MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Change seems to be one of the most difficult aspects for people to handle in both personal and professional settings. Whether it is gradual or dramatically sudden, it can be stressful for individuals, societies, and organisations. Often, change within organisations can be the most problematic because it seems to now happen as a continuum, yet, it is not handled appropriately by management to enable their employees to adapt without fear or without become a “deer in the headlights” where they tend to panic rather than embrace the change.
For every company, service is one of the toughest challenges. However, in the case of this organisation that provides service through a joint venture, making changes that will improve the overall quality can prove even more difficult because there are three distinct cultures and organisational structures that must work together to implement the suggested changes mentioned in the case study. It is then up to that organisation's actions through its level of communication, direction, strategy, and leadership to either hinder or help the change process.
In utilising a case study about one organisation, this paper will examine change from a number of perspectives, including communication, leadership, and resistance to provide insights into how these situations affect how well a company can accept and thrive from change. Additionally, new approaches to the management of change will be recommended that might enable this organisation-in a realistic and practical way-to use change to raise their quality service standards bar and increase their growth and profitability potential.
Communication Perspective
In this particular situation, the change project involves learning new techniques as well as different ways of thinking. Another key challenge was the degree of pain involved with the “steep learning curve,” as described in the case study. Ambiguity in any organisation does not help those involved understand their role, responsibilities, or boundaries to what they can accomplish. As the case study pointed out, “Often they did not really know what to do with consumers and the professionals did not know what to ask of them.” Additionally, Group 2 “struggled to find a clear role,” which further complicated the change process.
Whilst the amount of freedom given to those involved in the change process was vast, the participants still felt pressure from those that were intensely measuring and evaluating their work as well as experienced concern about the degree in which they would be held responsible if it all were to go wrong on the consumer side. The lack of clear communication also led to each group approaching their roles in ways they felt might work, which may have pleased consumers but did not make management happy because other components of the change programme were not being completed in a timely manner. On the other hand, the other group was only dealing with the “mundane” elements, according to the case study, and that decision seemed to be communicated to the team as unimportant, most likely discouraging those team members.
Communication-both formal and informal-is considered to be a “support” mechanism that can help the individuals dealing with change better understand and adapt to new work environment. Without it, an organisation can suffer as one theorist noted: “The company is a complex, self-organising and self-correcting system. Any breach in feedback loops is a threat to the company. Feedback should be encouraged.” (Christensen 2007). It is this feedback mechanism that “establishes and continually reinforces a dominant set of thought patterns, perspectives, values, management styles, problem-solving approaches and behaviour that are unique to the group” (Dopplet 2003) which ultimately describe the organisation's culture. In terms of this, the communication issues could possibly relate to the clash of numerous cultures-those of each organisation involved in the joint venture as well as all the new staff brought into the various groups-which inhibits the effective management and implementation of the change objectives.
Consistent and clear communication can help those involved in, or affected by, the change process understand the organisational development tactics are being implemented; the benefits of the change in terms of what goals will be fulfilled or problems solved; how the change will affect the culture of each organisation affected in the change; the timeframe and elements involved in the change process; the types of resources being utilised to make the change; the roles and responsibilities of each person within the organisation as part of the change mechanism; and how the change is being communicated to the consumers that are the reason for this change.
This level of communication involves open dialogue with both groups and all levels within the organisations that will be implementing the change to provide a better service level to consumers. The dialogue allows for those within these two groups to provide input and ideas that may help stimulate their motivation moving forward on the change process. Communication is imperative to an organisation because, as Burrell and Morgan note, there are a “variety of individual and sectional goals” (Rhodes 1996) within a company that could lead each to pursue their own interests if there is not a uniting sense of dialogue that accommodates everyone. And since people tend to be “shaped by the information they receive, the communication they are exposed to, the support they receive for involvement” (Dopplet 2003), then this could be a major reason as to why the changes planned for this organisation have not progressed as far as planned in helping consumers with better service.
In looking at a realistic solution, Beer's model of tackling change focuses on high levels of communication in order to carry out change through aligning “employees' roles, responsibilities and relationships” in a way that “enforce changed ways of thinking, attitudes and behaving” (CIPD 2007). As such, Beer envisions six stages that form an effective change process that could be applied to this case: “1) mobilise commitment to change through joint diagnosis; 2) develop a shared vision of how to organise; 3) foster consensus, competence and commitment to shared vision; 4) spread the word about the change; 5) institutionalise the change through formal policies; 6) monitor and adjust as needed” (CIPD 2007). Each of these stages, which all involved some sort of communication tactic, could have benefited group 1 and group 2 within the case because they could have gained a better understanding of their tasks and role in order to more efficiently and rapidly accomplish the goal of improving service to consumers. Other theorists believed that communication was essential to receiving buy-in from staff involved in the change process. For example, the empirical-rational change strategy proposes that successful change comes from the “communication of information and the proffering of incentives” (Nichols 2003).
Despite these theories serving as a framework based on more effective communication in regards to this case, it is more realistic to conclude that a “one size fits all” approach does not work in an organisation that involves employees from various companies connected through a joint venture such as this one. The result could be an impression by staff that management does not appreciate the individual roles and unique responsibilities. While seeking a personalised communication programme that is consistent and clear, another realistic approach is to develop a means of sustaining those dialoguing efforts in such a way that it surpasses the end of one period of change and carries on to the next set of objectives. After all, today's business environment illustrates that change is no longer an event; it is a continual process that involves mental, physical and emotional evolutions for those involved.
Leadership Perspective
When change requires a new way of thinking or doing a particular type of activity, employees need strong leadership to guide them into this new role. The quality of leadership is what is believed to be one of the major determining factors in terms of whether change succeeds or fails. It has been found in theory from Burrell and Morgan that “power is a central factor in understanding organisational life and is the medium through which conflict is resolved” (Rhodes 1996). This power tends to emanate from the leaders of an organisation who should have the ability to end any conflict and confusion between the two groups within this case study. However, there is nowhere within the case that illustrates a strong sense of leadership. Hence, there is confusion about roles and the degree of change. Without “obvious leadership,” there is a struggle to identify some sort of hierarchy among those within the groups rather than focusing on the tasks themselves.
In this particular case, these involved in the change process had difficulties in deciding how to proceed with implementing the new initiatives. Additionally, those within the group of change agents experienced turnover, which meant that the process seemed to have needed to be re-started as each new group stepped into their role. Since there did not seem to be any sense of strong leadership within the case study organisation, the potential is there for an increased risk of “losing the trust and respect essential to maintain co-operation and morale in periods of rapid change” (Williams 2008).
It would help if they had a strong framework of leadership to put them on the right path. By utilising strategic leadership, there is an “exchange of knowledge” and opinions that will enable the organisation to achieve increased productivity and more effective change implementation. This type of empowering directive from a leader would also help unite Group 1 and Group 2-both of which came from various organisations with different roles and specialities-instead of let them flounder on their own to figure out a means of working together and agreeing as a cohesive unit to implement the changes in a way that everyone in each organisation could understand their role and be guided through strong leadership.
A leader will be more successful at managing the change process if they look at it from the perspective of the employees that are charged with implementing the new methods and processes. This would be more practical than the power-coercive theory which maintains that leadership must exercise their authority in a way that imposes the sanction that change must be accomplished at all costs along the lines of the “iron fist” concept. This would not seem to be an appropriate mechanism for these groups because they are already confused and frustrated about their roles and responsibilities.
In contrast, the process of the leader can be seen as a trainer and a mentor so that employees feel comfortable with the changes they are making. It is also may be a realistic approach for a leader to take work in a collaborative way with the two groups to better understand the priorities of the change effort, participate in gathering information, analysing the findings, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations. In this way, those groups working with the leader will also gain a better sense of the tasks and role within the change process. This will enable the leader to pull them from their stable spot and provide a safe environment in which they can “think and act outside the formal structure of their traditional working environment” whilst re-inventing processes26 that will propel the organisation forward in changing its structure to provide improved service to consumers.
The best approach for leadership in this case is to be available, consistent in reaction and communication, and the driving force for effective change, so that employees of all organisations involved in the process can feel comfortable and safe knowing that there is a person behind the scenes moving everyone toward one common goal. These would be the signs of a true change leader who may also experience conflicting ideas but deals with these in a way that does not confuse and frustrate the staff who may already feel uncomfortable to the change in status quo.
Resistance Perspective
There will always be a resistance to change no matter how beneficial it may be to an organisation or to those working within that company. It is considered a “natural reaction” and “safety response” to a change in the status quo. Psychologists who have studied the human response to change have noted that it can take at least six months-if not longer-to “let go of the past and adapt fully to our new reality” (Williams 1999). Many times, there is resistance that prolongs this adaptation process because it is the movement from the known to the unknown that causes individuals to feel uncomfortable and slow their productivity.
A lack of communication or leadership makes resistance even more probable within an organisation. The case study mentions that group 2 was brought in later on in the change process. They had no guidelines or previous examples to follow, so there was no real incentive to want to carry out the change. Their resistance could also stem from the shock of a new uncertain role and use of processes within the organisation as well as competence fears when one group was praised for their ability while the other group was given mundane tasks. Additionally, resistance could be based on the “fear that their power and authority, which is embedded in the organisation's existing patterns of governance, may be at risk” (Dopplet 2003). This could be because new staff members are being brought in to handle the change process that are younger and have skills that are more admired than those of the current staff member holding that position, leading to the threat of job loss or demotion. Hence, resistance may be part of the barrier to change within this organisation. Other reasons for possible resistance include “decisions that are sprung willy-nilly on people, a lack of involvement of those who will be most affected, changes that make people fear they will appear stupid for past decisions, a legacy of distrust and resentments due to a history of broken promises” (Dopplet 2003). Many of these situations could well be present in the case organisation as it appears that there is confusion and distrust on what the changes might bring for each group in terms of job security and stability. Many may not want to join the groups because they do not feel that anything effective is really being accomplished. When the actions taking place seem irrelevant and there is no real meaning attached to the benefits of the outcomes, resistance would seem to be the most likely attitude.
Since resistance can take many obvious and subtle forms, this case illustrates that employees were somewhat passive in their resistance because there was not verbal or attitudinal cues that there was dissension in the ranks. Employees will not want to change if they sense that their superiors are disappointed in their performance, so a solution would be to change the work processes of both groups so that these encouraged learning and motivation rather than illicit negative responses.
The resulting resistance may have stemmed from the organisation's inability to look at change only through the “technical viewpoint” rather than understanding the “human element.” Hence, management must be “aware of the ways that personal issues can impact on an employee's thoughts, feelings and behaviour” (Bovey and Hede 2001). Additionally, presenting concrete benefits as to why the change is necessary even though certain aspects of past processes and structures worked well provides a way to break down the resistance that may be forming. Involving the groups in the vision of the company so that they feel that they are respected and are an integral part of achieving success is a practical way of achieving a successful change campaign. In this way, an organisation will enable their staff and management to be resilient rather than resistant to change.
Other Perspectives
While this paper only focused on three perspectives, there are other issues going on within this case that deserve a brief commentary. It would seem that the management did not appreciate those people within the groups that may have been tackling some of the more mundane tasks, which could hurt the organisation's efforts. There seems to be an overall lack of understanding about how important all members of the change groups are in terms of reaching the goal to better provide service to staff. A better approach would be to have the management of each organisation involved in the joint venture cross-lead the teams so that they gained a better appreciation of the staff from the other organisations and more effectively understand how to leverage each person's unique talents.
Conclusion
First and foremost, it is important for an organisation to realise that every individual is affected by change in a different way. However, there are some very simple and effective tactics that can enable those dealing with and implementing change to adapt and thrive from the change. While change may be inherently viewed as a negative situation due to an inability in all people to feel comfortable with the unknown that the future may now hold in terms of safety, stability, and security, it should be an organisation's primary goal within the change process to utilise communication and effective leadership to quell resistance and restore confidence. Those staff within each group must have a better sense of the role they play and its importance in achieving change that yields improved service levels for consumers. Clear, consistent communication from management as well as leadership that can guide staff in a manner that feels free yet provides direction will result in a more rapid integration to new structures, processes, and working relationships that should continue to evolve through the continuum of change that will lead the company to innovative ideas and solutions for pleasing consumers.
