Role human resource manager plays in change management

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

With the increase in competition, locally or globally, organizations must become more adaptable, resilient, agile, and customer-focused to succeed. And within this change in environment, the change in an organizational professional has to evolve to become a strategic partner, an employee sponsor or advocate, and a change mentor within the organization. In order to succeed, management must be a business driven function with a thorough understanding of the organization's big picture and be able to influence key decisions and policies. In general, the focus of today's HR Manager is on strategic personnel retention and talents development. Managers will be coaches, counselors, mentors, and succession planners to help motivate organization's members and their loyalty. The manager will also promote and fight for values, ethics, beliefs, and spirituality within their organizations, especially in the management of workplace diversity.

This paper will highlight on how organization should be manage and implementation changes within the organization internal and external. As well as what type of changes could be fruitful for drive a organization for getting good position in the market. Good and in time organizational changes can meet the challenges of workplace diversity, how to motivate employees through gain-sharing and executive information system through proper planning, organizing, leading and controlling their human resources.


In recent years there has been growing interest in the organization change .whether or not organization are facing greater pressure to change today than in earlier times is debatable. It is certain, however, that today's organization face quite specific challenges. These include increasing internationalization, rapid advances in technology, uncertain political environments, faster product life-cycles, all supposedly achievable by organization employing fewer people. A central topic of change for many organizations has been downsizing and delay ring to try and achieve such efficiencies.

Socio-economic changes especially in the role of the state have also had a great impact on all organization in the private, public and voluntary sectors. Across Europe there has been a substantial erosion of state support for each of the economic sector in favor of a more individualistic or market oriented approach.

RBN enterprises are newly introduced company in the market. The purpose of this company getting customers around the world. Within few years company repute in the market is very good and got his position in well known companies. Basically company relay on strong and fruitful organization management rules. But still it needs some developing strategy for change and how they plan to implement their plans for getting higher position in this fast growing market.

The role of the organizational change must parallel the needs of the changing organization. Successful organizations are becoming more adaptable, resilient, quick to change directions, and customer-centered. Within this environment, the professional must learn how to manage effectively through planning, organizing, leading and controlling the human resource and be knowledgeable of emerging trends in training and employee development.

For that purpose they have to plan their strategies this way:

Level of organizational change:

Usually change is too broad a topic to analyses without breaking it down into more manageable pieces. They may require a total re-thinking in the products and services provided, or such changes may be essentially more of the same. As describe like,

No change in current practice.

Change involves producing more of the same (good and services)

Change occurs within existing parameters of the organization(e.g. change, but retain existing structure, technology ,etc.)

Change involves shifting or redefining existing parameters. Organizational structure and technology are likely to change, for example.

Leading change:

Despite the many heroic stories of leaders who have achieved substantial success in changing their organization from 'no-hoper' to 'world class'. It is somewhat frustrating to learn that there is no evidence of set of universal rules for success (pettigrrew and whipp, 1991). In a study of competitive change in a number of UK industries, they reported a number of similarities with regards to the process of leading major change initiatives. These are:


Building a receptive features context for change, legitimization.

Creating a capability for change

Constructing the content and direction of change.

Secondary mechanisms:

Operationalizing the change agenda

Creating the critical mass for change within senior management.

Communicating need for change and detailed requirements

Achieving and reinforcing success

Balance continuity and change

Sustaining coherence(Pettigrew and whipp, 1991:106

Implementing organizational change:

RBN enterprises no doubt one of well upcoming company but it has to keep eyes on organizational change and implement in right direction. It has to putting change it in to place to involve attention to most (if not all)levels of analysis. There will be issues to address at the individual, the group, the organizational and the societal levels.

Change and the individual:

Individuals create, maintain and allow change to happen. Organizations ate incapables of initiating change although their features such as design and climate can sometime block it. Resistance to change from an individual's perspective.

According to kotter, Schlesinger and sathe (1986), ther are four common reasons for resistance to change from individuals. These are:


A lack of trust coupled with misunderstanding.

Different viewpoints or assessments of the benefits of change.

A low tolerance for change

A lack of trust can quit easily arise when the intention of the proposed change are wrongly interpreted by one or more individual. Some to their current position, members of the organization will undoubtedly see the proposals as detrimental to their current position, others will be neutrally disposed and some will be support them. Which group is 'correct' in their assessment is vital knowledge. it may be that the manager proposing the change is correct in their prediction of the likely benefits of the change allow tolerance for change means that some individuals who are less able than others to adapt to change and to new circumstances are likely to resist proposals for future change irrespective of whether the change is likely to benefit them or not. (Ducker 1981).

Groups and implementing change:

Every well known industries continuously changes in their individual and groups. So RBN enterprises have to do that for achievement of their goals. Groups too can become formidable obstacles to achieving change. They can also be powerful promoters and supporters of the change process if they lend their weight to its promotion. Pettigrew(1985) showed this in his study of corporate change in ICI. Patterns of institutionalized behavior in groups such as conformity to group pressure, 'groupthink' and obedience to authority figures in the group (jains, 1972; milgram,1974) can also be powerful barriers to achieving change. Group can develop extremely rigid patterns of behaviors which are not only difficult to change themselves, but which are also considered 'correct' by group members. This how RBN enterprises can make group change powerful for the benefit for the company.

Organization and implementing change:

In order to promote the right condition for change there has to be an unfreezing of this situation. An imbalance must be created between the driving and restraining forces. This means removing restraint or fuelling driving forces. Lewin argued that there was an optimal way of configuring this process. First, the restraining forces should be attended to, and selectively removed. The driving forces will automatically push change

Driving forces(forces for change)

. Changing markets

. shorter product life-cycles

. changing values toward work

. Internationalization

. Global markets

. Social transformation

.increased competition

. New technology

Restraining forces(forces against change):

(From individuals)

Fear of failure

Loss of status

Fear of the unknown

Loss of friends

(From organization)

Strength of culture

Rigidity of structure

Sunk costs

Lack of resources

Contractual agreements

Strongly held beliefs and recipes for evaluating corporate actives

Refreezing the new situation is the final stage. This sequences is essential according to lewin. If attention is first given to driving forces, then the result will be a commensurate increase in the number or the potency of restraining forces, and the status quo will remain . no change will bw occur.

Organization and culture change:

The prevailing culture of any organization can present a formidable challenge to those attempting to implement change. The sunk costs of individuals and groups in creating and maintaining the present culture ar considerable. In order to achieve a significant shift in organizational culture most of the following key aspects of organization will have to be subject to change:

Changing the culture : key aspects of the organization

Balance of power includes political imbalance between individuals, groups and the organizational level.

Organizational structure this will undoubtedly be designed around sustaining the present culture and not to accommodate new scenarios.

Management and leadership style these too will be a product of the culture which will have supported certain styles and screened out others.

Organizational history antecedents of practice. If worked in he past there is little reason to change it. Those who suggest change are considered to be abandoning tradition, flying in the face of history, or just plain heretical.

Changing organizational culture means achieving a significant and lasting change in the philosophy of management and the consolidate and support the change. As Wilson (1992) and miller and Frieson(1984) note, organizations can very easily become prisoners of their own culture. Where rewards are not based on trying out new ideas, or even developing them, but are solely focused on success, them the 3M approach will founder .

Contingency models of change:

The work of chandler (1962) has become a standard in establishing the co-variance of strategy and structure. In this work, structure always follows strategy .The contingent relationships between strategy and structure have been assessed by many authors. They concluded that :

Strategy and structure are reciprocally interrelated over time but strategy is a more important determinant of structure than structure is of strategy. (Amburgey and dacin, 1994)

At the social levels of analysis, changes national processes will be influenced to some extent by both national cultural environment and the extent of international collaboration and trading between firms and countries.

Planned and unplanned change process:

It is possible to distinguish between change which are planned to try and achieve some specified future scenario( a vision or goal)and those which are unplanned processes (which can be reaction to changes in the organization's operating environment , or are changes which just seem to emerge). Both planned and unplanned changes process can range from simple increments to radical and perhaps revolutionary changes. The proliferation of planned change programmers has been so great. (Wilson, 1992)

Many planned change programmers derives their essence from the control of manufacturing processes in order to reduce defects or sub-standard products. In manufacturing, the application of statistical process control meant that manufacturing process could be broken down in to their component parts and a mathematical formula produced for the most efficient production runs and machine tolerances. A further variant on planned change can be found in Scott-Morgan (1994). This is a programmer for assessing failed change processes. The idea is that organizations can be viewed as a collection of written and unwritten rules. Once managers are aware of these rules, they can formalize their approach to change. Scott-Morgan describe this as a series of questions managers should ask themselves to achieve successful change:

What motivates you?

Who is important to you to achieve your ambition?

How do you impress your important contacts?

How do you reach or contact those who can enable the change to occur?

Problems in planned approaches to change:

The momentum which has built up around planned or programmed approaches to change is large.TQM, BPR and patterning processes are a way of life for many organizations. Their attraction is obvious. They present ways of formalizing and codifying what are extremely messy and complex processes. They also appear more 'scientific' and 'rational' ways of dealing with fuzzy problems. Evidence of their efficacy, however, is mixed. Wilson (1992) and Egan (1996) detail many of the problems with these approaches. The main issues are:

Needs a relatively healthy organization to start with. Failing firms rarely have the resources or the capacity to implement large programmers.

Can become an end in itself, rather than a means to an end -many programmers rely on the completion of steps in a linear schedule of activities. The completion of the steps can be taken to mean that the organization has achieved the change and become a 'quality' organization, for example. Customers may think differently.

Can become a programmer into which virtually everything in the organization is put, 'it is not our functional problem, it's quality problem' is an often heard phrase.

Planned change also involves the transference of knowledge or expertise from one source or another to the more general management of the organization. It is surprising therefore that, therefore, that consultants and management 'gurus' have achieved prominence as change agent.

Change agents:

Change agents are the individuals or groups of individuals whose task is to effect the desired change. They can be internal or external to the organization. Internal change agents are usually employees of the organization, while external change agents are usually advisers or consultants. On any change programmer, internal and external change agents can work together. The role of the change agents is to act as intermediary and as spur to effecting change. This can range from complete collaboration with internal staff to adopting a role of absolute authority as the expert. Hesitation on the part of the external change agent over which route to taking the change efforts can also lead to an undermining of expertise. Science the problem is extremely common where external change agents are involved.

Difficulties in the role of external change agents:

External change agents are rarely presented with a well specified problem to solve. The initial 'problem' itself can be spurious and misleading or, at best, only partially true. This could arouse accusations toward the individual acting beyond their legitimate authority, being high-handed, or just plan incompetent. It could also raise suspicion by others in the organization as to the motives of calling in change agent to a dysfunctional level.

Therefore, the problem facing the external change agent is really:

Ambiguous and ill-defined

The outcome of a process of group negotiation or consensus from within the organization

The final step in this collaborative process between internal and external change agents is to cement the change, or to 'refreezing' it in Lewin's terminology. There are a number of ways of achieving this. The creation of a new set of terminology, or working vocabulary, can be very effective since it distinguishes a clear break from the old and the new .


Based on whatever level work you are doing, the opportunities that are found need to be evaluated to determine which of them best suit the existing and future capabilities of the organization and provide the most "bang for the buck" in terms of improvement in your measures of success. In addition, goals need to have the resources and management determination to see to their success.

Goals also need to be SMART, that is:

Specific - concrete action, step-by-step actions needed to make the goal succeed

Measurable - observable results from the goal's accomplishment

Attainable - The goal is both possible and is done at the right time with sufficient attention and resources

Realistic- The probability of success is good, given the resources and attention given it.

Time-bound- The goal is achieved within a specified period of time in a way that takes advantage of the opportunity before it passes you by.

The organizational change is central to all kinds of organizations. It is the way in which organizations thrive, grow and stabilize rather than wither and decline. Yet achieving change present one of the most intransigent problems for both organizations and individuals.

Resistance to change seems endemic to both organizations and individuals. At the level of organization, resistance is likely to come from accepted ways of doing things, the powerful hand of history and sunk costs invested in strategic recipes toward their own sector of operations and toward other organizations. Individuals resist change for reasons of apprehension, possible loss of influence, a predisposition to stability and sheer conservatism. This is only the best way through which RBN enterprises can get higher position in the market.