The Behavior Modification Model (3) looks at penalizing continued use of old non-behaviors and reinforcement of desired new behaviors. If the addition is positive it is met with positive reinforcement, but if viewed as negative it will result in punishment. If the change is taken away the positive result is elimination and the negative result would be negative reinforcement, probably in the form of punishment. The coercive power stands tall for making these changes. While the other power bases could be supportive they will not dominate in any way because this behavior modification is destined to create the change regardless of whether the follower’s want it or not. Resistance will be punished.
Conditions for Change Model (3) happens successfully when a set of conditions are present. Triggering events, precipitating conditions, internal permitting conditions, and external enabling conditions. Too many variables seem to have to fall in place to achieve success with the use of this model. All of the leadership power bases are important for this implementation. When the triggering events occur, the leader must have legitimate power to react effectively, and connection and referent powers to get the quick assistance diplomatically. Triggering events could be situations such as economic recessions, new challenging innovations by a competitor, discovering a new market niche, or a technological breakthrough. Information power and expert power are necessary for dealing with the internal permitting and external enabling conditions. Examples of the internal permitting conditions are gathering resources for management of the change or transformation leadership capable of providing new visions. Competitor’s threats, economic sanctions, and sudden loss of consumers are the external enabling condition examples. The greater the knowledge base of dealing with internal and external influences, the more effective the leader can be to additional precipitating conditions. The leader using coercive and reward power bases can battle external enablers attack on the system. One example is when economic sanctions result in loss of bonuses unless the follower’s over-perform. The condition for change model just seems to be able to utilize each of the power bases depending on the occurrence subjected at the time.
Second Order Planned Change Model (3) assumes that an organization can be categorized into first-order change and second-order change. Examples of the two orders are in the table below:
First order consists of minor improvements and adjustments that do not change the system’s core, and that occur as the system naturally grows and develops. The second order is more drastic and irreversible somewhat like shifting from one paradigm into a new one. This is somewhat like crossing into a third dimension. Understanding of the second-order change can be accomplished by answering three questions: 1) why do organizations transform, or what are the driving forces for this transformation?; 2) how do organizations transform?; and what is changed in the second-order change?
When the existence in the organization becomes blasé, external and internal needs may fail to be met. Alerts signal a need to induce radical changes but they are usually avoided. First order efforts in dealing with the problem result in crisis, chaos, resistance to change, and/or procrastination. Non-action or wrong action usually results in the demise of the organization or a need to revitalize. The decline/crisis stage signals these occurrences. The organization must begin a transformation or become one of the extinct. When the transformation begins, the organization needs to accept the need for a change and commit to making the change. The declining organization must be turned away from the discontinuity of the past and face the birth of a new direction different from the old one. Old beliefs and habits are let go.
The transformation will direct the organization into the transition phase. At this point, the planning and managing result in taking of ideas and visions and making them actions, programs, structures, and procedures. Solutions and stability become the primary focus. The stability must grow to affect the entire organization. As it does, it enters the development phase. Fine tuning and maintaining during this phase result in the return to the first-order changes.
The decline/crisis phase of the second order planned change model needs to have a leader with legitimate and information power. He/she must be understood to be the leader and have information that will be desired by others as the decline shifts to the transformation stage. That stage needs a leader with coercive, connection, and referent powers bases. This leader is facing a most difficult time since the organization could be approaching extinction. The leader must display the charismatic side so that the followers receive glimmers of hope and do not give up. The connections to influence together with coercive power will allow credibility to rise but ensures followers that this leader will punish or withhold rewards for those that chose to continue in the non-compliant path.
The Bifurcation Change Model (3) looks at change as something that is basically not known before it happens. An organization slowly declines to a point of instability where demise seems to be the only future. Radical change needs to occur or the entity will cease to exist. If the organization survives, it is because the drive to get back to stability was overwhelming and resulted in a higher performance system. This one is easily noted as a system that continues down the same path daily, weekly, monthly, and annually. No changes are made and definitely none are pushed forth. A slow decay of the system is occurring and unless an upper manager wakes up, its demise is inevitable. As the crisis grows, the road eventually approaches the crossroads where the decision to awaken or die is made. One path is the one with over-exuberance to correct the problem and beyond. The second is death.
Expert power, information power, connection power, and coercive power will be needed by the legitimate power leader to ensure a turn-around. The leader will need to be recognized as such but he/she must also have great knowledge of the system and vital information that all followers would want to have. The leader’s ability to appear as a supreme guidance can pull this organization from the grips of doom. Connections with the powers above will be needed to guide the others so that they turn this company around and head the other direction as quickly as possible. The drastic nature of what is required to turn it around also places the need for coercive power so that the non-compliant are punished.
The Plan/Do/Study/Act change model (3) details what it is intending to do in its title. A need arises for a change and a plan is formulated with predicted outcomes. Once the plan is set, a small-scale effort is tested to ensure that it can be done. The small-scale results are studied to see if they matched the predictions. If they do then it is promoted to full scale operations. The change can be adapted or rejected if it does not meet with full approval. This approach appears to be better organized and does appear to be able to handle crises readily when compared to other models.
Since the changes with the plan/do/study/act change model seem to occur at a more orderly fashion, the coercive power would not be of benefit. A reward power, referent power, and information power based leader would fit more appropriately. The planning and experimenting (doing) stages could need motivators such as rewards to enlighten the followers. Positive reinforcements would be beneficial if results are as predicted. A charismatic individual could meander around all work groups and promote positive attitudes.
Strong and weak cultures would result in differences when placed within the different change models.
The many change models as associated with the power bases can attain a multitude of outcomes. Not all power bases fit each change model so the circumstances need to be understood by the leader(s) so that the appropriate approaches are utilized. The selected change model will have to be reflective of a particular type of need that is to be coupled with specific power based leaders. The right combination can pull some of the organizations out of the downward spirals they have entered while bad selections can doom the organization forever.
1. referenced from slide presentation on power bases
2.
3. By: Levy, Amir., Organizational Dynamics, Summer86, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p5, 18p, 4 charts, 3 diagrams, 1bw
4. Writing the left out of Management Theory: The Historiography of the Management of Change, By: Cooke, Bill, Sage, 1999, Vol 6(1), 81-105, 25p
