The Process Of Change Within Organizations Management Essay

This chapter will provide a detailed literature review. The literature review helped frame the initial focus of this study, as well as focus the data analysis (Swanson & Holton1997). Literature reviews help researchers limit the scope of their inquiry as well as act as a benchmark for comparison purposes. According to Creswell (2003) literature reviews provide a framework for establishing the importance of the study.

According to Swanson and Holton (1997) Research is a process of a specific type of outcome. Outcomes of research are new knowledge, obtained through an orderly, investigative process. Typically the research process begins with attempting to solve a problem, which is done by asking a question and identifying a solution or, in essence, drawing a conclusion.

2.1 An overview of change

The focus of the research is to reveal the elements of resistance in the current change management system both in practice and theory. This chapter is organized according to the various components of resistance to change and reducing resistance with the help of human resource strategies of the organization.

2.2. Defining change

Change is the metaphysics of our age. Organizational theorists like Drucker (1995) stated change is a constant in all contexts. Change can be defined from an organizational development perspective.

Pendlebury, J. et al (1998) demonstrate change as troublesome to organizations, and it is quite disruptive to the individual. The effect of change on individuals is significant. In many respects, it is the emotional dimension of resistance that must be managed throughout the life of the change event. Vigorous emotions can be removed through the process of change within organizations. In fact, scholars argue that every act or event of change will draw some type of resistance — resistance that will clear itself in emotions such as fear and anger, denial, avoidance, and resistance. Change can be so disturbing that even individuals directly unaffected by a change initiative can be affected through survivor guilt. According to Noer (1997) survivor guilt or sickness may be experienced by individuals indirectly affected by change and may serve as a significant source of resistance for individuals.

2.2.1. Forces of change

Change depends on two forces, which could be external and internal forces. If managers, employees or we can say organisations think about these forces, than they can implement on change successfully. The forces for change are:

External Forces

Technological change (Manufacturing Automation, Office Automation).

Demographic change (Immigration, Age, Education, Gender, Skills) Organisations need to manage the diversity effectively if they are to receive maximum contribution and commitment from employees.

Social and political pressure (War, Values, Leadership).

Internal Forces

Human resource prospects (Unmet needs, Job dissatisfaction, Absenteeism and staff turnover Productivity Participation) Managerial decisions.

Human resource prospects (Unmet needs, Job dissatisfaction, Absenteeism and staff turnover Productivity Participation

Managerial decisions

(Conflict, Leadership, Reward system, Structural reorganisation) the needs for the change.

(Bullens, et al 2006).

The Wider Environment

Social Values

Demographics

Task Environment Customers and markets

Economy

Technology

Suppliers of Inputs

Competitors

For markets

For resources

Regulatory groups

The Firm

Process Factor

What is done (task)

How things are done (technology)

People factors

Workforce diversity

Workforce

Behaviour

Figure 2.1: Triggers to change

Source: Corlett,Forster, (2004), Analysing Self and Organisation Part 2: Analysing Organisation, p-654, Pearson Education Limited.

Technological Change

Technological change in the organisation is critical, for three primary reasons.

1- Competitors use technology as part of major success strategies.

2- Technology driven is everywhere and always present.

3- Value capture from new technology is challenging and never guaranteed.

Source: Ettlie,J (2000)

Most of the time, we hold technology as a constant, because it’s convenient. The more change in technology of products, services, and operations, the more change in administrative procedures, new strategies, new organisational structures, and new operating procedures will be required to successfully capture the potential benefits of the venture. The failure of technological change typically occurs when either too much technology is adopted too quickly or not enough technology is adopted to stay ahead of competitors.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Cultural Change

Culture examines society’s values, norms, believes, symbols. Organisational culture, is the concept to analyse that the organisation can be very useful for focusing on the more behavioural and attitudinal aspects of the organisational life. Organisational culture is the social aspects of our employing organisations. Schein’s (1985) developed the following typology for cultural analysis

The organisation’s relationship to its environment (belief that relate to the broader environment)

The nature of the human activity (beliefs about what the core activity of the business should be)

The nature of the reality and truth

The nature of human nature (beliefs about what people are like)

The nature of human relationships (beliefs are about how people should relate to one another both hierarchically and horizontally)

Homogeneity versus diversity (beliefs about similar or diverse the workforce should be) (Ellis & Dick 2003).

2.3. Theories of change management

There are many change models that are used to aid experts in implementing change. These models can be broken down into two types of change theories that organizations can use: radical and incremental. Within each of these approaches there are various models and processes.

Radical change approaches include, but are not limited to, six sigma, quality function deployment, and re-engineering. Radical change models are used to jump-start an organization and are also used when a culture change is required. In 1994, Dyer explain radical change , In a conventionally Midwestern family business atmosphere, change is likely to be more heavily resisted than in other organizations because the feelings adjacent to the change tend to be deeper and more intense, and previous research shows that family values, goals, and relations deeply influence strategic change in family-oriented firms . Incremental change approaches include, but are not limited to, Kurt Lewin’s model, Beckhard’s change model, Kotter’s transformation model, and the Bridges transition model.

Incremental change models are related with improving the existing system and operate within the current business model. All these models have a stage of unfreezing of the current behavior, a change being introduced, and a stage of refreezing the new behavior, or else they begin with the identification of the current state, the desired state, and the blocks and barriers that exist between the two.

According to Kotter (1996) certain conditions need to be met in order to bring about effective change. These conditions on what is known to contribute to the failure of change efforts. Kotter also states that producing change is about 80% leadership (establishing direction, aligning, and motivating and inspiring people) and about 20% management (planning, budgeting, organizing, and problem-solving). In most change efforts he has studied, the percentages have been reversed. While there are some examples of successful change efforts, so leadership or management works as a change agent within the organization.

According to Vago (1999) in a planned change effort, change agents are professionals who influence and implement the change; they are critical to the success of a change effort.

Recent studies indicate that static change models are being replaced with dynamic change models that reflect the discontinuous nature of organizational change. In other words, change does not occur at a steady rate even though in the past organizational theory has written about steady or static models. A review of the literature Senge (1990) reflects the need for organizations to be able to continuously adjust as well as to allow for learning to take place. According to Schein (2004) culture change certainly involves unlearning as well as relearning and is therefore, by definition, transformative thus:

Schein (2004) also suggested learning leaders must be well connected to those parts of the organization that are themselves well connected to the environment-the sales organization, purchasing, marketing, public relations, legal, finance, and R&D .must be able to listen to disconfirming information coming from these sources and to assess the implications for the future of the organization.

Cummings and Worley, (2001) state that Kurt Lewin’s three-stage change model is the root of change management. Lewin’s change model consisting of the following steps: 1) unfreezing the old behaviour (or situation), 2) moving to a new level of behaviour, and 3) refreezing, the behaviour at the new level. Lewin viewed the change process as a fundamental alteration or change in the forces that kept a system in stasis .According to Lewin, an organization will go through the process of making preparations for change, developing the force for change, implementing change, and then will strive to re-establish stability or reach stasis. Recent theorists have considered change according to developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change (Anderson &Ackerman-Anderson, 2001).

Unfreeze

Change

Refreeze

Figure 2.2

Kurt Lewin’s three-stage change model of change.

According to Van de Ven and Poole (1995) Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of variations in shape, quality or state over time.

Kaestle (1990) states in A New Rationale for Organizational Structure, that there are fundamentally two drivers for organizational change: 1) a dynamic marketplace and, 2) information technology.

Nadler (1997) argue strongly for the case of new technologies and new markets. Jick (1995) identifies competition and the aspirations to gain and maintain competitive advantage a key Impetus for change. Change is initiated via external sources such as cultural and political factors. In short, additional external factors like globalizing markets, technology, politics, and communications are all sources of change (Nadler, 1997).

2.3.1. Force Field Theory

Force Field Theory is the pioneer theory of change management; the theory was developed by Kurt Lewin. Schein (2002) explain Kurt Lewin theory, how change is influenced by two opposing factors driving and restraining forces that work against each other to sustain a state of stability .At the same time as driving forces uphold change, restraining forces resist the driving forces and thus hold back change. When these forces are balanced, a state of quasi-stationary equilibrium is achieved (Figure 2.3).

Equilibrium

Driving forces

(

Restraining forces

Figure2.3: Lewin’s Force Field Theory

The term ‘quasi-stationary equilibrium’ was used to describe the stable routine of day-to-day activity, rather than just ‘equilibrium’ which implies a state of rest . According to Schein (2002) “Any living system is always in a state of some change (growth, metamorphosis, or decline), but all systems are homeostatic in that they always tend toward some kind of equilibrium” (p. 35). To explain the quasi-stationary state, Lewin used the analogy of a river flowing at the same velocity and direction over time. Although the river is not at rest, it flows consistently at the same rate and thus is stable. A shift in velocity or direction, however, would constitute a change.

To bring about change, either driving forces need to be added or restraining forces must be diminished. Adding more driving forces is likely to be paralleled by higher aggressiveness, higher emotionality, and lower constructiveness than if restraining forces were reduced; therefore, the latter is a more desirable course of action. In addition, adding driving forces is likely to result in new restraining forces as people try to maintain a state of quasi-stationary equilibrium. In this study, force field theory provided the theoretical framework for the variable of resistance to change in that it posited the tendency for groups to maintain a state of stability with restraining forces (i.e. resistance) resulting when driving forces that promote change are introduced.

2.3.2. The modern version of Lewin’s theory

Neito (2006) described the graceful of Lewin’s theory is the critical analysis if it is to be helpful to HR professionals. To start by means of, it is affective and how easy to get the agreement of employees regarding a change process. Even though if the change is important, but people will not accept the change easily, that’s way the first stage ‘Unfreezing’ takes more time rather than other stages. Next process is ‘Change’, this process will be by itself, but this process should be managed properly. If this process is managed properly there are incentives and benefits (easy wins) during the change process, end of the day this process will give the positive support.

Finally, the last stage is ‘Refreezing’ which should be critically evaluated in 21st century. Mid of the twentieth century WeberIan bureaucracies may have been ‘refreeze’ after change, the modern similarity force be more likely ‘slush’. Changes in employees, task, technology and structure the sociotechnical theory are more common, the concept of ‘refreezing’ may not be a suitable image for recent change succession.

Human resource strategies are influenced by external and internal factors. Change successful depends on the concern and growth on the employee relations and interpersonal relationships. Human resource professionals should consider the change processes are likely to meet resistance and that is more efficient to consult with staff and expand teamwork than to oblige changes. Present workers should therefore invest in special development to enhance their long term employability.(Neito,M 2006)

To understand the process and the nature of change in the organization, it is important to understand how organization works in the complex environment of external and internal forces.

According to Hayes. J (2007) Open structure theory predicts that changes to any one of the internal and external elements of an organisation’s will source changes to other fundamentals. Hayes. J (2007) adopts from Kotter (1980) the integrative model of organisational dynamics.

2.3.3 Kotter’s integrative model of organisational dynamics

The six main elements in Kotter’s model are:

External environment, based on the direct task related environment and the wider environment (which includes the political system, economical system etc).

Employees and other tangible assets, as well as building cash and all other stuff and inventories.

Formal organisational arrangements – which system is operating and job design

Social system, which is based on organisation’s culture and social structure.

Technology is the main product of the organisation.

Dominant coalition – Goals, strategies of those who control to make the plane.

According to Hayes.J (2007) adaptability is very important because it determines whether the organisation will be able or not to maintain the require degree of alignment over the long period. For the long period, the main purpose of change management needs to be ensuring, that the structural basics of the organisation are as adaptable.

Key organisational processes

Information gathering

Communication

Decision making

Matter energy transportation

Matter energy conversion

Formal organisational

Dominant coalition

External environment,

Technology, methods

Social system culture

Employees and tangibleaaaa assets

Source of potential behaviour and constraint

Impact on

Figure: 2.4

Source: Hayes,J.(2007) The theory and Practice of Change Management ,2nd ed, p-47, palgrave Macmillan.

2.3.4. A congruence model of organisations

A substitute open system model, planned by Nadler and Tushman (1982) point out the effect of the congruency of the elements of the organisation, and shows the effectiveness on the organisation. Additionally, it puts more pressure, on the role of strategy, because any organisation based on the strategy as well. Congruence model depends on the four classes of input:

Environment:

Environment as well as based on wider culture, within which the organisation operates, that’s the backbone of the organisation. Environment is a part of financial institutions, supplies, markets. Its overall the system of the organisation, which is based on the external and internal environment of the organisation. Environment provides the strength and opportunities that the organisation has to compete with.

Resources:

Resources like as raw material, liquid capital, labour, technologies.

History: History is very important for the organisation, because past strategic decisions and development of central part values and patterns of leadership can affect the present model of organisation.

Strategy:

This input gives the direction how the organisation’s resources can be used to be the advantage in relation to the opportunities, and demands of the environment. Successful organisations are those that are able to support themselves with the help of external environment and move themselves to take advantage of any environmental changes.

Nadler and Tushman (1982) argue that strategy defines the task of the organisation. Strategy is effective to the organisation’s behavioural system. They recommend that the goals of strategy measure the organisation’s performance.

Nadler and Tushman(1982) define the major components of the transformation process as:

a- Task, can be viewed in terms of obstacle, predictability, interdependence a skill demands.

b- Individuals, those are the members of the organisation and their reaction capabilities, intelligence, experience, training, skills, attitudes, expectations etc.

c- Formal organisational performance that include all the mechanisms used by the organisation to direct, control behaviour or formation.

d- Informal organisation, as well as informal group structures, the quality of inter-group relations, political processes, etc.

Transformation process

x

Informal organisation

Individual

Task

Formal organisation

Organisation

Group,

Individual

Environment

Resources,

History

Inputs

Outputs

Strategy

Feedback

Figure: 2.5

Source: Hayes,J.(2007) The theory and Practice of Change Management 2nd ed, p-52,palgrave Macmillan.

Like Kotter, Nadler and Tushman argue that any useful model of organisations must go beyond only providing a simple sketch of the tools of the organisation and consider the dynamic relationships that exist between the various tools. They define ‘congruence’ as the degree to those the needs, goals, objectives and structures of any one tool of the organisation are reliable with the needs. Their general theory is that, other things equal, the greater the total degree of congruence between the different tools the more efficient will be the organisation’s behaviour. Figure ?? summarises the congruence model and the bold double headed arrows specify the six ‘fits’ between the components of the transformation process (the internal organisation)

These are:

(a) Individual – Formal organisations for example to what extents are individual needs met by the formal organisational arrangements?

(b) Individual – Task for example, to what extent do individuals have the skills required to meet task demands and to what extent do the tasks satisfy individual needs?

(c) Individual – informal organisation for example, to what extent does the informal organisation satisfy the needs of individuals or make best use of their talents?

(d) Task – formal organisation for example, to what level are the formal organisational arrangements enough to meet the demands of the task?

(e) Task – informal organisation for example, to what point does the informal organisation make sure to task performance?

(f) Formal – informal organisation for example, to what level are the goals, rewards and structures of the informal organisation reliable with those of the formal organisation?

Mostly tools that Nadler and Tushman desire to focus on are different to those that figure in kotter’s model. All models are overview of the real world, and the usefulness of the particular model, in the context of the change management. Schneider state in the book of john hayes, Internal and external alignment promotes organisational effectiveness because the various elements of the system strengthen rather than upset each other, thereby minimising the loss of system energy and resources.

2.4. Defining resistance

Resistance to change is not rigorously related to organizations’ management and leadership. It is a problem embedded in the very nature of its organizational members. In any case, resistance to change is a significant factor that must be understood in the organizational context. Individuals can arrive at a psychological state where major change can no longer be absorbed. According to psychologists, change can trigger emotional experiences such as depression, mania, irritability, anger, disturbing or obsessive thoughts.

According to Conner (1998) the main sources of individual resistance to change are: lack of trust, commitment to the status quo, belief that the change is not feasible, economic threats, relative high costs, loss of status and power, and threats to values and ideals.

Tushman and O’Reilly (1997) state that despite the inevitability of change and its necessity for survival, it presents serious dilemmas to anyone serious about the notion of change. Change is disruptive to organizations .That is undeniable. Change is not helpful to an environment of stability; it precipitates more and more disruption wooing business leaders to a critical deadlock. One cannot have both stability and change; they are conflicting forces.

Pascal,R et el (1997), state, findings from surveys confirm that executives have begun to give renewal a high priority….however, most of their efforts to achieve it have met with frustration – partly because large organizations have such a remarkable capacity to resist change of all kinds.

2.4.1. Sources of resistance in the implementation stage

According to Klein and Sorra (1996) implementation of any change in the organization is the significant step between the decision to change and the regular use of it at the organization. In implementation stage more resistance groups can be found. The main resistance is with political and cultural locks to change. It consists of:

Implementation climate and relation between change values and organizational values, considering that a strong implementation climate when the values’ relation is negative will result in resistance and opposition to change and forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes ( Schalk et al., 1998).

Last but not least, a set of five sources of resistance with different characteristics are

According to Rumelt (1995)

leadership inaction, sometimes because leaders are afraid of uncertainty, sometimes for fear of changing the status quo ;embedded routines ;collective action problems, specially dealing with the difficulty to decide who is going to move first or how to deal with free-extruders ,ask of the necessary capabilities to implement change – capabilities gap and ,cynicism.

2.4.2. Sources of resistance in the formulation stage of change

To understand resistance in the process of change in any organization, we need to focuses on the very fast formulation stage of change.

It includes: inability of the company to look into the future with clarity. According to Morrison and Milliken (2000) organizational silence, which limits the information flow with individuals who do not express their thoughts, meaning that decisions are made without all the necessary information. Denial or refusal to accept any information that is not expected or desired ( Rumelt, 1995).

Low motivation for change, sources are:

Direct costs of change, is the cost of change that brings success to a product but at the same time brings losses to others, so it requires some sort of sacrifice. According to Rumelt (1995) the need for a change is compensated through the high rents obtained without change with another different factor, so that there is no real motivation for change.

According to Lorenzo (2000) past failures, leave a pessimistic image for future changes. Waddell and Sohal (1998) identified different interests among employees and management, or lack of motivation of employees who value change results less than managers value them).

2.5. Kotter and Schlesinger’s Choosing Strategies

“Choosing Strategies for Change” an article of Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979) explain causes for resistance to change. Organizations frequently experience employee’s resistance when change is introduced. A lot of time fear and an unwillingness to take risks delay potential development, progress and success. Kotter and Schlesinger suggested four reasons employee’s resist change: parochial self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, differing assessment and low tolerance for change. According to Bolognese (2002). close-minded self-interest describes employee’s that recognize personally loosing something of value .Lack of trust and misunderstanding are also causes of resistance to change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).

Most of time employee’s are unable to understand the plan and believe they are giving more and receiving less. Another cause of resistance to change differing assessment is. This happens when members evaluate the circumstances differently from leaders and then determine costs exceed the potential positive outcomes from the change. Kotter and Schlesing’s last suggestion for member resistance is low tolerance for change. Members are afraid of their inability to acquire different skills and behaviors needed in the new setting, and this creates resistance in performing.

2.5.1. Kotter and Schlesinger’s Overcoming Resistance

Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) branded the following six approaches which address how to handle resistant members:

(a) Education and communication (b) Participation and involvement

(c) Facilitation and support (d) negotiation and agreement

(e) Manipulation and co-optation and (f) explicit and implicit.

The first approach, education and communication, involves teaching members in advance of a potential change. It is the simplest way to overcoming resistance to change. Communicating a different perspective allows members to understand the need and reason for change (Bolognese, 2002). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) suggested when educating members use face-to-face discussions, group presentations and reports. Participation and involvement includes placing potential resistors in the implementation process.

About the leader in the organization Thalheimer (2005) suggested when resistance members become participants in the change, the leader should listen to the individuals involved in the change and apply their recommendations.

When managers realize that they lack knowledge in specific areas to plan and implement a change or committed members are needed, involving others is good judgment. However, involving members in every change effort or never allowing participant involvement is unrealistic. However, often, this procedure prevents any resistance.

Kotter & Schlesinger (1979) suggested another approach to overcoming resistance is facilitation and support. Leaders should provide support for members when needed. Supportive procedures include offering new skills training, providing time off following stressful periods, listening and offering emotional support.

Bolognese (2002) explain that when fear and anxiety is the root cause of resistance facilitation and support is very helpful. However, hard leaders often disregard this type of resistance. The facilitation and support approach is time consuming and requires to fiance training programs. This approach does not always prevent resistance.

Next, the process of negotiation and agreement involves providing incentives to current and perceived resistance members (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Negotiation is suitable when, with certainty, an individual will suffer loss due to the change (Bolognese, 2002).

Manipulation and co-optation are also strategies for overcoming resistance to change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). This procedure involves leaders privately attempting to influence members. Manipulation, in this sense usually suggests choosing selective information for a specific use, and intentionally planning events (Robbins, 2003). Co-optation is a form of strategy. Co-optation is not participation because the leaders do not want suggestions from members. Instead leaders seek endorsement from members. It normally involves appointing an individual to an important position in the planning or execution of the change.

Finally, explicit and implicit coercion deals with leaders intimidating resistant members. Often leaders must manage resistance coercion. Members are forced to comply with the change by direct and implied force, such as, losing a position, forfeiting a promotion or termination (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Similar to the manipulation approach, putting demands on members can become a dangerous process due to members developing resentment. However, when change is crucial and unpopular, coercion may be the only option available to leaders.

2.6. HR action to reduce resistance

Human resource management strategies can play an important part to reduce resistance among the management and employees. According to Schein (1999) the organizations who will be successful in the future will be the ones that continuously adapt to change. And human resource is the department that deal with it. Schein (1999) added that forces for change in the competitive environment are diverse and increasing. Managing change should be viewed as a continuous activity and not a series of events. Organizations should assume organizational change will and should be continuous within its environment.

According to the Harvard Business Review on Change (1998), despite the very best effort of senior executives, major change initiatives often fail. Those failures have common root: Executives and empl