A small change a manager may intend to run within his work unit will not require as much planning as a significant organizational change. Initiative-based changes are changes that the manager decides upon himself, and it is essential to follow these steps as, more often than not, managers will decide upon a change but still need to sell it to others. The first step is to identify the change and then diagnose and discuss the need for the change. The second step is selling the change to those required to initiate it, get their involvement, and foster support. The final step is to gather these change initiators and plan the change, defining its objectives, strategies, and methods. This pre-planning is essential so all parties are clear and the manager can monitor the change with these predefined measures.
Some major outside driving force often triggers change. It could be the opening of new markets, a new product line, a decline in profits, a change in leadership, or a merger. Whatever the case, managers are often asked to develop, move, or halt work units in a new direction. Whether they are asked to do a little or a lot, they still manage a change. Understanding the need for change is the first phase, and it comes in three stages. The first is being aware that there is a need to change. This sounds simple, but the stage is often not correctly done. The second stage is understanding the change, what it is, and what its intended outcome is. The final stage is understanding the change’s impact on the organization. This proper understanding of the need for change will contribute to a smoother transition to the next phase.
Understanding the Need for Change
In any case, however, for change to be successful, there needs to be a high enough level of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. This is because change involves movement from the existing situation, and this movement will not occur without the existence of a force that counteracts the inertia of the current state (force (F) = mass (m) x acceleration (a) – Newton’s second law of motion). The change process itself can be described using a general systems framework. This framework is a cycle of steps that begins with a need for change and moves to examine what should be done. Then, through the various actions and evaluations made, the shift is finally implemented or abandoned.
Organizations are often required to undertake change to be more effective. This change can take on many forms and may be imposed by the external environment or be internally driven. Examples of the former are changes in fiscal policy in the public sector or changes in tariff rates in the international trade environment. Internal changes may take the form of policy changes (i.e., a shift in employee leave entitlements) or the implementation of a new practice, such as using different machinery on a factory floor. Generally, the change is usually in reaction to a problem where the gap between the existing situation and the desired situation is deemed as significant. The bigger the gap, the more likely change is to occur. For example, suppose an organization has been sued for discrimination despite their high investment in equal opportunity policies and training. In that case, they may look to find new innovative ways to increase the effectiveness of these policies to prevent further lawsuits – a complete review and possible overhaul of current policy and practices would be expected.
Planning and Implementing Change Initiatives
Feedback: This involves the change initiators being provided with accurate information on their behavior and how this affects the rest of the organization. – Participation: This involves the initiators in the change process; a pace of change is set, and the initiators work to understand and make the necessary changes. – Role negotiation: This is used when the change initiators resist wholesale change in their behavior. A compromise is made to change some parts of the behavior in return for keeping other parts. – Coercive: This involves applying direct force to ensure that the change initiators behave in a certain way. This can be done by threats or actual application of punishment or reward.
The planner must be fully informed about the need for change and the current situation within the organization. This is concerned with the objective data and the subjective beliefs of the specific change initiators. This will enable the executive to build a plan that considers both the best way to implement the change and the best way to represent this plan to the change initiators. The effectiveness of this communication can be the difference between the success and failure of the change initiative. This planning stage can be considered as two separate parts: the diagnostic plan and the treatment plan. There are several possible planned change strategies, these include:
Overcoming Resistance to Change
Resistance to change affects some more than others, and the more it affects someone, the more likely they are to want to reduce the change. Those who feel that the change affects them will have personal reasons as to why they want the change to be reduced, and they also have the potential to resist more actively. Organizational change can affect anyone, and the reasons for resistance are often complex and cannot always be explained. Rafferty and Griffin (2006) did a study to determine different reasons for organizational change and how they affected the way the individual would respond. They discovered that there were three different types of these reasons: survival, anxiety, and life disruption. They propose that these reasons form a hierarchy in intensity; therefore, determining them will be a valuable way of assessing how the change will affect each individual and what they are likely to do to resist it
The bureaucrat’s psychological landscape is deemed relevant to resistance to change. Individuals in any organization will have one of six dominant personality types, influencing how they react to change (Strebel, 1996). The six personality types have been illustrated as hardworking types: those who are ambitious and work-oriented but usually neglect to complete what they start, those who are laid back and never rushed, the risk-taking entrepreneur type, and finally, those who strive to excel in everything that they do. Most civil servants fall into the first category and are considered the guardians of bureaucracy. They are seen to take pride in the certainty and security of the present and resist anything that could upset it. They will react to change negatively, and their main aim may be to reverse it.