a) MSU is in the process of locating a number of faculties namely commerce, social

sciences and science and technology to Zvishavane by August 2014. As a change

agent apply organisational Iceberg theory in successfully implementing the change
programme. Attention should be given to zone of comfortable debate and zone of
uncomfortable debate

b) As the change agent suggest the variable strategies that can be adopted to
overcome resistance to change from the faculties involved

Organizational change is the process by which organizations move from their present
state to some desired future state to increase their effectiveness. The goal is to find
improved ways of using resources and capabilities in order to increase an organization’s
ability to create value. Change is any transformation in the design or functioning of an
organization (Hellrigel and Slocum,2007). In order to have change you need the
commitment of the workforce. Organizational change management is a set of behavioral
science based theories, values, strategies and techniques aimed at the planned change of
the organization for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving
organizational performance through the alteration of employee job behavior.

Iceberg theory

Wilfred Krüger introduced the iceberg theory. He argues that the iceberg represents
everyday life situation where 17 percent of the iceberg is visible above the water surface
and 83percent is buried underneath the water surface thus the change process. His
empirical perception was that most managers only aim at issue management which is the
top of the iceberg. When they introduce changes into an organization they will only
consider costs, quality and time relevant. Krüger thought that there are two other
dimensions which can’t be seen and thus reside below the surface. The first is
management of perception and belief, secondly power and political management. As a
matter of fact these types of management are the keys of successfully changing an
organization because values, beliefs and cultural effects have a profounder impact on the
system.
Also the Iceberg theory states that the organization only has 1/10 of visible aspects and
9/10 of it are not visible. The main reason of the change is the core issue in the ZOCD
and ZOUD Cliff Bowman’s model where the relocating of some of the faculties to
Zvishavane is viewed as challenging and supported. As the core issue breakthrough or
begins to be known or moving the idea of locating another campus in Zvishavane forward
to the visible feature of the iceberg that is known to be the zone of comfortable debate.
Then the interaction will begin between lecturers and students or other stakeholders. In
this zone there will be a period of small talk and developing an understanding of the
common ground and this is where conversation is nice and there is no a lot of tension.
When the vessel hit the visible feature of the iceberg will be wrecked or finished off
because of the resistance of the hidden features of the iceberg. As the change is
concerned the iceberg theory brings down to the surface the three aspects of change
which are its tasks, goals, and focuses of the business which are its content or what the
change projects are all about. This is the easiest element to see and understand. Everyone
is comfortable to talk and discuss of these variables as they are not the real process
affecting the change. In our situation, MSU has outlined all the tasks, the goals and
focuses that are concerned with the proposed change with other variables that are left
visible on the proposed change which include costs, quality, targeted time of
implementing change, products and services.

The vessel which is the MSU will be finished off because below the surface of the water
there is 87 percent of the iceberg that supports the 13 percent of iceberg that is visible on
the surface of the water from being blown away by the vessel. This will happen when the
issue in the discussion moves from the zone of comfortable debate to the zone of
uncomfortable debate. The tension from the zone of uncomfortable debate will diffuse
and rapport is maintained but the core issue will still be the same and no progress made.
The conversation must stay in the ZOUD and the parties work through it to uncover
differences in the understanding, assumptions, motive and all features of the hidden part
of the iceberg till the issue is solved permanently and move on to a new topic. So, too, it
is with change. It is what is not visible and out of balance that will kill successful change
namely, the processes and structures of our interactions. Not everyone among the affected
stakeholders and the change agents normally is comfortable to discuss things in this zone.
Focusing on content only, is the failure to focus on process and structure. This is naive
since change is dependent on them both.

Processes

Capabilities involved in our interactions are the “how to’s” of behavior while working on
our tasks. For example, in our situation where MSU is to relocate a number of its
faculties , this is our content, all the interactions with the change agents and stakeholders
is the process by which we are aimed at again establish a more successful learning
institution at the Zvishavane mining compounds. In other words, relocating is the process
and the plans and goals being the content. The “process” is how we solve the problem.

Structures

Infrastructures for change are the least understood as they are the deepest part of the
iceberg and are often taken for granted. We rarely even acknowledge their existence
despite the fact that the structures are the context, vessels, or arrangements within which
all process and content operate. The change agent will have to consider these if he or she
is to be successful.

Goals

Goals are objectives or targets which the organisation seeks to achieve on their day to day
running of the organisation or in future. Every organisation sets its goals and works
towards attaining them. In the case of MSU, relocating some of its faculties to Mashava,
there are goals which the college seeks to achieve after the faculties relocates and also
relocating itself is a goal which was set sometimes ago. So the goals are also visible
aspect of the iceberg theory. So if the organisation views its goals as threats they can
easily avoid them or plan again its goals.

Costs

MSU considered the costs involved in locating some of its faculties to Zvishavane instead
of locating them in Gweru or somewhere near the main campus. The costs of locating
their campus in Zvishavane are well known and calculated before the movement. The
college has land in Gweru at some of their campuses but opted to move to Mashava
instead of constructing new structures at the already available land. So the cost-benefit
analysis of the project where calculated and the movement was seen to be beneficial.
Thus costs are visible aspects of the iceberg theory. Also, for costs to be considered by
the management the change agent has to effectively convince the management.

Quality

Organisations nowadays are in stiff competition to meet increasing competition as quality

has become a major aspect of competition. So organisations are now benchmarking
quality from competitors and leading firms within the industry. Quality is a visible aspect
of iceberg theory as it is seen by stake holders and competitors and it can be controlled
and managed. The change agent will have to consider this and be able to express it to the
concerned stakeholders.

Time

Every objective and goal is set against time. Organisations use the method of SMART on
planning their goals, strategies and objectives. The T in SMART means the plans are time
bound. In case of MSU the organisation know well its plans and the time it has set to
achieve its plans. So time is a visible part of the iceberg in the iceberg theory as it can be
set.

There are also invisible aspects that the iceberg theory considers which include values,
attitudes and beliefs, acceptance, perception, leadership styles, norms of behaviours,
power and politics and informal groupings which MSU has to consider in its bid to
relocate some faculties to Zvishavane. These invisible aspects can be called the zone of
uncomfortable debate.

Informal groupings
These are groupings which can be found under MSU`s bid to relocate the faculties. These
groupings may have negative attitudes towards its relocation thus it may make the change
process ineffective.

Iceberg theory

Visible Features (Formal Aspects) - The Formal Organization

Objectives, Structure, Policies and plans, Formal Authority, Rules, Task Design,
Technology, Formal channel of communication, performance, Job Definition,
Job Descriptions, Forms of Departmentalization,
Span of Control, Operating policies, Efficiency measures FORMAL
ASPECTS

Hidden Features (Informal Aspects) – INFORMAL

The Informal Organization ASPECTS
Opinions, Attitudes, Feelings, Values, Power
and politics, InterpersonalConflicts, Intrapersonal
conflict (e.g. role conflict and role ambiguity),
(b) Strategies that can be used to overcome resistance to change
Blocked
Change is such a constant in today’s organizations that to mention it is like telling an old 
and not‐very‐welcome joke at a dinner party. Nevertheless, sometimes in a change effort, 
the organization makes you the story‐teller. How then can you bring out that old saw in fr
esh and effective ways? How can you help your workplace accept an impending and unav
oidable change? Here are some ofthe strategies that can make you more successful at ove
rcoming resistance to change. 
1Address personal concerns first
Most organizations justify the need for change by telling their employees who are the
ultimate users of the change all of the wonderful things the change will mean for the
organization. This is a poor approach to getting audience buy in. When faced with a
change, people react first with their own concerns what’s in it for me. So, first things
first. As a change agent, you should deal with the users’ personal concerns first and focus
later (if at all) on the organizational benefits.

2 Link the Change to Other Issues People Care About

The perceived need for a change can be increased by linking it to other issues that people
already care about (CRED, 2009). By showing how a change is connected to issues of
health, job security, and other things that are already in the front of people’s minds, you
can make a change stickier and less likely to be replaced as new demands for their
attention show up.

3. Tap into People’s Desire to Avoid Loss

People are more sensitive to loss than to gain. This “negativity bias” is a longstanding
survival trait that has kept humans alive throughout their development as a species.
Historically, it was always more important to avoid stepping on a snake than to find a soft
place to sleep. Humans may have advanced in many ways, but something scary still gets
and holds attention more quickly and longer than something pleasant. Therefore, rather
than just telling people what they stand to gain from a change, you may have a greater
impact by telling them what they stand to lose if they don’t accept the change.
4. Tailor Information to People’s Expectations
People generally hold firm views of how the world works. These often unconscious and
invisible mental models govern much of people’s thinking including how they perceive a
potential change (Carey, S., 1986; Morgan, M., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., et al., 2002).
For example, they may tend to see a change as something good about to happen (a
promotion model) and willingly accept it, or they may see a change as something bad
about to happen (a prevention model) and deal with it as an “ought to do” while focusing
their energy on avoiding loss (Cesario, Grant, and Higgins, 2004; Higgins, 1997, 2000).
You can provide all the logical arguments in the world in support of your change, but if
your arguments don’t match the basic assumptions and rules to the way the person sees
the world, you are unlikely to get very far. To make matters worse, people hold fast to
their current beliefs, desires, or feelings; this “confirmation bias” means that if the change
you are promoting doesn’t appeal to their current beliefs, desires, or feelings, you may
have a hard time making any headway.
5. Group Your Audience Homogeneously
Getting the message over to a group of people who share basic opinions with regard to
the change is easier than getting it over to a group of people with diverse opinions.
Whenever possible, divide your audience into homogeneous groups insofar as their view
of the change goes. For instance, if you want to convince people to do certain things
differently because of climate change, you might want to know who watches Fox News
and who watches MSNBC. Not because one is better than the other, but because the
argument you present will be tailored differently for the two groups. This isn’t
manipulation (unless you are operating in the shadows without their knowledge and
consent); it’s merely being smart about how you present your argument and evidence for
change.
6. Take Advantage of People’s Bias—Buy Now, Pay Later!
People tend to see things that are happening now as more urgent than those that will
happen in the future (Weber, 2006). This tendency is often referred to as “discounting the
future.” For instance, when presented with the option of getting $250 now or $366 in a
year (a 46% rate of interest), the average person will choose the $250 now (Hardesty and
Weber, 2009). This suggests that when trying to persuade others that a change is
necessary, even though the future threat and loss may be great, it is desirable to
emphasize that inaction now poses its own threat and loss. Also, it is often easier to get
people to agree now on a solution, if they can postpone implementation until some time
in the future. People tend to believe that they will be in a better position to change in the
future; they expect to have more time, more money, and fewer demands then than they do
now. While experience does not support this belief, it is one that provides people with the
motivation to act in the present toward a future goal. Consequently, it is often easier to
get people to agree now on a change that won’t take place until some point in the future.
You will no doubt recognize this as a strategy commonly used by merchandisers—Buy
now, pay later!
7. Make the Change Local and Concrete
Often organizational changes are responses to some sort of threat. If that threat is seen as
more relevant to distant outsiders than to the people in the organization, or if the threat is
presented in the abstract, then the targeted people will have little motivation to change
(Leiserowitz, 2007). However, if you can demonstrate in concrete terms that the threat is
local and will have a real impact on the people you are trying to get to accept the change,
you may find it easier to persuade them to buy‐in. For instance, when people think
about the threat of climate change, many think of it as a threat to other people and other
places. In a situation like this, getting people to adopt inconvenient changes is difficult.
On the other hand, if you can show them with concrete examples exactly how the change
will impact them in their local community or organization, then they are more likely to
adopt the necessary changes.
8. Appeal to the Whole Brain
Often, when making a case for a change, change agents use lots of numbers, charts,
tables, etc. Such facts and figures appeal especially to one side of the brain. But the
human brain has two sides, and although they work together, each has a different way of
processing information. The left side is analytical and controls the processing of
quantitative information. The right side is experiential and controls the processing of
emotional information. Even for audiences where one side may dominate (e.g., engineers
who favor facts and figures), the most effective communication targets both sides of the
brain (Chaiken and Trope, 1999; Epstein, 1994; Marx, et. al. 2007; Sloman, 1996). One
compelling example of this is the design of Apple’s iPhone and other products. People do
not stand in line to buy these products simply because of their valuable functionality
(which appeals to the left analytical brain), but also because the objects themselves are
designed to appeal to the emotions as well (the right brain). To appeal to both sides of the
brain, you might
• Combine analytic information with vivid imagery in the form of film footage,
metaphors, personal accounts, real‐world analogies, and concrete comparisons
• Employ messages designed to emphasize relevant personal experience and elicit an
emotional response
9. Beware of Overloading People
While connecting with people’s emotional side, it is important not to overload with too
much. People can attend to only a limited number of things. Scholars sometimes refer to
this as the “Finite Pool of Worry” (Linville and Fischer, 1991). Change expert Daryl
Connor (1993) likens this to pouring water onto a sponge. At first, the sponge can absorb
the water. However, at some point, the sponge becomes full and any additional water
simply runs off. The finite pool of worry is full. This has implications for change agents.
Often people’s lives are already filled with change. When you ask (or demand) that they
worry about many more things, you may inadvertently introduce “emotional numbing,” a
state in which people fail to respond to anything except threats that are immediate. So,
beware of overusing emotional appeals, particularly those relying on fear!
10. Know the Pros and Cons of Your Change
Not all changes are equal. Some are more beneficial, and some cause more inconvenience
and pain. It pays dividends for change agents to know how their change stacks up against
six change characteristics (adapted from Rogers, 2003 and Dormant, 2011). Simple—Is
your change complex or is it relatively simple to understand and do?
• Compatible—Is your change compatible with what your users are used to?
• Better—Does your change offer clear advantages over other alternatives, including the
status quo?
• Adaptable—Can people adapt your change to their own circumstances or must they do
it exactly the way you prescribe?
References

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10
), 1123‐1130.  

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from 
“feeling right.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388‐404.  

Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Gu
ilford Publications.  

Connor, D. (1993). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Random House. 

Dormant, D. (2011). The chocolate model of change. Lulu.com. 

Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Ame
rican  Psychologist, 49, 709–724.  

Hardisty, D., & Weber, E. (2009). Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environ
ment. Journal of  Experimental Psychology: General. 138, 329‐340. 

Higgins, E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280‐1300. 

Higgins, E. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 
1217‐1230. 

Leiserowitz, A. (2007a) American opinions on global warming. A Yale University/Gallu
p/ClearVision 
Institute Poll. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.  

Linville, P., & Fischer, G. (1991). Preferences for separating and combining events: a soc
ial application of 
prospect theory and the mental accounting model. Journal of Personality and Social Psyc
hology,  60, 5–23.  

Marx, S., et al. (2007). Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic p
rocessing of  uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 47‐
58.  

Morgan, M., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., et al. (2002). Risk communication: A mental mo
dels approach.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. 

Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bul
letin, 1(119), 3– 22. 

The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) (2009). The psychology of 
climate change 
communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the inter
ested  public. New York. 

Weber, E. (2006). Experience‐based and description‐based perceptions of long‐term risk: 
why global  warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1‐2), 103‐120.