Change Management Full Sheet

Chapter One:
Introduction to Change Management
A. Definition of Organizational Change:
Organizational change is both the process in which an organization changes its

structure, strategies, operational methods, technologies, or organizational culture
to affect change within the organization and the effects of these changes on the
organization. Organizational change can be continuous or occur for distinct
periods of time.
Organizational Change looks both at the process in which a company or any
organization changes its operational methods, technologies, organizational
structure, whole structure, or strategies, as well as what effects these changes have
on it. Organizational change usually happens in response to – or as a result of –
external or internal pressures.
It is all about reviewing and modifying structures – specifically management
structures – and business processes.
Small commercial enterprises need to adapt to survive against larger competitors.
They also need to learn to thrive in that environment. Large rivals need to adapt
rapidly when a smaller, innovative competitor comes onto the scene.
To avoid falling behind, or to remain a step ahead of its rivals, a business must
seek out ways to operate more efficiently. It must also strive to operate more cost
effectively.
Change is something that should be embraced rather than feared. Only with
change will businesses be able to lay the foundations for long-term success.
According to Cambridge Dictionary, organizational change is:
“A process in which a large company or organization changes its working
methods or aims, for example in order to develop and deal with new situations or
markets.”
Many people would disagree with Cambridge Dictionary’s description. They say
the definition should not limit organizational change just to something that
happens in large companies.
Course kit compiled by Md H Asibur Rahman, Lecturer of BBA, FBSS, BMA, BUP 1
Examples of Change
01. Nokia
In July 2012, shares of Nokia were trading below $2 — far off from their highs of nearly $60
in 2000 and nearly $40 in 2007. At the time of this writing,
the shares have somewhat rebounded, up more than 300%
after having climbed into the $6.50 range.
At the turn of the millennium, Nokia was one of the
world’s largest suppliers of mobile devices. This, of
course, was before smartphone mania swept the nation
(and the world).
Fast forward to 2010, and while Nokia remained
profitable, the writing was on the wall. It was only a matter
of time before Nokia phones, as they currently existed, would remain relevant.
Because Apple beat Nokia to market with its iPhone, the latter company missed its opportunity
to lead the smartphone revolution.
Understanding this all too well — Nokia has reinvented itself time and again in its 150-plus-
year history — the Finland-based company hired a new CEO to take the reins.
Ultimately, Nokia’s new management team decided to sell the company’s struggling phone
division to Microsoft.
Like it has done so many times over the years (how else does a company founded in 1865
become the worldwide leader in mobile devices in the 1990s?), Nokia has changed the focus
of its operations once more.
Currently, the company is building network and mapping technologies, among other initiatives.
02. Coca-Cola
When Asa Griggs Candler founded The Coca-Cola Company in the late 1800s, there was no
way he knew his company would one day be valued at upwards of $180 billion. That’s a lot of
money for a business that sells soft drinks.
But Coca-Cola didn’t become the powerful force it is today by sheer chance.
An illustration: In the 1980s, Coke’s biggest rival, Pepsi, was aggressively targeting it. This
caused Coca-Cola to reevaluate its offerings. Eventually, the company decided to concoct a
new, sweeter soda. They called it simply New Coke.
Unfortunately, the public didn’t take too kindly to the new beverage. But Coke’s executives
didn’t let the mishap derail their success.
Quickly, management decided to pull New Coke and replace it with the older, established
formula. Lo and behold, Coca-Cola Classic was born, and Coke maintained its market
dominance.
Just as quickly as Coke changed to
accommodate its customers’ sweeter
palates, it changed direction again when
it realized it made the wrong move.
But that’s not the only instance where
Coca-Cola listened to its customers and
enacted change. Again, how is a
company primarily known for selling
sugary drinks valued at $180 billion in
2016?
Coke doesn’t only sell sweetened
carbonated beverages. In fact, the
beverage king sells more than 500
brands to customers in over 200
countries.
Today, many of its offerings — like DASANI, vitaminwater, and Evian — are even considered
healthy drinks.
In other words, Coca-Cola has consistently strived to diversify its product portfolio and expand
into new markets. By and large, Coke has succeeded in these efforts.
03. Toyota
In the aftermath of World War II, the Japanese auto market was nearing destruction. On the
other hand, American car manufacturers like
Ford and General Motors were crushing it.
Understanding that something major had to be
done in order to keep pace with their Western
rivals, Taiichi Ohno, an engineer at Toyota,
convinced his managers to implement the just-
in-time approach to manufacturing.
Instead of having to order and store an insane
amount of heavy equipment and machinery,
Ohno thought it made a whole lot more sense
to receive supplies the moment they were ready
to be used.
This way, Toyota wouldn’t have to waste any space, time, money, or energies dealing with
supplies that would just collect dust until they were needed.
Additionally, Toyota would have more cash on hand to pursue other opportunities; it wouldn’t
be tied up in inventory.
Toyota implemented Ohno’s suggestions, opting to take the just-in-time approach to
manufacturing. Though it didn’t happen overnight, Ohno’s recommended changes ended up
transforming the Japanese automaker for the better.
Ohno ended up becoming an executive.
04. GE
When Jack Welch assumed the top position at General Electric in 1981, he inherited a company
that had a market value of $12 billion — certainly a modest number, by today’s standards. By
the time he left in 1998, GE was worth $280 billion.
While leading GE, Welch was charged with the task of making the conglomerate better by any
means necessary. With his gut telling him that his company was
due for a complete overhaul, Welch decided to implement Six
Sigma at GE in 1995.
Six Sigma is a methodology that aims to reduce defects and errors
in all processes, including transactional processes and
manufacturing processes. Organizations that use Six Sigma test
their processes again and again to make sure that they are as close
to perfect as possible.
Five years after Welch’s decision to implement Six Sigma, GE
had saved a mind-blowing $10 billion.
Welch claimed to have spent as much as half of his time working on people issues.
By assembling the right team and ingraining them with the right management philosophies,
Welch successfully oversaw the transformation of GE from a relatively strong company to a
true international juggernaut.
05. Amazon
Ever since Amazon went online in 1995, the e-commerce juggernaut has undergone a slew of
changes — despite being led by the same man, Jeff Bezos, during the ensuing two-plus decades.
When the Seattle-based company first launched its website, all it sold was books. Gradually,
Bezos and his team expanded Amazon’s offerings to include things like CDs and DVDs.
But Amazon never really stopped changing the inventory it sold.
Bezos said he wanted his store to become the world’s largest, so he worked hard toward
meeting that goal — whether that meant offering new products, launching Amazon Prime,
launching Amazon Instant Video ... the list goes on and on.
Today, Amazon sells more than 200 million products to customers all over the world.
Though for years, Amazon’s detractors insisted that the company wasn’t making enough profits
to justify any investments, that all changed in 2015 when the company posted back-to-back
successful quarters.
The market responded kindly, and
today, Amazon boasts a market
valuation of more than $440 billion.
But Bezos isn’t anywhere close to done
yet. There are talks of Amazon
delivering packages via drone.
And if that wasn’t enough, Bezos
recently said he hopes Amazon can
produce as many as 16 feature films
each year. In 2017, Bezos & his team took home three Oscars.
Indeed, it appears as though Amazon is a company that can be characterized as changing
constantly. To date, they’ve been successful, probably because the company is always putting
its customers first.
06. General Motors
General motor established in 1908. That time the company was the sole carmaker dealer in the
region, e.g. Michigan, first it was a holding Buick company, till 1920 it was becoming the
world largest motor manufacturing company, the company got a tremendous success in time
of Alfred salon, due to his leadership the company was producing new style and design car
every year, and he had given such concept to the company. The other brand of the company is
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac. These were the different brand cars which were
producing by company that time, and this way there were no other competitors to compete in
the company different cars. But with emerging of the japans automakers the company felt
threatened, specially the emerging of Toyota Japan, who with great extent disturbed the
profitability of the GM, especially in the North American market.
In 2001 the sale graph of the GM was in declined trend, because the Toyota had captured the
market, this way the GM received loan form American government and Canadian government
to support the company in that crises period.
During 2009 the company had faced a bankruptcy and had closed several brand and sold out
to china based company. Now the company again got his position in market by restructuring
and making change in the company. Now the company is again operating business in the core
brands in America such as Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac
B. Change Management:
Change management (sometimes abbreviated as CM) is a collective term for all approaches to
prepare, support and help individuals, teams, and organizations in making organizational
change. The most common change drivers include: technological evolution, process reviews,
crisis, and consumer habit changes; pressure from new business entrants, acquisitions, mergers,
and organizational restructuring. It includes methods that redirect or redefine the use of
resources, business process, budget allocations, or other modes of operation that significantly
change a company or organization. Organizational change management (OCM) considers the
full organization and what needs to change, while change management may be used solely to
refer to how people and teams are affected by such organizational transition. It deals with many
different disciplines, from behavioral and social sciences to information technology and
business solutions.
❑ Change management is the process, tools and techniques to manage the people side of
change to achieve its required business outcomes.
❑ Change management is a systematic approach to dealing with the transition or

transformation of an organization's goals, processes or technologies.
❑ Change management is the systematic approach to adjusting and transitioning

organizational processes, procedures, strategies, attitudes, functions or technologies
from their existing state to one that is considered superior (Burnes, 2009; Cameron and
Green, 2009).
C. Why Organizations Change?
Organizations change for a number of different reasons, so they can either react to these reasons
or be ahead of them. These reasons include:
1. Crisis: Change as a necessary evil for survival in the context of uncertainty. Successful
change management can help to avoid crises. Crisis management is needed if change
management efforts fail. A crisis could be taken as the first step in the organizational
change management process: “establishing the need for change”
2. Performance Gaps: The organization's goals and objectives are not being met or other
organizational needs are not being satisfied. Changes are required to close these gaps.
3. New Technology: Identification of new technology and more efficient and economical
methods to perform work.
4. Identification of Opportunities: Opportunities are identified in the market place that

the organization needs to pursue in order to increase its competitiveness.
5. Reaction to Internal & External Pressure: Management and employees, particularly
those in organized unions often exert pressure for change. External pressures come from
many areas, including customers, competition, changing government regulations,
shareholders, financial markets, and other factors in the organization's external
environment.
6. Mergers & Acquisitions: Mergers and acquisitions create change in a number of areas
often negatively impacting employees when two organizations are merged and
employees in duel functions are made redundant.
7. Change for the Sake of Change: Often times an organization will appoint a new CEO.
In order to prove to the board, he is doing something, he will make changes just for
their own sake.
8. Sounds Good: Another reason organization may institute certain changes is that other
organizations are doing so (such as the old quality circles and re-engineering fads). It
sounds good, so the organization tries it.
9. Planned Abandonment: Changes as a result of abandoning declining products,

markets, or subsidiaries and allocating resources to innovation and new opportunities.
D. What Organizations Can Change
What organizations can change fall into the following broad areas:
1. Mission, Vision, & Strategy: Organizations should continually ask themselves, "What
is our business and what should it be?" Answers to these questions can lead to changes
in the organization's mission (the purpose of its business), its vision for the future (what
the organization should look like), and its competitive strategy.
2. Technology: Organizations can change their technology (for example the way they
produce whatever they sell) in order to increase efficiency and lower costs.
3. Human-Behavioral Changes: Training can be provided to managers and employees
to provide new knowledge and skills, or people can be replaced or downsized. As result
of the recent financial crisis, many organizations downsized creating massive
unemployment that continues to this day.
4. Task-Job Design: The way work is performed in the organization can be changed with
new procedures and methods for performing work.
5. Organizational Structure: Organizations can change the way they are structured in
order to be more responsive to their external environment. Again to be more responsive
to the marketplace, this also includes where decisions should be made in the
organization (centralized or decentralized).
6. Organizational Culture: Entities can attempt to change their culture, including
management and leadership styles, values and beliefs. Of all the things organizations
can change, this is by far the most difficult to undertake.
E. Different Types of Change
1. Happened Change
This kind of change is unpredictable in nature and is usually takes place due to the impact of
the external factors. Happened change is profound and can be traumatic as it’s consequences
are unknown and out of direct control. This kind of a change happens when an organization
reaches the plateau stage in its life cycle and gets victimized by the environmental pressures or
demands. For example, currency devaluation may adversely affect the business of those
organizations who have to depend upon importing of raw materials largely. In certain cases,
some political, as well as social changes, are unpredictable and uncontrollable.
2. Reactive Change
Changes which take place in response to an event or a chain of various events can be termed
as Reactive Change. Most of the organizations indulge in reactive change. This kind of change
usually occurs when there is an increase or decrease in the demand for company’s products or
services. It can also be a response to a problematic situation or a crisis which an organization
may be faced with. For example, due to the advancements in technology or growing
technological changes, an organization may be forced to invest more in technology to stay
ahead to face the stiff competition. Recreation can also be regarded as a reactive change, which
involves the entire organization and occurs during the stage when an organization is undergoing
a serious crisis.
3. Anticipatory Change
If a change is implemented with prior anticipation of the happening of an event or a chain of
events, it is called as anticipatory change. Organizations may either tune in or reorient
themselves as an anticipatory measure to face the environmental pressures. Tuning in
essentially involves implementing incremental changes which mean dealing with the
subsystems individually or just with the part of a system. Reorientation essentially involves
changing the organization from the existing state to a desired futuristic state as an anticipatory
measure and then dealing with the entire process of transition.
4. Planned Change
Planned change is also regarded as the developmental change which is implemented with the
objective of improving the present ways of operation and to achieve the pre-defined goals.
Planned change is calculated and is not threatening as in this the future state is being chosen
consciously. The introduction of employee welfare measures, changes in the incentive system,
introduction of new products and technologies, organizational restructuring, team building,
enhancing employee communication as well as technical expertise fall under the category of
Planned Change.
5. Incremental Change
Change which is implemented at the micro level, units or subunits can be regarded as
incremental change. Incremental changes are introduced or implemented gradually and are
adaptive in nature. It assumes that these small changes will ultimately result in a large change
and establish the basis for forming a much healthier and a robust system. It even offers an
opportunity to an organization to learn from its very own experiences and create the adaptive
mechanisms for meeting the ultimate organizational vision. The extent of damage due to a
failed incremental change effort is expected to be much lesser than the change which is
implemented on a large scale or introduced universally.
6. Operational Change
This kind of change becomes a requirement or the need when an organization is faced with
competitive pressures as a result of which the focus is laid more on quality improvement or
improvement in the delivery of services for an edge over the competitors. Similarly, changes
in the customer’s buying patterns or demands or the internal dynamics of an organization
equally necessitate the implementation of operational change. Operational change as the name
implies means introducing changes in the existing operations for realizing the intended goals.
This may include bringing in changes in the current technology, improving/re-engineering the
existing work processes, improving the distribution framework or the product delivery, better
quality management and improving the coordination at an inter-departmental level.
7. Strategic Change
Strategic Change is usually implemented at the organizational level, which may affect the
various components of an organization and also the organizational strategy. A change in the
management style in an organization could be considered as an example of strategic change. A
multinational organization like Toyota has taken a step ahead in bringing in a change in the
overall organizational philosophy for availing the advantages of being a leaner organization
structurally, flexibility, decentralized decision making and functioning of organizations and
equally allows a greater extent of freedom or autonomy in implementing proactive decisions.
This kind of change is expected to have a cascading effect on the entire organization and
accordingly would be having an influence on the overall performance.
8. Directional Change
Directional change may become a necessity due to the increasing competitive pressures or due
to rapid changes in the governmental control or policies, which may include changes in the
import/export policies, pricing structure and taxation policies, etc. Directional change can also
become imperative when an organization lacks the capability of implementing/executing the
current strategy effectively or during the circumstances when a strategic change is required.
9. Fundamental Change
Fundamental Change essentially involves the redefinition of organizational vision/mission.

This may be required during extremely volatile circumstances like volatility in the business
environment, failure of the leadership, a decline in productivity as well as the overall turnover
or problems with the morale of the employee.
10. Total Change
A Total Change involves change in the organizational vision and striking a harmonious
alignment with the organizational strategy, employee morale and commitment as well as with
the business performance. Total Change becomes a requirement during those circumstances
when an organization is faced with many criticalities such as long-term business failure,
incongruence between the employee and organizational values, failure of leaders/management
in anticipating the realities of business environment or the growing competitive pressures and
concentration of power in the hands of few. A new organizational vision along with major
strategic changes as well as complete organizational surgery can be the only solution at this
point of time.
F. Why Change Management
Change is happening in every organization. Every day, new initiatives and projects are
launched to improve performance, increase protect and enhance competitive advantage.
Implementing technology to enable a more mobile workforce, reengineering a process to
ensure regulatory compliance or pursuing an enterprise-wide transformation around customer
experience. There is a common denominator for achieving the intended outcomes of every
initiative: people. These initiatives impact how individual people do their work: their processes,
job roles, workflows, reporting structures, behaviors and even their identity within the
organization.
Change management is the approach to driving adoption and usage so initiatives deliver
expected results and outcomes. Here is why a manager need change management:
1. Thrive in an Ever-Changing World

Organizations are facing faster, more complex, more interdependent and more cross-functional
change than ever before. Being able to deliver results on multiple changes allows an
organization to achieve their strategic vision and thrive in today’s changing landscape.
Applying change management enables organizations to deliver results on each change more
effectively and build competencies that grow the organization’s capacity to tackle more
changes at one time.
2. Deliver the People-Dependent Portion of Project ROI

Changes in organizations are undertaken to improve performance. Some of that improvement
comes from just installing the solution. However, much of the benefits and expected
improvement is tied to people changing how they do their jobs. Change management focuses
on helping people change how they do their jobs, allowing us to capture the adoption
contribution and the people-dependent portion of project ROI.
3. Close the Gap Between Requirements and Results
All too often, organizational changes meet requirements without delivering expected results.
They deliver the necessary outputs without delivering on expected outcomes. The focus of the
change effort is on the solution rather than the benefits of the solution. The gap that exists
between requirements and results, between outputs and outcomes, between solutions and
benefit is the people who bring the change to life in their day-to-day work. Change management
enables the closing of this gap by effectively supporting and equipping those people impacted
by a change to be successful in bringing it to life in how they work.
4. Increase Likelihood of Project Success

The better we apply change management, the more likely we are to deliver on project
objectives. By simply moving from “poor” to “fair,” change management increases the
likelihood of meeting objectives by three-fold. Change management, when applied effectively
on a project, significantly increases the success rate of the effort.
5. Mitigate Mission-Critical Risk
Ignoring the people side of change creates risk. When the adoption and usage of a solution is
ignored, and the focus is exclusively on meeting technical requirements, the result is excessive
risk and cost. Projects are subjected to “RE” costs like redesign, rework, revisit, redo, retrain,
rescope, and in some cases, retreat. Absenteeism and attrition increase. Productivity declines.
Customers feel the impact when they were not supposed to. Morale suffers. Employees
disengage.
Failing to plan for and address the people side of change is costly, and change management is
the discipline to help mitigate those mission-critical risks.
G. Difference/comparison between Change Management and Project

Management
There are several differences between both change management and also project management
but what are the five key differences that occur between these two areas? This has become a
common question lately with the amount of changes going on throughout the online world of
websites.
Change Management happens to be a more structured approach to the management of change
within individuals, organizations, teams and societies. It enables transition from one stage to
another.
Project Management happens to be the organization and management of resources designed

to meet and complete projects by the defined time line, budget, quality standards and scope. In
all it’s the way projects get done; with a little guidance along the way.
When you are running a project you’ll quickly learn that these two always run side-by-side
even if you don’t want them to. Your change management is the vision while the project
management is the process to get that vision to reality. There is no possible way you can avoid
having just one as you need to have both to have a final project.
The various key differences between change management and project management is as
follows.
With change management you are developing the ideas behind the changes that you’d like to
implement but with project management you are implementing these ideas to be realistic
things. During the project management, you have a timeline that you must stick to but during
change management you are just developing the ideas; meaning you don’t need a timeline as
the ideas are still being put together for one big idea.
Change management requires a lot of structure before you can place it into the project
management stage. Without starting with a good structure of ideas there is no way the idea will
reach the project management stage. Project management already has the ideas implemented
and the exact timeline and budget of things. There isn’t much thought of where you are going
within this stage as there is already a timeline and milestones developed, leaving no space to
adjust the structure of the project in its entirety.
Basic Differences between Change and Project Management
1. Change management is only an idea, unlike project management which is the

development of the idea.
2. Project management has a timeline while change management does not.
3. Change management needs many ideas to make one vision while project management
just needs one vision to develop from.
4. Change management is the structuring of the vision while project management is the
stage where things are put into milestones for final reality.
5. Project management already has a defined goal while change management can be
adjusted at any second.
There is much difference to both change management and project management yet these two
are still very similar. Don’t attempt to make a vision a reality without having the proper
methods of change management and project management as you will not get very far in the
process.
H. Project Management and Change Management: A Side-By-Side Comparison
The disciplines of change management and project management understandably cross paths
throughout the execution of a project or initiative. Each brings necessary and critical structure
for effectively implementing change and realizing results.
Change management and project management must present a unified value proposition in order
to achieve successful change. The unified value proposition sets the foundation for the tactical
integration which is addressed in greater detail in the article, "Dimensions of Integrating
Change Management and Project Management."
Change, at its most basic level, is about moving from a current state, through a transition state
to arrive at a new future state. The goal of change is to improve performance in some
meaningful way - so that performance levels in the future state are better than they had been in
the current state. Organizations - both in the public and private sectors - introduce projects or
initiatives as ways to add structure to change.
The movement from the current to the future state occurs on two dimensions. From a technical
perspective, a solution that will address the issue or opportunity must be designed, developed
and delivered into the organization. From a people side perspective, that solution is ultimately
manifested in the behaviors, processes and day-to-day activities of employees in the
organization. For the solution to deliver results it must be embraced, adopted and used by those
groups impacted by the solution.
Project management and change management provide structured and intentional approaches to
the technical side and people side of a project or initiative, respectively. This is the foundation
of the phrase "complementary disciplines with a common objective" which describes these two
disciplines. The common objective, in times of change, is to improve the performance of the
organization with a project or initiative - to reach a desired future state. Project management
and change management are complementary disciplines because they each provide focus,
processes and tools for moving through the transition toward the future state. A successful
change is characterized by a solution that is effectively designed, developed and delivered
(project management) and that is embraced, adopted and used by impacted employees (change
management).
Without an approach for both the technical side and people side of change, organizations are
unable to deliver sustainable results through change. The unified value proposition of applying
both project management and change management is actually quite simple: delivering intended
improvement through successfully implemented change programs.
Below is an overview of the change management and project management disciplines - drawing
comparisons across a number of horizons including focus, definition, intent, process, tools,
scaling factors, measurement of success and practitioners. While this list highlights the
differences between the disciplines, remember that the common objective is to deliver
successful change.
Change Management Project Management

Definition Change Management is the application of Project Management is the application
processes and tools to manage the people of knowledge, skills, tools and
side of change from a current state to a new techniques to project activities to meet
future state such that the desired results of the project requirements.
change (and expected return on investment)
are achieved.
Intent Change Management - employees Project Management - tasks and
impacted by a project or initiative (those who activities required to create and
must adopt and use the change) implement the technical solution
associated with a change
Change Management - characteristics of Project Management - complexity and

the change, attributes of impacted degree of technical change associated
Scaling
organizations, degree of "people" change with the particular project or initiative
factors
required
Change Management - From the Project Management
®
- From PMBOK Guide
Prosci 3-Phase Process 1. Initiating
Process
2. Planning
1. Phase 1 - Preparing for change 3. Executing
2. Phase 2 - Managing change 4. Monitoring and controlling
3. Phase 3 - Reinforcing change TM 5. Closing
Change Management - Common tools used Project Management - Common tools
in change management used in project management
Tools
• Individual change model • Statement of work
• Readiness assessments • Project charter
• Communication plans • Business case
• Sponsor roadmaps • Work breakdown structure
• Coaching plans • Gantt chart
• Training plans • Budget estimations
• Resistance management • Resource allocation
• Reinforcement mechanisms • Schedule/tracking
Change Management - Measurement Project Management - Measurement

focused on the "people side" of change focused on the "technical side" of
Measurement elements, including: change elements, primarily:
of success
1. Speed of adoption by impacted 1. On time
employees
2. On budget
2. Ultimate utilization by impacted
employees 3. Meets technical requirements
3. Proficiency of impacted employees 4. Achievement of results and
4. Achievement of results and outcomes outcomes *
*
* In some cases, intended results and
* Because results and outcomes are outcomes take a secondary role behind
dependent on individuals adopting the time and budget targets
change, this is a primary focus
Change Management includes a system of Project Management is typically

"doers" throughout the organization, not just practiced by a project manager and a
Practiced by change management practitioners, including: project team assigned to a specific
project or initiative.
❑ Executives and senior leaders:
sponsoring the change ❑ Project managers: manage the
❑ Managers and supervisors: coaching tasks, activities and resources to
their direct reports through the execute the technical side of the
change effort
❑ Project team: comprised of
subject matter experts and
representatives from the
organization
Project management and change management each contribute a critical ingredient to successful
change. Although they vary in terms of focus and approach, each are essential in order to
navigate the transition state to reach a future state.
I. Why Change Management Matters
There are numerous reasons to employ effective change management on both large- and small-
scale efforts. Here are three main reasons to employ change management:
1. Organizational change happens one person at a time
2. Poorly managing change is costly
3. Effective change management increases the likelihood of success
1. Organizational change happens one person at a time
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking about change exclusively from an organizational
perspective. When one thinks about a merger or acquisition, they can focus on financial
structuring, data and system integration and physical location changes. However,
organizational change of any kind actually occurs one person at a time. Success of an
organization effort only occurs when Adam and Betty and Charles and Deborah (for example)
do their jobs differently. Organizations don’t change; people within organizations change. It is
the cumulative impact of successful individual change that results in an organizational change
being successful. If individuals don’t make changes to their day-to-day work, an organizational
transformation effort will not deliver results.
2. Poorly managing change is costly
There are countless consequences of ignoring the people side of a change:
❑ Productivity declines on a larger scale for a longer duration than necessary

❑ Managers are unwilling to devote the time or resources needed to support the change
❑ Key stakeholders do not show up to meetings
❑ Suppliers begin to feel the impact and see the disruption caused by the change
❑ Customers are negatively impacted by a change that should have been invisible to them
❑ Employee morale suffers and divisions between “us” and “them” begin to emerge in
the organization
❑ Stress, confusion and fatigue all increase
❑ Valued employees leave the organization
Projects also suffer as due to missed deadlines, overrun budgets and unexpected and
unnecessary rework to get the effort back on track. In some cases, the project itself is
completely abandoned after large investments of capital and time. All of these consequences
have tangible and real financial impact on the health of the organization and the project. And
each of these consequences can be addressed and mitigated if a project includes a structured
approach to the people side of change
3. Effective change management increases the likelihood of success
There is a growing body of data that shows the impact that effective change management has
on the probability that a project meets its objectives. Prosci’s longitudinal benchmarking
studies show a strong correlation: Data from the 2013 benchmarking study showed that 96%
of participants with excellent change management met or exceeded objectives, while only 16%
of those with poor change management met or exceeded objectives.
In other words, projects with excellent change management were six times more likely to meet
objectives than those with poor change management. Regardless of the change at hand,
focusing on the people side of change increases the likelihood of being successful.
Additionally, Prosci’s research shows a direct correlation between effective change
management and staying on schedule and on budget.
J. 10 Principles of Change Management
Senior executives in large companies had a simple goal for themselves and their organizations:
stability. Shareholders wanted little more than predictable earnings growth. Because so many
markets were either closed or undeveloped, leaders could deliver on those expectations through
annual exercises that offered only modest modifications to the strategic plan. Prices stayed in
check; people stayed in their jobs; life was good.
Market transparency, labor mobility, global capital flows, and instantaneous communications
have blown that comfortable scenario to smithereens. In most industries — and in almost all
companies, from giants on down — heightened global competition has concentrated
management’s collective mind on something that, in the past, it happily avoided: change.
Successful companies, as Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter
told s+b in 1999, develop “a culture that just keeps moving all the time.”
This presents most senior executives with an unfamiliar challenge. In major transformations of
large enterprises, they and their advisors conventionally focus their attention on devising the
best strategic and tactical plans. But to succeed, they also must have an intimate understanding
of the human side of change management — the alignment of the company’s culture, values,
people, and behaviors — to encourage the desired results. Plans themselves do not capture
value; value is realized only through the sustained, collective actions of the thousands —
perhaps the tens of thousands — of employees who are responsible for designing, executing,
and living with the changed environment.
Long-term structural transformation has four characteristics: scale (the change affects all or
most of the organization), magnitude (it involves significant alterations of the status quo),
duration (it lasts for months, if not years), and strategic importance. Yet companies will reap
the rewards only when change occurs at the level of the individual employee.
Many senior executives know this and worry about it. When asked what keeps them up at night,
CEOs involved in transformation often say they are concerned about how the work force will
react, how they can get their team to work together, and how they will be able to lead their
people. They also worry about retaining their company’s unique values and sense of identity
and about creating a culture of commitment and performance. Leadership teams that fail to
plan for the human side of change often find themselves wondering why their best-laid plans
have gone awry.
No single methodology fits every company, but there is a set of practices, tools, and techniques
that can be adapted to a variety of situations. What follows is a “Top 10” list of guiding
principles for change management. Using these as a systematic, comprehensive framework,
executives can understand what to expect, how to manage their own personal change, and how
to engage the entire organization in the process.
1. Address the “human side” systematically. Any significant transformation creates “people
issues.” New leaders will be asked to step up, jobs will be changed, new skills and capabilities
must be developed, and employees will be uncertain and resistant. Dealing with these issues
on a reactive, case-by-case basis puts speed, morale, and results at risk. A formal approach for
managing change — beginning with the leadership team and then engaging key stakeholders
and leaders — should be developed early, and adapted often as change moves through the
organization. This demands as much data collection and analysis, planning, and
implementation discipline as does a redesign of strategy, systems, or processes. The change-
management approach should be fully integrated into program design and decision making,
both informing and enabling strategic direction. It should be based on a realistic assessment of
the organization’s history, readiness, and capacity to change.
2. Start at the top. Because change is inherently unsettling for people at all levels of an
organization, when it is on the horizon, all eyes will turn to the CEO and the leadership team
for strength, support, and direction. The leaders themselves must embrace the new approaches
first, both to challenge and to motivate the rest of the institution. They must speak with one
voice and model the desired behaviors. The executive team also needs to understand that,
although its public face may be one of unity, it, too, is composed of individuals who are going
through stressful times and need to be supported.
Executive teams that work well together are best positioned for success. They are aligned and
committed to the direction of change, understand the culture and behaviors the changes intend
to introduce, and can model those changes themselves. At one large transportation company,
the senior team rolled out an initiative to improve the efficiency and performance of its
corporate and field staff before addressing change issues at the officer level. The initiative
realized initial cost savings but stalled as employees began to question the leadership team’s
vision and commitment. Only after the leadership team went through the process of aligning
and committing to the change initiative was the work force able to deliver downstream results.
3. Involve every layer. As transformation programs progress from defining strategy and
setting targets to design and implementation, they affect different levels of the organization.
Change efforts must include plans for identifying leaders throughout the company and pushing
responsibility for design and implementation down, so that change “cascades” through the
organization. At each layer of the organization, the leaders who are identified and trained must
be aligned to the company’s vision, equipped to execute their specific mission, and motivated
to make change happen.
A major multiline insurer with consistently flat earnings decided to change performance and
behavior in preparation for going public. The company followed this “cascading leadership”
methodology, training and supporting teams at each stage. First, 10 officers set the strategy,
vision, and targets. Next, more than 60 senior executives and managers designed the core of
the change initiative. Then 500 leaders from the field drove implementation. The structure
remained in place throughout the change program, which doubled the company’s earnings far
ahead of schedule. This approach is also a superb way for a company to identify its next
generation of leadership.
4. Make the formal case. Individuals are inherently rational and will question to what extent
change is needed, whether the company is headed in the right direction, and whether they want
to commit personally to making change happen. They will look to the leadership for answers.
The articulation of a formal case for change and the creation of a written vision statement are
invaluable opportunities to create or compel leadership-team alignment.
Three steps should be followed in developing the case: First, confront reality and articulate a
convincing need for change. Second, demonstrate faith that the company has a viable future
and the leadership to get there. Finally, provide a road map to guide behavior and decision
making. Leaders must then customize this message for various internal audiences, describing
the pending change in terms that matter to the individuals.
A consumer packaged-goods company experiencing years of steadily declining earnings

determined that it needed to significantly restructure its operations — instituting, among other
things, a 30 percent work force reduction — to remain competitive. In a series of offsite
meetings, the executive team built a brutally honest business case that downsizing was the only
way to keep the business viable, and drew on the company’s proud heritage to craft a
compelling vision to lead the company forward. By confronting reality and helping employees
understand the necessity for change, leaders were able to motivate the organization to follow
the new direction in the midst of the largest downsizing in the company’s history. Instead of
being shell-shocked and demoralized, those who stayed felt a renewed resolve to help the
enterprise advance.
5. Create ownership. Leaders of large change programs must overperform during the
transformation and be the zealots who create a critical mass among the work force in favor of
change. This requires more than mere buy-in or passive agreement that the direction of change
is acceptable. It demands ownership by leaders willing to accept responsibility for making
change happen in all of the areas they influence or control. Ownership is often best created by
involving people in identifying problems and crafting solutions. It is reinforced by incentives
and rewards. These can be tangible (for example, financial compensation) or psychological (for
example, camaraderie and a sense of shared destiny).
At a large health-care organization that was moving to a shared-services model for

administrative support, the first department to create detailed designs for the new organization
was human resources. Its personnel worked with advisors in cross-functional teams for more
than six months. But as the designs were being finalized, top departmental executives began to
resist the move to implementation. While agreeing that the work was top-notch, the executives
realized they hadn’t invested enough individual time in the design process to feel the ownership
required to begin implementation. On the basis of their feedback, the process was modified to
include a “deep dive.” The departmental executives worked with the design teams to learn
more, and get further exposure to changes that would occur. This was the turning point; the
transition then happened quickly. It also created a forum for top executives to work as a team,
creating a sense of alignment and unity that the group hadn’t felt before.
6. Communicate the message. Too often, change leaders make the mistake of believing that
others understand the issues, feel the need to change, and see the new direction as clearly as
they do. The best change programs reinforce core messages through regular, timely advice that
is both inspirational and practicable. Communications flow in from the bottom and out from
the top, and are targeted to provide employees the right information at the right time and to
solicit their input and feedback. Often this will require overcommunication through multiple,
redundant channels.
In the late 1990s, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Charles O. Rossotti, had
a vision: The IRS could treat taxpayers as customers and turn a feared bureaucracy into a world-
class service organization. Getting more than 100,000 employees to think and act differently
required more than just systems redesign and process change. IRS leadership designed and
executed an ambitious communications program including daily voice mails from the
commissioner and his top staff, training sessions, videotapes, newsletters, and town hall
meetings that continued through the transformation. Timely, constant, practical communication
was at the heart of the program, which brought the IRS’s customer ratings from the lowest in
various surveys to its current ranking above the likes of McDonald’s and most airlines.
7. Assess the cultural landscape. Successful change programs pick up speed and intensity as
they cascade down, making it critically important that leaders understand and account for
culture and behaviors at each level of the organization. Companies often make the mistake of
assessing culture either too late or not at all. Thorough cultural diagnostics can assess
organizational readiness to change, bring major problems to the surface, identify conflicts, and
define factors that can recognize and influence sources of leadership and resistance. These
diagnostics identify the core values, beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions that must be taken into
account for successful change to occur. They serve as the common baseline for designing
essential change elements, such as the new corporate vision, and building the infrastructure and
programs needed to drive change.
8. Address culture explicitly. Once the culture is understood, it should be addressed as

thoroughly as any other area in a change program. Leaders should be explicit about the culture
and underlying behaviors that will best support the new way of doing business, and find
opportunities to model and reward those behaviors. This requires developing a baseline,
defining an explicit end-state or desired culture, and devising detailed plans to make the
transition.
Company culture is an amalgam of shared history, explicit values and beliefs, and common
attitudes and behaviors. Change programs can involve creating a culture (in new companies or
those built through multiple acquisitions), combining cultures (in mergers or acquisitions of
large companies), or reinforcing cultures (in, say, long-established consumer goods or
manufacturing companies). Understanding that all companies have a cultural center — the
locus of thought, activity, influence, or personal identification — is often an effective way to
jump-start culture change.
A consumer goods company with a suite of premium brands determined that business realities
demanded a greater focus on profitability and bottom-line accountability. In addition to
redesigning metrics and incentives, it developed a plan to systematically change the company’s
culture, beginning with marketing, the company’s historical center. It brought the marketing
staff into the process early to create enthusiasts for the new philosophy who adapted marketing
campaigns, spending plans, and incentive programs to be more accountable. Seeing these
culture leaders grab onto the new program, the rest of the company quickly fell in line.
9. Prepare for the unexpected. No change program goes completely according to plan. People
react in unexpected ways; areas of anticipated resistance fall away; and the external
environment shifts. Effectively managing change requires continual reassessment of its impact
and the organization’s willingness and ability to adopt the next wave of transformation. Fed by
real data from the field and supported by information and solid decision-making processes,
change leaders can then make the adjustments necessary to maintain momentum and drive
results.
A leading U.S. health-care company was facing competitive and financial pressures from its
inability to react to changes in the marketplace. A diagnosis revealed shortcomings in its
organizational structure and governance, and the company decided to implement a new
operating model. In the midst of detailed design, a new CEO and leadership team took over.
The new team was initially skeptical, but was ultimately convinced that a solid case for change,
grounded in facts and supported by the organization at large, existed. Some adjustments were
made to the speed and sequence of implementation, but the fundamentals of the new operating
model remained unchanged.
10. Speak to the individual. Change is both an institutional journey and a very personal one.
People spend many hours each week at work; many think of their colleagues as a second family.
Individuals (or teams of individuals) need to know how their work will change, what is
expected of them during and after the change program, how they will be measured, and what
success or failure will mean for them and those around them. Team leaders should be as honest
and explicit as possible. People will react to what they see and hear around them, and need to
be involved in the change process. Highly visible rewards, such as promotion, recognition, and
bonuses, should be provided as dramatic reinforcement for embracing change. Sanction or
removal of people standing in the way of change will reinforce the institution’s commitment.
Most leaders contemplating change know that people matter. It is all too tempting, however, to
dwell on the plans and processes, which don’t talk back and don’t respond emotionally, rather
than face up to the more difficult and more critical human issues. But mastering the “soft” side
of change management needn’t be a mystery.
Chapter Two
Models of Organizational Change
Change Management Models to Evolve and Survive
Any business to survive it will need to evolve. For it to evolve, managers need to
make changes. It’s not a secret that managing change is hard. Without a change
management model, the success of those changes is up to nothing more than hope
and dumb luck. There are countless unexpected obstacles you might encounter,
anything from your own team rebelling against you to failing at enforcing new
business processes. Even if you, as a manager, get everything right, a wild card
element could cause the entire initiative to backfire. Considering all this, it
shouldn’t really surprising that over 70% of change initiatives fail.
There are 3 general types of change management models. These are
1. Organization-wide Change Models

a. McKinsey 7-S Model
b. Lewin’s Change Management Model
2. Bottom-up (that is, creating change by altering and improving tasks or
processes), and
a. ADKAR Model
b. Deming Cycle (PDCA)
3. Employee-focused (how to motivate them and gain buy-in)
a. Kotter’s 8 Steps Change Model
b. Bridges Transition Model
1. Organization-wide change Models
These models are more macro-level. They’re focused on identifying potential

improvements company-wide and enforcing them. They’re essential for large-
scale organizations, but not as much for SMBs.
A. McKinsey 7-S Model
While some models of organizational effectiveness and change go in and out of

fashion, one that has persisted is the McKinsey 7-S framework. Developed in the
early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the
McKinsey & Company consulting firm, the basic premise of the model is that
there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is
to be successful.
The McKinsey 7-S model is helpful prior to beginning a change management

initiative. It helps managers to determine the “why” of change, rather than the
“how.” As a manager you can use the 7-S model to figure out what changes you
should be making, and then use the research results to get buy-in from company
management.
Usually, you’re either going to use the model as a tool for general introspection
(think, how the company is operating in general) or for analyzing a specific
business strategy (the company wants to enter a new market. Does it have
everything it needs to achieve that?).
The downside with the model, though, is that it’s hard and time-consuming.
Unless your company is an SMB, you’ll need to do a lot of research to figure out
how your organization functions. This might mean interviews and face-to-face
meetings with department heads, employees, etc.
McKinsey 7-S model is based on analyzing the 7 elements that make up your
organization divided into 2 separate categories: Hard or Soft elements.
Hard Elements Soft Elements
Strategy Shared Values
Structure Skills
Systems Style
Staff
The hard elements are all the concrete stuff you can identify. Think, procedures,
IT systems, company general strategy, etc. The soft elements are significantly
harder to pinpoint. They’re more about company culture & your employees –
something that’s hard to measure with metrics.
Before we explain how to actually use the model, we’ll go through each element
individually.
I. Hard Elements
1. Strategy – the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage
over the competition.
2. Structure – The hierarchy of the company. The way the organization is
structured and who reports to whom.
3. Systems –Tasks and processes that employees go through daily. Think,
business rules & processes.
II. Soft Elements
1. Shared Values – Values of the company. called "superordinate goals"

when the model was first developed, these are the core values of the
company that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work
ethic.
2. Skills – The skills and core competencies of your employees
3. Style – Leadership style used by the company. Think, democratic, laissez-
faire, etc.
4. Staff – Your employees & their roles.
How to Use McKinsey 7-S Model
The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these
seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can
be used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to
maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change.
Whatever the type of change – restructuring, new processes, organizational

merger, new systems, change of leadership, and so on – the model can be used to
understand how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that
the wider impact of changes made in one area is taken into consideration.
You can use the 7-S model to help analyze the current situation (Point A), a
proposed future situation (Point B) and to identify gaps and inconsistencies
between them. It's then a question of adjusting and tuning the elements of the 7-
S model to ensure that your organization works effectively and well once you
reach the desired endpoint.
Sounds simple? Well, of course not: changing your organization will likely not
be simple at all! Whole books and methodologies are dedicated to analyzing
organizational strategy, improving performance and managing change. The 7-S
model is a good framework to help you ask the right questions – but it won't give
you all the answers. For that, you'll need to bring together the right knowledge,
skills and experience.
When it comes to asking the right questions, we've developed a Mind Tools
checklist and a matrix to keep track of how the seven elements align with each
other. Supplement these with your own questions, based on your organization's
specific circumstances and accumulated wisdom.
7-S Checklist Questions
1. Strategy
a. What are the company goals, both in the short-term and long-term?
b. Are you in the right direction to achieving them? Is there empirical proof
for this?
c. How do you plan on staying competitive?
d. Is the company keeping up with latest trends, technological developments,
etc.
e. How do we intend to achieve our objectives?
f. How do we deal with competitive pressure?
g. How are changes in customer demands dealt with?
h. How is strategy adjusted for environmental issues?
2. Structure
a. What’s the company hierarchy?

b. How is decision-making handled? Who gets a say in what? In some cases,
centralized decision making allows for faster execution. It does, on the
other hand, also stall innovation and ideation.
c. How do different departments coordinate? How are they organized and
managed?
d. How do different teams coordinate? How are the organized and managed?
e. How do individual team members organize themselves & coordinate with
each other?
f. How does everyone communicate with each other? With what frequency?
3. Systems
a. What are the core systems that make the organization tick?
b. Are the systems enforced? i.e, do your employees stick to procedures.
c. Who evaluates the systems? Is the monitoring efficient?
d. How & how often are the systems monitored or changed?
e. What are the main systems that run the organization? Consider financial
and HR systems as well as communications and document storage.
f. Where are the controls and how are they monitored and evaluated?
g. What internal rules and processes does the team use to keep on track?
4. Shared Values
a. What are your company values?

b. What are your team values? Are they aligned with the company values?
c. Do your employees reflect the values?
d. How strong are the values?
e. What are the fundamental values that the company/team was built on?
5. Style
a. What’s the leadership style company-wide?
b. Does it defer from department to department?
c. Is the leadership style effective? How hands-on is it?
d. Do managers practice the leadership style asked by the C-suite?
e. Does your company have a culture of competition or collaboration? Does
it foster or halter growth?
f. Do employees/team members tend to be competitive or cooperative?
g. Are there real teams functioning within the organization or are they just
nominal groups?
6. Staff
a. What positions does the company currently employ?

b. What core competencies do you have? Are you lacking any?
c. Are there any positions that need to be filled? What are they?
7. Skills
a. What’s your company known to excel in? Think, logistics, marketing, etc.
b. What are the skills that your employees have?
c. Are they qualified to do succeed at their job?
d. How do you assess the skills?
e. What positions or specializations are represented within the team?
f. What positions need to be filled?
g. Are there gaps in required competencies?
7-S Matrix Questions
Using the information, you have gathered, now examine where there are gaps and
inconsistencies between elements. Remember you can use this to look at either
your current or your desired organization. Using the following McKinsey 7-S
Worksheet, which contains a matrix that you can use to check off alignment
between each of the elements as you go through the following steps:
1. Start with your Shared Values: are they consistent with your structure,
strategy, and systems? If not, what needs to change?
2. Then look at the hard elements. How well does each one support the
others? Identify where changes need to be made.
3. Next look at the other soft elements. Do they support the desired hard
elements? Do they support one another? If not, what needs to change?
4. As you adjust and align the elements, you'll need to use an iterative (and
often time-consuming) process of making adjustments, and then re-
analyzing how that impacts other elements and their alignment. The end
result of better performance will be worth it.
B. Lewin’s Change Management Model
One of the cornerstone models for understanding organizational change was

developed by Kurt Lewin back in the 1940s, and still holds true today. His model
is known as Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze, which refers to the three-stage
process of change that he describes. The model represents a very simple and
practical model for understanding the change process. For Lewin, the process of
change entails creating the perception that a change is needed, then moving
toward the new, desired level of behavior and finally, solidifying that new
behavior as the norm. The model is still widely used and serves as the basis for
many modern change models.
Understanding Lewin's Change Management Model
If you have a large cube of ice but realize that what you want is a cone of ice,
what do you do? First you must melt the ice to make it amenable to change
(unfreeze). Then you must mold the iced water into the shape you want (change).
Finally, you must solidify the new shape (refreeze).
By looking at change as a process with distinct stages, you can prepare yourself
for what is coming and make a plan to manage the transition – looking before you
leap, so to speak. All too often, people go into change blindly, causing much
unnecessary turmoil and chaos.
To begin any successful change process, you must first start by understanding
why the change must take place. As Lewin put it, "Motivation for change must
be generated before change can occur. One must be helped to re-examine many
cherished assumptions about oneself and one's relations to others." This is the
unfreezing stage from which change begins.
1. Unfreezing
This first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that
change is necessary, which involves breaking down the existing status quo before
you can build up a new way of operating. Key to unfreezing is developing a
compelling message showing why the existing way of doing things cannot
continue. This is easiest to frame when you can point to declining sales figures,
poor financial results, worrying customer satisfaction surveys, or suchlike. These
show that things have to change in a way that everyone can understand. Before a
change can be implemented, it must go through the initial step of unfreezing.
Because many people will naturally resist change, the goal during the unfreezing
stage is to create an awareness of how the status quo, or current level of
acceptability, is hindering the organization in some way. Old behaviors, ways of
thinking, processes, people and organizational structures must all be carefully
examined to show employees how necessary a change is for the organization to
create or maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Communication
is especially important during the unfreezing stage so that employees can become
informed about the imminent change, the logic behind it and how it will benefit
each employee. The idea is that the more we know about a change and the more
we feel it is necessary and urgent, the more motivated we are to accept the change.
2. Changing
Now that the people are 'unfrozen' they can begin to move. Lewin recognized that
change is a process where the organization must transition or move into this new
state of being. This changing step, also referred to as 'transitioning' or 'moving,'
is marked by the implementation of the change. This is when the change becomes
real. It's also, consequently, the time that most people struggle with the new
reality. It is a time marked with uncertainty and fear, making it the hardest step
to overcome. During the changing step people begin to learn the new behaviors,
processes and ways of thinking. The more prepared they are for this step, the
easier it is to complete. For this reason, education, communication, support and
time are critical for employees as they become familiar with the change. Again,
change is a process that must be carefully planned and executed. Throughout this
process, employees should be reminded of the reasons for the change and how it
will benefit them once fully implemented.
In order to accept the change and contribute to making it successful, people need
to understand how it will benefit them. Not everyone will fall in line just because
the change is necessary and will benefit the company. This is a common
assumption and a pitfall that should be avoided. Unfortunately, some people will
genuinely be harmed by change, particularly those who benefit strongly from the
status quo. Others may take a long time to recognize the benefits that change
brings. You need to foresee and manage these situations.
3. Refreezing
Lewin called the final stage of his change model freezing, but many refer to it as
refreezing to symbolize the act of reinforcing, stabilizing and solidifying the new
state after the change. The changes made to organizational processes, goals,
structure, offerings or people are accepted and refrozen as the new norm or status
quo. Lewin found the refreezing step to be especially important to ensure that
people do not revert back to their old ways of thinking or doing prior to the
implementation of the change. Efforts must be made to guarantee the change is
not lost; rather, it needs to be cemented into the organization's culture and
maintained as the acceptable way of thinking or doing. Positive rewards and
acknowledgment of individualized efforts are often used to reinforce the new
state because it is believed that positively reinforced behavior will likely be
repeated.
Some argue that the refreezing step is outdated in contemporary business due to
the continuous need for change. They find it unnecessary to spend time freezing
a new state when chances are it will need to be reevaluated and possibly changed
again in the immediate future. However - as I previously mentioned - without the
refreezing step, there is a high chance that people will revert back to the old way
of doing things. Taking one step forward and two steps back can be a common
theme when organizations overlook the refreezing step in anticipation of future
change.
As part of the refreezing process, make sure that you celebrate the success of the
change – this helps people to find closure, thanks them for enduring a painful
time, and helps them believe that future change will be successful.
Practical Steps for Using the Framework
1. Unfreeze
1. Determine what needs to change.
• Survey the organization to understand the current state.
• Understand why change has to take place.
2. Ensure there is strong support from senior management.
• Use Stakeholder Analysis and Stakeholder Management to identify and
win the support of key people within the organization.
• Frame the issue as one of organization-wide importance.
3. Create the need for change.
• Create a compelling message about why change has to occur.
• Use your vision and strategy as supporting evidence.
• Communicate the vision in terms of the change required.
• Emphasize the "why."
4. Manage and understand the doubts and concerns.
• Remain open to employee concerns and address them in terms of the need
to change.
2. Change
1. Communicate often.
• Do so throughout the planning and implementation of the changes.
• Describe the benefits.
• Explain exactly how the changes will affect everyone.
• Prepare everyone for what is coming.
2. Dispel rumors.
• Answer questions openly and honestly.
• Deal with problems immediately.
• Relate the need for change back to operational necessities.
3. Empower action.
• Provide lots of opportunity for employee involvement.
• Have line managers provide day-to-day direction.
4. Involve people in the process.
• Generate short-term wins to reinforce the change.
• Negotiate with external stakeholders as necessary (such as employee
organizations).
3. Refreeze
1. Anchor the changes into the culture.
• Identity what supports the change.
• Identify barriers to sustaining change.
2. Develop ways to sustain the change.
• Ensure leadership support.
• Create a reward system.
• Establish feedback systems.
• Adapt the organizational structure as necessary.
3. Provide support and training.
• Keep everyone informed and supported.
4. Celebrate success!
Limitations of Lewin’s Change Management Model
Due to the scale of the unfreezing process, Lewin’s model can be difficult and
time-consuming to enact. This isn’t necessarily a problem (since the changes
highlighted are often massive and require a large time investment anyway), but it
does mean that using the model for anything less than an in-depth analysis and
overhaul isn’t worthwhile.
Lewin’s model also requires a great deal of care to be taken beyond the base
instructions to support your team and consider their emotions through the turmoil.
Massive changes (which this model is suited to) run the risk of alienating
employees, since their workflow will be drastically different than before. As such,
you need to be especially careful when bringing them on board and keeping up
their enthusiasm in the refreezing stage.
2. Bottom-up Models of Change Management
Bottom-up change management seeks to involve those affected in the process of

change. This approach seeks to avoid the pitfalls of imposed change by allowing
individuals within their working groups to come to terms with change. Bottom-
up is often associated with an emergent change process like trends in technology
demand rethinking what markets do we want to play-in and with what technology.
This approach typically runs into several problems being too slow to respond
effectively to short-term business demands. When change initiatives come from
the grass roots it takes a considerable amount of time to propagate the change
throughout the organization, particularly to the higher-ups. In essence, this
approach is based on collective decision-making.
A. ADKAR Model
Change is often a complex and difficult process. Leading successful change in

other people and across whole organizations requires new thinking and new tools.
The Prosci ADKAR® Model is a valuable framework for organizational leaders,
change managers and project managers to effectively lead a wide variety of
changes. The ADKAR model is an approach that focuses on the individuals
behind the change, rather than the change itself. It was developed in 2003 by
Jeffrey Hiatt, the founder of Prosci. The methodology is a set of 5 goals you need
to achieve in order to bring about change. The goals are as follows:
1. Awareness – Convincing your employees that there is a real need for
change.
2. Desire – Having your employees personally invested in the initiative &
gaining their support.
3. Knowledge – Arming the employees with the right tools and knowledge
to help carry out the change.
4. Ability – The ability to use the knowledge gained & apply it in practice.
5. Reinforcement – Implementing a system that makes sure your employees
stick to the new routine.
Here’s a bit more of an in-depth analysis of what each goal represents and how
to achieve it…
1. Awareness
The awareness stage is all about making sure that your employees understand the
need for change. This is done much as you’d expect – by meeting with your
employees and/or managers, presenting the current state of affairs, and how your
proposed changes could benefit the situation.
The main difficulty here is remembering that you’re pitching this change to other
people, and so you can’t just reel off a list of changes and expect them to be
accepted. Instead, you need to justify those changes by using hard evidence to
really drive the point home.
Similarly, forcing yourself to justify your changes will prevent you from over-
reaching with drastic shifts or promoting those that you think are correct (but
quite frankly aren’t).
As with most other change management models, the first step here is to raise
awareness about the initiative.
Unless your employees are aware of why you’re making the changes, they’re
most likely going to react in one of the following ways…
I. Stay Passive – Some of your staff might believe that everything is working
just fine as-is. If they’re not fully convinced that the change is needed,
they’re not going to support you.
II. Stick to the Old Habits – Even if you make all the right changes, your
employees have to be convinced into sticking to them – and you don’t want
this to be done begrudgingly. If they don’t like the new methods, they’ll
keep using the old processes when no one’s looking.
III. Create Resistance – Worst case scenario, your employees will actively
campaign against you & try to have the change initiative canceled.
So, to avoid all this, you need to talk with your staff. This doesn’t mean a quick
company-wide email saying “hey, remember how we used to do things with
Method X? Well, now we’re sticking to Method Y. So, good luck!”
You should talk to each individual employee that, in one way or another, is
relevant to the initiative. You’re not giving a speech here, though. Talk to them
in their own language – how is the change relevant to them, and why they should
care.
2. Desire
Inspiring the desire to change is usually the most difficult part of ADKAR, since
you’re appealing to both the logical and emotional side of your employees. If you
can’t get both on your side, you aren’t going to get the total commitment you’ll
need to deploy the change.
As with most other management models in this post, one of the best ways to grow
this desire is to promote the benefits of the change relevant to the people you’re
talking to.
Give real-world examples of what will happen after the change and compare it to
their current position. Listen to their feedback and implement any useful advice
to share the responsibility if creating the change.
Even if your employees are aware of why the change is happening, they might
just not care personally. In some cases, this can very much be a detriment,
especially if the employees in question are critical for the change initiative. They
could be, for example, part of a critical process you need to change.
To win them on your side, you’d need to appeal to either their emotional or logical
side…
I. Appeal to Reason – Change is, in most cases, for a good cause. Your
organization needs it to be done for whatever reason. Hence, by simply
being direct about this with your employees can be a solution. For example,
let’s say the company sales are down. You would either figure out how to
change something within the organization to fix this (rational option for the
employee), or have layoffs (irrational).
II. Appeal to Emotion – Sometimes, your employees might not actually have
a real reason for being against you. It might be something based on emotion
– an irrational fear of losing one’s job would be a good example here. You
should try to find such reasons and calm your employee’s fears.
3. Knowledge
The knowledge goal in ADKAR is to make sure that everyone knows how the
change will be carried out and how to fulfill their specific part in that process. So,
here you need to break down the change into steps and analyze what various
employees will need to know in order to complete them all. Once you know this,
the team(s) need to be taught how the change will be completed and what their
part in the process is.
Once you’ve gone through the first two stages, you need to start thinking about
the practical means of carrying out the change. At this point, your employees
should be fully on board the change initiative. They might, however, not have the
knowledge to carry it out. You’ll need to teach them what their role in the change
initiative is and what are the exact tasks they should carry out.
4. Ability
While it might seem like knowledge and ability are the same thing, the time it
takes to go from knowing how to complete a task to being able to actually carry
it out can be immense. Just because you know how to do something doesn’t mean
you’re good at it. Knowledge is knowing what to do; ability is being able to
actually put that knowledge into practice. As such, you need to check the ability
of each employee and assess whether they need extra experience (or knowledge)
in order to reliably complete their tasks.
To bridge the “knowledge to ability gap,” employees will benefit from hands-on
coaching and practice. This practice could happen in a formal training setting or
by working through a simulated live environment. The important factor is that the
employees using the changed system can try it out, make mistakes and identify
questions in a safe environment. Often, employees simply need time to realize
changes and the best thing we can do is to give them time to practice.
5. Reinforcement
The final element of the ADKAR Model is reinforcement. The human brain is
wired for habit. We are physiologically programmed to revert to our old habits.
When reinforcement is not in place, we see employees using work-arounds or
relying on their old spreadsheets instead of the new software. Reinforcement here
means implementing incentives and rewards to make sure that the change is
maintained until it becomes the new norm. Remember that it’s a good idea to
identify any mistakes in this stage as early as possible, as then you’ll prevent a
flawed method becoming your employees’ default.
To reinforce change, we need to monitor whether the change is being sustained
or not. Positive recognition is a great way to reward employees for working hard
to make changes and demonstrate to the organization that participating in the
change is important. If some employees are reverting to work-arounds or old
processes, follow-up is needed to understand where their barriers are.
Reinforcement confirms that they are expected to continue working in the new
way.
Approaching change using the ADKAR Model will help you to plan effectively
for a new change. Equally, if a current change is failing, the model can
immediately diagnose where the process is breaking down so that you can take
the most effective corrective action. This results-oriented approach helps focus
energy on the area(s) that will produce the highest probability for success,
providing structure and direction. The ADKAR Model helps you identify any
elements that have been overlooked along the way.
The ADKAR Model in an Organization – An Example (implementation of a

new software tool):
1. Awareness
If the new software is implemented and employees are not aware that any changes
are needed, their reaction might be:
“This is a waste of time.”
“It was working just fine before.”
“They never tell us what’s going on!”
A natural human reaction to change, even in the best circumstances, is to resist.

Awareness of the business or organizational need to change is a critical
component to overcoming resistance.
If, on the other hand, employees clearly understand that the old software version
will no longer be supported by the vendor, or that new software will help them
meet customer needs more effectively, the reaction (based on increased
awareness) could look very different:
“How soon will this happen?”
“How will this impact me?”
“Will I receive new training?”
2. Desire
Armed with awareness that a change is required, an employee still may have low
desire to log in and use the new software:
“I’m not interested in changing.”
“What’s in it for me?”
“I doubt they are really serious about this.”
The employee’s personal motivators or barriers contribute to their level of desire
to use the new software. Each person could have their own unique reasons for
engaging or resisting; sometimes reasons that are not even related to the change.
If an employee has no desire to change, they may be labeled as difficult,

inflexible, pessimistic or unsupportive. The best person to help a resistant
employee is their direct manager or supervisor, who is usually closest to the
employee and able to translate the change into the employee’s personal context.
Managers need to engage in coaching conversations to help connect the change
to personal motivators and to identify how barriers can be removed or minimized.
3. Knowledge
Only after awareness and desire are built should we begin providing detailed
knowledge of how to use the new software. Unfortunately, it is often the case that
an organization sees a change coming and the very first step that they take is to
send employees to training. The result of this approach is that the investment in
the training is not highly effective. Employees are not engaged in the detailed
functionality of the software because they are not prepared to learn. They may
not even know why they are there in the first place. To make the most of a training
investment, it must come after initial awareness and desire building.
4. Ability
After helping employees gain intellectual understanding of how to navigate in the
software interface, there may still be a gap between knowledge and ability.
Knowledge is knowing what to do; ability is being able to actually put that
knowledge into practice. Demonstrated ability to operate with the software in a
live, real-world situation is where the change actually takes place. If an employee
has knowledge but not ability, you might hear:
“I’m not getting these new steps right.”
“I eventually get there but it takes me twice as long.”
“I understand the manual, but when I have to do it, I freeze.”
To bridge the “knowledge to ability gap,” employees will benefit from hands-on
coaching and practice using the software before go-live. This practice could
happen in a formal training setting or by working through a simulated live
environment. The important factor is that the employees using the software can
try it out, make mistakes and identify questions in a safe environment. Often,
employees simply need time to realize changes and the best thing we can do is to
give them time to practice.
5. Reinforcement
The final element of the ADKAR Model is reinforcement. The human brain is
wired for habit. We are physiologically programmed to revert to our old habits.
When reinforcement is not in place, we see employees using work-arounds or
relying on their old spreadsheets instead of the new software. We may hear things
like:
“The new way just takes too long; I’m going to keep doing it my way.”
“I keep forgetting to include the new department.”
To reinforce change, we need to monitor whether the change is being sustained

or not. Who is logging in, following workflows and using the new software
successfully? Where are individuals recognizing new efficiencies in their work?
With this information, the first step is to celebrate and recognize where the change
has taken hold. Positive recognition is a great way to reward employees for
working hard to make changes and demonstrate to the organization that
participating in the change is important. If some employees are reverting to work-
arounds or old processes, follow-up is needed to understand where their barriers
are. Do they need more training or coaching? Are they missing any of the
ADKAR elements? Reinforcement confirms that they are expected to continue
working in the new way.
B. Deming Cycle (PDCA)
PDCA, sometimes called PDSA, the "Deming Wheel," or "Deming Cycle," was
developed by renowned management consultant Dr William Edwards Deming,
an American engineer, statistician and management consultant, in the 1950s.
Deming is often considered the father of modern quality control (QC). Deming
himself called it the "Shewhart Cycle," as his model was based on an idea from
his mentor, Walter Shewhart.
Deming wanted to create a way of identifying what caused products to fail to

meet customers' expectations. His solution helps businesses to develop
hypotheses about what needs to change, and then test these in a continuous
feedback loop. Deming's focus was on predicting the results of an improvement
effort, studying the actual results, and comparing them to possibly revise the
theory. He stressed that the need to develop new knowledge, from learning, is
always guided by a theory.
PDCA / PDSA is an iterative, four-stage approach for continually improving

processes, products or services, and for resolving problems. It involves
systematically testing possible solutions, assessing the results, and implementing
the ones that are shown to work.
The four phases are:
1. Plan: identify and analyze the problem or opportunity to change, develop

change ways about what the issues may be, and decide which one to test.
2. Do: test the potential solution, ideally on a small scale, and measure the
results.
3. Check/Study: study the result, measure effectiveness, and decide whether
this change is supported or not.
4. Act: if the solution was successful, implement it.
In the context of change management, you can use the Deming Cycle to optimize
a process that’s used often in your organization. Once you’ve perfected the
process itself, you scale it & apply it company-wide. To give you a better idea of
how PDCA works, we’ll dig into each phase and explain what it involves…
1. Plan
This is where you identify potential improvements. You find inefficiencies within
processes & propose suggestions on how to make them better. Before you can
actually improve the process, you need to have a good idea of what it consists of.
Unless you’re the one working the process yourself, chances are that you’ll have
to do some research. An easy way to do this is to create a process flowchart.
Then, you need to pinpoint what you could improve. Usually, there are 2 reasons
for process improvement. Either you’re trying to solve some sort of a problem
(something went wrong with the process) or you simply want to make the process
more efficient.
If you’re trying to solve a problem, you could use a Root Cause Analysis, such
as the 5 Whys method. The gist of it is that you keep asking yourself “why” until
you find what’s causing the problem. If, on the other hand, you’re looking to
improve a process, you can ask yourself…
➢ Are there any steps in the process that are more expensive than reasonable?
For example, manufacturing line burning more money than the industry
average.
➢ Are the deadlines being frequently missed? Why?
➢ What part of the process has the most impact on the end result (product
quality, price, etc.)? Is there any way to improve this?
Figure: Process Flowchart for PDCA
2. Do
Once you’ve identified potential improvements, you can try putting them into
practice. This should be done on a small scale, however. At this point, everything
is experimental – even the most brilliant idea can backfire. So, if you do this
small-scale (that’s team-wide, single manufacturing line, etc.), you’re mitigating
a lot of risks.
3. Check
You should always benchmark your new process stats to the old process & see
how it holds up. If it’s better, you can start scaling up and move on to the final
PDCA step. If the results aren’t that good, you can start the cycle from the
beginning. It’s also important, however, to account for any risk. If the process is
showing good results in the short-term, it doesn’t mean it’ll last. So for example,
you might improve your product output in the short-term, but later realize that the
defect rates went up significantly.
4. Act
At this point, you can, with certainty, say that the process improvement initiative
was successful. Now all you have to do is scale it up & ensure that the process is
used company-wide. One thing you should consider here, though, is that the
Deming Cycle isn’t necessarily a one-time initiative. You can keep repeating the
cycle until you’ve optimized your processes to perfection.
3. Employee-focused Change Models
At the end of the day, your employees are who will make or break your change
initiative. These change management models focus on winning over your
company staff, rather than the change itself.
A. Kotter’s 8 Steps Change Model
Kotter’s change management theory is one of the most popular and adopted ones
in the world. This theory has been devised by John P. Kotter, who is a Harvard
Business School Professor and author of several books based on change
management. This change management theory of his is divided into eight stages
where each one of them focuses on a key principle that is associated with the
response of people to change. Kotter’s theory is the first in this list to focus less
on the change itself and more on the people behind it (albeit from a top-down
point of view). By inspiring a sense of urgency for change and maintaining that
momentum, Kotter’s theory can be used to great effect in adapting your business
to the current climate. The 8 steps here are…
1. Creating a Sense of Urgency

2. Building the Change Team
3. Formulating Your Vision
4. Communicating the Vision
5. Remove Barriers to Change
6. Creating Short-Term/quick Wins
7. Maintaining Momentum
8. Establishing the New Status Quo/ Make it stick
Step One: Create Urgency

The idea of a change being necessary for the success of the organization can be
very powerful. If you can create an environment where individuals are aware of
an existing problem and can see a possible solution it is likely support for the
change will rise. Generating conversation about what is happening and what
direction the organization could go in will help to achieve this. One way to kick-
start this is to create a forum where issues and potential solutions are raised and
discussed. This step is all about preparation and Kotter estimates that roughly
75% of a company’s management needs to be behind a change for it to be
successful. This emphasizes his point that it is important to prepare well before
jumping into the change process. This step creates the 'need' for change, rather
than just a 'want' for change. The difference is very important when it comes to
the likely support and eventual success of the change.
Step Two: Building the Change Team/Form a Powerful Coalition

It will be very hard to lead the whole change process on your own, and therefore
it is important to build a coalition to help you direct others. The coalition you
build should be made up of a range of skills, a range of experience and people
who come from different areas of the business, to maximize its effectiveness. The
coalition can help you to spread messages throughout the organization, delegate
tasks and ensure there is support for the change organization-wide. Team
members that collaborate, complement each other and can drive each other to
work harder will make your life easier and the change more likely to be
successful.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
A change initiative is likely to be very complicated and can often be hard to
understand, in particular for employees at the lower end of the hierarchy. For this
reason, creating a vision that is easy to understand and encapsulates the overall
aim is a useful way of generating support from the whole organization. While this
vision should be simple and understandable, it also needs to be inspirational to
have maximum effect.
Step Four: Communicate the Vision

Creating the vision is not enough to generate support for it, it then needs to be
communicated throughout the organization. This is an excellent opportunity to
utilize the coalition you have built up, as between them they are likely to have
networks in every area of the business. It is important to continuously
communicate this message as it is likely that competing messages are also being
spread.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles/ Remove Barriers to Change

The first four steps are essential in building the strength of your change initiative,
but it is also important to look for what is likely to reduce its chances for success.
Whether its individuals, traditions, legislations or physical obstacles, it is likely
there will be a few barriers blocking your change’s path. Identify these as early
as possible and rely on available resources to break them down, without
disrupting any other areas of the business.
Step Six: Create Short-Term Wins

Change processes often take a while to reap any rewards and this can cause
support to fall if individuals think their effort has been wasted. For this reason, it
is important to demonstrate the advantages of the new process by creating some
short-term wins. Shorter term targets are also useful tools for motivation and
direction. Using these wins to justify investment and effort can help to re-
motivate staff to continue backing the change.
Step Seven: Maintaining Momentum/Build on the Change

Many change processes fail as complacency creeps in towards the end and project
are not finished properly. Therefore, Kotter argues it is important to sustain and
cement the change for long after it has been accomplished. Keep setting goals and
analyzing what could be done better for continued improvement.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture/ Establishing the New
Status Quo
Simply changing the habits and processes of employees is not always enough to
instill a culture change across the organization. The changes should become part
of the core of your organization to have a lasting effect. Keeping senior
stakeholders on board, encouraging new employees to adopt the changes and
celebrating individuals who adopt the change will all help to promote the change
to the core of your organization.
The main reason that Kotter outlines these steps is to emphasize that change is
not a simple and quick process. Many steps of planning are required and even
when the change has been implemented there is still a lot to do to ensure it is
successful. Kotter argues that 70% of change initiatives fail, and attributes this to
the fact that most organizations do not put in the necessary preparation or see the
project through correctly. Following these steps ensure your change initiative is
more likely to be a long-term success.
Advantages of Kotter’s Model
1. It is an easy step by step model which provides a clear description and

guidance on the entire process of change and is relatively easy for being
implemented.
2. Emphasis is on the involvement and acceptability of the employees for the
success in the overall process.
3. Major emphasis is on preparing and building acceptability for change
instead of the actual change process.
Disadvantages of Kotter’s Model
1. Since it is a step by step model, skipping even a single step might result in
serious problems.
2. The process is quite time consuming (Rose 2002).
3. The model is essentially top-down and discourages any scope for
participation or co-creation.
4. Can build frustration and dissatisfaction among the employees if the
individual requirements are given due attention.
B. Bridges Transition Model
Bridges‘ transition model was developed by William Bridges who is a change

consultant, and this theory came into the eye of the public after it was published
in the book “Managing transitions”. The specialty of this model or theory is that
it concentrates and focusses upon transition and not change as such. The
difference between transition and change may be subtle, but it is important to
understand it. Where transition on one hand is internal, change on the other is
something that happens to people, even when they don’t realize it. Transition is
something that happens to people when they are going through the change.
Change can be instant, transition may take time.
The model focuses on three main stages that are given as follows:
1. Ending, Losing, and Letting Go
When people are first introduced to change, they may enter this first stage that is
marked with resistance and emotional discomfort. Some of the emotions
experienced at this stage include fear, resentment, anger, denial, sadness,
frustration and most of all-disorientation. One has to realize that he/she is coming
near to a certain end so as to accept new beginnings.
2. The Neutral Zone

This is the stage of uncertainty, impatience, and confusion. This stage can be
considered as the bridge between the old and the new when people are still
attached to the old but trying to adapt to the new. This stage is associated with
low morale and reduced productivity, and one may experience anxiety and
skepticism as well when going through this stage. But despite this, the neutral
zone may also include innovation, renewal and a burst of creativity.
3. The New Beginning

When the neutral phase is passed through support and guidance, the stage of
acceptance and energy enters the picture. At this level, people begin to embrace
the change and understand its importance. They are beginning to build the skills
needed to reach the new goals and may start to experience benefits of the change
already. It is associated with high levels of energy, new commitment and a zest
to learn.
Other Change Management Approaches
A. Kübler-Ross’ change curve
The Kübler-Ross five stage model was developed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross after
she pursued her research on the dying and death. This model is also thus known
as the Grief Model as it talks about the various emotional states and stages a
person goes through when he/she discovers that he/she may be nearing their end.
The model can also be applied to other life situations such as loss of job, changes
in work and other less serious health conditions. The model helps to understand
and deal with personal trauma and has been widely accepted worldwide.
The following are the various stages that are associated with the Kübler-Ross
model:
1. Denial – Denial is the first stage of the model and is a stage when one is
unable to accept the news. It is like a buffer or defense that a person tends
to create due to the inability to absorb the news. One may experience shock
as well as a sense of numbness during this stage and this happens because
every person shows resistance towards change and may not want to believe
what is happening.
2. Anger – When the news actually gets absorbed, then the first reaction is
usually that of anger. The denial converts into anger when one realizes that
the change will actually affect them and is for real. One starts looking for
someone to blame during this stage. For different people, there can be
different ways of directing anger.
3. Bargaining – The next step or stage involves bargaining so as to avail the
best possible solution out of the situation or circumstance. Bargaining is a
way for people to avoid ending up with the worst-case scenario and is a
natural reaction to avoid the extreme change.
4. Depression – When one realizes that bargaining isn’t working, he/she may
end up getting depressed and may lose all faith. This is the phase when one
is not bothered by anything and moves into a sad and hopeless state of
mind. There are many ways to observe or identify depression and some of
them include low energy, non-commitment, low motivation and lack of
any kind of excitement or happiness.
5. Acceptance – When one realizes that there is no point in being depressed
or fighting change, he/she may finally accept what is happening and may
begin to resign to it. There are different ways in people handle this stage.
While some may begin to explore the options left with them to make the
most of the situation, others may just feel that no option is left for them and
may just resign to destiny.
The Change Curve is a very useful tool when managing individual or team
change. Knowing where an individual is on the curve will help when deciding on
how and when to communicate information, what level of support someone
requires, and when best to implement final changes. Furnishing individuals with
the knowledge that others understand and experience similar emotions is the best
way to return, with as little pain as possible, to optimal performance.
Chapter Three
Process of Change Management
Recognizing a need or opportunity for change (From Book: John Hayes, Chapter four)
Many of the opportunities and threats that trigger change can be found in an
organization’s external environment, but some originate from within the system
itself.
A. External Sources of Change
Some managers appear to be better than others when it comes to identifying
opportunities and threats in the external environment. Successful entrepreneurs
seem to be particularly good at this and use intuition to identify opportunities in
situations where many others see only chaos, contradictions and confusion
(Allinson et al., 2000). There are, however, some useful analytical tools that
everybody can use to help them search the external environment for opportunities
and threats. The acronym PEST refers to an analytical tool that focuses attention
on political, economic, sociocultural and technological trends that managers need
to be aware of:
1. Political factors: include new legislation in areas such as environmental

management, consumer protection and employment; regulation of markets in
areas such as banking, telecommunications and broadcasting; fiscal policies and
so on. Organizations that operate in international markets need to be aware of
how legislative changes or changes in the level of political stability in different
parts of the world might influence their operations.
2. Economic factors: include issues such as the ongoing impact of the credit
crunch, exchange rates, cost of borrowing, change in levels of disposable income,
cost of raw materials, security of supplies, new competitors and the trade cycle.
3. Sociocultural factors: include demographic trends such as a fall in the birth

rate or an ageing population. They also include shifting attitudes towards
education, training, work and leisure, which can have knock-on effects on the
availability of trained labour, consumption patterns and so on. Cultural factors
can also affect business ethics and the way business is done in different parts of
the world.
4. Technological factors: include issues such as the levels of investment that

competitors are making in research and development and the outcome of this
investments leads to higher technological innovation.
So far this discussion has focused attention on the alignment of the organization
with its external environment, but managers also need to consider internal
alignment and how internal misalignments can trigger change.
B. Internal Sources of Change
Greiner (1972) cautions to the managers about the danger of only attending to the
external environment and the future. He asserts that, for many organizations, the
most pressing problems are rooted more in the organization’s past decisions than
present events and external dynamics. His view is that organizations evolve
through five predictable stages of development and each stage brings with it a set
of alignment-related issues that have to be managed if the organization is to be
effective. Each phase of Greiner’s organization life cycle involves a prolonged
period of evolutionary growth during which changes tend to be small and
incremental, and these phases create their own crisis (due to internal
misalignments) that end with a period of turmoil and revolution. Whereas
Romanelli and Tushman (1994) believe that periods of discontinuous
revolutionary change are triggered by changes in the external environment,
Greiner argues that it is internal problems that trigger crises and cause
discontinuous change (see Figure).
The way these crises are managed determines whether the organization will
survive and move forward to the next phase of evolutionary growth. Managers
need to be aware of where their organizations, and the component parts within
the organization, are in terms of the five stages of development, and recognize
the kinds of problems that need to be addressed.
According to Greiner (1972), each evolutionary period is characterized by a

dominant management style, and each revolution is characterized by a dominant
management problem that must be resolved if the organization is to continue to
grow. The five phases are:
1. Growth through creativity leading to a crisis of leadership:
At first, most organizations are preoccupied with identifying a market and

creating a product. The founders are typically entrepreneurial and technically
oriented and the organization’s structure, systems and culture tend to be informal.
But as the organization grows, the need for more knowledge about the efficiencies
of manufacturing, more professional systems for maintaining financial control,
and more formal approaches for managing and developing people lead to a crisis
of leadership. A new approach to managing and leading the business is required,
but the founders may not be qualified to provide this. Sometimes, the only
effective way forward is for the founders to bring in a strong business manager
from outside; for example, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google,
brought in Eric Schmidt to run the company.
2. Growth through direction leading to a crisis of autonomy:
During the second phase of growth, organizations often differentiate activities

and develop a functional organizational structure, along with a clear hierarchy,
more formal communication systems, and more sophisticated accounting,
inventory and manufacturing systems. Although this new level of order and
direction delivers efficiencies, as the organization continues to grow, it eventually
becomes less effective; for example, long communication chains delay decision
making and set procedures prevent competent people taking initiatives. This leads
to demands for greater autonomy.
3. Growth through delegation leading to a crisis of control:
Delegation brings many benefits. Employees at lower levels are motivated and
managers operating in a decentralized organization structure can act faster.
Eventually, however, they begin to lose sight of organization-wide goals, develop
narrow mindsets, and begin to work too independently. This gives rise to a need
for greater coordination across the organization.
4. Growth through coordination leading to a crisis of ‘red tape’:
Formal systems and procedures are introduced in order to facilitate greater

coordination. While these measures align separate functions, departments and
work groups around corporate goals, the creeping bureaucratization of the
organization eventually stifles initiative and strangles growth.
5. Growth through collaboration:
Greater spontaneity is encouraged through developing interpersonal

competences, matrix and network structures and associated systems that enable
people to work together in ways that rely more on social control and self-
discipline than formal control and close monitoring from above.
Figure 4.2 shows Greiner’s five phases of evolutionary growth, during which
there is a continuous stream of low intensity incremental changes. The periods of
equilibrium are punctuated by periods of revolutionary change that have to be
successfully negotiated if the organization is to survive and prosper.
According to Greiner, when organizations come to the end of one of the

evolutionary phases and enter a period of crisis (revolution), the critical task for
change managers is to be aware of the organization’s history and its current phase
of development, and identify the new set of organization practices that will
provide the way forward into the next period of evolutionary growth.
Change Management Process
The change management process is the sequence of steps or activities that a

change management team or project leader follow to apply change management
to a change in order to drive individual transitions and ensure the project meets
its intended outcomes. The below elements have been identified from research as
key elements of a successful change management process.
These elements are incorporated into 3-Phase Process. Here are the nine elements
of a successful change management process:
1. Readiness Assessments
Assessments are tools used by a change management team or project leader to

assess the organization's readiness to change. Readiness assessments can include
organizational assessments, culture and history assessments, employee
assessments, sponsor assessments and change assessments. Each tool provides
the project team with insights into the challenges and opportunities they may face
during the change process. What to assess:
Assess the Scope of the Change:
• How big is this change?

• How many people are affected?
• Is it a gradual or radical change?
Assess the Readiness of the Organization Impacted by the Change:
• What is the value-system and background of the impacted groups?

• How much change is already going on?
• What type of resistance can be expected?
You will also need to assess the strengths of your change management team and
change sponsors, then take the first steps to enable them to effectively lead the
change process.
2. Communication and Communication Planning
Many managers assume that if they communicate clearly with their employees,
their job is done. However, there are many reasons why employees may not hear
or understand what their managers are saying the first time around. In fact, you
may have heard that messages need to be repeated five to seven times before they
are cemented into the minds of employees.
Effective communicators carefully consider three components:
• The audience
• What is communicated
• When it is communicated
For example, the first step in managing change is building awareness around the
need for change and creating a desire among employees. Therefore, initial
communications are typically designed to create awareness around the business
reasons for change and the risk of not changing. Likewise, at each step in the
process, communications should be designed to share the right messages at the
right time.
Communication planning, therefore, begins with a careful analysis of the

audiences, key messages and the timing for those messages. The change
management team or project leaders must design a communication plan that
addresses the needs of frontline employees, supervisors and executives. Each
audience has particular needs for information based on their role in the
implementation of the change.
3. Sponsor Activities and Sponsor Roadmaps
Business leaders and executives play a critical sponsor role in times of change.
The change management team must develop a plan for sponsor activities and help
key business leaders carry out these plans. Research shows that sponsorship is the
most important success factor.
4. Change Management Training for Managers
Managers and supervisors play a key role in managing change. Ultimately, the
manager has more influence over an employee’s motivation to change than any
other person. Unfortunately, managers can be the most difficult group to convince
of the need for change and can be a source of resistance. It is vital for the change
management team and executive sponsors to gain the support of managers and
supervisors. Individual change management activities should be used to help
these managers through the change process.
Once managers and supervisors are on board, the change management team must
prepare a strategy to equip managers to successfully coach their employees
through the change. They will need to provide training and guidance for
managers, including how to use individual change management tools with their
employees.
5. Training Development and Delivery
Training is the cornerstone for building knowledge about the change and the
required skills to succeed in the future state. Ensuring impacted people receive
the training they need at the right time is a primary role of change management.
This means training should only be delivered after steps have been taken to ensure
impacted employees have the awareness of the need for change and desire to
support the change. Change management and project team members will develop
training requirements based on the skills, knowledge and behaviors necessary to
implement the change. These training requirements will be the starting point for
the training group or the project team to develop and deliver training programs.
6. Resistance Management
Resistance from employees and managers is normal and can be proactively
addressed. Persistent resistance, however, can threaten a project. The change
management team needs to identify, understand and help leaders manage
resistance throughout the organization. Resistance management is the processes
and tools used by managers and executives with the support of the change team
to manage employee resistance.
7. Employee Feedback and Corrective Action
Managing change is not a one way street; employee involvement is a necessary

and integral part of managing change. Feedback from employees as a change is
being implemented is a key element of the change management process. Change
managers can analyze feedback and implement corrective action based on this
feedback to ensure full adoption of the changes.
8. Recognizing Success and Reinforcing Change
Early adoption, successes and long-term wins must be recognized and celebrated.
Individual and group recognition is a necessary component of change
management in order to cement and reinforce the change in the organization.
Continued adoption needs to be monitored to ensure employees do not slip back
into their old ways of working.
9. After-Project Review
The final step in the change management process is the after-action review. It is
at this point that you can stand back from the entire program, evaluate successes
and failures, and identify process changes for the next project. This is part of the
ongoing, continuous improvement of change management for your organization
and ultimately leads to change competency.
These elements comprise the areas or components of a change management

program. Along with the change management process, they create a system for
managing change. Good project managers apply these components effectively to
ensure project success, avoid the loss of valued employees and minimize the
negative impact of the change on productivity and a company's customers.
Change Management Process Control
Change Control
Change Control is the process that a company uses to document, identify and
authorize changes to an organizational environment. It reduces the chances of
unauthorized alterations, disruption and errors in the system. Besides change
control is a systematic approach to managing all changes made to a product,
people or systems. The purpose is to ensure that no unnecessary changes are
made, that all changes are documented, that services are not unnecessarily
disrupted and that resources are used efficiently.
Whenever any new or different changes are requested for the system, especially
by stakeholders, it is neither optional nor ignorable. It has to be implemented
without affecting other components of the system. This is when the change
control comes handy. It helps project teams to modify the scope of the project
using specified controls and policies. Change Control is practiced whenever a
project is not progressing as planned.
It is mandatory that a formal document for change request is completed and

reviewed in order to keep control of change requests. Number of questions one
might encounter while analyzing Change Control like:
❑ Who will approve the change?

❑ Does it require to run through a change control board?
❑ How much time will be required to research and implement the change?
❑ What are the impacts of changes to other components of the system
(schedules, cost, resources, etc.)?
❑ Is there any threshold under which the project management can approve it?
Different Factors of Change Control Process (IT Infrastructure):
There are various factors that a Change Control process should consider:
Steps in Change Action taken in Change Control

Control Process
1. Change request • Request for changes should be standardized and
initiation and subject to management review
Control • Change requestor should be kept informed
2. Impact Assessment • Make sure that all requests for change are assessed in
a structured way for analyzing possible impacts
3. Control and • A change log should be maintained that tells the date,
Documentation of person details who made changes and changes
Changes implemented
• Only authorized individual should be able to make
changes
• A process for rolling back to the previous version
should be identified
4. Documentation and • Whenever system changes are implemented the
Procedures procedures and associated document should update
accordingly
5. Authorized • System access right should be controlled to avert
Maintenance unauthorized access
6. Testing and User • Performance should be thoroughly tested
signoff
7. Version Control • Control should be placed on production source code
to make sure that only the latest version is updated
8. Emergency • A verbal authorization should be obtained, and the
Changes change should be documented as soon as possible
Change Management issues and those factors which cause failure
What are the change management issues? In most instances, change

management initiatives fail.
The Journal of Change Management in 2002 stated, “Change initiatives crucial

to organizational success fail 70% of the time.” There are many studies which
suggest similar statistics. So what change management issues cause this high rate
of failure? Kotter, in his book, ‘Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from
Management’, lists the following points as the main reasons why change fails:
a. Allowing too much complexity – Getting bogged down into too much
detail instead of keeping an eye on the bigger picture.
b. Failing to build a substantial coalition – failing to create momentum

through effective teams that drive the change.
c. Not understanding the need for a clear vision – Failure to understand a

clear vision for everyone to drive towards is the biggest sin. If you don’t
know where you are going, how do you know how to get there? If people
cannot see the direction, they are lost and will resort back to the old way of
working.
d. Failing to clearly communicate the vision – No Vision means no future

goal to drive towards.
e. Permitting roadblocks against the vision – Not understanding potential
roadblocks, and not acting on them when they arise permits long term
failure. Every road block must be overcome, or negativity festers and
breeds.
f. Not planning and getting short-term wins – It’s a long process and
without quick wins that everyone can see, morale suffers – low morale
increases the chance of systems, processes and ways of working falling
back to the way things were before the change.
g. Declaring victory too soon – Celebrate those successes, but never take
your foot of the pedal. The minute you celebrate victory in the plan, the
minute Leaders stop enforcing the message, and things fall back. – it’s a
long process
h. Not anchoring changes in corporate culture – Through enforcement of

the vision and regular reviews and audits over time, culture slowly changes
and becomes anchored. If a change programme incorporates a quick
implementation and then nothing to reinforce this, it will positively 100%
fail!
The bottom line is, change management issues arise because you are dealing
with people, and change in people. We all have our own beliefs and values, and
we all have to understand change and believe in this. If we don’t see the benefit
and vision, then we will simply not want to change and will create natural
barriers.
The greater the number of people who don’t want to change, the greater the
chance of failure. – Communication, therefore, is crucial. Communicating the
vision is doubly imperative.
Chapter Four
Communicating Change
Communication of Change
The quality of communications can have an important impact on the success or

otherwise of a change program. It can, for example, affect whether the need for
change is recognized in good time and can have a major impact on the quality of
collective learning. This chapter has considered the features of communication
networks that relate to the management of change, reviewed a number of
communication strategies, explored some of the factors that can deprive change
managers of access to vital information, discussed the effect of interpersonal
relations on the quality of communication, and considered how change
communication can affect perceptions of fairness and justice.
Four features of communication networks have been considered:
1 Directionality:
o The management of change is often experienced as a top-down process,

with those responsible for managing the change informing others lower
down the organization about the need for change, what is going to happen,
and what is required of them.
o Effective change communication calls for a stream of upward
communication that provides change managers with the information they
require in order to clarify the need for change, and develop and implement
a change program.
2. Role:
o The nature of what is communicated can be affected by the roles that
organizational members occupy.
o The nature of an inter-role relationship is important; a person might
communicate certain things to a colleague they would not communicate to
an external consultant, an auditor, a member of another department, their
boss, a subordinate or a customer.
3. Content:
o It is important to give careful consideration to the potential relevance of

information that at first sight may appear to be of little consequence.
MacDonald (1995) distinguishes between internal and external
information and draws attention to the importance of attending to
information from outside the organization and integrating this with the
information that is routinely available to organizational members in order
to facilitate organizational learning.
o It is also important to pay attention to issues of fairness and justice when
deciding what to communicate.
4. Channel:
o Information and meaning can be communicated in many different ways. It

is important to select a channel that is fit for purpose.
Choosing the type of communication channel is very important, these channels

are grouped into three main categories: formal, informal and unofficial.
A. Formal Communication Channels
▪ Sends information including goals, policies and procedures of an

organization
▪ Messages follow a chain of command
▪ Flows from managers to their subordinates
▪ Examples include business plan, customer satisfaction survey, annual
reports, employer's manual, review meetings.
B. Informal Communication Channels
▪ The strict hierarchical web of communication cannot function efficiently

on its own and hence there exists a different communication channel.
▪ This type of communication channel may disrupt the chain of command, a
good manager needs to find the fine balance between the formal and
informal communication channel to ensure the best type of
communication.
▪ Examples include, lunch time gathering, water cooler talk etc.
▪ Quality circles, team work, different training programs are outside of the
chain of command are also informal communication channels.
C. Unofficial Communication Channels
▪ Sometimes communication that takes place in an organization are

interpersonal.
▪ Talks of sports, politics and TV shows are seen between co-workers.
▪ The unofficial communication channel in an company is the company's
'grapevine.' It is this that cause rumors.
▪ 'Grapevine' discussions often form groups, which translate into friendships
outside of the organization.
▪ A good manager should be aware of information circulating in this
unofficial communication channel and should take positive measures to
prevent false information from spreading.
▪ Social gatherings between co-workers are a type of unofficial
communication channel.
The chapter also discussed the need for those leading change to continuously
monitor and review the effectiveness of their approach to communicating change.
Fundamentals involved in Change Communication
The following factors participate in communicating change approaches

successfully:
1. Communicating the Change Vision Clearly and Doing it Early:
This is the most important stage as it involves communicating the vision of

change and what the organization will achieve at the end of the change effort. The
vision should be described in simple form, must be clear and must be able to
influence people strongly in implementing decisions. The earlier the vision for
the change is communicated, the easier it will be for the people to be able to adapt
and understand the nuances of change.
2. Highlighting the Benefits and the Impacts of Change:
Effective communication plan during a change process helps in controlling the

inertia or fears due to a change by explaining how the change will affect the
people associated with it and why it is being implemented.
3. Ensuring that the Leaders of the Organization actively communicate in

the entire process of change:
The leaders of the organization must convey how important the change is and
must reflect their personal and visible commitment towards the entire process of
change, as this will be sending a powerful message to the key stakeholders about
how seriously an organization is committed towards the implementation of
change.
4.Using various channels or mediums for communicating the message of

change:
Care should be taken in understanding how people learn about change from
different mediums of communication. For visual learners, documented materials
may best appeal and help them in understanding the change vision and for
effective listeners, importance should be given to the presentation style and
selection of words for impressing such category of stakeholders.
5. Providing Opportunities for Exchange of Dialogue or Conversation:
Providing opportunities for discussion and facilitating a two-way communication

with the stakeholders creates a sense of ownership and fosters a sense of
responsibility among the stakeholders.
6. Repeating the Messages of Change Periodically:
Regular communication of the change message facilitates a greater understanding

of the objective of the change and there will be a much greater probability that
people will act in accordance with the requirements of the changing situation and
extend their cooperation accordingly.
Communication strategies
These features of communication networks such as directionality and content

provide a useful backdrop for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
various communication strategies. On the basis of their experience in several
organizations and a review of the literature, Clampitt et al. (2000) identified five
basic strategies. Sometimes, it is a hybrid and includes a blend of elements from
more than one. The five basic strategies are:
1. Spray and pray:
Clampitt et al. (2000) use this term to describe a communication strategy that
involves showering employees with all kinds of information in the hope they will
feel informed and have access to all the information they require. It is based on
the assumption that more information equals better communication, which in turn
contributes to improved decision making. It is also based on an implicit
assumption that all organizational members are able to differentiate between what
is significant and what is insignificant. In practice, some employees may only
attend to the information related to their own personal agendas, while others may
be overwhelmed by the amount of information they are confronted with – they
cannot see the wood for the trees.
2. Tell and sell:
This involves change managers communicating a more limited set of messages

they believe address the core issues related to the proposed change. First, they tell
employees about these key issues and then sell them the wisdom of their approach
to managing them. Clampitt et al. (2000) observe that change managers who
adopt this kind of strategy often spend a great deal of time planning sophisticated
presentations but devote little time and energy to fostering meaningful dialogue
and providing organizational members with the opportunity to discuss their
concerns. They also assume that they (the change managers) possess much of the
information they need and tend to place little value on input from others.
3. Underscore and explore:
Like the ‘tell and sell’ approach, this involves focusing attention on a limited set
of fundamental issues linked to the change but, unlike that approach, change
managers give others the creative freedom they need to explore the implications
of these issues. Those who adopt this approach are concerned not only with
developing a few core messages but also with listening attentively for potential
misunderstandings and unrecognized obstacles.
4. Identify and reply:
This strategy is different from the first three, in that the primary focus is
organizational members’ concerns. It is a reactive approach that involves a lot of
listening in order to identify and then respond to these concerns. It is essentially
directed towards helping employees make sense out of the often confusing
organizational environment, but it is also attentive to their concerns because it is
assumed that organizational members are in the best position to know what the
critical issues are. However, this may not always be the case. Clampitt et al.
(2000) suggest that often they may not know enough to even ask the right
questions.
5. Withhold and uphold:
This involves withholding information until necessary. When confronted by

rumours, change managers uphold the party line. There may well be special
circumstances where commercial or other considerations require information to
be shared on a need-to-know basis but there are also change managers whose
implicit values are secrecy and control whatever the circumstances. Some of
those who adopt this strategy assume that information is power and they are
reluctant to share it with anyone. Others assume that most organizational
members are not sophisticated enough to grasp the big picture.
The ‘spray and pray’ strategy provides employees with all the information they
could possibly desire, while the ‘withhold and uphold’ strategy provides the
absolute minimum information. Both strategies can make it difficult for
employees to frame and make sense of the intended change and its consequences.
The other three strategies pay more attention to prioritizing and managing content
to provide guidance for those involved in the change and, to varying degrees,
attend to employee concerns. Clampitt et al. (2000) argue that, in most cases, the
‘spray and pray’ and ‘withhold and uphold’ strategies are the least effective and
the most effective is ‘underscore and explore’. This is because it incorporates
elements of the ‘tell and sell’ strategy and allows change managers to shape the
change agenda, and it also incorporates aspects of the ‘identify and reply’ strategy
that responds to employees’ concerns.
Auditing the effectiveness of the communication strategy
Hargie and Tourish (2000) recommend the regular auditing of communications.

This requires those leading the change to have a clear idea about their
communication objectives in order to assess the extent to which they are being
achieved. Some of the questions they might need to ask are:
a. Who is communicating with whom?
b. What issues are they talking about?
c. Which issues receive most attention and arouse most anxiety?
d. Do people receive all the information they require?
e. Do people understand and use the information they receive?
f. Do people trust and have confidence in the information they receive?
g. From what sources do people prefer to get their information?
h. Which channels are most effective?
Often, the discussion of change communication tends to focus exclusively on the

‘what, when, who and how’ of communication from the perspective of the change
manager communicating to others, but it is important to note that there are also
issues associated with how change managers perceive, interpret and use
information provided by others. There are no magic formulae about the ‘what,
when, who and how’ of communication that can provide ready answers for all
situations. In some circumstances, change agents may advocate a policy of
complete openness about all issues to everybody as soon as possible. In other
circumstances, information might be highly restricted because it is deemed to be
commercially sensitive, or it might be decided that information should not be
widely shared until after certain high-level decisions have been made.
How to Communicate Clearly During Organizational

Change/Recommendations About Communication for Effective Change
Management
Develop a written communication plan to ensure that all of the following occur
within your change management process.
1. Communicate consistently, frequently, and through multiple channels,

including speaking, writing, video, training, focus groups, bulletin boards,
intranets, and more about the change.
2. Communicate all that is known about the changes, as quickly as the
information is available. Make clear that your bias is toward instant
communication, so some of the details may change at a later date. Tell
people that your other choice is to hold all communication until you are
positive about the decisions, goals, and progress, which is disastrous in
effective change management.
3. Provide significant amounts of time for people to ask questions, request
clarification, and provide input. If you've ever been part of a scenario in
which a leader presented changes to a large group via overhead
transparencies and then fled, you know what bad news this is for change
integration. People must feel involved in the change. Involvement creates
commitment—nothing else is as significant during a change process.
4. Clearly communicate the vision, the mission, and the objectives of the
change management effort. Help people to understand how these changes
will affect them personally. If you don’t help with this process, people will
make up their own stories, usually more negative than the truth.
5. Recognize that true communication is a conversation. It is two-way, and
real discussion must result. It cannot be just a presentation.
6. The change leaders or sponsors need to spend time conversing one-on-one
or in small groups with the people who are expected to make the changes.
7. Communicate the reasons for the changes in such a way that people
understand the context, the purpose, and the need. Practitioners have called
this “building a memorable, conceptual framework” and “creating a
theoretical framework to underpin the change.”
8. Provide answers to questions only if you know the answer. Leaders destroy
their credibility when they provide incorrect information or appear to
stumble or back-peddle when providing an answer. It is much better to say
you don’t know and that you will try to find out.
9. Leaders need to listen. Avoid defensiveness, excuse-making, and answers
that are given too quickly. Act with thoughtfulness.
10. Make leaders and change sponsors available, daily when possible, to
mingle with others in the workplace.
11. Hold interactive workshops and forums in which all employees can explore
the changes together while learning more. Use training as a form of
interactive communication and as an opportunity for people to safely
explore new behaviors and ideas about change and change management.
All levels of the organization must participate in the same sessions.
12. Communication should be proactive. If the rumor mill is already in action,
the organization has waited too long to communicate.
13. Provide opportunities for people to network with each other, both formally
and informally, to share ideas about change and change management.
14. Publicly review the measurements that are in place to chart progress in the
change management and change efforts.
15. Publicize rewards and recognition for positive approaches and
accomplishments in the changes and change management. Celebrate each
small win publicly.
The importance of Stakeholder Analysis in Change Process
Stakeholder Analysis can be considered as the foundation tasks before preparing

and implementing a communication plan during a change process. The more
complex the nature of change is, stakeholder analysis becomes all the more an
imperative task as any implementation of change might be subjected to resistance
due to one or several reasons from the stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis helps
in minimizing the possible resistance from the participants in the change process
by understanding the requirements and expectations of the key stakeholders who
are directly or indirectly being affected by the change. Stakeholder analysis can
be useful in the following ways:
• Identifying the key stakeholders or the stakeholder groups as well and their
influence on the change.
• Understanding the prevalent attitudes towards their change and how this
may influence the overall process.
• Identifying the needs of communication and the possible risks involved if
the needs are not met.
• Determining the various methods for communicating the messages as well
as the timing of delivery of these messages.
Roles of Managers and Supervisors in Communicating Change
Managers and supervisors are a lynchpin in the success of a change initiative. In

times of change, those who lead the teams impacted by change can be both a great
ally and a real obstacle for change leaders. Managers are closest to the employees
who must adopt the new processes and behaviors associated with a project or
initiative. And in many cases the same project also impacts their own work.
Getting managers and supervisors on board and prepared to support their teams
through change is crucial.
Managers and supervisors are crucial because of the relationship they have with
the employees in the organization. They are positioned to coach and influence
employees through their own change process. But what does this group really
need to be doing to drive successful change? In addition to continuing their daily
operational duties
Participants in Prosci’s benchmarking research have identified five roles that
managers and supervisors must play in times of change:
1. Communicator: Communicate with direct reports about the change

2. Advocate: Demonstrate support for the change
3. Coach: Coach employees through the change process
4. Liaison: Engage with and provide support to the project team
5. Resistance manager: Identify and manage resistance
1. Communicator About the Change
Employees want to hear change messages about how their work and their team
will be affected by a change from the person they report to. An employee's
supervisor is a key conduit of information about the organization, the work that
is done and changes to that work resulting from projects and initiatives. The
answers to the following questions are best delivered by an employee’s
immediate manager:
• What does this change mean to me?

• What's in it for me?
• Why should I get on board?
• Why are we doing this?
The change management team needs to provide talking points and pertinent
information, but those messages should ultimately be delivered to employees by
their supervisor.
2. Advocate for the Change
Employees look to their supervisors not only for direct communication messages
about a change, but also to evaluate their level of support for the change effort. If
a manager only passively supports or even resists a change, then you can expect
the same from that person's direct reports. Managers and supervisors need to
demonstrate their support in active and observable ways. The key is this:
managers and supervisors must first be onboard with a change before they can
support their employees. A change management team should create targeted and
customized tactics for engaging and managing the change first with managers and
supervisors, and only then charge this important group with leading change with
their direct reports.
3. Coached for Employees
The role of coach involves supporting employees through the process of change
they experience when projects and initiatives impact their day-to-day work. The
Prosci ADKAR Model describes this individual change process as five building
blocks of successful change:
• Awareness of the need for change

• Desire to participate and support the change
• Knowledge on how to change
• Ability to implement required skills and behaviors
• Reinforcement to sustain the change
Because of their relationship, managers and supervisors can coach individual
employees through this change process and help them address the barrier points
that are inhibiting successful change.
4. Liaison to the Project Team
Managers and supervisors liaise between their employees and the project team,
providing information from the team to their direct reports. But perhaps more
importantly, they provide information about the project from their employees
back up to the project team. Managers are in the best position to provide design
input, usability results and employee feedback on particular aspects of the
solution back to the project team. They are also positioned to identify and raise
valid functionality needs and concerns during the implementation phase of the
project.
5. Resistance Manager
No one is closer to a resistant employee than his or her supervisor. In terms of
managing resistance, managers and supervisors are in the best place to identify
what resistance looks like, where it is coming from and the source of that
resistance. They are also the best suited (when provided with the training and
tools to do so) to actively manage that resistance when it occurs. They can use
the ADKAR Model to hone in on which element of the change process is driving
resistance and address it accordingly.
Chapter Five
Resistance to Change
Change is inevitable. But it’s not always going to be easy.
Change is a healthy and a vital part of any organization. No matter how successful
you may be, there’s always something you could be doing better—whether it’s
improving a product, optimizing a process, or offering more dynamic service.
And this sort of attitude, constantly looking to improve, is a healthy one.
“Organizations that rest on their laurels often end up stagnating and falling
behind their nimble competitors”.
However, change can also be quite difficult. No matter how big or small the
change, you will encounter roadblocks along the way. Over the past 11 years, I’ve
worked with a number of retail clients on process transformation, and time and
time again, the same problems and issues keep popping up. Let’s take a look at
three of these hurdles to change, and how to best get over them.
A. Employee resistance
Resistance to change often starts within middle management, as they’re

concerned primarily with how the change affects their particular department,
rather than looking at the change holistically. This attitude can also extend to
workers themselves, who are often comfortable with the status quo and wary of
what a change might mean for them and their workday. Even after a change has
been implemented, this resistance can continue, especially if workers feel the
change has resulted in unwanted work or responsibilities—or even threatened
their job.
Overcoming this particular hurdle requires a multifaceted approach that includes:
1. Transparency: Workers want to know why a change is being made, not

just the benefits the change will provide. Acknowledging problems and
explaining how this change is intended to solve them can help people
understand the reasoning for the change, and to get them on board.
2. Training: As mentioned previously, an effective training program is vital,
especially when introducing new technologies.
3. Management & executive involvement: Workers want to see that
leadership is invested in the change and there is a clear plan in place to
administer this change and respond to their concerns.
4. Communication: Every change management plan should include a focus
on clear, consistent communications across multiple channels that allow for
engagement and a back-and-forth between workers and management.
B. Communication issues
Speaking of communications, this is where many organizations seem to stumble.

While being experts on marketing themselves to the world, many organizations
struggle to communicate with their employees. Often, this means too few
communications, too few channels, and too few stakeholders communicating
with employees.
This is an issue that should be planned far in advance of the change. A wholescale
communications plan should be a part of any significant change within an
organization, and should cover the months leading up to change as well as an
ongoing engagement plan for the months afterward. Over communication is the
least of your worries here. Determine a communications schedule ahead of time
that includes the channels you’ll be using: email, intranet, mail, even
collaboration tools like an electronic whiteboard. And be sure not to neglect in-
person communications.
Also, don’t forget the importance of engagement in your communications.

Change management should be a conversation with employees, rather than a
lecture. Give employees avenues to share their concerns, and then address those
concerns regularly, not just as a one-off thing. Take a lesson from Mark
Zuckerberg1, who hosts a Q&A with all Facebook employees every Friday.
Implementing new technologies
Few problems cause as many headaches for workers during a workplace change
as does implementing new technologies. Often trumpeted as the latest and
greatest, workers can find their entire workflow has changed as a result of these
new technologies. And, because the cost of these new technologies can be
prohibitive, there is often pressure to get them up and running as quickly as
possible.
To combat these problems and to avoid the 70 percent failure rate, according to
Harvard Business Review2, of most change management initiatives, care must be
taken to begin the process of switching over to the new technology weeks or
months ahead of time. Workers on the ground should have access to multiple
training opportunities that will familiarize themselves with the technology long
before they’re asked to do it in their day-to-day jobs. The Harvard Business
Review also suggests getting a “network of champions” to promote the new
technology, to act as on-the-ground advocates that can answer questions, assist
with problems, and promote the benefits of the new technology.
Concept of Resistance to Change
Resistance to change is the action taken by individuals and groups when they
perceive that a change that is occurring as a threat to them. Key words here are
'perceive' and 'threat'. The threat need not be real or large for resistance to occur.
In its usual description it refers to change within organizations, although it also is
found elsewhere in other forms. Resistance is the equivalent of objections in sales
and disagreement in general discussions. Resistance may take many forms,
including active or passive, overt or covert, individual or organized, aggressive
or timid.
In order to understand the concept of employee resistance, it is critical to define

what is meant by the term resistance. Alvin Zander (1950) an early researcher on
the subject, defined resistance to change as "behavior which is intended to protect
an individual from the effects of real or imagined change" (cited in Dent &
Goldberg, 1999, p. 34). Zaltman & Duncan (1977) define resistance as "any
conduct that serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the
status quo" (cited in Bradley, 2000, p. 76). In the view of Folger & Skarlicki
(1999) resistance is defined as "employee behavior that seeks to challenge,
disrupt, or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses, and power relations" (p. 36).
Piderit (2000) believes that the definition of the term resistance must incorporate
a much broader scope. She states that "a review of past empirical research reveals
three different emphases in conceptualizations of resistance: as a cognitive state,
as an emotional state, and as a behavior" (p. 784).
The notion that employee resistance can be overcome cognitively suggests that
negative thoughts or beliefs about the change exist. Piderit sites, "Watson (1982)
who suggests that what is often labeled as resistance is, in fact, only reluctance.
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) define resistance in behavioral terms
but suggest that another state precedes it: is a cognitive state they call (un)-
readiness" (2000, p. 785).
Others attempt to define employee resistance based on the emotional factors

exhibited as a result of organizational change. From their early study, Coch and
French (1948) acknowledged aggression and frustration in employees as the
emotional factors that caused undesirable behaviors and resistance to change.
Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) noted that resistance to change is a defense
mechanism caused by frustration and anxiety (Piderit, 2000).
The final aspect of Piderit's conceptualization focuses on individual behavior in

an attempt to define employee resistance to change. She cites Brower and
Abolafia (1995) who define resistance as a particular kind of action or inaction.
Ashforth and Mael (1998) define resistance as intentional acts of commission
(defiance) or omission. Shapiro, Lweicki, and Devine (1995) suggest that
willingness to deceive authorities constitutes resistance to change (2000).
Piderit (2000) claims that: although these conceptualizations of overlap

somewhat, they diverge in important ways. Finding a way to bring together these
varying emphases should deepen our understanding of how employees respond
to proposed organizational changes. Each of these three conceptualizations of
resistance - as a behavior, an emotion, or a belief - has merit and represents an
important part of our experience of response to change. Thus, any definition
focusing on one view at the expense of the others seems incomplete (p. 785).
According to Dent & Goldberg (1999), individuals aren't really resisting the
change, but rather they may be resisting the loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of
comfort. They claim that, "it is time that we dispense with the phrase resistance
to change and find a more useful and appropriate models for describing what the
phrase has come to mean - employees are not wholeheartedly embracing a change
that management wants to implement" (p. 26).
The Nature and Causes of Resistance (Research Findings)
Symptoms are the specific behaviors individuals exhibit when they are resistant
to change. According to Hultman (1995), it is important to distinguish between
the symptoms of resistance to change, and the causes behind it. These behaviors
fall into two categories -- active-resistance or passive-resistance. Symptoms of
active-resistance include finding fault, ridiculing, appealing to fear, and
manipulating. Passive-resistance symptoms include agreeing verbally but not
following through, feigning ignorance and withholding information.
Hultman (1995) adds, "there is always the danger of identifying a symptom of

resistance when you are really looking for its cause. To diagnose the causes, we
must understand a person's state of mind. The most important factors that go into
a person's state of mind are his or her facts, beliefs, feeling, and values" (p. 16).
The list of reasons why individuals might be resistance to organizational change

has grown since Zander's initial six published in 1950. It is safe to assume that
any attempts to cover all of them would produce volumes of literature. However,
there are several that are quite common and prevalent, which help provide a solid
basis to understanding the concept.
Employees resist change because they have to learn something new. In many case
there is not a disagreement with the benefits of the new process, but rather a fear
of the unknown future and about their ability to adapt to it. de Jager (2001) argues,
'Most people are reluctant to leave the familiar behind. We are all suspicious
about the unfamiliar; we are naturally concerned about how we will get from the
old to the new, especially if it involves learning something new and risking
failure" (p. 24).
Low tolerance for change is defined as the fear that one will not be able to develop
new skills and behaviors that are required in a new work setting. According to
Kotter & Schlesinger (1979), if an employee has a low tolerance for change, the
increased ambiguity that results as a result of having to perform their job
differently would likely cause a resistance to the new way of doing things. An
employee may understand that a change is needed, but may be emotionally unable
to make the transition and resist for reasons they may not consciously understand.
Folger & Skarlicki (1995) investigated resistance to change as a response to the

treatment employees receive in the change process. Specifically they focuses on
resentment-based resistance -reactions by disgruntled employees regarding the
perceived unfairness of the change. They claim that "resent-based resistance
behaviors, which can range from subtle acts of noncooperation to industrial
sabotage, are often seen by the perpetrators as subjectively justifiable - a way to
"get even" for perceived mistreatment and a way for employees to exercise their
power to restore perceived injustice" (p. 36).
Paul Strebel (1996), professor and director of the Change Program for
international managers at the International Institute for Management
Development (IMD), attributes resistance as a violation of "personal compacts"
management has with their employees. Personal compacts are the essence of the
relationship between employees and organizations defined by reciprocal
obligations and mutual commitments that are both stated and implied. Any
change initiatives proposed by the organization would alter their current terms.
Personal compacts are comprised of formal, psychological, and social

dimensions. The formal dimension is the most familiar. It is the aspect of the
relationship that addresses the basic tasks and performance requirements of the
job, and is defined by job descriptions, employee contracts, and performance
agreements. Management, in return, agrees to supply the employee the resources
needed to perform their job. The psychological dimension address aspects of the
employment relationship that incorporate the elements of mutual trust, loyalty
and commitment. The social dimension of the personal compact deals with
organizational culture, which encompasses, mission statement, values, ethics and
business practices.
Strebel points out that when these personal compacts are disrupted it upsets the
balance, and increases the likelihood of resistance. He suggests that management
view how change looks from the employees perspective, and to examine the terms
of the personal compacts currently in place. 'Unless manages define new terms
and persuade employees to accept them, it is unrealistic for managers to expect
employees to fully buy into changes that alter the status quo" (p. 87).
Kegan & Lahey (2001) describe a psychological dynamic called a "competing

commitment" as the real reason for employee resistance to organizational change.
The change is not challenged, but rather is it resisted, or not implemented at all
because the employee faces additional issue or concerns related to the change.
When an employee's hidden competing commitment is uncovered, "behavior that
seems irrational and ineffective suddenly becomes stunningly sensible and
masterful - but unfortunately, on behalf of a goal that conflicts with what you and
even the employee are trying to achieve" (p. 85).
Competing commitments should not be viewed as a weakness, but as a version of

self-protection. If these competing commitments are a form of self-protection,
then what are employees protecting themselves from? Kegan & Lahey believe
the answer usually lies in what they call "big assumptions" - deeply rooted beliefs
people have about themselves and the world around them. Many rarely realize
they hold big assumptions because they are woven into the very fabric of people's
existence, and thus they accept them as reality. "rhese assumptions put an order
to the world and at the same time suggest ways in which the world can go out of
order. Competing commitments arise from these assumptions, driving behaviors
unwittingly designed to keep the picture intact" (p. 88).
Why People Resist Change in the Workplace
Now-a-days all the companies, Government departments and institutions, no
matter whether public or private, no longer have a choice, the change is
mandatory to survive in the competitive world but unfortunately people tend to
resist change. Change in an organization is not an easy task, this will increase the
pressure on the management to learn the transparency of change. The perception
of change will differ between managers and employees: top level management
seeks a change is an opportunity to strengthen and to advance the business in their
career, whereas for employee’s, included middle level managers change is never
sought after it is disruptive and intrusive.
The following are the best described reasons why people resist change.
1. Threat of power on an individual level. It is more likely

that managers will resist changes that will decrease their power and
transfers it to their subordinates. In such a way, threat of power is one of
the causes of resistance to change;
2. Threat of power on an organizational level. With the change process,

some groups, departments or sectors of the organization become more
powerful. Because of that, some persons will be opposed to such a proposal
or processes where they will lose their organizational power;
3. Losing the control by employees. The change process sometimes can

reduce the level of control that managers can conduct. In such a way
managers can resist the proposed changes if the change process will require
reduction of their control power;
4. Increasing the control of the employees. Organizational changes can

increase the managerial control of the employees, and this process can
produce employees to become resistant to such proposal proposals of
change;
5. Economic factors. Organizational changes sometimes can be seen from
the employee’s side simply as something that will decrease or increase their
salary or other economic privileges that some workplace brings to them in
the moment before implementation of the change process. It is normal to
expect that those people who feel that they will lose the portion of their
salary will resist the change.
6. Image, prestige and reputation. Each workplace brings adequate image,

prestige and reputation that are important to all employees. Organizational
changes can make a drastic shift in these employee’s benefits. If this is the
case with the proposed change, then it will produce dissatisfaction. So,
image, prestige and reputation is one of the causes of resistance to change;
7. Threat of comfort. Organizational changes in many cases results in

personal discomfort and make employee’s life more difficult. They make
a transfer from the comfort of the status quo to the discomfort of the new
situation. Employees have the skills to do an old job without some special
attention to accomplishing the task. Each new task requires forgetting the
old methods of doing the job and learning new things that lead to waste of
energy, and causes dissatisfaction;
8. Job’s security. Organizational change can eliminate some work places,

can produce technological excess, layoffs and so on. Job’s security simply
is one of the causes of resistance to change;
9. Reallocation of resources. With organizational changes, some groups,

departments or sectors of the organization can receive more resources
while others will lose. So, this will bring resistance from the individuals,
groups or departments who will lose some of their currently available
resources.
10. Already gained interests of some organized groups in the company.
Organizational change can make new groups more significant for the
success of the organization. That’s a big threat for old coalitions that will
cause resistance to change in those groups that will become more
insignificant with the proposals;
11. Implications on personal plans. Organizational change can stop other

plans, projects or other personal or family activities. In such a way this
become one of the causes of resistance to change for those persons who
will be reached by this change;
12. Too much dependence on others. In an organization there are employees

who too much depend on other individuals. This dependence is based on
current support that they receive from powerful individuals. If the
change process brings the threat of that dependence, it will cause resistance
to change of those persons that will be threatened by this change;
13. Misunderstanding the process. Organizational individuals usually

resist change when they do not understand the real purpose of the proposed
changes. When employees don’t understand the process, they usually
assume something bad. This will cause resistance to change;
14. Mistrust to initiators of change. When employees don’t have trust to

the initiators of the process, the process will not be accepted and this will
cause resistance to change;
15. Different evaluation and perception. Different evaluation and perception

can affect the organizational changes if there are persons who consider the
proposed changes as a bad idea. Because of that they are resistant to
proposed changes.
16. Fear of unknown. Organizational change, in many cases leads to

uncertainty and some dose of fear. It is normal people to feel the fear of
uncertainty. When employees feel uncertainty in a process of
transformation, they think that changes are something dangerous. This
uncertainty affects organizational members to resist the proposed change;
17. Organizational members’ habits. Employees work in large part is based

on habits, and work tasks are performed in a certain way based on those
habits. Organizational changes require shifts of those habits and because
of that dissatisfaction from these proposals.
18. Previous Experience. All employees already have some experience with
a previous organizational change process. So, they know that this process
is not an easy process. That experience simply will tell them that most of
the change processes in the past was a failure. So, this can cause resistance
to change;
19. Threat to interpersonal relations. Employees are often friends with each
other and they have a strong social and interpersonal relationship inside
and outside organization. If an organizational change process can be seen
as a threat to these powerful social networks in the organization, the
affected employees will resist to that change.
20. Weakness of the proposed changes. Sometimes proposed change might

have a weakness that can be recognized by the employees. So,
those employees will resist the implementation of the process until these
weaknesses will not be removed or solved.
21. Limited resources. A normal problem in every organization is to have

limited resources. When resources are limited, and with the proposed
organizational changes those resources are threatened, the resistance to
change is more likely to occur;
22. Bureaucratic inertia. Every organization has their own mechanisms as

rules, policies, and procedures. Sometimes, when individuals want to
change their behavior these mechanisms in many cases can resist to the
proposed changes;
23. Selective information processing. Individuals usually have selective

information processing, or hear only something that they want to hear.
They simply ignore information that is opposite of the current situation,
and with this, they don’t want to accept important aspects of the proposed
changes. Because of that, appear resistance to change;
24. Uninformed employees. Often times employees are not provided with
adequate information about organizational changes that must be
implemented. And normally, this can cause resistance to change;
25. Peer pressure. Often, we utilize some kind of informal punishment for
colleagues who supports change which others don’t support. This situation
can have a large impact on increasing the level of resistance to change;
26. Skepticism about the need for change. If the problem is a not a personal
thing of employees, they will not see the real need why they must change
themselves. Those that can’t see the need for change, will have a low
readiness level of the change process;
27. Increasing workload. In the process of organizational

change, except normal working activities, employees usually will must
implement activities of a new change process. These increases of
workloads, affects appearing of resistance to change;
28. Short time to perform the change process. Because organizational

systems are open systems and they are interactive with their environment,
the need of change often comes from outside. In such a way the performing
time is dictated from the outside of an organization. These situations lead
to a short time for implementation of the organizational change process and
cause resistance to change.
Forms of Resistance, Employee Reaction (Behavior), Cause and Tools for
Change
Organizations are constantly battling "change resistance" and there is no doubt

that much time, money and energy can be wasted trying to introduce new
programs & processes, and changes to existing ones. You will have seen
situations where people seem to ignore a proposed change, avoid it, criticize it,
or actively attack it. It can often be frustrating, because the proposed change may
be quite logical, fairly simple, or even in their best interests, but still there are
some who seem to resist, just as I did when my parents wisely sent me to a school
that was an order of magnitude better than the local school. But like all things, if
you can diagnose the cause of the behaviour, you are better equipped to deal with
it.
When you strike resistance, the first step is to uncover what barrier is stopping a
person stepping forward with you. Understanding the barrier (eg. a perceived
threat, a conflict in priorities, work overload, or strong biases for the past) offers
you the opportunity to tailor your approach to best help them step past this barrier.
In the 5 different forms of change resistance outlined below, we'll look at what
triggers the resistance, and what can help you to guide them past it.
1. Passive Change Resistance
The behaviour: individuals remain silent about their views or appear to agree to
changes, but then do not act on them.
The cause: it's a threat response, and threat activates fear in the brain. You'll see
fear manifest itself in 4 different behaviours: fight, flight, freeze, or freak-out.
When someone displays passive resistance, you are seeing a 'flight' or 'freeze'
response. It means the threat that this change presents is something they want to
move away from, or hide from in the hope that it passes by without affecting
them. In some cases it may incorporate aspects of Overload Change Resistance
seen below, but often it is more than that. Something about the proposed change
may make them feel uncomfortable. It may be a threat to their sense of
competence or confidence, or possibly they have imagined the future situation in
a way that does not turn out well for them.
The tools for change: don't assume silence implies acceptance. In fact those who
say the least may be those struggling the most internally. Fear does not just arise
in the face of a real threat, it also arises in the face of imagined threats. So your
goal with these people is to make sure they do not create their own fears by
imagining negative impacts from the change. With all threat responses, whether
passive or active, it is the most negative consequences that are imagined first and
most strongly. Your first task is to encourage people to externalise their thoughts,
because it is not until the scenarios that they hold in their head are stated clearly
that they can begin to find a more realistic and balanced perspective. For some
people this requires a one-on-one conversation, and for others it can be achieved
in a group environment. But most importantly ensure you get them externalising
their thoughts, don't do it all for them. Even if you state what you can see may be
their fear and they agree, until THEY explore it more objectively it will not
change.
2. Active Change Resistance
The behaviour: individuals speak and act against the change either overtly or
covertly, with a particular focus on negatively influencing others to also resist, or
finding a way to have the change overturned. They may undermine change efforts
in subtle ways, or challenge them directly, depending on their personality, role
and confidence.
The cause: as with passive resistance, this is usually triggered by a threat

response, but when someone displays active resistance, they are modelling 'fight'.
It means this change has triggered a very specific threat that they want to
eradicate. It may make them feel out of control or unfairly treated, and their active
resistance is an attempt to reassert some lost autonomy. It may pose a risk to
something they hold dear (e.g. a threat to status, job, intellect) and they are
attempting to avoid this materialising. It may be in conflict with something else
that has a dominant hold over their beliefs or priorities (eg. you are trying to
change something they think their boss is against). Generally you will see the
obvious active change resistant behaviours at key points in a change process,
when the impact of the change is imminent, e.g. when you are trying to force a
commitment from them, when you are pushing things up the line into the view of
their superiors, or when an ally starts an attack and they can see an opportunity
for success from their efforts.
The tools for change: it is important to understand what potential threat your
proposed change may present for people. It may vary from person to person, so
reflect on this question early in your planning. The threat may be real, in which
case the best approach is to surface it with them and explore together how this
can be addressed. But in some cases the threat is imagined, and again, getting
close to active change resistors early in the process enables you to better
understand their perceived concern and air it so it can be explored. Generally,
when someone can externalise their thoughts, they will reflect on them with
greater clarity and realise a more balanced perspective. Then it is possible to find
a way to manage their potentially conflicting pressures or concerns more
maturely. Fight responses lose most of their aggression when addressed early,
frankly and directly. While it can feel like a direct attack on you, remember the
response is about something conflicting strongly in their worldview, so resist the
urge to heighten the tension by 'fighting' back.
3. Attachment Change Resistance
The behavior: individuals present strong arguments against the need for change,
or in support of the existing process, in an attempt to convince others not to make
radical changes. They may try to minimise the problem in an attempt to maintain
the status quo. If they see that change is inevitable, they may propose slight
adjustments in the hope of achieving a compromise that allows them to still
maintain the core of the current process and eliminate major changes.
The cause: they have a strong sense of ownership for existing practices/processes
and may have strong emotional ties to it. They may have been the original
architect of it, have strong links to the "values" embedded in it, or have used it
with success and believe it makes their life easier. When someone is heavily
invested in an existing process, they are in the grip of the 'anchoring bias' and the
‘confirmation bias’, which lock their thinking into positive circles around the
known process. Because the brain cannot hold 2 conflicting views at the same
time, this makes it very difficult for them to see the need for change, or to have a
positive response to a replacement process.
The tools for change: often these people are not your usual change resistors and
they may not wish to be difficult. But their wiring in support of the status quo
means they genuinely believe in the current process, and it can make them
unconsciously "blind" to what others may see as the drivers for change. No
amount of argument about the process (either against the old or for the new) will
convince them, and your best approach is to ignite a fresh reflection on the root
problem that you are trying to address. You want to build from first principles,
looking at it all 'as if for the first time'. You can only loosen the grip of the
'anchoring bias' and the 'confirmation bias' by not triggering them in the first
place. Return the focus to purpose, define the current need, reflect on current real
data that is different to the past, and from here you have the basis to form a new
picture. While their attachments will re-emerge throughout this journey, your
goal is to create a whole new neural network around the new solution. Beware
the trap of being drawn back into arguments about the old process. Just keep your
focus on the new picture and help them reinforce the new wiring and swap their
allegiance over.
Note: some people can experience a 'grief' response when change replaces
something in which they have been strongly invested. Strong emotional reactions
might be an indicator of this response. So before you bite back or complain about
someone's behaviour, consider the history and this person's role and experience
with the old process. If there are reasons that might make them strongly attached,
be conscious of this and affirm their experience by acknowledging the positives
from the past. The suffering that someone experiencing loss is going through is
only compounded when it is ignored by others. Here's a simple overview of how
the stages of grief might apply to an organisational change situation and
behaviour that tells you what's going on.
4. Uncertainty Change Resistance
The behaviour: people spend a lot of time wondering, worrying, talking and
hypothesising about the change and its possible impacts. Rumours start to
circulate and often they are based on unfounded assumptions, grasped at in the
absence of known facts. Productivity levels may start to decline, general
negativity may rise, and it can be difficult to get people focused on business-as-
usual.
The cause: in the face of uncertainty, brain activity is heightened. The brain is
constantly working to make sense of situations, and will tend towards known
patterns first. In most change situations, there are many gaps where there are no
definite facts to fill the void, and this leads to much circular rumination,
fabrication of possible futures, and wasted effort on things that may never happen.
Added to this dilemma is that the brain naturally fills voids by conjuring the worst
scenarios, which will then drive resistance to the change.
The tools for change: don't promote uncertainty! This is probably one of the
most common pieces of advice when it comes to change, because no matter how
well-intentioned a follower is, once uncertainty grips them, it can be impossible
to stop the rumination of mind. This rumination knows no work hour boundaries,
and it can keep people up at night and flow over into times they should be focused
on something else (hence the impact on productivity and happiness). By
recognising where the certainty gaps are yourself, you can influence the
assumptions people make to fill those gaps by guiding the conversation about
possible futures. But most importantly, keep people's attention on what is known,
even if it's simply the specifics of the day-to-day work and deliverables.
5. Overload Change Resistance
The behavior: stress responses such as 'moaning' or cynicism about the change,
or unexpected emotional reactions or unexplained active resistance to what
should be a fairly simple change. In summary, it looks like "pushing back" but
without any particular argument relating to the specific change itself.
The cause: it's a common affliction in most workplaces now, where change has
continued for many years in one form or another. While change is 'normal', the
amount of change that happens in general life is not often as constant as that
experienced in (particularly large) organisations. Sometimes the pace is high,
there are a series of changes layering on top of each other (often driven by
different parts of the organisation), and many are instigated without any influence
from those most affected. Add to this an already busy schedule of existing work
that takes up much of any person's mental resources, and 'one more minor change'
is like that last grain of sand that topples the dune.
The tools for change: in many cases you are trying to introduce your specific
change with no influence over the other changes that are contributing to the stress.
The real cause of resistance to your particular change proposition is that people
have reached the limit of their attention resources and have nothing to give.
Pushing back is a natural reaction, in an attempt to stop the flow of information
or expectation that is fighting for attention. Be conscious of the conflicts at play
by recognising what is on their plate, and consider how your message might fit
best in the flow of information fighting for their attention. Often you have no way
of becoming "priority one" because they have other dominating forces (e.g, their
own boss), so you have to really "get in flow" with them. Preferably work with
positive attention grabbers: appealing to a deeper purpose in which they also
believe, building a personal connection so they want to work with you, and
focusing on positive outcomes that genuinely help them. Most importantly, be
very present with them and what is going on in their world, so you can see your
window of opportunity and get your timing right for pushing your change
forward.
Don't forget that one of your most powerful tools in instigating change is to take
people on the journey of recognising the need in the context of purpose. "Why
are we here?" and "What is the real need?" should always precede decisions to do
something new or different. When this realisation of the need is shared, people
come to believe in the change for their own reasons, and you can come back to
this point whenever you need to realign people. While this step is often done at
the beginning, it is sometimes forgotten later in the process when new people
come on board or are expected to join into the change activities, so return often
to re-engage people with these essential anchors.
How to Overcome Resistance and Effectively Implement Change
1. Overcome opposition
Regardless of how well companies manage a change, there is always going to be

resistance. Companies should engage those who are opposed to a change. By
doing this, they can actively see what their concerns are and possibly alleviate the
problem in a timely manner. By allowing employees time to give their input, it
assures them that they are part of a team that actually cares about its employees.
Communicating both early and often is necessary when trying to convey anything
to employees. There should be a constant conversation between the C-Suite and
the general employees on what is happening day to day, and for what is to come
in the future. The best piece of advice that a company can take in this regard is to
be truthful, straightforward, and timely with big changes in the workplace.
Company-wide emails and intranets are great tools to utilize and this allows for
employees to ask questions and stay informed.
An explanation for why the change is needed is always a good idea. By helping
employees better understand why a change is important for the company, it’s
easier to get them on board with the change, and it can also encourage them to
become an advocate for change. With this, an explanation of “what’s in it for
me?” helps employees see the big picture and the benefits of the change, instead
of only giving them a narrow view of what is to happen in the near future.
Innovation and improvement are two things that are occurring on a daily basis.
With new ideas and suggestions there are always ways to improve as a company,
whether it be changing the outlook on an assignment, or changing the way the
office dynamic is on a day-to-day basis. Regardless of what it is, there are always
ways to improve, and this could really affect how employees look at change
management in the workplace.
2. Effectively engage employees
Listen, listen, listen. If there is another piece advice that a company should take,
it’s to receive and respond to the feedback that is provided by the employees.
They are the ones making sure that all the clients are happy and that all the work
gets done, so keeping them in the loop is vital. Ask employees probing questions:
Is the change working? What can we do to make it work better? Do employees
have any questions or concerns? These are all great questions to ask, but if
feedback is going to be collected, it actually needs to be read and utilized. These
answers can be used to change the plan accordingly, and show employees that
their ideas and concerns are being heard.
Understanding that no two employees are the same is another important tactic to
use when trying to understand the employee’s concern. Being able to realize that
there are going to be many different reasons for opposition depending on the
person is pertinent, because then managers can tailor ways to work out these
problems.
3. Implement change in several stages
Change doesn’t happen all at once. Companies should first prepare for the
change, then take action on the change and make a plan for managing the change,
and third, support the change and assure that all is going as planned.
4. Communicate change effectively
The best way that you as an employer can communicate change is to explicitly
tell employees what is going on. Using a blend of formal and informal
communication allows you to ensure that all employees receive the news about
the change in some way or another. With all the communication outlets such as
email, company intranets, town halls, and face-to-face meetings, the message is
going to get across the company. Employing several different ways to
communicate change helps explain the vision, goals and expectations for what
needs to happen and why.
Conclusion
Companies of all types constantly experience change, because as industries grow,

businesses have to evolve. Changes such as switching to a new HR plan can affect
your business in every way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to change
for the worst. Change needs to be dealt with in an effective and responsible
manner, and if done correctly, it will seriously benefit the company and make it
a smooth transition.
Strategies for Overcoming Resistance to Change in the Workplace
Overcoming resistance to change in the workplace doesn’t have to be a constant

battle in a market environment where the only constant is change. With a forward-
looking and proactive strategy, resistance to change is first reduced and then
eliminated. Here are seven strategies for overcoming resistance to change in the
workplace.
1. Listen First, Talk Second
The first strategy to overcome resistance to change is to communicate.

Communication is key — you already knew that. However, try letting your
employees initiate the conversation. People want to be heard, and giving them a
chance to voice their opinions will help alleviate the frustration they feel over the
situation.
2. Structure the team to maximize its potential
Give team members appropriate roles and responsibilities that use skills to their
best advantage, while also providing the potential for personal and team
development. After communicating the change initiative, consider the strengths
and weaknesses of each team member.
In one-to-one sessions, establish how the team member is best suited to aiding
with the change initiative, and consider ways in which it may help the individual
improve personal weaknesses while simultaneously taking advantage of their
strengths. Such a personal collaboration within the team effort will help engage
each team member in the change effort.
3. Set challenging, achievable and engaging targets
Be clear in guidance about goals and targets. Break change projects into smaller
milestones, and celebrate achievements. Goals should be progressive and in line
with values and beliefs.
Don’t limit milestones creation and goal achievement to the overall effort. While
these are important team milestones, and will help to motivate the team to
continue with maximum effort, it is also important that you consider individual
progress. Seek ways to anchor personal development to the creation and
continuation of team goals along the change journey.
4. Resolve conflicts quickly and effectively
Utilize the seven methods of care-fronting to regulate and control communicative

breakdowns. Encourage openness and honesty and engender an environment of
mutual trust and respect.
It is imperative to engender a good team spirit, so you should consider ways in
which you can do so. During periods of change, tensions may run high and
personal anxieties will be heightened. Team meetings and team bonding sessions
will help your people to understand and appreciate their colleagues more easily,
especially if you ensure transparency of communication and a systematic
approach to problem solving that encourages frank exchange of view to reach a
collective and collaborative partnership.
5. Show passion
Communicate passionately and be an example of belief in the future vision. When

other people see leaders’ behaviors emulating those required by change, they
more quickly come into line with the new behaviors and become change
advocates themselves.
6. Be persuasive
Engage employees in change by being an energized leader. Focus on

opportunities, and persuade rather than assert authority. Share experiences as you
persuade change through stories that focus on positive change.
Train your storytelling brain to discover ways to explain culture, brand, and the
future vision with similes that help employees relate to organizational motives
and goals.
7. Empower innovation and creativity
Give opportunities for feedback and remain flexible as you alter course toward
your change goals. Encourage people to be creative, to discover solutions to
unfolding problems, and to become part of the change process.
Remove the fear of taking risks by framing failure as an experience from which
to learn, and a necessary step on the path to success. Help people to be
accountable for their own actions, while also encouraging collaboration across
silos. This will aid pollination of innovative ideas in an environment in which
people develop greater knowledge and expand their professional capacity to think
more creatively.
8. Remain positive and supportive
People find change unsettling, even though change is a constant in personal lives
as well as professional environments. They will need the support of a positive
leader who inspires free thought, honest communication and creativity, as
personal and team development is encouraged.
Employees expect leaders to manage change. Inspirational leaders create a culture

where change becomes the remit of all.
9. Show Them the Data
While resistance to change is usually emotional rather than logical, it can be

helpful to use some hard facts as a supplementary strategy. Let your employees
see the data for themselves. This is a great way to simultaneously show
transparency and demonstrate the need for improvement.
10. Delegate Change
A great strategy to overcome resistance to change is: Fight resistance with culture.
Train team members who are natural leaders first. They will serve as role models
and influencers for the rest of your employees. This has a ripple effect.
Chapter Six
Planning and preparing for change
Developing a change plan (Book, page. 305)
Developing a change plan involves thinking through what needs to happen if a

change target (work group, department or organization) is to be moved towards a
desired end state.
Where this desired end state is known in advance, it might be possible to develop
a ‘blueprint’ plan, which specifies a whole range of things, such as who will lead
the change, what needs to be done, a timeline for implementation, and the
provision of the resources at each step along the way. However, where it is
difficult to define the desired end state in advance, blueprint planning may not be
possible and the plan for change will have to be more tentative and flexible. This
kind of flexible plan has to evolve over time.
Beckhard and Harris (1987) identify seven characteristics of effective transition
plans. Effective plans are:
1. Purposeful: the planned activities are clearly linked to the change goals and
priorities
2. Task specific: the types of activities involved are clearly identified rather
than broadly generalized
3. Integrated: the discrete activities are linked
4. Temporal: events and activities are timetabled
5. Adaptable: there are contingency plans and ways of adapting to
unanticipated opportunities and problems
6. Agreed: by top management, and other key stakeholders, as required
7. Cost-effective: to avoid unnecessary waste.
This list might be extended to include some of the issues considered below, for
example the provision of adequate resources and rewards for desired behaviours.
Sometimes, planning happens as a standalone, clearly bounded activity, but often

the boundaries between planning and implementation and diagnosis and planning
are blurred. Even when this is the case and planning is closely entwined with
other activities, there are still a number of planning-related issues that require
attention.
Attention is focused on eight tasks:
1. Appointing a transition manager

2. Identifying what needs to be done
3. Producing an implementation plan, with clear targets and goals, which can
indicate progress and signal any need for remedial action
4. Using multiple and consistent leverage points for change
5. Scheduling activities
6. Ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to the change and that an
appropriate balance is maintained between keeping the organization
running and implementing the changes necessary to move to the desired
future state
7. Implementing reward systems that encourage experimentation and change
8. Developing feedback mechanisms that provide the information required to
ensure that the change programme moves forward in a coordinated manner,
especially where the plan calls for consistent change in a number of related
areas.
1. Appointing a transition manager (Who can be a transition manager?)
Depending on the nature of the change, there may be several possible candidates
for the transition management role. A senior person in the organization may step
in and take control. A project manager may be appointed on a temporary basis.
The person in charge of the pre-change state may be given responsibility for the
transition in addition to their current operating role. A task force or temporary
team may be established. Where a team approach is adopted, consideration needs
to be given to team composition. It might include representatives from the
constituencies affected by the change, a diagonal slice of staff representing
different levels of the organization, ‘natural leaders’ (people who have the
confidence and trust of large numbers of their colleagues), or a group who are
drawn together because of their technical skills.
2. Identifying what needs to be done
Once a change objective has been identified, attention needs to be given to what
has to be done to achieve the change. The Awakishi diagram could prove helpful
for this purpose.
The Awakishi diagram is a useful tool to stimulate thinking about what needs to
be done. Let us assume that the change involves the closure of a plant to achieve
cost savings. An individual (or group) could brainstorm ideas about what needs
to be done to achieve this goal. The brainstorm might generate a large number of
issues requiring attention, which can be grouped into categories.
Figure: Using the Awakishi diagram as a change tool: plant closure
The most important categories provide the main ‘bones’, which connect to the
spine of the skeleton (see Figure. These could be plant to be closed, surplus
equipment, inventories and people. Using these bones as prompts, the other things
that will need to be done can be identified and prioritized. For example, what
needs to happen in order to identify which plant to close, which equipment to
dispose of, and which people to let go? Attention can then be given to what needs
to be done to actually close the target plant, dispose of surplus equipment, and
manage the relocation/severance of surplus staff. Attention can also be given to
issues such as stakeholder management, communications and so on.
3. Develop an implementation plan
Two factors will influence the change plan:
a) Change participants’ perceptions of the proposed change in terms of its

appeal and the likelihood that it will happen.
b) Clarity of the desired end state – is the change a ‘blueprint change’, where
the desired end state is known, or an emergent change, where the desired
end state is, as yet, unknown?
a) Change participants’ perceptions
Dibella (2007) points to four scenarios regarding change participants’ perceptions

of the appeal and likelihood of the change occurring, and suggests how these
perceptions might affect the way a change manager responds (Figure).
1. Participants view the change as desirable and consider it inevitable:
Here, the change manager’s task is to expedite the change. There will be little
resistance so the main requirement is to develop an implementation plan that lays
out critical tasks and time frames. This will help to avoid the possibility that,
because the change is viewed as inevitable, those involved may relax and
overlook the need to complete some necessary tasks.
Figure: Change participants’ perceptions of the appeal and likelihood of the

change
2. Participants view the change as desirable but are not convinced it will
happen:
Thus, the change manager needs develop a plan that will encourage and empower
others by acting in ways that will shift their perceptions and increase their
conviction that the change will be accomplished. Dibella (2007) suggests this can
be achieved by developing a change plan that focuses, first, on achieving small
victories by addressing the ‘low-hanging fruit’. This will help to secure early
successes that will build credibility.
3. Participants do not view the change as desirable but anticipate that it

is inevitable:
This fits the stereotypical condition where resistance to change is expected.

Dibella (2007) suggests that, overtly or covertly, participants will strive to alter
the conditions and make it less inevitable by reducing their engagement. Delaying
tactics, for example, might hold back the change until it is eclipsed by a crisis or
some other initiative that diverts attention elsewhere. Here, change managers
need to focus attention on reframing and making the change more desirable.
There may be features of the change that can be modified to make it more
appealing. As a minimum, the change manager will need to communicate a
compelling vision.
4. Participants perceive the change to be undesirable and unlikely to

happen:
Here, there is no clear incentive for participants to engage in the change. They
may be openly defiant and act in ways that will test the change manager’s
credibility. Dibella (2007) suggests that the change manager’s options include
revitalization, modifying the change to make it more appealing, or retrenchment,
altering the environment to make it seem more inevitable. One possibility for
altering the environment might be to recruit a set of champions or advocates into
the process, who view the change in more positive terms, or remove some of the
most resistant participants from the scene
b. Clarity of the desired end state
Planning is easier when the desired end state is known. With a blueprint change,
it is normally relatively easy to define the change goal, but sometimes it is not
possible to articulate a clear vision of what the end state will look like. There may
be a broadly defined goal and a direction for change, for example improving
competitiveness, but it may not be possible to provide a detailed specification of
what this end state will look like.
Here, change needs to be viewed as an open-ended and iterative process that

emerges or evolves over time. Rather than developing a single grand plan to
achieve a clearly defined end state, the change manager might need to think in
terms of developing a series of smaller but reasonably well-defined plans. After
each step in the implementation process, the step itself and the direction of the
change can be reviewed, and the plan for the next step in the process firmed up
(Figure).
Figure: Clarity of end state and content and structure of the plan
Quinn (1993) suggests that this kind of incremental approach to planning and
implementing change can have advantages even when change managers do have
a view of where they want the organization to be. He argues that taking small
steps, reflecting on progress, and building on the experience gained can be
effective because it:
I. Improves the quality of the information used in key decisions
II. Helps overcome the personal and political pressures resisting the change
III. Copes with the variety of lead times and sequencing problems associated
with change
IV. Builds the overall awareness, understanding and commitment required to
ensure
V. Implementation.
4. Using multiple and consistent leverage points for change
It was noted earlier that organizations are equilibrium-seeking systems. If only

one component of the system is changed, this can trigger forces that will work to
realign all the components of the system and re-establish the status quo. One way
of avoiding this is to use multiple and consistent leverage points for achieving
change. For example, if it is decided to change the structure of an organization, it
may be necessary to modify other elements of the system at the same time, such
as culture and career management systems, in order to secure the intended
benefits.
5. Temporal: events and activities are timetabled/ Schedule activities
Any plan for change will involve managing a long list of things that will need to
be done in order to make the proposed change a reality. There will be different
lead times associated with the various tasks, interdependencies between them and
resource and other constraints. All these things need to be taken into account
when developing an implementation plan. Careful scheduling can help to ensure
that all the necessary actions occur when required.
This process can be accomplished with the help of critical path analysis. Critical
path analysis is a useful tool for scheduling and identifying resource
requirements. It focuses attention on:
i. The tasks that need to be completed

ii. The order in which they have to be undertaken
iii. Dependencies between activities. It may not be possible to start some
activities until others have been completed, whereas others might not be
dependent on the completion of other tasks and can be started at almost any
time – so long as they are completed when required by later stages in the
change process (see task 8 below)
iv. The resources needed to complete the project and when they will be
required
v. Milestones to monitor progress
vi. The shortest time to complete the project to specification and within budget
vii. Possible ways of shortening this project time if circumstances require –
crashing the critical path.
Drawing the critical path

The first step is to list all the tasks that need to be undertaken, the time required
to complete each task, and the dependencies between tasks. A simple table can
help.
The data can be used to create a diagram (see the following Figure), in which the
arrows show the activities and time required to complete each task. Circles show
the beginning and end of tasks. The numbers in each circle shows the required
end date, and the milestones for the critical path (in bold).
The coloured arrows in Figure show the critical (longest) sequence of dependent
tasks and the shortest time to complete the project. Unless tasks on the critical
path are started and completed on time, it will take longer than necessary to
complete the overall project. The table above and Figure also show those tasks
that have spare or ‘float’ time. For example, task 8 can be started any time as long
as it is completed by day 22.
Figure: A critical path analysis
6. Provide resources for the transition
There is always a cost associated with change. For example, there may be a need
for training, new equipment, the development of software, the design of new
structures, and staff time to do all this. When the need for change is anticipated,
it is more likely that the resource requirements will have been foreseen. However,
when change is imposed as an urgent response to a pressing problem, the
organization may find itself stretched. Sometimes, it may be so stretched that it
cannot resource the change and has no option but to go out of business.
Nadler and Tushman (1989) suggest that one of the most scarce resources is
senior staff time and when senior managers are so overloaded they are unable to
invest sufficient time – to attend planning meetings, make presentations, attend
special events, get involved in training and so on – change initiatives are more
likely to fail.
7. Reward transition behaviours
Where people are required to continue working with the pre-change system, in
order to ‘keep the show on the road’ and maintain operations, while
simultaneously developing the new system, they might give insufficient attention
to the change. This can happen because existing control systems reward current
practice and offer little incentive for development work. Consequently, people
are discouraged from investing their time in this work and from experimenting
with new behaviours that might be required in the future. Steps need to be taken
to ensure that transition behaviour is not penalized and every opportunity to
reward this kind of behaviour needs to be explored.
8. Develop feedback mechanisms
A key requirement for maintaining control in the transition phase is the

development and installation of new feedback devices and control systems that
will facilitate the monitoring of progress towards the desired future state. Nadler
(1993) is a particularly strong advocate of customized feedback mechanisms
during the transition phase, because the feedback processes that managers
normally use to collect information about how the organization is functioning
might be less appropriate during this period. Additional sources of feedback
might include organization-wide surveys, focus group discussions, and feedback
from individual organizational members. Bruch et al. (2005) argue that a
comprehensive system for monitoring and reporting is essential to maintain
people’s attention on the change.
Using Oakland’s figure of eight framework to prepare and review plans for
change
Oakland (2013) has developed a figure of eight framework for change that can
provide a useful template for assessing whether early preparation and future
planning for implementation will lead to a successful change (see Figure).
Those leading change can use the top ring of the model to determine whether their
plan gives sufficient attention to generating a readiness for change. For example,
does it include actions that will help to create a shared appreciation of and
commitment to the need for change, and is attention given to helping change
recipients develop an understanding of the priorities for change?
The bottom ring of Oakland’s model can be used to help plan for implementation.
Any and every change requires the implementation of new, or modification of
existing, processes. The organization and resources need to be assembled around
this new process architecture; systems and controls need to be aligned to ensure
that people understand their responsibilities, accountabilities and who they need
to keep informed; and this understanding needs to drive the new behaviours that
will be required to deliver the change.
The figure of eight framework can help those leading change understand the
consequences of not attending to each element of the model.
Figure: Oakland’s figure of eight framework for successful change
Then, following figure shows what could happen if insufficient attention is given
to the three elements in the top circle. Leaders can use the signs and symptoms
listed in the right-hand column to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their
plans for change.
Figure: Readiness to change
If the need for change is not properly understood, there will be no urgency and
no action; if leaders provide insufficient direction, the change will not get started;
and if early planning is inadequate, there will be false starts and unanticipated
consequences.
Finally, the following figure Figure 15.8 illustrates what could happen if
insufficient attention is given to the four elements in the bottom circle. If
insufficient attention is given to how processes will have to change, effort will be
wasted on non-core activities. There could also be paralysis and frustration if
leaders fail to give enough attention to organization and resources because people
will not understand their new roles and responsibilities.
Implementation could be undermined if the systems and controls required to run
the new processes are not in place (driving blind), or if insufficient attention is
given to the way people will have to behave in order to make the change work.
Planned versus emergent approaches in the management of change
In the field of change management, Jackson and Philip (2005) observe that
various theoretical insights have been used with regards to understanding changes
within organizations and how change should be managed. These include planned
versus emergent approaches. Planned approaches are based on two fundamental
assumptions.
Firstly they assume that the major determinants of change can be planned in
advance and secondly, technology is seen as the main enabler for successful
change management. Planned models postulate a top down approach, where
senior management are the prime drivers in managing the change process.
Despite the popularity of planned models over the past few decades, they are
increasingly becoming obsolete, as reflected by the increased failure of many
planned change interventions.
A major reason for planning failure is the increasingly more turbulent, complex
and uncertain organizational conditions of today (Orlikowski and Hoffman, 1997
in Jackson and Philip, 2005). A major criticism, as frequently reported in the
literature and highlighted by Jackson and Philip (2005), is that planned models
fail to look beyond technological issues and understand the social and cultural
factors influencing the change process. From research both theoretical and case
based, Jackson and Philip (2005) note that the general conclusion would seem to
be that technological change should be approached from an emergent perspective.
Emergent approaches recognize the importance of understanding the ongoing
behavioral aspects of change. These approaches posit and share the view that
change cannot be viewed as a linear sequential process planned within a given
time period, by senior management. Instead actors are expected to enact change
as they respond to change arising in an ad hoc fashion. Change from this view is
something, which is ongoing or continuous, enabling understanding the social
and cultural factors influencing the change process. This would involve
understanding the different actor’s expectations, norms and perceptions within
organizational contexts.
In understanding the cognitive and behavioral aspects of change for example,

Wolff and Frank (2005) indicate numerous approaches to study and foster
processes of organizational change. These are mostly focused on social and
psychological aspects. Dominant topics include management of change,
organizational learning (for enhancing problem-solving capacity), enabling
communication (across hierarchical and domain barriers), organizational culture
as well as images or metaphors of organizations for creating an awareness of
potential problems.
Chapter Seven
Strategies for Leading Changes & Implementing Change
(The role of leadership in change management)
Leadership is widely regarded as the key enabler of the change process but there
appears to be considerable debate about what constitutes good leadership.
Drawing on Northouse (2004), leadership is defined here as a process that
involves influencing others to achieve desired goals.
Management and leadership
Tichy and Devanna (1986) and Kotter (1990) highlight a tension between
management and leadership. They argue that management is concerned with
maintaining the existing organization, whereas leadership is concerned with
change. In other words, management is about ‘doing things right’ and leadership
is about ‘doing the right things’ (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p. 21). Table 9.1 draws
on the work of Kotter to summarize the main differences between management
and leadership. They both involve deciding what needs to be done, developing
the capacity to do it, and ensuring that it is done. However, while management is
concerned with order and consistency, leadership is concerned with new
directions and change.
Managerial work, in times of change, is increasingly a leadership task
While management and leadership are distinct activities, they are complementary
and both are necessary for success in a changing business environment. Bolden
(2004) argues that it can be confusing to think about managers and leaders as
though they are different people and, to a large extent, incompatible. For example,
some talk about leaders as dynamic, charismatic individuals with the ability to
inspire others, and managers as uninspiring bureaucrats who just focus on the task
in hand. Bolden (2004, p. 7) asserts that such a view does not coincide well with
the lived experience of being a manager. People are generally recruited into
‘management’, rather than ‘leadership’, positions and are expected to complete a
multitude of tasks, ranging from day-to-day planning and implementation to
longer term strategic thinking. None of these are done in isolation.
Kotter (1999) argues that managers are the people who are in the best position to
provide the leadership required to ensure that a change will be successful.
However, if they are to provide this leadership, they need to recognize that their
role involves a dual responsibility, for management – keeping the system
operating effectively – and for leadership – revitalizing and renewing the system
to ensure that it will remain effective over the longer term. The pace of change
increasing, but that there is also a shift in emphasis towards managing
discontinuous or transformational change. An implication of this shift is that
leadership, and the provision of a sense of direction, has become a more important
part of managerial work.
Management Leadership Management Leadership

1. Management Leadership
Management involves planning and Leadership involves developing a
goal setting, vision that sets the direction for change
formulating steps for achieving goals, and developing strategies that will
and identifying the resources that will deliver the changes required to achieve
be required – planning and budgeting the vision
2. Developing the capacity to achieve it
Management involves creating Leadership involves communicating
organizational structures and work the new direction in a way that enables
roles that will facilitate the people to understand what needs to
achievement of goals, appointing happen if the vision is to be achieved
qualified people, communicating and creating the conditions necessary
plans and delegating appropriate to align their efforts to deliver the
levels of responsibility – organizing vision
and staffing
3. Ensuring that it is done
Management involves monitoring Leadership involves motivating and
performance, inspiring people to achieve the vision
identifying deviations from plans and
taking corrective action – controlling
and problem solving
Kotter (1990, p. 104) illustrates the point that managerial work, in times of
change, is increasingly a leadership task with a simple military analogy:
A peacetime army can usually survive with good administration and

management up and down the hierarchy, coupled with good leadership
concentrated at the top. A wartime army, however, needs competent
leadership at all levels.
In a wartime army, platoon leaders and company commanders still have to

manage, but successful outcomes in combat situations are highly dependent on
the quality of the leadership they provide. Leadership cannot just be concentrated
at the top of the organization.
The role of leadership
There is growing evidence that ‘what leaders do’ can have a powerful effect on
follower behaviour and the success of change initiatives. There has been much
discussion on what leadership entails. Kotter (1990) describes leadership in terms
of creating a vision, communicating and aligning people to achieve the vision,
and motivating and inspiring them by appealing to their needs, values and
emotions.
Higgs and Rowland (2000, 2011), after reviewing earlier work, report five
behaviours associated with successful change implementation:
1. Creating the case for change
2. Ensuring that change is based on an in-depth understanding of the issues
3. Engaging others and building commitment
4. Developing effective plans and good monitoring practices
5. Facilitating and developing the capability of those involved.
Ancona et al. (2007) refer to four capabilities: sense making, relating, visioning
and inventing. Inventing involves conceiving, designing, and putting into practice
new ways of working. Yates (2009) offers a 4E framework:
1. Envisioning a values-driven set of goals and strategies
2. Enabling their achievement by selecting appropriate methods, tools and

people
3. Empowering others by developing trust and interdependence between

leaders and followers
4. Energizing everybody to drive the change.
Yates argues that the moment a leader flags or shows a lack of resolve, the team
will lose energy and results will suffer. Subordinates’ perceptions of leaders’
behavior can have a powerful impact on leader effectiveness. Gilley et al. (2009)
studied subordinates’ perceptions of effective leader behaviour and identified, in
order of importance, three factors related to support for change – the leader’s
ability to motivate others, communicate effectively and build teams. Oreg et al.
(2011) reviewed 700 studies of change recipients’ reactions to change and
reported that when they perceived the process to be participative and supportive,
with open lines of communication, and when managers were perceived to be
competent and fair, they were more likely to react positively towards the change.
What managers (and others) do when leading change
Drawing on these ideas, it is possible to identify seven tasks that leaders need to
perform in order to ensure change success (Table 9.2). They are discussed in
detail below.
Key leadership Description
tasks
1 Sense making Make sense of the world and identify the opportunities
and
2 Visioning Identify a vision of what a more desirable state of affairs
might look like and what needs to be done to move
towards this better future
3 Sense giving Communicate the vision to a wider audience and
respond to feedback as required to win commitment to
the change
4 Aligning Promote a shared sense of direction so that people can
work together to achieve the vision
5 Enabling Remove obstacles and create the conditions that
empower others to implement the change
6 Supporting Recognize and respond to the concerns of those affected
by the change
7 Maintaining & Show commitment and ‘walk the talk’ – demonstrating
sustaining that they are prepared to change their behaviour as well
change – to keep people focused on the change
1. Sense making
Leaders need to be able to make sense of the world around them and develop
cognitive maps – mental representations of their environment that show what they
perceive to be more or less important – to help them identify those issues that
require attention. This is not always easy because leaders (and others) have a
conservative tendency to interpret what is going on in terms of what has gone on
in the past.
Ancona et al. (2007, p. 95) suggest that leaders can improve their sense making
by seeking data from multiple sources, checking whether different people have
different perspectives, and using early observations to design small experiments
to test ideas. It is important to note, however, that while sense making might be
an essential first step, it is not a one-off activity. Situations change and leaders
need to be continually alert to how new developments might impact the agenda
for change.
2. Visioning
While sense making and visioning are separate activities, they are closely linked
and it is essential that those exercising leadership formulate a vision based on a
realistic assessment of the situation and the needs and priorities of key
stakeholders. Colville et al. (2012, p. 8) view sense making as the act of cueing a
story in the form of a frame (cognitive map) that provides leaders with a recipe
that serves both as a scheme of interpretation (this is the meaning of the situation)
and a scheme for action (this is what we should do next). Based on their
interpretation of the current situation and emerging threats and opportunities,
leaders can begin to identify their vision of what a more desirable state of affairs
might look like and what needs to be done to move towards this better future.
There is wide acceptance that a strong vision, informed by an in-depth

understanding of the context, can make a valuable contribution to the success of
a change initiative.
According to Kotter (1996), a good vision needs to be:
a. Imaginable: conveys a picture of what the future will look like

b. Desirable: appeals to the long-term interests of employees, customers,
shareholders and stakeholders
c. Feasible: comprises realistic, attainable goals
d. Focused: clear enough to provide guidance in decision making
e. Flexible: general enough to allow individual initiatives and alternative
responses in light of changing conditions
f. Communicable: easy to communicate; can be successfully explained
within five minutes.
Bruch et al. (2005) argue that leadership decisions about the ‘right thing to do’
(the vision) need to be made before deciding ‘how to do the change right’,
otherwise ongoing debates about ‘does the change make sense?’ will rob the
project of its energy and weaken the implementation process.
3. Sense giving
Communicating the vision is sometimes referred to as ‘sense giving’. Gioia and

Chittipeddi (1991, p. 442) define sense giving as: ‘the process of attempting to
influence the sense making and meaning construction of others towards a
preferred construction of organizational reality’. Leaders disseminate a vision to
stakeholders and constituents in order to communicate their interpretation of a
new and better reality and to influence others to adopt this view of the world.
Translating the vision into a desire for change
Just because change recipients understand the leader’s vision does not mean that
they accept it and will be committed to achieving it. Sense giving is most effective
when the outcome is not just that others recognize a need for change but when
the potential recipients go on to translate this recognition into a desire for change.
There are a number of things that leaders can do that will affect whether or not
this
will happen.
a) Winning trust
Translating the recognition of a need for change into a desire for change is more
likely to happen when the potential recipients of change trust their leaders and
feel that leaders respect their views (Oreg et al., 2011). Leaders can help to
develop this kind of respect by seeking feedback and encouraging others to voice
their views, and signaling to them that they believe that their views are worth
listening to and they (the leaders) will do their best to keep an open mind until
they have understood what they have to say. But sometimes, leaders, although
they may appear to listen, may be perceived as giving insufficient attention to or
trivializing the views of others.
b) Highlighting benefits
Oreg et al. (2011) report that a key determinant of whether change recipients will
accept or resist change is the extent to which they perceive the change as
beneficial or harmful. Leaders can be more effective if they communicate a
compelling vision that is aligned with change recipients’ values and promises to
deliver personal benefit. While crafting the vision so that it appeals to change
recipients can produce more support for a change, Conger (1990) sounds a note
of caution and argues that leaders need to be careful not to present information in
ways that make their vision appear more realistic and more appealing than it
really is.
c) Promoting perceptions of competence
Oreg et al. (2011) and Neves (2011) refer to studies that identify change
recipients’ perceptions of their leader’s competence, and therefore their ability to
affect outcomes and achieve desired goals, as a factor that can affect their
commitment to a proposed change. This points to the importance of leaders doing
everything they can, not only to develop the competences and build the
relationships with significant others that will help them deliver successful change,
but also to ensure that they are seen to be competent and well connected by those
involved in the change. This said, Conger (1990) sounds another note of caution
and asserts that leaders should not communicate a vision in ways that foster an
illusion of control when the reality is that things are out of control. Sometimes,
information is manipulated in a way that encourages employees and other
stakeholders to make decisions that are neither in their own nor the organization’s
best interest.
d) Demonstrating that the status quo is unsustainable
Kotter (1995), writing about why transformation efforts fail, discusses the
difficulties often encountered by leaders when trying to drive people out of their
comfort zones and create a readiness for change. One approach he advocates to
address this problem is to act in ways that create a sense of urgency.
Sensing the need or opportunity for change, formulating a vision of a better

future, and communicating this vision to those who will be the recipients of
change are essential early steps, but leaders also need to work hard to create the
conditions that will empower people to deliver the desired change.
4. Aligning
An important aspect of sense giving is communicating in a way that promotes a

shared sense of direction and aligns people so that they can work together to
achieve the vision. Kotter (1996) argues that a central feature of modern
organizations is interdependence, where no one has complete autonomy, and
most members of the organization are tied to many others by their work,
technology, management systems and hierarchy. Kotter argues that these linkages
present a special challenge when organizations attempt to change because unless
individuals line up and move together, they will get in each other’s way and fall
over one another. Kühl et al. (2005) argue that managers throughout the
organization have to engage in ‘lateral leadership’ to create a shared
understanding, influence the political process and develop trust. Some of the most
effective leaders have the ability to identify those who might be able to support
or sabotage an initiative, network with them and communicate in a credible way
what needs to be done. Aligning people in this way empowers them, even people
at lower levels of the organization. When there is a clear, and shared, sense of
direction, committed stakeholders, including subordinates, are more likely to feel
able to take action without encountering undue conflict with others or being
reprimanded by superiors.
5. Enabling
Communicating a clear and compelling vision and aligning people to support it

can help inspire change recipients and those involved in implementing the change
to overcome the inevitable barriers they will encounter as the initiative unfolds.
But leaders need to do more. Ancona et al. (2007, p. 99) argue that: ‘even the
most compelling vision will lose its power if it floats, unconnected, above the
everyday reality of organizational life’. They assert that to transform a vision of
the future into a present-day reality, leaders need to create the conditions that will
help facilitate implementation.
Drawing on the work of Hackman (2002), Higgs and Rowland (2011), Oreg et al.
(2011) and others, it is possible to identify a number of ways in which leaders can
create the conditions that will enable people to contribute to change
implementation. Leaders can enable people to deliver change by:
a. Ensuring that everybody is clear about what needs to be done.

b. Creating clear structures and frameworks that enable people to work
together t achieve a common purpose. This could involve revising
organizational structure or making departmental boundaries more
permeable to facilitate the sharing of information and other resources.
c. Designing and delegating tasks that are aligned with people’s values and
provide sufficient challenge to make their work meaningful.
d. Where possible, designing work for teams rather than individuals, thereby
enhancing members’ sense of collective responsibility for change
outcomes.
e. Providing access to information that some may believe should be
restricted, so that individuals and groups are able to make decisions without
always having to seek information and permission from others.
f. Developing feedback mechanisms that individuals and groups can use for
themselves to monitor their own progress and learn from their successes
and failures.
g. Encouraging those involved in the change to generate and discuss
explanations for how well the change is progressing.
h. Creating alignment at the top so that senior managers communicate
consistent messages to others and adopt a common approach to
implementing the change
6. Supporting others during the change
Sometimes, it is easier for leaders to identify and communicate benefits for the
organization than it is to communicate benefits for the individual, but those
affected by a change have a pressing need to understand how the change will
affect them personally. It is important, therefore, to recognize and respond to
these concerns. Even when a leader is convinced that the individual will enjoy
benefit from the change, some of those affected may not share this view and, even
if they do, may still experience a feeling of loss or lack of control over what will
happen to them. This kind of reaction can motivate them to hold on to the status
quo rather than let go and embrace the change. Providing opportunities for
dialogue so that those affected can explore and understand what will be involved
can help to address these concerns. A related issue is a fear that following the
change, those affected may not be able to deliver the required level of
performance. Providing training opportunities in anticipation of the change, on-
the-job support during implementation, and making it safe to admit mistakes and
seek assistance can all help to boost confidence and help people to embrace the
change.
7. Maintaining momentum and sustaining the change
There is often a tension between ‘keeping the show on the road’ (maintaining
production) and introducing changes that will deliver improved performance over
the longer term because implementing changes can be costly in terms of time and
other resources. When employees are under pressure to maintain output,
immediate demands can squeeze out the change agenda. Leaders need to be
careful to act in ways that help to maintain the momentum of change and ensure
that hard-won gains do not evaporate. When people can observe their leaders’
active involvement in and commitment to the change, there is every chance they
will be motivated to persist with the change even when confronted by problems
that might otherwise have undermined their commitment.
Leadership style and Change
Hackman (2002) argues that too much attention has been given to the importance
of leadership style and asserts that leaders can be successful using those
behaviours or styles that make the most sense to them personally, given the
properties of the situation, the state of the team, and their own idiosyncratic skills
and preferences. (https://sci-hub.tw/10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0155 )
Leaders have to act as role drivers as well as role models in any successful change
programme (Skakon,Nielsen, Borg &Guzman, 2010). Leadership styles and
leaders’ participation are determinants of success inorganizational change
programme (Oreg, Vakola&Armenakis,2011). Steven, Medea &Thai-Son (2015)
identify four leadership styles related to change process: Laisses-faire,
transactional, transformational and change-oriented.
1. Laisses-fairies
Laisses-fairies a French term which means “allow to act”. Thus Laisses-faire

leadership style is a ‘hands-off’ management approach. It is exhibited when
leaders totally leave managerial activities to their subordinates. In relation to
change process, laisses-faire leaders try to avoid change and when change finally
occurs they eschew their responsibilities. Such leaders are found to be away
physically and emotionally from their followers. This kind of leadership style
cannot bring expected positive result of handling change.
2. Transactional leadership
Based primarily on extrinsic motivation, transactional leadership supports

follower compliance with tasks through incentives and rewards (Bass, 1995).
During organizational change transactional leadership may inspire the acceptance
of change via reinforcement and reward. However, such acceptance would be of
an instrumental nature rather than attitudinal. While transactional leadership fits
organizations maintaining status quo (Gersick, 1994), we do not anticipate
transactional leadership to positively impact followers’ appraisal of change. If
transactional leadership entails a failure to motivate followers beyond the
expected outcomes, then impacting a positive appraisal during the uncertainties
of change would seem difficult.
Besides, transactional leadership style is also known as managerial leadership.

The major focus of the style is on planning, supervision and group performance.
Leaders who exhibit this style focus more on tasks, attempt to meet material and
psychological needs of the employees in exchange for desired services or
behaviour. Such leaders are concerned about day to day transaction in the
organization (Steven et al.,2015). They seek compliance through rewards and
punishment approach. However, in relation to change process, this leadership
style appeals only to the satisfaction of lower-order of individual need.
3. Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership style is characterized with four factors known as four

‘I’s: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual simulation and
individualized consideration (Bass, 2008). The style focuses on meeting
organizational needs, satisfies individual higher needs and evokes relationship-
oriented behavior (Golm,2009). Generally, it means empowering followers by
instilling confidence in them. By exhibiting this style, the leader will be able to
achieve both the organizational and employees’ objectives. Leaders adopting this
style act as role models, build trust and develop team by ensuring shared vision.
They also instill pride and confidence in their followers, empower them through
training, attend to their psychological and emotional needs and convince the mon
the need to change the status quo. In managing change, transformational
leadership style has been found to be more effective compared to transactional
leadership style (Brandt, Laitinen &Laitinen, 2016). Itis wider in scope and most
appropriate for transitional period (Oreg et al.,2011).
Transformational leadership is suggested to be appropriate in organizational

change (Eisenbach et al., 1999), and to positively impact followers’ reactions to
organizational change (Oreg et al., 2011). Transformational leadership taps into
a process which inspires change in the attitudes and assumptions of followers
while creating commitment to organizational goals (Yukl, 1989). We hypothesize
that transformational leadership will be associated with a greater appreciation of
the change process, as evidenced by changing routines and procedures,
straightening up bad work methods, and changing attitudes towards team
organization and the team’s abilities to manage changes in the organization
Transformational leaders a change leader performs the following roles:
▪ Create a feeling of urgency

▪ Provide a precise guidance
▪ Determine a vision for the change programme.
▪ Share the change vision with the employees
▪ Give authority to the workers to act in line with the vision
▪ Plan short-term gains to celebrate the success
▪ Institutionalize new approaches in the organization
4. Change Oriented Leaders
Transformational leadership style is further noted to comprise key elements of

change oriented leaders (Steven,2015). Organizations leaders thus need to
exhibit transformational leadership style when implementing change. This can be
manifested by turning their institution to learning organization. Learning
organization will be able to quickly adapt to any change introduced in the
institution. This can be done by allaying workers fear on change through
exposition to knowledge and skills necessary to cope with eventual future change.
Hence the workers would be able to foresee the future change, embrace and work
along with it.
Transformational leadership had a positive, long-term effect on followers’

appraisal of change. Thus, when preparing for and implementing change, the
more managers are visionary change role models, the more followers appraise the
change positively during the final stages of change. Contrarily, transactional
leadership performed during the initial stage of change, has a negative effect on
followers’ change appraisal. Being a dynamic process, change may thus
potentially be less supported by an exchange relationship based on a quid pro quo
leadership style. Hence, introducing a change process by ensuring compliance
and consistency through rewards and exchange seems to have negative effect on
how followers’ change appraisal.
5. Charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership highlights the power of the emotional interaction between
leaders and followers. Bass (1985, p. 35) coined the term ‘idealized influence’ to
describe ‘leaders who by the power of their person have profound and
extraordinary effects on their followers’. They have the ability to motivate
followers to achieve goals they may not have considered achievable. Drawing on
Podsakoff’s model of transformational-transactional leadership, Antonakis
(2012) suggests that they do this by communicating a vision in a way that inspires
others, setting challenging goals and articulating high performance expectations,
challenging followers to rethink their ideas and look at old problems in new ways,
promoting cooperation and teamwork to get people working towards the same
goal, setting an example and leading by doing rather than telling, and providing
individualized support.
Conger (1991, p. 31) argues that a distinguishing feature of charismatic leaders is

that they communicate in ways that inspire others. To illustrate what this
involves, he uses the story of two stonemasons who, while working on the same
project, were asked what they were doing.
The first replied: ‘I am cutting stone’; the second: ‘I am building a great

cathedral.’ Conger asserts that the second mason was able to describe his
work in a more far-reaching and meaningful way.
He argues that leaders need to embody this same ability – ‘the capacity to
articulate an organization’s mission and communicate it in ways that inspire’.
This requires two distinct skill categories. The first is ‘framing’, the ability to
define the purpose of the organization in a meaningful way.
The second is the ability to use symbolic language to give emotional power to the
message. While the basic message provides the sense of direction, it is the rhetoric
that heightens its motivational appeal and determines whether it will be
sufficiently memorable to influence the day-to-day decision making of those
involved in the change. Thus, Charismatic leadership also facilities the change
process of the organization.
Chapter Ten
Change Agents
Change Agents full

doc.pdf
Change Agent Definition
A change agent is a person from inside or outside the organization who helps an
organization transform itself by focusing on such matters as organizational
effectiveness, improvement, and development. A change agent usually focuses
his efforts on the effect of changing technologies, structures, and tasks on
interpersonal and group relationships in the organization. The focus is on the
people in the organization and their interactions.
In business, a change agent is an individual who promotes and supports a new

way of doing something within the company, whether it's the use of a new
process, the adoption of a new management structure or the transformation of an
old business model to a new one.
A change agent is sometimes also called an agent of change or change

advocate. Champion and change agent are sometimes used interchangeably, as
well; however, some see differences between the roles each one plays in
supporting change, with a change agent having more responsibilities and
accountability than a champion for ensuring that change happens successfully.
Types of Change Agent
The change agent can be internal or external to the organization who plays the
role of a catalyst to implement change in the organization.
1. Internal Change Agent: When the change agent, is internal to the
organization then he/she is usually the employee such as a manager, senior
executive, leader, HR professional or any other person from the staff who
has mastered in behavioral sciences and intervention technology of
organization development. They are appointed by the organization to look
after the change process.
2. External Change Agent: The external change agent is the one who is
brought to the organization from outside such as consultants. The
company’s rules regulations and policies are not imposed on them, and so
they can deeply analyze and bring different viewpoints to a situation and
challenge the existing state of affairs. However, this can also be seen as a
disadvantage, as the external change agent is not aware of the company’s
history, work processes, and personnel.
Why Change Agents are Important

A change agent serves a distinct role within a change initiative as a proponent of
the change, as well as a conduit between leadership and the rest of the
organization. A successful agent of change can help smooth resistance to change
and address the issues before they derail an initiative and, thus, can help ensure
the successful implementation and adoption of a new project.
Change Agent Roles
There are at least three distinct roles that change agents play: consulting, training,
and research (Carnall, 2008; Dawson, 2010; Stephen, 2010; Tidd, 2010). A
manager can and often does perform each of these functions. An outside change
agent can perform these activities as well.
1. Consulting
As a consultant, the manager places employees in touch with data from outside
the organization or helping organization members to generate data from within
the organization. The overall purpose is to help employees find solutions to
problems through analysis of valid data.
2. Training
In addition to performing the role of consultant, the manager may function as a

trainer. Here the manager helps organization members learn how to use data to
effect change. The manager, or outside change agent if one is used, has a dual
purpose as trainer: (1) to help organization members derive implications for
action from the present data and (2) to provide organization members with a new
set of skills—the ability to retrieve, translate, and use new data to solve future
problems. Several companies have hired outside consultants to instruct
organization members on how to improve the overall operation of their firms.
3. Research
Finally, and closely associated with the previous role, the manager may assume
the role of researcher. As researcher, the manager may train organization
members in the skills needed for valid evaluation of the effectiveness of action
plans that have been implemented. Furthermore, as part of the overall intervention
strategy, the manager will design an evaluation component that can be used in
solving not only the current problem but also future problems.
Developing collaborative relationships
Collaborative modes of intervening are most effective when change managers

have a genuine respect for the people they are working with. This requires that
they:
1. Signal that the other’s viewpoint is worth listening to:
This reflects their willingness to commit to working with others. It also suggests
a level of openness to their point of view. Too often, even when change managers
go through the motions of asking others for their views, they are not really
committed to listening. If collaborative working is to be effective, change
managers need to respect others’ views and clearly signal this respect.
2. Suspend critical judgement:
If change managers are really committed to working collaboratively with others,

they need to keep an open mind and avoid reaching premature conclusions. Egan
(2004) and Reddy (1987) assert that this does not mean that they should signal
approval of everything they hear or observe, rather it involves communicating
that their point of view has been heard and understood. The act of suspending
judgement, and trying to understand the other’s viewpoint, can encourage the
client to explore their position. It avoids pushing them into defensive positions
and gives them the freedom to change their view.
Characteristics of Successful Change Agentry
After an extensive review of the literature, several researchers have identified a

set of ten factors characteristic of effective change agentry (Anderson, 2011;
deBruijn, 2011; Jain, 2011; Lindegaard, 2011; McCabe, 2011). These factors
briefly defined in the following list, refer to the way in which change agents
manage change rather than to any personal characteristics they may possess. In
many cases, the plant manager performs the role of change agent. However, the
change agent can be an internal change specialist, corporate office administrator
(often called a “trouble shooter”), or outside consultant whose expertise is in
implementing change.
Chapter Nine
Maintaining Organizational Effectiveness
Meaning of Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness can be defined as the efficiency with which an
association is able to meet its objectives. This means an organization that
produces a desired effect or an organization that is productive without waste.
Organizational effectiveness is about each individual doing everything they know
how to do and doing it well; in other words organizational efficiency is the
capacity of an organization to produce the desired results with a minimum
expenditure of energy, time, money, and human and material resources. The
desired effect will depend on the goals of the organization, which could be, for
example, making a profit by producing and selling a product. An organization, if
it operates efficiently, will produce a product without waste. If the organization
has both organizational effectiveness and efficiency, it will achieve its goal of
making a profit by producing and selling a product without waste. In economics
and the business world, this may be referred to as maximizing profits.
The main measure of organizational effectiveness for a business will generally be

expressed in terms of how well its net profitability compares with its target
profitability. Additional measures might include growth data and the results of
customer satisfaction surveys.
Highly effective organizations exhibit strengths across five areas: leadership,

decision making and structure, people, work processes and systems, and culture.
For an organization to achieve and sustain success, it needs to adapt to its dynamic
environment. Evaluating and improving organizational effectiveness and
efficiency is one strategy used to help insure the continued growth and
development of an organization.
Measuring organizational effectiveness can be an inexact science, since each
individual entity will have a different list of criteria and priorities to weight and
consider through self-assessment. Understanding a company's level of
organizational effectiveness is important for several reasons: it serves as a check-
in to see how well internal procedures are meeting an initial vision, it provides
investors, donors, or employees with an idea of the company's strengths, and it
highlights areas of ineffectiveness that can be the focus of improvements.
In many cases, a business' success or failure cannot be measured by financial

performance as well. Even a company that is currently making a profit may be
ineffective if it is failing to meet the core values of its mission statement, attract
and retain talented workers, and plan for the next generation of projects.
Organizational effectiveness measures the big-picture performance of a business,

across a broad range of criteria. Financial performance, long-term planning,
internal structure, and adherence to core values may all be critical components in
understanding organizational effectiveness.
To get a clear idea of an organization's effectiveness, it is important to create a

clear list of criteria to assess. No two organizations will have the same list of
criteria, which is why many for-profit and non-profit groups measure
effectiveness through self-assessment. Employees and company personnel are
often in the best position to intimately understand the needs, goals, and
performance of their company. Self-assessment of effectiveness can also help
company personnel reconnect with the initial mission of an organization. By
working creatively to invent new business strategies for areas of ineffectiveness,
workers may develop a stronger sense of loyalty, purpose, and dedication to the
job.
Since organizational effectiveness is difficult to express in a concrete formula, a
company may choose to state the results of an assessment through specific goals
achieved or desired. Turning up areas of ineffectiveness can also be tremendously
beneficial to an organization. Areas that need improvement give a company a
concrete strategy for the future, and allow workers, shareholders, donors, or
customers to get excited about the improvements coming down the pipeline.
Treating current weaknesses as a road map for future changes is a great way to
increase effectiveness.
Difference between Effectiveness & Efficiency

Efficiency means whatever you produce or perform; it should be done in a perfect
way. Although, Effectiveness has a broader approach, which means the extent to
which the actual results have been achieved to fulfill the desired outcome i.e.
doing accurate things. These are the metric used to gauge the performance of an
employee in an organization.
Efficiency and Effectiveness are the two words which are most commonly
juxtaposed by the people; they are used in place of each other, however they are
different. While efficiency is the state of attaining the maximum productivity,
with least effort spent, effectiveness is the extent to which something is successful
in providing the desired result.
Definition of Efficiency
Efficiency refers to the ability to produce maximum output from the given input
with the least waste of time, effort, money, energy and raw materials. It can be
measured quantitatively by designing and attaining the input-output ratios of the
company’s resources like funds, energy, material, labor, etc.
Efficiency is also considered a parameter to calculate the performance and

productivity by making comparisons between the budgeted output and the actual
outputs produced with the fixed number of inputs. It is the ability to do things in
a well-mannered way, to achieve the standard output. Efficiency is an essential
element for resource utilisation, as they are very less in number, and they have
alternative uses, so they must be utilised in the best possible way.
Definition of Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to the extent to which something has been done, to achieve
the targeted outcome. It means the degree of closeness of the achieved objective
with the predetermined goal to examine the potency of the whole entity.
Effectiveness has an outward look i.e. it discloses the relationship of the business
organisation with the macro environment of business. It focuses on reaching the
competitive position in the market.
Effectiveness is result oriented that shows how excellently an activity has been
performed that led to the achievement of the intended outcome which is either
accurate or next to perfect.
Basis for
Efficiency Effectiveness
comparison
Meaning The virtue of being The magnitude of nearness of the

efficient is known as actual result with the intended result,
efficiency. is known as effectiveness.
What is it? Work is to be done in a Doing accurate work.

correct manner.
Emphasis on Inputs and Outputs Means and Ends
Time Horizon Short Run Long Run
Approach Introverted Extroverted
Ascertainment Strategy Implementation Strategy Formulation
Orientation Operations Strategies
Key Differences Between Efficiency and Effectiveness
The points, given below describe the substantial differences between efficiency
and effectiveness:
1. The ability to produce maximum output with limited resources is known

as Efficiency. The level of the nearness of the actual result with planned
result is Effectiveness.
2. Efficiency is ‘to do the things perfect’ while Effectiveness is ‘to do perfect

things’.
3. Efficiency has a short run perspective. Conversely, the long run is the point
of view of Effectiveness.
4. Efficiency is yield-oriented. Unlike Effectiveness, which is result oriented.
5. Efficiency is to be maintained at the time of strategy implementation,

whereas strategy formulation requires Effectiveness.
6. Efficiency is measured in operations of the organisation, but Effectiveness

of strategies is measured which are made by the organisation.
7. Efficiency is the outcome of actual output upon given the number of inputs.
On the other hand, Effectiveness has a relationship with means and ends.
Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness

(https://sites.google.com/site/psy130organisationalbehaviour/home/chapter-1-
1/perspectives-of-organisational-effectiveness)
Obtaining a career as a business professional after completing a higher education

in organizational leadership online provides an opportunity to focus on
improving the effectiveness of the company. Organizational effectiveness relates
to the efficiency of a business; however, a professional must also focus on quality
services. The key to organizational effectiveness is using the right tools and
strategies to accomplish a specific goal.
1. Make Use of Human Resources
The human resources department of any company plays a key role in

the organizational effectiveness of a company. According to Forbes, human
resource personnel provide assistance with organizational effectiveness by
helping with the design of new business strategies. Since the human resources
professionals in a company play an essential role in hiring new employees, they
also impact the company goals.
Get human resource professionals involved in the design and implementation of

changes within the company to improve the organization. They offer unique
perspectives that leaders may overlook and play an active role in identifying the
right professionals for new positions within the company.
2. Focus on Education and Growth
Organizational leadership requires active measures to work with different

groups and individuals. A leader must understand the strengths and weaknesses
of different professionals before making a plan of action to improve the
effectiveness of the organization.
Before making any changes to the company, consider the education of

professionals in different areas of the business. Find out about their abilities, skills
and strengths. Identify their weaknesses or the areas where specific professionals
face difficulties when working as a team.
After identifying the strengths and weaknesses of professionals with different

educational backgrounds, focus on the growth of the company by building
effective teams. Develop teams with complementary skills and strengths.
Encourage professionals to work toward specific goals and give assignments
based on their skills, knowledge and background. Efficiency in a company
requires an understanding of different professionals and their role within the
business, as well as ways to improve their abilities or make use of unique skills.
3. Keep the Customers in Mind
Organizational effectiveness only works well when evaluating the needs and
interests of the customers. The National Academies Press states that quality
management is just as important as the overall efficiency of the company. If a
professional does not provide a quality product or service, then customers look
for alternatives for their needs and goals.
Ask customers to fill in surveys or answer questions about the services provided.
Find out what the customers want from the company or the services they find the
most valuable for their needs and goals. For businesses with direct interaction
with a customer, provide anonymous options for customers to fill out complaints
or provide feedback.
Use social media pages or other online tools to gain feedback from clients. Allow
customers to leave comments or point out weaknesses from the company by
asking questions on social media or a company blog.
4. Work on Quality Services or Products
Although clients play a role in the effectiveness of a company, a business must

also identify an appropriate level of quality for the products or services provided.
The key is focusing on a balance of quality with cost effective solutions. The goal
of any business is improving the products without exceeding a set budget or price
range.
Organizational leadership requires active participation in the decision-making

processes. Ask professionals in different areas of the business for advice about
improving the products without increasing the costs for materials. Discuss ways
to reduce the time required to accomplish specific goals without cutting back on
the quality of the final product or service.
By involving different professionals from multiple fields in the decision-making
process, a leader gains multiple perspectives and ideas about better ways
to improve the organization.
5. Use Technology
Technological tools play an essential role in the efficiency and effectiveness of a

company. Make use of computers, tablets or smartphones to improve the
efficiency of the company. Use software or sharing tools to keep different
members of a team up-to-date with the state of a project, even when they are not
actively working on a specific portion of the project.
Work with technological professionals to determine the best ways to protect the
business and client information without exceeding a set budget. Use software
programs designed specifically to improve efficiency or effectiveness in the
office. For example, use spreadsheets for better organization or set up an office-
wide system for sharing information among team members or different
professionals in the business.
Organizational effectiveness is a business strategy designed to improve the

efficiency of the company without reducing the quality of the products or
services. By working with professionals in different fields or at different
educational levels, a leader obtains new ideas to help reduce costs, improve the
product and provide quality customer service.
Perspectives of Organizational Effectiveness

Almost all organisational behaviour theories have the implicit or explicit
objective of making organisations more effective.15 Indeed, organisational
effectiveness is considered the ‘ultimate dependent variable’ in organisational
behaviour.16 The first challenge, however, is to define organisational
effectiveness - A broad concept represented by several perspectives, including
the organisation's fit with the external environment, internal subsystems
configuration for high performance, emphasis on organisational learning and
ability to satisfy the needs of key stakeholders.. Experts agree that this topic is
burdened with too many labels—organisational performance, success, goodness,
health, competitiveness, excellence and so on—with no consensus on the
meaning of each label.
Long ago, organisational effectiveness was defined as the extent to which an

organisation achieved its stated goals.17 According to this view, Wesfarmers is
effective because it achieves its stated objectives, such as achieving specific
weekly sales targets at Coles or coal production output at Curragh Queensland
Mining. The goal-attainment view is no longer accepted, however, because a
company can be considered effective simply by establishing easily achievable
goals. Also, some goals—such as social responsibility to the community—are so
abstract that it is difficult to know how well the organisation has achieved them.
A third flaw with the goal-attainment definition is that a company's stated
objectives might threaten its long-term survival. For example, some corporate
leaders receive incentives (such as stock options) to maximise short-term profits.
Some accomplish this objective by slashing expenditures, including funds for
marketing and product development. The result is often a lack of new products
and deterioration in the company's brand value in the long run. In extreme cases,
the company achieves its short-term profitability targets but eventually goes out
of business.
How is organisational effectiveness defined today? The answer is that there are
several perspectives of effectiveness, so this concept is defined by all of these
perspectives together.18 Organisations are considered effective when they have
a good fit with their external environment, when their internal subsystems are
efficient and effective (i.e. high-performance work practices), when they are
learning organisations and when they satisfy the needs of key stakeholders. Over
the next few pages, we will discuss each of these four perspectives of
organisational effectiveness in some detail.
1. Open-Systems Perspective
The open-systems perspective of organisational effectiveness is one of the

earliest and deeply entrenched ways of thinking about organisations. Indeed, the
other major perspectives on organisational effectiveness might be considered
detailed extensions of the open-systems model.19 As depicted in Exhibit 1.1, the
open-systems perspective views organisations as complex organisms that ‘live’
within an external environment. The word open describes this permeable
relationship, whereas closed systems can exist without dependence on an external
environment.
As open systems, organisations depend on the external environment for

resources, including raw materials, employees, financial resources, information
and equipment. Wesfarmers and other companies could not survive without
employees, raw materials, knowledge and so forth. The open-systems perspective
also describes numerous subsystems within the organisation, such as processes
(communication and reward systems), work units (production, marketing) and
social dynamics (informal networks, power relationships). With the aid of
technology (such as equipment, work methods and information), these
subsystems transform inputs into various outputs. Some outputs (e.g. products
and services) may be valued by the external environment, whereas other outputs
(e.g. employee layoffs, pollution) have adverse effects. The organisation receives
feedback from the external environment regarding the value of its outputs and the
availability of future inputs.
According to the open-systems perspective, successful organisations monitor

their environments and are able to maintain a close fit with changing conditions.
One way they do this is by finding new opportunities to secure essential inputs.
For instance, many fast-food restaurants struggle to find enough employees, but
McDonald's Restaurants has identified several ways to ensure that it has enough
qualified staff. It was among the first to recruit retirees. McDonald's UK
introduced the ‘family contract’, which allows members of the employee's family
(spouses, grandparents and children over the age of 16) to swap shifts without
notifying management. Successful organisations also redesign outputs so that
they remain compatible with demands from the external environment. For
example, sensing a need for environmental responsibility, Bunnings was one of
the first companies in this region to discourage use of plastic bags. Similarly, in
response to consumer demand and government requirements, car manufacturers
have been scrambling to design models that are more fuel-efficient or rely on
different energy sources. This open-systems view is reflected in the words of Huh
Chang-soo, chairman of Korean conglomerate GS Group: ‘Customer needs are
changing fast. If we do not detect the changes, and act on them in a timely way,
such as by making investments, we will fail.
2. Internal-Subsystems Effectiveness
The open-systems perspective considers more than an organisation's fit with the
external environment. It also examines how well the organisation operates
internally, that is, how well it transforms inputs into outputs. The most common
indicator of this internal transformation process is organisational efficiency The
amount of outputs relative to inputs in the organisation's transformation process.
(also called productivity), which is the amount of outputs relative to inputs.
Companies that produce more goods or services with less labour, materials and
energy are more efficient.
A popular strategy for improving efficiency in the transformation process is lean

management A cluster of practices to improve organisational efficiency by
continuously reducing waste, unevenness and overburden in the production
process. Based on practices developed by the Toyota Motor Company, lean
management involves continuously reducing waste, unevenness and overburden
in the production process. Waste (called muda) takes many forms, such as excess
travel of the product or service through the production process, too much time
during which the work is sitting idle (waiting for the next step in production), too
much inventory, too much physical movement of employees and too much
finished product without a buyer. Lean management also involves minimising
situations in which people and equipment are overloaded (too much demand per
unit time) and smoothing out the production process (e.g. reducing bottlenecks).
The ‘lean’ movement originated in manufacturing, but it is now being adopted by
hospitals, governments, accounting firms and other service providers.
Keep in mind that efficiency does not necessarily translate into effectiveness.
Efficiency is about doings things right, whereas effectiveness is about doing the
right things. A company might be highly efficient at making a product or
providing a service, but it will be ineffective if no one wants that product or
service, for example. Also, efficiency often requires standardisation, whereas
companies operating in rapidly changing environments need to remain nimble
and responsive. Organisations often need more adaptive and innovative
transformation processes, not just more efficient ones. For example, German
engineering conglomerate Siemens AG has an effective transformation process
because its subsystems are innovative and responsive, not necessarily the most
efficient. ‘Whether I have additional costs or not doesn't matter as much as the
speed to market and the quality of the design,’ says a Siemens executive. ‘We're
not talking about a pure cost game.’
Another important issue in the transformation process is how well the

organisation's subsystems coordinate with each other. The more each subsystem
depends on other subsystems, the higher the risk of problems that undermine the
transformation process.28 Information gets lost, ideas are not shared, materials
are hoarded, communication messages are misinterpreted, resources and rewards
are distributed unfairly, and so forth. These coordination challenges are amplified
as organisations grow, such as when employees are clustered into several
departments and when departments are clustered into several organisational
divisions. That is why even the best-laid plans produce unintended consequences.
A slight change in work practices in one subsystem may ripple through the
organisation and affect other subsystems in adverse ways. For example, an
adjustment in accounting procedures might have the unintended effect of
motivating sales staff to sell more products with a lower profit margin, or
discouraging administrative staff from accurately completing documents that are
vital for executive decisions.
3. Organisational Learning Perspective
The open-systems perspective has traditionally focused on physical resources that

enter the organisation and are processed into physical goods (outputs). This was
representative of the industrial economy but not the ‘new economy’, in which the
most valued input is knowledge. Accordingly, knowledge is the driver of
competitive advantage in the organisational learning A perspective which holds
that organisational effectiveness depends on the organisation's capacity to
acquire, share, use and store valuable knowledge. perspective (also called
knowledge management). Through this lens, organisational effectiveness
depends on the organisation's capacity to acquire, share, use and store valuable
knowledge.
To understand knowledge acquisition, sharing and use, consider how Google

engages in organisational learning. Knowledge acquisition occurs when
information is brought into the organisation from the external environment.
Google acquires knowledge by hiring the best talent and buying entire companies
(such as Keyhole, Inc., whose knowledge created Google Earth). Knowledge
acquisition also includes the process of creative insight—experimenting and
discovering new ideas.30 Google encourages this by allowing engineering staff
to allocate 20 per cent of their time to discovering new knowledge of their
choosing.
Knowledge sharing refers to the distribution of knowledge throughout the

organisation. Google encourages knowledge sharing by organising employees
into teams so they share information as part of their job. Its campus-like
environments (called Googleplexes) increase the chance that employees from
different parts of the organisation will mingle and casually share information,
whether dining at the company's subsidised gourmet restaurant or playing a game
of volleyball in the sports area. Google also relies on sophisticated information
technologies—wikis, blogs and intranet repositories—to support knowledge
sharing.
Knowledge use is the application of knowledge in ways that improve the

organisation's effectiveness. Google encourages knowledge use by giving
employees the freedom to apply their new-found knowledge and encouraging
them to experiment with that knowledge. ‘Google is truly a learning
organisation,’ says Google's chief financial officer, George Reyes.
An interesting dilemma in organisational learning is that the ability to acquire,

share and use new knowledge is limited by the company's existing body of
knowledge. To recognise the value of new information, assimilate it and use it
for value-added activities, organisations require sufficient absorptive capacity
The ability to recognise the value of new information, assimilate it and use it for
value-added activities..32 For example, many companies were slow to develop
online marketing practices because no one in the organisation had enough
knowledge about the internet to fathom its potential or apply that knowledge to
the company's business. In some cases, companies had to acquire entire teams of
people with the requisite knowledge to realise the potential of this marketing
channel. Entire countries also suffer from a lack of absorptive capacity. Without
sufficient knowledge, a society is slow or completely unable to adopt new
information that may improve social and economic conditions.
3. High-Performance Work Practices Perspective
The open-systems perspective states that successful companies are good at

transforming inputs into outputs. However, it does not identify the most important
subsystem characteristics of effective organisations. Consequently, an entire field
of research has blossomed around the objective of determining specific ‘bundles’
of organisational practices that offer competitive advantage. This research has
had various labels over the years, but it is now most commonly known as high-
performance work practices (HPWP).
The HPWP perspective begins with the idea that human capital—the knowledge,
skills and abilities that employees possess—is an important source of competitive
advantage for organisations.39 Human capital helps the organisation realise
opportunities or minimise threats in the external environment. Furthermore,
human capital is neither widely available nor easily duplicated. For instance, a
new company cannot quickly acquire a workforce with the same capabilities as
those of the workforce at an established company. Nor can technology replace
the capabilities that employees bring to the workplace. In short, human capital is
valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and nonsubstitutable.40 Therefore,
organisations excel by introducing a bundle of systems and structures that
leverage the potential of their workforce.
Many high-performance work practices have been studied over the years.41
Four practices with strong research support are employee involvement, job
autonomy, employee competence, and performance and/or skill-based rewards.
As you will learn later in this book, employee involvement and job autonomy
tend to strengthen employee motivation as well as improve decision making,
organisational responsiveness and commitment to change.
Another key variable in the HPWP model is employee competence.

Specifically, organisations are more effective when they recruit and select people
with relevant skills, knowledge, values and other personal characteristics.
Furthermore, successful companies invest in their employees by supporting
further competency development (see Chapter 2). A fourth characteristic of high-
performance organisations is that they link performance and skill development to
various forms of financial and nonfinancial rewards valued by employees. We
discuss reward systems in Chapter 6 as one of several practices to improve
employee performance.
The HPWP perspective is currently popular among OB experts and

practitioners, but it also has its share of critics. One concern is that many studies
try to find out which practices predict organisational performance without
understanding why those practices should have this effect.42 In other words,
some of the practices identified as HPWPs lack theoretical foundation; the causal
connection between work practices and organisational effectiveness is missing.
Without this explanation, it is difficult to be confident that the practice will be
valuable in the future and in other situations.
A second concern with the HPWP perspective is that it may satisfy shareholder
and customer needs at the expense of employee wellbeing.43 Some experts point
out that HPWPs increase work stress and that management is reluctant to delegate
power or share the financial benefits of productivity improvements. If high-
performance work practices improve organisational performance at a cost to
employee wellbeing, then this perspective (along with the open-systems and
organisational learning perspectives) offers an incomplete picture of
organisational effectiveness. The remaining gaps are mostly filled by the
stakeholder perspective of organisational effectiveness.
4. Stakeholder Perspective
The three organisational effectiveness perspectives described so far mainly

consider processes and resources, yet they only minimally recognise the
importance of relations with stakeholders. Stakeholders include individuals,
organisations and other entities that affect, or are affected by, the organisation's
objectives and actions. They include anyone with a stake in the company—
employees, shareholders, suppliers, labour unions, governments, communities,
consumer and environmental interest groups, and so on. The essence of the
stakeholder perspective is that companies must take into account how their
actions affect others, and this requires that they understand, manage and satisfy
the interests of their stakeholders. The stakeholder perspective personalises the
open-systems perspective; it identifies specific people and social entities in the
external and internal environment. It also recognises that stakeholder relations are
dynamic; they can be negotiated and managed, not just taken as a fixed condition.
Consider the troubles that Wal-Mart has faced in recent years.46 For decades, the
world's largest retailer concentrated on customers by providing the lowest
possible prices, and on shareholders by generating healthy financial returns. Yet
emphasising these two stakeholders exposed the company to increasing hostility
from other groups in society. Some interest groups accused Wal-Mart of
destroying America's manufacturing base and tacitly allowing unethical business
practices (such as child labour) in countries where it purchased goods. Other
groups pointed out that Wal-Mart had a poor record of environmental and social
responsibility. Still other groups lobbied to keep Wal-Mart out of their
communities because the giant retailer typically builds in outlying suburbs where
land is cheap, thereby fading the vibrancy of the community's downtown area.
These stakeholder pressure points existed for some time, but Wal-Mart mostly
ignored them until they became serious threats. In fact, Wal-Mart recently created
the position ‘senior director of stakeholder engagement’ to ensure that it pays
more attention to most stakeholders and to proactively manage stakeholder
relationships.
Understanding, managing and satisfying the interests of stakeholders is more

challenging than it sounds because stakeholders have conflicting interests and
organisations don't have the resources to satisfy every stakeholder to the fullest.
Therefore, organisational leaders need to decide how much priority to give to
each group. One commonly cited factor is to favour the stakeholders with the
most power.47 This makes sense when one considers that the most powerful
stakeholders present the greatest threat and opportunity to the company's survival.
Yet stakeholder power should not be the only criterion for determining
organisational strategy and resource allocation. Ignoring less powerful
stakeholders might motivate them to become more powerful by forming
coalitions or seeking government support. It might also irritate more powerful
stakeholders if ignoring weaker interests violates the norms and standards of
society.
How do you achieve organizational effectiveness?

The challenge for businesses seems simple: align and engage your workforce to
a clearly articulated strategy. However, this can be difficult to achieve. It requires
a holistic, coordinated effort to put a number of key elements or building blocks
in place.
The key elements of organizational effectiveness, as illustrated in the figure

below, are needed to drive employee engagement in an organization. Engagement
influences the customers’ experience and, ultimately, the overall performance of
an organization in terms of productivity and profitability.
Through an integrated framework that address the following organizational

effectiveness elements:
1 Strategy The role, purpose, and strategic direction that summarizes the
work of the organization and/or division being clear and
appropriate
2 Structure, Capable people doing the right work through a “fit for
Capacity, purpose” structure and clearly described role accountabilities
and Capability and relationships.
3 Leadership Leaders have the capability and capacity to drive sustainable
business success.
4 People Leaders need to be supported by good people systems and
Systems processes. These systems and processes work in organizations
& Processes to send messages, share information, and make well-informed
decisions across the business. Organizational processes and
systems are an extension of leadership, creating consistency
and trust.
5 Culture & A set of shared, basic assumptions about how to behave and
Values carry out work within the organization that is aligned to
business strategy. The systems, symbols, and behaviors that
leaders and other employees are exposed to within an
organization must align to the desired culture to achieve the
business strategy.
6 Employee High numbers of engaged employees whose hearts and minds
Engagement are aligned with both the job that they do and the organization
that they work for. Engaged employees are:
• Satisfied with their current job and their organization as an
employer.
• Committed to making the job and organization successful.
• Proud of their organization and the work they do.
• Willing to positively talk about their job and the
organization.
Customer High levels of customer satisfaction and loyalty achieved
Experience through employees being aware of customer needs, acting on
customer feedback, and being supported to deliver what
customers require. Organizations are environmentally
responsible and support the community.
Every organization, regardless of industry or country, seeks to be more effective
and achieve superior results. Business strategy is developed to achieve this. It
amounts to nothing, though, if it remains on the drawing board and is never
executed. Execution occurs when structure, roles, capability, leadership, systems,
and culture are all pulling together and aligned with the strategy. One without the
other will create misalignment and success will not be realized.
While the elements of success are the same for all organizations, the answer for
your business is unique to your strategy, your customers, and your people. It is
easy to discover the current reality and the drivers of success, but the big
challenge is in equipping your business to act and embed the change, remaining
focused and aligned with your strategy.
The challenge brings a substantial benefit that ensures survival in a downturn and
creates a competitive advantage when economic upturns arrive. Business can’t
afford not to get it right.
Chapter Eleven
Culture and Change
Culture
Culture means a set of patterns of human activity within a community or social

group and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Customs,
laws, dress, architectural style, social standards, religious beliefs, and traditions
are all examples of cultural elements.
What is organizational culture?
Organizational culture has been described as the shared values, principles,

traditions, and ways of doing things that influence the way organizational
members act. In most organizations, these shared values and practices have
evolved over time and determine, to a large extent, how “things are done around
here.”
Our definition of culture implies three things. First, culture is a perception. It’s
not something that can be physically touched or seen, but employees perceive it
on the basis of what they experience within the organization. Second,
organizational culture is descriptive.
It’s concerned with how members perceive the culture and describe it, not with
whether they like it. Finally, even though individuals may have different
backgrounds or work at different organizational levels, they tend to describe the
organization’s culture in similar terms. That’s the shared aspect of culture.
Dimensions OF culture
Research suggests seven dimensions that can be used to describe an

organization’s culture. These dimensions range from low to high, meaning it’s
not very typical of the culture (low) or is very typical of the culture (high).
Describing an organization using these seven dimensions gives a composite
picture of the organization’s culture.
In many organizations, one cultural dimension often is emphasized more than the
others and essentially shapes the organization’s personality and the way
organizational members work. For instance, at Sony Corporation the focus is
product innovation (innovation and risk taking). The company “lives and
breathes” new product development and employees’ work behaviors support that
goal. In contrast, Southwest Airlines has made its employees a central part of its
culture (people orientation).
Types of Organization Culture
The practices, principles, policies and values of an organization form its culture.
The culture of an organization decides the way employees behave amongst
themselves as well as the people outside the organization. Let us understand the
various types of organization culture:
1. Normative Culture:
In such a culture, the norms and procedures of the organization are predefined
and the rules and regulations are set as per the existing guidelines. The employees
behave in an ideal way and strictly adhere to the policies of the organization. No
employee dares to break the rules and sticks to the already laid policies.
2. Pragmatic Culture:
In a pragmatic culture, more emphasis is placed on the clients and the external
parties. Customer satisfaction is the main motive of the employees in a pragmatic
culture. Such organizations treat their clients as Gods and do not follow any set
rules. Every employee strives hard to satisfy his clients to expect maximum
business from their side.
3. Academy Culture:
Organizations following academy culture hire skilled individuals. The roles and
responsibilities are delegated according to the back ground, educational
qualification and work experience of the employees. Organizations following
academy culture are very particular about training the existing employees. They
ensure that various training programmes are being conducted at the workplace to
hone the skills of the employees. The management makes sincere efforts to
upgrade the knowledge of the employees to improve their professional
competence. The employees in an academy culture stick to the organization for a
longer duration and also grow within it. Educational institutions, universities,
hospitals practice such a culture.
4. Baseball team Culture:
A baseball team culture considers the employees as the most treasured
possession of the organization. The employees are the true assets of the
organization who have a major role in its successful functioning. In such a culture,
the individuals always have an upper edge and they do not bother much about
their organization. Advertising agencies, event management companies, financial
institutions follow such a culture.
5. Culture:
Organizations following a club culture are very particular about the employees
they recruit. The individuals are hired as per their specialization, educational
qualification and interests. Each one does what he is best at. The high potential
employees are promoted suitably and appraisals are a regular feature of such a
culture.
6. Fortress Culture:
There are certain organizations where the employees are not very sure about their
career and longevity. Such organizations follow fortress culture. The employees
are terminated if the organization is not performing well. Individuals suffer the
most when the organization is at a loss. Stock broking industries follow such a
culture.
7. Tough Guy Culture:

In a tough guy culture, feedbacks are essential. The performance of the employees
is reviewed from time to time and their work is thoroughly monitored. Team
managers are appointed to discuss queries with the team members and guide them
whenever required. The employees are under constant watch in such a culture.
8. Bet your company Culture:
Organizations which follow bet your company culture take decisions which
involve a huge amount of risk and the consequences are also unforeseen. The
principles and policies of such an organization are formulated to address sensitive
issues and it takes time to get the results.
9. Process Culture:
As the name suggests the employees in such a culture adhere to the processes and
procedures of the organization. Feedbacks and performance reviews do not matter
much in such organizations. The employees abide by the rules and regulations
and work according to the ideologies of the workplace. All government
organizations follow such a culture.
Assessing organizational culture

There are many different factors that define an organization’s culture, including
the following:
1. Degree of hierarchy within the organization

2. Degree of urgency
3. People/task orientation
4. Assertiveness/courtesy dimensions
5. Functional orientation
6. Institutional “personality” issues
7. Values
Each will be discussed here, with some questions that may be helpful in
determining where the organization falls on these diverse continuums. As you go
through the following areas, check one box in each area that you think best
describes your organization.
1. Degree of Hierarchy
The degree of hierarchy is the extent to which the organization values traditional
channels of authority and the need to utilize those channels. Some examples of
the three distinct levels of hierarchy are as follows: High: well-defined
organizational structure; need to work through channels; value authority
Moderate: defined structure but often work around channels Low: matrix
organization; loosely defined job descriptions; challenge authority An
organization with a high level of hierarchy tends to be more formal and tends to
move slower than organizations with a low level of hierarchy.
2. Degree of Urgency
The degree of urgency defines how quickly the organization wants or needs to
push decision-making and innovation. Some organizations choose their
positioning; others have it thrust upon them given the competitive nature of their
marketplace, product reliance on trends and fashion, and responsiveness of other
markets. Some examples of the levels of urgency are outlined here:
• High: need to push projects through quickly; high need to respond to

changing marketplace
• Moderate: move projects at reasonable pace
• Low: work slowly and consistently; quality valued over efficiency
An organization with a high level of urgency tends to be fast-paced and tends to

support a decisive management style. An organization with a low level of urgency
tends to be more methodical and tends to support a more thoughtful and
considered management style.
3. People/Task Orientation
The orientation of people versus tasks has been discussed in management style
literature, yet a dominant culture usually exists within organizations. Again,
organizations may choose their people/task orientation; others may opt for their
orientation based upon the nature of their industry, historical issues, or
operational processes. The three dimensions are as follows:
• People over tasks
• Equal value for people and tasks
• Tasks over people
An organization with a strong people orientation tends to put people first when
making decisions. These companies believe that people drive organization
performance and productivity. An organization with a strong task orientation
tends to tasks and processes first when making decisions. These companies
believe that concepts such as efficiency and quality drive organization
performance and productivity.
4. Functional Orientation
Every organization puts an emphasis or priority on certain functional areas. An

innovation organization known for its Research and Development may certainly
have at its core a functional orientation for that area. A hospitality company may
focus on Operations, or on Service, depending upon its historical choices and its
definition in the marketplace. Functional orientations may include:
• Marketing
• Operations Research and Development
• Engineering
• Service
• Other
Employees from different functions in the company may think that their
functional area is the one that drives the company. The important thing to get a
handle on is what do the majority of employees perceive to be the company’s
functional orientation.
5. Organizational Personality/Slogan
How is your organization known to others? How would you and others
characterize the organization? Are you known for a family-friendly environment?
Are you seen as a sweatshop? Is quality always the top priority? Consider this
listing: “Work hard, play hard.” “Steamroller.” “We’re a team.” “We’re a
family.” “First to market.” “Quality first.” “Family first.” “Innovation takes
time.” “Survivalist.” “The customer is always right.” “The customer comes
second.”
6. Values
What do you value as an organization? What does your organization feel to be its
most important quality? Consider the following: Efficiency Customer Service
Fun Hospitality Leading Edge State-of-the-art Examining what behaviors get
rewarded and punished in your organization is often a great way to determine
what the organization values.
Role of culture in managing organizational change (organizational culture

and organizational change)
When it comes to change, organizational culture can be a fickle mistress. Culture

can both help and hinder the change process; be both a blessing and a curse when
it comes to successfully undergoing change. As was earlier stated, organizational
culture consists of the values, norms, and beliefs of its members. Culture provides
a sense of identity and the chance to belong to something bigger than oneself.
Organizational culture gives its members the certainty and consistency they
desire. Any attempt at change within the organization may be seen as a threat to
the culture and the employee’s identity. Challenges to an organization’s culture
are met with strong and immediate resistance. To be successful, therefore, a
change agent needs to use organizational culture to his/her advantage. Change
should be tied to the organizational values; specifically, how this change will
make the values the organization holds deeper and stronger. By strengthening the
values, the change agent is making the culture more robust. Further, since values
are the foundation of organizational culture, a culture’s members hold its values
dear. By linking the change to strengthened values, members are more likely to
be accepting of the change. Change should also be linked to the positive future of
the organization. Those members who are deeply committed to the culture of the
organization are also deeply committed to the organization itself. By emphasizing
the growth and sustainability of the organization, employees’ normative
commitment is strengthened.
Organizational culture and change are both complex and difficult to grasp.
Organizational culture can both advance and impede, help and hinder. Change
brings uncertainty and with uncertainty resistance. These two can work together,
however, to help implement change. Resistance can be overcome, at least in part,
through the use of organizational culture. If the change strengthens the underlying
values of a culture, then members of the culture are more likely to accept the
change. The use of cultural rituals and sagas also helps to make change more
palpable to an organization. This does not mean completing a successful change
project will be easy, nor is understanding an organization’s culture. But the leader
who works to understand the culture of his/her organization can use that
knowledge to facilitate change and better run the organization.
The Impact of Culture on Organizational Change
You may have heard it before… “Culture eats Strategy for breakfast.”
An organization with the best strategy in the world, but a culture that won’t allow
it to make that strategy happen is doomed from the outset. Want to be the first to
market with the most innovative products, but live in an organization that is full
of bureaucracy and afraid to take risks? Fat chance you’ll be the first one
anywhere. Want to have the highest quality, lowest failure rate of anyone but
live in an organization where rules are lax and people make decisions quickly
without much data? Chances are you will be chasing initiative after initiative
trying to make your goals happen to no avail.
Culture is the sum of the beliefs and values that shape norms of behavior and
dictate the ways things get done. There are several continuums that help define
an organization’s culture. Is the organization driven by results and achievement,
or relationships and people? Does the organization have an internal focus, or an
external focus? Is the organization adaptive and flexible, or is it structured and
stable?
Culture tells you a lot about an organization. What messages do leaders send
with their words and actions? What type of behavior is being reinforced? Is
conflict and risk encouraged or hindered? How do people communicate? How
do people learn and share company knowledge? Is the organization open to
change?
Some think that it’s too hard to change culture… that we can’t change it even if
we know what gaps we have between our current state and our desired
culture. Not true. There are real, tactical activities and leadership actions that
can shape a new culture.
For example, if the organization lacks the needed focus on customers, then insist
that every manager and above spend at least one day a quarter out in the field with
customers. Or if your organization makes decisions on the fly in the absence of
adequate data (not a good thing for, say, a pharmaceutical company), then insist
that all projects use Six Sigma or similar tools. Or if your organization is too
cautious and can’t move quickly enough to respond to new demands (not a good
thing for, say, a software company), verbally encourage teams to make decisions
faster and try new things… and then throw a big party the first time one fails as
visible demonstration that we appreciate and value risk-taking and new ideas.
If we are serious about change in an organization, we can’t ignore the

organization’s culture. If that culture is not consistent with the change that needs
to come about, then the culture needs to be addressed head on. If we as leaders
decide that we don’t want to do our part to change the culture, then we will live
with the consequences of failure.
Chapter Twelve
Individual Change
When we think of change management, we typically envision the actions that we

take - communicating, building sponsorship, managing resistance, etc. However,
one of the keys to successfully managing change is the use of an individual
change model. Understanding how an individual experiences change is critical
for change management activities and interventions to be successful.
This tutorial examines why an individual change model is critical for change
management to be successful. It shows the need for and uses of an individual
change model and the risks of attempting to manage change without an individual
model.
Individual Change Management
Organizational change is typically associated with some degree of individual

change, which is often the outcome of an informal and natural process of learning
and development. However, there may be occasions when those responsible for
managing an organizational change decide that some form of deliberate training
intervention is required in order to help individuals to develop new knowledge,
skills, attitudes and behaviours.
Individual change management is an understanding of how one person makes a

change successfully. Whether at home, in the community or at work, individuals
move through the change process in a predictable and expected path. Individual
change management provides a framework for enabling one person to make a
transition.
The Need for an Individual Perspective of Change
Organizational change is typically associated with some degree of individual

change, which is often the outcome of an informal and natural process of learning
and development. An individual model for change is necessary for organizational
change management to be effective. It defines the outcomes or results that
organizational activities are trying to achieve. Ultimately, an individual change is
critical because:
1. Successful organizational change only results when individuals are

successful at change
How valuable is a new process that no one adopts? How valuable is a new web-
based tool that no one uses? How valuable is an ERP if no one is using it
correctly? The answer to these questions is the essence of the fact that
organizational change is only successful when each impacted individual makes
their own successful transition. In fact, a poorly managed change can actually
have severe adverse impacts. I remember hearing a story about a man working in
a warehouse who was being told by the system that he could not ship product,
despite the fact that it was sitting in front of him on the shelf. A customer was
being deprived of a product because someone upstream had not used the new ERP
system correctly. Any organizational initiative that impacts how people do their
jobs is only as successful as each employee at making the personal change.
2. While we are all different, as human beings we respond to change fairly

predictably
At first glance, your reaction might be "oh no, everybody is unique" - and you are
correct. However, the way we as human beings respond to change is actually very
similar. For instance, it is basic human nature to be curious about why a change
is happening and what has resulted in the need for change.
Risk of Not Having an Individual Change Perspective
There are a number of risks to attempting change management without a solid

foundation in how individuals go through change. This is perhaps one of the
biggest risks of 'recipe-driven' change management approaches. We cannot think
of change management as merely checking the box and moving forward. Because
of principle 1 above, we must focus on how well each individual is moving
through their own personal transition for change management to be successful.
Two major risks of trying change management without an individual change

model:
1. We do the activities, but do not have the appropriate focus on the

individuals undergoing change
The individual change model defines the outcome we are trying to achieve
when we implement change. In the absences of this individual perspective,
project teams run a significant risk of completing activities but not achieving
results. In the face of significant resistance, a team might say "but we sent 43
communications" or "everyone went through the training program". This is
evidence of doing change management activities without a focus on what the
activities were trying to achieve.
2. We have no way of knowing if we have succeeded
Since the individual change model describes the desired outcomes, it also
establishes a framework to know if we have been successful. Without the
individual change model, it is impossible to tell whether or not change
management activities are achieving their desired results.
Chapter Thirteen
Implementing change, Reviewing and Sustaining Change
Implementing change
Implementation is rarely a one-off activity. It tends to be ongoing and closely

intertwined with other ongoing activities such as diagnosis and planning.
Sometimes, these activities can be so closely intertwined that it can be difficult
to distinguish implementation from diagnosis and planning, especially when an
attempt to implement a change fails to deliver the expected outcome. In such
circumstances, the failure to achieve the desired result can provide those leading
the change with new insights (implementation becomes diagnosis) that inform
new plans that are then implemented, and so the sequence continues.
Key Issues during Implementing the plan
Some of the many factors that can affect the success of an attempt to implement
change include:
1. The quality of the diagnosis of a perceived opportunity or threat, the

specification of change goals, and the quality of pre-planning.
2. The way the change is communicated. It is argued that, whenever
possible, it can be helpful to provide all those who will be affected by a
change with unambiguous information about what is going to happen. This
does not always occur, sometimes because those implementing a change
fear that unanticipated events may render information they have already
communicated incorrect, sometimes because they fear that communicating
with others and making commitment will restrict their ability to respond to
unforeseen developments, and sometimes because they have concerns
about leaking commercially sensitive information.
3. The way stakeholders are managed. Those responsible for implementing
a change have to be aware of and know how to manage the political
dynamics in the situation because change often threatens some
stakeholders’ interests and this can motivate them to resist the change.
4. The degree of alignment and coordination. Those announcing the
acquisition need to communicate in a way that promotes a shared sense of
direction and aligns people so that they can work in a coordinated way to
implement the new vision. When a change is complex and requires the
implementation of a number of separate projects led by different managers,
the resulting fragmentation can make it difficult to coordinate progress and
can cause confusion and waste when leaders make different assessments
about what is required and, therefore, prioritize different objectives.
5. The adoption of management practices that are perceived to be fair.
When organizational members feel they have been treated with respect and
dealt with fairly, even if they are unhappy with the consequences of a
decision, they will be less likely to engage in dysfunctional behaviours than
when they feel they have received little support and have been unjustly
treated.
6. The avoidance of a heavy-handed approach when managing those who
may feel vulnerable.
7. The provision of socioemotional support to help organizational members
let go of the status quo.
The Delta Technique
The delta technique aims at addressing such phenomenon by motivating and

encouraging the individual to actively seek negative feedback/ disconfirming
evidence. The individual is also encouraged to suggest alternatives to his/her
current ways of operating and define what information is required to adopt the
alternative way of operating. The change agent helps the individual to gather such
information. In the changing phase as analogous to Lewin's change model, the
delta technique suggests that the change agent assists the individual to develop a
low risk approach to change in a way that the individual feels that he/she is in
control of the change process. The role of the change agent is mainly that of
assisting the individual to adopt the new way by being supportive. Once the
change is accomplished and the refreezing phase of the process begins, the change
agent must ensure obtaining periodic feedback on the change from the individual.
The change may also be reinforced by certain amount of feedback, reward and
that might also entail certain degree of organisational restructuring. Summarily,
the efforts of the change agent to bring about desired changes in individuals
include the following steps:
1. Define the Problem(s)
The change agent helps the individual in problem perception and problem
definitions in a way that the problem(s) are stated in different ways. The change
agent may ask the client for clarifications regarding the definitions, which, in turn,
helps the client to clarify their own point of view. The change agents may also
provide his/her opinion on the problems while defining the problem(s). The term
client may broadly include all those individuals and groups who would be
affected by the change initiatives.
2. Finding alternative solution(s) to the problem(s)
The change agent helps the clients find alternatives to the defined problem(s). It
is important to understand that the client is the main source of the solutions and
the change agent plays a supportive role. There are possibilities where the clients
find their present behaviour to be the best solution. In such situations, the change
agent must encourage the client to experiment with one/ more alternative
solutions. Since, in most cases the change agent is a part of the management team,
by helping to generate alternatives; the management changes its role from the
'defender of current solution' to the 'generator of future solutions (Armstrong,
1982). The situation may be perceived also confirming alternative solutions rather
than simply disconfirming the current solution(s). Since for successful change to
occur, those affected by change should feel that they are in control, Armstrong
(1982) recommended a three-step procedure—experimentation, participation and
feedback.
3. Experimentation with participation
The change effort must not be thrust upon but rather be explained as an
experimental effort. The expertise of the change agent is put to test here as the
experiment needs to be designed in a way that it makes sense to the participants
and provides the opportunity to rationally assess the possible solution(s).
Experimenting also helps in reducing the risk as it minimizes the scope of change
and introduces a deadline/ time limit in bringing about change. Participation helps
individuals to feel that they are in control that in turn makes decision-making and
change implementation easier, rapid and successful. While using the delta
technique, participation also implies the client's defining of the evidence that they
consider sufficient to adapt to alternative solution.
4. Feedback
Feedback enables the client to monitor the experimental effort and provides them
with the sense of control over the termination of the experiment. The feedback
should summarise the success or failure for each alternative solution over a series
of trial under the delta technique. Positive feedback often helps to refreeze the
change process (Armstrong, 1982).
The delta technique helps in identifying potential change areas and in

implementing certain useful changes. It is appropriate for the situation in which
management sees a problem, but in which the desired changes conflict with the
current beliefs.
Figure: The Delta Technique
The technique however finds no use with regard to new employees, in short-term
tasks or where group norms have not been established. Also, for using the delta
technique, it is imperative to have an agreement on the statement of the problem
and it does not involve situations where change is consistent with the
organization’s perceptions of its mission mission.
Gaining Support and Involvement of Key People
Successful change management requires a large commitment from executives and

senior managers, whether the change is occurring in a department or in a complete
organization. Leadership from the senior team is the most significant factor in
helping employees to buy into and support needed changes.
1. Survey Those Involved
When attempting to initiate a new project, gather information from those involved
in it. Build your case by showing the necessity of a new proposal. Without this
evidence, senior management is not likely to see the need for a proposed change.
For example, if you'd like to implement more flexible scheduling, survey
employees about their work/life balance frustrations and take note of logistics,
such as who already has a home office. The results of this information provide a
case for how implementing flex time would play out in a company.
2. Show the Budget
Money talks to most members of upper management. If you're suggesting to

implement change at work or put a new process in place, show how it will be
funded. Senior managers are more likely to support an idea that already has
financing in place. There are a lot of budgetary pulls on management in most
companies, so work out these financial details before you approach them. If a
lousy office copier is wasting a lot of paper or sending files to a retail printer that
should be easily printed, show how purchasing a new copier will end up saving
the company money in the long run.
3. Give Them a Choice
You're more likely to gain upper management support if they feel they had a hand
in a decision. When you want to change how something is done, come up with
more than one solution. Make each suggestion a viable answer; you'll be happy
with the decision to whichever one management chooses. When suggesting to
throw a company holiday party after taking the last few years off, emphasize how
it will encourage morale, and give management several choices of themes and
locations. This approach makes them feel like they were able to control decisions
about the party and may cause them to be more likely OK with the event.
4. Fit Into Their Goals
Upper management has its own set of goals and objectives to meet throughout the
year. Show how your goals help achieve the bottom line and you're more likely
to gain support for an idea. For companies that sell products or services, managers
are always trying to improve marketing efforts and sales. For example, if you
work for a company that designs kitchens and customers have been asking to see
real-life displays of products, formulate a plan that describes how you will sell
more kitchens if you supply your clients a showroom.
Celebrating Milestones
A change project milestone is a management tool that is used to delineate a point

in a change schedule. These points can note the start and finish of a change
project, and mark the completion of a major phase of work. Milestones can be
used to symbolize anything that has started or finished, though it’s primarily used
as a scheduling tool. If a milestone focuses on major progress points in a change
project, you can see how it is useful in scheduling. Just as tasks break a larger
project into manageable parts, milestones break off chunks of a project to make
it less daunting.
So, when starting a project, milestones can help immensely with scheduling.
Milestones are most commonly found in project management software, and are
represented as diamonds in the Gantt chart feature. Gantt charts are a visual
representation of your schedule, laid out on a timeline, with tasks as points along
the path to the successful completion of the project. Milestones divide this
timeline into project phases.
Milestones are important because they provide early warning if the plan is not
working and signal the need for renewed effort or the implementation of
contingency plans. Take time to recognize and celebrate the successes of teams
and individuals involved in driving change at each key milestone. Not only does
celebrating milestones encourage and motivate those undertaking the change, it
also helps them associate the changes with positive feelings. Acknowledging
successes along the way can also help drive adoption of your change management
process, as well as of the change itself.
Sometimes the only step forward may be the insights gained from the
day’s failures, but it is important that the team recognize that they are learning
and moving in the right direction.
Advantages of Celebrating Milestones During Change
There are other advantages to taking change one step at a time. The small steps
do more than simply feed the human desire to succeed, they also:
1. Increase faith in the worth of the effort and encourage others to commit
to the change
2. Sway the cynics to a more positive view of the organizational change as

they see real progress
3. Recognize those who are working hard to achieve the vision
4. Provide feedback on the value of the vision and the path the leaders have
chosen
Reviewing and keeping the change on track
The process of reviewing progress can provide change managers with feedback
they can use to assess whether interventions are being implemented as intended,
whether the chosen interventions are having the desired effect, and whether the
change plan continues to be valid. Attention is also given to ways of measuring
performance, the utility of the balanced scorecard as a template for designing a
system for managing change, possibilities for embedding review as an essential
element in the change process, and keeping track of how people are reacting to
the change.
Managing the implementation stage of the change process
There are two main approaches to implementation:
1. Implementing blueprint change
2. Implementing emergent change
1. Implementing blueprint change
Here, the desired end state is known in advance and change managers are in a
position to formulate a clear plan of action to achieve this vision. Implementation
involves rolling out this plan, monitoring the effect of interventions and taking
corrective action as and when required to ensure that the desired end state is
achieved. Often, the validity of the blueprint is taken for granted and the learning
associated with this kind of change tends to be restricted to detecting and
correcting errors in the way the plan is rolled out. Assumptions about what needs
to be changed and how the change will be achieved tend to go unchallenged
unless the feedback from implementation is so unexpected that it shocks change
managers into a radical reassessment.
2. Implementing emergent change
Here, it may be difficult or impossible to specify an end point in advance. Change

managers have to develop an implementation plan on the basis of broadly defined
goals and a general direction for change.
Sometimes, because of a high rate of change in the operating environment, ideas

about the desired future state have to be constantly revised, even when the original
vision has only been defined in the broadest of terms. In such circumstances,
change managers have to adopt an open-ended approach to planning and
implementation. Managing emergent change involves taking tentative
incremental steps and, after each step, reviewing the intervention(s) that
constituted that step (did it/they work as planned?) and the general direction of
change (does it still hold good or does it need to be revised?). This questioning of
the validity of the desired future state and the plan for achieving it calls for
double-loop learning that involves challenging and, where necessary, revising the
assumptions that underpin the change plan.
Monitoring the implementation of the change plan
A plan for change reflects a set of hypotheses about cause and effect. Kaplan and
Norton (1996) view the measurement and review process as a means of making
these hypothesized relationships explicit. They argue that once they are clearly
articulated and widely understood, the change process can be more easily
managed. The process of managing change involves validating or, where
necessary, revising the assumptions and hypotheses that underpin the change
plan. The desired future state (vision) is reflected in the outcome measures
embedded in the change plan.
Performance drivers are the variables that determine whether the desired outcome
will be achieved. Specifying these in the change plan signals to organizational
members what they need to do in order to contribute to the achievement of the
desired future state.
Some of the questions that need to be addressed when managing change and
validating the hypothesized cause-and-effect relationships that underpin the
change plan are considered below.
1. Are interventions being implemented as intended?
Sometimes, it is more difficult than anticipated to roll out a plan for change. The
change manager may respond by reviewing the situation and identifying those
factors that have hindered implementation first time round. These might include
a lack of commitment and motivation on the part of those immediately affected
by a proposed intervention, a lack of political support from those in a position to
champion or sabotage the change, or insufficient resources to ensure that the
change initiative receives the attention it requires. The content of previous
chapters points to ways of addressing these kinds of problems. Change managers
need to be alert to the possibility that while the intervention might have been
implemented as intended, it might not be producing the effect that was
anticipated.
2. Is the change plan still valid?
There may be occasions where the interventions have been implemented as

intended and have produced the desired effect. However, this chain of events may
have had little or no impact on overall organizational performance. This kind of
outcome poses another challenge to the validity of the change plan and the
hypothesized cause-and-effect relationships on which it is based. Faced with this
kind of outcome, the change manager may decide to embark on a further re-
examination of the original diagnosis and the causal models used to inform the
design of the change plan:
There may also be (hopefully many) occasions when the interventions have
been implemented as intended, have produced the desired effect and had a
positive impact on organizational performance. This kind of positive outcome
signals a need to consolidate this achievement and use it, as appropriate, as a
basis for achieving further improvements in performance.
The role of performance measures in the management of change
Central to this review process is the collecting and feeding back of information
about how interventions affect performance. Attention has already been given to
some of the different ways in which performance can be measured. It is essential
that performance measures should be related to the outcomes that are important
to key stakeholders and to the hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships
embedded in the change plan. Without the feedback that such measures can
provide, change managers will be unable to monitor what is going on and
determine what further action may be required to successfully implement the
change plan.
Approaches to measuring performance
Many control systems are designed to reward current practice and offer little
incentive for people to invest effort in changing the organization to promote long-
term effectiveness. Even in those organizations where change is given a high
priority, the monitoring and feedback process may only focus attention on a
limited set of performance measures. Many organizations direct most of their
attention to financial measures, and often too little attention is given to other
performance indicators that relate to important outcomes and key cause-and-
effect relationships that are central to the change plan.
One of the early attempts to widen the base of performance monitoring on an

organization-wide and systematic basis was the development of a ‘corporate
scorecard’ by Analog Devices in 1987. Alongside a number of traditional
financial measures, this included measures of customer delivery time, quality and
cycle times of manufacturing processes, and effectiveness of new product
development.
The balanced scorecard
The balance scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) integrates financial measures
of past performance with measures of the ‘drivers’ of future performance. It
provides a template that can be adapted to provide the information change
managers need to monitor and review the effects of their interventions and to plan
what they might do next to move the organization towards a more desirable future
state. The scorecard includes four categories of measures: financial, customer,
internal business process, and innovation and learning:
1. Financial measures:
Summarize the economic consequences of past actions, such as return on

investment, economic value added, sales growth and generation of cash flow.
This financial perspective considers how the organization needs to appear to its
shareholders if it is to achieve its vision.
2. Customer-related measures:
Include indicators of business performance that relate to the customer and

market segments that are important to the organization, such as measures of
satisfaction, retention, new customer acquisition,
customer profitability, account share and market share. They might also include
measures of those performance drivers that affect the value propositions that
influence customer loyalty, such as on-time delivery and product innovation.
This customer perspective considers how the organization needs to appear to its
customers if it is to achieve its vision.
3. Internal business process measures:
Those internal business processes that make a critical contribution to the

organization’s current and future performance, such as quality, response time
and cost. They might measure the performance of the processes that enable the
organization to deliver value propositions that attract and retain important
customers, satisfy shareholders by contributing to the delivery of excellent
financial or deliver other outcomes that are important to key stakeholders.
4. Innovation and learning:
There are three principle sources: people, systems and organizational procedures.
Kaplan and Norton suggest that the financial, customer and internal business
process objectives typically reveal large gaps between the existing capabilities of
people, systems and procedures and the capability required to achieve a
performance breakthrough. In order to transform an organization, or even achieve
a more modest level of change, these gaps have to be addressed. This can involve
intervening in the normal process of organizational functioning to enhance this
infrastructure and improve the organization’s capacity for innovation and
learning
The balanced scorecard can be adapted to focus on those performance drivers and
measures that are identified as important in specific situations.
The balanced scorecard approach can be adapted to focus on those performance

drivers and measures that are identified as important in specific situations and
used as a change management tool to clarify and gain consensus about the change
strategy. Translating the vision and change strategy into an agreed set of
operational goals (see Figure below) is likely to stimulate a debate that will ensure
that the change management team develops a shared understanding of what they
are seeking to achieve. Specifying operational goals can also help the change
management team to think about their plan for change in systemic terms and
develop a shared view of how and why the various change goals are related in
terms of cause and effect.
Figure: Translating the change strategy into a set of operational goals
Balanced scorecard, not only facilitate the development of a shared view of how
and why the various change goals are related in terms of cause and effect, but can
also help change managers to communicate their change plan throughout the
organization and provide a framework for consultation and debate about what a
more desirable future state will look like and what needs to happen if it is to be
achieved. This kind of management tool can also help to ensure that the range of
change initiatives that might be started in different units and at different levels in
the organization will be aligned to contribute to the strategic goals of the change
program.
The balanced scorecard approach is presented here as one example of a tool that
can help those leading a change to manage the change process. In any change
programme, plans have to be operationalized and communicated widely.
Furthermore, targets for change have to be specified as clearly as possible if
progress is to be monitored and if the change plan is to be kept under review and
adjusted as circumstances require.
Reviewing how people are responding to the change
Over the long term, change managers can use measures such as customer
satisfaction, customer retention and the bottom line to assess the validity of the
change plan. Over a shorter timescale, they may focus attention on whether
interventions are being implemented as intended and are producing the immediate
outcomes that were anticipated. Another source of feedback is employees’
collective perceptions of the way the changes are being managed and the effect
this has on their experience of and attitudes towards the changes. Just as normal
day-to-day management practices can have a powerful impact on the work
climate and the willingness of organizational members to contribute to
organizational performance, so the way changes are managed can have a
powerful impact on how organizational members experience change, their
attitudes towards the change, and their readiness to support it. It could be argued
that resistance to change is inevitable and therefore employees
are not good judges of how well a change is being managed. However, since
one of the main imperatives of change is to win over hearts and minds and get
people to buy in to change, their feedback is important.
The change management indicator
Hayes and Hyde (2008) have developed the change management indicator
(CMI) as a structured means of providing this feedback. It is available as an
online survey (www.peterhyde.co.uk) and can be used in a number of ways:
• as a one-off diagnostic instrument to identify major areas of concern for

remedial action
• as a barometer of opinion at a series of points in time, indicating whether
the trend is in the desired direction
• to compare the situation in different departments, functions, locations and
organizational levels and thereby identify localized problems
• as an intervention in its own right, to get people thinking about the issues
and to promote dialogue
• to benchmark against other organizations undergoing similar changes.
Figure: Factors affecting how people respond to the change (Source: Hayes and
Hyde, 2008)
The model underpinning the CMI (In above Figure) proposes that people’s
experience of organizational change and their attitudes towards the change are
influenced by four key elements. Two of these can be difficult to affect,
especially over the short term:
1. The inherent nature of the change itself. It will be hard, for example, to
get positive feedback about a change if it is inherently painful, such as the
closure of a facility.
2. The personality and temperamental characteristics of the people involved.

Some people will be more receptive to change and others more resistant.
There are, however, two important elements of the model that change managers
can do something about:
3. The change management practices they adopt, such as developing the
vision for the change, leadership, planning and organization,
communication, consultation and support.
4. The way their overall strategy for change is represented ‘down the line’
by local management. Middle managers often struggle to find the right
way to position themselves, but it seems clear that if they are not actively
supportive of the corporate strategy for change, it is highly unlikely their
subordinates will buy into it.
Failure to pay attention to the way a change is being managed can adversely affect
the achievement of change objectives and/or the timescale for implementing the
change. It can also undermine staff morale and commitment to the organization,
cause reputational damage, and tie up scarce resources firefighting and managing
the unintended consequences of the change process
Sustaining Change
Lewin (1951) argued that all too often change is short-lived. After a ‘shot in the
arm’, life returns to the way it was before. In his view, it is not enough to think
of change in terms of simply reaching a new state. Attention also needs to be
given to maintaining this new state for as long as it is relevant. He conceptualized
change as a three-stage process. The first involves unfreezing the individual,
group or system from the status quo and creating a readiness for change. The
second involves moving to a new state, and the final stage involves refreezing
behaviour at this new level, for as long as it is beneficial to do so. This caveat, for
as long as it is beneficial, is important because there are circumstances where it
may not be beneficial to continue to maintain a change. The change may not have
been successful or it may have produced unanticipated consequences that are
inconsistent with the change plan. Buchanan and Fitzgerald (2007, p. 25) also
argue that sustaining change can be counterproductive when:
➢ Changes in the wider environment render recently implemented working

practices, outcomes and lines of development obsolete
➢ Maintaining recently implemented practices impedes further and more
significant developments.
Sustainability
The NHS Modernisation Agency (2002, p. 12) defines it as the state where ‘new
ways of working and improved outcomes become the norm’ and where ‘the
thinking and attitudes behind them are fundamentally altered and the systems
surrounding them are transformed in support’. In other words, according to the
Modernisation Agency, change is sustained when it becomes an integrated or
mainstream way of working rather than something ‘added on’. Buchanan and
Fitzgerald (2007, p. 22) conclude that while sustainability can be defined in
different ways in relation to work methods, goals or continuous improvements,
covering differing timescales, ‘the definition and timing that matter are those
applicable to a particular organizational setting’.
Bateman and David (2002) developed a model to investigate the level of

sustainability achieved in 21 companies following intensive shop-floor process
improvement interventions. Their model operationalizes some of these different
ways of conceptualizing sustainability. It comprises two elements. The first
identifies five different levels of sustainability at cell level, ranging from realizing
but then failing to hold on to gains to not only maintaining the new way of
working but also applying the tools and techniques learned to new problems as
they arise (see Figure below).
Figure: Classes of sustainability at cell level
The second element of the model focuses on factory-level improvements and

identifies the degree to which tools and techniques have been spread between
cells (see Figure). The two elements are:
1. Cell-level sustainability:
Bateman and David’s (2002) research indicated that while all cell-based
interventions led to significant improvements, beyond that point, there were
considerable variations in the extent to which these improvements were sustained.
Figure: Factory-level improvement model (Source: Adapted from Bateman and
David, 2002, p. 520)
2. Sustainability at factory level:
While cell-level improvements are often the initial focus of many lean
manufacturing interventions, the longer-term aim is usually a more broadly-based
change at factory level. However, cell-level changes may not always spread
across the factory. Bateman and David (2002) report that there are often
immediate possibilities for replicating improvements made in the initial activity
to other manufacturing cells where the machines or processes are the same or
similar (level 2). It may be more difficult to apply the same tools and techniques
used to achieve improvements to cells where different machines or processes are
used (level 3). Achieving level 4 is even more difficult, as this is where further
process improvements involve changes in new areas that require the learning and
application of new tools and techniques. Sustainability across the factory at level
5 is achieved when improvements are coordinated in a value stream across the
site.
Promoting Sustainability of Change
Many researchers have pointed two specific ways in which sustainability can be
promoted. For example, Bateman (2005) found that with shop-floor interventions
in the manufacturing sector, two categories of enablers appeared to stand out as
most important:
1. Processes for promoting ‘contribution and buy-in’ during the early stages
of implementation
2. Processes promoting ‘maintenance of standards and continuous
improvement’ once the initial changes had been successfully implemented
Brown (2009) surveyed the opinion of 15 fellow change consultants at KPMG
about sustainability and found that 65 per cent of their comments focused on
three barriers to sustainability:
1. The organization’s approach to change

2. The quality of leadership
3. Employees’ level of understanding about what was expected of them
following the change.
There was less agreement about enablers but engagement and communication
were referred to most frequently.
Buchanan et al. (2005) report a more complex picture. On the basis of a thorough
review of the literature, they identify several categories of factors that interact in
different ways to affect sustainability, including the scale and type of change,
individual commitment and competences, managerial style, the quality of
leadership, organizational culture, and political processes.
Buchanan et al. (2005) felt that more work would have to be done before they
could offer change managers any simple prescription for sustaining change.
However, they did point to three issues that seem to affect the extent of initiative
decay:
1. How the change is perceived:
Is it peripheral or central to organizational performance and is it perceived as

acceptable or threatening by key stakeholders? Often, change managers can
influence the way a change is perceived and this will have consequences for
sustainability.
2. How the change is implemented:
As noted above, there is no one implementation process that will be effective in
all settings, but doing everything possible to identify and adopt an appropriate
process can affect whether or not the change will be sustained.
3. The timing, sequencing and pacing of the change process:
For example, while a relaxed timetable might help people to digest the need for
change, delays can undermine commitment and divert attention to other pressing
issues. On the other hand, when a change is rushed, people may not feel involved
and a succession of change initiatives may lead to initiative fatigue.
Common Problems in ensuring sustainability and Solution (Page-472)

Change Management Full Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Change Management Full Sheet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Change Management Full Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter One:

Introduction to Change Management

A. Definition of Organizational Change:

Organizational change is both the process in which an organization changes its

❑ Change management is a systematic approach to dealing with the transition or

❑ Change management is the systematic approach to adjusting and transitioning

C. Why Organizations Change?

4. Identification of Opportunities: Opportunities are identified in the market place that

9. Planned Abandonment: Changes as a result of abandoning declining products,

D. What Organizations Can Change

E. Different Types of Change

Fundamental Change essentially involves the redefinition of organizational vision/mission.

10. Total Change

F. Why Change Management

1. Thrive in an Ever-Changing World

2. Deliver the People-Dependent Portion of Project ROI

4. Increase Likelihood of Project Success

5. Mitigate Mission-Critical Risk

G. Difference/comparison between Change Management and Project

Project Management happens to be the organization and management of resources designed

Basic Differences between Change and Project Management

1. Change management is only an idea, unlike project management which is the

H. Project Management and Change Management: A Side-By-Side Comparison

Change Management Project Management

Change Management - characteristics of Project Management - complexity and

Change Management - Measurement Project Management - Measurement

Change Management includes a system of Project Management is typically

I. Why Change Management Matters

1. Organizational change happens one person at a time

2. Poorly managing change is costly

3. Effective change management increases the likelihood of success

1. Organizational change happens one person at a time

2. Poorly managing change is costly

There are countless consequences of ignoring the people side of a change:

❑ Productivity declines on a larger scale for a longer duration than necessary

3. Effective change management increases the likelihood of success

J. 10 Principles of Change Management

A consumer packaged-goods company experiencing years of steadily declining earnings

At a large health-care organization that was moving to a shared-services model for

8. Address culture explicitly. Once the culture is understood, it should be addressed as

There are 3 general types of change management models. These are

1. Organization-wide Change Models

These models are more macro-level. They’re focused on identifying potential

A. McKinsey 7-S Model

While some models of organizational effectiveness and change go in and out of

The McKinsey 7-S model is helpful prior to beginning a change management

Hard Elements Soft Elements

Strategy Shared Values

II. Soft Elements

1. Shared Values – Values of the company. called "superordinate goals"

How to Use McKinsey 7-S Model

Whatever the type of change – restructuring, new processes, organizational

7-S Checklist Questions

a. What’s the company hierarchy?

a. What are your company values?

a. What positions does the company currently employ?

7-S Matrix Questions

One of the cornerstone models for understanding organizational change was

Understanding Lewin's Change Management Model