The Core ideas of change management

The Core ideas of qualifying manage manpowertIt is in the nature of bulk to be afraid of transmute. In our everyday life we normally establish routines and get going comfortable with the instruction things just happen. The idea of potential alter of the patterns of air makes us feel uncomfortable, brings uncertainty and risk in the everyday life. As social entities, corporations be no divergent. Daily lap up schedules and serve up organisation become cleave of the corporate identity and gradually slow down the speed demanded to remain competitive and be a winner. harmonise to Tabrizi (2007), To stay competitive, a merrimenter must be dynamic in the marketplace, constantly revising its own strategy in response to the strategies of its opponents, as well as reorient itself with the changing demands of its customers. The judicatures that brush off most quickly respond to the marketplace, particularly those that adapt faster than their competitors, ar the ones that ma ke it to the top.Key conceptsIn general, reviewing the initial reasons for revision, it can be re promptive, when organizations respond to international factors, and proactive, when companies initiate the process of alter themselves. However, no matter what the initial reasons were, once the process has started, we can be sure that assortment in one part of the caller-out invariably volition affect people and processes in all other parts. Moreover, a thorough salmagundi can influence, or be influenced by the organizational mission and strategy, structure, products and processes, its employees and culture, technology and know-how employed. channelise can be provoked by away or internal factors, or a combination of both. External factors may be stirs in demand of consumers, threatening actions of competitors and suppliers, newcomers in the business, MAs, changes in the legal and governmental environment, new technologies, changes on the labor market, and so forthtera The internal factors can be found at bottom the company itself and may result from redefined mission and strategy, gather up for study changes in the culture and focussing style, need for improvement of quality and efficiency, etc.There are lots of algorithms and prescriptions about how exactly shall changes be implemented. In frame to get deeper recognizeing of the contemporary methods, prototypic we will examine the basic change worry theories and barbeles.Theoretical foundationsThe three main theoretical schools are differentiated by the addressed levels of change individual, stem or organizational level. These are The private Perspective instruct, The Group Dynamics School and The Open Systems School (Burnes, 2009).Individual Perspective schoolAccording to Burnes (2009), the Individual Perspective School is divided into two main movements Behaviorists and Gestalt-Field theorists. Both of them address organizational changes on individual level. The main idea of the Beha viorists is that peoples reactions are closely interconnected with their interaction with the environment. One of the first Behaviorists, Pavlov, stated that all behavior is learned and all individuals actions are led by the expected results. Through his well cognize experiment with the dog that associated the sound of the bell with food, Pavlov proved that one can easily manage peoples doings through external stimuli and reward.The other movement, the Gestalt-Field theorists, argues that human actions could non be product only of the surrounding environment, hardly from the interpretation of this environment through changing the understanding of the situation and modifying the external stimuli.Group Dynamics SchoolAccording to Cummings and Worley (2009), The Group Dynamics School emphasizes on the implementation of organizational change on a group level. Its founder Kurt Lewin argued that the individual will respond to the groups interactions and pressure and will adapt to its culture and demeanor, accepting its values, norms and roles.Open Systems schoolThe main focus of the Open Systems School is the organisation as a whole, composed of a number of interconnected sub-systems (Burnes, 2009). The different parts and subsystems are interacting with each other and with the environment. Mullins (2008) writes that most pregnant is to achieve an overall synergy within the organization, rather than optimizing the performance of any one individual part.Approaches to changeThe three basic progressiones to change management are the be after set out, the Emergent approach and the contingency approach (Burnes, 2009).Contingency approachThe basic principle of the Contingency approach is that there is no one best way to change. channelise has to be employ in line with the environment and the organisation has to adapt to it. The contingency approach examines the effectiveness of different exemplifications, techniques and methods of change management and advise s to choose according to the situation.Planned approachThe basic idea of the plan approach is that organizations shall first draw areas where changes are required and initiate a process of its implementation (Burnes, 2009). It was launched in the 40s in the work of Kurt Lewin, who developed the most popular models of planned change Action Research and Three-Phase Model. The approach has been widely used since the 80s. The Action research model is based on the statement that change requires action, and action is based on analysing the situation correctly. The Three step model is based on three phases of implementation unfreezing moving refreezing.The Planned approach represents a to a greater extent general prescription about how change should happen in a ball much more ideal than the world we know today. As the contemporary situation is changing rapidly, the chance that the environment has changed again during the implementation of your change plan and has made it useless, is extremely high. That is why, I sell the Emergent Approach much more effective and useful.Emergent approachThe Emergent approach is focused on the assumption that change is a continuous. According to Dawson (2002), organizational change is a persistent, open-ended process of adaptation to changing environment. It emerges in an unpredictable and unplanned fashion. Maybe the most distinctive feature of the approach is the bottom-up approach of control, i.e. that the employees are most closely involved with the process with the change process (Dawson, 2002). The approach requires a major change in the traditionalistic role of the managers. Unlike the planned approach, here, the role of the manager is not to initiate and control the process, but rather to assist and facilitate it. In battle array to take up the main models of implementation, Burnes (2009) has chosen the three most practical models of emergent change Kanters Ten Commandments for Executing Change, Kotters Eight-Stage P rocess for Successful Organisational Transformation and the Seven Steps model of Luecke.In order to illustrate the overall impact that emergent change has on organizations, I reach chosen the case of Ken Freeman, who made Corning clinical Labs from a business in shambles to the indus campaign leader in the size (Appendix I). courting STUDY Ken Freeman, Corning clinical labs, Appendix IChange and the ManagerExternal and internal Approaches to ChangeAs we have already outlined in the precedent part of the work, change can be planned or unplanned (emergent). Planned change is sought when the organisation deliberately attempts to make internal changes to meet specified goals or to pursue a localise of strategies (French et al, 2008). However, not all change in organisations happens as a result of intended direction. Unplanned change is provoked by some external triggers such(prenominal) as market forces, economic crises, economic opportunities or social changes. Unplanned change occ urs spontaneously and without the organisations provocation. The appropriate goal in managing unplanned change is to act immediately once the change is recognized, to minimize any negative consequences and maximize any possible benefits. (French et al, 2008)However, no matter whether the changes were planned or unplanned, in order to implement a victoryful and thorough change management plan, there shall be sufficient dissatisfaction with the existing situation, absolute attraction to moving towards a more desirable position, desire to formulate a strategy that will literalize the vision (French et al, 2008).Change may be triggered by internal or external forcesExternal forces may be changes in the demand for the organizations products as a result of changing consumer preferences, action by competitors, government etc., threatening tactics of competitors by aggressively cutting prices, newcomer in the market, political or legal changes, changes in the terms of trade (tariffs, exc hange rates), lack of skilled employees, etc. (Martin, 2005)Internal forces should theoretically, be more put down and predictable. For example changes in strategy as a result of revised mission or goals, need for heathen changes, changes in the management style, need for improvement in quality, efficiency, standards, need to cut costs (Martin, 2005).However, according to Mabey and Salaman (1995), irrespective of the initial reasons for the change, change is characterized by two important dimensions firstly, the dental plate of change (from fine tuning through to corporate transformation) and secondly the style of change (collaborative through to coercive).Selected models of ChangeOrganizations typically respond to the challenges of the above described external and internal triggers with the help of various programs, each designed to overcome obstaclesand enhance business performance. According to Luecke (2003), these programs fall into one of the pastime four categoriesCultural changeCultural changes focus on the human side of the organization. It handles with the general approach of doing business and the relationship between the management and the employees. A typical example for cultural change is changes in the mission and vision of the company and the organizational development.In order to illustrate the overall impact on the company that cultural changes may produce, I have chosen the example with ATT and NCR.Case study ATT and NCR (Apendix II)Structural changeStructural changes address the structure of the organisation and the design of jobs and working arrangements as the key levers of change. According to Mabey and Salamn (1995), structural changes are triggered by an organisations inability to fully realize the strategy it is following due to administrative deficiencies caused by a mismatch between the new strategy and the existing structure (Mabey Salaman, 1995). Luecke argues that these programs treat the organization as a set of functional parts-the machine model. Through mergers and acquisitions, between companies, reengineering of units, reconfiguring of divisions, managers try to improve the overall performance and results.A classic example of redesigning the whole management structure in order to complement the strengths of the top people, is provided by Google (Appendix III).CASE STUDY GOOGLE, Appendix IIICost cuttingThe third program for change is cost cutting. Its core idea is to eliminate non-essential and non-profitable activities. This can be make through reengineering of the structure, decrease of the personnel, foc apply on the production of profitable items, etc.Process changeProcess change aims at fashioning processes faster, more effective, more reliable, less costly. These programs focus on altering how thingsget done (Luecke, 2003). Examples include reengineering a loan approval process, approaches to handling customer warranty claims, production processes, etc.Attitudes to Change3.1. Reactions to c hangeIn general, there are different reactions to the proposed change process and according to them people are split into three main different groups hold outers, apathetic and resistors. According to French et al (2008), change initiatives are typically met by some resistivity. Resistance to change is any attitude or behaviour that reflects a persons unwillingness to make or support a desired change. The reasons for this reaction are manifold people are afraid of the unknown, many of them dont understand the need for change, or some may even think that the proposed change goes against the values held by members in the organisation. These reactions outline the need to consider as well changes in the culture of the organisation, including changes in members values and beliefs.French et al (2008) outline also another perspective of resistance to change in their work, namely to see resistance as feedback that can be used by the change agent to help accomplish his objectives. The e ssence of this notion is to recognise that when people resist change they are defending something important that appears to be threatened by the change attempt (French et al, 2008).There is no universal recipe on how could resistance to change be overcome, however, considering the limitations of this paper, one example method illustrated also by a brief case study will be presented in the third part of this paper, The People Problem, which shall give the essence that could be followed.Gender and Change ManagementPreece, Steven Steven (1999) describe several studies that have concluded that women are more likely than men to display characteristics which would make them good team players. The authors cite a survey conducted in the company Bass, designed specifically to examine gender-related issues in public provide management. According to the survey, women appeared to focus on teamworking 82 % of them answered that they find it beneficial due to issues such as the mutual develop ment of ideas, helping each other and chore solving. In the same time, only 65% of the men stated to have positive attitude against team work. These results evidence that women are in general recrudesce teamplayers than men and consequently may experience a greater impact in the changeover of the company they are employed with.Case study ATT and NCR (Apendix III)What aspects of the external change environment did Jerre status and hisadvisers choose to focus on? Could they have defined the external environmentin a different way, perhaps using scenario planning techniquesdiscussed above, which would have allowed them to constructother, more realistic scenarios? By way of illustration, had they been lessUS- and head office-centric, could they have created a more accuratepicture of the organization and its problems, one that would haveallowed them to see the potential for the problems they would create inScotland, their key subsidiary location? The central dapple of this messageis that managers are active agents, not solely passive recipients ofabstract and external market forces. Good managers understand howto enact their environment in order to control it through more intuitiveand inventive interpretations, re-definitions and action (Weick, 2001).Weick argues that managers are often better advised to act their wayinto thinking, by taking smaller, incremental steps and learning fromthem, rather than think their way into acting through top-down,transformational planning strategies such as those depicted in theATT case. The dangers of a top-down, planning-then-actionapproach are twofold. The first danger is that by making gravid changesthere is little chance for learning to occur because you dont reallyknow which of the many components of the change had the mosteffect. The second danger, and more likely consequence, is that byconstructing a plan that is complex you are likely to fall into the trapof paralysis by analysis.The key point is that culture, once u nderstood,is treated as a super manageable feature of organizations. Thisseemed to be the perspective of Jerre Stead, the CEO of ATT (GIS) inthe case study. Such unitary assumptions and analysis may have a degreeof severity in certain contexts, but in others they are likely to be misplacedand misleading. Ask yourself the questions in the ATT case (1) Howrealistic were the assumptions made by Stead regarding the potential tocreate a unified culture in the company? (2) Were leadinghip and communionsall that was necessary to overcome barriers to change?Perhaps he could have interpreted a different view, distinguishing between- the corporate culture, which is essentially what managers wantthe organization to be like, similar to the concept of corporateidentity in Chapter 6 and more amenable to control andChapter 9 Managing organizational change 385- the organizational culture and subcultures, which are more akinto the notions of organizational identity in Chapter 6, andwhich are les s amenable to control, for a variety of reasons.Bearing in psyche the preceding health warnings, and the concernsexpressed about the concept of unitary cultures, managers need to havea set of sophisticated techniques to identify and manage their organizationalcultures. For example, in the ATT case, Jerre Stead and his colleaguesmight have benefited from constructing alternative scenarios ofwhat the organization might have looked like. More importantly, theywould clearly have benefited from an understanding of the nature of thedifferent subcultures in the various subsidiaries of ATT (GIS).The People ProblemThe real change comes from the people. Individuals are those who create, implement and support change processes. Unless people are involved, committed and prepared to adapt and learn, objectives, plans and future desired states will be likely to founder on the rocks of resistance (Rosenfeld Wilson, 1999).every transformation of significance will create people issues. And the more significant the transformation and the impact on the people, the greater is the need for full involvement (Burnes, 2009). A successful implementation of turn-around organisational transformation requires not only good planning, but also understanding of the human part. Discipline is a key factor for success however, it demands strict data collection and analysis, planning, and implementation discipline as a redesign of strategy, systems, or processes.The main goal of this work is concerned with the role people play in managing strategic change how they do it.Role of the managementTypically, the people at the top of any organisation are seen by others employess, stakeholders and outside observers as intimately associated with strategic change, whenever such occurs. Therefore, the overall role of management in the process of change is highly significant (Johnson, Scholes Whittington, 2008).1.1. Change Management at the sneakAccording to Mullins (2008), the successful management o f change is a key factor of organisational performance and effectiveness and should emanate from the top of the organisation. The people at the top of the company are responsible for the strategy and philosophy, the culture, for creating and sustaining a healthy climate and establishing and directing appropriate organisational processes. The successful implementation of change demands positive action from top management and a style of transformational leadership in order to gain a commitment to change (Mullins, 2008).Extremely important management features and capabilities are effective communication skills, ability for recognizing and releasing the potential of everyone involved with the change, setting a good personal example, self-pacing to avoid unnecessary stress.1.2. Managers and leadersHowever, top managers may be the initiators but are not always the real leaders of the change process. Luecke (2003) argues that leaders create an appealing vision of the future and then develo p a formal strategy for making it a reality. They also motivate people to pursue the vision, even in the face of obstacles. Managers, on the other hand, have the job of making complex tasks run smoothly. Managers are those who elaborate and implement process details, assure resources and direct the process.John Kotter has described the relationship of leadership andmanagement in a unbiased two-by-two matrix, shown below (Luecke, 2003)The main idea of the matrix is that long-term transformation process requires involvement both from leaders and managers and that transformation goes nowhere when both leadership and management are found wanting (Luecke, 2003).1.3. Middle managersMiddle managers are the implementers of strategy. Their role is to put into realization the direction established by top management by making sure that resources are allocated and controlled appropriately, monitoring performance and behaviour of staff and, where necessary, explaining the strategy to those rep orting to them (Johnson, Scholes Whittington, 2008)Role of EmployeesAccording to Brill and Worth (1997), in order to make the change effort work, we must learn how to capitalize on positive human qualities, such as trust, idealism, and dedication, and mitigate the impact of those other indwelling human traits (suspicion, stubbornness, anxiety) that often undermine the change process.The role of employees is most obvious in cases where the chosen approach to change is bottom-up, not top-down. Strictly speaking, bottom-up change can not only be implemented from the lower levels of the hierarchy, but also initiated from the employees. However, Burnes (2009) argues that there is little point in encouraging staff to identify change opportunities unless they are also encouraged to implement them. The need for using the bottom-up approach is evident when taking the emergent approach to change. Having in mind the rapid pace of environmental changes, they need to be dealt with speedily and be treated locally, in order to achieve optimal and timely success.Role of StakeholdersIn the process of change stakeholders are not actively participating, however, gaining their support is extremely important. In a turnaround situation it is crucial that key stakeholders, like the major financing bank, trade unions and some key clients are kept clearly informed of the situation and the following improvements as they are being made. Moreover, a clear assessment of the power of different stakeholder groups may become vitally important, especially when implementing major transformations (Johnson, Scholes Whittington, 2008). The support of powerful stakeholder groups can help to build a strong fundament, especially in cases where the change agent does not have a strong personal power base from which to work.Dealing with Difficult People correspondence the roles of the participants in the process and showing them the right direction to the desired change is the a major part of the tr ansformation. However, as already outlined in the previous part of this work, change imposed by others feels threatening rather than exciting and the lack of choice makes people feel powerless and leads to stress and defensive behaviour (Mabey Salamen, 1995). That is why, the earlier in the process the resistance agents are found, the better the whole process can be managed. French et al (2008) have outlined the following general approaches for dealing with difficult peopleEducation and communication discussions, presentations, demonstrationsParticipation and involvement allow others to help design and implement changes, contribute ideasFacilitation and support providing mad support, actively listening to problems, trainingNegotiation and agreement offering incentives, working out trade-offs, special benefitsManipulation and cooptation influence others, selective information, buying off leadersExplicit or implicit coercion using force, threatening (French et al, 2008).Resist ance to change as resource of new ideasResisters to change are problematic and typically, when something goes wrong, they are the first that are blamed for the disaster. However, this is not only pointless, but leads also to destructive management behaviours mangers may become defensive, uncommunicative, competitive (Ford Ford, 2009). Strong leaders can hear and learn from their critics and understand that even difficult people can provide valuable input when treated with respect and let to communicate their point of view. An example of such situation is presented in Appendix IV a brief case study about Alison, IT executive, aiming to implement a major change in the computer system of the hospital she was employed with.CASE STUDY Alison, Appendix IVLinking strategic and Operational ChangeIn the previous chapters of this work, I have examined the theoretical grounds, the major approaches to change, the roles of the different participants in the change process. However, no matter h ow good the plan for change may be, the most critical part, i.e. the chokepoint remains the implementation of the transformation. According to Luecke (2003), 70 percent of change initiatives fail to meet their objectives. Kotter has also written that If you were to grade them using the old fashioned A,B,C,D, and F, Id be surprised if an impartial jury would give 10% of these efforts an A. But Im not saying that 90% deserve a D either.What is tragic is that there are so many C-pluses. Its one thing to get a C-plus on a paper its another when millions of dollars or thousands of jobs are at stake (Luecke, 2003).Implementing Strategic changeBurnes (2009) argues that the implementation of change is a two-way process of ensuring that strategic decisions lead to operational changes and on the other hand, operational changes influence strategic decisions. The process of implementation may follow the models either of Planned or Emergent approaches. Although that by many, including Burnes (2 009), there are no universal rules for leading change, supporters of panned and emergent approach propose sequence of actions to be adopted, which could facilitate and give a structure to the implementation of the strategic changes.Pettigrew Whipp (Burnes, 2009) propose a simplified model of actions to be taken in order to structure the change processKanter and Kotter (Burnes, 2009) also propose some ideas for implementation of change.However, I consider that Luecke has given the most practical recipe for action. His model consists of seven stepsStep 1. Mobilize Energy and Commitment through Joint Identification of Business Problems and Their SolutionsStep 2. Develop a shared out Vision of How to Organize and Manage for CompetitivenessStep 3. Identify the LeadershipStep 4. Focus on Results, Not on ActivitiesStep 5. Start Change at the Periphery, Then Let It Spread to Other Units without Pushing It from the TopStep 6. Institutionalize Success through Formal Policies, Systems, and S tructuresStep 7. Monitor and decline Strategies in Response to Problems in the Change Process (Luecke, 2003).For me, this approach is very close to the practice, as it is very much result-oriented and in reality results are the real measures of success, not plans and theories. In order to illustrate this consideration, please refer to Appendix V, a case study about Xerox.CASE STUDY XEROX, APPENDIX VThe role of the Change agentIn the process of change there are always factors limiting the implementation of the changes in the operational level. According to Mabey and Salaman, (1995) an important factor for successful implementation of strategy into operational level is the formal and informal presence of a change agent. According to Rosenfeld and Wilson (1999), change agents are the individuals or groups of individuals whose task is to effect the desired change. They can be both internal and external to the organisation. The agent acts as intermediary and his responsibilities may ran ge from complete quislingism with staff to acting as absolute authority and expert. Internal change agents are mostly experts in the field, to who people trust. External agents may have political credibility and support, however, often lack the detailed acquaintance of the company (Rosenfeld Wilson, 1999).Considering the complexities involved with change, the range of abilities and expertise of the change agent could be significant. Vital to the success of the change agent is also the support from the senior management of the company.Change agents see the need for change and articulate it effectively to others. They are critical catalysts for a change initiative and should be placed in key positions (Luecke, 2003). Here are some of the most important implications of change agentsarticulate the need for changeare accepted by others as trustworthy and competentsee and diagnose problems from the perspective of their audiencemotivate people to changework through others in translating intent into actionstabilize the adoption of innovation andfoster self-renewing behavior in others so that they can go out of business as change agents (Luecke, 2003).People suitable for this job can be professional change agents like those working in the HR consultancy companies, or people from the business. They can also be produced like GM did in the past. Luecke (2003) describes the case General Motors attempted something very similar in its joint venture with Toyota the NUMMI small car host plant in California. That plant was run according to Toyotas world-beating production methods, and GM rotated manufacturing managers through the plant to learn Toyotas methods and, hopefully, bring a working knowledge of those methods back to Detroit.Reflecting on Change in Different Contexts