Deze samenvatting is gebaseerd op het studiejaar 2013-2014.

A: Introduction: Stories of Change

1. Hewlett-Packard Change Story:

In 1999 Carly Fiorina joined HP as a new CEO, and decided to make some tremendous change to the structure and culture of the company. Some clients were not satisfied that the there were several sales teams of HP, each with their own marketing programs. There was a demand for a complete package of products from the company. Fiorina joined some departments, reorganizing the company into two sections that consisted of sales and marketing and two functions responsible for manufacturing and research. This caused some resistance from the employees, and was not entirely welcome by most of them. In 2002 she and CFO of the company Bob Wayman got shareholders votes for the merger with Compaq. Deutsche bank was the key investor and they decided to vote for the merger, and in 2002 it was approved. It was a tremendous change for the company, with lots of jobs being cut down, with two different cultures being emerged into one and also with a lawsuit from Walter Hewlett opposing the merger. In 2005 Carly Fiorina was replaced by a new CEO Mark Hurd. Hurd did not continue on the pace that Fiorina had taken. He returned the old HP system, reorganizing the company into distinct departments each with their own responsibilities. That seemed to work for HP, because for the last seven years the best sales growth was announced.

2. IBM Change Story:

The change started when during the meeting with the marketing team David Grossman, a computer programmer at IBM, convinced the member of the strategy task force, John Patrick, about the significance of the internet for the company. Two of them started implementing change in the company, Grossman doing the technical job, and Patrick adapting the company’s culture to the infiltration of internet and Web community. Although their team was working on an unofficial level, soon they managed to collect the necessary funds and attract other departments of the company. Thanks to these changes IBM switched from being a computer manufacturer to operating in e-business and Internet, earning about a quarter of the revenues from this sector.

3. KODAK Change Story:

The change started in 2003, when Kodak announced that it would cut the line of traditional film cameras and shift to the production of digital technology. This strategy forced the company to cut the dividends in order to raise capital, which made shareholders dissatisfied. Another change that the strategy brought was to reduce the square footage of Kodak facilities and cutting up to 15,000 jobs worldwide, which on its turn made the employees dissatisfied. In 2005 current CEO of Kodak was replaced by Antonio Perez. Perez continued on the strategy of downsizing, reducing the headcount from 63,900 to 30,600, and also offloaded a factory in China. He is also trying a number of acquisitions in order to stay in the business, or launch new branches. The change does not yet seem to be positive for Kodak, however the CEO Perez doesn’t lose hope, stating that Kodak is simply facing what each mid-turnaround company faces.

4. McDonald’s Change Story:

The change started when Morgan Spurlock launched a movie called “Super Size Me” after a month of eating only McDonald’s food and getting some serious health troubles. McDonald’s company has been ignoring the health-related controversial questions for a long time; however after the launch of this movie the controversy was too big-scale to ignore. It was time for McDonald’s to start implementing some changes, because for the first time in the history of the company the sales and profit figures were declining so drastically. The change occurred by introducing new healthy line of products into the standard menu, such as salads and low-fat menu options. Though not immediately, but this strategy seemed to work in the long run, and McDonald’s learnt its lesson not to ignore the external forces any further.

B: Images of Managing Change

Six-Images Framework

I. Managing can be divided into two key images:

• Management as control: Like a machine the organization is being run top-down by management in a hierarchical manner. Common activities include commanding, organizing, planning, co-ordinating and controlling.

• Management as shaping: Like a living, breathing organism or person, the organization is being run in a participative manner. In this way, people are encouraged to be involved in decisions and to help identify how things can be done more efficiently. Together corporate capabilities are created that are enduring to the organization.

II. Change outcomes can be divided into three key images:

• Intended: It is assumed that all intended change outcomes are achievable. There are three categories for achieving intentional change: empirical-rational, normative-re-educative, and power-coercive. Empirical-rational strategy implies that people act only in their self-interest, therefore to achieve change it should be demonstrated that the outcome is going to be in their own interest. Normative-re-educative strategy implies that change can only occur if people give up their old knowledge and values and get involved with new ideas and commitment. Power-coercive strategy assumes that change can be achieved if those with greater power enforce change activities upon those with lesser power.

• Partially intended: It is assumed that some parts of the intended outcomes are achievable, but not the whole change can be achieved. This is because the role of external influences is also recognized.

• Unintended: It is assumed that managers have little or no control over the change process, and that the change occurs due to uncontrollable forces only. These forces can be internal or external to the organization. Internal forces include values, culture and perceptions of an organization that are difficult to eliminate. External forces include technically any factor that can influence an organization’s performance, such as political situation, taxation, legislative requirements and industrial forces.This change type is not very common.

Several combinations of I and II lead to six different images of managing organizational change:

Managing as control:

• Director: This image assumes that all the intended change is achievable. It is manager’s responsibility to direct the forces and assets in such a manner so that to achieve the intended change. This change type does not recognize the importance of external influences, therefore is not very realistic. The N-step and contingency theories are the most suitable theories to explain this image.

• Navigator: This image assumes that although management still plays the essential role in achieving the desirable outcomes, only partially intended change will occur as a result. The manager’s responsibility therefore is to navigate the sources in such a manner as to reduce the influence that external forces might have and to achieve the greater part of intended change. The contextualist or processual theories of change are the most suitable to explain this image.

• Caretaker: This image assumes that despite the fact that the management is still in charge of controlling the change, the forces that will in fact cause the change are beyond the control of management. This is the most pessimistic scenario of management as control, assuming that managers can only be caretakers, trying to control their organization the best they can. The outcome will be unintended change. Life-cycle theory, population ecology theory and institutional theory are most suitable to explain this image.

Managing as shaping:

• Coach: This image assumes that the managers are able to shape the capabilities of their organizations in order to achieve the intended change. Instead of controlling the sources, management’s responsibility is to shape the organization and its values so that the organization succeeds if the desired change outcome occurs. The organization development theory is the most suitable theory to explain this image.

• Interpreter: This image assumes that the managers are able to explain some events and actions to other organizational members to help them give meaning to these events and actions so that they can achieve the change. The management’s responsibility is to be able to provide clear arguments in favour of their interpretations, so that other organizational members accept and understand it. Due to the fact that not everybody in the organization will agree on the interpretations given by the management, some conflict will arise, which will lead only to realization of partially intended change. Sense-making theory suits this image most, stating that the interpretation to events and actions can be given through animation, by direction, by paying attention and updating and through respectful, candid interaction.

• Nurturer: This image assumes that manager facilitates organizational qualities and capabilities that enable self-organizing to occur, however holds little or no control over the outcomes of change, therefore the outcome is unintended change. Specific change outcomes are shaped through these qualities and capabilities. The chaos theory and Confucian/Taoist theory are most suitable for this image.

Proactive: Director, Navigator, Coach, and Interpreter.

Reactive: Caretaker, Nurturer.

Three key uses of the six-images framework

Surfacing Our Assumptions about Change

People have mental models with which they simplify and make sense of the complex organizational world in which they operate. By creating (self)-awareness of these models we can distinguish relevance and the extent to which assumptions will actually be of use in approaching organizational change. Furthermore, awareness of varying change management images can lead to an educative process within a change team, where people help each other to look upon the same situation from a different perspective.

Assessing Dominant Images of Change

Managers are likely to be dominated, for all changes, by a particular image of change and are limited in that sense. Some organizations even are dominated by a certain view on how things should be done. This could make it very difficult and frustrating, if not impossible for a change manager to work with a change image that is looked upon as less legitimate or relevant than that of the organization.

Using Multiple Images and Perspectives of Change

Personal preference (conscious) and familiarity (unconscious) with an image are most likely to determine the change manager’s image-in-use. The image-in-use depends on several factors, namely:

• Type of change: Different types of change require specific images of change.

• Context of the change: Contexts may vary and each context requires a suitable approach.

• Phase of the change: Assuming change passes through different phases, each phase requires a different approach.

• Simultaneous involvement in multiple changes: Often multiple changes unfold simultaneously, either within various business units or across the entire organization. Varying images of change are required for every separate change process in this case. Change managers therefore need to possess the skills of switching back and forth between the concurrent changes.

C: Why Organizations Change

Manager’s paradox: Management is held responsible to change the organization or bear the risk of the organization perishing, while at the same time the same management is held responsible if the organization bears risk of perishing due to the disruptive impact of change.

Economic perspective of organizational change

Shareholders determine survival of the firm therefore managers need to keep them happy by maximizing organizational performance.

Organizational learning perspective of change

Due to the complex nature and evolving state of an organization, it can never be reduced to merely maximizing shareholder value. In order to survive, an organization needs to be adaptive (respond to and shape) to changes over time.

Environmental pressures for change

Reduced demand for products and sales, a decrease in market share, and bad investment decisions lead to decrease in the organization’s resource base. As a consequence, change is mandatory. Table 3.1 on p.51 gives an overview of the pressures for change for all the images of managing change. Several environmental pressures exist, namely:

• Fashion Pressures: Modern or progressive managers may change their organizations in line with the latest innovations in management practices in order to be seen as professional. An example of this is called mimetic isomorphism, where one organization imitates the other (structure and practices) in the same field or industry when they find the other to be legitimate or successful. Even though in this way the organization seems respectable and professional, often the contrary is true due to a lack of systematic research, or due to the fact that the ‘fashionable’ change does not fit that particular organization.

• Mandated Pressures: Organizations have to comply with environmental requirements and if they do not, it will cost them and external forces will pressure them to change. An example is coercive isomorphism, where external demands placed on an organization force them to imitate activities of other organizations. Formal coercive pressure means that organizations are forced to change to meet new legal or other legislative requirements. Informal coercive isomorphism means committing to certain types of change to get the support of other organizations that are committed to the same causes.

• Geopolitical Pressures: Organizations need to change as a result of immediate crises or longer-term realignments. In most cases these situations cause a drop in sales and related activities to occur to which the organization must respond by means of lay-offs and cost control. According to Kotter there are four global environmental forces for change, namely:

• Technological

• Greater economic integration

• Maturation and slowdown of domestic markets

• Fall of socialist countries

• Market Decline Pressures: When markets for services and products decline the organization needs to change to remain a relevant player in the market.

• Hypercompetition Pressures: As a consequence of globalisation, organizations are forced to speed up delivery of goods and services, customize more and be more flexible. This often results in major organizational changes.

• Reputation and Credibility Pressures: When an organization has a bad reputation or is known not to be credible, then drastic, obvious, changes must be made to show people that improvements are being made. A very effective way, and commonly used, is exiting a high-profile organizational person such as the CEO.

Reasons why organizations may not change

Organizational Learning versus Threat-Rigidity

According to organizational learning theorists, pressures from the environment such as market decline will require the organization to adapt, innovate and change. This is possible because managers learn from the problems and try to move from aspirations to performance.

Sometimes organizations are successful for quite a while, and due to this success they become “arrogant”, and in this way “learning-disabled”. Because of this they will not respond appropriately to pressures for change.

Threat-rigidity, however, claims that managers block under pressure and therefore become restricted in their capabilities of creating the required change.

Environment as Objective Entity versus Environment as Cognitive Construction

The environment can be considered to be real or merely a creation of the manager’s mind. A management’s perception of the environment will determine how he/she will respond in terms of change. This becomes dangerous when the manager perceives something other than what is real. Two errors can be made, namely:

• Type 1 errors: The manager perceives the environment as unstable, while it is actually (objectively) stable. Accordingly, the manager will take unnecessary steps.

• Type 2 errors: The manager perceives the environment as stable, while it is actually (objectively) unstable. Lack of action threatens survival of the firm.

Furthermore, the constructionist view exists in which is assumed that people’s individual perceptions create the environment. In this way, managers are subjected to their cognitive sense-making frames.

Forces for Changes versus Forces for Stability:

Three factors determine whether or not environmental pressures will lead to innovative change, namely:

• The degree of institutionalisation of the organization’s mission in stakeholders and external environment. The less institutionalised the more flexible.

• The degree to which power and resources are diffused throughout the company. The less diffused, the greater the ability to facilitate effective change.

• The way manager’s rationalise decline. When causes of decline seem to be permanent change is more likely to be implemented.

Change and stability should be recognized as simultaneous forces that interact.

Bridging versus Buffering

‘Bridging’ means that an organization keeps itself effective by adapting parts of the organization to changes in the environment. In contrary, buffering means that an organization stays effective by avoiding change through the protection of specific parts from the environment. Organizations may need to involve in both strategies to stay effective.

Organizational pressures

Growth Pressures

Ageing goes hand-in-hand with growing. Changes are inevitable to growth. As time passes different requirements have to be met and therefore you need to change along with it. However, not all organizations grow continuously while some even actively resist growth. Certain theories even argue there is no such thing as growth (chaos theory), that change is non-linear and fundamental. Other organizations fail to grow due to inexperienced managers or the disadvantages of being at their early stages (no slack or resources to fall back on).

Integration and Collaboration Pressures

When organizations grow into several business units often co-ordination and communication suffer and become less effective. Furthermore, overlap will not be uncommon. In order to become effective once again, the organization needs to integrate and collaborate by making cultural and structural changes into uniform standards across the business units.

Identity Pressures

In order for an organization to be successful a strong corporate identity needs to exist. The organization needs to profile itself as in who they are, what they stand for, what their objectives are, etc. If this is not the case then neither staff nor (potential) customers will be able to identify themselves with it and this will affect the success of the organization.

New Broom Pressures

When an organization stagnates a “new broom” is needed to clean up the old dirt. This usually takes form in hiring a new CEO. In this way a signal is sent out to the environment that old ways are about to change. This is a very drastic measure, but often a very effective one in many ways. New CEO’s have many advantages over their predecessors such as credibility, unhampered by the past and lots of energy.

Power and Political Pressures

Internal conflicts, traditional internal power relationships and internal political pressures create a need for change in order to speed up decision-making, allow others access to engaging in, create collaboration, and to please shareholders or politicians.

D: What Changes in Organizations

Change can be divided into first-order, incremental change (maintain and develop the organization) and second-order, discontinuous change (transforming the nature of the organization). The former can be seen as small-scale and adaptive, the latter as large-scale and disruptive.

Nadler and Tushman developed a model that builds further on this concept by adding two other dimensions, namely reactive to or anticipatory of changes in the external environment. Accordingly, changes can be fine-tuned (anticipatory and incremental), adaptive (reactive and incremental), reorientation/“frame-bending” (discontinuous and anticipatory), or re-creation/”frame-breaking” (reactive and discontinuous). Table 4.1 on page 87 of the book shows this model.

First-Order, Adaptive Change:

• Taking individual initiatives: According to Frohman, not enough attention has been paid to the impact of small-scale changes and the role of personal initiatives in this process. He argues that individual initiative is essential in maintaining large-scale, lasting changes. He claims that in order for these initiative-taking individuals to emerge the degrees of autocracy (removing responsibility), meritocracy (constrain individual initiative and action) and “social club” behaviour (discourage individual initiative) need to find a balance in strong leadership, bureaucratic systems and teamwork.

• Change as the development of local routines: According to Feldman, organizational routines can be the source of change in organizations when different people who place their own interpretations and actions on how the routines should occur enact them. She found out that the interpretations of people carrying out routines, such as hiring, training and budgeting, determined its evolvement over time.

In conclusion, she argues that routine involves both stability and change.

Second-Order, Transformational Change:

• Changes that fundamentally alter the nature of the organization, such as downsizing, restructuring and reengineering, are considered second-order and transformational. Palmer and Dunford detected eight commonly occurring recommendation for this kind of change: Delayering, Network/alliances, Outsourcing, Diasaggregation (breaking up into smaller business units), Empowerment, Flexible work groups, Short-term staffing, Reduction of internal and external boundaries.

Furthermore, Wittington et al. found similar recommendations and listed them in a table along with a rationale for the change (see Table 4.2, page 90 of the book).

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 on page 91 of the book, mention some key challenges and characteristics of change that you should keep in mind.

However, you should be careful in replacing the old with the new in radical change. It’s better to integrate the two, preserve what’s right and dispose of/improve what’s wrong. This is also about balancing out key factors such as empowerment and hierarchy.

Transformational Types:

Flamholtz and Randle distinguished change into three types:

• Type 1; the organization moves from entrepreneurial to professional management structure.

• Type 2; revitalization of the already established organization.

• Type 3; visionary change in which the organization fundamentally changes the business in which it is involved.

• See Table 4.5 on page 93 of the book.

Midrange Organizational Change

Reger et al. refer to a middle road between first –and second order change namely, tectonic change. In this way the organization can be modified without destroying employee loyalty and other positive attributes. The way changes are perceived will determine the response to it. When change is viewed unnecessary high inertia can result or when change is viewed unattainable high stress can result. Reger et al. believe that tectonic change can prevent high levels of inertia and stress by acting as a “moderate earthquake”, destroying outdated aspects of the old identity while building on other, still relevant elements (see Table 4.6 on page 94 of the book).

Change as punctuated equilibrium

Instead of going for either first-order or second-order change it is common to use both by punctuating periods of equilibrium with intervals of major disequilibria (revolutionary period). In this way there is interplay between the two kinds of change, where revolutionary periods substantially disrupt established activity patterns and install the basis for new equilibrium periods.

Implications for Change Managers

• Managers need to be careful in assuming change can be neatly and clearly categorized without problems. Individuals possess mental frameworks that will determine how they view the change. What is considered small and incremental to one could be experienced as large-scale and disruptive to the other, if that change for example causes the other to lose his/her job. In this case, the most important task for the manager is to clarify what is actually going on (interpreter image).

• Instead of “either or” multiple types of changes can also occur simultaneously. In some case even one type of change is needed in order to proceed with another. Here the manager needs to realize that he/she is working with a lot of diversity (groups, interests, power relationships) and therefore cannot focus on merely one issue. Navigating through multiple changes is the key role (navigator image).

• Small changes may have larger unanticipated consequences throughout the organization at individual level (chaos theory). Therefore, the manager needs to be able to nurture and shape people’s perceptions and reactions to the change (nurturer image).

• Having coached staff how to act when organizational problems are triggered doesn’t necessarily mean they will. Sometimes other factors come into play, such as feelings of stress or inertia that will prevent staff from initiating change. It is not a given that problems always induce change. Therefore, the manager’s key task in this case is to facilitate/encourage personal initiative.

• In order to stay the same one needs to change (sail boat comparison). Therefore, stability and change are interrelated. The manager needs to provide directions not only about change but also about stability (director image).

• Sometimes the manager needs to retain certain routines and practices that are functioning well. Therefore, he/she needs to be careful in carrying out change in a way that a ripple effect will not disrupt what they want to preserve.

• Sometimes staying the same is more risky that going through a major change. Therefore, the change manager needs to take into account both the scale of change (incremental/radical) as well as the risk involved (of changing rather than staying the same).

Types of changes:

• Downsizing means intentionally cutting staff numbers in an organization. It comes in a variety of approaches including, retrenchment (reengineering practices and removal of unnecessary jobs and amenities), downscaling (permanent alterations to employment and tangible resource capacity) and downscoping (reducing the vertical and/or horizontal differentiation). Downsizing can be done with several objectives in mind, such as cost cutting and productivity gains, yet it is never sufficient by itself. Certain challenges are likely to arise in the process: employee retention, survivor syndrome, communication, due diligence, cultural adjustments and choice of restructuring technique. In general these challenges imply consequences such as (unnecessary) loss of important and skilled employees, remaining staff feeling distrustful, insecure and guilty, and reintegration.

• Technological changes can disrupt informal social patterns within the organization. Furthermore, 20 percent of them fail to achieve their intended purpose. They come with short-term and long-term advantages, where the long-term advantages are often overlooked. Table 4.10 on page 102 of the book gives you a sample of several types of technological change and their meaning.

The most common challenges that arise in this process are: goal synthesis, choice of technology, the IT team, communication, time frame and contingency planning. In general this means that the place for IT within an organization is often debatable, day-to-day operations need to be kept running throughout the process, corporate and IT teams need to work together and the time frame given is not always sufficient.

• Ever since the 1980s mergers and acquisitions have been very popular as they enable organizational growth at accelerated rates. They can be friendly or forceful and take on many different shapes (see Table 4.11 on page 104 of the book). The results vary as well. Sometimes the acquired company may remain to operate like always, in the extreme the entire structure will be brought in line with that of the other company. Approximately only 30 percent of corporate mergers are successful.

Challenges that are likely to occur in the process are: cost savings, cultural adjustments, due diligence, employee retention, contingency planning, power structure, communication and speed of the transition.

E: Diagnosis for Change

Models (diagnostic instruments) are used in the process of managing change with varying objectives in mind, depending on the type of manager is using it (director, navigator, caretaker, etc.). For each need a different model is suitable and numerous models exist to fit these needs. Furthermore, along with the right model it is also relevant who diagnoses the change (consultants or those directly affected by the change). Lastly, no matter how objective the diagnostician, a diagnosis always implies a political process with opponents to the decisions being made.

Some fundamental propositions to the discussion of models point out that no matter what, managers always contemplate “how things work”, “what causes what” and so forth. Therefore, they continuously diagnose by means of mind mapping. When these thoughts remain inside the heads of managers, the models are implicit and limited by individuality. If they are clearly stated, they are explicit and more easily generalized. In conclusion, using models is inevitable to change management.

According to Burke models can be useful in several ways. Firstly, when an organization changes, there are a lot of things going on. The use of models can make these things more manageable. Secondly, a model helps in identifying that are most important during the change process and need the most attention. Thirdly, models show the interconnectedness of organizational properties. This makes it easier for people to understand the whole process. Fourthly, when a model is used, one is able to create a common language. Finally, models are a useful guide to what actions will occur and in what sequence. So, tying it all together, models make change a little more understandable and therefore change may be a little easier.

Most importantly, specific situations require specific models. Therefore, no one model is the one “true model”.

Six-Box Organizational Model:

• Marvin Weisbord

• Based on the following variables: Purposes, Structure, Helpful Mechanisms, Relationships, Leadership, and Rewards.

• Even though one variable might require more attention than the others, all should be considered in change.

• Figure 5.1, page 124 of book

The 7-S Framework:

• Robert Waterman, Tom Peters and Julien Phillips

• Interactions of multiple variables determine organizational effectiveness. Therefore, attention should be paid to interconnectedness of these variables to achieve successful change.

• Based on following variables: Structure, Skills, Strategy, Systems, Staff, Superordinate goals, and Style.

• Figure 5.2, page 125 of book.

The Star Model:

• Jay Galbraith

• Based on the following five variables: Strategy (the key variable), Processes and Lateral Capability, Structure, Reward, and People Practices.

• The variables need to be in alignment to reach optimal effectiveness.

• Figure 5.3, page 126 of book and Figure 5.4, page 127

The Congruence Model:

• David Nadler and Michael Tushman

• Based on the following variables: Formal Organizational Arrangements, Individuals, Task, Informal Organization, Context (Environment, Resources, History), Strategy, Output (Organization, Group, and Individual). All together they comprise the transformation process, where feedback is essential.

• Figure 5.5, page 127 of book

The Burke-Litwin Model

• Warner Burke and George Litwin

• Change can be separated into transformational (major) and transactional (incremental). The transformational change factors are found at the top of the model, namely: External Environment, Mission and Strategy, Leadership, and Organization Culture.

• Planned change should be implemented from top of the diagram (environment) to bottom (performance).

• Figure 5.6, page 129 of book.

The Four-Frame model:

• Lee Bolman and Terry Deal

• Based on the assumption that managers view the organization through four different “frames” or “lenses”, namely: Symbolic Frame, Human Resource Frame, Political Frame, and Structural Frame.

• Each manager has his/her own interpretation of what’s going on and is therefore always subjective and limited.

Diagnosis by Image

This is not a model, but people are asked to provide an image or metaphor related to how they feel or experience certain developments within their organization. This is because often people find it hard to express with words how they truly feel about something. These images or metaphors are then used to generate a discussion where the “producer” of the image or metaphor is asked to explain his/her intended image.

Analysis of specific components

The Pestel Framework:

• Six variables characterize the organizational environment: Social (e.g. demographic changes), Political (e.g. threat of terrorism), Economical (e.g. unemployment), Legal (e.g. e.g. antitrust law), Technological (e.g. development of new/substitute products), and Environmental (e.g. antipollution policies).

• In this model you need to look out for trends to remain up-to-date with the latest developments and to prevent the organization from getting stuck in the status quo.

The Scenario Analysis:

• Like a pilot gets trained to properly handle situations that are highly unlikely to be encountered, yet could be disastrous if encountered, the same strategy can be applied to the business world. “A scenario is a description of some future state based on set of assumptions about what is likely to happen in regard to a number of key factors believed to be key drivers of that future state”.¹

• Table 5.4Scenario Methodology, page 131 of the book, shows you how to apply this method.

The Gap Analysis:

• Three general questions must be answered namely, “Where are we now?”, “Where do we want to go?”, and “How can we get there?”

• Responses can indicate high or low degrees of consensus, which determine the subsequent courses of action.

• Consensus needs to be reached on the first two questions, not necessarily on the third.

The Elements of Strategy:

• Strategy implies the organisation seeking to achieve certain objectives and the way it intends to do so. Therefore, strategy is at the heart of change.

• Strategy and change intersect where either the existing strategy needs to be changed or where changes need to be made to realize a set strategy.

• Donald Hambrick and James Frederickson came up with a framework that divides the organization into five elements that should be mutually reinforcing. You will find these in Table 5.5, page 133 and Table 5.6, page 134 of the book.

The Strategic Inventory:

• Strategy implies committing resources to various activities based on beliefs, premises and assumptions about an organisation’s environment, its mission and the core competencies needed to accomplish that mission. Over time, a mental pattern is formed through which new information is filtered and interpreted. However, these assumptions are subjective and possibly inaccurate.

• Picken and Dess designed a Strategic Inventory as a diagnostic tool to assist in identifying whether the strategy of the organization may be a priority focal point for change; Table 5.8, page 136 of the book.

Newsflash Exercise:

• This exercise makes issues very concrete in order to achieve a clearer outcome.

• Table 5.9, page 137 of the book.

Cultural Web:

• Designed by Gerry Johnson.

• The web contains seven elements namely, paradigm, rituals and routines, stories, symbols, control systems, power structures and organizational structure.

• By discussing all seven elements the culture of an organization is mapped in order to enhance or facilitate change/change strategy.

• Figure 5.7, page 139 of the book.

Getting the structure right is a continuous process due to enduring structural dilemmas that managers face. Bolman and Deal identified six dilemmas:

• Differentiation versus integration: Acts of differentiation are import in the act of change. However, after periods of change there needs to be integration, meaning the integration of the changes into the whole to create an identity that customers and stakeholders can relate to.

• Gap versus overlap: Managers need to be careful and clear in how they assign tasks to departments/positions to prevent key tasks from going undone or efforts and/or conflict from being wasted.

• Underuse versus overload: Workload needs to be distributed carefully to prevent staff from getting either bored or blocked in their capacity to work.

• Lack of clarity versus lack of creativity: Responsibilities of a position need to be clear enough to meet the employer’s wishes, yet not too specific and rigidly enforced or followed to leave some room for flexibility.

• Excessive autonomy versus excessive interdependence: A balance between autonomy and interdependence is important.

• Too loose versus too tight: Keep staff accountable for their actions, yet don’t monitor them too close.

The Boundaryless Organization

According to Ashkenas et al. organizations will have to significantly modify key structural aspects in order to cope with an increasingly competitive environment. They believe that speed (in bringing products to market and changing strategies), flexibility (use of ad hoc teams and malleable job descriptions), integration (collaboration between specialists) and innovation (encouragement of creativity) are the new success factors. Furthermore, they argue that these success factors will only be achieved if organizations reduce four types of organizational boundaries namely, vertical (organizational hierarchy), horizontal (between organizational units), external (between organization and environment) and international (between countries).

Besides finding out what needs to be changed it is important to determine the readiness for change as well. Several instruments were designed for this purpose, for example Tables 5.12-5.16 pages 143-150 of the book. Several factors are essential, such as culture, rewards, and status quo.

Stakeholder analysis is an important part of change because of the position of key stakeholders in regard to the suggested change. Stakeholder power and stakeholder interest are important aspects of this process (e.g. Figure 5.8, page 148 of the book). Furthermore, asking yourself certain question can be helpful in the analysis, such as the ones Grundy came up with:

• Can new stakeholders be added to the situation to change the balance?

• Can any oppositional stakeholders be encouraged to leave?

• Can the influence of pro-change stakeholders be increased?

• Can the influence of antagonistic stakeholder be decreased?

• Can the change be modified in away that meets concerns without undermining the change?

• If the stakeholder resistance is strong, should the proposal be revisited?

Force-Field Analysis

• Looks for forces that can assist (driving forces) or hinder (restraining forces) change.

• Several steps need to be undertaken: (1) define the problem, (2) determined the restraining forces and add them to the figure, (3) repeat step 2 except this time for driving forces, (4) if accurately assessed, the likely outcome will be clarified and the sources of greatest restraint will be determined.

• Figure 5.9, page 151 of the book.

F: Resistance to Change

Resistance to change is one of the most mentioned causes for the lack of success of organizational change. The Dilbert Principle on Change (Table 6.1, page 160 of the book) provides an example of hatred toward change. Furthermore, Table 6.2, page 160 of the book, lists the perspectives of all the different images of change regarding resistance to change.

However, some people are supportive of change. For example, Kirkpatrick mentions possible outcomes that are likely to cause people to respond positively to change: security, money, authority, status/prestige, responsibility, better working conditions, self-satisfaction, better personal contacts, and less time and effort.

Resistance to change comes in many shapes. Hultman distinguishes between active and passive resistance and detected a range of systems related to each. For example, active resistance can be recognized in people being critical, manipulating and starting rumours. Furthermore, passive resistance can be seen in people failing to implement change, agreeing verbally but not following through, and feigning ignorance.

Why people resist change:

• People dislike change. However, this is not innate, but more likely bound to a certain context. Therefore, people dislike what they associate with change from their own perception.

• People aren’t comfortable with uncertainty. Therefore, when the manager fails to provide a clear understanding of expectations, it will be hard for him/her to find support. It would be wise of the manger to sketch an image of what the supportive action should look like.

• People perceive a negative effect on their interest (e.g. authority, status, reward). Changes that are perceived as less threatening are more likely to gain support than the ones viewed as damaging.

• People get attached to the established culture/way of doing things. The degree of attachment to the existing culture can significantly affect readiness for change. Through existing mental models people create beliefs that are embedded within members’ most basic assumptions about the organization’s character. According to Reger et al. people either passively (connection between the change and some aspects of the organizational identity is not clarified) or actively resist (change is interpreted as directly in conflict with key elements of the organizational identity).

• People perceive a breach of psychological contract. A psychological contract is beliefs that employees form regarding the nature of the relationship between them and their employer. The breach occurs when employees are under the assumption that their employer is not performing his/her part of the deal. According to Strebel this “personal compact” as he calls it, exists out of three components: formal, psychological and social. If change conflicts with any of the key elements related to the three components, resistance is likely to emerge.

• People aren’t convinced that change is needed.

• People lack a clear understanding of what is expected.

• People believe that the proposed change is inappropriate. This doesn’t imply resistance to change in general, merely resistance to one specific change proposal. The manager should pay attention to it because sometimes people can have valuable arguments as to why they resist.

• People believe it is not the right time. They might even agree with the change, but simply find it the wrong time for implementation.

• People get tired of excessive change. According to Stensaker et al. this happens either (1) when people in the organization perceive simultaneously occurring change initiatives as unrelated or in conflict or (2) when resources are being assigned to new change initiatives while the earlier ones haven’t even been finished yet. See Table 6.8, page 167 of the book.

• Things that are going on in their own lives affect people’s readiness for change.

• People wish to act in accordance with their ethical principals.

• People react to their experiences with previous organizational changes. Even if the new situation is entirely different, still resistance will occur (however, more strongly when scripts are similar). Stensaker et al. came up with the term BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again).

• People disagree with the way things are being managed. Dent and Golberg argue that even though there are clear arguments for resistance to change, you should also consider (resistance to) poor management or mistakes in implementing change.

Managers as change resistors

Within an organization there isn’t just one manager, more likely several, differing in rank and department. Therefore, resistance can also come from the direction of management because different views are likely to form as to which initiatives/changes represent the best way to achieve the desired outcome. Furthermore, a diversity of managers implies a diversity of beliefs/mental grids that are likely to conflict.

Sometimes managers miss the clues of change being needed, regardless of feeling themselves ready for change. This is called the “boiled frog” phenomenon; a frog will slowly boil to death if the water is gradually heated, yet jump out of the water if thrown in at boiling point.

When organizations are functioning at best this phenomenon is most likely to occur. This is called the paradox of success, or “The Icarus Paradox”, as Danny Miller calls it. It implies that warning bells are being ignored or missed due to being blinded by success.

Managing resistance

Resistance to change can be managed in several ways:

Kotter and Schlesinger suggest six methods for managing change:

• Education and communication

• Participation and involvement

• Facilitation and support

• Negotiation and agreement

• Manipulation and co-optation

• Explicit and implicit coercion

• (See Table 6.11, page 173 of the book)

They stress that the manager should not pick just one, but use the six interchangeably to fit contextual factors.

The Resistance Cycle

The way people react to change can also be seen as progression through a series of psychological stages. According to Scott and Jaffe these stages are denial, resistance, exploration and finally commitment. This cycle begins with denying the status quo, then recognition that the situation is what it is and will not go away by itself, followed by re-energizing and preparing to explore the possibilities, and finally all attention is focused on a new course of action.

In general, the assumption in this case is that managing resistance means letting nature take its course. However, Scott and Jaffe do acknowledge that sometimes this can take too long or the process can get stuck somewhere. Therefore, they do recommend intervention where needed.

Thought Self-Leadership

Beliefs and assumptions, self-talk and mental imagery develop thought patterns that determine people’s perceptions to change. Thought Self-Leadership (TSL) means altering these perceptions to a more positive attitude toward change. This theory assumes that people respond negatively to change as a result of misconception. Therefore, by redirecting the thought process, a more positive attitude can be created. Furthermore, the theory assumes there is a difference between opportunity thinkers (positive) and obstacle thinkers (negative).

Verbal replies

Karp found a creative way of dealing directly with resistance by designing verbal replies to answer specific expressions of resistance (see Table 6.13, page 175-176 of the book).

Tinkering, kludging and pacing

Abrahamson argues its better to reshape existing practices and business models rather than create new ones. He suggests tinkering, kludging and pacing. Tinkering means somewhat shifting existing resources around, whereas kludging is a little more large-scale and could include developing a new business or division with existing capabilities. Pacing refers to being able to mix major change initiatives with tinkering and kludging to create a less disruptive effect.

Power of resistance

Maurer takes a different stance, and argues using power of resistance to benefit from it. He suggests the following: maintain clear focus, embrace resistance, respect those who resist, relax, and join with the resistance. Maurer designed several default options on how to deal with resistance (see Table 6.15, page 179-180 of the book). Jack and Peiperl add to this that resistance should be recognized as a natural reaction to change and therefore part of the change process.

G: Implementing Change: OD

Organizational Development (OD) emerged during the 1940s/1950s, a time where organizational hierarchy was dominant. Strangely enough, this approach embraced humanism and individuality, in contrary to authority, rationality and efficiency. It has developed over time (see Table 7.1, page 193 of the book), therefore, it draws on a variety of differing perspectives from all sorts of theorists (e.g. Herzberg, Maslow, Lewin).

Richard Beckhard drew together these threads of perspectives and came up with the following characteristics for OD: long-term, planned, groups and teams, improving effectiveness, top-down, action-oriented, changing attitudes and behaviour, experiential-based learning. In general these characteristics imply that OD concerns incremental, first-order change that is built upon humanistic, democratic and developmental values, with people as its focus.

The OD practitioner is central to the traditional OD approach and can be either internal or external to the organization. According to Cummings and Worley they practitioners need to possess intrapersonal, interpersonal and general consultation skills along with plenty of knowledge about organization development theory. With action research as a base, OD includes the following steps:

• Problem identification

• Consultation with an OD practitioner

• Data gathering and problem diagnosis

• Feedback

• Joint problem diagnosis

• Joint action planning

• Change actions

• Further data gathering

Kurt Lewin made these steps more compact by proposing a three-stage model: unfreeze, change, and refreeze (see Table 7.2, page 195 of the book).

Several problems exist in the field of OD. French and Bell identify six:

• OD definitions and concepts

• Internal validity problems

• External validity problems

• Lack of theory

• Problems with measuring attitude changes

• Problems with normal science approaches to research

Opinions differ as to whether or not these problems are surmountable.

Currently, OD has lost its way (power, presence, perspective) and is being taken over by strategies such as downsizing and reengineering, practices that go against the fundamental values of OD. Assisting both individual development and organizational performance is difficult because the two elements contradict each other. However, by making alterations such as making organizations more inclusive, reinforcing interdependence, and redefining the purpose of the organization in terms of multiple stakeholders, the elements should find a manageable balance for OD to be practised nowadays.

OD values, even though some advocates consider them to be universal, are troubled by cultural differences. These differences result in varying leadership styles that place different emphasis on people versus result. Furthermore, a distinction is being made between eastern (Confusian/Taoist) and western (Lewinian/OD) views of organizational change (see Table 7.3, page 198 of the book).

Traditional OD techniques do not work well anymore in nowadays’ hypercompetitive business environment. It has moved focus from micro to macro in order to cope with large-scale, second-order organizational change. The new techniques imply getting the entire organizational system or at least a substantial amount of representatives of the whole system into a room all together. Key to this process is search conference, meaning everyone’s understanding of the organization and its situation is being enhanced and new and different voices are being heard. In short, the few are no longer left in the position of deciding for the many; decision-making becomes a group effort. Due to higher involvement of staff results are being achieved with greater speed, increased commitment and substantially less resistance by the rest of the organization. Furthermore, innovation, adaptation, and learning are being enhanced.

Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry (AI), figure 7.1, p.201, is an approach that builds on what works through developing a joint envisioning of the future. This is contrary to the problem solving/conflict management methods of OD. Inclusion, engagement and social innovation are key words to this process.

According to Fuller, Griffin and Ledma, AI implies four steps: discovering, building, designing, and sustaining. In this way, large-scale changes are being approached with a lot of positive energy and an emphasis on releasing a self-sustaining learning capacity within the organization.

Positive Organizational Scholarship

Whereas in the past the focus was more on the negative aspects and problems in organizations, through the emergence of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) there is a shift towards ‘positive thinking’. POS pays attention to the positive aspects of an organization and tries to build further on these aspects throughout the whole organization.

Fineman raises four issues whether the positive focus of POS could really work:

1. It is difficult to agree on which behaviour is positive. This will vary in different environments.

2. Not only will positive behaviour and emotions differ across environments, this also varies across different cultures.

3. It is not always possible to separate the positive aspects from the negative. For example, happiness comes together with anxiety, because one can question how long the happiness will last.

4. Not all people will respond the same towards so-called positive programs that create a sort of ‘fun’ environment in the working place. Whereas one person may really like this, another person may resist it totally.

Interpreter image of change

From the perspective of the interpreter image managing change revolves around sense making. Karl Weick argues against three common change assumptions:

• Assumption of inertia; a lack of desire to change demands planned, intended change to stir things up a little and close the gap between environmental change and organizational adaptation. Weick claims organizations should be viewed as being in a continuous state of accomplishment and re-accomplishment to create a better fit between organizational routines and a changing environment.

• Assumption that a standardized change program is needed. According to Weick, a standardized program will destroy the four drivers of organizational change: animation, direction, paying attention and updating, and respectful, candid interaction. He claims these drivers activate the sense-making process and a standardized program fails to do so.

• Assumption of unfreezing. Unlike Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refeeze model, Weick suggests freeze-rebalance-unfreeze model. He assumes that organizations, in which change is continuous and emergent, are already unfrozen to begin with. Therefore, you need to freeze the status quo to view the situation, then rebalance, and finally unfreeze to let change emerge again.

In general Weick’s arguments support the sense-making view of change (interpreter image), meaning management doesn’t create change, it labels it, in order for everyone to understand what is going on and where they are headed. Or as Bolman and Deal say, like an artist, the manager is meant to interpret the change and express it in ways that can be felt, understood and appreciated by others. Helms Mills build further on Weick’s theory by developing a model of sense-making framework (see Table 7.8, page 207 of the book).

H: Implementing Change: Change Management

Change Management Approaches

Change management (CM) differs from OD in that it provides multistep models that guide you in achieving large-scale, transformational change. Table 8.1, page 222-223 of the book, shows you nine different multistep models. They vary in the degree to which all steps need to be followed, sequence of the steps, and whether they should be adapted to specific settings. Furthermore, a distinction is being made between discontinuous and continuous change.

Several comments regarding Table 8.1:

• In Pendlebury et al.’s “Ten Key” model, several steps can be given less attention in the case of continuous change (mobilize, catalyse, handle emotion, and handle power) because staff should be accustomed to change in itself by now.

• Nadler divides a 12-step action plan into three components: power (step 1-4), motivate (step 5-8), and transition (step 9-12). He stresses that the situational factor determines on which steps more emphasis should be placed and that the order of the steps mat vary under different circumstances.

• Bartlett and Ghoshal argue the importance of sequencing and implementation of activities in the change process. They identify three transformational change phases: rationalization, revitalization, and regeneration. According to them, the change process is very clear and simple, yet it does require a lot of courage.

• Kanter et al. came up with “Ten Commandments”. In addition, they stress the following: The change maker group in question (strategists, implementers, recipients) determines how the commandments will be preached and practised. Each organization is different and therefore, the commandments should be tailored. When multiple changes occur it’s difficult to separate past from present. Communication should be a two-way street where full control is unattainable. Risk and experiential learning should be allowed as being part of the process. Even though a strong leader is desired, multiple leaders may rise to the occasion.

8-step model

John Kotter developed one of the most well known models to CM, the “eight-step” model (see Table 8.2, page 225 of the book). Additionally, he stresses the importance of taking it step by step without rushing by skipping steps. He replaces the analysis-think-change pattern with one of see-feel-change. He believes that when you take time to really show people the need for change and have them feel the necessity of it, it becomes a more natural, more motivating process.

There are many ways of researching whether or not CM is taking over from OD. However, one study showed that since the mid-1990s there has been a shift toward CM (see figure 8.1, page 227 of the book). The following years there has been a decline in OD and a shift to CM. Even though this concerns just one specific study and therefore has its limitations, still you may conclude that CM is slowly taking over from OD.

As the continuum is shifting from OD to CM, supporters and opponents of each field debate what is and what should be. Consultants, opposed to facilitators or coaches in the OD field, dominate CM and act more as directors/advisors. According to Church, the biggest difficulty lies in three forces: reaching agreement on the ultimate demise of OD as a field, shift in OD values away from humanism toward a bottom-line focus, and lack of clarity regarding what it is that unifies the OD field. Fundamental, strategic changes are characteristics assigned to CM. Some say that CM has taken the place of OD because of the following: CM has a broader scope than OD, CM consultants include technical knowledge and their change teams represent skills that cover a range of strategy and organizational ideas, and CM believes it is through structural changes that new behaviours will emerge.

Heracleous concludes by saying that instead of worrying so much about what and where the shift is taking place on the continuum, one should focus on integrating the two fields for they complement each other. Together they reach higher potential of dealing with radical organizational change.

Contingency approaches

Contingency approaches argues there isn’t “one best way” to change the organization, something CM implies with its variety of models. In the contingency approach the best way depends on situational factors, and for each different context another management style should be used. Dexter Dunphy and Doug Stace argue that the style of change (collaborative, consultative, directive, or coercive) along with the scale of change (fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation, or corporate transformation) should suit the needs of the organization (see Figure 8.2, page 230 of the book). Together these elements create five main change approaches:

• Developmental transitions; consultative, incremental adjustment/modular transformation.

• Task focused transitions; directive, incremental adjustment/modular transformation.

• Charismatic transformation; consultative, modular transformation/corporate transformation.

• Turnarounds; directive, modular transformation/corporate transformation.

• Taylorism; consultative/directive, fine-tuning.

Additionally, Dunphy and Stace stress that in different periods of time require differing paths of change. Therefore, an organization shouldn’t adopt just on approach, but several, depending on what the organization needs at that time. Moreover, they suggest that in these times of hypercompetitive business environments, medium- to high-performance organizations are likely to use directive and consultative management styles. Effective managers, in their opinion, are those not afraid to adopt their styles to what the circumstances require.

Huy proposes another contingency approach, one that consists of four ideal types:

• Commanding change intervention; short-term, abrupt, rapid, staff compliance is demanded.

• Engineering change intervention; medium-term, relatively fast, change agent as analyst (collaboration).

• Teaching change intervention; long-term, more gradual, staff is taught.

• Socializing change intervention; long-term, gradual, participative experiential learning.

Once more, each type has its limitations. Therefore, there is no such thing as one ideal type.

Contingency approaches focus on the applicability of change management programs in varying times and situations. It is very difficult to determine the most suitable approach for a specific situation/time due to many factors:

• Opinions may vary as to what is the best fit because people possess varying perceptions based on mental grids.

• Managers have a wider range of options to choose from and ambiguity makes it hard to determine what type of situation they are facing.

• By focusing on matching the required style to the scale of change in question, attention is drawn away from the more important issue, what action steps to take.

• The continuous shifting of style and scale creates uncertainty and makes staff question the credibility/sincerity of management.

• It is hard to define what exactly is contingent to managing change.

Processual approaches

Processual approaches agree with contingency approaches in a sense that they assume that time and situation require varying change management programs. However, processual approaches stress that change should be considered as a continuous process without a clear end or beginning.

Building further on this, Pettigrew describes change as a complex interplay between content, process and context. He thereby stresses that differing interest groups bring along differing rationality’s that influence in which way the organizational change occurs.

In general, this implies a more political and cultural view of change. In this way, processual approaches are a great help in explaining the why and how of the processes (analysis and understanding). However, they are not so helpful in providing clear action steps that managers are craving for.

Pettigrew developed several stages to change management:

• Problem-sensing stage

• Development of concern

• Gaining acknowledgement and understanding of the importance of the problem

• Planning and acting stage

• Stabilizing change

In conclusion, the processual approach can be illuminating in explaining the political, cultural and contextual issues related to change. However, it fails to help bring theory into practice.

I: Linking Vision and Change

In order to achieve successful change you need to get the vision right. Getting it right depends on three factors:

• Content (what it is and says).

• Context (where it used and by whom).

• Process (how it emerges and who has input into it).

Lacking vision is linked to organizational decline and failure. Linking vision to change depends on what change image is being used (see Table 9.1, page 251-252 of the book).

A vision is a picture or image that functions as a guide or goal. It can be inspiring, motivating, emotional or analytical. Opinions differ on how effective visions should be composed.

According to Boal and Hooijberg a visions should consist of a cognitive component (focus on outcomes and how to achieve them) and an affective component (motivate people and gain commitment).

Most people agree all visions should be clear, desirable, challenging, feasible, and easy to communicate. Nutt and Backoff believe organizational performance is likely to increase when visions are possible, desirable, actionable and articulate. However, according to Pendlebury et al. visions need to express why the change is needed, the aim of the change, and the change actions that will be taken.

Table 9.3, page 255 of the book shows how several authors characterized good visions. However, it’s difficult to determine the criteria against which the previously mentioned elements can be assessed. But, when it feels good, it should suffice.

Levin compares vision statements to bumper stickers and claims they are meaningless and all very similar to one another. He argues that vision stories are much more effective. Because vision stories sketch a detailed image of a future, it is easier for people to imagine themselves and their actions in it (see Table 9.5, page 257 of the book).

Often vision, mission, philosophy and goals/strategy are mixed up. Once more:

• Vision; where the organization is headed in the future.

• Mission; what the organization is and does.

• Philosophy; values and believes about how work should be carried out.

• Goals/strategy; how the organization will progress toward the future.

According to Hay and Williamson, a vision has an external and an internal dimension. The external dimension describes a shared view of how the organization’s market is impacted by the general market, it’s customers, competitors, industry dynamics, and macroeconomics. The internal dimension describes the organization’s values and beliefs. In this way, creating a well-specified market vision will determine how the growth and competitiveness of the organization. Furthermore, by defining clear beliefs and values, meaning is attributed to the organization.

There is also a relationship between context and vision. Nutt and Backhoff distinguish four organizational contexts and their ability to produce visionary change:

• Rigid organizations; high resource availability, not susceptible for change, hierarchical and inflexible.

• Bold organizations; low resource availability, highly susceptible for change, organic structure, and less rule-bound.

• Overmanaged organizations; high resource availability, hardly susceptible for change, more stable environment, dominated by past practices.

• Liberated organizations; high resource availability, highly susceptible for change.

In general, this shows that a certain context is needed to trigger people’s awareness of a need for a new vision. This context can be given or in other cases produced by leaders (crisis) to create dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for change. Finally, a national and cultural context plays an important role in determining a vision.

Different philosophies exist as to how a vision should be created and imposed (see Table 9.7, page 260 of the book). Nutt and Backoff identified three different processes:

• Leader-dominant approach; telling and selling.

• Pump-priming approach; testing and consulting.

• Facilitation approach; co-creating.

According to Nutt and Backoff, the facilitation approach is most effective because staff involvement is the highest here which means a greater willingness to participate.

By asking certain questions a more specific action plan can be created to help develop a vision. Holpp & Kelly created three sets of questions:

• Intuitive approach; questions based on imagination and imagery to encourage staff to participate in developing a vision. The downside of this approach is that it is highly subjective and often disconnect from the core of the organizational goals.

• Analytical approach; visions are defined in relation to organizational missions and roles. The downside to this approach is that it neglects values and guiding logics inherent to the organization.

• Benchmarking approach; by comparing the organization to the actions and standards of it’s most fierce competitors a vision statement is developed. The downside to this approach is that the emphasis is on current competitors, where it should be envisioning a future with new competitors.

Often vision statements lack integrity and are disconnected from the inner voice of the organization. In order to create a vision that goes beyond the superficial to guide organizational actions one needs to delve deep into the core of the system. There shouldn’t be a gap between what the organization intends to do/be and what it actually does/is.

Why visions may fail

Visions may fail for numerous reasons (see Table 9.10, page 267 of the book). For example, a vision will likely fail when it is too specific, too vague, inadequate, or too unrealistic.

In order for a vision to remain effective (legacy) over time its strategy and later environmental appropriateness need to be flexible by origin. Otherwise the vision may turn into a disaster (hangover).

Furthermore, according to Kanter et al., a vision may fail when multiple and conflicting visions are present simultaneously. Again, he refers to three groups involved in the change process; strategist, implementers, and recipients. When the strategists feel another need for change, the implementers might still be completing previously requested change. Another example is when management’s strategic vision is not in line with stakeholders’ images and vision of the organization.

Relationship between vision and change

Some say that vision drives change. For example, Kanter et al. argues that a vision is needed to provide meaning to changes introduced by managers (goal clarification). However, Pendlebury et al. claim that vision provides an outline of the extent of change (how profound, how long, which domains). Hamel and Prahalad argue that vision includes strategic intent and therefore is needed to end, where the organization is heading.

Others say that vision emerges during change. They believe that first some fundamental changes have to be made to organizational structures and management processes. From this point on enough information is available to start creating a vision. Robert Quinn calls it, “building the bridge as you walk on it”.

Vision can help change. According to Lipton, the way vision helps change is by:

• Enhancing performance

• Facilitating organizational change

• Enabling sound strategic planning

• Recruiting needed talent

• Focusing on decision making

Furthermore, Metais claims that vision creates stretch and leverage within an organization. This means that vision creates awareness of a gap between status quo and desired future (increases motivation) and encourages staff to come up with innovative ways of utilizing the organizational resources. Stretch and leverage together can be used to create new strategies of achieving the vision, such as: flanking (exploiting a weakness in a dominant competitor), encircling (gaining greater control of the market), and destabilizing (changing the competitive rules that operate).

Vision can also hinder change. This may happen when visionary or charismatic leaders don’t practice what they preach. Furthermore, visions have the tension to lose focus of what the organization should be dealing with here and now by directing attention to the future. Another danger lies in having the wrong vision drive the change (overstimulate) or when vision doesn’t deliver what it has promised (disillusion). When visions forget to include those who will be affected by it they are not likely to lead to successful change. Another reason for failure is unwillingness to re-evaluate and test the ongoing utility of the vision. Finally, when visions are developed based on current or past sense-making process, they are likely to fail, because its focus should be on the future.

It is important to remember that visions should allow organizational identity to be flexible, negotiable and able to change over time.

Having a strong, effective vision is not enough according to some authors. For example, Nadler stresses the envisioning aspect of change leaders, which he names heroic leaders. According to him, not only needs the vision to be clear, compelling, challenging and credible, it also has to be reflected in the expressions and actions of the leader who is articulating it.

Gardner and Avolio claim that effective charismatic or visionary leaders can be recognized by the following desired identity images: trustworthiness, credibility, morality, innovativeness, esteem, and power. They argue that these leaders enact their visions in four ways:

• Framing: managing the meaning of followers, gaining acceptance.

• Scripting: co-ordinating and integrating a more specific set of ideas and actions.

• Staging: reinforcing the vision with attributes.

• Performing: enacting the vision by exemplification.

Collins and Porras disagree with vision being an attribute of heroic leaders. They argue that organizations need embedded visions, ideologies and values instead of one single charismatic leader holding it all together. They believe visions are made of core ideology. In this core ideology, core values serve as timeless guiding principles of the organization and core purpose serves as defining its existence. Additionally, they claim that you need an envisioned future made out of BHAGs (big hairy audacious goals) and clear descriptions of what they are meant to deliver in time. Finally, you need vivid descriptions, meaning vibrant, passionate and engaging descriptions of what the future will be like when goals are achieved (see Table 9.13, page 277 of the book).

Collins and Porras rather refer to vision as industry foresights. These foresights are meant to delve deeper into thought and insight of and industry and its trends. Furthermore, it is a representation of many people’s visions, in contrary to just one belonging to a charismatic leader.

J: Strategies for Communicating Change

Crucial to the success of change is the way it is communicated and talked about by organizational members. However, effective communication isn’t a skill that many people possess. Lewis even refers to it as ranked among the most problematic issues to have dealt with. Communication can be divided into strategies and skills. These two elements will be influenced by the different images of change (see Table 10.1, page 293 of the book). No matter how badly manager would like to have full control over the communication of change, they have to keep in mind that such a desire is unattainable, that communication can merely be shaped.

Communication involves numerous varying elements, such as content, voice, tone, message, audience, medium, frequency, and consistency. Nelson and Coxhead identify principal components (message, feedback, channel, sender/receiver, encoding/decoding, noise) along with three potential problems:

• Message overload: the sender encodes more information than the receiver is capable of handling.

• Message distortion: the receiver misinterprets the message (un)intentionally.

• Message ambiguity: the message is properly received as prescription, yet the meaning is not understood.

Nelson and Coxhead stress that in order to prevent these problems, the organization needs to develop a common language and top management needs to consistently be a leading example.

Gender, language, power and emotion influence communication. For example, there are many ways in which you can say the same sentence, but achieve varying outcomes. Furthermore, men and women have different ways of communicating with one another. Men are more likely to claim credit (by use of “I”), minimize their doubts, and ask fewer questions. Other gender differences exist in how feedback is given/received, exchange of compliments, and (in)directness of communication. All these factors can be used to explain why communication processes might break down during periods of change as well as stability.

Fox and Amichai-Hamburger argue that people share a need to seek a fit between their cognitive perception of change and their emotional understanding of it. By addressing emotional appeals managers can get through to their staff (see Table 10.4, page 298 of the book).

It is important to remember that four assumptions are being made regarding communication:

• Emotions are produced and contained within the boundaries of the organization (leaves out external stimuli).

• All people respond in the same way to the same emotional appeals (ignores differing motivations/perceptions/cultures).

• Not all change managers have the same (required) skills to deal with the emotional response of staff to change.

• In some cases of change it is easier to reach a positive emotional response than in others.

Communication strategies

Some say that there can never be enough communication, others disagree. Geigle and Bailey found in one of their studies that overcommunication lead to change recipient anxiety and cynicism about the change. There were two reasons for this: people suffered from information overload and the communication strategy did not involve real participation as had been anticipated. They conclude that conveying information in itself is not enough. Managers need to filter and distil the information to separate the important things from the less important. In doing this, they need to take on the role of sense-maker instead of reporter. Moreover, instead of merely spreading as much information over as many people as possible, managers should also inquire information occasionally from their staff to create a sense of involvement.

There is a difference between getting the word out (providing information) and getting buy-in (participation). Guaspari claims that managers should be less arrogant in trying to convince their audience that they know what is right and needed to create successful change. Instead, they should take on a role of informant, letting people know what is going on. More importantly, change managers should buy in change related information from their staff. Whether or not people will cooperage depends on outcome fairness and procedural fairness, meaning want to know exactly what they are buying into before they decide to be part of it.

Daly found that a manager’s justification is not so important when staff looks on the outcome favourably and vice versa. However, when it comes to procedural fairness, staff always demands an explanation for change decisions, regardless of whether or not the outcome is considered as positive. Daly also throws trust into the mix, stating managers are more likely to be trusted by staff when they:

• Provide accurate information and feedback

• Adequately explain the basis for their decisions

• Use open communication, enabling exchange of ideas between them and their staff

In order to reach a better understanding what moves people in communicating change you should have a look at Table 10.7, page 303-304 of the book.

Communication strategies vary. Clampit et al. identify the following:

• Spray and pray: low communication effectiveness

• Tell and sell: medium communication effectiveness

• Underscore and explore: high communication effectiveness

• Identify and reply: medium communication effectiveness

• Withhold and uphold: low communication effectiveness

For a more detailed description of these strategies see Table 10.9, page 306 of the book.

These strategies can and should be used interchangeably, depending on the occasion.

Communication strategies can be contingent on either the type of change or the age of change. Dunphy and Stace argue that the communication strategy should suit the type of change:

• Developmental or incremental transitions: face-to-face communication, widespread commitment and involvement.

• Task-focused transitions: formal communication, top-down.

• Charismatic transformation: more personalized form of communication (top-down) with some symbolic two-way communication media.

• Turnarounds: formal, top-down, and forceful.

Reardon and Reardon argue communication strategy should be fitted to the stage of the change process:

• Commanding style: performance and results oriented, directing people toward various tasks.

• Logical style: discovering the range of alternatives of change and long-term goals.

• Inspirational leadership style: developing a vision of the future and encouraging organizational members to move into this perspective.

• Supportive leadership style: creating consensus and an open working environment.

Furthermore, they identify five main stages of change:

• Planning stage: combination of logical and inspirational leadership style.

• Enabling stage: combination of logical, inspirational, and supportive style.

• Launching stage: combination of logical and commanding style.

• Catalysing stage: combination of inspirational and supportive style.

• Maintaining stage: combination of inspirational and supportive style.

They add that different phases of a change require different styles, therefore, no one change leader is likely to handle the challenge on his/her own.

Communication media

Communication can take place through several kinds of media. According to Lengel and Daft, the richness of media implies the extent to which the communication style involves interpersonal contact (media richness hierarchy). They claim that the more nonroutine, difficult the management problem is, the more rich the media should be (face-to-face) and vice versa. In words of change this means that incremental changes (“routine”) require a different medium than radical change (“nonroutine”).

In conclusion, even though some authors argue that there is one best communication medium applicable to all situations, in practice they need to be tailored to specific situations. Announcing change is a complicated matter. Therefore, be aware of the issues related to it (see Table 10.10, page 309 of the book).

Opinions differ on who should be the one to communicate the change. Mostly, people believe this is the task of a CEO to show that he/she is personally committed to the change. Another perspective argues that supervisors should be the communicators because they are most likely to be trusted by staff. Larkin and Larkin describe in more detail how supervisors should be briefed by a two-stage strategy in Table 10.11, page 311 of the book.

Duck adds to this discussion by introducing tag teams to manage the conversation between people leading the change effort and those who are expected to implement the strategies. These teams are meant to spread information across organizational boundaries to prevent rumours, uncertainty and discomfort.

K: Skills for Communicating Change

Varying assumptions are made when it comes to attributing value to the communicational aspect of change:

• The unitarist perspective (director and coach image) believes that breakdowns in the change process are the result of inadequate communication, misunderstanding of meanings, and inappropriate values. They assume that good communication skills can fix such problems.

• The political, pluralist view (navigator and interpreter image) attribute breakdowns to negotiation of differing individuals and groups varying in paths and aims.

• Where people believe that changes are inevitable (caretaker image) or change is the result of unpredictable chaotic influences (nurturer image), managers need to be able to listen out for when it is necessary to explain the change.

For a more detailed description of relationship of change images to communication skills see Table 11.1, page 324-325 of the book.

Communication skills

Four communication skills can be used to engage others in a change process: listening, storytelling, upward selling and toxic handling.

Listening

Table 11.2, page 326 of the book, shows how Wolvin and Coakley identify five view on listening (discriminative, comprehensive, therapeutic, critical, and appreciative).

Gerard and Teurfs argue that listening, dialogue and community building is needed to facilitate change. They claim that several skills are needed in the process: suspending judgement, identifying assumptions, listening, and inquiring and reflecting. In this way the organizational can undergo three different types of cultural transformations:

• Behavioural (new norms and behaviours)

• Experiential (learning how to achieve community)

• Attitudinal (collaboration replaces individualism).

This is a very optimistic approach, assuming that power, conflict and other differences can be easily overcome. Furthermore, it fails to focus on strategy and direction.

Telling stories

To prevent the organization from making the same mistakes again and to repeat previous successes, people tell stories. Stories are more likely to stick with people than just plain information. Moreover, people can imagine themselves in it. However, a good story requires an effective storyteller.

Upward selling

By means of issue selling, new ideas for change are being pushed upward through the organization from staff to management in order to get their attention and gain support. Dutton et al. Argues that selling requires packaging (presentation and bundling).

In presenting ideas they should be logically linked to the business plan, raised incrementally to make it seem not too large, and brought up repeatedly. In bundling ideas they should be linked to important organizational goals, such as profitability, market share, organizational image, and concerns of key stakeholders. In this process it is important to keep in mind who your selling to, who to involve in the selling process and how your going to sell your ideas.

Toxic handlers

This term was introduced by Frost and Robinson and refers to those people who voluntary take the sadness, frustration, and anger that might result from change upon their shoulders. However, the danger is that they themselves become burned out or that organizations come to rely on them too much (become lazy). Table 11.5, page 330 of the book, shows you how toxic handlers operate.

Change Conversation Skills

According to Ford and Ford change occurs within and through communication. Therefore management of change can also be called management of conversations. This is explained in speech act theory, where change occurs through four types of conversations:

• Initiative conversations: need for change is being brought to attention either by assertion, request or declaration.

• Conversations for understanding: enhance people’s understanding of the change issues and problems that need to be dealt with. These conversations prescribe the conditions of satisfaction, enable participation, and confirm the interpretations.

• Conversations for performance: focus on producing the actual change by making promises, entering into obligations, establishing accountabilities, and setting deadlines.

• Conversations for closure: complete the change by either acknowledging, celebrating or rewarding.

Throughout all of these conversations managers should watch out to address only those who are in a position to proceed with the change, ensure shared understanding, hold people accountable by means of performance conversations, specify intentions regarding results and deadlines, and hold closure conversations before entering a new change process.

Ford and Ford stress that change conversations don’t always occur in a linear manner and that you’re dealing with multiple processes, perceptions, interpretations, varying skills, and power (opposition). Therefore, as a change manager you need to stay aware that things won’t always work out perfectly according to plan.

Silince supports use of language and change conversations as being essential to a change process. He emphasizes coherence and distinguishes four dominant language forms: ideals (express preference), appeals (seek support), rules (direct behaviour), and deals (bargaining and exchange). He argues these language forms should be used interchangeably and that a change process usually starts out with conversations of appeal/ideals and ends up in conversations of rules/deals. Furthermore, he bases his theory on the sequential Lewinian model of change (unfreeze-change-refreeze).

Marshak argues the importance of fitting the right kind of imagery and metaphors with the desired type of change. He describes four images of change with its appropriate language:

• Machine imagery of change: organization is like a broken machine that needs to be fixed; repair, adjust, correct.

• Developmental imagery of change: organization needs to become even better by building upon past and current practices; nurturing, growing, and getting better.

• Transitional imagery of change: organizational operations are being altered; moving forward, leaving the past behind, moving from a to b so to speak.

• Transformational imagery of change: organization reinvents itself or aims to change fundamentally; reinventing, re-creating, adopting.

However, sometimes organizations get stuck in dominant metaphors that tend to influence the way managers think. This is not necessarily the right metaphor for the occasion. Therefore, managers need to become aware of these dominant metaphors and alter policies, systems and processes to prevent conflicting language of the desired change.

In the process of communicating change words can have several meanings and can be used for different purposes. This may lead to amusement, frustration, and confusion and could cause a business reengineering process to fail. Moosebruker and Lofton divide the meaning of a word over business process language and organization development language. For example, in business process language, system means computer hardware, while in organization development language it refers to the internal and external interconnections and relationships of the organization. Therefore, managers need to regularly check shared meaning of the concepts they are using.

Heracleous and Barett refer to language as discursive patterns that contain two elements: surface-level communication and deeper discursive actions (interpretive schemes). They argue that change leaders need to be skilled enough to detect and understand these deeper discursive actions of varying stakeholders. Additionally, they need to have the skills to uncover and appreciate these deep structures as well.

Communication towards external stakeholders

Until now communication has been all about internal to the organization. However, this leaves out an important interest group, the external stakeholders. They have a significant amount of influence in organizational decision-making. Therefore, they need to be addresses and included in the change process. Most importantly, management needs to explain itself to these stakeholders, who will hold management accountable for the organization’s actions. When the outcomes are negative, managers have the tendency to protect themselves by using excuses, justifications, disclaimers, or concealment.

Pearson and Clair define organizational crises as highly ambiguous, low in probability, high in threat to organizational survival, little time to react, often surprising to staff, uncertain about required type of change decisions. When these elements are externally linked they endanger the corporate reputation and alert stakeholders. Managers can choose to apologise by persuasive accounts, statements of regret or disassociation. Blaney et al. detected five crises management change strategies:

• Mortification (apologise)

• Corrective action (fixing the wrong-doing)

• Bolstering (fix the image)

• Denial

• Shifting the blame

However, organizations need to careful in selecting which strategies to use because some will conflict each other and make matters even worse. For example, bolstering can be undermined by corrective action and denial.

L: Sustaining Change

More important than achieving successful change is to preserve successful change (become new normality) and to be aware of how it is achieved. The way change manager handle consolidation differs with each image of change (see Table 12.2, page 358 of the book). Preserving change means altering the original organizational culture. According to Kotter culture is not easily manipulated. It takes time, hard work, persistence and a creation of trust/credibility. Gerstner adds that it becomes more natural and less hard when you involve staff in the process. In this way, change leader become creators of conditions for transformation and needs to encourage/invite staff to change the culture themselves.

Several actions can assist in consolidating change:

• Redesign roles: according to Beer et al. the context of roles, relationships and responsibilities in which people find themselves is most likely to influence their behaviour and attitudes.

• Redesign reward system: Beer and Nohria stress that rewards should involve publicly recognizing the behaviour of those people acting in accordance with the desired change.

• Link selection decisions to change objectives: by carefully selecting who gets appointed to key positions the organization can send out signals about whether or not this change is for real.

• Act consistently with advocated actions: practice what you preach, walk the talk, put your money where your mouth is, etc. This is needed to gain credibility, support and motivation with your staff. The change manager should function as a leading example.

• Encourage “voluntary” acts of initiative: Beer et al. argue that effective senior managers are those who provide staff with general guidelines and leave the ones closer to the action in charge of the details of the change process.

• Measure progress: monitoring the progress of change and impact how people act. Examples of measuring methods are quantitative performance measure, attitude surveys, focus groups, and individual interviews. Kanter adds there are two kinds of measures; results measures (indicate whether or not the finish is reached) and process measures (indicate whether or not you are doing the right thing).

• Celebrate en rout: by celebrating short-term wins managers can keep hope alive, enhance credibility of the program, learn from the process, draw attention to the most urgent areas of attention.

• Fine-tune: Nadler argues that no change process will be flawless because managers need to act on their gut feeling/take risks and circumstances are continuously changing.

Pascale et al. compares organizations to living systems. Therefore, it is important to remember that unanticipated consequences might occur throughout the change process because living systems cannot be fully controlled. The strength of the change manager lies in how he/she responds to these unexpected happenings.

It is hard to measure success due to its ambiguous nature. According to Senge et al. this is because traditional measures become outdated and neglect to pick up the effects of the new ways of doing things.

Beer et al. warn us about the dangers of premature measuring. Celebrating short-term wins is great, but you should refrain from quick fixes. Successful change requires long-term commitment.

Kotter argues you shouldn’t declare victory too soon. Don’t lose focus of the end goal you’re trying to achieve. The real prize has not been won yet. Keep in mind that sometimes things get worse before they get better (J-curve effect). A very important role of the change manager is to keep expectations realistic as to how staff perceives the success of a change. Finally, Fisher brings vicious compliance to our attention. Vicious compliance means people acting all fine with the change, but in the meantime they are resentful and are waiting for an opportunity to go back to the way things were before.

No matter how well intended, some changes turn out to be a bad idea. Failure of change depends on either allocating insufficient resources or needing longer time to prove itself. Escalation of commitment occurs when manager decide to commit further to the change, despite its lack of success. Staw and ross detect four factors that may lead to escalation:

• Project determinants: problem is considered to be temporary, more funding is likely to fix the problem, and achieving success eventually brings large payoffs.

• Psychological determinants: self-justification biases leads to feeling personally responsible for the failure and trying to fix it to avoid being associated with the failure.

• Social determinants: trying to save face and avoiding being associated with the failure, hoping to gain special praise and adoration for sticking to it when times are rough.

• Organizational determinants: the project is considered central to the organization’s identity and abandonment would mean admitting defeat.

Ghosh identifies practices that can help reduce escalation:

• Unambiguous feedback on progress

• Regular progress reports (including explanations for deviation form budget)

• Information of the future benefits of incremental investments

However, it is important to draw a clear line between a can-do attitude and over-commitment.

Sometimes failures are a good thing because you can learn from the experience. Marks and Shaw talk about productive failure turning the organization into a learning organization. This implies that occasional failure is considered natural and an opportunity to improve future performance. They also mention unproductive success. This means getting there (success) but not knowing how you got there, which is worse than productive failure. Jick and Peiperl add to this that is not the change that organizations should attempt to institutionalise. Instead, they should embed the change journey into the culture of the organization.