Ø Managers may fail to recognise the need for change because

§ They pay insufficient attention to the wider environment or

§ They fail to recognise the implications of what is happening around
them
Ø Failure to recognise what is happening around may lead to
strategic drift, and operational inefficiency
• Strategic drift occurs when a company, that has enjoyed
considerable success, responds far too slowly to changes in the
Chapter 4 & 5 external environment and continues with the strategy that once
served it very well. This is despite the fact that the company is
obviously increasingly out of touch with external trends.
Ø Nadler and Shaw [1995] illustrate one of the paradoxes of
organisational life– ‘Success begets failure’
Ø The call it the ‘Trap of Success’
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
1 2

1 2

Prolonged
The trap of success
(A dap ted fro m N adler & Sh aw 1995)

period of
success
Ø Nadler and Shaw say Outcomes Environmental
Disturbance
• Success leads to Growth Success Decreased
customer focus Declining
Syndrome Learning
• Growth leads to Complexities & Diversification Increased Cost Poor external performance
Complacency disabled alignment
• Complexities lead to a shift of attention away from how the Less innovation
Arrogance
organisation relates to the environment.
Codification
Ø The Outcome of this Shift of Attention Internal focus

• Decreased Customer focus Death spiral

• Increased Cost
• Loss of Speed Do Denial
more of &
• Less Innovation the rationalisation
• Disabled Learning same

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E M A N A G E M E N T ,
Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
4

3 4

Ø Sensing a need for change and formulating a change agenda begins

when individuals notice and respond to what they perceive to be
significant internal and external events.
‘Need for Change’ Recognition may be hampered by:
Ø Pitt et al. (2002) observe the some managers with high intuition and
context particular experience may be sensitive to even weaker ØLack of diversity in functional background and experience
signals of internal and external events. of members of top team
Ø Top teams populated with diverse backgrounds are more likely to
sense wider range of internal/external issues and are less likely to ØTheir commitment to a strong ideology (mental model) that
be learning disabled and caught in the trap of success. marginalises dissenting views.
Ø Cohen and Ebbesen’s study (1979) found evidence to supports this
view. However, Chattopadhyay et al. (1999) in their study found
little support for this view. They found that group thinking may
undermine the top management’s ability to recognize the need for
change. T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E

M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, Palgrave, 2010

5 6

5 6

1
 Ø There are four key roles necessary for successful and
sustained change efforts. These roles tend to cascade
down the hierarchy of an organization.
They include the roles of
• Sponsor,
• Implementer (or Target),
• Agent and
• Advocate.
7 8
Ø 1) Executive or Initiating Sponsors – usually the top
executives in the organization and
Ø 2) Sustaining Sponsors – usually those who are
responsible for sponsoring the change in their own
areas or units. The change may be initiated by an
Executive Sponsor and moved forward by the
Sustaining Sponsor.
9 10
Ø Can work with both the sponsor and the implementers but does
not take on their roles (e.g. functions as a Consultant or Coach).
Ø Can be internal or external to the organizations
Ø Is focused on helping the sponsor and implementers stay
aligned with each other
Ø May act in a number of roles - data gatherer, educator, advisor,
facilitator or coach in order to aid sponsors and Implementers in
achieving success.
Ø Must be sponsored to work with the Implementers or Targets -
has no direct-line authority over the Implementers or Targets.
11
Ø The person with the authority to make a change
happen.
Ø Has direct authority over the individuals who will
implement the action or change.
Ø Has access to and/or control over the resources
(money, time and people) needed to implement action
or change.
Ø Has a clear vision, identified goals and measurable
outcomes for the change initiative.
Ø The people who are authorized to implement the change (and
often are also expected to change something about the way
they are doing their work).
Ø Have direct line responsibilities to the Executive or Sustaining
sponsor.
Ø Most effective when they clarify their questions and concerns
about what is expected with their Sponsor at the beginning of a
change
Ø Provide sponsors with information about issues that might block
or impede success – thereby providing an essential feedback
loop in the system
Ø Requests necessary resources that leverage and reinforce
success)
Ø Has a good idea and is in search of a sponsor
Ø Can occupy any role in the organization
Ø Most effective if they show how their idea is
compatible with issues important to the Sponsors’
change projects and goals
12
2
 Ø Playmakers are individuals who influence the
organisational Agenda
Ø Top managers can encourage other organisational
members to perform “playmaker” roles by seeking out
relevant opinion from those close to the operating
environment

Pitt et al (2002) borrow the term playmaker from football where it refers
to the restless, energetic, midfield role that links play, energises the team
and makes things happen.

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
14

13 14

Ø Upward-Facing Advocates Ø They promote ideas and concern via rational

They promote ideas and concerns via rational arguments.
Ø Upward-Facing Emotive Champions
They use emotions and polymics rather than rational arguments
to manage impressions and champion issues
Ø Democratic Brokers
They facilitate lateral communication among peers, broker ideas
and canvass opinions.
arguments.
Ø Those who play this role are most effective when the
are perceived as experts who are able to present
persuasive technical evidence and well-crafted
arguments.
Ø They are able to provide clear measures of feasibility,
benefits and proof on paper.

15 16

Ø They use emotion and polymics rather than rational Democratic brokers are playmakers who facilitate lateral
communication among peers.
arguments.
They tend to be respected organisational members with perceived
Ø Those who adopt this approach are often motivated by
expertise who function as interpreters, ideas brokers, and opinion
self interest allied to a genuine concern for the future canvassers. They use their nodal position in communication
of the organisation. networks to originate and trade concerns with peers.
Because they bring together different groups and interests, brokers
can help promote diverse interpretations of situations and point to
opportunities and threats that might not be identified by a narrow
group of senior managers acting alone.

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
18

17 18

3
 Widening the opportunity for organisational members to
engage in playmaking can greatly improve an organisation’s
ability to recognise the need for change
Ø Promotes a reactive approach to change
Actively seeking out and debating alternative perspectives
and interpretations can help ensure that the possibility of Ø Limits the possibilities for planning and
new threats or opportunities are properly considered involving others in the change process

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, Palgrave, 2010 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
19 20

19 20

1. Purpose
2. Stakeholder perspective
3. Level of assessment
4. Alignment
Discrepancies between actual and desired 5. Time perspective
performance can signal a need for change
6. External benchmark
7. Constraints and enabling factors

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
21 22

21 22

Ø Religious orders and charities have to be financially viable but Ø Different stakeholders (senior managers, other workers,
their purpose is not to make a profit. customers, suppliers, shareholders, local residents, regulatory
bodies) may use different indicators to assess the
Ø Indicators of effectiveness need to be related to the purpose effectiveness of an organization.
of the unit or the organization,

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
23 24

23 24

4
 Ø Different criteria may be used to assess effectiveness at
different levels (individual, work group, department, strategic
business unit, total organization).
Ø Criteria might relate to linkages (e.g. at the individual level,
good citizen behaviour might be as important as task
performance).
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
25
25
Ø An organization that is not very profitable today may be
incurring higher costs in order to invest in new plant, product
development and training in order to guarantee greater
profits over the long term.
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
27
27
Ø For example, a budget airline’s decision to open a route to
one location rather than another might have a positive effect
on the performance of the local area unit of a car hire firm
that has little to do with factors internal to that unit. This
might need to be taken into account when assessing the
effectiveness of that unit relative to other units.
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, Palgrave, 2010
29
29
§ Up, down, across, within and without the organization
§ Upward alignment [forces or pressure from the bottom of
the organization moving upward to initiate change.
§ Downward alignment [forces or pressure from the top
moving downwards to bring change.
§ Internal Alignment [alignment with in the organization’s
internal resources.
§ External Alignment [alignment of the organization with its
external environment
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
26
26
Ø Performance in one unit may need to be bench marked
against performance elsewhere in order to assess how
effective it is.
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
28
28
Ø How is the effectiveness of your unit/department assessed.
Share views with colleagues and identify common themes
and important differences.
Ø Are the most appropriate criteria used to assess the
effectiveness of your unit? If not, explain why.
Ø Do they help to signal the need for change?
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
30
30
5
 Starting the Change Process
Beliefs about the Change Agency
To what extent can managers intervene and make a real difference to
the effectiveness of your organization?
The deterministic view holds that managers are constrained by
external factors. The deterministic view is that the ability of the
manager to influence change is limited because the main
determining forces lie outside the organization and the realms of
strategic choice for managers. Example—No matter how good a
CEO is he can do little during an economic downturn.
The voluntaristic view emphasizes the role of human agency and
asserts that managers can make an important difference. The
voluntarist view rejects the assumption that managers are
powerless and argues that managers are the principal decision
makers who determine the fate of the organization.
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
31
Change agency refers to the ability of a manager or other agent of
change to affect the way an organization responds to change.
Are managers pawn that are affected by change or are they initiators
of change [change agents]?
Sometimes the limiting factor on change agency is not conceptual
knowledge or familiarity with appropriate intervention tools. It is
rooted in the beliefs about the ability to make a difference:
Ø Confidence in their own ability to affect outcome
Ø Locus of control
Ø Learned helplessness
Ø Motivation to change
Ø Understanding of conceptual models of change
Ø Change Management Skills
T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
32

31 32

Ø To what extent can managers at your level make a difference? Ø“Those who are most likely to want to change are those
who are basically successful but who are experiencing
particular problems.
Ø What are the main factors that affect their ability to make a
difference? ØNext are those who are always successful
ØThe least likely to understand and accept the need for
change are the unsuccessful”
Pugh 1993

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
33 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 34

33 34

ØSelecting the change agent Insiders may take on the role when:

ØDeveloping the change relationship Ø They have the required competence and
commitment
ØIdentifying the client/target group
Ø There are insufficient resources to buy-in an
ØClarifying the issues outsider

Ø Issues of confidentiality and trust prohibit use of

an outsider

Ø It proves difficult to identify a suitable outsider

THE THEORY & PRACTICE OF

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E CHANGE MANAGEMENT, John Hayes,
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 Palgrave, 2010
35 36

35 36

6
 ØThe client’s need for sympathy versus objectivity
ØThere is nobody on the inside who has the time and
competence to act as the facilitator of change ØPerceptions of the change agent’s motives and loyalties
ØPerceptions of the change agent’s competence
ØIt is felt that all the competent insiders have a vested interest
and are less acceptable to all parties than a neutral outsider.

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010
37 38

37 38

ØThe presenting problem may only be a symptom of an

underlying problem
ØWho owns the problem and is responsible for doing
something about it?
ØThe presenting problem may be proffered in terms of
ØWho can have a direct impact on the change issue? solutions (we need help with team building)

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E
39 M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave, 2010 40

39 40

Group 1. With reference to the paper by Pitt et al:

Ø Do managers in your organisation make appropriate assumptions about how the
agenda for change should be formulated?
Ø Is there sufficient diversity among active playmakers in your organisation?
Ø To what extent is effective playmaking undermined by lack of networking skills,
political competence, advocacy and the ability to inspire others?
Group 2. Based on your experience, list any problems you have
encountered in the early stages of the change process that have been
associated with:
Ø choice of change agent,
Ø quality of the change relationship,
Ø identification of the group to be targeted for change,
Ø specification of the change issues.

T H E T H E O R Y & P R A C T IC E O F C H A N G E M A N A G E M E N T , Jo h n H ayes, P algrave,

2010
41

41