Chapter 8 Implementing Change: Change Management, Contingency, & ProcessualApproaches
Change Management Approach Focuses on strategic, intentional and usually large-scale change Entails following a variety of steps; the exact steps vary depending upon the model used Belief that achieving organizational change is possible through a coordinated and planned approach Claims to be appropriate for all types of change Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-2
Kotter’s Eight-Step Model Kotter’s eight-step model is one of the best known: Establish the need for urgency Ensure there is a powerful change group to guide the change Develop a vision Communicate the vision Empower the staff Ensure there are short-term wins Consolidate gains Embed the change in the culture Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-3
Other N-Step Models Ten commandements (Kanter, Stein and Jick 1992) Ten Keys (Pendlebury, Grouard, and Meston 1998) 12 Action Steps (Nadler 1998) Transformation Trajectory (Taffinfer 1998) Nine-Phase Change Process Model (Anderson & Anderson 2001) Step-by-Step Change Model (Kirkpatrick 2001) 12 Step Framework (Mento, Jones and Dirndorfer 2002) RAND’s Six Steps (Light 2005) Integrated Model (Leppitt 2006) Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-4
N-Step Model Issues The sequences of steps The number of steps The timing of steps The resourcing of steps The involvement in each step Managing multiple steps Revisiting different steps “Are all steps needed for particular changes?” Cyclical or linear Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-5
Change Management vs. OD There is a debate between proponents of OD and proponents of change management: OD is criticized for giving attention only to human development, and not to technology, operations, and strategy Change management is criticized for having a focus on the concerns of management rather than on those of the organization as a whole being the product of management consultancy firms Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-6
Contingency Approaches Contingency approaches challenge the view that there is “one best way” The style of change or the path of change will vary, depending upon the circumstances, including: the scale of the change the receptivity to change of organizational members the style of change management the time period the performance of the organization Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-7
Contingency Approaches Huy’s Contingency Approach categorizes change into 4 ideal types: The commanding intervention Short-term and rapid senior executives Downsizing, outsourcing, divesting The engineering intervention Medium-term and relatively fast Analysts Changing work design and operational systems The teaching intervention Long-term and gradual Consultants Work practices and behaviours The socializing intervention Long-term and gradual Participative experiential learning, self-monitoring Democratic organizational practices Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-8
Contingency Approaches Contingency approaches remain less common than change management approaches. Suggested reasons include: Achieving “fit” may be difficult due to differing perceptions of the conditions in which the fit is sought Contingency approaches require greater analysis and decisions by managers; the prescriptiveness of change management models may be attractive to managers Contingency approaches focus on leadership style rather than a specific set of actions The use of different change styles at different times may raises questions in the minds of staff as to the credibility of senior management. There is a question about “what” is contingent to managing change Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-9
Processual Approach It sees change as a continuous process rather than a series of linear events within a given period of time It sees the outcome of change as occurring through a complex interplay of different interest groups, goals, and politics. This approach alerts the change manager to the range of influences which they will confront and the way in which these will lead to only certain change outcomes being achieved This approach is often used to provide a detailed analysis and understanding of change retrospectively. Change Management Approach • Kotter’s Eight-Step Model • Other n-step models • N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach 8-10
Learning more about one chagne management model: the Kotter’s model First, know the theorist… Kotter has worked more any other theorist on the definition of leadership and how it actually differs from management. Management is more a set of tools while leadership is an art which can not be precisely codified. Comes to a definition of leadership that privileges its dimension of being an agent of change. Believes that institutionalizing a leadership culture is the ultimate act of leadership.
Norfolk Southern: Case Study When Katie Frazier first joined Norfolk Southern’s Atlanta terminal, she felt it was running well but still felt more could be done to improve operations. She was also concerned about safety issues. As she got comfortable in her new job, she was wracking her brain, struggling with how to help the company take its safety and operations standards from just “good enough” to a higher level. One day, while in a local bookstore’s business section, she noticed a book with penguins on the cover. Penguins had always been her favorite animal, but she wondered what such a book was doing surrounded by books on management! The book, needless to say, was “Our Iceberg Is Melting.” Once she started reading it, she thought to herself, “wow, this is really helpful.” She noticed that behaviors in her company sometimes mirrored the penguins’ behaviors, for example, people would see a complex problem, and then either ignore it or wait for someone else to fix it. Katie thought that if she could get other people in the company to read the book, it might be a big help in giving people perspective on the bigger picture.Katie, being one of the few relatively young workers around, faced an enormous challenge in getting her older co-workers to buy in to the notion that penguins could help the organization. There were many skeptics. She showed the book to her manager, a former Marine. He told her that the book was something his granddaughter might read, not something he would value as a business leader. Katie persevered and insisted that he read it. After her manager actually did, he quickly began to realize the same lessons could apply at Norfolk Southern. He gave Katie approval to start applying the learnings.
Step 1) Katie started by trying to create a sense of urgency around a willingness to raise safety and operational standards. Through evaluation of these problems, not only by Katie but also by the broader leadership team, people began to feel that urgency was more than just the latest fad. That process of raising the urgency level inside the Atlanta terminal of Norfolk Southern took about 2 months from start to finish.
Step 2) After sufficient urgency was raised, a guiding coalition formed made up of a few conductors, engineers & supervisors. Katie’s fear was that the group was too homogenous – she actually wanted to include a few of the company’s more skeptical employees to get their feedback and help strengthen the group’s decision making. The Guiding Coalition began meeting regularly and called themselves “The Iceberg Group.” This group started out small, but eventually grew to have about 9 people, changing over time, from different parts of the organization, meeting regularly to see how to implement the rest of the 8 Steps.
Step 3) The vision that the group created was designed to change everyone’s mentality and attitude about safety. Injuries could not be treated as an acceptable risk at a railroad – they had to be reduced in order to get the railroad’s efficiency up and costs down.
Step 4) Communicating this vision was a constant battle, since most of a railroad’s employees are on the move at any given time. Furthermore, most of the crew members did not have access to modern communications like e-mail. As a result, the vision was communicated through a vehicle called “job briefings,” where the days weather & track conditions were discussed for crews about to go out on to the tracks. These briefings happen 3 times a day, at the beginning of every shift. The Iceberg Group started communicating the change vision at job briefings, around the clock, for two weeks straight. Over time, every crew member was touched by the vision multiple times, right at their point of highest awareness – before going out to work on the trains.
Step 5)The largest barrier Katie felt she needed to overcome were related to the concept of raising the bar on safety standards – how can you make people really care about the highest possible safety standards, when current standards are already high? The way to do it, she said, was to make it personal – get to the heart and not just the mind. They forced people to think about their families and how they would feel about an injury to their loved ones. Over time, the message began to sink in and people started to change their behavior. This created a high level of engagement with the crew.
Step 6) The Iceberg Group set a goal for a short term win – six months injury free and communicated it broadly. Since the inception of the Iceberg Group’s work, with the exception of a small muscle pull, the Atlanta terminal has gone almost 9 months injury free. Other outcomes resulted as well, for example, because the terminal became so proficient, they’ve never had to reduce the number of shifts running, even as other companies have cut back. With injuries down about 97% over last year, the Atlanta terminal has had fewer missed days of work, fewer injury-related costs and more productive workers, enabling it to gain a critical advantage over the competition.
Step 7&8) Even with this success, the Atlanta terminal isn’t content to let up. As they continue to move through the 8 Step process, they hope to make the change permanent by anchoring these new changes into the culture. The Iceberg Group continues to meet, looking for other ways in which they can help the company improve its operations, and hopefully, spread the Iceberg philosophy to other divisions of the company