Change Management Analysis Essay Example

analyzed based on its scope and pace. They further assert that change can either be convergent or radical in scope and either evolutionary or revolutionary in pace. In other words, change is not uniform.

According to Roberts (1998), understanding how organizations experience periods of change can be clarified by considering the pace and scope of change. This can be seen through the concepts of convergent change, which involves element or system adaptation, and punctuated change, which involves element or system transformation. Convergent change, also known as evolutionary or continuous change, is characterized by small adaptations that arise from improvisation and learning. These adaptations may or may not accumulate and occur because systems cannot maintain stability (Plowman et al, 2007). This type of change involves ongoing adjustments at the departmental or divisional level in order to align with the overall organization's strategy, structure, processes, and people. On the other hand, radical change, also known as evolutionary or continuous change, involves system adaptation. According to Romanelli and Tushman (1994), radical change does not occur in a slow and continuous manner due to its high level of intensity. Reardon, Reardon, and Rowe (1998) further emphasize that radical change requires individuals to deviate significantly from the status quo and often within a limited timeframe.

However, Roberts (1998) and Plowman et al (2007) argue against this view, suggesting that radical change can actually occur gradually. Roberts (1998) further argues that system adaptation refers to a change in the system itself rather than just a modification in one of its parts. He explains that this type of change represents a qualitative shift in the way things are done and is characterized by divergence

rather than convergence (Robert, 1998). This slow and evolutionary style of change creates ripple effects throughout the organization's strategy, structure, people, and processes, gradually forming a new whole and achieving organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, convergent and revolutionary/episodic change involves a transformative shift at the element level but not a complete reconfiguration of the organization system.

The changes primarily focus on the organization's subsystems or elements, where the overall organization can benefit from increased effectiveness (Roberts, 1998). Radical and revolutionary/episodic change, known as system transformation, is often seen as a response to planned replacement. This occurs when a new structure, strategy, or program replaces an old one. Episodic change involves distinct interruptions that are intended to negate and eliminate a previous condition (Ford & Ford, 1994). These changes usually occur relatively quickly in response to a major episode or crisis and require a radical approach to overcome organizational inertia (Plowman et al., 2007). Dunphy and Stance (1993) further described this type of change as corporate transformation, which involves a shift in business strategy and revolutionary changes throughout the entire organization to achieve a new desired end state.

Roberts (1998) argued that the four types of change are not mutually exclusive and can be combined into a comprehensive theory where circumstances dictate. Therefore, change can vary over time and take on various forms. Consequently, it is nearly impossible for an organization to adopt a single change approach and apply it universally to all situations. According to Burns and Stalker (1961), there is no singular best way to change, and organizations that insist otherwise are unlikely to succeed in managing change effectively.

Research studies have found that pain is

often associated with radical change, as opposed to convergent change. According to Meyerson (2001), radical change, which is typically imposed quickly by top management, can be painful, while incremental change is less disruptive. Reardon, Reardon, and Rowe (1998) suggest that radical change is perceived as painful because it demands more than just compliance; it requires individuals to personally accept the need to let go of old ways in favor of new ones. However, Abrahamson (2000) argues that radical change can be painless if an organization incorporates periods of smaller and organic change to maintain stability.

According to Welsh (2005), change is seen differently from Meyerson and Abrahamson. Welsh suggests that when change is announced, there will always be individuals within the organization who believe it will be the end of their lives, regardless of the magnitude of the change. The level of pain experienced during change, either excruciating or mild, depends on how ready individuals are to embrace change. Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholde (1993) argue that readiness for change plays a crucial role in dealing with resistance. Different individuals may adapt to change at different rates depending on the specific change situation.

Those who fell behind are typically those who experienced pain and opposed the change. To assess the readiness for change, Scott and Jaffe (1995) devised a transition grid to explain the four stages of change.

Stage 1 Denial - "This is not happening": This is usually the initial reaction to change, where individuals feign normalcy and disregard the change message. They will carry on with their daily tasks as if nothing has occurred.

Stage 2 Resistance - "The individuals will become emotional and

frustrated when they realize that the change is affecting their daily work life. They will strongly resist accepting the change and may engage in unpleasant vocal exchanges, unpleasant comments, and anger. If this stage is not managed well by the organization, employees may form protective groups or become disengaged."
Stage 3 Exploration - "At this stage, individuals slowly start to view the situation more positively and begin to explore and experiment with new approaches to support the change initiative."

According to Beitler (2005), the highly energised atmosphere is conducive to generating a large number of good ideas, some of which may be overly optimistic and unworkable. However, Beitler stressed that it is better to have too many ideas than too few.
Stage 4 Commitment- “I can get used to this”: According to Beitler (2005), the commitment stage is the most difficult to achieve but the easiest to manage. The process of reaching this stage is painful, experimental, and time-consuming in order to gain compliance. During this stage, individuals will be dedicated to team building and creating synergistic opportunities for implementing the change (Beitler, 2005). Each stage in the Scott and Jaffe transition grid involves some level of pain, either for the organization or the individuals involved, or both at the same time.

According to Beitler (2005), pain and resistance are natural and necessary aspects of change, indicating that the change is progressing as intended. The absence of pain and resistance could signify a lack of progress or a maintaining of the current state. To minimize pain throughout the change process, organizations must understand the extent, pace, and readiness for change, enabling them to prescribe the

appropriate change strategy. Kotter (1995) emphasized the importance of carefully navigating a series of planned phases for successful change. Any critical errors made during these phases can have a detrimental effect, impeding momentum and nullifying previous efforts.

According to Kotter (1995), there are eight guidelines for managing change, although they may not be applicable to every change situation. Individuals' behaviors usually reflect their beliefs. To change an individual's behavior, the organization needs to challenge their belief system and convincingly show that the current state of the organization is at risk or there is a better opportunity. To achieve this, Kotter (2007) recommended creating a sense of urgency through a compelling demonstration.

According to Gingeralla (1993), some people may opt to leave because they are afraid of change or find it too complicated. If the change is conveyed in a highly negative manner, it could lead to a mass exodus from the organization. Thus, it is crucial to select words and communication methods wisely when discussing change, enabling individuals to cope with and embrace it. While top management-imposed change is not always the most effective approach, it can still be beneficial in overcoming obstacles.

Kotter (1995) proposed that obtaining buy-in from top management alone may not suffice. A group of influential individuals within the organization, known as the guiding coalition team, would also need to support and drive effective change. For instance, although a training manager may not be part of the top management team, they can still exert control over how the change program is implemented during training, either in a persuasive or compliant manner. It is crucial for employees to grasp the direction in which the organization

is moving, and therefore, creating and communicating a vision becomes paramount. Moreover, organizations must utilize appropriate communication channels to transmit the vision to employees, ensuring they are convinced that the vision is both realistic and achievable.

According to Kotter (1995), without a clear vision, a transformation effort can become a collection of confusing and incompatible projects. This can lead the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at all. Understanding the direction and risks alone is not enough to motivate employees to change. The organization must empower employees to act on the vision by realigning its internal systems, structures, and processes. For instance, the appraisal and reward systems should incentivize individuals who take risks to achieve organizational goals and exhibit appropriate behavior. When dealing with large-scale changes, organizations often break tasks into smaller, manageable pieces and prioritize their execution in phases.

After completing each phase, the organization should announce a short-term win to celebrate reaching a milestone. This celebration serves two purposes. Firstly, it demonstrates that the new vision is taking shape and becoming tangible through the employees' changed behavior. Secondly, it boosts the employees' confidence in dealing with future changes. Once the individual elements are in place, the organization should consolidate them by bringing them together to achieve a more profound transformation (Kotter, 1995). At this stage, the organization delves deeper into the overall structures, systems, and processes by addressing larger issues.

For instance, by closely examining operating procedures to determine if process re-engineering is necessary, carefully selecting and preparing individuals for promotions or lateral moves, or evaluating hiring policies to ensure that the organization is hiring talent that aligns with its vision and values. To institutionalize

change within corporate culture, Kotter (1995) recommends two essential aspects for organizations to maintain. First, they must demonstrate that the risks taken in implementing change have yielded positive outcomes. Second, the organization should share the results of its performance with employees.

This text highlights the significance of establishing a feeling of contentment and accomplishment within a company, while also making sure that upper management embodies a fresh mindset. If the criteria for advancements remains unaltered, any endeavors for improvement are unlikely to be sustainable. Developing the ability to adapt is essential for an organization's viability in today's competitive business landscape. However, it should be noted that there is no universal solution to implementing change.

According to Plowman et al (2007), change can vary in nature and extent, depending on its speed and scale. They have identified four types of change, each with its own unique characteristics in terms of pace and scope. Therefore, organizations should manage change differently based on its specific nature and purpose. Attempting to apply a universal approach to change could result in catastrophic consequences. The level of discomfort during the management of change is closely connected to an individual's willingness to change. If individuals are highly open to change, then the process can be relatively smooth and painless.

Through Scott and Jaffe's (1995) transitional grid model, there is a better understanding of the psychological aspects of change from an individual's perspective. This model shows how the stages progress from a state of high resistance to a state of high commitment. By considering the pace, scope, and readiness for change, organizations can determine the most appropriate change strategy. One effective approach is using Kotter's (1995)

eight-step guideline for managing successful and lasting change in today's organizations.

References

1. Abrahamson, E. (2000) 'Change Without Pain', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, July-August: 75-79. Armenakis, A. A, Harris, S. G. and Mossholder, K.

W. (1993) 'Creating Readiness for Organizational Change', Human Relations, Vol. 46. 681 – 703.

Beitler, M. (2005) 'Overcoming Resistance to Change: A Practitioner's Guide For Change Leaders and Consultants' by Burns, T. and Stalker, G.

M. (1961)

8, New York Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. 1994)

F. (1993). 'Moving From Vision to Reality: The Introduction of Change'. Performance Improvement, Vol. 32, Iss.

On 10th December, Grundy (1993) stated in his book 'Managing Strategic Change' that effective change management is critical for organizations. Additionally, Kotter (1995) emphasized in the Harvard Business Review that transformation efforts often fail due to various reasons.

73, Iss. 2, March-April: 59-67. Meyerson, D. (2001)

'Radical Change, The Quite Way', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 9, Iss. 9, October: 92-100.

Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1986)

T., Beck, T.E., Kulkani, M., Solansky, S.

T. and Travis, D. V. (2007) 'Radical Change Accidentally: The Emergence and Amplification of Small Change', Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543. Reardon, K.

The authors of this text are K, Reardon, K. J. and Rowe, A. J.

(1998)

‘Leadership Styles for the Five Stages of Radical Change’, Acquisition Review Quarterly, Spring: 129-146 Roberts, N. 1998) Radical Change by Entrepreneurial Design, Acquisition Review Quarterly, Spring: 107-128 Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M. L. (1994)

1141 - 1166 Scott, C. D. and Jaffe, D. T. (1995) Managing Change at Work. New Brunswick: Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy (CRISP) Publications.

Senior, B. and Swailes, S. (2010) Organizational Change 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Harlow England. Welsh, J. (2005)