Can someone help me with my Week 1 Discussion in Organizational Development?

02CH_Bierema_Organization_2e.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Can someone help me with my Week 1 Discussion in Organizational Development?

Organization Change 2

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Categorize change according to rate of occurrence, how it comes about, and scale.

• Provide examples of personal and organizational interventions that represent developmental, transitional, and transformational change; first- and second-order change; and operational and strategic change.

• Discuss the systems approach to change.

• Describe three levels of change, including individual, group or team, and organization or system.

• Compare and contrast five models of organization change.

Lilkar/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Write down the names of five highly successful companies today that were just as dominant 25 years ago. Are you able to think of five? Companies, like living organisms, tend to have a lim- ited life span. Very few remain competitive for more than a decade or two. Instead, as Newman (2010) pointed out, companies tend to lose their edge because they fail to innovate and change. As he put it, they become obsessed with competing in the present and lose sight of the future. Newman listed 10 examples: Blockbuster, Dell, Eastman Kodak, Motorola, Microsoft, Sears, Sony, Sun Microsystems, Toys “R” Us, and Yahoo.

More recently, Aaslaid (2018) profiled 50 corporations that failed to innovate. Some new com- panies have been added to the defunct or nearly deceased list, including MySpace, Macy’s, Hum- mer, MapQuest, and Toys “R” Us. Kodak, a top film company in its day, is number one out of the 50, according to Aaslaid. Unfortunately, Kodak, which was dominant for more than a century, denied that digital photography was a threat, even though one of its own engineers, Steve Sas- son, invented the first digital camera in 1975! Kodak’s management chose to ignore the innova- tion because it was filmless, and Kodak sold film. The company was too fearful that releasing the invention would kill its market in film. Yet, the innovation appealed to a small fringe market, and it allowed the digital photography niche to become a disruptive innovation. Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

Today, we hear about disruptive innovation, inventions or improvements made by a smaller company that unsettle the status quo and create new markets for products and services that were overlooked by larger, more established companies. Kodak even enlisted the help of the scholar who invented the term, Clayton Christensen (2000). But even though Kodak followed his advice to begin selling inexpensive digital cameras, the company had already fallen too far behind. Ho and Chen (2018) described the downfall of Kodak in the following way: “The resis- tance to change among middle managers, the culture of the company dominated by a strong belief as ‘Kodak meant film,’ and the hierarchical structure at Kodak led to failure in adopting the disruptive digital technology” (p. 353). Today, most of us use our cell phone, iPad, digital camera, and a variety of apps and websites to take, store, alter, print, and share photos—a real- ity Kodak failed to anticipate.

Blockbuster is another famous failure, and perhaps forgotten in this age when stream- ing of entertainment is done from the com- fort of your couch, no longer requiring a video store with annoying late fees if you returned the physical video late. Blockbuster easily transitioned from VHS to DVD for- mats but failed to anticipate that content would become available via mail, vending machine rentals, video on demand, and video streaming. Netflix anticipated and adapted to this trend, however. Blockbuster became obsolete, closing hundreds of stores, accumulating debt, and struggling to regain its competitive edge.

The past few years have seen other signifi- cant changes in long-term products and services. The rise of Uber and Lyft has caused disrup- tion in the traditional taxi service. Although Christensen does not view this change as disruptive,

Photon-Photos/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus Blockbuster failed to anticipate change and could not compete with Netflix and other digital movie sources.

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

taxi drivers might disagree (Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015). Christensen, Raynor, and McDonald defined disruptive innovation as a product or service that comes in at the low end of the market and is not profitable, much like Amazon was when it first began distributing prod- ucts. Once these lower-priced disruptors gain a foothold and improve the lower end of the mar- ket to evolve products and services that customers are willing to pay top dollar for, the product eventually moves to the high end of the market, much like the Amazon Prime service offered today.

It is challenging to convince an organization to change, particularly when things are going well, as things did for many years for both Blockbuster and Kodak. Even when companies recognize the need for change, the process is complex and challenging, and most efforts do not succeed. In fact, change often fails to meet its intended outcomes (Griffith, 2002; Kogetsidis, 2012; Self, Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007). Some have estimated that 50% of all change efforts fail (Quinn, 2011), and others estimate the failure rate even higher, at nearly 70% (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes & Jackson, 2011; Higgs & Rowland, 2000). Simply put, organizations are not very good at planning and implementing change.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore organization change. We will identify a variety of types of change, discuss the systems approach to change, examine levels of change, and compare and contrast change models. Let us begin by considering the nature of change.

2.1 The Nature of Organization Change Change is the alteration or complete transformation of people, processes, products, and places. Change may be impermanent, transitional, and even reversible (such as moving to a new city, then moving home again) or permanent and transformational (such as getting a col- lege degree or experiencing the death of a loved one). Organizations, too, experience changes that can be subtle or transformational, temporary or permanent. Managing change effectively is considered a core competence of successful organizations (Burnes, 2004), yet it is difficult, because the rate of change outpaces our ability to keep up with it (Cameron & Green, 2015). Mastering change means you are learning (Hall & Hord, 2019).

Consider This The podcast Spectacular Failures, on American Public Media, features some of the most spec- tacular business failures in history and how organizations could have avoided them. Listen to “Kodak Misses Its Moment”: https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/ kodak-misses-its-moment. Analyze the episode based on whether or not the failure was related to inability to innovate and change.

After listening to the podcast episode on Kodak’s failure, reflect on these questions:

1. Only a few decades ago, most people thought the idea of having personal computers in their homes was unrealistic. Today, most homes have multiple devices that handle per- sonal computing. Smartphones are a relatively new innovation, as are crowd-sourced services such as Uber or Lyft or digital assistants such as Alexa. When have you been resistant to a change that eventually became an innovation you depend on?

2. What could Kodak have done differently to avoid failure?

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

Three Categories of Change There are several ways to classify change. Cao, Clarke, and Lehaney (2004) suggested change may be sorted according to organizational function, process, culture, or power distribution. Senior (2002) took a different approach, organizing types of change according to three cat- egories: (a) rate of occurrence, (b) how it comes about, and (c) scale.

Rate of Occurrence Change happens at varying paces. Often, it is discontinuous and episodic. There is only one event or episode of change that makes a significant break from what has gone on before. Examples of discontinuous or episodic change might include a natural disaster, economic cycles of recession and expansion, or something more personal, like the onset of illness or a one-time change in work.

The opposite of discontinuous or episodic change is continuous change—an ongoing pro- cess of shifts that can lead to significant alterations over time. People experience continu- ous change with technological innovations. Just a few years ago, the idea of a smartphone seemed far-fetched, yet today they are widely owned worldwide. Today, a smartphone can be used to monitor your home and pets, control your thermostat, track your fitness, locate family members, give directions, make dinner reservations, and schedule your groceries for delivery. Now, virtual, digital, or AI (artificial intelligence) assistants respond to natural voice commands and can tell the weather, play music by request, give directions, and offer advice. Robotics are also becoming more sophisticated with the rise of self-driving vehicles, programmable vacuum cleaners, industrial robots, and military robots. Continuous change is also prevalent in health care, where new drugs and treatments have prolonged life—at least in industrialized countries.

How Change Comes About Another way of describing change is the way in which it occurs. Planning is one way that change comes about, particularly in OD. Change can also be unexpected, without planning. This might also be considered evolutionary change, which happens gradually and amounts to substantial shifts over time. Organizations may be involved in continuous improvement projects that gradually result in the adoption of new technologies and improved management practices such as participative management or organization learning.

Change may also come about due to contingency—when organizations are forced to respond to unique, unanticipated variables that require special action and changes. For example, lack- ing a necessary raw material might require emergency alterations to product design. Another way change comes about is via choice. Organizations can choose what changes to make, such as deliberately deciding to change their leadership style.

Change According to Scale The scale of change ranges from moderate ongoing changes at a department level to wholesale transformation of the organization culture. Revolutionary change, although much less com- mon than evolutionary change, represents a shock to the system that alters it permanently. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, created revolutionary change in Americans’ national identity and sense of safety, as well as significant changes in air travel. Economic

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

downturns and their consequences are another type of revolutionary change. Almost every generation has experienced these challenges, which force innovation and change on individ- ual, organization, community, and national levels.

Developmental, Transitional, and Transformational Change Change is one of those words that serves as a melting pot for scores of concepts and methods. Like the Inuit expression for snow (of which there are 20 or more shades of meaning), change means many different things to us (Ackerman, 1997, p. 45).

Ackerman (1986) characterized change as developmental, transitional, or transformational. Developmental change is the growth and learning people experience as they acquire new skills, manage relationships, and take on new challenges. This type of change might involve problem solving, work assignments, conflict resolution, group dynamics, team building, meet- ing management, role negotiation, survey feedback, or training.

When people make incremental steps toward a preferred status over a specified period, they are making a transitional change. Transitional change includes increasingly using a device such as a smartphone or gradually reducing calorie intake in order to lose weight. On an orga- nization level, transitional change might occur through reorganization, technology integra- tion, new product development, mergers or acquisitions, or globalization.

Transitional change seeks to accommodate the new state while maintaining functionality during the conversion. Employees usually view this change as a disruption in standard oper- ating procedures. For example, a large public university recently switched the platform for its online courses. The change began with an informational campaign. Then, over two semesters, faculty could volunteer to be early adopters of the technology, using the new platform in courses with their students. During this phase, the early adopters provided feedback to the information technology department to help the entire organization fully transition to this new technology, and students were actively engaged in sharing feedback on the process. This strategy enabled the university to continue to deliver online learning in both the old and new formats while the technology was still in development. The entire university was then able to change to the new platform the following year, keeping the needs of learners and faculty at the forefront.

A change that revolutionizes the organiza- tion and the ways its members think and act is known as transformational change. Transformational change is generally not reversible, because processes, behaviors, or beliefs become fundamentally different from those that characterized the previous state. Transformational change may be due to crisis, leadership transitions, culture or strategy alterations, dramatic shifts in mar- kets, or executive coaching.

Some companies have managed to trans- form themselves and stand the test of time.

Nikada/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images Plus Apple was able to transform itself into one of the most important technology innovators of our time.

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

IBM transformed from a mainframe computer company into one that makes software, per- sonal computers, and storage solutions. Apple started as a transformational company: In a market dominated by large, unsightly computers with complex software and awkward user interfaces, it introduced small, user-friendly Macintosh computers with aesthetically pleasing designs. Apple gained an ardent fan base, but as its competition caught on, it almost faded into obscurity. Then, under the leadership of Steve Jobs, the company underwent a series of changes that transformed our relationship with personal digital assistants via the iPad, iPhone, and iPod. Transformational change usually requires a charismatic leader who inspires others with a vision to achieve the desired change and willingness to take risks.

First- and Second-Order Change Change in OD has been historically classified as first order and second order. When individu- als simply alter the intensity, frequency, or duration of a behavior but otherwise continue doing more or less what they have already been doing, they are making a first-order change. For instance, Jordan might decide to increase his exercise sessions from once to twice a week. Or a management team might decide to communicate monthly instead of quarterly about organization issues.

First-order change is considered easy to implement and readily reversible. It does not require new learning, so it is usually impermanent. Jordan might decide to go back to once-weekly exercise sessions or to slack off on his regimen all together. Or management may later decide to communicate less frequently and implement that change easily.

Early OD focused on first-order change that involved moderate adjustments to the organiza- tion, people, and processes. These interventions were largely individualistic; that is, practitio- ners modified aspects of individuals’ behavior, believing that these individual changes would translate into organization effectiveness. This mindset caused OD consultants to overlook the big-picture, systemic issues affecting the organization. As a result, early OD often was ineffective.

Radical change that alters thinking, behaviors, or processes in irreversible ways is known as second-order change. This level of change requires a fundamentally different approach to issues, as well as new learning. It is generally not reversible and tends to be revolutionary or transformational. For example, rather than simply increasing his number of weekly exercise sessions, Jordan might meet with his doctor to assess his overall health, get up earlier each day to exercise, hire a personal trainer to work with him, consult a registered dietitian, take a healthy cooking class, or otherwise alter his mindset about exercise and health. Or, manage- ment might restructure or fundamentally change how it communicates, altering not only the frequency but also the content and delivery mode. The rise of online social networking offers an example of how organizations have new platforms for communicating. Platforms such as

Consider This Can you recall a transformative leader who had charisma and inspired others? Who is this person? What did he or she do?

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

instant messaging, Twitter, wikis, social networking, teleconferencing, email, and collabora- tion apps (e.g., Basecamp) have radically changed the way employers, employees, and cus- tomers communicate and have also made information timelier and more comprehensive.

Contemporary OD, in its quest to change systems and cultures, focuses on second- order change. Examples include executive coaching that transforms a leader’s behav- ior, performance feedback that improves individual and group performance, leader- ship development that shifts how leaders think and act, group and team facilitation that revolutionizes interpersonal dynamics, diversity and multiculturalism initiatives that make the organization more inclusive, total quality management that improves products and services, life–work balance programs that reduce stress, or organization restructuring that changes work processes.

See Assessment: What Is Your Own Change Leader Style? to evaluate your change leader style.

Operational and Strategic Change When an organization makes a shift that affects day-to-day functioning or operations, it is making an operational change. Examples include shifting the production schedule to accommodate supply of raw materials, hiring temporary workers to help cover a short-term increase in product demand, adding overtime to meet production numbers, problem solv- ing around a quality issue, or creating a newsletter to communicate more effectively with employees. You might make operational shifts as a student to accommodate your studies dur- ing a particular semester such as adjusting your schedule to fit in more study time, hiring someone to help you clean your house or mow your lawn, or hiring a tutor to help you with a difficult statistics course.

When the organization shifts its tactics to better achieve its mission and vision, it is mak- ing a strategic change. Strategic changes might include shifting the culture, management, and rewards systems to be more inclusive as a means of recruiting and retaining a diverse

Cathy Keifer/iStock/Thinkstock Just as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly, so too is second-order change an irreversible process that alters ways of being.

Assessment: What Is Your Own Change Leader Style? What first- and second-order changes have you made in your life? How successful were you at maintaining them? What changes have you noticed in your workplace? How effective are you at helping others change? Take the change leader style assessment to evaluate yourself: https://www.leadershipiq.com/blogs/leadershipiq/86843777-quiz-whats-your-style-of -change-management.

Section 2.1The Nature of Organization Change

work force; firing an executive and bringing in a person with a track record for business turn- arounds; hiring workers to pursue a new market, product, or service; realigning people and resources to focus on a goal of becoming number one in sales or quality; or conducting a new marketing campaign to reach new customers. You might make strategic changes as a student by changing your major, switching advisors, or specializing in a certain area that will help you achieve your long-term professional and personal goals.

Whether operational or strategic, change can be stressful, but strategies exist for coping with change. See Tips and Wisdom: Dealing With Organization Change.

Tips and Wisdom: Dealing With Organization Change Organization change comes in many forms: reorganizing, innovating, merging, downsizing, restructuring, recruiting, reinventing, acquiring, growing. How do you survive it all as an indi- vidual, team member, leader, and organization?

Individual Strategies for Coping With Change

• Expect change and plan for it, whether emotionally, professionally, or financially. • Notice the signs of approaching change: Pay attention to your organization and the envi-

ronment. What do you notice, hear, and suspect? • Ask yourself: “What is the worst thing that could happen if change X occurs?” • Acknowledge that the only thing you control is yourself. How do you want to show up

during the change? • Look for opportunities within the change to think differently, take on new responsibili-

ties, and learn new things. • Find ways to relax both alone and with family and friends, especially if the change

requires adding hours to the workweek. • Find healthy coping mechanisms. Avoid excess in food, alcohol, drugs, or other

unhealthy coping behaviors. • Try to see the positives.

Team Strategies for Coping With Change

• Help others cope. It will help take your mind off the uncertainty and position you as a leader.

• Talk about the change. How are people feeling about it? What are the hopes and fears about it?

• How realistic are expectations about the change? • Identify ways to improve upon the change. • Seek training that helps you cope with and implement the change. • Ask your leaders for the assistance your team needs to accomplish its work.

Leader Strategies for Coping With Change

• Talk about the change with your team. • Acknowledge fears, new pressures, and demands. • Thank people.

(continued on next page)

Section 2.2General Systems Theory and Organization Change

2.2 General Systems Theory and Organization Change Chapter 1 established OD as a data-driven, humanistic process that seeks to foster the health and effectiveness of individuals, groups, the organization, and the broader community. OD is concerned with how change is integrated within an organization; that is, OD studies the ways in which an intervention in one area might affect another area. In other words, OD is concerned with the entire system.

Freedman (2013) explained the value of this concern with the system:

Organizations benefit when their leaders think and act systemically. Systems- oriented leaders consider organizational changes in the context of the total system and its interactions with its environment, rather than merely focusing on the primary element that attracts critical attention. By thinking and act- ing systemically, leaders focus their attention on the interactions among the interdependent parts and levels of their organizations . . . [making them] more likely to set realistic, comprehensive goals and establish viable strategies and plans for change. (p. 411)

Many changes are localized when they affect only parts of the system. Medical specialties exist to treat parts of the body system. Yet treating disease in one system can be problematic when the impact on the body as a whole is not considered. This is also true in organizations in which a change might be made to a section of a manufacturing assembly line without con- sidering how it might affect manufacturing at other points along the line. Another example is when there is a change in raw materials that negatively affects the final product. OD is dif- ferent from other, more localized interventions, in that it takes the total organization system into consideration.

Tips and Wisdom: Dealing With Organization Change (continued)

• Don’t tolerate abuse, particularly in times of downsizing when the remaining workers may be driven by fear.

• Troubleshoot with your employees as the change is implemented. • Advocate for your team with upper management.

Organization Strategies for Coping With Change

• Involve employees in the change process so they have a chance for voice and input. This will improve buy-in and communication.

• Ensure leaders are well equipped to guide employees through the change. • Articulate expectations for how work is to be accomplished during the change. • Ask for employee commitment to the change—this means clearly explaining why the

change is occurring and what to expect during the process. • Communicate regularly and widely about the change. • Recognize and reward employees for their efforts during and after the change.

Section 2.2General Systems Theory and Organization Change

General Systems Theory Thinking and acting systemically about organizations originated with Ludwig von Berta- lanffy’s general systems theory, or GST (1950, 1968). Katz and Kahn (1978) called it a social systems approach. Also known as systems thinking, systems design, system dynamics, or holism, GST views the organization as a system of interconnected, interdependent subsys- tems. These subsystems might be people, technology, processes, the external environment, competitors, government, customers, and other stakeholders. GST views the organization as drawing inputs—raw materials that are entered into a system for throughput and output— from the outside world and transforming them into products and services.

Von Bertalanffy (1950, 1968) contended that the primary purpose of an organization is sur- vival. He regarded organizations as perceived wholes with interdependent components that affect each other over time and help advance the system’s purpose. He identified systems as having five fundamental elements:

1. Semipermeable boundaries filter inputs and outputs across the organization’s bor- ders and separate its inside from its outside. Boundaries are not just physical spaces like the walls of a building, but also time and social constructions in terms of the organization’s beliefs, history, values, and leaders. Systems can also exist within sys- tems. For example, our solar system is distinct from the rest of the Milky Way galaxy and has changed over the billions of years of its existence. An organization today is distinct from that same organization last year.

2. Inputs represent the raw materials and resources needed from the external environ- ment for the organization to produce its outputs (products and services). Inputs include a qualified work force; market data pinpointing customer requirements for goods and services; prevailing political, economic, regulatory, technological, and social trends; competition; raw materials; capital; and information.

3. Throughputs entail the transformation of inputs into goods and services (outputs). Throughputs involve the line production of goods and services (e.g., an assembly line that manufactures vehicles) as well as support functions that indirectly contribute to the production of goods and services, such as human resource management or finance. A modification in throughput usually stimulates significant change in the organization.

4. Outputs represent the goods and services produced by the organization and demanded by customers. Ancillary outputs include wages and salaries employees spend and contribute to their local economies. Outputs also include waste, recycling, and dividends to stockholders.

5. Feedback loops provide information to the organization about how well the system components are meeting needs and expectations. Feedback loops are negative or positive and significantly affect a system’s behavior (Größler, Thun, & Milling, 2008). These loops might include relationships between subsystems or the relationship among each of the other system elements, as depicted in Figure 2.1. When the organi- zation falls out of equilibrium, feedback loops can help leaders figure out how to get the organization back on track.

See Tips and Wisdom: Determining if a Change Is OD.

Section 2.2General Systems Theory and Organization Change

Figure 2.1: Organization system

This figure depicts a simple system model that shows how inputs, or resources, are introduced to a system and are transformed during the throughput process and released as outputs in the form of goods or services. The process is continuous, and the outputs inform future inputs through a feedback process.

Consider your experience as a college student as an example of a system. Semipermeable boundaries might include the community where the university is situated and its history. Other boundaries might be through social networking, sports teams, or other extracurricular activities that connect the university to the outside world. Your inputs might be the courses you take, the quality of your instructors, the books you read, and the experiences you have. When these are put into your system and become throughputs, particularly through learning processes, they transform into accrual of new knowledge and skill. The output might be a paper, insight, or project. Feedback loops happen via relationships you have with professors and peers, grades you receive on papers, and, ultimately, meeting the requirements for gradu- ation and attaining a degree.

Inputs (Resources)

Throughputs (Work/

transformation)

Feedback loops

Outputs (Products and

services)

Tips and Wisdom: Determining if a Change Is OD An organization is a totality, a whole system with interacting parts or components. To alter a part of the system may represent a change in the organization, but it is not necessarily OD. Change can occur at different points in an organization. For instance, a company might change its order intake process. The change to order intake procedures does not become OD unless it is considered in terms of its impact on the entire system and embraces OD philosophy and steps of action research.

Section 2.2General Systems Theory and Organization Change

Automotive manufacturing is another example of a system. Semipermeable boundaries include the community where the plant is headquartered, the industry, market conditions, and the economy. Inputs include design, steel, computer systems, and so forth. These inputs become through- puts, which transform during manufactur- ing to become outputs (vehicles). Feedback loops include whether the vehicle meets quality standards, achieves favorable exter- nal rankings, generates sales, and captures return customers.

The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts When systems theory is applied to OD, it means the larger system is taken into account at all times. For instance, if managers are put through a leadership development program, how will their new knowledge and behaviors affect their subordinates? The vignettes about Blockbuster and Kodak at the beginning of this chapter show how the companies ignored the broader systems of their business and lost their competitive edge.

See Who Invented That? The Notion of a System to learn about the origins of a system.

Chalffy/E+/Getty Images Plus Raw materials undergo the throughput process in their journey from input into the factory to output as vehicles.

Who Invented That? The Notion of a System Greek philosopher Aristotle’s (2008) understanding of system dynamics has often been sum- marized as “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This idea has great significance for understanding system dynamics. It means that system parts have synergy when working

(continued on next page)

Consider This Think of other systems you belong to, for instance, a family, social group, community, church, workplace, or digital community, and see if you can identify the five elements:

1. semipermeable boundaries 2. inputs 3. throughputs 4. outputs 5. feedback loops

Section 2.2General Systems Theory and Organization Change

Change Readiness Life and work are characterized by constant change. OD considers change from the system view. Systems will not change when readiness is nonexistent. Part of the OD process is facili- tating readiness of individuals, groups, organizations, and systems.

Although this book’s focus is organizations, sometimes it is easier to relate to the process of change when we think about it in our own lives. When we undergo change, we may experi- ence crises of identity, relationship challenges, or worries about making a difference. In fact, a change in one area of your life can affect others—in essence, changing your personal sys- tem. Imagine you move to a new city. Suddenly, your relationships, work life, and recreational options have all changed, which alters your life system.

In OD, the changes that occur within the organization system often reverberate in your per- sonal life. Change, in OD terms, is not something that happens to you. Rather, it is an inten- tional process that seeks to improve something in the organization, because it is a planned change. You can take steps to prepare yourself for change. See Assessment: Readiness for Change.

Who Invented That? The Notion of a System (continued) together that they lack when they are separate. System parts are interdependent and work together to create something special, such as a body, solar system, or car. Aristotle’s wisdom captures the understanding that parts may be nonfunctional when separate but create the system when combined. For example, the separate systems of the body—cardiovascular, respi- ratory, digestive, etc.—sustain an organism only when they work together. Similarly, a bunch of car parts scattered about a garage does not make a car until the parts are combined to form the system of a vehicle. Simply reading books will not make someone a college graduate. The same principles operate in groups. The output of a coherent group is likely to be higher than that of its members working in isolation.

Within the system of an organization, if employee turnover increases, it is not enough to pro- vide more training to existing workers. The product, employees, management, work environ- ment, competitors, response time, training, transportation, and other variables must be con- sidered to determine what other system factors might be affecting turnover.

Assessment: Readiness for Change Table 2.1 offers a comparison of typical changes most people face at one time or another in life and at work. Compare these with your own experience.

William Bridges has written several books about the change process on both personal and organization levels. How ready for change are you? Take his assessment and evaluate yourself: https://wmbridges.com/featured/assessment/.

(continued on next page)

Section 2.3Levels of Change

2.3 Levels of Change As discussed, change might be very personal or might affect an organization or even an entire community. This section examines changes typical of the individual, group, and organization levels and explains when they constitute OD.

Individual Change Change that involves activities related to employee staffing, training, or coaching is individ- ual change. Although individual change efforts are often not OD, they become so when imple- mented to help the organization system change or adopt a new direction. There are three types of individual OD changes: staffing and talent management, training and development, and coaching.

Staffing and Talent Management Burke (2017) noted that activities related to the recruitment, selection, replacement, and displacement of workers are fundamental to assembling a team of the right people to help achieve the organization’s change initiative. This is known as staffing (or talent manage- ment). Think about your own experience of change in an organization. How often were the players changed in order to implement a new direction? Losing football teams recruit new players and replace old coaches, growing schools select and retain new teachers, and failing businesses displace and replace the management.

Training and Development Training and development activities can also be classified as individual-level OD when they advance systemic organization change. As mentioned in Chapter 1, training is a costly inter- vention and should be conducted only when it clearly addresses a problem or desired change.

Assessment: Readiness for Change (continued)

Table 2.1: Typical life and work changes

Typical life changes Typical work changes

• Leaving home for the first time • Becoming a college or graduate student • Falling in love • Leaving a relationship • Losing a loved one • Awakening to a cause • Experiencing a change in financial

circumstances • Traveling abroad

• Reorganizing or downsizing • Receiving a promotion • Experiencing new colleagues or leaders • Repositioning business to be more

competitive • Becoming global • Replacing negative behaviors (not

listening) with more positive ones (active listening)

• Merging with or acquiring other businesses

Section 2.3Levels of Change

Training is probably an OD intervention when it is used for management and leadership devel- opment to reposition the organization strategically or culturally or to train employees around a total quality implementation that changes how groups interact, problems are solved, and quality is ensured. What types of training have you experienced? Would you classify them as OD?

Coaching A third individual OD intervention is coaching. Coaching aims to identify and improve dysfunc- tional behaviors that prevent employees from having productive relationships in the organi- zation (Corbett & Colemon, 2006). Just like the other individual interventions profiled here, coaching is not OD unless it is tied to a broader organization change effort. So when coaching is used for an individual who has very nonproductive behaviors that negatively affect the work team, that is not OD. Coaching becomes an OD intervention when the organization com- mits to a strategy such as participative management and provides it to all managers to help them make a cultural and leadership shift.

Individual Responses to Change This section has profiled three individual change interventions and shown when they become OD. Whenever we are tasked with change, we experience a range of emotions and responses, including resistance and coping (Anderson, 2016). Hall and Hord (1984, 2011, 2019) developed a model to illustrate the concerns individuals have when experiencing change. According to their model, people experience a hierarchy of concerns. Each stage of concern must be resolved before a person can move to the next stage of implementing change.

Hall and Hord’s (2019) model (see Table 2.2) identifies seven stages of concern (numbered from 0 to 6) associated with implementing change. Stage 0 is unconcerned. If you are unaware of an impending change, you will not have any apprehension about it. So the model becomes relevant only once there is awareness of change. The first two levels of the model relate to how the change will affect the self. If we become aware that a new software program is being implemented, usually the first thing we want to know is “What is it?” With this inquiry, we move into Stage 1, learning information about the change. Stage 2 relates to personal concerns. Now that we have more information about the change, we begin to wonder, “How will it affect me?” In Stage 3, we become concerned about the task or management of the change. “Will I have time to do this?” “Will this slow down my work?”

The next three stages pertain to the impact of the change. Stage 4 concerns are about the consequences of the change on other people in the system. We wonder, “How will this new software affect workflow, scheduling, customer service, and response time?” Once these

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images Plus Effectively responding to change involves addressing employee concerns throughout the process.

Section 2.3Levels of Change

concerns are resolved, we are ready to move on to Stage 5, collaboration. At this point, most of our self and task concerns have been resolved, and we begin integrating the change into our daily lives. Collaboration involves working with colleagues on how to integrate the change. We might ask, “How can we work together to use this new software to improve scheduling?”

Finally, we are ready for Stage 6, refocusing. This level of concern is aimed toward building on the change and perhaps improving it or moving on to new issues. You might hear, “Now that the software has so revolutionized scheduling, what other processes can we automate?”

Table 2.2: Hall and Hord’s stages of concern model

Concern clusters Stage number Stage of concern

Impact

Refocusing You focus on exploring more universal benefits from the change, including the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative. You have definite ideas about alterna- tives to the proposed or existing form of the change.

5 Collaboration You focus on coordination and cooperation with others regarding the change.

Consequence You focus on the impact of the change on others within their immediate sphere of influence. Concerns relate to the relevance of the change for employees, evaluation of outcomes, and changes needed to improve outcomes.

Task 3

Management You focus on the processes and tasks of using the change and the best use of information and resources. Issues related to efficiency, organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are utmost.

Self

Personal You feel uncertain about the demands of the change, your adequacy to meet those demands, and your role with the change. You may be questioning the change and your role as it relates to rewards, organization structure, and decision making. You might consider potential conflicts with existing structures or personal commitment. Financial or status implications of the program for yourself and colleagues may also be reflected.

Informational You are generally aware of the change and interested in learning more about it. You are not worried about yourself in relation to the change, but rather are curious about the change characteris- tics, effects, and requirements for use.

Unrelated 0 AwarenessLittle concern about or involvement with the change is indicated.

Source: Adapted from Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes (5th ed., p. 139), by G. E. Hall and S. M. Hord, 2019, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Section 2.3Levels of Change

Group or Team Change Chapter 1 established that groups and teams do the primary work of the organization. When the change implemented involves activities related to action learning, team building, or net- work formation, it is a group or team change. Groups are very important because they (a) create the context in which individuals experience the organization, (b) represent the inter- face between the individual and the organization, (c) bound the primary social relationships people experience in the organization, and (d) determine employees’ perceptions of the orga- nization (Burke, 2014).

Imagine, for example, that you are on the board of a nonprofit organization. The board—which is fiscally and strategically responsible for the organization—creates the context (leadership) and the relationships you experience with the other board members, volunteers, donors, and beneficiaries of the nonprofit’s program. The social experiences in the organization range from business meetings to fundraisers, and these experiences determine how members per- ceive the foundation—which is likely different for each member.

Distinct types of group or team OD initiatives include action learning, team building, and networks.

Action Learning Chapter 1 defined a learning organization as using learning to create a strategic advantage through building infrastructure to capture and share knowledge to improve the organization. A common way to achieve this culture is to apply a cycle of reflection and action to problems that plague groups and teams. This is known as action learning.

Action learning is a process of addressing the team’s real problems, in real time, in the real workplace. So if the team experiences interpersonal conflict, rather than send members to an off-site training on conflict resolution, an action learning approach would engage members in reflection and dialogue about the conflict, much like a T-group. A course of action would be decided collectively (for instance, to follow ground rules during meetings or avoid taking things personally). The new action would be tried for a time, and then the team would recon- vene to reflect on how it worked and commit to new action. The process is ongoing and helps build a culture of learning within the organization.

Team Building Because groups and teams are so fundamental to achieving the work and goals of an orga- nization, it is desirable for them to function at a high level, set goals, have clear norms and roles, and build strong interpersonal relationships. Activities to enhance team functioning are known as team building. Team building serves four purposes (Beckhard, 1972):

1. to establish goals or priorities 2. to determine roles and responsibilities 3. to examine group process (norms, decision making, communications) 4. to examine interpersonal relations

Section 2.3Levels of Change

Beckhard (1972) viewed this listing of purposes as hierarchical. For instance, if goals are not clear, there will be problems in the succeeding three areas (roles and responsibilities, group process, and interpersonal relations). A common mistake in team building is to assume that interpersonal relations need intervention, when they can usually be addressed by the first three purposes. Team building is an OD intervention when the work of the team supports making an organization change.

Network Formation Groups of employees that band together to support one another are known as a network, in-company network, or affinity group. It is common for groups that share gender, race, or sexual orientation to assemble to strategize and collectively represent group interests. These networks form in order to serve as a collective voice, raise awareness about their issues, and create mutual support. Network formation is OD when it is linked to an organization strategy such as becoming more diverse and inclusive.

Group or Team Responses to Change The more that work units in the organization are involved in helping to plan and implement change, the more they are likely to embrace rather than resist the organization change. Resis- tance by organizational groups, on the other hand, can take at least four forms (Burke, 2017, pp. 120–121):

1. Turf protection and competition: Different groups become secretive, are unwilling to share information and resources with other groups, and compete for things like budgets and the best employees.

2. Closing ranks: A group will close in on itself and refuse to work with others or join ranks with other groups.

3. Changing allegiances or ownership: A group may seek to separate from the organiza- tion as a means of avoiding change.

4. The demand for new leadership: At times, the change situation may warrant a new leader. Just as often, though, calls for new leadership are a diversion tactic to attempt to put off change.

Helping groups cope with change is similar to helping individuals, as discussed in the stages of concern model. Most people have concerns that must be addressed before they can fully embrace the change. Additionally, the group will benefit by closure activities such as con- ducting a “funeral” for past ways of operating and then celebrating the new change. It is also productive to provide a platform for people to share their feelings about the change. It can be useful to take the group to an off-site location to engage in problem solving related to change implementation. Creating new group compositions may also be helpful and even necessary for the group to transition successfully through a change process (Burke, 2017).

Organization or System Change Change rarely begins at the organization or system level, especially if the organization is large (Burke, 2017). Instead, organization or system change typically originates with individuals and groups or teams around training or strategic plans that incorporate change. Alternatively,

Section 2.3Levels of Change

change may begin within a subsystem of the organization. For example, one division may try new practices in a manufacturing process and, if successful, promote the change to other divisions.

OD consultants may also intend change to be rolled out to the organization, but usually large changes are piloted with small groups first and then extended across the organization. For example, a mentoring program might be piloted with a certain group of employees, modified, and then expanded.

Organization or system change can also involve multiple interventions that would be imple- mented gradually. For example, a change to increase the diversity and inclusion of the organi- zation might involve recruitment and retention practices, rewards systems, leadership devel- opment, and sensitivity training.

OD is key to successful organization or system change because it provides a planned pro- cess to implement the change as well as a value system geared toward employees’ participa- tion and involvement, which helps support the change. Three examples of organization- or system-level change include survey feedback, large-scale interventions, and mergers and acquisitions.

Survey Feedback As discussed in Chapter 1, survey feedback is an organization- or system-level change in which members of the entire organization are surveyed about the climate, the management, and their overall satisfaction. This information is then analyzed, and the results are shared with employees in a series of feedback meetings. During these, the results are processed and a set of action items is determined. This type of intervention affects the organization as a whole in multiple ways and is effective when trying to improve or change the culture. It was one of the earliest OD interventions and is widely used today to provide data to justify change.

Large-Scale Interventions Imagine a company bringing its top 100 executives together to examine its mission. This type of activity is known as a large-scale intervention and entails assembling a strategically important, large group within the organization to problem solve, plan strategy, or revise mis- sion statements. These types of interventions have also been used by entire organizations to create a shared vision in a collaborative, participative manner. Conducting a large-scale intervention requires careful planning and attention to logistics, but it can be very effective in activating change.

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) Much system-level change occurs as a result of mergers and acquisitions, when the orga- nization is forced to make changes to integrate separate cultures. Companies merge when it becomes advantageous to share resources and find cost-effective ways to operate. Yet smoothly merging two separate organizations is difficult. These types of interventions often fail when employees do not understand the organization’s goals. Employees also suffer when power and expertise imbalances prevail, there is a lack of realistic understanding about the

Section 2.3Levels of Change

success of the merger and a lack of perceived equity, and there are no contingency plans (Burke, 2017).

Edwards, Lipponen, Edwards, and Hakonen (2017) observed that there is an absence of research theorizing about or measuring rates of change in employees’ identification with the merged entity. How employees identify and integrate with the merged entity is important, as it is a key measure of how successful the merger will be. They found that how employees perceive justice and threat influences the success of the change, with the most effective M&A situations characterized by increasing justice perceptions and decreasing threat perceptions. Perceived justice refers to how fair employees believe actions during the M&A are, such as resource allocation, decision-making processes, and treatment of employees. Perceived threat is employees’ sense of uncertainty about the future. This may mean fear over losing one’s job or general stress and anxiety brought on by the M&A. Others have found that cognitive trust—an entity’s competence and responsibility—is associated with perceived justice in M&As (Kaltiainen, Lipponen, & Holtz, 2017). These studies underscore the importance of planning how the M&A change will unfold, involving employees, and ensuring transparency and communication.

Organization Responses to Change Burke (2017) identified five ways organizations or systems resist change and offered sug- gestions to combat them. First, the organization’s effort to revolutionize may devolve to evolution. This means that the ambitious efforts to change, perhaps by merging businesses or entering new markets, result in the adoption of a few changes, but the original culture remains intact. Such an outcome can be prevented by involving affected employees at the beginning of the process so they have input and a sense of ownership and understand the reasons for the change.

A second response is when the organization fails to develop a sense of urgency to change. People resist by questioning, “Why change?” Or they adopt an attitude of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Employees may lack motivation or be skeptical of the change. Such responses can be avoided if the organization achieves closure on the previous ways of operating. For example, a session that identifies the old operating procedure’s challenges may help those affected see the advantages of shifting to a new procedure. In addition, manage- ment needs to make a compelling case for change and ensure that organization mem- bers are actively involved in making the change.

A third way organizations resist change is when their employees assume they have “been there, done that” and chalk up the

Fizkes/iStock/Getty Images Plus The ability to clearly communicate changing operating procedures is crucial to overcoming employees’ resistance to change.

Section 2.4Models of Change

change effort to another attempt to do the same old thing. To prevent this resistance, leaders need to show how this change effort is different and why there is a compelling need for it. They also need to demonstrate that the organization is committed to making the change over the long term.

A fourth way organization members may respond to change is by creating diversionary tac- tics that demand resources and time that otherwise would have been devoted to the change. People might also complain about the change’s timing or that they lack the resources to implement it. This form of resistance requires management to pay attention to and defuse or redirect efforts that divert individuals, groups, and the organization from fully implementing the change. Ensuring the ready availability of resources necessary to implement the change also helps avoid this type of resistance.

Fifth and finally, organizational resistance to change can take the form of refusing to follow the leader. This usually involves employee collusion. These behaviors require leadership to be steadfast in its commitment to the change and set clear expectations around supporting it across the organization. Saboteurs must also be dealt with swiftly and strictly (job changes, retirements, or severance).

2.4 Models of Change This section introduces five models by which OD practitioners promote lasting, effective orga- nization change.

Lewin’s 3-Step Change Model and Field Theory Lewin, regarded as “the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioral science” (Schein, 1988a, p. 239), made significant contributions to what is known today as OD, including originating the field of group dynamics and creating action research. He also designed a 3-step model for creating successful change and invented field theory—a process of mapping change.

Lewin’s 3-Step Model Lewin’s (1947) 3-step model of system change (Figure 2.2) depicts change as an ongoing, fluid process of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing.

Unfreezing is a stage in which people become aware of a need to change and wish to create a change. One might think of it as a releasing from the way things were. Unfreezing may occur due to a crisis, learning, or feedback. For example, if Jill suffers a heart attack (crisis), she becomes aware of the need to change her lifestyle. If Morrie receives negative feedback about his performance, he becomes aware of a need to improve it.

Section 2.4Models of Change

Figure 2.2: Lewin’s 3-step model of change

This figure shows Lewin’s change model, which goes through the steps of unfreezing (recognizing the need for change), moving (taking action to change), and refreezing (permanently incorporating the change).

The stage in which one takes action to change the system is known as moving. Moving involves both initiating interventions and providing support to implement them. Returning to the example of the heart attack, Jill might enroll in a cardiac rehabilitation program. An organiza- tion team might decide to improve its meeting effectiveness and commit to learning new meth- ods and taking roles to make this change. Moving represents the actual process of changing.

After moving, an organization needs to reinforce the change and ensure its permanence. This step is known as refreezing. Just as fitness gained in a cardiac rehabilitation program needs to be reinforced with daily exercise and healthy eating, the organization team that adopts improved meeting management must continue practicing its new procedures and sharing them with other groups. Changes fail when they lack infrastructure to support the movement that has occurred; in this case, conditions are likely to return to the pre-unfreezing state.

Field Theory Lewin viewed change as a complex activity mired in social context that creates tension between initiating the change and resisting the change. Lewin called the group environment a “field,” noting that individual behavior is a function of it. Changes in behavior stem from changes in the field. Lewin (1943) noted, “One should view the present situation—the sta- tus quo—as being maintained by certain conditions or forces” (p. 172). These forces func- tion either to restrain change—and thus reinforce the status quo—or to drive change. Think about a change you have experienced at work. What were the forces preventing change? What forces facilitated it?

Restraining and driving forces affect both individual behavior and group structure. These forces can be depicted in a diagram known as force field analysis. Both driving and restrain- ing forces affect a change effort. Creating a force field analysis (see Case Study: Implementing Team Change) helps illustrate how to maximize forces driving the change and minimize the forces restraining the change.

RefreezingMovingUnfreezing

Case Study: Implementing Team Change “Meetings, meetings, meetings!” Alex mutters as he looks at his calendar for the week. “We need to do something to have fewer, more productive ones if we want to meet our production goals.”

(continued on next page)

Section 2.4Models of Change

Case Study: Implementing Team Change (continued) His colleague, Dave, hears Alex’s lament and strolls over to his cubicle. “Alex, I feel your pain. I was just reading a book about improved meetings and think there are some things we can do to improve here. Plus, I know that Julie, over in OD, has some tools to help us.”

Dave gives Alex a copy of his book, which Alex reads as he waits for his first meeting of the day—which, like most, starts late. He runs into Julie on his way to his next meeting. “Hey, what are you reading?” she asks.

“Oh, I’m fed up with nonproductive meetings and want to do something about it,” Alex answers. “I hear you know some strategies. Can you help?”

Julie, Alex, and Dave meet the next week, and she gives them a tutorial with some key things they can immediately do to improve their group meetings. Dave and Alex decide to invite Julie to their next team meeting to introduce some ideas.

The entire group suffers from meeting fatigue, and thus the group members are skeptical when they hear that yet another meeting is scheduled. However, most group members remain optimistic that a fix might be available. After Julie presents some options, they reach consen- sus on some things they can try to improve their meetings. They agree to make changes in how they create agendas, assign roles, record tasks and decisions, and evaluate their process. The team realizes its new meeting agenda is a learning curve but likely worth it in the long run.

After some practice, trial and error, and adjustments, the team meetings become shorter, more productive, and more engaging, because the agendas are thought out in advance, the group members are more engaged as they take on roles, and people are more organized about recording action items and holding each other accountable. The team members feel they are on to something, although staying on track requires discipline, because it is easy to slip back into their old mode of meetings.

The team members also meet resistance when they invite non-team members into their meet- ings. This resistance includes remarks like, “What are you doing?” or “My, aren’t you all getting a bit formal here?” Still, the team members persist with their new changes. Other departments take notice when team members begin pressuring other company employees to improve their meetings by being more action oriented or by adopting roles.

After about a month of trying, the team members meet to assess how their change implemen- tation is going. They create a force field analysis to evaluate their progress to date (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Lewin’s force field analysis

This figure shows how Lewin’s force field analysis would be used to evaluate a team’s progress to date.

DESIRED CHANGE

Improve team meetings

DRIVING FORCES

• Shorter meetings • Full engagement of team • Better problem solving

and decision making • More time for other

RESTRAINING FORCES

• Time to learn new skills • Regression to old ways • Pressure from other

colleagues not to change • No organization

activities incentives

Section 2.4Models of Change

Schein’s Modified 3-Step Change Model Schein (1987) elaborated on Lewin’s 3-step model by adding “how to’s” and further detail to make it more comprehensive. Moreover, Schein observed that the stages occur rapidly and may overlap, making them difficult to identify accurately.

Stage 1: Unfreezing At Stage 1, Schein (1987) identified three ways unfreezing happens: (a) disconfirmation or lack of confirmation, (b) guilt or anxiety about the problem situation, and (c) creation of psy- chological safety to make the change.

First, motivation and readiness to change may arise via disconfirmation or lack of confirma- tion. Employees embrace change when they perceive a need for it. This perception of need can be prompted by disconfirmation; for instance, a manager’s perception of her leadership might be contradicted by critical feedback from an employee survey. Lack of confirmation— for instance, the lack of evidence for a manager’s belief in his leadership abilities—may also motivate a change.

Second, guilt or anxiety may drive change. Individuals who eat an unhealthy diet or fail to exercise may harbor guilt about their lifestyle because it contradicts their health goals or self-image. Anxiety over anticipated health consequences (obesity, heart disease, etc.) may motivate change. Or a manager may feel guilty for being autocratic and commit to being more participative.

Third, Schein observed that neither disconfirmation nor induction of guilt is enough to moti- vate change. The creation of psychological safety is key to unfreezing. Psychological safety means that making the change will not humiliate others or diminish their self-esteem. OD practitioners ease this stage by helping those experiencing change save face and feel safe. This means helping individuals make health changes by finding an exercise group in which they do not feel self-conscious or pointing out a manager’s skills while also helping him see the need for and benefits of change.

Stage 2: Moving Schein modified Stage 2, moving, by incorporating two processes: (a) identifying with new role models and (b) environmental scanning. When we identify with a new role model, boss, coach, or consultant, we develop new views and perspectives. OD practitioners help clients surface their own perspectives and learn to appreciate those of others. This might involve helping the heart attack survivor connect with other survivors who have successfully adopted new health behaviors or connecting the manager with a coach who can provide feedback and perspectives from others on the manager’s performance.

Scrutinizing surroundings to learn what other leaders or organizations are doing is known as environmental scanning. This process can propel us toward change as we learn new strate- gies for achieving our goals. The heart attack survivor might read health-related magazines or journals or join a support group to learn what other survivors are doing. The manager might attend conferences, read management literature, follow management links on social media, or observe other successful managers and then implement the best practices discovered.

Section 2.4Models of Change

Stage 3: Refreezing Recall that, in refreezing, people solidify the change and integrate it into permanent practice. Refreezing is where changes are integrated into one’s self-concept and understood by others. The process involves incorporating new behaviors, habits, and thinking into our repertoire, whether in life or in work. The refreezing process shares similarities with transformative change and usually relies on support and feedback from family members or work colleagues. Refreezing requires patience because it may involve practice with new ideas and time for roles and behaviors to stick. This is also an important phase for feedback so adjustments can be made if the change permanence appears at risk. As Schein noted, the rapidity and over- lapping of the three stages can make them challenging to distinguish. There may be shifting between refreezing and the prior two stages until the change becomes permanent.

These changes can be personal, as in the case of the heart attack survivor, or professional, as in the case of the manager. Integrating change is never easy, and some experts suggest it takes an average of 66 days before new behavior begins to feel natural (Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts, & Wardle, 2010).

Lippitt, Watson, and Westley’s Change Model Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958) expanded Lewin’s 3 steps to 5 steps and shifted the ter- minology from steps to phases:

1. Developing a need for change (Lewin’s unfreezing) 2. Establishing a change relationship 3. Working toward change (moving) 4. Generalizing and stabilizing change (refreezing) 5. Achieving a terminal relationship

This model assumes the role of a change agent, an individual who acts as a catalyst for the change and has influence over the process. Phase 1, developing a need for change, is prompted in one of three ways:

1. A change agent creates awareness of a problem or need for change. For example, a new leader seeks to change the culture.

2. A third party sees a need for change and brings it to the change agent. For example, a customer raises a quality complaint.

3. The client becomes aware of a problem, such as declining revenues and shifting mar- kets, and seeks the help of a consultant to respond to the problem.

Phase 2, establishing a change relationship, focuses on creating collaboration between the change agent and the client system. This is usually when an OD consultant enters the picture. In the case of the new leader aiming to change the culture, a consultant might help the leader engage with other managers to create a collective vision for the new culture.

In Phase 3, working toward change, Lippitt and colleagues (1958) suggested three subphases that involve (a) clarifying or diagnosing the client’s problem via data collection and analysis, (b) examining alternatives for addressing the issue, and (c) transforming intentions into actual change efforts, or implementation. These steps are similar to the steps of action research.

Section 2.4Models of Change

The fourth phase, refreezing, involves spreading the change to other parts of the organization and creating infrastructure to reinforce the change. This phase is most effective when the affected parties are involved in planning and implementing the change.

In the fifth phase, termination, Lippitt and colleagues (1958) advocated ending the relation- ship between the client and the consultant once the client can independently maintain the change. The client system becomes capable of problem solving, taking measures to maintain the changes, and refreezing.

Bridges’s Transitions Model In his books Transitions (1980) and Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change (2017), Bridges pointed out that people often erroneously equate change with beginnings, but it is really about endings. “It isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions. . . . Change is situ- ational. . . . Transition, on the other hand, is psychological” (Bridges & Bridges, 2017, p. 3). People get stuck hanging on to the end and therefore cannot move toward change. Bridges (1980) explained, “We have to let go of the old thing before we can pick up the new—not just outwardly, but inwardly, where we keep our connections to the people and places that act as definitions of who we are” (p. 11).

See Case Study: Benetton to read about an example of a company’s failed transition.

Case Study: Benetton Bridges (2003) recounted the story of Benetton, a large Italian clothing firm that planned to diver- sify its business in 1999. It spent almost $1 billion acquiring some top sporting goods companies (Nor- dica, Kästle, Rollerblade, Prince, and Killer Loop) with the idea that it could cross-market these goods with the workout and post-workout Benetton cloth- ing line. The firm erroneously assumed that all of the acquired companies would relish becoming part of an international brand, and it combined sales forces and marketing groups at a new headquarters in New Jersey.

What Benetton did not consider was what drew people to work in the sporting goods businesses in the first place—their love of the sport. The only way Benetton could lure the Rollerblade workers to New Jersey from Minnesota, for example, was by offering them raises, promotions, and a promise that if things did not work out, the firm would move them back to Minnesota. The Rollerblade staff members were accustomed to spending their lunch hours skating in local parks near the headquarters. They found themselves in New Jersey, suddenly reporting to Nordica representatives and missing their easygoing natural environment to test

(continued on next page)

Tupungato/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus United Colors of Benetton serves as an example of a negative transition. During its acquisitions, the company didn’t consider what motivated employees, and there was no plan for integrating the new organization.

Section 2.4Models of Change

Endings Bridges’s books explore why letting go is so difficult. “Endings begin with something going wrong” (Bridges, 1980, p. 109). When people experience an ending, willingly or unwillingly, they usually feel disengaged from activities, relationships, settings, or roles that were previ- ously important. Bridges (1980) explained, “Divorces, deaths, job changes, moves, illnesses, and many lesser events disengage us from the contexts in which we have known ourselves. They break up the old cue-system which served to reinforce our roles and to pattern our behavior” (pp. 95–96). Not only did the workers from the various sporting goods companies discussed in Case Study: Benetton get acquired, but they also had to relocate, which signaled a very abrupt end to their work and passion for their product.

People may also feel lost when they encounter an ending in ways that shatter how they previ- ously defined themselves—or what Bridges (1980) calls disidentification—particularly when endings are vocational, perhaps due to a reorganization or downsizing. Endings can spur an identity crisis until people are more secure in their self-identity following a transition.

Identity crises do not afflict just individuals. Organizations can also lose sight of who they are, as seen in the stories of Blockbuster and Kodak and in the case of the newly merged Benetton. People can also become disenchanted when experiencing an ending: “Separated from the old identity and the old situation or some important aspect of it, a person floats free in a kind of limbo between two worlds” (Bridges, 1980, p. 98).

People can also become disoriented during an ending when they feel lost and confused and are unsure of where to go next. The next time you find yourself in transition, allow yourself some time to react to it, and remember, you are going through a natural process of dealing with an ending. See Tips and Wisdom: Identifying Losses During a Change.

Case Study: Benetton (continued) in-line skates just outside the door. Soon, 21 of the Rollerblade employees elected to move back to Minnesota.

The transition was managed badly, and Benetton went from making a profit of $5 million to posting a $31 million loss. What went wrong? Bridges and Bridges (2017) explained this tran- sition went badly because Benetton failed to help its workers navigate three phases:

1. The company did not provide a way for employees to let go of their old ways and iden- tities. There was a blunt ending.

2. There was no support for navigating the in-between time when the old sporting goods company vanished but the new organization was not fully implemented. Bridges calls this the neutral zone.

3. There was no clear transition and new beginning that allowed for workers to estab- lish a new identity as a Benetton employee or discover a new beginning and sense of purpose.

Section 2.4Models of Change

Neutral Zone The transitional space in which we often find ourselves struggling to compose an ending and move on to the new beginning is what Bridges (1980) called the neutral zone. He noted that this is an empty time or “fallow period,” especially if the ending did not provide a clear start- ing point—perhaps when someone experiences an unexpected loss. The newly reorganized and relocated Benetton workers were clearly stuck between the ending and the new, without much support for making a transition. When people are stuck in the neutral zone, they are often grieving the ending of something, rather than the change to something new. For exam- ple, the Rollerblade workers missed their skating trails and surroundings.

Sometimes, people struggle with a change in health status, a life change such as becoming a new parent, or a job change or relocation as in the case of Benetton. Part of the difficulty of these changes is that people want to hang on to the way things were and find it very difficult to embrace the new. They cannot embrace the new change until they effectively navigate out of this neutral zone. Yet this is problematic because people often do not reflect on how changes affect their lives. Bridges (1980) identified the following changes that often pose challenges:

1. relationship losses 2. changes in home life 3. personal changes 4. work and financial changes 5. inner changes

Tips and Wisdom: Identifying Losses During a Change Bridges (2003) offered advice to help people identify their losses during a change:

1. Describe the change in as much detail as possible. 2. Identify as many “domino effect” changes as you can (changes that will be caused by

the primary change). 3. Recognize that a chain reaction of changes is occurring for those affected. Consider

who is going to have to let go of something. 4. Acknowledge that some of the losses are not concrete—rather, they are caught up

in values, assumptions, and identities and our individual understandings of the way things are.

5. Beyond the individual, specific losses may entail something that is over for every- one—perhaps a chapter in the organization’s history or assumptions about how the employer will take care of its employees. Whatever has ended, Bridges (2009) recom- mended coming up with a phrase such as “We take care of our people” or “We promote from within” (pp. 25–26) to serve as a mantra going forward.

Beyond identifying who is losing what, Bridges recommended that leaders also accept the reality and importance of the subjective losses, expect overreaction, acknowledge the losses openly and sympathetically, expect and accept the signs of grieving, compensate for the losses, continually share information, define what is over and what is not, mark the endings, treat the past with respect, let people take a piece of the old way with them, and show how endings ensure the continuity of what really matters.

Section 2.4Models of Change

The neutral zone can be frustrating. It can also be a highly creative time that lends itself to collaboration. It is important for organization members to have people they trust to follow during the neutral zone so they have role models for navigating the change. Assigning temporary roles, groups, and reporting relationships can also ease the neutral zone. Creating transition teams can be an effective strategy to get multiple individuals focused on working through the change.

See Assessment: Holmes-Rahe Stress Inven- tory to identify stressors and how to cope with them in the neutral zone.

Mikael Damkier/iStock/Thinkstock The neutral zone is that empty period between an ending and a new beginning. You may feel like a fish out of water as you make this transition.

Assessment: Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory Take the Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory (https://www.stress.org/holmes-rahe-stress -inventory) to identify key stressors in your life. These often tend to be within the categories of change identified in Bridges’s model. You can interpret your scores in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory scores and risk

Score Chance of illness or accident within 2 years

Below 150 35%

From 150 to 300 51%

More than 300 80%

As evidenced by this quiz, everyone experiences life transitions that cause stress. Realizing that life’s changes create stress helps people learn to recognize and cope with these changes.

Bridges (1980) urged people in the neutral zone of a change or transition to

1. find a regular time and place alone to reflect on the change, 2. log their neutral zone experiences, 3. work on their autobiography, 4. use the time to discover what they really want, 5. think of what would be unlived in life if it ended today, or 6. take a few days to go on their own version of a passage journey.

Section 2.4Models of Change

New Beginning Finally, the ending has brought a new beginning. After working through the ending and the neutral zone, Bridges recommended taking action to embrace the new change, identify with the change, and tune out fears of the new. Although Bridges writes about transition, Lewin’s influence is clear. Unfreezing is comparable to endings when people realize things cannot continue as they were. The neutral zone represents the moving phase, when people prepare to embrace a new beginning, where the changes are refrozen. It is natural for people to feel ambivalent about new beginnings. Bridges (2003) recommended that leaders provide the four P’s to help employees start anew: a purpose, a picture, the plan, and a part to play.

Appreciative Inquiry Change models tend to be deficit oriented; that is, they look for problems, shortcomings, and ways to minimize negative outcomes. The positive model emerged as an alternative to Lewin’s and other similar change models that were critiqued for their deficit basis. It was developed by David Cooperrider and colleagues during the 1980s and achieved popularity in the early 2000s. A strengths-based organizational change model, the positive model focuses on what the organization is doing right (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stav- ros, 2008). In doing so, it uses an approach known as appreciative inquiry.

Appreciative inquiry (AI) is a strengths-based approach that attempts to shift away from the traditional problem-solving mindset that searches for things going wrong. AI is based on the assumption that every organization has things that are working effectively, and it seeks these variables out as the starting point for change (Doggett & Lewis, 2013). AI is more than a positive means to an end. AI attempts to collaboratively promote generative investigation that propels the organization to achieve a future that everyone has helped construct. AI is contrasted with traditional problem solving in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Problem solving versus appreciative inquiry

Problem solving Appreciative inquiry

Felt need Problem identification

Appreciating Valuing the best of “what is”

Causal analysis Envisioning “what might be”

Analysis of potential solutions Dialoguing about “what should be”

Action planning (treatment) Innovating “what will be”

Underlying belief: Organization is a problem to be solved.

Underlying belief: Organization is a mystery to be embraced.

Source: Adapted from “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” by D. L. Cooperrider and S. Srivastva, in R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 1, pp. 129–169), 1987, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, and “Using Appreciative Inquiry to Facilitate Organisational Change and Develop Professional Practice Within an Educational Psychology Service,” by C. Doggett and A. Lewis, 2013, Educational & Child Psychology, 30(4), 124–143.

Section 2.4Models of Change

AI’s Philosophical Principles AI has five core philosophical principles (Cooperrider et al., 2008; Doggett & Lewis, 2013):

• The constructionist principle assumes that self-knowledge and the world are formed through our interactions with each other.

• Simultaneity is the assumption that inquiry and change are intricately linked and occur instantaneously.

• The poetic principle posits that organization life comes alive through storytelling. • The anticipatory principle features the role of vision in propelling the organization

toward a desired future. • The positive principle is AI’s focus on the positive as an alternative to traditional

problem-solving paradigms for promoting change.

AI’s 4-D Cycle AI’s 4-D cycle asks a series of questions that make an affirmative inquiry to help the organi- zation discover, dream, design, and identify its destiny. AI can be done with work groups or teams or with a large, diverse group that is representative of the organization. The AI cycle can take up to 2 months to plan. The initial implementation takes from 3 to 4 days, with sev- eral months of further implementation and follow-up once the cycle is completed (Ludema & Fry, 2008). See Table 2.5 for an illustration of how the 4-D cycle works.

Table 2.5: The 4-D appreciative inquiry cycle

AI stage Inquiry

Affirmative topic of choice (topic around which the inquiry is based, such as positive change initiatives in the organization): Appreciating and valuing

—

1. �Discovery:�Participants share stories and insights about achievements, strengths, values, and competencies.

The organization focuses on appreciating and valuing the best of what already exists. Participants answer questions such as the following:

• What is a high point about working here— when you were most alive and engaged?

• What is it that you most value about yourself and your work?

• What is the key thing that gives life to this organization?

• Imagine the organization 5 years from now with everything the way you had envisioned it would be. What has happened? What is different? How have you contributed to this future?

2. Dream: Envisioning • The participants create and present a shared vision for how the high points identified in the discovery stage can occur more frequently.

• Key questions at this step: “What might our future be?” and “What do we hope to accomplish?”

(continued on next page)

Summary and Resources

Table 2.5: The 4-D appreciative inquiry cycle (continued)

AI stage Inquiry

3. Design:�Coconstructing a future • A phase of earning, empowering, and improvising to sustain a future

• The organization develops a formal statement or provocative proposition that expresses the new vision.

• The vision is described in the past tense to convey a sense that it is already occurring.

4. Destiny: Action and implementation • Action plans are created to ensure the new vision is implemented.

• Priorities are created to actualize the plan.

Source: Adapted from Appreciative Inquiry Handbook (2nd ed.), by D. L. Cooperrider, D. Whitney, and J. M. Stavros, 2008, Brunswick, OH: Crown Customs; “Using Appreciative Inquiry to Facilitate Organisational Change and Develop Professional Practice Within an Educational Psychology Service,” by C. Doggett and A. Lewis, 2013, Educational & Child Psychology, 30(4), 124–143; and “Appreciative Inquiry: The Why; The What; The How?,” by M. Moore, 2008, Practice Development in Healthcare, 7(4), 214–220.

Critique of AI AI has been critiqued for its Pollyanna-ish stance and failure to acknowledge and address negative issues. The positive approach risks silencing critical voices and maintaining unequal power relations (Doggett & Lewis, 2013; Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). AI also has been crit- icized for lacking an emphasis on reflection at the expense of taking action. Finally, some research has shown that AI practitioners have not adequately or authentically followed its principles and philosophy (Doggett & Lewis, 2013).

In spite of some of its challenges, AI alters the conversation and can shift a change effort’s focus from the negative to the positive. It can be especially powerful for teams and system- level change and may also help an organization make it through a transition more smoothly.

Summary and Resources Chapter Summary

• There are several ways to describe the nature of change in OD, which is the altera- tion or complete transformation of people, processes, products, and places.

• OD can focus on first- or second-order change. First-order change alters the inten- sity, frequency, or duration of a behavior and is easily reversed. Second-order change radically alters the thinking, behaviors, or processes of the organization in irrevers- ible ways.

• Developmental change is stimulated when new skills, challenges, or relationships require growth and learning. Transitional change involves making incremental steps toward a desired state over a specified period. Transformational change revolution- izes the thinking and actions of the organization’s members.

• Change can be operational or strategic. Operational change involves shifts that affect day-to-day functioning or operations. Strategic change involves more revolutionary shifts in tactics to better achieve organization mission and vision.

Summary and Resources

• The systems framework for understanding organizations originated with the devel- opment of general systems theory, or GST.

• In keeping with Aristotelian philosophy, it is worth remembering that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” when creating and altering systems.

• Both individual and organization readiness to change can vary as people navigate the many changes presented in their personal and work lives.

• Organization change generally occurs on one of three levels: individual, group or team, or organization or system.

• Examples of individual change include staffing and talent management, training and development, and coaching. Individuals more readily accept change when their con- cerns about how the change will personally affect them are addressed.

• Examples of group and team change include action learning, team building, and net- work formation. A key to helping teams and groups embrace change is to have them participate in its planning and implementation.

• Examples of organization and system change include survey feedback, large-scale change, and mergers and acquisitions. Change at the organization or system level is the most complex, and several forms of resistance can occur during implementation. Management and OD consultants need to pay close attention and intervene quickly when organization change begins to derail.

• Just as there are many ways to define change, so too are there several models to describe the process. This chapter profiled five common change models.

• Lewin created the first model of change, with three steps: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Most change models are a variation of these three stages.

• Lewin also created field theory and developed the force field analysis as a tool for evaluating the forces that both drive and restrain change.

• Schein and Lippitt, Watson, and Westley all improved on Lewin’s 3-step model, add- ing more psychological explanation (Schein) and more steps, points on working on the client relationship, and description (Lippitt and colleagues).

• Bridges’s transition model describes why people and organizations tend to get stuck in the midst of change and how to help people successfully navigate the stages of endings, the neutral zone, and beginnings.

• Appreciative inquiry (AI) was created as a more positive alternative compared with other change models. Rather than focusing on problems, AI seeks to identify what is working well and capitalize on it to cocreate a vision of the future.

Think About It! Reflective Exercises to Enhance Your Learning

1. The chapter began with vignettes about failures to change at Blockbuster and Kodak. Reflect on a personal failure to change or a failure to change that you have witnessed in another organization. What caused the failure? What were the consequences?

2. Reflect on a change you made successfully. How did it differ from the failure? 3. Reflect on the endings in your life, recalling Bridges’s (1980) transitions model of

change. Bridges recommended the following exercise (pp. 14–17): a. List all of the endings you recall, tracing all the way back to your childhood. These

endings might include major events such as the loss of a loved one or moving away from your hometown, as well as things that others might view as minor, such as a friend moving or losing a pet. Endings might be physical, relational, geographical, social, academic, civic, and so forth.

Summary and Resources

b. Note your reaction to the endings, including your feelings and thoughts. Bridges suggested that your old mindset is likely reactivated in the present whenever something ends in your life. How true is that for you?

c. Do you notice a particular style for how you handle endings? • Is it abrupt or aimed at delaying the change? • Do you take an active or passive role? • How receptive are you to change? • How in control of your fate do you tend to feel during change?

d. How does your approach to endings affect your ability to make transitions? 4. Review the five change models presented in this chapter. Which one resonates with

you? Why?

Apply Your Learning: Activities and Experiences to Bring OD to Life

1. Identify the key challenges you think change presents to you and your organization. 2. Review the results of the What Is Your Own Change Leader Style? and Readiness for

Change assessments. What insights did you gain from these assessments about how you approach change?

3. Create a map of a system you belong to and note its five elements (semipermeable boundary, inputs, throughputs, outputs, and feedback loops).

4. Think about a change you are currently attempting. Perhaps you want to lose weight, keep a journal, or learn a new skill. Create a force field analysis identifying the driv- ing and restraining forces affecting your change efforts. Explain steps you can take to bolster the driving forces and minimize the restraining forces.

5. Recount a change you have experienced (personal, work, or community). You can keep a journal or find a family member, friend, or classmate and share the following elements: a. reaction b. learning c. results

6. Conduct an appreciative inquiry on a personal or work issue using the 4-D cycle described in this chapter.

Additional Resources Web Links

• Association of Change Management Professionals, a professional organization that offers professional development opportunities in change management

http://www.acmpglobal.org/

• The Society for Organizational Learning North America, an excellent resource par- ticularly for tools related to the systems approach in OD

http://www.solonline.org/?home

• Course for becoming a certified change manager through the Association for Talent Development:

https://www.td.org/education-courses/change-management-certificate

Summary and Resources

• “5 Books to Help You Build Better Habits,” Fast Company https://www.fastcompany.com/3026359/5-books-to-help-you-build-better-habits

Key Terms action learning An individual or team pro- cess of engaging in cycles of reflection and action to address real problems of the team, in real time, in the real workplace, versus dealing in abstraction. Often, the process is based on asking questions about the prob- lem as a way of creating more understand- ing of it.

appreciative inquiry (AI) A strengths- based approach to planned change that seeks to identify what is working well, rather than what is not working, and capi- talize on it to cocreate a vision of the future.

beginning As defined by Bridges (1980), the point at which we become ready to embrace change, after we have brought closure to the ending of the previous way of being and navigated through the neutral zone.

developmental change A change associ- ated with the growth and learning people experience as they acquire new skills, manage relationships, and take on new challenges.

disruptive innovation An invention or improvement made by a smaller company that unsettles the status quo and creates new markets for products and services that were overlooked by larger, more established companies.

ending As defined by Bridges (1980), the “beginning” point for change; the cessation of a prior way of being that marks the start of a change process or transition.

environmental scanning The scrutinizing of the world for information to understand what others (competitors, innovators) are doing to learn ideas that might help predict the future.

first-order change A gradual or incre- mental change that usually involves making moderate adjustments to existing proce- dures and practices. First-order change essentially tweaks what is already being done and is easily reversed.

force field analysis A tool to depict the variables that both support or drive the change and restrain or prevent it.

group or team change Change processes involving two or more people and often the site of OD interventions.

individual change Change that involves activities related to employee staffing, train- ing, or coaching.

inputs The raw materials that are entered into a system for throughput and output.

large-scale intervention Processes involv- ing strategically selected large groups in organizations, such as the top executives, to implement change.

network A group based on affinity or similarity that is usually disenfranchised in some way in the organization and bands together for collective voice and action.

neutral zone As defined by Bridges (1980), the fallow, transitional space people find themselves in after an ending and before the beginning of a new change.

Summary and Resources

operational change Change that occurs when organizations make shifts that affect day-to-day functioning or operations of the organization.

organization or system change Alteration of the entire organization or system. This is the most difficult level of change.

outputs The part of a systems approach in which a series of inputs are put through the system to emerge as products or services.

refreezing The process of reinforcing change and ensuring its permanence.

second-order change A type of change that significantly and irreversibly alters thinking, behaviors, or processes.

system Viewing the organization as an interconnected network of parts that are interdependent.

team building Activities to enhance team functioning such as effective working rela- tionships, processes, and procedures.

throughputs The transformation of system inputs (raw materials and resources) into outputs (goods and services).

transformational change A change that revolutionizes the organization and the ways its members think and act.

transitional change Incremental steps toward a preferred status over a specified period.

unfreezing The process of becoming aware of the need to change and wish to create change.