Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and

organizations from a current state to a desired future state. Change management (or
change control) is the process during which the changes of a system are implemented in a
controlled manner by following a pre-defined framework/model with, to some extent,
reasonable modifications [1].

In project management, change management refers to a project management process

where changes to a project are formally introduced and approved.[2].

The field of change management grew from the recognition that organizations are
composed of people. And the behaviors of people make up the outputs of an organization.

What's "Organizational Change?"

Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide
change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a
program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in
mission, restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs,
etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs
such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to
organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical
reorientation in the way the organization operates.

What Provokes "Organizational Change"?

Change should not be done for the sake of change -- it's a strategy to accomplish
some overall goal. (See Organizational Performance Management.) Usually
organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g.,
substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic
increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake
organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going
from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned
development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide
change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.

Why is Organization-Wide Change Difficult to

Accomplish?
Typically there are strong resistances to change. People are afraid of the unknown.
Many people think things are already just fine and don't understand the need for
change. Many are inherently cynical about change, particularly from reading about
the notion of "change" as if it's a mantra. Many doubt there are effective means to
accomplish major organizational change. Often there are conflicting goals in the
organization, e.g., to increase resources to accomplish the change yet concurrently
cut costs to remain viable. Organization-wide change often goes against the very
values held dear by members in the organization, that is, the change may go against
how members believe things should be done. That's why much of organizational-
change literature discusses needed changes in the culture of the organization,
including changes in members' values and beliefs and in the way they enact these
values and beliefs.
How Organization-Wide Change Is Best Carried Out?
Successful change must involve top management, including the board and chief
executive. Usually there's a champion who initially instigates the change by being
visionary, persuasive and consistent. A change agent role is usually responsible to
translate the vision to a realistic plan and carry out the plan. Change is usually best
carried out as a team-wide effort. Communications about the change should be
frequent and with all organization members. To sustain change, the structures of the
organization itself should be modified, including strategic plans, policies and
procedures. This change in the structures of the organization typically involves an
unfreezing, change and re-freezing process.

The best approaches to address resistances are through increased and sustained
communications and education. For example, the leader should meet with all managers
and staff to explain reasons for the change, how it generally will be carried out and where
others can go for additional information. A plan should be developed and communicated.
Plans do change. That's fine, but communicate that the plan has changed and why.
Forums should be held for organization members to express their ideas for the plan. They
should be able to express their concerns and frustrations as well.

Some General Guidelines to Organization-Wide

Change
Basic Overview of Major Methods and
(Note that the library topic
Movements to Improve Organizational Performance includes overviews of
major methods and movements associated with organizational change. Readers
would best be served to read the following basic guidelines as foundation for carrying
out any of the methods associated with organizational change.)
In addition to the general guidelines listed above, there are a few other basic guidelines to
keep in mind.
1. Consider using a consultant. Ensure the consultant is highly experienced in
organization-wide change. Ask to see references and check the references.
2. Widely communicate the potential need for change. Communicate what you're doing
about it. Communicate what was done and how it worked out.
3. Get as much feedback as practical from employees, including what they think are the
problems and what should be done to resolve them. If possible, work with a team of
employees to manage the change.
4. Don't get wrapped up in doing change for the sake of change. Know why you're
making the change. What goal(s) do you hope to accomplish?
6. Plan the change. How do you plan to reach the goals, what will you need to reach the
goals, how long might it take and how will you know when you've reached your goals or
not? Focus on the coordination of the departments/programs in your organization, not on
each part by itself. Have someone in charge of the plan.
7. End up having every employee ultimately reporting to one person, if possible, and they
should know who that person is. Job descriptions are often complained about, but they
are useful in specifying who reports to whom.
8. Delegate decisions to employees as much as possible. This includes granting them the
authority and responsibility to get the job done. As much as possible, let them decide how
to do the project.
9. The process won't be an "aha!" It will take longer than you think.
10. Keep perspective. Keep focused on meeting the needs of your customer or clients.
11. Take care of yourself first. Organization-wide change can be highly stressful.
12. Don't seek to control change, but rather to expect it, understand it and manage it.
13. Include closure in the plan. Acknowledge and celebrate your accomplishments.
14. Read some resources about organizational change, including new forms and
structures.

Lewis Carroll on Change Management

February 29, 2008

In Lewis Carroll’s classic, Through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen admonishes Alice
with “in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” So
much for the concept of a self sustaining ‘Status Quo’.

Giuseppe de Lampedusa echoes this same idea in another, seemingly paradoxical

manner, “If things are to remain the same, things will have to Change.”

All of this is true, there really is no argument. The status quo is a myth. The best we can
do is identify what aspects of our organization we value today, and do our best to ensure
that these attributes exist in our organizations tomorrow.

However, just because we have come to the inescapable conclusion that Change is
necessary, does not mean that all possible Change is mandatory.

This is the great trap for those who embrace the idea that we must Change or Die. Unless
we find some way to distinguish from good and bad Change, we are compelled to Change
when faced with any and every innovation. In the already quoted Through the Looking
Glass, there is sad character who has taken the Red Queen’s advice too literally, let me
introduce you to the White Knight.

He’s an interesting fellow this White Knight. He believes in embracing anything that’s
new. His mistake is to believe that all Change is mandatory. His sturdy horse is festooned
with gadgets. There’s a little box in which he keeps his sandwiches, but it’s turned upside
down, “so that the rain can’t get in” he says proudly. Until Alice points out that the
sandwiches have fallen out, he was totally unaware of this flaw.

He’s also attached a beehive to the horse in the hope that bees will take up house and
provide honey, not realizing that bees would never set up house on a moving horse. And
then there’s the mousetrap he’s strapped on the horse’s back to keep the mice away, and
anklets on his horse’s feet to keep away the sharks.
Yes we must Change, otherwise our organizations fall so far behind the competition, our
constituency and clients that we lose effectiveness and fade into obsolescence. On the
other hand, to embrace every Change is the path to chaos.

Our problem, despite the many dinosaurs lumbering in the tar pits of yesterday, is not the
lack of recognition that Change is necessary. It is that there is far too much Change to
choose from, we suffer from too much choice and a scarcity of good decisions.

Organizations must become adept at three seemingly contradictory skills. We must

become brilliantly effective at resisting bad Change, equally effective at embracing good
Change and wise enough to decide between these two alternatives.

In case you missed my outrageous statement, I’ll repeat it in its pure form.

Organizations must become brilliantly effective at resisting Change.

Despite the Red Queen Principle, we should not and must not, for the sake of our
organizations, embrace all the Change placed before us. Instead we must select the best
Change from the panorama of Change facing us.

How do we do that?

The first step is to identify, as clearly as possible, why we’re here. What exactly is the
role of our organization, and what must we do to continue fulfilling that role? We can
give this a variety of labels, from “Statement of Purpose” to “Vision Statement” to
“Services Offered”. It doesn’t really matter what we call this as long as it becomes
something we believe in, and against which we can measure all proposed Changes.

This is the idea snuggled inside Lampedusa’s quote…

“If things(1) are to remain the same, things(2) will have to Change.”

things(1) – Refers to that which we do, which is important to our mandate.

These are the things which are of value to us, our constituents, and our superiors.

things(2) – Refers to all the other stuff that surrounds us, stuff we might become
attached to, but which in the final analysis, contributes little to the fulfillment of our
mandate.

Therein is the key. Does a proposed Change reinforce, support and/or extend a previously
established organizational objective? If it doesn’t, then enthusiastic acceptance, Red
Queen Principle notwithstanding, is incorrect, improper and ill-advised. To paraphrase
Lampedusa, to embrace the things we value, we must jettison what we don’t.

These are the first two steps. Identify what is valuable to us, and then measure every
proposed Change against these core values.
The next step, is to determine how the proposed Change will fit into the context of our
organization. In other words, what must Change in order to accommodate the new
Change? If you’ve made it this far, then you are well into the first stages of implementing
the Change.

At this point you know why the Change is necessary. i.e. what core values is it designed
to protect, support or extend. This knowledge, properly communicated, will go a long
way to reducing resistance to the proposed Change, especially if you are willing to make
all the information which went into your decision public. Nothing is more effective at
reducing resistance to Change than full disclosure… except perhaps being involved in the
actual decision making process itself.

You now also have some idea what impact it will have on your organization. ie. What
other things will have to Change to accommodate this Change. With all of this in hand,
changing should not be too difficult.

The issue of Change is tricky. On one hand you cannot avoid all Change; on the other
hand, you cannot embrace all Change. Which means we must resist the bad, embrace the
good and know the difference.