paper

Page 1 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

… resistance is normal and to be expected in any change effort. Resistance to change takes many forms; change managers need to analyze the type of resistance in order to work with it, reduce it, and secure the need for commitment from the resistant party. The formula is sometimes written (A × B × D) > X. This adds something useful to the original formula. The multiplication implies that if any one factor is zero or near zero, the product will also be zero or near zero and the resistance to change will not be overcome. This means that if the vision is not clear, or dissatisfaction with the current state is not felt, or the plan is obscure, the likelihood of change is severely reduced. These factors (A, B, D) do not compensate for each other if one is low. All factors need to have weight.

This model comes from the organism metaphor of organizations, although it has been adopted by those working with a planned change approach to target management effort. Beckhard and Harris emphasized the need to design interventions that allow these three factors to surface in the organization.

Our view

This change formula is deceptively simple but extremely useful. It can be brought into play at any point in a change process to analyse how things are going. When the formula is shared with all parties involved in the change, it helps to illuminate what various parties need to do to make progress. This can highlight several of the following problem areas:

• staff are not experiencing dissatisfaction with the status quo; • the proposed end state has not been clearly communicated to key people; • the proposed end state is not desirable to the change implementers; • the tasks being given to those implementing the change are too complicated or ill-defined.

We have noticed that depending on the metaphor in use, distinct differences in approach result from using this formula as a starting point. For instance, one public sector organization successfully used this formula to inform a highly consultative approach to organizational change. The vision was built and shared at a large-scale event involving hundreds of people. Dissatisfaction was captured using an employee survey that

Page 2 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

was fed back to everyone in the organization and discussed at team meetings. Teams were asked to work locally on using the employee feedback and commonly created vision to define their own first steps.

In contrast, a FTSE 100 company based in the UK used the formula as a basis for boosting its change management capability via a highly rated change management programme. Gaps in skills were defined and training workshops were run for the key managers in every significant project team around the company. Three areas of improvement were targeted:

1. Vision: project managers were encouraged to build and communicate clearer, more compelling project goals.

2. Dissatisfaction: this was translated into two elements – clear rationale and a felt sense of urgency. Project managers were encouraged to improve their ability to communicate a clear rationale for making changes. They were also advised to set clear deadlines and stick to them, and to visibly resource important initiatives, to increase the ‘felt need’ for change.

3. Practical first steps: project managers were advised to define their plans for change early in the process and to communicate these in a variety of ways, to improve the level of buy-in from implementers and stakeholders.

Nadler and Tushman, congruence model: political, organism

Nadler and Tushman’s congruence model takes a different approach to looking at the factors influencing the success of the change process (Nadler and Tushman, 1997). This model aims to help us understand the dynamics of what happens in an organization when we try to change it.

This model is based on the belief that organizations can be viewed as sets of interacting sub- systems that scan and sense changes in the external environment. This model sits firmly in the open systems school of thought, which uses the organism metaphor to understand organizational behaviour. However, the political backdrop is not ignored; it appears as one of the sub-systems (informal organization – see below).

This model views the organization as a system that draws inputs from both internal and external sources (strategy, resources and environment) and transforms them into outputs (activities, behaviour and performance of the system at three levels: individual, group and total). The heart of the model is the opportunity it offers to analyse the transformation process in a way that does not give prescriptive answers, but instead stimulates thoughts on what needs to happen in a specific organizational context. David Nadler writes: ‘it’s important to view the congruence model as a tool for organizing your thinking… rather than as a rigid template to dissect, classify and compartmentalize what you observe. It’s a way of making sense out of a constantly changing kaleidoscope of information and impressions.’

Page 3 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Figure 3.5 Nadler and Tushman’s congruence model Source: Nadler and Tushman (1997). Copyright © Oxford University Press.

Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.

The model draws on the sociotechnical view of organizations that looks at managerial, strategic, technical and social aspects of organizations, emphasizing the assumption that everything relies on everything else. This means that the different elements of the total system have to be aligned to achieve high performance as a whole system; so the higher the congruence the higher the performance.

In this model of the transformation process, the organization is composed of four components, or sub-systems, which are all dependent on each other. These are:

1. The work. This is the actual day-to-day activities carried out by individuals. Process design, pressures on the individual and available rewards must all be considered under this element.

Page 4 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

2. PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

The people. This is about the skills and characteristics of the people who work in an organization. What are their expectations, what are their backgrounds?

3. The formal organization. This refers to the structure, systems and policies in place. How are things formally organized?

4. The informal organization. This consists of all the unplanned, unwritten activities that emerge over time such as power, influence, values and norms.

This model proposes that effective management of change means attending to all four components, not just one or two components. Imagine tugging only one part of a child’s mobile. The whole mobile wobbles and oscillates for a bit, but eventually all the different components settle down to where they were originally. So it is with organizations. They easily revert to the original mode of operation unless you attend to all four components.

For example, if you change one component, such as the type of work done in an organization, you need to attend to the other three components too. The following questions pinpoint the other three components that may need to be aligned:

• How does the work now align with individual skills? (The people.) • How does a change in the task line up with the way work is organized right now? (The formal

organization.) • What informal activities and areas of influence could be affected by this change in the task?

(The informal organization.)

If alignment work is not done, organizational ‘homeostasis’ (see earlier in this chapter) will result in a return to the old equilibrium and change will fizzle out. The fizzling out results from forces that arise in the system as a direct result of lack of congruence. When a lack of congruence occurs, energy builds in the system in the form of resistance, control and power:

• Resistance comes from a fear of the unknown or a need for things to remain stable. A change imposed from the outside can be unsettling for individuals. It decreases their sense of independence. Resistance

Page 5 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

can be reduced through participation in future plans, and by increasing the anxiety about doing nothing (increasing the ‘felt need’ for change).

• Control issues result from normal structures and processes being in flux. The change process may therefore need to be managed in a different way by, for instance, employing a transition manager.

• Power problems arise when there is a threat that power might be taken away from any currently powerful group or individual. This effect can be reduced through building a powerful coalition to take the change forward (see Kotter, above).

Our view

The Nadler and Tushman model is useful because it provides a memorable checklist for those involved in making change happen. We have also noticed that this model is particularly good for pointing out in retrospect why changes did not work, which although psychologically satisfying is not always a productive exercise. It is important to note that this model is problem-focused rather than solution-focused, and lacks any reference to the powerful effects of a guiding vision, or to the need for setting and achieving goals.

As an alternative we have found that the McKinsey 7S model is a more rounded starting point for those facing organizational change. This model of organizations uses the same metaphor, representing the organization as a set of interconnected and interdependent sub-systems. Again, this model acts as a good checklist for those setting out to make organizational change, laying out which parts of the system need to adapt, and the knock-on effects of these changes in other parts of the system.

The seven ‘S’ categories are:

• staff: important categories of people; • skills: distinctive capabilities of key people; • systems: routine processes; • style: management style and culture; • shared values: guiding principles; • strategy: organizational goals and plan, use of resources; and • structure: the organization chart.

Page 6 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

(See Managing on the Edge by Richard Pascale (1990) for full definitions of the seven S framework.)

William Bridges, managing the transition: machine, organism, flux and transformation

Bridges (1991) makes a clear distinction between planned change and transition. He labels transition as the more complex of the two, and focuses on enhancing our understanding of what goes on during transition and of how we can manage this process more effectively. In this way, he manages to separate the mechanistic functional changes from the natural human process of becoming emotionally aware of change and adapting to the new way of things.

Bridges says:

Transition is about letting go of the past and taking up new behaviours or ways of thinking. Planned change is about physically moving office, or installing new equipment, or re-structuring. Transition lags behind planned change because it is more complex and harder to achieve. Change is situational and can be planned, whereas transition is psychological and less easy to manage.

Bridges’ ideas on transition lead to a deeper understanding of what is going on when an organizational change takes place. While focusing on the importance of understanding what is going on emotionally at each stage in the change process, Bridges also provides a list of useful activities to be attended to during each phase (see Chapter 4 on leading change).

Transition consists of three phases: ending, neutral zone and new beginning; see Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Bridges: endings and beginnings

Page 7 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Ending

Before you can begin something new, you have to end what used to be. You need to identify who is losing what, expect a reaction and acknowledge the losses openly. Repeat information about what is changing – it will take time to sink in. Mark the endings.

Neutral zone

In the neutral zone, people feel disoriented. Motivation falls and anxiety rises. Consensus may break down as attitudes become polarized. It can also be quite a creative time. The manager’s job is to ensure that people recognize the neutral zone and treat it as part of the process. Temporary structures may be needed – possibly task forces and smaller teams. The manager needs to find a way of taking the pulse of the organization on a regular basis.

William Bridges suggested that we could learn from Moses and his time in the wilderness to really gain an understanding of how to manage people during the neutral zone.

MOSES AND THE NEUTRAL ZONE • Magnify the plagues. Increase the felt need for change. • Mark the ending. Make sure people are not hanging on to too much of the past. • Deal with the murmuring. Don’t ignore people when they complain; it might be significant. • Give people access to the decision makers. Two-way communication with the top is vital. • Capitalize on the creative opportunity provided by the wilderness. The neutral zone provides a

difference that allows for creative thinking and acting. • Resist the urge to rush ahead. You can slow things down a little. • Understand the neutral zone leadership is special. This is not a normal time. Normal rules do not

apply.

Source: Bridges and Mitchell (2002)

Page 8 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

New beginning

Beginnings should be nurtured carefully. They cannot be planned and predicted, but they can be encouraged, supported and reinforced. Bridges suggests that people need four key elements to help them make a new beginning:

1. the purpose behind the change; 2. a picture of how this new organization will look and feel; 3. a step by step plan to get there; 4. a part to play in the outcome.

The beginning is reached when people feel they can make the emotional commitment to doing something in a new way. Bridges makes the point that the neutral zone is longer and the endings are more protracted for those further down the management hierarchy. This can lead to impatience from managers who have emotionally stepped into a new beginning, while their people appear to lag behind, seemingly stuck in an ending (see box).

IMPATIENT FOR ENDINGS? As part of the management team, I knew about the merger very early, so by the time we announced it to the rest of the company, we were ready to fly with the task ahead.

What was surprising, and annoying, was the slow speed with which everyone else caught up. My direct reports were asking detailed questions about their job specifications and exactly how it was all going to work when we had fully merged. Of course I couldn’t answer any of these questions. I was really irritated by this.

The CEO had to have a long, intensive heart-to-heart with the whole team explaining what was going on and how much we knew about the future state of the organization before we could really get moving.

Our view

This phased model is particularly useful when organizations are faced with inevitable changes such as closure of a site, redundancy, acquisition or merger. The endings and new beginnings are real tangible events in

Page 9 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

these situations, and the neutral zone important, though uncomfortable. It is more difficult to use the model for anticipatory change or home-grown change where the endings and beginning are more fluid and therefore harder to discern.

We use this model when working with organizations embarking on mergers, acquisitions and significant partnership agreements. In particular, the model encourages everyone involved to get a sense of where they are in the process of transition. The image of the trapeze artist is often appreciated as it creates the feeling of leaping into the unknown, and trusting in a future that cannot be grasped fully. This is a scary process.

The other important message Bridges communicates well is that those close to the changes (managers and team leaders) may experience difficulty when they have reached a new beginning and their people are still working on an ending. This is one of the great frustrations of this type of change process, and we counsel managers to:

• recognize what is happening; • assertively tell staff what will happen while acknowledging their feelings; • be prepared to answer questions about the future again and again and again; • say you don’t know, if you don’t know; • expect the neutral zone to last a while and give it a positive name such as ‘setting our sights’ or

‘moving in’ or ‘getting to know you’.

Carnall, change management model: political, organism

Colin Carnall (1990) has produced a useful model that brings together a number of perspectives on change. He says that the effective management of change depends on the level of management skill in the following areas:

• managing transitions effectively; • dealing with organizational cultures; • managing organizational politics.

A manager who is skilled in managing transitions is able to help people to learn as they change and create an atmosphere of openness and risk taking.

Page 10 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

A manager who deals with organizational cultures examines the current organizational culture and starts to develop what Carnall calls ‘a more adaptable culture’. This means, for example, developing better information flow, more openness and greater local autonomy.

A manager who is able to manage organizational politics can understand and recognize different factions and different agendas. He or she develops skills in utilizing and recognizing various political tactics such as building coalitions, using outside experts and controlling the agenda.

Carnall (see Figure 3.7) makes the point that ‘only by synthesizing the management of transition, dealing with organizational cultures and handling organizational politics constructively, can we create the environment in which creativity, risk taking and the rebuilding of self-esteem and performance can be achieved’.

Figure 3.7 Carnall: managing transitions Source: Carnall (1990). Printed with permission of Pearson Education Ltd.

Our view

Carnall’s model obviously focuses on the role of the manager during a change process, rather than illuminating the process of change. It provides a useful checklist for management attention, and has strong parallels with William Bridges’ ideas of endings, transitions and beginnings.

STOP AND THINK!

Q 3.5 Compare the Nadler and Tushman congruence model with William Bridges’ ideas on managing transitions. How are these ideas the same? How are they different?

Page 11 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Page 12 of 12

1/14/2019https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9780749472597/print?from=113&to=122