What's Next?

If we are to affect real change we must keep moving forward. John Kotter offers a “What’s next” by laying out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging eight steps to be followed by the change agent. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the change agent would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of stake holders. The change agent would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encouraging risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the change agent must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through relational behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management and developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.

References:
Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

Assessing The Political Climate

It seems as though every time I watch the news, in the United States, the emphasis is politics. This caused me to wonder; What role does organizational politics play in leading organizational change? There are two schools of thought. First, the idea that organizational change is best accommodated by working to lessen politics in the organization. This philosophy is embraced by Easterby-Smith and Araujo as they argue: that “good learning takes place in a climate of openness where political behavior is minimized”. I am not sure that this is not an idealistic view that borders on being unrealistic. The truth is, no matter how we feel about it, politics are a part of every organizational structure. A second school of thought is that organizations are inherently political and that it is important to recognize this. Bolman and Deal contend that organizations can be seen as coalitions of various individuals and interest groups and assert that: “Organizational goals, structure and policies emerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiation among major interest groups”. Perhaps we could better facilitate change by looking to the political nature of structures within the organization and implementing action steps that are more effective in that particular political climate. This viewpoint would hold that it would be better to incorporate politics into organizational learning, rather than to eradicate it. What do you think?

References:

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Pg. 175)

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage. (Pg. 13)

Dealing With Resistance To Change

Usually, when change is in the air there is resistance to that change. In an earlier post, I spoke of Lewin's model of change that is found in his Unfreeze-change-refreeze theory. Lewin encourages leaders to beware of two kinds of resistance. They are resistance that comes from social habit or custom and group oriented resistance based on created values. The leaders challenge is to break the habits, challenge the interests or `unfreeze' the customs of the grouping order to overcome the forces of resistance. Lewin's change management model is linked to force field analysis. He considered that, to achieve change effectively, it is necessary to look at all the options for moving from the existing present to a desired future state, and then to evaluate the possibilities of each and decide on the best one, rather than just aiming for the desired goal and taking the straightest and easiest route to it. He identified two questions to ask when seeking to make changes within the organization. First, the change agent would ask: Why does a process continue at its current level under the present circumstances? Secondly, the one desiring to overcome resistance would ask: What conditions would change these circumstances? These questions will help “unfreeze” the resistance in the group dynamic. As leaders, we can effectively deal with resistance to change by asking the right questions.



References:

Cartwright, Dorwin. (1963) Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications

Hartley, E. L. & Newcomb, T. M. (1947) Group decision and social change: Readings in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row

When Change Is Unavoidable

What does a leader do when change is unavoidable? John Kotter in his book Leading Change lays out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging several steps to be followed by the leader. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the leader would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of followers. The leader would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encourage risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the leader must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management. These steps should be effective in developing means to ensure leadership development and succession in the organization.

Reference:

Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

The Leader As An Interventionist

Sometimes, as leaders, we are called upon to be interventionists. In his Intervention Theory and Method, Argyris asserts that an interventionist has three primary tasks: to generate valid information, to foster free choice, and to achieve internal commitment. Accomplishing these necessitates an understanding that people have mental maps with regard to how to act in situations. This involves the way they plan, implement and review their actions. His assertion is that it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they espouse. Argyris suggest that two theories of action are involved. He makes a distinction between those theories that are implicit in what we do as practitioners, and those on which we call to speak of our actions to others. The former can be described as theories-in-use. They govern actual behavior and tend to be unspoken structures. The words we use to convey what we do can then be called espoused theory. When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use. Making this distinction allows us as interventionists to better anticipate behavior and reaction to change.

References:

Argyris, C. (1980). Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. San Diego CA: Academic Press.

Argyris, C. (1994). Knowledge for Action. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley

Organizational Change As A Process

Nobody likes change. Not really. We grow accustomed to a certain way of doing things and change can be uncomfortable. Sometimes however, staying the same renders us both stagnant and impotent. Change may be necessary to be effective. Change can be difficult, often attracts resistance, and is time consuming. Change in terms of organizational development must be seen as a process and not an event. What good does it do for the leader to yell charge and rush to the top of the hill only to find he arrived there alone? A more progressive approach to change is the better part of wisdom. This takes adequate planning and this is how we, as leaders, can become change agents. French and Bell speak of organizational development in terms of organizational improvement through action research. Leadership is confronted with circumstances that make the necessity of change obvious. A change agent becomes essential for the following reason: external pressure, competition, new technology, cost, and failing systems. Furthermore, economic and social conditions as well as cultural flux can escalate the necessity of long-term change. The first step is arguably the most important and where the leader can be most effective; this is the planning stage. Proper planning can reduce the resistance that change sometimes encounters. Proper planning would involve in depth investigation in order to develop a preliminary diagnoses as well as a data gathering effort designed to ensure clear and precise status reports that can be used to develop an action plan. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the member system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and participates with the leader in the process of problem diagnosis and affective change.

References:

French, Wendell L. & Bell, Cecil (1973). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Johnson Richard A. (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co

When Change Is Necessary

Change is the only constant in an organization. The environment is always in flux. Churches who refuse to address the changing culture are in jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. Leaders today must become change agents or interventionists in order to insure proper adjustment to the changing landscape. In certain instances, some among the leadership, as well as the members are frozen in past traditions and intervention is required to facilitate the change. The leader may be called upon to orchestrate this intervention. If you find yourself in this position, I recommend Argyris & Schön’s change model as a guide. They recommend the change agent or interventionist move the process through six phases.

1. Mapping the problem. This includes the factors and relationships that define the problem, and the relationship with the living systems of the organization.
2. The internalization of the map by members. Through inquiry and confrontation the interventionists work with members to develop a map for which members can accept responsibility.
3. Test the model. This involves looking at what ‘testable predictions’ can be derived from the map – and looking to practice and history to see if the predictions stand up. If they do not, the map has to be modified.
4. Invent solutions to the problem and simulate them to explore their possible impact.
5. Produce the intervention. Make the change.
6. Study the impact. This allows for the correction of errors as well as generating knowledge for future designs.

References:

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. (pp. 220-221)