Our 2008 study of 1,300+ ERP implementations across the globe reveals that 65% of companies are satisfied with their ERP solutions. On the flip side, the study also reveals that 93% of projects take longer than expected, 65% cost more than expected, and 79% realize less than half of the expected business benefits.
This research suggests that companies are fairly satisfied with their ERP solutions even though implementations are more painful than expected and business benefits fall short of expectations. So what gives?
We have a number of theories and questions that we are exploring in our 2009 study, currently in progress:
1. How do companies gauge their level of satisfaction with their ERP systems? ERP implementations can be like an amateur runner being thrilled to simply finish a marathon, regardless of where he or she places. Some CIOs are happy when their projects simply don't fail and don't put the whole company at risk; they are often times not even thinking about whether or not the company is better off with the new software or whether or not they're getting as much out of the system as possible. Is simply getting to go-live a measure of success for some?
2. Do executives have different perceptions of ERP satisfaction than lower-level employees? Our study reveals diverging views of satisfaction among executives relative to project managers and other non-executives. Even among individual ERP solutions, there are material differences between executive satisfaction compared to other employees. Perhaps executives are the happies when they have good reports and dashboards to see how the business is running, but employees rely more on robust functionality and efficient business processes?
3. Are companies failing to measure satisfaction? Another contributor to this phenomena may be that companies simply aren't measuring business benefits after go-live. Our research and client experience suggests that companies that fail to develop a comprehensive business case and/or fail to measure post-implementation business results are more likely to realize sub-part results from their ERP initiatives. Perhaps companies are satisfied because they don't know that they're underperforming and failing to realize the full potential of their newly implemented ERP systems?
There are a number of other potential explanations. Perhaps the same managers who blew their budget and project milestones are reluctant to suggest that it wasn't worth it in the end. Or perhaps it's a way to rationalize all the time and money that went into the implementation. Or perhaps companies really are satisfied, but they don't realize that they could be even more satisfied than they are if they focused on leveraging an ERP benefits realization program.
These points raise more questions than they resolve. Either way, it's not clear from our research and client experience that companies are taking full advantage of the benefits potential of their ERP solutions. We plan to continue addressing questions such as these with our clients and in our next round of ERP research.
Eric Kimberling (ERP and Business Consultant) posted 9/3/2009 | Comments (0)
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/erp-roi/erp-satisfaction-how-do-most-companies-define-erp-success-33607?rss=1
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Innovation and Change
1. Introduction
2. Theme definition
Key Issues
Types
Examples
3. Short Case
The organization
How does the literature fit into the organization
Problems or issues that emerge
4. Recommendation
Changes that should be made in the organization
The need for further study
1. Introduction
Creative management is a more open, dynamic and flexible approach to management than economic management and includes economic management as part of its framework. In this approach, the requirements of both the early and later stages of the creative process are balanced. The early stages may be seen as postmodern and the later stages as modern, but the focus is on the total process of change, rather than its components. It is a dualistic management approach, combining opposing tendencies to achieve a balanced outcome ( 2002). Creative management considers differentiation and dedifferentiation, continuous and discontinuous change, objective and subjective knowledge, intuition and analysis, predictability and experimentation, reducibility and holism. It may be seen as an integrated economic and psychological approach to product and company development (2002).
The early more postmodern development stages emphasize intuition and entrepreneurship, both enacting and developing visions and managing images. The later, more modernistic stages emphasize systematic analysis and planning in order to reduce cognitive uncertainty and establish order (2002).Consequently, image and innovation management may be seen as the main overall objectives of creative management and as major mechanisms for constructing strategic reflexivity. Products are the outcome of the managerial process, as the word itself implies, and producing products therefore mainly reflects the requirements of the late stages of the creative process, viewed as the way from idea to market offer. Product innovation and marketing, however, are much more concerned with the early stages of the creative process ( 2002).
There is a need to move from a traditional, modern economic management approach to a creative management approach by integrating modern and postmodern elements, rather than focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. These elements have always been intuitively balanced in practice by insightful decision-makers, but are separated in theory. A creative management approach should therefore also help to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners in describing and understanding their relevant realities ( 2002). Creative management consists of new ideas, new directions, new methods, and new modes of operation. Creative and innovative management focuses on coupling; that is, linking the creative management and innovative management constructs. The operative words are act of management. Acts of management involve linking strategy, organization, motivation and incentives, culture and environment, and institutional alliances. The means of measuring and evaluating these linkages in terms of their being better is on the cutting edge of creative and innovative management (1993).
Identification of creative and innovative management performance is a major research need. In concept, this means that successful creative and innovative management must be superior to the accepted norm of management. In the altered environment the new economic system has created an atmosphere promoting the innovations of enterprises. New companies are founded; old state companies are transformed into private firms. What is needed so badly is investigation of the innovative and creative management of companies (1993). The paper focuses on the concept of innovation and change in businesses. The paper will discuss a case study and a particular company that made use of innovation and change in the way they operate. The paper will end with a recommendation.
2. Theme Definition
Innovation
Over the last few decades, innovation has become widely recognized as both a major goal of economic activity and one of the most important instruments through which organizations and countries gain and sustain competitive advantage in globally competitive marketplaces. At the organizational level, some claim that innovation is a key functional activity in organizations, in much the same way as marketing or finance are. Product innovation is then thought of as a routine operation like any other that organizations perform. Others suggest that innovation is a key survival strategy for organizations because it enables more rapid adaptation to turbulent environments. Innovation then becomes a primary indicator of an organization's ability to adapt to its environment (2002). Over the past few decades, this acclamation of innovation has become highly prominent as technological and scientific advancement, particularly in information and communication, increasingly affects every aspect of people's lives. Despite their differences, most writers seem to accept that innovation leads to new ways of doing things and to new solutions to the problem of resource scarcity. However, even this is contested by, for example, evolutionary economists who regard innovation as more an effect than a cause of self-reinforcing, cumulative patterns of economic growth. Evolutionary economists argue that technological innovation should not be reduced to the narrow perspective of technological determinism. The term innovation makes most people think first about technology. The emerging world requires more social and organizational innovation. It is a virtual truism that if technical innovation runs far ahead of complementary social and organizational innovation, its use in practice can be either dysfunctional or negligible (2002).
People in organizations often talk about innovation as if there was some ultimate novelty, one that would finally deliver them from the pressures of competition, if only they could make the right rational choice. Innovation as the potential for transformation emerges in conversations between people that are characterized by redundant diversity, which is experienced as mis/understanding. Thinking about the process of innovation in mainstream literature seems to fall into two streams. First, some think of innovation as a rational, intentional, sequential managerial process. Thinking here reflects the rational behavior assumption of classical and neoclassical economics and falls within the paradigm of strategic choice and planning (2002). Firms innovate in direct, purposeful and intentional responses to objective changes in their environment, so that they can achieve a new equilibrium. The future competitive positioning is a matter of forecasting and of detecting shifts in consumer preferences or in detecting latent unsatisfied demands. Acquiring this information involves an effort that is similar to the application of the scientific method. Second, there are those who understand innovation to be a social, political and behavioral process, reflecting the position of evolutionary economics. This stream, while rejecting the rational paradigm and embracing a human-centered view, does not reject the importance of equilibrium. It only denies the ability of rational ways of achieving it. As an alternative, it proposes shared visions and culture as organizational binders and control devices to attain desired behaviors ( 2002). Innovation is an important part of creative management for businesses. Without innovation businesses would remain stale and it cannot create changes.
Changes
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century, theories of organizational change have had a tremendous impact on business and not-for-profit companies. The extent of the influence of popular theories of change including Culture Change, Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), Organizational Learning, and, more recently Six Sigma is evidenced throughout the business world as application and outcomes are reported and debated in the business presses, consulting reports, management journals and best-selling business trade books. Many of the top corporations, have implemented one or other change program over the last twenty years, often at the cost of millions of dollars, and involving large-scale restructuring and extensive job losses (2003).
At the end of the day, while it is generally agreed that certain change programs have become widely popular, there is considerable debate about the success or failure of the subsequent changes themselves. Business critics blame suggested failure on incorrect implementation. Other business critics are less convinced, questioning the lack of evidence of a clear link between the implementation of selected change program and subsequent business success. It is argued that, within management thought and practice, the notion of organizational change has changed in significance over the last two decades, from one of many potential strategies of managing to a key influence on organizational effectiveness and survival. The focus has shifted from the strategic choice of the actor to one of incontrovertible external forces that managers need to anticipate, react to and manage. It is contended that organizational change as imperative has become an important management discourse that can be witnessed in the discursive practices of companies (2003).
Explaining the popularity of organizational change in sense making terms it can be argued that change has become a conventional management practice, developed and sustained through a powerful management discourse, whose on-going character influences the decision-making of large and small companies, profit and not-for-profit companies alike. Whether or not the adoption of a particular program of change is the right course of action for some companies doesn't seem to matter. Decisions to implement change programs are based on plausibility rather than accuracy. Prior to 1980, within business texts, organizational change as a management technique was either not mentioned at all or was limited to discussion of group dynamics and employee resistance to change (2003).
The notion of organizational change in the late 1970s and early 1980s, developed from learning theories and an action research approach to organizational problems. Various models focusing on quality of working life, socio-technical theory, autonomy and job enrichment were employed to improve working conditions, where typically the emphasis was on rewarding and reinforcing particular behaviors. Over time, the emphasis on change programs has switched focus from ways to improve employee satisfaction to a goal today of customer-driven corporate effectiveness. But something more than a change in focus has occurred. The notion of organizational change has taken on new meaning. Since the early 1980s, it has become an imperative rather than a technique to be considered at appropriate times, a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach to organizational effectiveness (2003). Organizational change is done by a company when it believes that the company is not adjusting to the new trends in its environment.
Issues in Innovation and Change
Innovation and change may bring good things for a company but there are certain issues regarding these two concepts. For innovation one issue in it is the boundaries it can occupy. Innovation can only be done on a specific part of the business. It cannot easily extend to other parts of the business because the other parts of the business may have problems when innovation is done into it. Another issue on innovation is the limit of the budget and time allotted for its implementation. When innovation is to be implemented there is a limit on the budget and time for its implementation. It may or may not be enough depending on the degree of innovation used. On the other hand an issue on change is its acceptance by the people in the firm. Some people in the firm are willing to accept change while some have difficulty in letting change take place. Change can sometimes cause conflict in an organization. Another issue on change is its effects on the organization. Changes can make good effects to an organization but with the good effects are some negative effects.
3. Short Case
The company E bay
Pierre Omidyar was born in Paris in 1968, and moved with his parents to Washington, D.C., while still a young boy. By the time he reached high school, the Apple II the first practical personal computer was being snapped up by technologists and hobbyists, and the IBM PC was just coming onto the market. Like lots of kids, Omidyar developed a passion for computer programming and applied that passion to a most mundane task computerizing the card catalog of his school library. He was paid $6 an hour for that little job, which must be less than what his current net worth earns in the blink of an eye. He pursued his interest at Tufts University, just outside Boston, where he earned an undergraduate degree in computer science, then joined Claris, a software subsidiary of Apple Computer, where he developed the popular MacDraw application (2000). E-commerce was a new idea back in 1991 when Omidyar co founded Ink Development Corporation one of the pioneers of online retailing. When Ink was bought out by Microsoft, he went on to work for General Magic, a mobile communication platform company, and was working there when the idea of online auctions cropped up. Business in the Valley was at an important turning point back then. Pundits, analysts, and venture capitalists were turning their attention away from electronics manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard, the company that put the Valley on the map, and getting excited about the new companies on the block, the Internet-based start-ups (2000).
The new company was formed as a sole proprietorship in September 1995 and operated from Omidyar's small apartment, using a Web site provided by his Internet service provider (ISP). A filing cabinet, an old school desk, and a laptop computer were the tools of its makeshift trade. In order to develop a critical mass of transactions, users were charged no fees whatsoever, but within six months, the two entrepreneurs began charging token fees with no larger goal than to cover their rising Internet service costs. Before long, however, traffic on this site was so intense that the ISP told Omidyar to take a hike. He had to buy his own server and install it in his apartment (2000). The company incorporated in May 1996, but until July 1996 had no employees other than its founders, who paid themselves annual salaries of $25,000. Even so, business had grown to the point where Omidyar had to move the operation from his apartment to a one-room office in Sunnyvale and hire a part-time employee to handle the checks and billings. Employee number one was Chris Agarpao, whom Omidyar had met at a wedding, and who soon thereafter was interviewed at a picnic table on the grounds of Omidyar's apartment complex. The odds against the success of this new venture would have seemed substantial back in 1995 and 1996 (2000).
The market for the sale of goods over the Internet, particularly through person-to-person trading, was new, and did not enjoy widespread acceptance. Buying something of substantial value, often sight unseen, from a total stranger hundreds or thousands of miles away did not fall into the category of natural acts. Further, the growth of Internet use would have to continue if the auction market hoped to gain real size. And there was no assurance that it would. Public enthusiasm for Web surfing might stall out (2000). Even if public acceptance was high, the network infrastructure needed to accommodate rapidly growing usage might not be forthcoming. More than a few pundits predicted that the network would collapse under the weight of growing consumer and business use. Higher levels of Internet usage might require new standard and protocols and broadband delivery. Insufficient infrastructure and high demand might slow the Internet and turn off users. Those were the logical macro concerns. At the company level, people had to wonder what would happen if the company's servers crashed or if lots of auction participants started complaining of being ripped off. There were also questions about the popularity of the items offered in eBay auctions. Future revenues depended on continuing demand for the types of goods listed by users of the service ( 2000).
The literature and the organization
The first generation of e-business has passed into history, and a second generation is now being born. The first generation was marked by high hopes, a land grab for market opportunities, an infatuation with technology for its own sake, and a disregard for traditional performance metrics. Speed was the generation's defining characteristic, and traditional firms slower by nature than startups found themselves at a comparative disadvantage (2002). As excitement about the possibilities promised by the Internet's disruptive technology mounted, dot-com stock prices rose to unsustainable levels. A crash inevitably followed, and the Internet economy was confronted with the need to deliver real value to customers and profits to investors ( 2002). Most executives have a vision of where they want their companies to be with e-business. They can imagine the benefits of successfully integrating the Internet throughout their entire value chain. They can see the advantages of e-business transformation: reduced costs, increased productivity, accelerated business processes. But the myriad changes in business practices that they need to make are blurry and out of focus, and so they can't make their vision a reality (2002). Many executives suffer from the all too common ailment of technological presbyopia or the belief that having a clear view of something means it is only a short distance away. They become impatient when success doesn't arrive overnight, and they are tempted to skip certain steps that are necessary to create a stable and profitable business (2002).
One of the businesses that created a huge innovation and change to the industry is E bay. The said company as seen in the literature created a new trend in the way business is transacted. People who transacted with a company had to go to a store to buy the products they need or acquire the services they desire. E bay was one of the companies that changed such practice. The company gave people convenience and easier time in buying the products they need. People who have computers and internet access can just order or bid for products they want without leaving the sanctity of their homes. The company also allowed people to sell their products on its website. The innovation and change introduced by the company proves to have positive effects for clients but with it are its negative effects. One problem with such innovation and change by the company is the assurance that the product will not have defects or problems. Since there was no transaction done personally, clients cannot be 100% sure that the products they purchase will have no defects or problems. Another problem with such innovation and change is the security of records and information being transferred by clients to the company. In engaging in E business clients has to provide financial account numbers to the company as a form of payment. There are less assurance that these kinds of information will not be available to online hackers and cyber criminals. Lastly a problem with such innovation and change is the longevity of such trend. This trend of business may or may not stay for a long time. Change in businesses is a constant thing and this kind of trend may or may not be a long lasting trend.
4. Recommendations
Changes that should be made
The organization can improve itself by making sure that all the products that it intends to sell and put up for bidding would be checked for defects. The organization should have a checking and testing procedure so that the products will be in a tip top condition. It can also call into attention people who sell stuff that have problems and are not in working condition. The interest of the client is an important concern for the organization and the organization should show its concern for its clients by making them receive the most able products. The organization can improve itself by having a complete and detailed knowledge about the people who sells their products to the company. As mentioned earlier the company allows people to sell their things to through the company’s website, the company should check and know the people who sells the products so that the company will know whether or not the products have defects or are illegally sold. Moreover the organization can improve itself through having added security measures to counter threats from hackers and cyber criminals. The company can find out about new programs and applications that can stop these kinds of people from knowing the financial accounts and other important records shared between the company and its clients.
Lastly the company can improve itself through engaging in other business endeavor. There is no assurance that the way the company is conducting its business will last for a long time. The company should engage in other endeavors that can help them survive the end of the e-business trend. The company can try to have a personal buying and selling business wherein a company has a visible branch that buys and sells different products and services. Clients who have known the company for a long time will be the first customers of the company in this endeavor. These clients will be telling people they know about the company thus it will improve after some time. The financial risk they must be concerned with is the cost of the new business venture. But given some time the expenses will be replaced with profits for the company.
The need for further study
Further study will have to be attempted on topics regarding how long the trend of e –business will last. This kind of study will be important to determine the gravity of impact of the innovation and change done by e bay and e business. Further study should also be done with regards to what are the trends that might bring a new innovation and change to the way business is done. Future studies should be done particularly on the next possible business trends that will create changes and innovation in the way businesses are operated and transacted. These kinds of studies can widen the knowledge about the future possibilities in business and such kind of studies can give more proofs and a better understanding of the importance of change and innovation in business.
http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/organizational_change/
2. Theme definition
Key Issues
Types
Examples
3. Short Case
The organization
How does the literature fit into the organization
Problems or issues that emerge
4. Recommendation
Changes that should be made in the organization
The need for further study
1. Introduction
Creative management is a more open, dynamic and flexible approach to management than economic management and includes economic management as part of its framework. In this approach, the requirements of both the early and later stages of the creative process are balanced. The early stages may be seen as postmodern and the later stages as modern, but the focus is on the total process of change, rather than its components. It is a dualistic management approach, combining opposing tendencies to achieve a balanced outcome ( 2002). Creative management considers differentiation and dedifferentiation, continuous and discontinuous change, objective and subjective knowledge, intuition and analysis, predictability and experimentation, reducibility and holism. It may be seen as an integrated economic and psychological approach to product and company development (2002).
The early more postmodern development stages emphasize intuition and entrepreneurship, both enacting and developing visions and managing images. The later, more modernistic stages emphasize systematic analysis and planning in order to reduce cognitive uncertainty and establish order (2002).Consequently, image and innovation management may be seen as the main overall objectives of creative management and as major mechanisms for constructing strategic reflexivity. Products are the outcome of the managerial process, as the word itself implies, and producing products therefore mainly reflects the requirements of the late stages of the creative process, viewed as the way from idea to market offer. Product innovation and marketing, however, are much more concerned with the early stages of the creative process ( 2002).
There is a need to move from a traditional, modern economic management approach to a creative management approach by integrating modern and postmodern elements, rather than focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. These elements have always been intuitively balanced in practice by insightful decision-makers, but are separated in theory. A creative management approach should therefore also help to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners in describing and understanding their relevant realities ( 2002). Creative management consists of new ideas, new directions, new methods, and new modes of operation. Creative and innovative management focuses on coupling; that is, linking the creative management and innovative management constructs. The operative words are act of management. Acts of management involve linking strategy, organization, motivation and incentives, culture and environment, and institutional alliances. The means of measuring and evaluating these linkages in terms of their being better is on the cutting edge of creative and innovative management (1993).
Identification of creative and innovative management performance is a major research need. In concept, this means that successful creative and innovative management must be superior to the accepted norm of management. In the altered environment the new economic system has created an atmosphere promoting the innovations of enterprises. New companies are founded; old state companies are transformed into private firms. What is needed so badly is investigation of the innovative and creative management of companies (1993). The paper focuses on the concept of innovation and change in businesses. The paper will discuss a case study and a particular company that made use of innovation and change in the way they operate. The paper will end with a recommendation.
2. Theme Definition
Innovation
Over the last few decades, innovation has become widely recognized as both a major goal of economic activity and one of the most important instruments through which organizations and countries gain and sustain competitive advantage in globally competitive marketplaces. At the organizational level, some claim that innovation is a key functional activity in organizations, in much the same way as marketing or finance are. Product innovation is then thought of as a routine operation like any other that organizations perform. Others suggest that innovation is a key survival strategy for organizations because it enables more rapid adaptation to turbulent environments. Innovation then becomes a primary indicator of an organization's ability to adapt to its environment (2002). Over the past few decades, this acclamation of innovation has become highly prominent as technological and scientific advancement, particularly in information and communication, increasingly affects every aspect of people's lives. Despite their differences, most writers seem to accept that innovation leads to new ways of doing things and to new solutions to the problem of resource scarcity. However, even this is contested by, for example, evolutionary economists who regard innovation as more an effect than a cause of self-reinforcing, cumulative patterns of economic growth. Evolutionary economists argue that technological innovation should not be reduced to the narrow perspective of technological determinism. The term innovation makes most people think first about technology. The emerging world requires more social and organizational innovation. It is a virtual truism that if technical innovation runs far ahead of complementary social and organizational innovation, its use in practice can be either dysfunctional or negligible (2002).
People in organizations often talk about innovation as if there was some ultimate novelty, one that would finally deliver them from the pressures of competition, if only they could make the right rational choice. Innovation as the potential for transformation emerges in conversations between people that are characterized by redundant diversity, which is experienced as mis/understanding. Thinking about the process of innovation in mainstream literature seems to fall into two streams. First, some think of innovation as a rational, intentional, sequential managerial process. Thinking here reflects the rational behavior assumption of classical and neoclassical economics and falls within the paradigm of strategic choice and planning (2002). Firms innovate in direct, purposeful and intentional responses to objective changes in their environment, so that they can achieve a new equilibrium. The future competitive positioning is a matter of forecasting and of detecting shifts in consumer preferences or in detecting latent unsatisfied demands. Acquiring this information involves an effort that is similar to the application of the scientific method. Second, there are those who understand innovation to be a social, political and behavioral process, reflecting the position of evolutionary economics. This stream, while rejecting the rational paradigm and embracing a human-centered view, does not reject the importance of equilibrium. It only denies the ability of rational ways of achieving it. As an alternative, it proposes shared visions and culture as organizational binders and control devices to attain desired behaviors ( 2002). Innovation is an important part of creative management for businesses. Without innovation businesses would remain stale and it cannot create changes.
Changes
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century, theories of organizational change have had a tremendous impact on business and not-for-profit companies. The extent of the influence of popular theories of change including Culture Change, Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), Organizational Learning, and, more recently Six Sigma is evidenced throughout the business world as application and outcomes are reported and debated in the business presses, consulting reports, management journals and best-selling business trade books. Many of the top corporations, have implemented one or other change program over the last twenty years, often at the cost of millions of dollars, and involving large-scale restructuring and extensive job losses (2003).
At the end of the day, while it is generally agreed that certain change programs have become widely popular, there is considerable debate about the success or failure of the subsequent changes themselves. Business critics blame suggested failure on incorrect implementation. Other business critics are less convinced, questioning the lack of evidence of a clear link between the implementation of selected change program and subsequent business success. It is argued that, within management thought and practice, the notion of organizational change has changed in significance over the last two decades, from one of many potential strategies of managing to a key influence on organizational effectiveness and survival. The focus has shifted from the strategic choice of the actor to one of incontrovertible external forces that managers need to anticipate, react to and manage. It is contended that organizational change as imperative has become an important management discourse that can be witnessed in the discursive practices of companies (2003).
Explaining the popularity of organizational change in sense making terms it can be argued that change has become a conventional management practice, developed and sustained through a powerful management discourse, whose on-going character influences the decision-making of large and small companies, profit and not-for-profit companies alike. Whether or not the adoption of a particular program of change is the right course of action for some companies doesn't seem to matter. Decisions to implement change programs are based on plausibility rather than accuracy. Prior to 1980, within business texts, organizational change as a management technique was either not mentioned at all or was limited to discussion of group dynamics and employee resistance to change (2003).
The notion of organizational change in the late 1970s and early 1980s, developed from learning theories and an action research approach to organizational problems. Various models focusing on quality of working life, socio-technical theory, autonomy and job enrichment were employed to improve working conditions, where typically the emphasis was on rewarding and reinforcing particular behaviors. Over time, the emphasis on change programs has switched focus from ways to improve employee satisfaction to a goal today of customer-driven corporate effectiveness. But something more than a change in focus has occurred. The notion of organizational change has taken on new meaning. Since the early 1980s, it has become an imperative rather than a technique to be considered at appropriate times, a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach to organizational effectiveness (2003). Organizational change is done by a company when it believes that the company is not adjusting to the new trends in its environment.
Issues in Innovation and Change
Innovation and change may bring good things for a company but there are certain issues regarding these two concepts. For innovation one issue in it is the boundaries it can occupy. Innovation can only be done on a specific part of the business. It cannot easily extend to other parts of the business because the other parts of the business may have problems when innovation is done into it. Another issue on innovation is the limit of the budget and time allotted for its implementation. When innovation is to be implemented there is a limit on the budget and time for its implementation. It may or may not be enough depending on the degree of innovation used. On the other hand an issue on change is its acceptance by the people in the firm. Some people in the firm are willing to accept change while some have difficulty in letting change take place. Change can sometimes cause conflict in an organization. Another issue on change is its effects on the organization. Changes can make good effects to an organization but with the good effects are some negative effects.
3. Short Case
The company E bay
Pierre Omidyar was born in Paris in 1968, and moved with his parents to Washington, D.C., while still a young boy. By the time he reached high school, the Apple II the first practical personal computer was being snapped up by technologists and hobbyists, and the IBM PC was just coming onto the market. Like lots of kids, Omidyar developed a passion for computer programming and applied that passion to a most mundane task computerizing the card catalog of his school library. He was paid $6 an hour for that little job, which must be less than what his current net worth earns in the blink of an eye. He pursued his interest at Tufts University, just outside Boston, where he earned an undergraduate degree in computer science, then joined Claris, a software subsidiary of Apple Computer, where he developed the popular MacDraw application (2000). E-commerce was a new idea back in 1991 when Omidyar co founded Ink Development Corporation one of the pioneers of online retailing. When Ink was bought out by Microsoft, he went on to work for General Magic, a mobile communication platform company, and was working there when the idea of online auctions cropped up. Business in the Valley was at an important turning point back then. Pundits, analysts, and venture capitalists were turning their attention away from electronics manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard, the company that put the Valley on the map, and getting excited about the new companies on the block, the Internet-based start-ups (2000).
The new company was formed as a sole proprietorship in September 1995 and operated from Omidyar's small apartment, using a Web site provided by his Internet service provider (ISP). A filing cabinet, an old school desk, and a laptop computer were the tools of its makeshift trade. In order to develop a critical mass of transactions, users were charged no fees whatsoever, but within six months, the two entrepreneurs began charging token fees with no larger goal than to cover their rising Internet service costs. Before long, however, traffic on this site was so intense that the ISP told Omidyar to take a hike. He had to buy his own server and install it in his apartment (2000). The company incorporated in May 1996, but until July 1996 had no employees other than its founders, who paid themselves annual salaries of $25,000. Even so, business had grown to the point where Omidyar had to move the operation from his apartment to a one-room office in Sunnyvale and hire a part-time employee to handle the checks and billings. Employee number one was Chris Agarpao, whom Omidyar had met at a wedding, and who soon thereafter was interviewed at a picnic table on the grounds of Omidyar's apartment complex. The odds against the success of this new venture would have seemed substantial back in 1995 and 1996 (2000).
The market for the sale of goods over the Internet, particularly through person-to-person trading, was new, and did not enjoy widespread acceptance. Buying something of substantial value, often sight unseen, from a total stranger hundreds or thousands of miles away did not fall into the category of natural acts. Further, the growth of Internet use would have to continue if the auction market hoped to gain real size. And there was no assurance that it would. Public enthusiasm for Web surfing might stall out (2000). Even if public acceptance was high, the network infrastructure needed to accommodate rapidly growing usage might not be forthcoming. More than a few pundits predicted that the network would collapse under the weight of growing consumer and business use. Higher levels of Internet usage might require new standard and protocols and broadband delivery. Insufficient infrastructure and high demand might slow the Internet and turn off users. Those were the logical macro concerns. At the company level, people had to wonder what would happen if the company's servers crashed or if lots of auction participants started complaining of being ripped off. There were also questions about the popularity of the items offered in eBay auctions. Future revenues depended on continuing demand for the types of goods listed by users of the service ( 2000).
The literature and the organization
The first generation of e-business has passed into history, and a second generation is now being born. The first generation was marked by high hopes, a land grab for market opportunities, an infatuation with technology for its own sake, and a disregard for traditional performance metrics. Speed was the generation's defining characteristic, and traditional firms slower by nature than startups found themselves at a comparative disadvantage (2002). As excitement about the possibilities promised by the Internet's disruptive technology mounted, dot-com stock prices rose to unsustainable levels. A crash inevitably followed, and the Internet economy was confronted with the need to deliver real value to customers and profits to investors ( 2002). Most executives have a vision of where they want their companies to be with e-business. They can imagine the benefits of successfully integrating the Internet throughout their entire value chain. They can see the advantages of e-business transformation: reduced costs, increased productivity, accelerated business processes. But the myriad changes in business practices that they need to make are blurry and out of focus, and so they can't make their vision a reality (2002). Many executives suffer from the all too common ailment of technological presbyopia or the belief that having a clear view of something means it is only a short distance away. They become impatient when success doesn't arrive overnight, and they are tempted to skip certain steps that are necessary to create a stable and profitable business (2002).
One of the businesses that created a huge innovation and change to the industry is E bay. The said company as seen in the literature created a new trend in the way business is transacted. People who transacted with a company had to go to a store to buy the products they need or acquire the services they desire. E bay was one of the companies that changed such practice. The company gave people convenience and easier time in buying the products they need. People who have computers and internet access can just order or bid for products they want without leaving the sanctity of their homes. The company also allowed people to sell their products on its website. The innovation and change introduced by the company proves to have positive effects for clients but with it are its negative effects. One problem with such innovation and change by the company is the assurance that the product will not have defects or problems. Since there was no transaction done personally, clients cannot be 100% sure that the products they purchase will have no defects or problems. Another problem with such innovation and change is the security of records and information being transferred by clients to the company. In engaging in E business clients has to provide financial account numbers to the company as a form of payment. There are less assurance that these kinds of information will not be available to online hackers and cyber criminals. Lastly a problem with such innovation and change is the longevity of such trend. This trend of business may or may not stay for a long time. Change in businesses is a constant thing and this kind of trend may or may not be a long lasting trend.
4. Recommendations
Changes that should be made
The organization can improve itself by making sure that all the products that it intends to sell and put up for bidding would be checked for defects. The organization should have a checking and testing procedure so that the products will be in a tip top condition. It can also call into attention people who sell stuff that have problems and are not in working condition. The interest of the client is an important concern for the organization and the organization should show its concern for its clients by making them receive the most able products. The organization can improve itself by having a complete and detailed knowledge about the people who sells their products to the company. As mentioned earlier the company allows people to sell their things to through the company’s website, the company should check and know the people who sells the products so that the company will know whether or not the products have defects or are illegally sold. Moreover the organization can improve itself through having added security measures to counter threats from hackers and cyber criminals. The company can find out about new programs and applications that can stop these kinds of people from knowing the financial accounts and other important records shared between the company and its clients.
Lastly the company can improve itself through engaging in other business endeavor. There is no assurance that the way the company is conducting its business will last for a long time. The company should engage in other endeavors that can help them survive the end of the e-business trend. The company can try to have a personal buying and selling business wherein a company has a visible branch that buys and sells different products and services. Clients who have known the company for a long time will be the first customers of the company in this endeavor. These clients will be telling people they know about the company thus it will improve after some time. The financial risk they must be concerned with is the cost of the new business venture. But given some time the expenses will be replaced with profits for the company.
The need for further study
Further study will have to be attempted on topics regarding how long the trend of e –business will last. This kind of study will be important to determine the gravity of impact of the innovation and change done by e bay and e business. Further study should also be done with regards to what are the trends that might bring a new innovation and change to the way business is done. Future studies should be done particularly on the next possible business trends that will create changes and innovation in the way businesses are operated and transacted. These kinds of studies can widen the knowledge about the future possibilities in business and such kind of studies can give more proofs and a better understanding of the importance of change and innovation in business.
http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/organizational_change/
Organizational Change - An Overview
Introduction
The only thing that is permanent on the face of the earth is change; and this is also applied into different varieties of business. The change is somehow important if it is intended to begin the improvement. Every organization needs change in improving the business environment or managerial aspect. The change depends unto what extent it should reach and what difficulties it will cross. Sometimes, organization takes the changes to align in the economic variations and it is truly hard to pulse the wave of economic climate.
Organizational change is defined as the process by which organizations reach the desired goals. Organizational change occurs when an organization restructures resources to increase the ability to create value and improve effectiveness. A declining company seeks ways to regain customers; a growing organization designs new products. A well-planned organizational change creates value for stakeholders.1
In a business manner, the organizational change is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful.
Specific Types of Organizational Change
There are different overall types of organizational change, including planned versus unplanned, organization-wide versus change primarily to one part of the organization, incremental (slow, gradual change) versus transformational (radical, fundamental), etc. Knowing which types of change the business is doing helps all participants to retain scope and perspective during the many complexities and frequent frustrations during change. One form of organizational change and development will be discussed below.
Unplanned Versus Planned Change
Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise.
Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude. The planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.
Change Program Stakeholders
For an organizational change program to succeed, the business should depend upon a range of people. These people can be divided into five stakeholder groups.4
A stakeholder is any person with an interest in the process or the outcome of the proposed organizational change. There are five stakeholder group given, together with each description and examples of duty.
1. Change Recipients – They are the intended receivers of the products of change or change outcomes. Example: They are the end users of new software, such as a new accounting package, employees of two merged companies.
2. Decision Makers – They are the people that approve a change effort and decide its scope and direction. Examples: Steering Committee Members, Project Sponsor, or Chief Executive Officer.
3. Resource Holders – They are the people authorized to release financial and human resources requires by a change effort. Examples: Chief Financial Officer, Financial institution such as a bank, or a Line Manager.
4. Program Implementers – They are the people charged with the responsibility for bringing about the change. Examples: Program Manager, Project Manager, or Project Team Members.
5. External Parties – They are the people that are not the intended recipients but who are impacted by the change. Examples: Suppliers whose access to a business is restricted after a change in business hours, or a broader community impacted adversely by a new product that contaminates the local environment.
Once the business had identified the stakeholders, consider the key messages that a business will need to deliver to each group in order to gain their support. Once the business had settled on the key messages for each stakeholder group, start the communication.
Various Models for Change Management
There are numerous well-organized approaches (or models) from which to manage a change effort. There are Strategic Management Models, Action Research Model, Plan Do Check Act Model, Lewin’s Change Management Model, and Mckinsey 7S Model.
Lewin’s Change Management Model
Lewin’s Model for change which also called the Freezing Models has three phases; the Unfreeze, Transition, and the Refreezing.5 Unfreeze is where the problem should be thawed into pieces and needed to study each part. The transition steps in when the process is on-going to face the solution and transformation changes. And the last, the refreezing takes the place when the organization is already absorbing the new process. Kurt Lewin exampled this is the cube of ice; on how will you change the form of the cube of ice in to another type by not letting it evaporate.
Strategic Management Model
Many organizations undertake strategic planning. The implementation of strategic planning, when done in a systematic, cyclical and explicit approach, is strategic management. Strategic management is also one model for ensuring the success of a change effort. Simply put, strategic planning determines where an organization is going over the next year or more, how it's going to get there and how it'll know if it got there or not. The focus of a strategic plan is usually on the entire organization, while the focus of a business plan is usually on a particular product, service or program.
There are a variety of perspectives, models and approaches used in strategic planning. The way that a strategic plan is developed depends on the nature of the organization's leadership, culture of the organization, complexity of the organization's environment, size of the organization, expertise of planners, etc.6
The two kinds of models are very effective tools for the managerial change. If the models are going to apply on the stakeholders of the company, the proper assessment is needed to apply the models. The models for organizational change are presented as the basis on how to make the change in the management possible as the economic environment asks for change.
Conclusions
The organizational change is different in the other kinds of changes. Although it is necessary for the organization to adopt the prospect changes, it is advisable to first undergone through a series of investigation. Other approaches for a change also involve the technological aspect, like changing for the old technology and adopting a new kind of technological-based process. Other prefers to focus on the traditional way like on the factor of changing the customs of the employees or the rules inside the workplace.
http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2009/08/organizational-change.html
The only thing that is permanent on the face of the earth is change; and this is also applied into different varieties of business. The change is somehow important if it is intended to begin the improvement. Every organization needs change in improving the business environment or managerial aspect. The change depends unto what extent it should reach and what difficulties it will cross. Sometimes, organization takes the changes to align in the economic variations and it is truly hard to pulse the wave of economic climate.
Organizational change is defined as the process by which organizations reach the desired goals. Organizational change occurs when an organization restructures resources to increase the ability to create value and improve effectiveness. A declining company seeks ways to regain customers; a growing organization designs new products. A well-planned organizational change creates value for stakeholders.1
In a business manner, the organizational change is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful.
Specific Types of Organizational Change
There are different overall types of organizational change, including planned versus unplanned, organization-wide versus change primarily to one part of the organization, incremental (slow, gradual change) versus transformational (radical, fundamental), etc. Knowing which types of change the business is doing helps all participants to retain scope and perspective during the many complexities and frequent frustrations during change. One form of organizational change and development will be discussed below.
Unplanned Versus Planned Change
Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise.
Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude. The planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.
Change Program Stakeholders
For an organizational change program to succeed, the business should depend upon a range of people. These people can be divided into five stakeholder groups.4
A stakeholder is any person with an interest in the process or the outcome of the proposed organizational change. There are five stakeholder group given, together with each description and examples of duty.
1. Change Recipients – They are the intended receivers of the products of change or change outcomes. Example: They are the end users of new software, such as a new accounting package, employees of two merged companies.
2. Decision Makers – They are the people that approve a change effort and decide its scope and direction. Examples: Steering Committee Members, Project Sponsor, or Chief Executive Officer.
3. Resource Holders – They are the people authorized to release financial and human resources requires by a change effort. Examples: Chief Financial Officer, Financial institution such as a bank, or a Line Manager.
4. Program Implementers – They are the people charged with the responsibility for bringing about the change. Examples: Program Manager, Project Manager, or Project Team Members.
5. External Parties – They are the people that are not the intended recipients but who are impacted by the change. Examples: Suppliers whose access to a business is restricted after a change in business hours, or a broader community impacted adversely by a new product that contaminates the local environment.
Once the business had identified the stakeholders, consider the key messages that a business will need to deliver to each group in order to gain their support. Once the business had settled on the key messages for each stakeholder group, start the communication.
Various Models for Change Management
There are numerous well-organized approaches (or models) from which to manage a change effort. There are Strategic Management Models, Action Research Model, Plan Do Check Act Model, Lewin’s Change Management Model, and Mckinsey 7S Model.
Lewin’s Change Management Model
Lewin’s Model for change which also called the Freezing Models has three phases; the Unfreeze, Transition, and the Refreezing.5 Unfreeze is where the problem should be thawed into pieces and needed to study each part. The transition steps in when the process is on-going to face the solution and transformation changes. And the last, the refreezing takes the place when the organization is already absorbing the new process. Kurt Lewin exampled this is the cube of ice; on how will you change the form of the cube of ice in to another type by not letting it evaporate.
Strategic Management Model
Many organizations undertake strategic planning. The implementation of strategic planning, when done in a systematic, cyclical and explicit approach, is strategic management. Strategic management is also one model for ensuring the success of a change effort. Simply put, strategic planning determines where an organization is going over the next year or more, how it's going to get there and how it'll know if it got there or not. The focus of a strategic plan is usually on the entire organization, while the focus of a business plan is usually on a particular product, service or program.
There are a variety of perspectives, models and approaches used in strategic planning. The way that a strategic plan is developed depends on the nature of the organization's leadership, culture of the organization, complexity of the organization's environment, size of the organization, expertise of planners, etc.6
The two kinds of models are very effective tools for the managerial change. If the models are going to apply on the stakeholders of the company, the proper assessment is needed to apply the models. The models for organizational change are presented as the basis on how to make the change in the management possible as the economic environment asks for change.
Conclusions
The organizational change is different in the other kinds of changes. Although it is necessary for the organization to adopt the prospect changes, it is advisable to first undergone through a series of investigation. Other approaches for a change also involve the technological aspect, like changing for the old technology and adopting a new kind of technological-based process. Other prefers to focus on the traditional way like on the factor of changing the customs of the employees or the rules inside the workplace.
http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2009/08/organizational-change.html
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Your Change IQ
How much do you know about the most effective methods of communicating organizational change? How much do you know about the effects of organizational development and change on the people affected by the change? Take this quiz to test your understanding. The answers are listed below.
1. The initial communication regarding the change should be:
A. To the point and as brief as possible.
B. Include as much detail as possible.
C. Down-played to reduce possible reactionary stress.
2. The change should be explained as:
A. Routine and something not to be feared.
B. Something that complaining won’t fix.
C. In the best interest of the organization.
3. Frame the message on change from the perspective of:
A. The executive level.
B. The managerial level.
C. The employee level.
4. Objections to change should be:
A. Brought out in the open.
B. Down-played because they will soon disappear.
C. Dismissed quickly.
5. Structure the message on change to:
A. Foster good feelings.
B. Build compliance.
C. Build understanding and commitment.
6. In follow-up meetings and communications describing change:
A. Divulge everything you know.
B. Explain only what they need to hear.
C. Admit what you don’t know.
7. Change is best explained in:
A. Small functional groups.
B. Large groups.
C. Using media like TV or email.
Answers:
1. A. Those who plan and deliver the initial message on change can overstate and over communicate in the statement- too much, too soon can overwhelm the receiver, which lead to confusion and misinformation. It can also be viewed as an attempt to deceive. The first statement announcing organizational change needs to be honest, straightforward, brief, and constructed in relatively simple language. Make the message to the point, with little hype, and include no empty promises.
2. C. The participants of change need to believe that the change is needed at this time and is in the best interests of the overall company. If this message isn’t clearly communicated, some people may believe that the change is intended to benefit a small minority or select group. Words that tend to communicate business necessity include: growth, competitive position, market share, market position, stability, strategic strength, and so forth.
3. B and C, and possibly A. Too often executives construct a message for other executives and the media, but then try to deliver it to individual contributors and their managers. Messages that describe change need to be constructed in language that benefits people at all levels. Both managers and individual contributors need to buy into the change, so the words and concepts need to be aimed specifically at them.
4. A. During the communication of change it is common to hear comments and/or objections. If there is a perceived attempt to conceal or dismiss the comments, it will be difficult at a later time to build understanding and commitment to the plan. Let comments come to the surface and deal with them in an honest manner.
5. C. Commitment to the plan and trust of its consequences can only happen after the people understand what is going to happen, why it is necessary, why now, how it will be accomplished, and who will be involved. Skipping the understand step or failing to answer questions will likely lead to dissent and distrust.
6. A and C. It is important for people hearing about change to believe that they have heard the entire story. Remember, perception is reality. If a critical mass of the people involved comes to believe that not everything has been divulged, then a covert or overt resistance can seriously thwart the plan. Likewise, if the answer to a question isn’t known, it must be admitted, but include how and when the answer will be communicated.
7. B is best, but A and C may be necessary. It has been my experience, both receiving and delivering messages on organizational change, that small groups are the best venue (fewer than a dozen people). The personal touch and attention affords a more conducive atmosphere to not only communicate the message, but also to defuse misconceptions or misinformation. Some organizations, however, due to logistics and size are constrained to communicate via large groups and/or media.
A. To the point and as brief as possible.
B. Include as much detail as possible.
C. Down-played to reduce possible reactionary stress.
2. The change should be explained as:
A. Routine and something not to be feared.
B. Something that complaining won’t fix.
C. In the best interest of the organization.
3. Frame the message on change from the perspective of:
A. The executive level.
B. The managerial level.
C. The employee level.
4. Objections to change should be:
A. Brought out in the open.
B. Down-played because they will soon disappear.
C. Dismissed quickly.
5. Structure the message on change to:
A. Foster good feelings.
B. Build compliance.
C. Build understanding and commitment.
6. In follow-up meetings and communications describing change:
A. Divulge everything you know.
B. Explain only what they need to hear.
C. Admit what you don’t know.
7. Change is best explained in:
A. Small functional groups.
B. Large groups.
C. Using media like TV or email.
Answers:
1. A. Those who plan and deliver the initial message on change can overstate and over communicate in the statement- too much, too soon can overwhelm the receiver, which lead to confusion and misinformation. It can also be viewed as an attempt to deceive. The first statement announcing organizational change needs to be honest, straightforward, brief, and constructed in relatively simple language. Make the message to the point, with little hype, and include no empty promises.
2. C. The participants of change need to believe that the change is needed at this time and is in the best interests of the overall company. If this message isn’t clearly communicated, some people may believe that the change is intended to benefit a small minority or select group. Words that tend to communicate business necessity include: growth, competitive position, market share, market position, stability, strategic strength, and so forth.
3. B and C, and possibly A. Too often executives construct a message for other executives and the media, but then try to deliver it to individual contributors and their managers. Messages that describe change need to be constructed in language that benefits people at all levels. Both managers and individual contributors need to buy into the change, so the words and concepts need to be aimed specifically at them.
4. A. During the communication of change it is common to hear comments and/or objections. If there is a perceived attempt to conceal or dismiss the comments, it will be difficult at a later time to build understanding and commitment to the plan. Let comments come to the surface and deal with them in an honest manner.
5. C. Commitment to the plan and trust of its consequences can only happen after the people understand what is going to happen, why it is necessary, why now, how it will be accomplished, and who will be involved. Skipping the understand step or failing to answer questions will likely lead to dissent and distrust.
6. A and C. It is important for people hearing about change to believe that they have heard the entire story. Remember, perception is reality. If a critical mass of the people involved comes to believe that not everything has been divulged, then a covert or overt resistance can seriously thwart the plan. Likewise, if the answer to a question isn’t known, it must be admitted, but include how and when the answer will be communicated.
7. B is best, but A and C may be necessary. It has been my experience, both receiving and delivering messages on organizational change, that small groups are the best venue (fewer than a dozen people). The personal touch and attention affords a more conducive atmosphere to not only communicate the message, but also to defuse misconceptions or misinformation. Some organizations, however, due to logistics and size are constrained to communicate via large groups and/or media.
The Effects of Organizational Development and Change
has been said that organizational development and change is inevitable in today’s competitive business climate. However, only selectively is change received with welcome arms by those most closely affected by it. So if organizational alteration is inescapable, how then can it be accomplished with the least collateral damage to those most closely involved? That is a question leaders and managers all too seldom seriously consider and plan for, but desperately need to understand and prepare for.
A number of years ago I found myself in a position in an organization that underwent frequent acquisitions and reorganizations. It seemed to those of us experiencing the changes that the frequency of change was weekly, but realistically it was annually. Therein lies an interesting fact: even to a psychologist who ought to know and understand change and its impact on people, when it happens close to home the frequency seems to be exaggerated. That is because change is often a traumatic event that can distort a person’s perception of reality. It’s also because change is typically viewed from an egocentric perspective: how will this new change impact my work situation and me?
Before we explore how organizational development and change impacts and is received by its participants, let’s be clear about the necessity of changing things in the first place. Although the status quo is comfortable and appears desirable from a personal perspective, it is in the vast majority of situations unrealistic to expect for any extended period of time. Speaking on this subject, Dr. George Odiorne once said, "That which does not change tends to stand still and soon becomes obsolete." In other words, the failure of an organization to effect strategic change could make the organization obsolete: that means out of business! Franz Kufka said the same thing another way, "In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."
Organizational change could be as straightforward as changing the day people receive their paychecks, or it could be a major restructuring involving merging, divesting, or downsizing. There are small changes and there are big changes and the planning and executing of each requires understanding, wisdom, preparation and careful execution.
Models have been created to explain both how and why people affected by change behave as they do. While most models describe the effects of organizational change, the one described here is different because I, as an organizational psychologist, developed it while working for a company that was experiencing frequent change. Perhaps the insights of seeing the effects of change first hand, gives this model a different perspective than other models of the same type.
Although the six stages of reaction described in my model don’t occur every time and with every person, it’s amazing how accurately this model can predict how people behave when faced with organizational change. Many times in my consulting practice clients have said how this model explained behavior better than any other system they have seen.
Stage 1: When significant organizational change is first realized it is common for those affected to feel shock. It’s not uncommon, for example, to physically see the effects of shock in the faces and body language of those persons. The reason for the shock is a personal fear of how the change might impact the status quo. It’s important for leaders and managers implementing change to be aware that initial fear of the event is common, because it is a natural reaction. A person demonstrating shock from a personal fear should not be considered a problem. Rather, it is a reaction that usually dissipates in most people.
Stage 2: Soon after the Shock Stage sets in its common for people to go into denial. You can usually hear this stage more than see it, as in Stage 1. You’ll recognize Stage 2 by hearing comments like, "They’ll never go through with this!" Or, "I can’t believe this is going to happen!" Or, "Watch, they’ll change their mind before this ever gets off the ground." Or, "If we ignore this long enough, it will just go away." The reason people experience denial comes from their disbelief or even anger over what they think is about to happen. Whether it’s real or not, disbelief can trigger feelings, and expressions, of denial.
Stage 3: After experiencing shock and then denial, a person can make a conscious or unconscious decision that the impending change will be bad. This rejection of the change usually comes as a result of the person trying to preserve the status quo and/or a zone of personal comfort. Rejection of change can result in either a "fight or flight" reaction from persons affected by it. This is why it’s not uncommon for turnover to increase after changes are announced. People can believe that the possibility of comfort elsewhere is more probable than the uncertainty of change where they are.
Stage 4: The people who choose to stay, but who have not accepted or embraced the change, typically shift to a mode of tolerance. They may appear to be on-board, but in actuality the tolerance is only masking either overt or covert resistance. It is easier to deal with overt resistance than covert resistance. Overt behaviors are in the open and can be seen and diffused, whereas covert behaviors are difficult to recognize, let alone deal with.
Stage 5: When people who have been subjected to organizational change become involved in aspects of the changes, there is a possibility of strategic understanding. Involvement could be membership on a team, being asked for an opinion or suggestion, or participating in some way in the evolving organization. Without deliberate involvement, many people will take a "wait and see" attitude. The key to move people to ultimate embracing is maximum involvement of as many people as possible.
Stage 6: After a person has been involved in the planning and/or mechanics of the changes, and then has developed a strategic understanding, feelings of commitment can grow. While a few people can indeed gain commitment without moving through the five preparatory stages, most people will progress through the stages until they gain a sense of commitment or buy-in. People in the commitment stage tend to give advice to others about how the impending changes could be in the organization’s best interest. They also volunteer for assignments and are quick to give positive suggestions.
Rumination Loop. Many people who don’t become involved in the change process revert back to Stage 1 through a Rumination Loop. While experiencing resistance to the change, people can cycle back to the Shock Stage through the loop. In fact, it’s not uncommon for people to cycle through the Rumination Loop several times and even over several years. The key to moving people out of the loop is involvement.
Key Action Steps: When planning either a minor or significant change within an organization, consider these action steps to achieve maximum commitment from as many people as possible.
1. Describe what is going to happen.
2. Explain why the change is necessary.
3. Ask for reactions; listen to comments and feelings.
4. Acknowledge comments or objections and check for misunderstandings.
5. Ask for suggestions.
6. Ask for support.
7. Involve as many people in any way possible.
8. Follow through and monitor reactions.
Summary: In today’s business climate organizational development and change is a regular occurrence. While it’s true that many years ago change happened as at a snail’s pace, today it seems to be on a daily menu. Leaders and managers clearly need to be sensitive to the impact of change on their human capital. But at the same time they must weigh the benefits of what the change might do for the overall organization against what the change might do to those affected by it.
A number of years ago I found myself in a position in an organization that underwent frequent acquisitions and reorganizations. It seemed to those of us experiencing the changes that the frequency of change was weekly, but realistically it was annually. Therein lies an interesting fact: even to a psychologist who ought to know and understand change and its impact on people, when it happens close to home the frequency seems to be exaggerated. That is because change is often a traumatic event that can distort a person’s perception of reality. It’s also because change is typically viewed from an egocentric perspective: how will this new change impact my work situation and me?
Before we explore how organizational development and change impacts and is received by its participants, let’s be clear about the necessity of changing things in the first place. Although the status quo is comfortable and appears desirable from a personal perspective, it is in the vast majority of situations unrealistic to expect for any extended period of time. Speaking on this subject, Dr. George Odiorne once said, "That which does not change tends to stand still and soon becomes obsolete." In other words, the failure of an organization to effect strategic change could make the organization obsolete: that means out of business! Franz Kufka said the same thing another way, "In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."
Organizational change could be as straightforward as changing the day people receive their paychecks, or it could be a major restructuring involving merging, divesting, or downsizing. There are small changes and there are big changes and the planning and executing of each requires understanding, wisdom, preparation and careful execution.
Organizational Development and Change Model
Models have been created to explain both how and why people affected by change behave as they do. While most models describe the effects of organizational change, the one described here is different because I, as an organizational psychologist, developed it while working for a company that was experiencing frequent change. Perhaps the insights of seeing the effects of change first hand, gives this model a different perspective than other models of the same type.
Although the six stages of reaction described in my model don’t occur every time and with every person, it’s amazing how accurately this model can predict how people behave when faced with organizational change. Many times in my consulting practice clients have said how this model explained behavior better than any other system they have seen.
Stage 1: When significant organizational change is first realized it is common for those affected to feel shock. It’s not uncommon, for example, to physically see the effects of shock in the faces and body language of those persons. The reason for the shock is a personal fear of how the change might impact the status quo. It’s important for leaders and managers implementing change to be aware that initial fear of the event is common, because it is a natural reaction. A person demonstrating shock from a personal fear should not be considered a problem. Rather, it is a reaction that usually dissipates in most people.
Stage 2: Soon after the Shock Stage sets in its common for people to go into denial. You can usually hear this stage more than see it, as in Stage 1. You’ll recognize Stage 2 by hearing comments like, "They’ll never go through with this!" Or, "I can’t believe this is going to happen!" Or, "Watch, they’ll change their mind before this ever gets off the ground." Or, "If we ignore this long enough, it will just go away." The reason people experience denial comes from their disbelief or even anger over what they think is about to happen. Whether it’s real or not, disbelief can trigger feelings, and expressions, of denial.
Stage 3: After experiencing shock and then denial, a person can make a conscious or unconscious decision that the impending change will be bad. This rejection of the change usually comes as a result of the person trying to preserve the status quo and/or a zone of personal comfort. Rejection of change can result in either a "fight or flight" reaction from persons affected by it. This is why it’s not uncommon for turnover to increase after changes are announced. People can believe that the possibility of comfort elsewhere is more probable than the uncertainty of change where they are.
Stage 4: The people who choose to stay, but who have not accepted or embraced the change, typically shift to a mode of tolerance. They may appear to be on-board, but in actuality the tolerance is only masking either overt or covert resistance. It is easier to deal with overt resistance than covert resistance. Overt behaviors are in the open and can be seen and diffused, whereas covert behaviors are difficult to recognize, let alone deal with.
Stage 5: When people who have been subjected to organizational change become involved in aspects of the changes, there is a possibility of strategic understanding. Involvement could be membership on a team, being asked for an opinion or suggestion, or participating in some way in the evolving organization. Without deliberate involvement, many people will take a "wait and see" attitude. The key to move people to ultimate embracing is maximum involvement of as many people as possible.
Stage 6: After a person has been involved in the planning and/or mechanics of the changes, and then has developed a strategic understanding, feelings of commitment can grow. While a few people can indeed gain commitment without moving through the five preparatory stages, most people will progress through the stages until they gain a sense of commitment or buy-in. People in the commitment stage tend to give advice to others about how the impending changes could be in the organization’s best interest. They also volunteer for assignments and are quick to give positive suggestions.
Rumination Loop. Many people who don’t become involved in the change process revert back to Stage 1 through a Rumination Loop. While experiencing resistance to the change, people can cycle back to the Shock Stage through the loop. In fact, it’s not uncommon for people to cycle through the Rumination Loop several times and even over several years. The key to moving people out of the loop is involvement.
Key Action Steps: When planning either a minor or significant change within an organization, consider these action steps to achieve maximum commitment from as many people as possible.
1. Describe what is going to happen.
2. Explain why the change is necessary.
3. Ask for reactions; listen to comments and feelings.
4. Acknowledge comments or objections and check for misunderstandings.
5. Ask for suggestions.
6. Ask for support.
7. Involve as many people in any way possible.
8. Follow through and monitor reactions.
Summary: In today’s business climate organizational development and change is a regular occurrence. While it’s true that many years ago change happened as at a snail’s pace, today it seems to be on a daily menu. Leaders and managers clearly need to be sensitive to the impact of change on their human capital. But at the same time they must weigh the benefits of what the change might do for the overall organization against what the change might do to those affected by it.
Leading Organizational Change Expert Reveals The 3 Greatest Barriers To Organizational Change
Many businesses make significant strategic changes in their organizations from time to time. Organizational Change Expert Gayla Hodges, reveals the three greatest barriers to organizational change and why they can completely undermine business strategy if handled incorrectly.
Glendale, AZ (PRWEB) June 24, 2007 -- The need for rapid organizational change is a fact of life in today's business environment. It is often necessary to make strategic changes in order to achieve key strategic business goals. The key to successful change is in the planning and the implementation. This is the reason Change Agents, Inc. is one of the few business consultants to stick around during the implementation of strategic change rather than leaving when the planning is done.
Gayla Hodges, President and Principal Consultant of Change Agents, Inc. recently revealed the three greatest barriers to organizational change. "No matter how necessary change seems to upper management," she says, "many barriers must be broken down if a planned strategic change is to be implemented successfully." The three barriers she identified are often overlooked by businesses contemplating change. They are:
- Inadequate Culture-Shift Planning. All organizational change affects people. It is easy to forget that, even at work, people make many decisions on the basis of feelings and intuition. When changes in corporate culture and the feelings of employees are overlooked, the result is often deep resentment because some unrecognized taboo or tradition has not been duly respected.
- Lack of Employee Involvement. People have an inherent fear of change. When asked to assume new responsibilities or focus on different aspects of their knowledge or skill, they also fear failure. Involving employees as soon as possible in the change effort, letting them create as much of the change as is possible and practical is key to a successful change effort. Employees need an opportunity to "try the change on for size" to obtain buy-in.
- Flawed Communication Strategies. Ideal communication strategies attend to the message, the method of delivery, the timing, and the importance of information shared with various parts of the organization. Solid communication strategies do not overwhelm people with too much information, or leave them guessing about how they will be affected by the change. Information will be provided consistently by supervisors, and people will be allowed time to think about it and talk about it.
There are other barriers, to be sure, but the three outlined above are extremely common and highly likely to create havoc in the organization. "By planning and dealing with these three areas thoroughly, carefully, and sensitively," says Hodges, "people will be most likely to get on board and help implement the change and adapt to organizational change far more readily and supportively.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Stakeholder Analysis
What is a Stakeholder?
Stakeholders are people with a vested interest in the success of the project, whose support, or cooperation is necessary for the project to succeed. Stakeholder buy-in will make the difference in time to complete the project. In some cases, the biggest barrier to project success has been stakeholders.
In project management stakeholders are people, groups, or institutions with interests in a project or program. Stakeholders can be customers, the local community, managerial staff, non-managerial staff, a government entity, and both private and public owners (shareholders). It can be virtually anyone as long as that person or group has something to do with the project.
Lets take a general software company, probable stakeholders would be those responsible for design and development
Stakeholders' Interests, Impact, Priority
Stakeholders can be listed in a table or spreadsheet with their key interests, potential level of project impact, and priority in relation to other stakeholders. Be careful to outline multiple interests, particularly those that are hidden in relation to project goals and objectives.
he key is to keep in mind that identifying interests is done with stakeholders' perspective in mind, not your own. This is difficult as interests are usually hidden and may contradict openly stated aims. Each interest should be related to the appropriate project phase; that is, interests change as the project moves from beginning to ending phases. With some stakeholders it may be crucial to extract interests by formally asking them questions such as:
- What are your project expectations?
- How do you benefit from successful project completion?
- Which stakeholders do you believe are in conflict with the project interests?
Once major interests are identified, it is also useful to outline how the project will be impacted if these are or are not met. In most cases, a simple annotation of positive (+), negative (-), or unknown (?) can be used as well as high (H), medium (M), low (L), or uncertain (?).
You should now have a more precise list your project's stakeholders. At this point their importance, interests, and impact on the project should be clearly identified and analyzed. In part two, I will explore the role of the stakeholder analysis in project management
Examples of Stakeholder Analysis
Example of Stakeholder Analysis: Part II
In article two of her three-part series, Natasha Baker explains the role of the stakeholder analysis in project management. In part one she defined the project stakeholder and in part three she gives real-life examples of stakeholder analysis.
What is Stakeholder Analysis?
Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information (data) to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and or implementing a policy, program, or project.
Why Is this Analysis Useful?
Project managers can use a stakeholder analysis to identity the key stakeholderand to assess their knowledge, interests, positions, alliances, and importance related to the project. This allows project managers to interact more effectively with key stakeholders and to increase support for a given policy, program, or project. When this analysis is conducted before a project is implemented, project managers can detect and act to prevent potential misunderstandings about or opposition to the project. When a stakeholder analysis and other key tools are used to guide the implementation, project is more likely to succeed.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Latest Articles
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=45254996&gid=1896827&srchCat=RCNT&articleURL=http://driveerp.com/Contractors_Network_How_to_Drive_your_ERP_Systems_to_Success%255B1%255D.pdf&urlhash=205t
http://www.slideshare.net/anandsubramaniam/transition-transformation-change
AXELL is a new concept of viewing the human potential in a structured format. It deals with 7 stages for growth driven by 7 Sparks, 14 blocks to manage and 49 components to rely on. The shift is recorded and managed through 49 colors.
I got requests from the readers to split the large version of AXELL (AXELL2009) into parts for easy reading. As of now, it has three parts. However, Part 3 has to be further divided into part 4 and part 5.
May I request all the readers to take enough time in studying and understanding individual slide as each slide carries background materials to support (being seperately published as a Book).
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part1
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part2-1296966
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part3
I got requests from the readers to split the large version of AXELL (AXELL2009) into parts for easy reading. As of now, it has three parts. However, Part 3 has to be further divided into part 4 and part 5.
May I request all the readers to take enough time in studying and understanding individual slide as each slide carries background materials to support (being seperately published as a Book).
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part1
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part2-1296966
http://www.slideshare.net/chinsar/axell2009-part3
Friday, June 5, 2009
Organizational Change
How people can impact change and how to deal with them.
Change is often cited as the only constant. We live with change in all aspects of our lives. Some change is under our control, often it is not. In the work environment change can be a very upsetting and unsettling experience. The cost of change needs to be considered in human terms... the easiest way to compromise significant investment is to forget the human element.
In this Knol, I address some of the issues that should be considered by management contemplating significant organisational change, especially where new technology is involved.
It is based on a document that I prepared fro an Insurance client some years ago. The points raised are in no way intended purely for an Insurance audience. I hope that you find this useful.
Communication
Communication of intentions, setting expectations and getting buy-in are all important aspects of handling change and reducing resistance to change.
Communication does not mean ‘tell everybody everything’. It means ‘tell people as much as they need to know to an appropriate level, don’t hide what will affect their immediate future and allow them to feed back comments in a blame-free environment’.
Many companies have fallen foul of the belief that ‘open management’ means that all staff have to be told everything at all levels up to strategic information. Cursory consideration of the “What’s in it for me?” aspects will show that some of the medium to long term plans can be interpreted inappropriately by lower level staff. This can, for example, cause fear of mass redundancies where there is little or no foundation. Without interpretation strategic statements can often be misunderstood.
Another problem, especially with long term strategic statements is that they change. The constant re-statement of strategy can give the impression of indecision and lack of confidence. This can be extremely demotivating for staff and lead to severe damage to the credibility of the senior management team.
Senior management will be aware and indeed should be mindful of strategic direction at all times. The higher up an organization the manager is, then the further ahead he should be looking and the more aware of external factors.
Middle to low level management must be aware of operational considerations and targets in detail and also have some high level understanding of strategic and external matters.
Administrative and supervisory staff need to understand procedural detail, have an awareness of operational considerations and a very high level insight into strategic matters (often just a vision statement).
The key is that the communication should be appropriate to the individual.
All of those to be affected by change should feel involved in the decision-making process as much as possible. This co-ownership or ‘buy-in’ is essential in the pursuit of acceptance of change and although it could be regarded by some as an overhead because of the additional time required, it is worthwhile in the medium to long term.
The establishment of focus groups to discuss the implications of change both for those immediately affected and their ‘customers’ is a recommended route to this buy-in. Where brainstorming or discussion requires it, an independent facilitator is recommended. Mike Forte has facilitated at these types of discussions.
As change must be regarded as a constant, these groups can usefully discuss options for improvements ongoing. The involvement of peers will encourage trust in the workforce. Without trust, it will be difficult to mobilize their co-operation for change.
The Communication Plan should be clear, specific and comprehensible and address ‘the Four Ps’: Purpose, Process, Progress and Problems. Remembering that communication should be appropriate to the audience, these four aspects can be elaborated as follows:
Ÿ Purpose Why is the Company undertaking this change? To compete in an increasingly crowded marketplace? To enhance service to the customer? To improve the working environment? To ensure the Company’s survival? This must be communicated in terms that are accessible and meaningful to the different constituency audiences.
Ÿ Process Without going into a tedious and confusing level of detail - How are the changes going to be implemented? A high level project plan should be shared with all. It is important to share the outline of the approach and give everybody a framework for ensuing events.
Ÿ Progress Progress in areas where the changes are being implemented should be fed back through to the organisation. Designs and implementation schedules can be shared. Keeping everybody informed of progress is vital for the maintenance of momentum.
Ÿ Problems Relentless upbeat and positive messages being fed back from an area undergoing change do not ring true. This only feeds the cynics and engenders an air of insecurity - ‘What are they trying to hide?’.
The admission of hiccups and errors creates a bond of trust between speaker and listener - the admission of fallibility purchases great credibility. Admit mistakes, show that lessons have been learned and move on. If mistakes are admitted openly, then claims of success will be more believable.
Categorization of Staff in relation to Change
Amongst the staff affected there are likely to be advocates and supporters of change, those who are open to the idea of change and those who are not willing to accept change.
As is shown in the figure above, the distribution of staff within the three categories is unlikely to be even. The main body of staff will be those who are open to the ideas proposed but will be uncertain about some aspects, especially those specifically relating to themselves. Two smaller groups will make up the remainder.
The advocates for change are the people who are already on board. They have accepted and are keen to support change, but may need their expectations to be guided and have their natural enthusiasm channelled into activities aimed at bringing the remainder of their colleagues with them.
The third group consists of those who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to be able to accept change. An inordinate amount of effort and resource can be expended on trying to convert them but, in the long run, there will have to be an acceptance of failure to persuade a small number. These people will have to be counselled and found alternative positions, either within the organisation or elsewhere.
The handling of this third group is especially important because any insensitive actions will negatively impact those who are accepting change. Remember that after ‘What’s in it for me?’ the next question tends to be ‘... oh and what about my colleagues?’.
Each of the three groups need to be handled differently. Even though the information being passed to them will be essentially the same, their different interpretations will make a substantial difference to the message communicated.
Reaction to Change
Reaction to change can vary considerably between individuals. The full spectrum is depicted in the diagram below.
In handling the resistance to change, the key challenges to consider are:
Ÿ Skills Fear that the skills acquired over the years may be rendered completely useless will be lurking in the minds of all of the staff from the moment that change is announced. In planning for change, the manager must include allowance for training and acquisition of new skills and knowledge transfer.
This is especially true if the working processes and environment are going to be significantly modified or more complex because of the change.
If the appropriate cross-training and skills transfer can be seen to have been considered and planned on an individual basis then this will go a long way to quashing these fears.
Ÿ Comfort As previously discussed, the main reason for discomfort is the lack of knowledge about what is to be expected from the change and also the suspicion that it might not be better than today’s status quo (however bad that might be). This can be countered through appropriate communication and information.
The belief must be fostered that the new world has advantages on a personal level over the present world. Disadvantages and difficulties with the current situation can be contrasted with the perceived benefits of the changed environment. The answer to the “What’s in it for me?” question must be given to the staff.
Ÿ Appraisal The evaluation of staff is based on certain well-defined criteria. Are these criteria relevant in the new world? If these changed (or now irrelevant) criteria have been perceived as the yardstick for performance measurement and promotion then new and equally valid criteria must be established.
Again, the involvement of staff in the establishment of these criteria will help to calm concerns. As this will also be at the centre of peer and self-assessment, it is vital that this aspect of change be handled with the utmost sensitivity.
Ÿ Pride Personal pride is another key element in the reaction to change. Everybody likes to think that they are part of a well-running operation. The implication in any change initiative is that there is some deal of dissatisfaction with the ‘way things are’.
This apparent attack on personal pride can be neutralised if the staff can be encouraged to take ownership of the new process and feel the attendant pride in the association with something that is perceived as strategically beneficial to the company.
There is nothing so flattering as being regarded as an expert in your field so the involvement of staff and the soliciting of their opinions will go a long way to gaining their ‘buy-in’.
Of course, if you are seeking their expert opinion, you must be seen to consider it carefully and adopt valid points or have very good reasons for not adopting them. The inclusion of ideas from all levels into a change programme will enormously enhance its credibility and acceptance.
Ÿ Power This is a very difficult category to quantify and, potentially, the most difficult to handle sensitively. The problem is that power can take many forms. Power is in the eye of the beholder (or the holder?).
Explicit power will be manifested in the form of authority and responsibility. These are fairly easy to identify, but the third category, influence, is not always so obvious. Influence-brokers in any organisation are not necessarily the people in positions of authority. Careful consideration is required to identify these people (who may be outside the area under scrutiny) and their drivers must be identified and built into any equation for change management.
Even if power is only perceived, it is advisable to seek the counsel of all who may have reasonable input. This will allow changes to be implemented with the buy-in of the broadest possible spectrum of voices. The action of seeking these people’s opinions will act to minimise dissent afterwards.
Handling Resistance
It is widely believed and frequently seen that those who are converted to change are its most fervent advocates. This should be borne in mind when handling those resisting change. The key methods for dealing with resistance to change are summarised in the figure below:
Approach
Situation
Advantages
Drawbacks
Education & Communication
Where there is a lack of information or inaccurate information and analysis
Once persuaded, people will often help with the change
Can be very time-consuming if lots of people are involved
Participation & Involvement
Where the initiators do not have all the information that they need to design the change and where others have considerable power to resist
People who participate will be committed to the change and any relevant information they have can be integrated into the plan
Can be very time-consuming if participants design an inappropriate change
Facilitation & Support
Where people are resisting because of adjustment problems
No other approach works as well with adjustment problems
Can be time-consuming, expensive and still fail
Negotiation & Agreement
Where someone or some group will clearly lose out in a change and has considerable power
Sometimes it is a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance
Can be too expensive in many cases if it alerts others to negotiate for compliance
Manipulation & Co-optation
Where other tactics will not work or are too expensive
It can be a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to resistance problems
Can lead to future problems if people feel manipulated
Explicit & Implicit Coercion
Where speed is essential and the change initiators possess enough power
It is speedy and can overcome any kind of resistance
Can be risky if it leaves people resentful with the manipulators
Fig 5
Ÿ Education and Communication One of the most common and effective ways of dealing with resistance to change is to educate people about it beforehand. Communication of ideas helps people to see the need and logic for change.
An education and communication program can be ideal when resistance is based on inadequate or inaccurate information and analysis, especially if the initiators need the resistors’ help in implementing the change. There is a considerable amount of time and effort required for this approach.
Ÿ Participation and Involvement If the initiators involve the potential resistors in some aspects of the design and implementation of the change, they can often forestall resistance.
When change initiators believe they do not have all the information they need to design and implement a change, or when they need the wholehearted commitment of others to do so, involving others makes very good sense. Considerable research has shown that, in general, participation leads to commitment, not merely compliance. This approach can lead to a poor solution if not carefully managed and can simply take too long.
Ÿ Facilitation and Support Facilitation and support are most helpful when fear and anxiety lie at the heart of resistance. Managers often overlook or ignore this kind of resistance as well as the effectiveness of facilitation as a means of dealing with it.
If time, money and patience are not available, then using supportive methods is impractical.
Ÿ Negotiation and Agreement Incentives can be offered to active or potential resistors. Negotiation is particularly appropriate when it is clear that someone is going to lose out as a result of a change and yet has significant power to resist.
Negotiated agreements can be a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance, though they may become expensive. Once a manager has displayed a willingness to negotiate it can open the floodgates for pre-conditions.
Ÿ Manipulation and Co-optation Sometimes covert methods are employed. This can involve the selective use of information and the conscious structuring of events. One of the means of manipulation is co-optation. This usually involves giving a resistor a desirable role in the design or implementation of the change. This is different to participation in that the contribution of the resistor is not really wanted, merely their endorsement.
The key disadvantage is that if the resistor is made to feel manipulated, then they may well become even more resistant to the change.
Ÿ Explicit and Implicit Co-ercion Resistance can often be reacted to by co-ercion. Managers can force people to accept a change by explicitly of implicitly threatening them (with loss of jobs, promotion prospects etc..) or actually firing or transferring them. This is a very risky process as people resent co-ercion aimed at themselves or their colleagues and it may damage trust beyond repair.
The important thing to remember here is that no single approach will be effective in all situations so a variety can be employed as appropriate as part of a clearly considered strategy.
Overcoming Resistance - A Summary
· Consider how the change may interfere with or have repercussions for work in other areas.
· Get the support of key opinion leaders whose attitudes could make or break the initiative.
· Identify people likely to resist change and the reasons for their resistance.
· Make sure that potential resistors understand the benefits of the change.
· Let resistors know how their opposition would affect the people expected to benefit from the change.
· Don’t disguise disappointment - let the resistors feel uncomfortable about it.
· Seek areas of agreement with resistors.
· Remain open to any unforeseen drawbacks in the change.
· Invite resistors to contribute to the change by suggesting modifications
· Show genuine willingness to make justifiable modifications in line with their suggestions.
Career Anchors
“We don’t get paid for overtime do we?”
“Nope!”
“Aah, so this must be a career!”
Within the work sphere, there are a number of patterns that have been identified as ‘Career Anchors’. The idea is that people put down ‘anchors’ to their careers and maintain these as constraints for ongoing career-related decisions. The five main patterns are as follows:
Ÿ Technical / Functional Competence This focuses on the actual content of the person’s work. Someone experienced in Claims Handling might find a job outside of this area challenging but inconsistent with his basic occupational self concept.
Ÿ Managerial Competence This anchor emphasises the importance to the individual of holding and exercising managerial responsibility and authority.
Ÿ Security For some people, a key factor in career decisions is stability. They prefer job or organisational stability to opportunities or challenges.
Ÿ Autonomy The overriding factor for some people in career decisions is to maintain their independence and freedom.
Ÿ Creativity The last group of people are driven by an overarching desire to create something that is entirely of their own making, e.g. New products or projects.
This concept of the ‘Career Anchor’ is useful for its selection and motivational implications. For example it can help to explain why dramatic changes are so difficult for people to make. It also helps to explain why different people may have different reactions to company career structures and organisational changes.
Career Stages
Different stages can be identified in everyone’s working life. These will be affected not only by work-related issues but also major lifestyle changes such as marriage, parenthood and bereavement. As these external events occur they will inevitably impact the work / career aspects of a person’s life. With such events, significant and fundamental shifts in priorities and motivation will occur. The main ‘Career Stages’ are summarized in the table below.
Fig 7
Psychological Contracts
The psychological contract is the most difficult contract to honour, the easiest to break and almost impossible to verbalise.
In every relationship, be it with an employer, a partner or parent, each party has an ‘understanding’ of what is expected from them and also what they can expect. The details of these expectations - the psychological contract - are rarely, if ever, verbalised. Any non-compliance with these unwritten terms and conditions can lead to immense bitterness, conflict and disharmony.
The principal vulnerability of a psychological contract lies in its secrecy. If both parties to a contract are unaware of the other’s expectations then they have not reached an agreement and there can be little hope for the contract’s survival.
Often, when Personnel Department’s become Human Resources oriented, they focus on making these psychological contracts more explicit - or in fact act as a Broker for their negotiation. Many appraisal systems try to verbalise the two sides of the contract so that performance can be measured against these expectations.
A problem still remains. When asked ‘What do you feel is expected from you by the organisation?’ or ‘What do you feel the organisation owes you for your services?’ it is very difficult to give an honest and open answer. Most people will ask themselves ‘What do they want me to say?’.
A less formal (and less specific) way of understanding a group’s attitude towards their psychological contracts is to elicit anonymous answers to the questions:
· What do you give to the organisation?
(e.g. time, duties and responsibilities, goals and targets)
· What do you expect to get from the organisation?
(e.g. money, security, opportunity, training, companionship)
· What is needed to make this ‘contract’ more balanced?
These questions could, alternatively, be discussed in groups - again, the use of an independent facilitator will help to encourage openness in the discussion. It is also recommended that this exercise be carried out for management in the area - we all have psychological contracts that need to be examined!
These groups can be used to elicit suggestions for change and potential barriers to change. Any recording of these interchanges should ensure anonymity. The resulting data can then be analysed, interpreted and fed back into the change process to make it more relevant and robust.
Key Elements for Successful Change
For any organisational change to be successful these key elements must be in place:
Ÿ Vision A picture of what is desired in terms of people, products / services, processes, procedures, culture and customers. Everyone affected must be able to visualise and see what is being aimed for, so that all significant decisions and actions will bring the organisation a little closer to that vision. Without this vision the change process will be confused and unfocused.
Ÿ Skills Without the necessary skills, individuals will become anxious and be unable to perform at the desired level. The skills profile will shift from a high requirement for business skills and knowledge of the existing support systems to a much higher emphasis on Communicative skills as shown in the figure below.
Ÿ Incentives Without incentives, people are slow or unwilling to change - ‘What’s in it for me?’. This ties in with executive accountability and attendant credibility. Any fears that arise should be dealt with immediately.
Ÿ Resources Can include money, people, information, facilities and equipment. Management resource must be committed to the change, as must the best possible resource from the business.
Ÿ Action Plan An action plan for change must be drawn up with activities, responsibilities and timescales for achieving the change. Delivery is always the hard part!
The implications, should any of these elements be missing can be seen in the diagram below:
Conclusion
The focus of all of the above has been on presenting views of the reaction of people to change and some of the reasons behind this. Additionally, ways of handling these different reactions have been presented at a high level.
As can be seen, this is a multi-faceted ‘challenge’ that needs very sensitive consideration. The specific approach adopted in any given organisation will depend very much on the views of the management team which will have to consider cost and effort versus perceived benefit.
http://knol.google.com/k/mike-forte/organisational-organizational-change/3dnybea134wwz/3#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)