ZeePedia buy college essays online


Change Management

<<< Previous CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION: OD MODELS:The Transactional Factors Next >>>
 
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
Lesson # 43
CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION: OD MODELS
Earlier we discussed three implementation approaches in our previous which were:
1. Logical Incrementalism
2. Transformational or Revolutionary Change
3. Punctuated Equilibrium Model
And now in this lesson at first we will be discussing Organization Development (OD) model
and subsequently we will study the Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Change.
Organization Development Model
In studying the change management, one might think of differentiating the two disciplines: OD
and Change Management (CM). Apparently it seems both are relatively parallel to each other.
It means that most of the things which we have covered in change management course are also
be the subject matter of organizational development. So, then the question is: Is OD and CM
are the same disciplines or there exist any kind of difference between them?
To answering this question, we need to have an in-depth knowledge about the evolution of
both OD and CM disciplines. However in broader terms, we can say that OD deals with the
internal dynamics of the organization which sometimes identified as `Orgonomics.' From the
post World War - II era until early 1980s, the OD discipline proved itself to be very successful
amongst organizations' strategists, consultants and management practitioners. But it has lost its
vigor, enormity and strengths from early 80s because of emerging changes and challenges
external to organizations such as oil crisis and regional wars. In the wake of this Change
Management has emerged as more comprehensive and profound discipline for dealing with
intricacies of both internal and external environment.
Defining Organization Development
OD is a planned and sustained effort to apply behavioral science for system improvement,
using reflexive and self analytic methods.
(Schmuck and Miles, 1971)
OD is a process of planned change, change of an organization culture from one which
avoids an examination of social processes ­ especially decision making, planning, and
communication - to one which institutionalizes and legitimizes this examination.
(Burke and Herrnstein, 1972)
In both the definitions, we have seen that the change restoration in an organization is a
deliberate or planned process which requires appropriate scientific techniques and careful
interplay among different variables such as strategy, structure, technology, and leadership for
achieving sustainability, productivity, and innovation.
Historical Context of Organization Development
Here we need to discuss the historical context of change management thought itself which can
help us in rediscovering and understanding the relevance of ideas and practices of the given
discipline. This may give us insights, ideas, and the conceptual underpinnings of management
132
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
theory and practice as well. In principles of management course we have already studied
different theories and approaches to management which Koontz termed as, a `management
theory jungle'. This give us an idea to review the literature for change management as well,
which could be worth studying for who are further interested in specializations in management
disciplines. The review reveals significantly that change management theories ad practices are
also bound and conditioned by time and space. For instance in today's context change
management experts are now stressing on the revised version of OD which is based on
empowerment paradigm, delegation, decentralization and participative decision making. The
authority, line and communication system structure should be multi-dimensional, multi-
directional and hybrid one which could have the ability to achieve the modern standards such
as consultancy, information sharing, knowledge worker and knowledge management paradigm
that have been revealed in modern researches. Because, it is now considered that effective
management has to start with subordinates or at operational level. However, the same OD
model, dates back to theorizing in early twentieth century, had been based on the assumptions
that were exactly opposite to what we have today. Even Frederick W. Taylor, who is widely
acknowledged as `the father of scientific management', has been reviewed as the one who
made the organization a rigid or sometimes a hegemonic body. In brief, Taylor's answer to the
problem of productivity - the split in thinking between pay and profits - was a derivative of
from the application of scientific methods, instead of custom and rule of thumb, carried only
managerial solutions at that time, and which is increasingly looked at critically now a days.
Despite the inexactness and early hegemonic theorizing, the OD model had achieved the
successful status in all over the world in post world war II era till the end of 1970s. But what
happened after that? Organization strategists and theorists had observed that OD has certain
limitations and hence unable to address certain aspects of the organizations. They also
observed that it worked effectively for organizations in growth phase of business cycles and
badly stagnated at late maturity stage of business cycles. At this point, OD as a discipline
evolved to a new discipline `Change Management' which has the ability to incorporate both
internal and external environments effectively. And this evolution had changed the earlier
established assumptions to the new ones such as empowerment, delegation, decentralization
and participative decision making.
Second, this evolution also caused a revolutionary shift from underlying scientific approach to
cultural approach in management. As Taylor believed that there is always one best way
available to deal any particular thing and the operationalists also generally assumed that the
fundamentals of management are universal in nature and application. Similarly, the scientific
approach is also the working for universalization of any phenomenon across time and space.
On the other hand, acceptance of such managerial principles like decentralization, delegation
and participative will be nullifying the assumption that management is something thing which
is universal. The concepts such as multiple-rationality, equi-finality and multiculturalism are
also there to show the relevance and validity of the claim that management principles are
culturally based. Therefore there could be multiple and many ways for doing something. This
lead to the formation of management school which believes that there are distinct cultural ways
of management in different organizations across various cultural entities.
Attributes of Organization Development model
From an OD framework, we have number of models highlighting multiple levels of
complexities and depths, including Kurt Lewin model, and in general we have found some
common attributes that exist almost in every recognized model. These are:
1. assumptions of planned change
133
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
2. a frame work to diagnose the problems
3. a cause and effect linkage for visualizing the domain of problems
4. supremacy of the process for rectification or feedback loop
5. predictability or causality
Burke Litwin Model of Organizational Change
Burke Litwin model is based on organizational performance and change by exploring the
interplay between organizational functioning and organizational change. Change is depicted in
terms of both process and content, with particular emphasis on transformational as compared
with transactional factors. Transformational change occurs as a response to the external
environment and directly affects organizational mission and strategy, the organization's
leadership, aid culture, In turn; the transactional factors are affected by structure, systems,
management practices, and climate. These transformational and transactional factors together
affect motivation, which, in turn, affects performance. It can be applied to both individual and
organisational performance. The model is given as under:
Figure 1
A Model of Organizational Performance and Change;
The Transformational Factors
Transformational and Transactional Dynamics
The model shows how to create first-order change and second-order change (this author calls
as transactional change and transformational change). The concept of transformational change
in organizations is suggested in the writings of such people as Bass (1985), Burke (1986),
Burns (1978), McClelland (1975), and Tichy and Devanna (1986). The above figure 1 contains
a display of the transformational variables ­ in the upper half of the model. By
transformational we mean areas in which alteration is likely caused by interaction with
134
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
environmental forces (from both within and without) and will require entirely new behavior
sets from organizational members.
It is true, of course, that members can influence their organization's environment so that certain
influence of the changes are minimized (e.g., lobbying activities, forming or being involved in
trade associations and coalitions). The feedback loop, designed by authors, in the model is
meant to reflect this kind of influence. Our point here is that for the most part organization
change is initiated by forces from the organization's external environment, for examples
changes in the competitive environment, government regulations and technological
breakthroughs, and is quite decisive in influencing organizational change.
Figure 2 contains the transactional variables - the lower half of the model. By transactional the
authors mean that the primary way of alteration is via relatively short-term reciprocity among
people and groups. In other words, "You do this for me and I'll do that for you."
Figure 2
A Model of Organizational Performance and Change;
The Transactional Factors
Organizational Climate and Organizational CultureThis model also distinguishes between
organisational climate and organisational culture. Organisational climate is defined as people's
perception and attitude that strongly affected by organizational conditions (e.g., systems,
structure, manager behaviour, etc). The resultant psychological state could be good or bad,
friendly or unfriendly, hard-working or easy going. These perceptions are relatively easier to
change because they are built on employees reaction to current organisational and managerial
practices
135
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
The concept of culture, drawn from anthropology by authors, is meant to describe the relatively
enduring set of values and norms that underlie a social system. These underlying values and
norms may not be entirely available to one's consciousness. They are thought to describe a
"meaning system" that allows members of that social system to attribute meanings and values
to the variety of external and internal events that are experienced. Changing culture is much
more difficult than changing climate.
When we describe culture as the underlying values and meaning systems of an organization,
we describe those forces that create the dimensions of climate, those underlying ideas and
images around which specific attitudes and behaviors cluster. Thus, when we attempt to alter
the organizational culture, we change the climate framework (i.e. the gauge by which
organizational members perceive their work climate). While, the day-to-day climate will be a
result of transactions around such issues as:
1.
Sense of direction: effect of mission's clarity or lack thereof.
2.
Role and responsibility: effect of structure reinforced by manager practice.
3.
Standards and commitment: effect of manager practice, reinforced by culture.
4.
Fairness of rewards: effect of systems, reinforced by manager practice.
5.
Focus on customer versus internal pressures, standards of excellence: effect of culture,
reinforced by other variables.
The Model
The total of 12 boxes represents the choice of organizational variables by the authors consider
to be the most important ones. In addition, they also have attempted to account for key
variables at a total system level, with such variables as mission, strategy, and culture, at a
group or local work unit level (e.g., climate) and at an individual level (e.g., motivation,
individual needs and values, and job-person match).
A change in one (or more) "box (es)" will eventually have an impact on the others. Moreover,
if we could diagram the model such that the arrows would be more circular - the hologram idea
- reality could be represented more accurately. Yet this is a causal model. For example, though
culture and systems affect one another, we believe culture has a stronger influence on systems
than vice versa. Kerr and Slocum {1987), for example, have provided data that suggest a
strong linkage between corporate culture and the organization's reward system. They show
how a company's reward system is a manifestation of its culture. They also point out that the
organization's reward system can be used to help change the company's culture. Their data lend
support to the linkage notion. We would simply take their evidence and suggest a step further
by arguing that corporate culture (beliefs and values) determine the type of reward system an
organization has. Yet we would strongly agree that to change culture the reward system should
be used (i.e., to reward the behaviors that would reflect the new values - we might wish to
incorporate).
For major organizational change to occur, the top transformational boxes represent the primary
and significant levers for that change. Examples from our experience include the followings:
(a) An acquisition where the acquired organization's culture, leadership, and business
strategy were dramatically different from the acquiring organization, even though both
organizations were in the same industry, requiring yet a new merged organization to
come about,
136
img
Change Management ­MGMT625
VU
(b) A federal agency where the mission had been modified, the structure and leadership
changed significantly, yet the culture remained that of the 1960s.
(c) A high-tech firm where leadership had recently changed and was perceived
negatively, the strategy was unclear and internal politics had moved from minimal
(before) to predominant (after). The hue and cry in this latter high-tech organization
was something like, "we have no direction from our leaders and no culture to guide our
behavior in the meantime." These examples represent transformational changes (i.e. the
need for some fundamental shifts).
To summarize, the model shown in the above two figures attempts to portray the primary
variables that need to be considered in any attempt to predict and explain the total behavioural
output of an organization - the most important interactions between these variables, and how
they affect change. Other related premises are:
1. Interventions directed toward structure, management practices, and systems (policies and
procedures) result in first-order change;
2. Interventions directed toward mission and strategy, leadership and organisational culture
result in second-order change.
The model also makes a distinction between the transaction and transformational leadership
style. Transformational leaders ­ are the one who inspires followers to transcend their self-
interest for the good of the organization and who are capable of having a profound and extra-
ordinary effect on their followers. While transactional leaders guide their followers in the
direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements.
137
Table of Contents:
  1. COURSE ORIENTATION:Course objectives, Reading material, Scope of the subject
  2. BENEFITS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT:Traditional management domain
  3. KURT LEWIN MODEL: ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Change Movement, Refreeze
  4. IMPLICATIONS OF KURT LEWIN MODEL:Sequence of event also matters, A Critical Look
  5. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS:Strategic change, Logical incrementalism
  6. TRANSACTIONAL VS. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP:Micro-changes, Organisation Development
  7. THEORIES OF CHANGE IN ORGANISATIONS
  8. LIFE CYCLE THEORY:Unit of Change, Mode of change, Organisation death
  9. TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CHANGE:Unit of change, Mode of Change, Limitations
  10. DIALECTICAL THEORIES OF CHANGE:Unit of Change, Strategic planning
  11. A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGY AND PLANNING:
  12. LIMITATION OF DIALECTICS; DA AND DI:Overview of application of dialectics
  13. THEORIES OF CHANGE IN ORGANISATIONS
  14. APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:Managerial focus
  15. FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES:Criticism
  16. GREINER’S MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL– EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION
  17. GROWTH RATE OF THE INDUSTRY:CREATIVITY, DIRECTION, DELEGATION
  18. COORDINATION:COLLABORATION, The Crisis
  19. ORGANISATION ECOLOGY:Structural Inertia, Internal Structural Arrangements, External Factors
  20. CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIES:Extent of Environmental Selection, Determinants of Vital Rates,
  21. FOOTNOTES TO ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE:Stable Processes of Change, Rule Following, Conflict
  22. SOME COMPLEXITIES OF CHANGE:Superstitious Learning, Solution Driven Problems
  23. ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION:The Entrepreneurial problem, The Administrative Problem
  24. PROSPECTORS:Analyzer, Reactors, Adaptation and Strategic Management
  25. SKELETAL MODEL OF ADAPTATION:Determinants of Adaptive ability, The Process of Adaptation
  26. STRATEGIC CHANGE:Nature of Change, The Importance of Context, Force field Analysis
  27. Management Styles and Roles:Change Agent Roles, Levers for managing strategic Change
  28. SYMBOLIC PROCESSES:Political Processes, COMMUNICATING CHANGE, Change Tactics
  29. STRATEGIC CHANGE:Pettigrew & Whipp’s Typology, Context on X-axis (Why of change)
  30. STRATEGIC CHANGE:Attributes of SOC Model, Implications for Management
  31. STRATEGIC CHANGE:Flow of Information, Recruitment, SOC Process
  32. Determinants of a Successful Change Management:Environmental, Management Orientation, Management Orientation
  33. Higgins 08 S Model – An Adaptation from Waterman’s Seven S model:Strategy, Systems and Processes, Resources
  34. IMPLEMENTATION AND STRATEGIC CHANGE: CONSTRAINING FORCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC CHANGE (CASE STUDY OF XYZ COMPANY)
  35. IMPLEMENTATION AND STRATEGIC CHANGE: CONSTRAINING FORCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC CHANGE (CASE STUDY OF XYZ COMPANY)
  36. WHY IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC CHANGE IS SO DIFFICULT?:Change Typology, Technical Change
  37. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES:Attributes of incremental change,
  38. IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE
  39. IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE:Definition of Leadership, Follower Work Facilitation
  40. IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE:Recognize the challenge
  41. IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE
  42. IMPLEMENTATION: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM MODEL:Features of Radical Change, Theory of P-E model
  43. CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION: OD MODELS:The Transactional Factors
  44. CULTURE, VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:Significance and Role of Values, Values Compete
  45. ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES, CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:Issues in Change Management