Download
change management 2 of 3 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Change Management #2 of 3 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Change Management #2 of 3

Change Management #2 of 3

806 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Change Management #2 of 3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Change Management #2 of 3 Nature of change Who and What can Change? See also organisational cultural analysis and change How can we make change happen? Securing individual and group level change See also Managing the human dimensions of change

  2. How Can we understand the complexity, interdependence and fragmentation • PESTELI/STEP* • 6 Box Organisational Model (Weisbord, 1976) • Organisational Model (Burke-Litwin, 1992) • 7S Organisational Model (Peters & Waterman, 1980) • Content context & Process Model (Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991) • Soft Systems Methodology • Process Mapping and Redesign  • See also cultural analysis (below) * External, (Environmental) analysis Other models both external and internal analysis • Why do we need to change • SWOT Analysis • Self Assessment against quality frameworks eg Clinical Gov’, ISO9000, EFQM, Baldridge, NSF • Who and What can change • Force Field Analysis • Stakeholder analysis • Readiness and capability – also (WIFM) • Cultural analysis  • See also models of organisation (above) • How can we make the change happen? • Organisational Development (OD) • Organisational Learning • Action Research • Project management – service improvement teams • TQM, EFQM, CG • Parallel Learning Structures – group level change • Individual Change Requires Effective Leadership!! Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.23

  3. Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis Who and What Can Change • Force field analysis (Lewin, 1951) is a diagnostic technique which has been applied to ways of looking at the variables involved in determining whether organisational change will occur. • It is based on the concept of ‘forces’, a term which refers to the perceptions of people in the organisation about a particular factor and its influence. • Driving forcesare those forces affecting a situation and which are attempting to push it in particular direction. These forces tend to initiate change or keep it going. • Restraining forcesare forces acting to restrain or decrease the driving forces. A state of equilibrium is reached when the sum of the driving forces equals the As long as the driving forces equal the restraining forces, the status quo is maintained. If disequilibrium is created with one of the forces gaining strength over the other, a change may occur. To facilitate a change, strategies need to be developed to reduce the restraining forces and strengthen the driving forces Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44

  4. Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis Who and What Can Change • Lewin formulated three fundamental assertions about force fields and change. • Increasing the driving forces results in an increase in the resisting forces; the current equilibrium does not change but is maintained under increased tension. • Reducing resisting forces is preferable because it allows movement towards the desired state, without increasing tension. • Group norms are an important force in resisting and shaping organisational change. USE: Once change priorities have been agreed, using methods from the last two clusters, a force field analysis can be used to identify actions that would enhance their successful implementation. Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44

  5. Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis Who and What Can Change Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44

  6. Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis Who and What Can Change • For the model to be of use, the forces need to be identified perceptively, rigorously and objectively, and the means identified of addressing the resisting forces need to be creative. • Many practising managers will be able to reflect on occasions in their own experience when they have aimed to increase the driving forces, rather than reduce the resisting ones, and have increased the resistance and the tension as a result. • Other change management authors have developed models and tools which analyse forces. (Kanter, 1983; Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler)

  7. Stakeholder Analysis and WIFM In pairs undertake a a Force Field Analysis in relation to your proposed service improvement. One person play the role of the consultant for 10 mins and then swap roles

  8. Sources and Potency of Forces (Beckhard & Harris, 1987) Who and What Can Change • In their book Organisational Transitions: Managing Complex Change (1987) Beckhard and Harris describe and illustrate two techniques for analysing relevant sources of energy. • They analyse respectively the ‘sources and potency of forces for change’, and the ‘readiness and capability’ of individuals and groups to enact change. • First, the nature of the change demanded must be specified, using tools and techniques associated with environmental and organisational analysis. • Then all the forces for change, both inside the organisation and external to it, are listed along one axis of a grid. • On the other axis the potency of the forces is indicated, as high, medium or low. Special Note: Probably not as easy to use as WIFM stakeholder analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to the performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’ Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45

  9. Sources and Potency of Forces (Beckhard & Harris, 1987) Who and What Can Change Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45

  10. Readiness and Capability(Beckhard & Harris, 1987) Who and What Can Change • Early on in the change process, managers need to identify which specific groups and individuals will be required to support the change if the change is to be successful. (See Stakeholder Analysis) • When they have done so they can determine the readiness and capability of these individuals and groups to enact the roles required of them in the change process. • Understanding the readiness involves analysing attitudes: willingness, motives and aims. • Capability is determined by whether they have the power, the influence and the authority to allocate resources, and the appropriate information and skills. • Beckhard and Harris (1987, p.63) have developed a Readiness–Capability Assessment Chart which enables the user to list individuals or groups who are critical to the change effort, and to rank them (high, medium, or low) each according to their readiness and capability with respect to change. Special Note: Again probably not as easy to use as WIFM stakeholder analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to the performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’ Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45

  11. Readiness and Capability(Beckhard & Harris, 1987) Who and What Can Change Psychological commitment to change, willingness, confidence, security etc. Technical capacity for change – knowledge, skills etc., Need to rate as low, medium or high Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 46

  12. Commitment, enrolment and Compliance (Senge, 1990) Who and What Can Change • Where a change must be implemented from the outside, ie when it has not been defined as necessary by the people involved, then it is unlikely to succeed (yield the full results of which people have ambitions) unless some of those involved are in favour of it. • Several observers (Rogers, 1983) have suggested however that not everyone needs to support a change, and that not everybody needs to support it to the same extent. • Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990) talks of the difference between • commitment, • enrolment • and compliance, • suggesting that while it is more pleasant (and reassuring) to have considerable commitment, it is not necessary for everyone to be as fully signed-up as this. • There exist a number of positions along a continuum, along which players may position themselves in response to proposed action and change Special Note: Again probably not as easy to use as WIFM stakeholder analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to the performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’ Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45

  13. Commitment, enrolment and Compliance (Senge, 1990) Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 46

  14. Commitment, enrolment and Compliance (Senge, 1990) Who and What Can Change Need to assess on a continuum of: Commitment – Apathy (See previous slide) Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45

  15. Sources of Potency or Levels of Commitment! In pairs undertake an additionally stakeholder analysis which includes an analysis of sources of potency or levels of commitment! OPTIONAL Activity One person play the role of the consultant for 10 mins and then swap roles

  16. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Innovation research refers to a body of literature that contains many models and approaches. • Some of the specific areas within it provide insights that are particularly relevant to managers. • Originating in the marketing literature of the 1960s, innovation research has developed into a significant area in its own right (Rogers, 1983; Stocking, 1992). • Research into the diffusion of innovations suggests that the propensity of individuals to change and implement new ideas, products or processes differs. • The adoption process, from an individual perspective, Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  17. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • The adoption process, from an individual perspective, has been depicted as a five-stage process, starting with: • establishing an awareness of the innovation in potential adopters and proceeding through: • persuasion, or arousal of interest • mental evaluation of the innovation • trial • to implementation (Rogers, 1983; Van de Ven, 1993). Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  18. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Innovation research (Rogers, 1983) provides insights for change management in three ways. • First, it identifies properties of innovations (in this case organisational changes) that are likely to meet with success. These are: • relative advantage, the degree to which it is perceived to be better than existing technology • compatibility, the perceived ‘fit’ of the innovation with existing structures, procedures and values • complexity, the degree of difficulty involved in learning about and implementing the innovation • trialability, the extent to which an innovation can be tried by potential adopters without major investment of time or resources • observability, the degree to which outcomes resulting from the adoption of an innovation are visible. • Armed with this knowledge, managers can optimise and tailor their change programmes in order to maximise chances of success. Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  19. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • In health, Stocking (1985) provides a more specific list about the key factors in the adoption of innovations or change. It includes: • the presence of identifiable enthusiasts for innovation or change • conducive power relationships (i.e. lack of conflict with national policies or professional opinion) • adaptability to local conditions a general perception that the innovation meets current needs • minimal requirements for extra resources. Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  20. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • In health, Stocking (1985) provides a more specific list about the key factors in the adoption of innovations or change. It includes: • the presence of identifiable enthusiasts for innovation or change • conducive power relationships (i.e. lack of conflict with national policies or professional opinion) • adaptability to local conditions a general perception that the innovation meets current needs • minimal requirements for extra resources. More recent work in this field has been concerned to explore the social and cultural factors in promoting or hindering change (Pettigrew et al., 1992; Dawson et al., 1999). Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  21. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • The second insight concerns the important role that organisational context plays in the adoption of innovation and change. • Three environmental features have been linked with the propensity to innovate: • rapid change and heterogeneity in an organisation’s operating environment • effective external communication networks • presence of boundary-spanning individuals (Slappendel, 1996). These environmental/organisational features are key contributing process to organisation organisational learning (Dixon, 1999; Pedler et al, 191; Senge 1990) Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  22. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • The third insight that innovation research provides for change managers is that individuals have different attitudes to change per se. • It categorises people in terms of their propensity to change, ranging from: • innovators (venturesome) to • early adopters (respectable) to • early majority (deliberate) to • late majority (sceptical) to • laggards(traditional). Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  23. Reactions to change Rogers (1983, 1995)

  24. Rogers (1983, 1995) Reactions to change

  25. Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • In addition to these attitudes, an individual’s reactions are greatly influenced by contextual factors involved. • The extent to which people are more or less resistant, indifferent, or likely to lend support to change is affected by how they perceive the change affecting them. Reasons for resisting change include: • loss of control • too much uncertainty • surprise • confusion • loss of face • concerns about competence in a new context • increased workload • change fatigue • the view that costs outweigh benefits • past resentments • real threats. (Kanter et al., 1992; Dawson, 1996) Managers need to take affirmative action to minimise these effects! Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57

  26. 5.’Laggards’ How to influence each group? 4.Late majority 5 Change the rules! Uptake of new idea 3.Early majority 4 Prove it 3 Show them a working example 2.Early adopters 2 Mention it 1.Innovators Time 1 No need Everett Rogers 1983 The pattern observed in 3,500 successful innovations Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995) Securing Individual & Group Level Change 25% usually ensure adoption of and innovation! 7

  27. Rogers (1983) Reactions to change

  28. Rogers (1983, 1995) Reactions to change 68% 16% 16%

  29. 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change Length of the arrow indicates the strength of the force! Current State Future State

  30. Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis Securing Individual & Group Level Change Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44

  31. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Lewin (1951) formulated three fundamental assertions about force fields and change: • Increasing the driving forces results in an increase in the resisting forces; the current equilibrium does not change but is maintained under increased tension. • Reducing resisting forces is preferable because it allows movement towards the desired state, without increasing tension. • Group norms are an important force in resisting and shaping organizational change.

  32. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Once change priorities have been agreed, a Force Field Analysis can be used to identifyactions that would enhance their successful implementation. • Lewin (1951) suggests that there are three phases in the changeprocess. Unfreezing Moving Re-freezing

  33. Unfreezing Moving Re-freezing (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change Strong exciting Vision, Providing Information on a Better Way of doing things – creating dissatisfaction with the current state, Identify the need for a solution – sell the benefits, model a positive outlook! Develop an incremental plan, with contingencies, design easy wins, create a safe first set, recognise the importance of education, listen to concerns empathetically, reward/reinforce small steps in the right direction! Continually reinforce new behaviours, ensure these are embedded in the artefacts of culture eg guidelines, policies, job descriptions etc., ensure clear responsibility for monitoring key processes using SPC!

  34. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Unfreezing (Vision, Support, Positive Outlook & Modelling) • This can be done by providing information or examples of new ways of doing things or getting the job done or by raisingeveryone'sawareness that the goal or goals of the organisation are not being met in some way and that a change is necessary to get back on track. • It is necessary to makethose involved in the processfeelsecure and at ease with the proposedchange or changes to reducethreats to the safety and security of those involved and reduceresistance to the proposed change. • During unfreezing, the process of developing an awareness to a need or problem is started and change is seen as the only solution.

  35. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Unfreezing (Vision, Support, Positive Outlook & Modelling) • The change agent needs to increasepressurestoward the change and reduce threats associated with changing. According to Lewin, this is done through three mechanisms. • Disconfirmation:occurs when the change agent introduces evidence that a need is not being met. This can be done through meeting with the staff in small groups to discuss inadequacies or problems. • Inducing guilt or anxiety:can be accomplished by introducing a period of uncomfortableness about the way things are and how they are not meeting an important goal or value. • Creation of psychological safety:the third mechanism is important to provide sufficient security to minimise risk involved with the change. The change agent can provide time for discussion, involvement, education, supervision and approval to small advances toward the intended change. Towards Safe Uncertainty!!

  36. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Moving or Changing (Planning, Overcoming Resistance, Implementation, Open Communication & Support) • This is the actual change or implementationphase of the changeprocess. During the moving stage, the driving forces have overcome the restrainingforces and the change moves ahead • A new way of behaving or working is established as information and feedback is used to encouragegroupinvolvement and allow the participants to discuss and assimilate the change into their practice. • The change is planned in detail and then implementation begins. Time must be allowed for support, group discussion, evaluation, and feedback to deal with resistance as it occurs. Opencommunication is important.

  37. (Lewin, 1951) Change Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Refreezing (Embedding the change into the artefacts values, beliefs and behaviours of the client system as the basis of cultural regeneration/reinvention) • During Refreezing,the change has been implemented and needs to be stabilised. • The organisation (client system) must return to its normal level of functioning and the change consolidated into the regularoperations of the organisation. • The change becomes integrated into the whole organisation as part of its routine functioning. • The change agent must provide guidance and support to ensure that the change will be maintained. • The change agent needs to reduce participation in the functioning of the change and delegate responsibility for the continuance of the change. • The integration of the change allows the change process to end and the participants (client system) to take on the responsibility for the continuance of operations. • Refreezing takes place as the group has moved to a new equilibrium of the driving and restrainingforces with the change functioning in place.

  38. Model of Change (Beckhard & Harris, 1987) Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Describe a five stage model of change: • Determine the need for change. • Define the desired future state • Describe the present state. • Assess the present in terms of the future to determine the work to be done. • Manage the transition. • Enabling Conditions and the Change Equation: • D x V x C x F > Resistance • Ddissatisfaction: with the present situation • V vision: an understanding of what the change(s) would look like • C capacity: sufficient resources to make the change happen • F first steps: an appreciation of how the change is to be implemented(Adapted from Beckhard & Harris, 1987) • If any of the elements on the left-hand side of the equation are zero, there will be insufficient impetus to overcome the resistance to change!!

  39. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • D x V x C x F > Resistance • Ddissatisfaction: with the present situation • V vision: an understanding of what the change(s) would look like • C capacity: sufficient resources to make the change happen • F first steps: an appreciation of how the change is to be implemented(Adapted from Beckhard & Harris, 1987) • If any of the elements on the left-hand side of the equation are zero, there will be insufficient impetus to overcome the resistance to change!!

  40. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Dissatisfaction – Key Questions…. • How satisfied is the person/group with the current state of things? • Is any dissatisfaction shared with their colleagues? • How is the dissatisfaction understood and experienced? • How can we utilise information eg control charts, from the Analyse phase to increase dissatisfaction with the current state without de-motivating key stakeholders? “The … thing … that was astounding was mapping. We all thought we knew how the system worked but none of us had a clue. Many times an hour my mouth was just falling open because I didn’t realise what a mess it was.” Lead Clinician Cancer Services Collaborative

  41. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Creating shared Dissatisfaction with the status-quo:Rea (1993) provides some practical advice on leading change in relation to Beckhard & Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your stakeholder scan: • This is achieved partly through the strength of the vision • Create opportunities for learningabout what other organisations in your health sector do – by visiting these. • Ensure that stakeholders are encouraged to access relevant contemporaneous research in order to inform best practice. • Create opportunities for patient/client involvement in developing services eg through patient stories etc. • Ensure evidence of poor performance from surveys and audits is disseminated to all stakeholders within the client system. • Provide immediate direct evidence of the cost benefits of existing process.

  42. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Vision – Key Questions…. • what do the key stakeholders want want for their patients, themselves and their colleagues? • what are their values and beliefs, goals and desires? • what could the new system look like – can you provide examples of where your proposed solution has provided positive benefits – how can you create an exciting future – is your plan sound - can you answer the question How? “One of the reasons we got involved was because we care about the way that we deliver the service to patients … we were interested in ways of trying to improve … you think, there must be a better way of doing things.” Lead Clinician Cancer Services Collaborative

  43. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Creating shared Visions of a better state:Rea (1993) provides some practical advice on leading change in relation to Beckhard & Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your stakeholder scan: • How precisely might you create dialogue with the different interests? • Which interests might prefer closer direction? Which might prefer virtually autonomous decision-making? (Remember that history is important) • What factors might damage the efforts to achieveshared discussion? • What would the vision need to look like; Detailed? Flexible? Highly Measured? • Would your change issue be more effectively achieved by one vision or many, as formulated by various interests? • What do we do about potentially contradictory visions between stakeholders?

  44. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Yukl (1998) argues that and effective visioning must: • Provide a simple but exciting picture of a desirable but attainable future, which is highly discrepant from the present state. • Involve and/or attend to the needs of as many stakeholders as possible. • Be based on core ideologies and values of the organisation. • Include a plan for implementation. • Be flexible enough for regular review. "A vision should be simple and idealistic, a picture of a desirable future, not a complex plan with quantitative objectives and detailed action steps. The vision should appeal to the values, hopes and ideals of organisation members and other stakeholders whose support is needed. The vision should emphasis distant ideological objectives rather than immediate tangible benefits. The vision should be challenging but realistic. To be meaningful and credible, it should not be a wishful fantasy, but rather an attainable future about what is important for the organisation, how it should related to the environment, and how people should be treated." (Yukl G, 1998, pp.443)

  45. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Capacity – Key Questions…. • What resources are needed to achieve the change? don’t forget resources such as energy and capability • How can the resources be generated or shared? • How can we use existing resources in a differentway? • What are the consequences of not changing? • First Step– Key Questions…. • What first steps could people undertake which everyone agrees would be moving in the rightdirection? • How can you create a safe first step – safe uncertainty? (Consider, training, vision, levels of supervision, incremental steps, building on what already works – ie do not through the baby out with the bath water).

  46. Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)D x V x C x F > Resistance Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Creating Safe Fist Step with appropriate Support Rea (1993) provides some practical advice on leading change in relation to Beckhard & Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your stakeholder scan in order to: • Involve stakeholders in developing a plan for implementation: • try to include as many contingencies as possible • create short term wins! • Determine appropriate levels of supervision during the change process for all stakeholders within the client system. • Provide access to education and learning opportunities according to individual need. • Recognise that individuals within the client system will internalise and commit to the change within very different time scales. • Role model appropriate behaviours yourself - recognise and reward these behavioursin others. • Match mature/competent individuals with those who are less so. • Be accessible and encourage discussion. • Celebrateeach and every success

  47. Lippitt White & Westley (1958), Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • This model expands Lewin's (1951) theory to a seven-step change process and concentrates on the role of the leader or change agent in the change process. • It emphasises the role of planning and problem solving in the process and adds the dimension of the interpersonal aspects of the helping relationship by the change agent in the change process. • The Seven Steps are: • The development of a need for change, including problem awareness and a desire for change. • Establishment of a change relationship between the change agent and the client system and their mutual decision to work together on the change. • Clarification or diagnosis of a client system's problem; a collaborative effort to diagnose the difficulties. • Examination of alternative means of action and goals, and the establishment of goals and intentions of action. • Transformation of intentions into actual change efforts, in which the active work of changing takes place and success, is measured by how well plans are transformed into achievements. • Generalisation and stabilisation of the change. The process of institutionalisation occurs. • Achieving a terminal relationship to prevent the client system from becoming too dependent on the change agent.

  48. Rogers (1983) Infusion of Innovations Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • This model explains change as a result of the introductionof an innovation(s). • Innovation(s) are an idea, practice, or material artefact perceived to be new. • Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system; it is a type of communication concerned with new ideas. • The five steps in this model are as follows: • Knowledge-Awarenessor Knowledge is presented to the group, showing that the innovation is available. • Persuasion-Interestarousal, excitement with the innovation its utility to the client system is explained. • Decision- the decision to use and evaluate the innovation is made. • Implementation - the innovation is trialled occurs. • Confirmationdecision to adopt or reject the innovation is made by the group. “Roger’s also considers the role of the change agent as important and delineates the responsibilities of the change agent role: to develop a need for change, establish an information -exchange relationship, diagnose the problem, create an intent to change in the client, translate the intent into action, stabilise the adoption and prevent discontinuance, and achieve a terminal relationship.” (White K, 1998, p.185)

  49. Havelock’s (1973) Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • Havelock (1973) expanded the work of Rogers and Lewin and described a six-step process that discusses how successful innovation takes place and how change agents can organise their work so a successful innovation will take place. • Havelock's work focused on innovation in the educational process and emphasised planning and the use of a participatory approach for the group involved. • Havelock's theory suggests four ways that a change agent can facilitate the change: • as a catalyst, • solution giver, • process helper, • and resource linker. • Summary of the 6 Stages: • Build a relationship • Diagnose a problem • Acquire resources • Choose a solution • Gain Acceptance • Stabilisation and Termination These are key Leadership Roles

  50. Havelock’s (1973) Model Securing Individual & Group Level Change • The need to build a good relationship between the change agent and the client (or client system). • The relationship between the peopleinvolved in the change must be carefullydeveloped for success to be achieved. • An assessment of the client, his or her norms, the leaders, the gatekeepers, and the larger environment should be completed. • The change agent needs to diagnose the problem and make a systematic attempt to understand it. • The diagnosis should includedetails about the symptoms, history, and causes. • The change agent should help the client to articulate his or her needs as problemstatements. • Identify and acquirerelevant resources that will help in reaching the solution to the defined problem. • Resources are needed for diagnosis, awareness, and evaluation before trial, for trial, evaluation after trial, installation and maintenance. • Choose a solution to accomplish the change after generating a range of possibilities that follow looking at the implications, testing the feasibility of the alternative solutions, and adapting the preferredone to the needs and circumstances of the client system. • Move the solutiontoward acceptance and adoption. • Finally, there is the need to stabilise the innovation so that the client system can maintain the change on its own. Thus, a gradualtermination of the changeagentrelationship is accomplished.