens approach culture and corporate politics are seen as an intrinsic component of change. Therefore culture and corporate politics should be understood and made to become “enablers” within the change management process.
This is currently the issue that several organizations are facing. By positioning right sizing as a resulting factor of a combination of Organizational Culture, Politics and Organizational Type the author feels that it will help in the analysis stages where the variety of case studies will be analyses. As mentioned within Section 2 the case study profiles were deliberately selected by the author for their variations in size.
The author feels that it is important to note here that there is not necessarily a formula for what is the ‘right size’ of an organization or a specific team dealing with change management, UT that this may be discussed throughout the finding and analysis chapter (Section 5) where the case studies may lead towards generating an inclination as to what works best. The Readiness of Change Several articles regarding both individual and institutional readiness to change (readiness’) within an organizational context have been written over the centuries.
Many well respected, and up-and-coming academics have posed models and theories in relation to how readiness can be increased, encouraged and developed within both individual and institutional spheres of influence; a large gap that is still existent in the knowledge base centers around the definition of ‘readiness to change’. Several pieces of relevant academic literature and building together a picture towards a ‘comprehensive definition’ of readiness for change.
Holt et all’s work which has been consulted extensively opens with an important issue that the author must recognize; the lack of measurement of readiness for change does not arise from a lack of instruments designed for this purpose. There are several in existence but without a common and universal understanding of what constitutes readiness a liable and robust framework, to operate quantitatively cannot (and has not currently) been developed.
Evidently, with readiness being an area of research that is being encouraged (Holt et al, 2007) this is therefore an area that requires the knowledge gap being fulfilled in order for research in this area to pursue. It is the aim of the forthcoming section to be devoted to this cause, reviewing the use of the literature, working towards a definition of readiness, and identifying means of its analysis within a strategic institutionally based context. There is also the need for the adopted method to be suitable to institutions of different natures, sizes and specialties; as always generalization is imperative.
Readiness and Resistance; are they related concepts? The concept of readiness is a result of the concept and result of resistance – a sweeping statement or Just a different approach? It is perhaps no surprise, that change management due to its inclusion with the human resource management approach is highly subjective to the reactions of people (employees). This would explain the development of the need to research readiness, resulting from manager’s efforts to reduce resistance to change.
Again the body of literature exists in this area, yet Ramekins et al (1993, cited in Holt et al, 2007) put forward their argument that any of these, “strategies designed to help managers avoid resistance, are effective only to the extent which they facilitate employee readiness”. The circular nature of this issue is again illustrated here. The transition of the Traditional HARM philosophy into the personnel management phase transfers its focus from objectives and output into placing value, focus and ultimately having an investment and involvement with he people.
To some extent it can be argued that traditionally to date the people management processes within educational setting operate under this philosophy; a large degree of responsibility and autonomous working is put upon the employee’s and in response it is hoped that the organization values staffs contributions. General motivational principles (Amazon, etc… ) encourage the involvement of employees in a drive to encourage general commitment to organizational objectives and partnering of aims, especially plans for development, drive forward and ultimately change.
Readiness has been looked at with a specific workforce focus; whilst this is important, organizational culture, as explored above, external pressures and the lack of a strategic dimension can also reduce organizational readiness. What impact does this have on the organization’s desire to change and move into a market leader position, driving forward its position within the market and gaining an advantage in what is a highly competitive market arena. Oakland and Tanner’s Organizational Change Framework Research supporting the model Oakland and Tanner have been instrumental in the field of research into change