“Change is disturbing when it is done to us (doyle, 2016), exhilarating when it is done by us” ( the

open university B716, Module Book 1, 2015, p.68)

Introduction

For many centuries we have seen changes in basic form of living to advanced technological lifestyles
that we live now. These changes further influenced how various organizations needed to operate.
Many theorists and scholars have put forth their views as to how these changes affected us and why
adapting to these changes or managing was necessary, however there is diverse opinion as to how
change can be managed. Here we make an attempt to study these diversities and apply it to one of
the personal experiences to engage and understand the relevance of these diversified models of
change management.

One of the most earliest models stated that change can be achieved in a very simplistic way, wherein
we have to discard previous methodology or practises then adopt new methodology or practise and
then make this new methodology a culture or a discipline to follow henceforth without deviation (
Unfreeze – Change – Freeze model, Lewin ( 1951) ) (Mulder, 2019). This method was criticised for
being over simplistic and linear, it was argued that in a organization change cannot be just adopted
like a new lifestyle as it is more of a continuous process wherein the need for change is evolving
continuously which means that the new state of change will never be constant as the management
puts forth something in motion it will not stay in that state forever as there are numerous factors that
will initiate further need to change. This precisely means that when an organization decides to change,
it has to put into action a methodology to change and also sustain that methodology to keep adjusting
to the change without changing the fundamental culture, and this is an infinite cycle and was called
as an iterative process of change (Balogun and Hope Hailey (2004) (doyle, 2016).

So when we look at OCM in a broad sense, fundamentally it does mean that we need to unfreeze or
give away existing state of being, adopt a new state of being and fix this state, however this needs
elaboration as there are various factors involved and the approach to the so called new state of being
for the management will vary. Scholars have proposed theories to approach change and one such
theory states that there are that there are dimensions of the change which need to be to be addressed
in a manner which the change is approached, this can either be a hard approach (economy oriented)
or it can be a softer approach (organization oriented), they also proposed a much matured approach
wherein a combination of hard approach and soft approach can lead to a successful change (B716,
2019) (Beer & Nohria, 2000). With a lot of theories being proposed, it became necessary to
understand whether there is a best solution to manage change and this was rejected by theorists
which made way for Contingency theory which rejected the notion that there is no one best method
or approach to manage change (B716, 2019), Through the contingency model Dunphy and Stace
proposed that managers and change agents used should be changed, their strategy should depend
upon the environmental factors (Juneja, n.d.). In this model lot of focus has been given on the type of
leadership required to achieve various types of changes required by the organization, however, these
are based on many assumptions of change managers being in total control (Stacey, 1996) (B716, 2019).

Finally a model was proposed which considered that change is more contextual in nature, it is
influenced by political changes (external or internal or both) and that there is no fixed formula to
manage it as it is neither linear nor sequential. Whenever there is change initiated there will be
resistance from different people within and outside the organization, This model stated that it is
necessary to take care of stake holders desire for change by setting expectations for change by
focusing and prioritising, structures should be developed to achieve this by using organizational
resources and effectively mapping the control process by putting systems and controls in place
without ignoring the behavioural changes and reinforcing the change which would provide an
outcome which might further need change or will further trigger change (B716, 2019).

Most of the widely accepted models have been briefly discussed now which brings us to the part
where we present a case from our experience and apply couple of models and try to analyse it.

Case study:

The organization taken for this case study is essentially an Organization in processing food products
and retailing them in the domestic market. The Organization has been in this business for over a
decade and primarily concentrated on local domestic market however when the top-line growth was
found stagnant it decided to grow business in various other parts of the country. To ensure sale and
penetration in the new areas Organization had to increase its marketing budget and also invest in
further sales team. Organization grew the business and saw a growth level of 40% within a span of 2
years however when the balance sheet was studied it came to light that though the Organization had
successfully penetrated new markets and was achieving top-line growth there was a considerable
drop in the bottom-line, in-fact it had started growing negatively and affected the fund flow
drastically, also organizations liabilities had increased without making dividends. This was an alarming
situation for the shareholders and an instant directive was passed to bring about changes in the entire
operating procedures. The management decided to cut costs at all levels including sales and
marketing expenses and also a decree was passed stating that a positive bottom-line had to be
achieved at all costs by scrutinising all expenses and ensuring that they are controlled. Sales team had
to be downsized, entire factory operations had to be realigned to produce volumes with downsized
staff. There were massive changes in the way Organization managed its logistics so as to bring
efficiency and cost reduction. The middle managers were forced to think out of the box and bring
solutions to the table since it was made clear that everyone was on notice if the targets were not
achieved.

Dunphy and Stacey’s contingency Model (Model 1):

It is quite evident here that the shareholders thought a transformative change was required to get
organization back on track since serious lapses were seen in the operations which directly affected
fund flow as well the bottom-line of the organization. Since fund flow was severely hampered it was
necessary to cut costs and relook at revitalizing working capital through excessive change in the entire
operations.

Contingency model states that an organization has to be ready for any eventuality and when there is
such need for change the stake holders need to analyse the kind of leadership that will be required
for managing this change and also ascertain to what degree the change had to be brought about to
achieve goal. Various types of leadership defined under this model are, collaborative or consultative
leadership, where in entire organization is involved in entire process of goal setting to implementing
methodology of achieving those goals and the alternate to this type is a directive or coercive
leadership where in the change is initiated from the top and less participation is required from
employees for decision making, instead they are made to implement methodology as per the directive
given by the top management. Dunphy and Stace state that an organization would either need an
incremental change or transformative change or both and accordingly a top down ( coercive mode) or
bottom up model (collaborative mode) should be used. (Fig.1.1)
Fig 1.1. Dunphy and Stace’s contingency model of leadership and change (1993)

In the submitted case we have seen that the shareholders passed a decree to downsize entire sales
team with immediate effect if need be new operations not yielding positive impact in the bottom-line
were told to shut operations with immediate effect, this was a coercive approach which brought about
transformative change in the entire sales operations and affected entire organization.

Assumptions are made that change can be managed (Sturdy & Grey, 2003) and that is evident in the given
case study. Top management has taken an approach wherein the organization is forced into new state
and it has been assumed that by restricting and downsizing the current team will be able to sustain
business and turnaround organizations performance out of the darkness. The management does not
consider impact of its decisions on the current operating procedures and the disruptions it would
cause amongst the team. it did not foresee that key managers assigned the task might not be up for
this change and would probably quit in which case instead of getting instant results they would have
to deal with another change which if not contained could result in to a dominoes fall like situation.
Management did not consider socio political changes it might bring about by pulling out teams from
various newly started locations and this could further need managing. Change is not an abstract state
that can be easily managed and pushed in the required direction, rather it is a continuous process. Change and
Continuity are not alternative states as they typically coexist . (Sturdy & Grey, 2003)

Beer and Nohria: Theory E, Theory O and Combined E & O ( Model 2):

Broadly speaking about the organization presented in the case study, it clear that the Organization
had decided to move from a current repugnant state to a new and desirable situation. The
management has taken a top down approach which is primarily economy oriented approach. The goal
was set that the organization had to churn positive figures on its balance sheet at earliest which
basically meant that actions will be made towards maximising shareholders value, The higher
management was given the task of achieving the goal which clearly set the tone of a top down
approach for change in the organization. Teams were dismantled, staff was downsized, new systems
were implemented and the organizations internal members were told to follow the system to the tee.
Since lot of instant changes were made, new standard operating procedures had to be made and
implemented. It was necessary to align the organization with new operating procedures so as to
achieve the goals set for the organization by the shareholders. The organization was put on a path for
change which was directed towards one goal, management was given the task to achieve the goal,
systems were given to ensure focus towards the goal, new standard operating procedures were made
and programs were established towards achieving change, however in this case rewards were not
provided instead a stick was used and the team was put on notice if they failed to comply. Also the
shareholders decided against bringing in external consultants instead they appointed joint director to
oversee the compliance of the change procedure initiated by them. The case study doesn’t entirely fit
in the model however it is clearly evident that a few elements are definitely inspired by Theory E
proposed by Beer and Nohria (Beer & Nohria, 2000) refer Fig1.2.

Fig 1.2: Beer and Nohria’s Theory E & Theory O (2000)

We have tried to see how the Theory E was applied seeking change by applying various dimensions to
the approach however we should again consider the fact that the share holders failed to see that the
set of actions initiated by them would invariably cause further repercussions and cause more change.
No focus is given towards social or economical impact it would have on the external stake holders for
examples the freshly appointed distributors in the new regions which might have to shut operations
entirely to support the goal intended. It is assumed that by following certain set steps in organizational
revamp they can achieve change however it not a certain fact that it will bring stability in the business.
(Sturdy & Grey, 2003). Also in a part of approach proposed in theory O it is evident that it is proposed
to address the human side of management as an option, while on the contrary these skills are basic
sets for managerialism (Sturdy & Grey, 2003)

Conclusion:

We have explored the Contingency Model presented by Dunphy and Stacey where in lot of change
management is based on the managerial skills and we also have studied that there are alternative
theories like Theory O or a mix of Theory E and O can be applied where in a bottom down or top down
approach can be used to achieve change. Closer review of Sturdy and Grey’s theory of change
management we can see that both the models do stress on the ability of management to lead the way
on the assumptions of their ability and neglecting the fact that change is not a stable situation and is
everchanging state, and is precisely stated as, ‘Everything is change’. None of the models presented
address social or political effects beyond the organization or the unintended effects within the
organizations.

Based on our exercise on the case study we would conclude that though there is not bullseye shot
formula to manage change, however change needs to be addressed with due considerations of its
impact on all the stake holders involved and will be successful with innovative methods brought in to
the organization which will come either from top management or the team down below. We have all
been taught for ages that ‘Necessity is mother of all inventions’ but when we invent there is a change
initiated, so as quoted in (Sturdy & Grey, 2003) I would conclude by stating, ‘Everything is change’
except, it seems, the ability to control it and the structure of power and inequality.

References

B716, 2019. Change - It dpends. In: Unit 1 Exploring management. s.l.:s.n., pp. 86-88.

B716, 2019. Oakland and tanners Organizational change. In: Exploring Management. s.l.:s.n., pp. 90-
93.

B716, 2019. Valuing Change. In: Unit1, Exploring Mangement. s.l.:s.n., pp. 75-76.

Beer, M. & Nohria, N., 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business review, Issue R00301,
pp. 88-95.

doyle, P., 2016. www.brightwork.com. [Online]

Available at: https://www.brightwork.com/blog/leading-change-in-an-organization
[Accessed 8 2 2019].

Juneja, P., n.d. www.management studyguide.com. [Online]

Available at: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/contingency-model-of-change-
management.htm
[Accessed 8 2 2019].

Mulder, P., 2019. www.toolshero.com. [Online]

Available at: https://www.toolshero.com/change-management/lewin-change-management-model/
[Accessed 08 02 2019].

Sturdy, A. & Grey, C., 2003. Beneath and Beyond organizational change management: Exploring
alternatives. Organization Articles, Volume 10(4), pp. 651-662.