- Behavior is a function of the existing surrounding environment
- Any analysis that takes place should start from the complete situation which then identifies the environment’s component parts.
- A person in a concrete situation can be represented mathematically.
According to Lewin (1963), the force field model is used widely for organizational development and human resource development purposes. By doing so, it can help identify the time when forces (driving and restraining) are not in balance thus opening an opportunity so that change can occur. This model is very useful in distinguishing what kind of forces are working in the organization. In other words, whether the factors in the organization driving forces for change or whether they are restraining forces that are going to work against the change. Impulsions including goals, needs, and ambitions are the driving forces that can drive an individual away from something or towards it. The restraining forces in contrast are different from the driving forces as they work in order to oppose the driving forces (Lewin, 1963).
The interaction of driving force and restraining force create a routine of activities occurring normally and regularly which is described by Lewin (1948) as ‘quasi – stationary processes.’ In daily routine activities and situations, the driving forces and the restraining forces equalize and balance out around a state of equilibrium for any activity. In order to achieve change, these two forces have to be altered to maintain equilibrium. For example, if the management wants to bring a change in the productivity that is increase it, forces that currently keeping the production at quasi – stationary levels would have to be changed. For this, two different alternative routes can be taken:
- Pay additional money for increased productivity. This refers to as strengthening the driving forces (Lewin, 1963).
- Simplify the processes of production. This refers to as restraining the driving forces (Lewin, 1963).
Although it seems that strengthening the driving forces is the most preferred route but the analysts show a concern that taking a strategy for the strengthening of forces can develop counter forces that include employees concerning about the new targets as a standard expectation and the related tiredness. On the other hand, working to reduce the restraining forces according to Lewin (1948) is not readily preferred although it can be a rewarding approach and can bring about change with the minimum of resistance from the employees. This includes investing in a machinery or training the employees to make the business process easier. In his book Lewin (1948) has identified two questions that the change maker or the analyst should ask when changes are made according to the force field model. These are:
- In the present situation, why does a process continue at its existing level.
- What settings or circumstances would help in changing this situation.
According to Lewin (1948) the word circumstances has a wide meaning covering social context as well as sub-groups and communication barriers between those groups. The position of the driving and restraining forces’ factors denotes structure of a group and the ecological setting (Lewin, 1963). Jointly and collectively, the ecological setting and the structure will determine the range of changes that can be controlled through the speed and interaction of the forces in the force field analysis of the organization.
[Source: Dickens & Watkins, 1999]
Action research model is another planned change approaches given by Kurt Lewin. This model view’s planned change as a cyclical process. Definition of action research:
“Action research takes its cues—its questions, puzzles, and problems—from the perceptions of practitioners within particular, local practice contexts. It builds descriptions and theories within the practice context itself, and tests them through intervention experiments— that is, through experiments that bear the double burden of testing hypotheses and effecting some (putatively) desirable change in the situation” (Dickens & Watkins, 1999) There are 8 main steps in the action research model are described below (Lewin, 1948):
Hart & Meg (1995) have said that in this step the management of the organization senses that there can be problems within the organization and tries to remove these problems with the help of organization development practitioners.
After the management has identified the problems, consultation takes place with the OD expert in order to remove the problems.
The management and the expert gather the data using according to Hart & Meg (1995) methods such as interviews, observations, and questionnaire and then analyze the organization’s performance.
The data gathered from the above mentioned methods is then forwarded to the clients or groups in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the problem (Hart & Meg, 1995).
The group discusses the feedback with the management and the consultants and suggests whether additional research in the area is needed or not. The group and the management then validate the research and identify the problem and in turn the management and consultant agree to jointly consider methods of problem-solving. According Burnes (2004) and Lewin (1963) the action undertaken by the management will depend on the organization’s cultural environment as well as technological environment and work problems that need to be resolved
In this stage, there is actual change of the organization’s state from one to another. This involves:
- Set up new methods and procedures.
- Structures and work designs are reorganized
- New behaviors are reinforced.
After the action has been taken, new data is gathered in order to determine the effects of the action. Based on the data and the feedback, the new environment according to Hart & Meg (1995) is again diagnosed and then new actions are taken. Therefore this is a cyclical process.
The Kurt Lewin’s action research model is linked to the T-groups. This is considered a vital innovation in the field of research methods and is used mostly in the industry and the education sectors (Hart & Meg, 1995). This model is based on experimentation through changing and simultaneously learning and analyzing the results all in the process of planning, action taking and data gathering in a cyclic manner (Lewin, 1948). The action research model places emphasis on the power relationship between the management (researcher) and the employees (researched). Through this model, Lewin has sought to involve the employees through their participation in the research in order to make them understand of their own actions and help them transform relationships within the organization.
Another planned change model is related to the group dynamics. Group dynamics’ main focus is in on group behavior rather than focusing change on individuals. This is based on the concept that individuals in the situations or fields are inter-reactive with one another. Many writers have contributed to this area of research model. In a certain way group behaviour emphasizes the informal pack animal statements of ‘following the herd’ or ‘like lemmings.’
After Allot, Lewin saw that for change to be successfully and effectively adopted, the group behavior must be addressed as a collective whole. In addition to this, the structure of the group and the setting of the group are the factors that will actually determine the possible ranges of change (Lewin, 1948). This type of setting and structure was referred to as the nut island effect by Levy which means that “a tight knit group, bonded by a common cause and shared values” (Levy, 2001) that were impervious to change and had isolate themselves into a hard-working yet autonomous group. According to Lewin’s quasi – stationary equilibrium, a change in the equilibrium of group balance was not allowed (Lewin, 1948).
- Planned Model by Lippit, Watson and Westley
[Source: Change Management: Organizational Development, nd]
The planned model has been designed by Lippit, Watsan and Westley in 1958 which was later modified by Kolb and Frohman in 1970 (Change Management: Organizational Developmental, nd). The working of this model is based on the principle that the information must be shared freely and openly between the organization and the organization’s change agent. The following are the stages of the planned model which although are sequential but the change agent (management) can change it according to their needs.
In this phase the organization and change agent collaboratively explore the need for a change. In addition to this, areas that require change are also explored.
A mutual agreement or contract takes place between the organization and the change agent (Burnes, 2004).
According to Burnes (2004) this stage involves the identification of specific improvement goals.
In this phase of planned model, the actual and potential reasons for change resistance are identified. In addition, planning is also undertaken for specific improvement goals (Burnes, 2004).
The implementation of the plans made during the planning stage takes place.
- Stabilization and Evaluation
Evaluation of the action is taken place in order to determine the success of the planned change. If there is need for further action in order to stabilize the situation, it is also done in this phase.
This is the final phase in the planned model where decision is made to either end the system or begin a new one
[Source: 12 Manage, 2007]
The McKinsey 7-S model is another approach to planned change. This method collectively analyzes how the company must operate (Rauscsh et al. 2001). The factors that make up the McKinsey model are:
This model places more emphasis on the shared value and is therefore placed in the middle as statements such as vision and mission are the beliefs of the organizations (Rauscsh et al. 2001).
According to Rauscsh et al. (2001). strategy is the plan that the organizations undertakes in reaction to the changes in the external surroundings.
It refers to the existing organization structure whether it is mechanistic, bureaucratic and so on.
The word systems represent the procedures and processes of the organization and the routines that describe how the work is to be done
According to Rauscsh et al. (2001). the culture of the organization as well as the styles of the management that are used within the organization come under the heading of style.
As the word speaks for itself, staff represents the employees of the organization and signifies what work they do within the organization
Skills are defined by Rauscsh et al. (2001). as the abilities and competencies of the organization as well as the employees.
According to Rauscsh et al. (2001).), the McKinsey 7-S model has its share of advantages and disadvantages. The four advantages that are usually associated with the use of this model in planned change is
-
The model helps to understand and diagnose the organization before any change (Rauscsh et al. 2001).
-
It works as a guide during the organization change (Rauscsh et al. 2001).
- As the model comprises of both rational factors and emotional factors, it is helpful in planned change
- As all the 7-S is interrelated, the management has to focus on all the areas in order to implement change successfully
The disadvantages associated with this model in implementing change is that if one part of model is changed, all the parts change as they are interrelated. In addition, the 7-S model ignores the differences. As a result many companies that have tried to use the McKinsey model as planned change have failed to do it successfully (Rauscsh et al. 2001).
- Integrative Planning Model by Bullock and Baten
[Source: Change Management: Organizational Development, nd]
The integrative planning model was developed by Bullock and Batten in 1985 as a modification to the Lewin’s Action Research as well as strengthening the Lewin’s Group Dynamics theory. This model describes the states of the organization as well as the change processes that are involved in the organization. The basis of the model’s design is on the fact that organizations occur in various states at a particular time. If planned changed is to take place, it can be done from one state to the other. This model seeks to combine the past planned change models and approaches as no consensus has yet been achieved regarding the appropriate model for organizational change and development. The four phases of the model are as follows:
The organization’s management decides whether there is a need to change and the members then initiate the change process. As a result search process begins in which resources for organizational development are sought and the experts are contracted that determine the time and cost of the change and resources.
As soon as the resources are available and the problem is identified the change process takes place after the diagnosis of the problem. Different goals are set to the change to take place.
The plan regarding the change is implemented and the organization’s transition begins from the current state to the desired state. These activities are regularly monitored and evaluated in order to determine the success of the planned change.
The management and the change agents try to make the changes as a regular part of the functions of the organization and to reinforce the new behaviors by giving incentives and rewards to the employees.
The advantage of using this model is that the management and the change agent can easily distinguish between phases of change required to affect the change that is taking place.
- Criticisms of planned models of change
According to Burnes (1996) the planned models of change have been criticized by the new writers. Some of the criticisms faced by the planned models are as follows:
- The planned models of the change are based upon the supposition or theory that organizations operate mostly in stable environments and therefore can move from the existing current stable state to the future desired state. The writers have criticized this assumption that today’s world are in a chaotic and turbulent state. Therefore the organizational change that is taking place is leaning towards continuous state and open-ended process in contrast to self-contained and discrete events (Burnes, 1996; Bamford & Forrester, 2003).
- The planned approaches to change focus on the small scale change and incremental change. This focus of the planned change according to Bamford & Forrester (2003) does not make it applicable to situations that require radical change as well as rapid transformational change.
- Another criticism of the planned change approaches reflects the scope of the change model. In this respect, the planned change model can apply to situations where directive approaches are required and thus restricts the scope for involvement (Bamford & Forrester, 2003).
- According to Burnes (1996), planned change models are criticized on the basis that they are able to reach a common solution depicting that all the members involved in the change process are willing to implement the change and thus ignores the conflicts and politics that arise in change implementation.
- Another criticism done by different writers is that the planned change models are seen to support top-down approach or management driven approach to change. By doing so, it ignores the circumstances and situations in which bottom-up approach might be needed (Bamford & Forrester, 2003).
Burnes (2004) in his journal article ‘Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal’ has mentioned the views of writers such as Buchanan and Storey as “. . . their attempt to impose an order and a linear sequence to processes that are in reality messy and untidy, and which unfold in an iterative fashion with much backtracking and omission.”
Burnes (1996) quotes the example of Dawson and Wilson. Both these writers confront the planned change models as not been appropriate in an organization that is becoming rapidly dynamic and uncertain. Wilson argues that planned model attempts to give timetables, objectives and methods that rely on the role played by the managers who bring about change. Managers are in a position where they consider that the change that are planning can be implemented effectively and successfully and have a perception that the employees will understand and accept the planned change model.
EMERGENT APPROACHES OF CHANGE
In response to the criticisms to the planned model as described above, new approaches to change in organization is developing. Emergent models of change have more frequently been referred to as the continuous improvement method or organizational learning (Burnes, 1996). In contrast to the criticism of planned approach as been top to down approach, emergent approaches of change focus on bottom up approach and focuses that change occurring is a continuous process of adoption of the changing environment and circumstances. Emergent models of change is considered as a learning process rather than just been models to change structures and practices in an organization (Stanleigh, 2008; Burnes, 1996; Oseni, 2007).
As it is a new concept, the emergent change models are still evolving and therefore are not a perfect set of rules as the methods and models of planned change. Every writer and developer of a emergent model tends to see change from their own point of views and concerns. Hughes (2006) suggests that the emergent model of change focuses on the nature of change that is continuously developing making it unpredictable. The emergent change model is a process that can reveal the factors that are affecting the organization to bring change (Stanleigh, 2008).
As already established that the planned approach to change is inappropriate because organizations are operating in a dynamic and turbulent environments and circumstances, emergent approaches are best suited to cater the needs of change. In this way, if the external environment of the organization is changing rapidly, the organizations would need to respond continually by scanning their external environments so that they can bring the necessary change in response. Therefore the argument on which emergent approaches are built is that the change has to occur from within the organization in incremental way so that they can respond to the external opportunities and threat. Some of these ways (approaches) in which organizations can respond are given below:
[Source: Todnem, 2005]
- Kanter’s Approach to Change
According to Kanter et al. (1992) the change models whether planned or emergent relates the fact that organizations operate in various environments and therefore there is more than one approach to change that can be used. According Kanter et al. (1992) there are two approaches to emergent change:
This approach to change is related to rapid and big change initiatives that are implemented in a top down approach which is not participative in nature.
In contrast, long march are those change initiatives that consist of a series of small, incremental changes having a minimum effect in the short-term but transforms the organization in the long run.
The argument presented by Kanter and his companions (Kanter et al., 1992) is that bold strokes given its description do not fit the planned approaches to change or the emergent approaches to change. On the other hand, long march can be viewed as an emergent approach. The change literature that has developed over time tend to focus only on two approaches: planned and emergent, whereas in reality neither of the approaches cover the full range of the change events (Kanter et al., 1992).
To bring an organizational change, it is both complex and time consuming. Therefore in order to make most of the time, Kotter provided a theoretical emergent approach to change known as the Kotter Model. Kotter model involves 8 steps. These steps are explained below (Kotter, 1995):
- Create a sense of Urgency:
According to Hodgson & Aiman (2003) and Kotter (1995), this step examines the market as well as the competitiveness of the market. After that, the step is used to identify the existing and potential crisis and opportunities that the organization might have and thus gives evidence that change becomes necessary for the organization.
In this step, the management should build a group with members who have the power to lead the change as change leaders. The group should be encouraged to work together (Hodgson & Aiman, 2003).
The group’s task is to create a vision that directs the change effort and should develop strategies to achieve the vision (Kotter, 1995).
It is the responsibility of the group or team to communicate the new vision and the new strategies to all the employees in the organization. The employees should be taught the new behaviors to adjust to the change (Hodgson & Aiman, 2003).
In this step, the hurdles and the obstacles that can prevent change should be removed. The structure and the system of the organizations should be changed that destabilize the change (Hodgson & Aiman, 2003).
- Create short term plan for visible performance improvements
Plans should be created to bring about improvements in the performance. This can be encouraged by rewarding the personnel (employees) who are involved in the change (Hodgson & Aiman, 2003; Kotter, 1995).
- Consolidating Gains & Producing more Change
This step according to Kotter (1996) involves changing all the structures, policies and processes of the organization that do not fit with change vision. In addition to this, management hires and promotes employees who can help in implementing the change (Kotter, 1996).
Enhancing performance using effective management and leadership styles coupled with customer and productivity oriented behavior (Kotter, 1996). In addition to this, the last stage also emphasizes on increasing communication between the newly developed behaviors and the organization’s success (Kotter, 1996).
- Luecke’s Seven Steps to Change
In 2003, a new model of emergent change was given by Luecke which is known as seven steps of change. These steps are:
- If any change is to take place, the management should create and mobilize the energy and commitment needed to identify the problems of the organization and their solutions (Todnem, 2005)
- Management should include employees to create a shared vision of how the organization can be organized and managed in order to face the competition (Todnem, 2005).
- According to Todnem (2005), Luecke proposed that in third step that leadership to bring about change should be identified.
- The focus of the management should be the end result of the change and not the activities that lead to change (Todnem, 2005)
- According to Luecke (Todnem, 2005) change should start on small scale and then it should spread to the other parts of the organization
- Policies, procedures and systems should be institutionalized to achieve success
- If any problems occurs in the change process, strategies should be adjusted to deal with it (Todnem, 2005)
- Processual Approach by Wilson and Dawson
In order to confront the Lewin’s planned model of change, Wilson and Dawson developed a processual approach to change. This approach is analytical in nature and therefore can understand the problems of the change and the can provide with better understanding of the practices that can be used in the complex organization environment (Bamford & Forrester, 2003). Hughes (2006) has said that the writers who favor the processual approach as an emergent model argue that there is no simple direction that the organizations can take to manage change successfully due to the contextual and temporal aspects of the environment. In this, Dawson has made a case (Bamford & Forrester, 2003) that change is not a series of rational decision-making activities neither it is the only reaction that can address the present situations. In this respect, change is not dependent on plans and projections (Oseni, 2007).
The processual approach is focused on understanding the complex issues that can identify a wide range of options in order to deal with the change. Dawson and Wilson have based this approach on the way they see change to be. Change is an event that emerges in the organizational in long terms. Both these writers claim that that the change process is a “complex and untidy cocktail of rational decision processes, individual perceptions, political struggles and coalition-building (Burnes, 2004).
- Pettigrew and Whipp’s five factors
Another emergent approach to change is given by Pettigrew &Whipp (1993) to address the complex situations and environments in organizations. They have given five activities that are interrelated and address the operational change (Purser, 2006). The activities of the Pettigrew and Whipp model are as follows:
The environmental assessment activity has been designed to monitor the environment (internal and external) continuous of the organizations. This is achieved through open learning systems (Pettigrew & Whipp, 1993).
The activity of leading change focuses on how to move the organization ahead. In order to bring change according to Pettigrew & Whipp (1993) a right climate should be created and the activities involved should be coordinated properly. The change should be directed by a agenda as well as the values and the vision of the organization.
The change strategy that has been developed should according to Pettigrew & Whipp (1993) be consistent that is have clear goals and vision, should provide the company a competitive edge and should be feasible with the organization.
- Linking Operational and Strategic Change
Change is implemented over a period of time and therefore the operational activities should be packaged in such a way that it can help lead or be in line with new strategic changes.
- Human Resource Development.
Employees are an asset of the company. The management should ensure that this concept is embedded in the minds of the employees that are valuable and they will part of the decision making process if any change is taking place.
Pettigrew and Whipp designed the above activities so that the organizations pursuing change in complex environment can become open systems that have a strategy aligned to its environment (Burnes, 1996).
[Source: Rausch et al., 2001]
The 3C model has been described by Rausch et al. (2001) as the complete, broad and incorporated models in available in the emergent change approaches. This model represents the guiding principles that answer the question as to how the decisions should be made in order to make the change strategy in a dynamic process. The 3C model of change gives the criterion necessary to evaluate the decisions’ quality made to cater the needs of the change process as the change strategy adapts to the new conditions during the change implementation.
The 3C model possesses three questions which are as follows:
-
How can control needs of the organization be aligned with the attitudes of the employees to the change methods been used? (Rausch et al. 2001)
-
How can the competence needs of the organization be aligned with the knowledge, abilities and skills of the stakeholders? (Rausch et al. 2001)
-
How can organization’s climate be used to satisfy the psychological and tangible needs of the stakeholders? (Rausch et al. 2001)
According to Senge, learning is a continuous process of any organization. In order to connect to the learning process of the organization, Senge developed five disciplines which are as follows:
Senge has said that a holistic approach should be used in viewing structure and processes of any organization (Pershing et al., 2006)
Pershing et al. (2006) advises to bears in mind the reality of the situation and a vision both personal and related to change.
The managers or the leaders of change should take into account the perceptions and understandings of the employees that can be influenced by the change planning and assumptions (Pershing et al., 2006)
The leaders should try to create and share the vision of the change and the future of the organization with the employees (Pershing et al., 2006)
According to Pershing et al. (2006) the capacities and capabilities of the team members should be developed in order to achieve the desired change results.
According to Senior & Fleming (2006), organizations can structure themselves in many ways so that they can cope with the change occurring and therefore perform successfully. The designing of organizational structures can be done in different ways depending on various variables such as “strategy, size, technology used, degree of predictability of the environment and expectations and life styles of the employees” (Senior & Fleming, 2006). It depends on the organization how well it identifies its variables and does not matter whether the organization’s structure was bureaucratic, mechanistic or other form of structure.
It is argued that the organizations are not only depending on the mentioned variables especially the external environment but also on the internal environment like political environment. It is commonly observed that environments influence the organization but in most cases, organizations are also capable of influencing their environments (Senior & Fleming, 2006). If the latter condition holds true then the organizations can preserve the existing structure by manipulating the environment in such a way that is suitable to its structure. Mullins has argued that (Senior & Fleming, 2006) organizations cannot change their structures frequently with ease. If the management tries to bring any change in the structure of the organization according to Senior & Fleming (2006) in a planned manner it will ultimately result in a structure that will emerge in order to satisfy the environment variables as well as personal needs of the stakeholders.
Structural change in any organization will also take into account the attitudes and beliefs of the employees as they can create a resistance to change. In the new age, technology has enabled the concept of virtual organizations redesigning the organization’s structure. But it should be kept in mind that organizational restructuring is not practical because according to Senior & Fleming (2006) carefully planning must take place to cope with the change in alignment to organization’s performance. Therefore the above argument suggests that a combination of transformational change and incremental change is used in order to restructure the organization (Senior & Fleming, 2006).
As change occurs in any organization, it brings changes in the structure, processes and most importantly culture of the organization. A term cultural risk has been used by Burnes (1996) in to define an approach to change. The cultural risk approach has been designed by Schwartz and Davis in an attempt to warn the managers and the change leaders that if risk is underestimated it could become dangerous (Burnes, 1996). This happens because the new change creates conflict with the existing organizational culture. Using this approach, the managers can make the change objectives such that they can either adhere to the existing culture or can adapt a new culture so that desired change can be achieved.
When different forms of culture are discussed present in the organization, it can be seen that there is a strong relation between he management practices and the organizational culture. According to Handy (Hughes, 2006) role culture and task culture are most prevalent in the organizations. In an attempt to apply the cultural risk approach, Handy has differentiated between the role and task culture (Hughes, 2006). Role cultures are based on a bureaucratic and top-down approach of management while task culture is based on a flexible and de-centralized approach of management (Burnes, 1996). Therefore planned approach to change is best suited in a role culture while emergent approach to change fits best with task culture (Burke, 2002). In other words, it can be said that role culture and task culture cannot adopt emergent model and planned model respectively. If otherwise is practiced, it could expose the organization to cultural risk.
Another method to successfully bring change in culture is defined by Witte & Muijen (1999) is a questionnaire. In order to successfully implement a change strategy, the change team is required to fill out a questionnaire with instructions adapted for the desired culture. It is also a good strategy to involve all the employees of the organization in the questionnaire exercise. They are required to fill the questionnaire keeping the desired state of change in culture in mind (Witte & Muijen, 1999). It should be kept in mind that the change strategy should be discussed with the employees otherwise employees might fill the questionnaire with their personal preferences. As a result, higher organizational commitment is gained during the change process as employees believe that they contributed to the desired change (Witte & Muijen, 1999).
According to Carnall (2007) organisational learning is
"The effective organisation is one which encourages and supports learning from change"
The concept of organization learning is not a new one. Many writers and managers have explicitly expressed that in order to make change successful, learning should form a part of the change (Carnall, 2007). Organizations are said to be learning from the patterns of employee behaviors, continuously changing procedures and changing culture. An organization is said to be a ‘learning organization’ when it seeks to acknowledge that learning is part of individual processes that lead change and then reach the broader level (Carnall, 2007). The point presented by Carnall (2007) is that there is no definite model or theory of organizational learning. As the organizations keep evolving due to different situational variables and other contingencies, it is difficult to say whether the organization is learning or not.
Hurst (Carnall, 2007) argues that if change is to be achieved, a performance organization should become a learning organization. In addition, Hurst gave eight steps of ecocycle that organizations go through. These are (Carnall, 2007):
- Strategic Management
- Consolidation
- Crisis
- Confusion
- Charismatic Leadership
- Creative network
- Choice
- Innovation
The above model can be said as a learning process because the organizations’ can use this model to recreate itself which means that the employees in the organization think about what they wish to achieve and how can this be done. The drawback of this model or the process is that Hurst (Carnall, 2007) has not analyzed how the organization can learn.
The model or the learning cycle as Hurst prefers it is useful and implies that the if organizations want to achieve long-term benefit from learning that is embedded in change then appropriate change approaches are needed (Carnall, 2007).
A leader’s role and behavior is vital in the change process. Top managers are viewed as facilitators or leaders that bring out teams and group with empowerment to bring about the change in the organization. According to Burnes (2002), change projects have to be led by the managers (leaders). It is commonly observed that the managers would tell the rules of the change project but they themselves cannot provide the leaders and the employees with the skills and aptitude to implement the changes (Burnes, 2002). Higgs & Rowland (2005) have made a few studies in this category. Higgs & Rowland (2005) have linked leaders’ behaviors to the change implementation. They have recognized 5 new areas in leadership that can lead to successful implementation of change.
- Build a case for change by engaging employees in identifying the need for organization change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005)
- Creating structural change that is supported with proper tools and processes (Higgs & Rowland, 2005)
- Involving the employees in the change process and therefore increasing their commitment to change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005)
- Implementation and sustainability of change using change models and continuously monitoring and reviewing the implementation practices (Higgs & Rowland, 2005)
- Facilitating and developing capability which involves giving the employees the support to find the answers to their questions (Higgs & Rowland, 2005)
Using the above mentioned steps, leaders can achieve successful change in the organization.
Many writers do not see a difference between the concepts of power and politics. But others have argued against this thought saying that power is concerned with the idea as to what extent an individual influences the will of the others while politics is defined as ‘power in action’ (Senior & Fleming, 2006). Politics is part of everyday life of all the organizations. A political model of change leads to organizational change strategies that focus on making political adjustment with coalitions. Bargaining and negotiating are the main focus of the political model. Senior (Senior & Fleming, 2006) has developed a four stage model or approach in order to manage the political dynamics of change.
The drawback of this model is that the cultural aspect and the technological aspect in the organization unresolved.
- Criticisms of emergent approaches
The applicability and the validity of the emergent approaches to change have been criticized. The applicability of the emergent approach will depend on the view of person applying the change in the organization such as the management or change leaders whether that person or group sees organization operating in a dynamic and unpredictable situation or environment due to which the management and the organization would have to adapt to change continually (Burnes, 1996; Purser, 2004). According to Blokdijk (2008), if this is the case then the emergent approaches to change will be considered suitable for types of organizations in all the situations and circumstances. According to Dunphy & Stace (1993) has argued against this view saying “…managers and consultants need a model of change that is essentially a situational or contingency model, one that indicates how to vary change strategies to achieve “optimum fit” with the changing environment.” Another criticism of the emergent approach is that the approach comprises of a dissimilar group of models and approaches that tend to be more united in their cynicism to the planned approach to change than to an agreed alternative (Bamford and Forrester, 2003
CONTINGENCY THOERY
A theory has been developed on the basis that no two organizations are alike and therefore are not liable to face the same variables as any organization. This theory is known as the contingency theory. The theory according to Burnes (1996) and Dunphy & Stace (1993) is that the structure of an organization and its performance are both dependent on the situational variables that act upon them. As a result, the organizations and structures and its operations will vary from one another. The contingency theory has been developed on the basis on numerous studies carried out in 1960s based on structure and performance of the organization (Burnes, 1996). The purpose of the contingency theory was a way to provide change leaders and managers guiding principles which they can use to select the best organization structure that can achieve the greatest performance (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). But instead it has been applied to many situations in organization which prove the validity of the theory.
Contingency theory rejects the notion that there is only one best approach for all organizations which can be used to structure the organizations and operate them. The main situational variables that the organization’s structure and performance faces include technology and environment (Burke, 2002; Burnes, 1996). In order to be successful, it is important that the managers or change leaders align the organizations’ structures with their particular contingency (situational variable). It can be detected from this argument that different organizations will face different contingencies which will ultimately make their structures and performance different from two organizations. Therefore, the notion ‘best way for each’ takes the place of ‘best way for all’ (Burnes, 1996).
Despite the reputation that contingency theory has gained over the years, it has also gained criticisms from writers. Some of the criticisms that follow contingency theory are:
- The theory relates structure and performance of the organization but it is difficult to do so in reality or when actually applying the theory.
- Managers and leaders in the organization do not exercise a significant influence over the situational variables such as technology and environment. This is because of the reverse case. When the theory is applied it is seen that the managers have a degree of choice over the structure and the variables which is normally referred to as strategic choice, design space or organizational choice (Burnes, 1996). With this power of choice, managers can influence the variables as well as the structure of the organization. This opens the fact that contingencies can be manipulated and if the managers can have a difficult time in adapting to change the organization’s situation as organizations can themselves influence the contingencies to align them with their management styles and working methods (Burnes, 1996).
- The contingency approach to change fails to take into account that organizations face difficulty when applying or adopting a new change approach.
CONCLUSION
The pluralist approach states that
“There can be never a universal theory of organizational change as change involves a movement to some future state that comprises a context and time that remain unknown.”
(Hughes, 2006)
Keeping the above quote in view, it can be said that the planned and emergent approaches to change should not be viewed as ‘clash of the titans’ or as the opposing approaches of change ideas (Armanekis & Bedeian, 1999). Both these approaches to change can be viewed as situational approaches. This means that both the approaches tend to address different contingencies or variables in a particular situation (Blokdijk, 2008). The models and methods in the planned approaches to change can be applied to situations and organizations that are stable and predictable and therefore change can occur from top down management (Burnes, 1996). On the other hand, emergent approaches to change can be best suited to those organizations where the situations are unpredictable and fast-moving and change can occur from bottom to up.
Purser (2004) argues that before implementing the planned and emergent approaches, they have to be evaluated on the basis of their appropriateness in a particular organization keeping its culture in view. Burnes (1996) also says that to judge an approach as good or bad is misleading. The approaches should be thought in terms of appropriateness regards to the situation and circumstances.
Keeping the above argument in view, it becomes highly important for the managers to choose and adopt those approaches that best suit their particular circumstance as there are a wide range of change approaches to choose from. At one point, it might involve choosing those approaches that move the organizations away from the preferred mode of managing the change. Many writers such as Burnes (1996), Purser (2006) and Blokdijk (2008) have warned that it is not about which approaches and best practices are chosen by the manager. The main thing that should be kept in view by the managers is that what is to be changed, what is the circumstance and what is the choice of adopted approach.
REFERENCES
12Manage. (2007). 7-S Framework (Mckinsey). Retrieved from <http://www.12manage.com/methods_7S.html>
Armenakis, A & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management. Vol.25. No.3
Balogun, J. & Hope, V. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change. 2nd Edition. Harlow, FT/Prentice Hall.
Bamford, D. & Forrester, P. (2003). Managing Planned and Emergent Change within an Operations Management Environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol.23, No.5
Blokdijk, G. (2008) Change Management 100 Success Secrets: The Complete Guide to Process, Tools, Software and Training in Organizational Change Management, Emereo Pty Limited.
Burke, W. (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Publications.
Burnes B. (2002). Managing change and changing managers from ABC to XYZ. Journal of Management Development. Vol.22, No. 7
Burnes, B. & Coram, R. (1999). Barriers to Partnership in Public Sector. Supply Chain Management. Vol.4, No.1
Burnes, B. & Coram, R. (2001). Managing organizational change in the public sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol.14, No.2
Burnes, B. (1996). No Such Thing as … A “One Best Way” To Manage Organizational Change. Manchester School of Management, Manchester, UK.
Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, Harlow, Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent Change and Planned Change – Competitors or Allies. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol.24, No.9
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies. Vol.41, No.6
Carnall, C. (2007). Managing Change in Organizations. Financial Times/Prentice Hall. ISBN-13: 978-0273704140
Cellars, T. (2007). Change Management Models: A Look at McKinsey's 7-S Model, Lewin's Change Management Model and Kotter's Eight Step Change Model. AC Associated Content. Retrieved from <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/237685/change_management_models_a_look_at_pg4.html?cat=3>
Change Management: Organizational Change. Retrieved from <http://d.scribd.com/docs/1xvbh1plvrdy8oosxmvf.pdf>
Coram, R. & Burnes, B. (2001) Managing Organizational Change In The Public Sector: Lessons From The Privatization Of The Property Services Agency. The International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Dickens, L. Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning. Vol. 30, No.2.
Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. (1993). The Strategic Management of Corporate Change. Human Relations. Vol.46, No.8
Edmonstone, J. (1995). Managing Change: A New Emerging Consensus. Health Manpower Management. Vol.21, No.1
Ewton, Z. (2006). Change Management Theories. AC Associated Content. Retrieved from <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56933/change_management_theories.html?cat=3>
Hart, E & Meg, B. (1995). Action Research For Health And Social Care: A Guide to Practice. Open University Press. ISBN-10: 0335192629
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and Creating Whole Organizational Change Through Learning Theory. Journal: Human Relations. Vol. 49. No. 5
Higgs, M. & Rowland, D. (2005). Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership. Journal of Change Management. Vol.5, No.2.
Hodgson, V. & Aiman, J. (2003). Facilitative Project Management: Constructing A Model For Integrated Change Implementation By Utilizing Case Studies. SA Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol.1, No.3
Hughes, M. (2006). Change Management: A Critical Perspective. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. ISBN: 1-84398-070-3.
Jones, G. (2007). Types and Forms of Organizational Change. Prentice Hall
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A. and Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change. New York: Free Press.
Kotelnikov, V. (2008). Change Management. Business E-Coach. Retrieved from <http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/change_management.html>
Kotter, J. (1995). Why Transformation Efforts Fail? Harvard Business Review. Pg 59-67
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 0875847471, 9780875847474
Lenz, R. & Lyles, M. (1985). Paralysis by Analysis: Is your Planning System Becoming too Rational? Long Range Planning. Vol.18, No.4
Levy, P. F. (2001) Nut Island Effect: When Good Teams Go Wrong. Harvard business review on culture and change. 2002 ed. Boston, Harvard Business School press.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations. Retrieved from <http://hum.sagepub.com>
Lewin, K. (1948).Resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Harper and Brothers,
Lewin, K. (1963) Field theory, London, Tavistock Publications.
McNamara, C. (1997). Organizational Change and Development .Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Retrieved from <http://www.scribd.com/doc/3755126/Organizational-Change-and-Development>
Nickols, F. (2003). Four Change Management Strategies. Distance Consulting. Retrieved from< http://home.att.net/~opsinc/four_strategies.pdf>
Oseni, E. (2007). Change Management in Process Change. Information Systems Control Journal. Retrieved <http://www.isaca.org/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=20075&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=39854>
Pershing, J., Stolovitch, H. & Keeps, E. (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices and Potentials. Wiley_Default. ISBN 0787965308, 9780787965303
Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993). Managing Change for Competitive Success. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631191429, 9780631191421
Purser, R. & Petranker, J. (2004). Unfreezing the Future. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol.20, No.10
Rausch, E., Halfhill, S., Sherman, H. & Washbush, J. (2001). Practical Leadership-In Management Education for Effective Strategies in a Rapidly Changing World. Journal of Management Development. Vol.20, No.3
Rose, K.H. (2002). Leading Change: A Model by John Kotter. Business Source Elite.
Senior, B. & Fleming, J. (2006). 4 Step Model of Managing The Political Dynamics of Change in Organizational Change. Pearson Education. ISBN 0273695983, 9780273695981.
Senior, B. & Fleming, J. (2006). Organizational Change. Pearson Education. ISBN 0273695983, 9780273695981
Shapiro, I. (2005). Theories of Change. Knowledge Base Essay. Retrieved from <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/theories_of_change/>
Smiley, M. (2001). Planned Change in Organizational Development. Waves of Change. Retrieved from <http://academic.emporia.edu/smithwil/001fmg456/eja/smiley.html#Theories%20of%20Planned>
Springer, P. & Clark, C. (2007). “Go Live in ’05”—From Hierarchy to Shared Governance in Higher Education. Academic Leadership Online Journal. Vol.5. No.1. Retrieved from <http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/Go_Live_in_05_From_Hierarchy_to_Shared_Governance_in_Higher_Education.shtml>
Stanleigh, M. (2008). Effecting Successful Change Management Initiatives. Industrial and Commercial Trading. Vol.40, No.1
Strickland, F. (1998). The Dynamics of Change. London. Routledge.
Syque. (2007). Lewin's Freeze Phases. Changing Minds. Retrieved from <http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/lewin_change/lewin_change.htm>
Tabije, I. (2008). “Change Management for Big Systems: a Blindingly Stupid Example of Change Management”. The Complete Change Formula.
Todnem, R. (2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management. Vol.5, No.4
Waddell D, & Sohal, A. (1998). Resistance: A Constructive Tool for Change Management. Management Decision. Vol.36, No.8
Witte, K. & Muijen, J. (1999). Organizational Culture: Critical Questions for Researchers and Practitioner. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol.8, No.4.
