IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES:Attributes of incremental change,

<< WHY IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC CHANGE IS SO DIFFICULT?:Change Typology, Technical Change

IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE >>

Change Management MGMT625

Lesson # 37

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES

In overall analysis of implementation process the issue is how to lower resistance and increase support

for the change programme or plan. Key lesson for us is to identify or diagnose the type or nature of

change programme. Implementation method is contingent upon type of change (Dunphy & Stace 1990)

The size and scale of change is contingent upon unilateral or shared techniques of change. Therefore

what is required is to have a match of the two in case the change strategy is effective. This further

means that for smaller changes consultation and consensus methods are considered effective so as to

lower resistance and raise support for the change. By the same token, large scale changes like structural,

job-redesign, policy & process, top down unilateral method is more effective than participative

techniques.

The rationale for structural changes is that participation is too distant for individual interests and

support is unlikely to be generated, and hence participation is considered unnecessary for such type of

changes to be implemented.

The technical-structural or behavioural-social type of change is contingent upon unilateral or shared

technique of change (matching the type with method). Implementation of technical /structural change

requires more directive and less participative method as work force dislike changes such as downsizing

and reorganization

Within the context of implementation of change plan or strategies we come across four different theses

of implementation which are:

Logical Incrementalism of Quinn

Radical or Transformative change

Punctuated Equilibrium Model (Tushman & Romanelli's Model)

OD models

We have already dealt partially with Quinn's model but let us revise, refresh and deal this in the context

of implementation of a change strategy.

1. Incrementalism

The concept is rooted in Lindblom's (1959) concept of muddling through who down plays the

concept of rational and comprehensive change within organizations. He deemphasized planning school

and argued that most organizations are heavily built upon their past actions in determining their future

direction. These past actions serve as the basis of the organization future. Since organizational and

decision maker's resources are limited, the most economic actions are those that are minor variations

from the current state. Hence most change is considered as an extension of organization's history, or a

series of successive limited comparisons to previous actions. (you may apply this concept to evaluate

practices and reforms in public sector organization). Quinn identified this as logical incrementalism.

The concept of logical incrementalism remained a frequently cited concept, especially 1980s. Its

leading proponent Quinn believes' in planned change and orderly transition. He was thoroughly against

radical change in strategy and in organizational directions, systems or central processes. He believes

that effective manager is the one who moves the organization forward in small, logical steps. He thinks

that incremental change increases confidence amongst employees, and reduces organizational

dependence on outsiders to provide momentum for strategic change. Therefore he values evolutionary

rather than a revolutionary change; and an order rather than disorder.

106

Change Management MGMT625

Attributes of incremental change:

1. Consensus and collaboration style of leadership and management is required for incremental

change instead of conflict and power oriented approach.

2. Similarly the use of expert authority and persuasiveness of data is considered more effective

rather than of positional authority or emotionality of charismatic leadership.

3. Incrementalism is perhaps is the most suitable for the environment of stability and of

continuity, as this was illustrated during the 1970s and 1980s

4. For Mintzberg, a renowned management strategist, strategy emerges over time through a

continuing process of organizational actions and learning as it seeks to cope with and adapt to

its environment. To him, the complex and dynamic nature of the organization's environment ,

often coupled with the diffusion in the organization of its knowledge base for strategy making,

precludes deliberate control; strategy making must above all takes the form of a process of

learning over time, in which, at the limit, formulation and implementation become

indistinguishable. His paradigm is of emergent strategy comes closer to incrementalist view of

strategy implementation as it erodes the distinction between formulation and implementation

5. Similarly for planning school, incremental change is the method by which change can be

implemented best by top management while for learning school it is the method organization

learns from its interaction with environment

6. Ansoff, another famous strategist says in his book the new corporate strategy, "Firms and other

organizations which are not subjected to strategic shocks do nevertheless go through

discontinuous strategic changes. This occurs through step-by-step accumulation of incremental

changes which over a long period of time, add up to transformation of culture, power structure

and competence." Therefore the effective and planned change management means minimizing

political and cultural resistance in an organization through incremental change.

Therefore what is obvious is that incremental change can also be transformational in nature over a

period of time. Incremental change reduces the resistance within the organization change for strategic

changes, is considered the reason and effectiveness of incremental strategy.

Planned Change Management versus Emergent Change Management

By reviewing more than 30 models of planned change, Bullock and Batten (1985) developed a four-

phase model of planned change that splits the process into exploration, planning, action and integration.

According to Burnes (2004) this is a highly applicable model for most change situations. The model

looks at the processes of change, which describe the methods employed to move an organization from

one state to another, and the phases of change, which describe the stages an organization must go

through to achieve successful change implementation. Although the planned approach to change is long

established and held to be highly effective, it has come under increasing criticism since the early 1980s.

Firstly, it is suggested that the approach's emphasis is on small-scale and incremental change, and it is,

therefore, not applicable to situations that require rapid and transformational change.

Secondly, the planned approach is based on the assumptions that organizations operate under constant

conditions, and that they can move in a pre-planned manner from one stable state to another. These

assumptions are, however, questioned by several authors who argue that the current fast-changing

environment increasingly weakens this theory. Moreover, it is suggested that organizational change is

more an open-ended and continuous process than a set of pre-identified set of discrete and self-

contained events. By attempting to lay down timetables, objectives and methods in advance it is

107

Change Management MGMT625

suggested that the process of change becomes too dependent on senior managers, who in many

instances do not have a full understanding of the consequences of their actions.

Thirdly, the approach of planned change ignores situations where more directive approaches are

required. This can be a situation of crisis, which requires major and rapid change, and does not allow

scope for widespread consultation or involvement. Finally, the critics argue that the planned approach

to change presumes that all stakeholders in a change project are willing and interested in implementing

it, and that a common agreement can be reached. This presumption clearly ignores organizational

politics and conflict, and assumes these can be easily identified and resolved.

In response to this criticism of the planned approach to organizational change, the emergent approach

has gained ground. Rather than seeing change to be top down driven, the emergent approach tends to

see change driven from the bottom up. The approach suggests change to be so rapid that it is impossible

for senior managers effectively to identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational responses.

Therefore, the responsibility for organizational change has to become increasingly devolved.

By the emergent approach to change emphasizes that change should not be perceived as a series of

linear events within a given period of time, but as a continuous, open-ended process of adaptation to

changing circumstances and conditions. The emergent approach stresses the unpredictable nature of

change, and views it as a process that develops through the relationship of a multitude of variables

within an organization. Apart from only being a method of changing organizational practices and

structures, change is also perceived as a process of learning.

According to the advocates of the emergent approach to change it is the uncertainty of both the external

and internal environment that makes this approach more pertinent than the planned approach. To cope

with the complexity and uncertainty of the environment it is suggested that organizations need to

become open learning systems where strategy development and change emerges from the way a

company as a whole acquires, interprets and processes information about the environment. The

approach stresses a promotion of `extensive and in-depth understanding of strategy, structure, systems,

people, style and culture, and how these can function either as sources of inertia that can block change,

or alternatively, as levers to encourage an effective change process'.

Furthermore, Burnes argues, `successful change is less dependent on detailed plans and projections than

on reaching an understanding of the complexity of the issues concerned and identifying the range of

available options. It can, therefore, be suggested that the emergent approach to change is more

concerned with change readiness and facilitating for change than to provide specific pre-planned steps

for each change project and initiative.

This strategy of disjointed incrementalism may have much to recommend it. It reduces political

obstacles to changes and avoids irresolvable arguments about complex goals and values. The focus is

on patching things up and dealing with obvious problems as they arise. There generally is less

disagreement surrounding the choice of methods for handling disasters. Also, the risk of ruin or great

loss tends to be reduced by making incremental moves instead of far-reaching ones. Incrementalism

allows the organization to learn from its previous actions and still be in a position to remedy them.

Finally, cognitive strain is reduced by dealing with manageable facts of reality, by focusing on

bottlenecks, and by choosing from a short list of well-tried expedients for dealing with them.

Unfortunately, the applicability of this approach to the realm of structural change has not been

considered. It may be reasonable to suggest, however, that incremental and piecemeal strategies might

offer as many political, economic, risk reduction, and cognitive advantages for changing structures as

they do for modifying policies. For example, small structural adjustments that respond to specific and

pressing problems are likely to cause least dissension and conflict. Also, they are more reversible,

cheaper and are less disruptive than extensive changes. They, therefore, are less risky. If small changes

do not work out the organization's survival probably will not be threatened. Finally, small structural

108

Change Management MGMT625

changes are less taxing to the imaginations and cognitive capacities of the executives. They do not

require lengthy periods of analysis or complex or elaborate master plans.

The strategy of disjointed incrementalism is consistent with the views of those who see organizations as

loosely coupled systems (Aldrich, 1979; Weick, 1969). It is maintained that different subunits of the

organization can change independently without importantly influencing the other subunits. Therefore, it

may be that many elements of structure can be changed locally and that much adaptation to the

environment can be effected independently by organizational subunits.

109

Table of Contents: