Change management: a survival kit?. Presentation by Dr Judith Broady-Preston, Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University (copyright retained) to the Joint HLG Wales & IFMH Study Day, Friday 8 May 2009, Angel Hotel, Cardiff. Introduction.
Dr Judith Broady-Preston, Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University (copyright retained)
Joint HLG Wales & IFMH Study Day, Friday 8 May 2009, Angel Hotel, Cardiff
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
Barack Obama, speech, Feb. 5, 2008
Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two.
After you’ve done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all over
Alfred Edward Perlman, New York Times, 3 July 1958
Fenlon – Financial Times, 22 November 2002
CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE?
“We are entering an Age of Unreason,
when the future, in so many areas, will be
shaped, by us and for us; a time when
the only prediction that will hold true is
that no predictions will hold true; a time
therefore, for bold imaginings in private life as
well as public, for thinking the unlikely and
doing the unreasonable.” (Handy, C. (1991) The Age of
Unreason. London: Random House.)
“an inability, or an unwillingness, to discuss or accept organizational changes that are perceived in some way damaging or threatening to the individual.”
(Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) Organizational Behaviour, 6th ed., p.598)
NB New edition due 1 July 2009.
(adapted from Bedeian, 1980, quoted in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p.597-599)
comparison (solution is disliked because alternative is preferred)
disbelief (feeling proposed solution will not work)
loss (change has unacceptable personal costs)
inadequacy (rewards from change = insufficient)
anxiety (fear of being unable to cope with new solution)
demolition (change threatens to destroy existing social arrangements)
power cut (sources of influence/control will be eroded)
contamination (new values/practices = repellent)
inhibition (willingness to change is low)
mistrust (suspicion of management motives for change)
alienation (other interests more highly valued than new proposals)
frustration (change will reduce power and career opportunities)13 sources of resistance (Eccles, 1994)
allies – supporters, if given encouragement
fellow travellers – passive; committed to the agenda but not you
fencesitters –not clear where their allegiances lie
loose cannons – dangerous; may vote against agendas in which they have no direct interest
opponents – oppose agenda but not you personally
adversaries – oppose you & your agenda
bedfellows – support agenda but may not trust you
voiceless – those affected, but who lack advocates and power to promote or oppose changeOvercoming resistance (3): Egan’s stakeholder categories (1994)
codifies what research and practical experience suggest are main factors contributing to effective change, even if much of this = ‘common sense’
gives a framework/checklist of requirements for those planning change
research and experience confirm change is: - messy, untidy, politicised, seemingly irrational BUT ‘recipe approach’ assumes logical linear process. Presumption if change is messy must be because managers have failed to follow the recipe.
theoretically weak because looks backwards and not at how organisational processes may be changing themselvesRecipe approach
(Source : http://www.three-wins.com/ (Accessed 1 May 2009)