DETERMINING THE CHANGE

Chapter 4

What to Change? A Diagnostic Approach

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

LO 4.1Understand the use of diagnostic models in planning organizational change

LO 4.2Use strategic analysis tools to assess the need for organizational change

LO 4.3Diagnose organizational receptiveness to and individual readiness for change, and use those assessments as the basis for action to increase receptiveness and readiness

LO 4.4Explain the characteristics of the “built-to-change” organizational model, and assess the applicability, strengths, and limitations of this approach

See Copyright Page For Credit Line

101

LO 4.1Organizational Models

The theme of this chapter is diagnosis. With regard to organizational change, what is the problem? Can we improve our understanding of the context and nature of the problem? And can this diagnostic approach help us to solve the problem, or problems, that we find? In short—what has to change? This chapter introduces a number of diagnostic frameworks and tools. Some diagnostic models consider the operation of the organization as a whole, such as the “7-S Model.” Others, such as “scenario planning,” start with strategy. Some are designed to explore specific aspects of the change process, such as organizational and individual readiness for change. The “built-to-change” model argues that organizations can be designed in a way that makes “change management” diagnostic tools redundant.

The way in which these diagnostic models, frameworks, and tools are deployed depends on the image of change management in use ( chapter 2 ).

Director	You can use these diagnostics to strengthen your knowledge base and confidence with regard to what needs to change, identifying key relationships and focusing on where change is needed and the results that you want.
Navigator	You will also find these diagnostics useful to “map” the organization’s environment and help you to assess appropriate responses.
Caretaker	You will be less impressed by the capability of these diagnostics to support change, but those which focus on the external environment (PESTLE and scenario planning) help to identify trends and developments to which the organization should respond.
Coach	You will probably be more interested in diagnostics that focus on goals and on the capabilities required to achieve them.
Interpreter	You will find particularly useful the diagnostics that emphasize images, framing, and cognitive maps.
Nurturer	With your interest in emergent strategy, you may not be convinced about the value of this diagnostic approach.

Who does the diagnosing? This is an important question, and answers vary. Some perspectives see this as a senior management prerogative, perhaps also involving external consultants and advisers. Those consultants may use their diagnostic expertise to help their clients to manage the change process, rather than to determine the content of the changes. However, other perspectives emphasize the need to involve at the diagnostic stage those who will be affected by change; involvement can strengthen commitment to the change process, and thus increase the probability of success. Some organization development (OD) consultants explicitly reject the role of “diagnostician,” arguing that their role is to help the organization’s members to do this for themselves.

Our treatment of models relies on the following assumptions:

· The members of an organization, managers and staff, have their own views of “how things work,” and “what causes what.” In other words, “diagnosis” with regard to organizational change is going to happen whether or not explicit diagnostic tools are used.

· Implicit causal models have the power to influence how we think about organizational issues and problems, and what we believe are the appropriate courses of action.102

· The option of not using a diagnostic model, therefore, is not available. We either use an implicit model, or choose an explicit one, such as those described in this chapter.

· Implicit models based on accumulated experience can provide valuable insights. However, implicit models have limitations. First, they may be based on the limited experience of a small number of people. Second, because they are implicit, it is difficult for others to understand the assumptions underlying decisions based on those models.

Warner Burke (2013) identifies five ways in which explicit models are useful:

1. Simplify complexity: They use a manageable number of categories to help simplify complex, multivariate situations

2. Highlight priorities: They help to prioritize the issues that need most attention.

3. Identify interdependencies: They identify key organizational interdependencies (e.g., strategy and structure).

4. Provide a common language: They provide a common language with which different stakeholder groups can discuss organizational properties.

5. Offer a process guide: They can offer guidance with respect to the appropriate sequence of actions in a change process.

This chapter describes several organizational models. Each adopts a different focus on aspects of organizational functioning, and no one model, or small collection of models, can be described as “best.” It is always important to choose, or to adapt, a model that fits the organization’s problem by triggering discussion and analysis among those involved, leading ultimately to action. In many cases, in terms of problem solving, the debate that a model prompts can be more important than the model itself. Our aims here are to illustrate the variety of models that are available, in order to give you a basis from which to choose those that most closely fit your interests and purposes.

The Six-Box Organizational Model

Marvin Weisbord (1976, p. 431) developed one of the first organizational diagnostics, which he described as “my efforts to combine bits of data, theories, research, and hunches into a working tool that anyone can use.” In the context of our discussion of implicit and explicit models, it is interesting to note that Weisbord subtitled his article, “Six Places to Look for Trouble With or Without a Theory.” It is not surprising that his model is based on sets of factors or “boxes”:

1. Purposes: What business are we in?

2. Structure: How do we divide up the work?

3. Rewards: Do all tasks have incentives?

4. Helpful mechanisms: Have we adequate coordinating technologies?

5. Relationships: How do we manage conflict among people?

6. Leadership: Does someone keep the other five boxes in balance?

Weisbord (1976, p. 431) uses a radar screen analogy: “Just as air controllers use radar to chart the course of an aircraft—height, speed, distance apart and weather—those seeking to improve an organization must observe relationships among the boxes and not focus on any particular blip.”

103

As a change diagnostic, therefore, this model has two main applications. First, in providing a small set of categories that simplify (perhaps oversimplify) the complexity of an organization, this facilitates the process of deciding which factors or sets of factors are generating problems, and which therefore require attention. Second, it reminds the change manager to consider the wider systemic implications of actions that address only one or two of those categories or boxes.

The 7-S Framework

The 7-S framework was developed by Robert Waterman, Tom Peters, and Julien Phillips (1980) while they were working as management consultants with McKinsey & Company. They argue that organizational effectiveness is influenced by many factors, and that successful change depends on the relationships between those factors. In an approach similar to that of Weisbord (1976), they identify seven sets of factors ( figure 4.1 ):

FIGURE 4.1

The 7-S Framework

Source: Based on Waterman et al., (1980, p.18).

Structure in this framework refers to the formal organization design.

Strategy concerns how the organization plans to anticipate or respond to changes in its external environment in order to strengthen its competitive position.

Systems are the formal and informal procedures that determine how things get done—budgeting, cost accounting, IT, and training systems, for example. Waterman et al. (1980, p. 21) note that one way to change an organization without disruptive reorganization is to change the systems.

Style refers to patterns of management actions, how managers spend their time, what they pay attention to, the signals that they send about priorities, and attitude to change.

Staff can refer to appraisal, training, and development processes, and also to attitude, motivation, and morale—but more importantly in this framework, this refers to how managers are developed.

104

Skills concern what an organization does best, expressed in the dominant attributes and capabilities that distinguish it from competitors.

Superordinate goals refer to the organization’s guiding concepts, values, aspirations, and future direction—which are sometimes captured by the term “vision,” discussed here in  chapter 6 . In later versions of the 7-S framework, these goals are also referred to as “shared values.”

As a change diagnostic, this framework emphasizes the interconnectedness of the seven sets of factors, and also argues that the “soft” issues (style, staff, skills, shared values) are just as important as structure, strategy, and systems. Waterman et al. (1980, p. 17) explain:

Our assertion is that productive organization change is not simply a matter of structure, although structure is important. It is not so simple as the interaction between strategy and structure, although strategy is critical too. Our claim is that effective organizational change is really the relationship between structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, staff, and something we call superordinate goals. (The alliteration is intentional: it serves as an aid to memory.)

The framework thus identifies the areas on which to focus, the questions to ask, and the relationships and alignments to consider when planning organizational change. A full 7-S analysis, exploring each of the elements of the framework in depth, can be rich and valuable, but is time-consuming.

Applying 7-S to Intuit

In 2000, Steve Bennett, vice president of GE Capital, became chief executive of Intuit, a financial software and services company with three products, Quicken, TurboTax, and QuickBooks, which respectively had 73 percent, 81 percent, and 84 percent of their markets. However, given this market dominance, many analysts felt that Intuit was less profitable than it should be. The company also had a reputation for slow decision making, allowing competitors to steal a number of market opportunities. Bennett wanted to change all that. In his first few weeks, he visited most of Intuit’s locations, addressed most of its 5,000 employees, and spoke personally to each of the top 200 executives. He concluded that staff were passionate about the firm’s products, but that not much attention was being paid to internal processes (this account is based on Higgins, 2005).

In terms of the 7-S framework, this is what he did:

Strategy: To expand Intuit’s portfolio, he expanded the product range by acquisition.

Structure: He created a flatter structure and decentralized decision making, giving business units greater control and responsibility for the product process from development to delivery.

Systems: The rewards system was more closely aligned to achieving strategic objectives.

Style: He emphasized the need for a performance-oriented focus, and he provided a vision for change, putting effort into “selling” that vision.

Staff: He built on the commitment of staff to Intuit’s products by emphasizing the critical role of quality and efficiency in maintaining and building the company’s reputation.

Skills: To enhance staff capabilities with regard to quality and efficiency, resources were allocated to training and development, and some select managers were hired from GE in specific skill areas.

Superordinate goals: Bennett’s approach was “vision-driven,” with his paper, “Steve’s Dream for Intuit,” outlining strategic objectives and how they would be achieved; to “sell” this vision, he communicated constantly with staff.

As a result of Bennett’s changes, operating profits increased in 2002 and 2003 by 40 to 50 percent. By 2014, Intuit had global revenues of over $5 billion, with 8,000 employees in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, India, and other countries ( http://www.intuit.com ).

105

The Star Model

The star model of organizational design, developed by Jay Galbraith et al. (2002), argues that, for an organization to be effective, its strategy, structure, processes, rewards, and people practices have to be in alignment ( figure 4.2 ). This model thus overlaps with the McKinsey 7-S framework.

Strategy in this model plays a dominant role, because if the strategy is not clear, then there is no basis for making other design decisions.

Structure is defined as the formal authority relationships and grouping of activities, as shown on an organization chart.

Processes and lateral capability concern the formal and informal systems that coordinate the organization’s activities.

Reward systems relate to how performance is measured and compensated, in ways that align individual actions to organizational objectives.

People practices concern the organization’s human resource policies and practices: selection, training and development, performance management.

As a change diagnostic, this model emphasizes how these five elements are interconnected. Changes in one area are almost certain to affect others, and not always in predictable ways. Despite the significance of strategy, organizational performance will suffer if one or more of the five sets of factors is out of alignment with the others. For example, while changing the structure may be relatively straightforward and visible, this can have little or no impact on performance without complementary changes elsewhere in the organization. Galbraith et al. (2002) explain the implications of misalignment of each of the five “points of the star,” as summarized in  table 4.1 .

FIGURE 4.2

The Star Model

Source: Based on Galbraith et al. (2002).

106

TABLE 4.1

The Implications of Misalignment

Design component	Leads to	Implications for practice
Strategy If strategy is missing, unclear, or not agreed	Confusion	No common purpose People pulling in different directions No criteria for decision making
Structure If the structure is not aligned to strategy	Friction	Inability to mobilize resources Ineffective execution Lost competitive advantage
Processes If coordinating mechanisms are left to chance	Gridlock	Lack of collaboration across boundaries Long decision and innovation cycle times No sharing of information and best practice
Rewards If metrics and rewards do not support the goals	Internal competition	Diffused energy, wrong results Low standards Frustration and staff turnover
People If staff are not enabled and empowered	Low performance	Effort without results Low job satisfaction

Source: Based on Galbraith et al. (2002).

The Four-Frame Model

Lee Bolman and Terry Deal (2013) explain four different frames or lenses, each providing a different perspective on how an organization functions. Their aim is to promote the value of “multiframe thinking,” which means seeing the same situation in different ways. Problems arise, they argue, when we become locked into our one favored way of seeing the world—and our organization—and then fail to see other critical aspects or issues. We met frames before, in  chapter 2 , in our discussion of mental models; same thing. The structural frame in this model concerns the organization of groups and teams. The human resource frame concerns how the organization is tailored to satisfy human needs and build effective interpersonal relationships and teamwork. The political frame concerns how power and conflict are dealt with, and how coalitions are formed. The symbolic frame relates to how the organization builds a culture that gives purpose and meaning to work and builds team cohesion. The four-frame model is illustrated in  figure 4.3  (Bolman and Deal, 2013, p. 19).

FIGURE 4.3

The Four-Frame Model

Each frame is associated with a metaphor. The structural frame sees the organization as a machine, and the problem concerns efficient design. The human resource frame treats the organization as a family, and the task is to meet the needs of both the organization and its members. The political frame sees organizations as sites of collaboration and conflict, as the interests of internal and external stakeholders sometimes overlap, and sometimes differ. For the symbolic frame, the essence of the organization lies with its culture—symbols, beliefs, values, norms, rituals, and meanings.

As a change diagnostic, the four-frame model invites the change manager to see the organization through several different lenses at the same time. This can deepen understanding of problems and helps to generate creative solutions by highlighting previously unseen or unconsidered possibilities.

107

Metaphorical Diagnostics

In many situations, diagnosis of the need for and substance of change can be enhanced by capturing the perspectives of a wide range of the staff who are involved—at all levels. However, getting people to talk about the “as is” situation, and what needs to change, can sometimes be awkward. A useful technique for overcoming this potential blockage builds on the concept of “frames,” asking people to describe their organization (or part of the organization) and how it works using a metaphor (an image, or a simile): “My organization is like a well-oiled machine”; “My division is a shark-infested pond.”

In our experience, most people quickly generate such an image when asked: “My organization is like a dinosaur—large, slow-moving, unresponsive to change, and headed for extinction.” These images differ from one individual to another, and become the basis of discussion, as their originators provide further detail about what they intended to convey with their metaphor.

LO 4.2Organization Strategy and Change

In this section, we shift the focus from organizational models to strategic analysis tools. Strategy is a major driver of change, but it is not the only factor. Here, we explain six tools that are in common use for exploring and shaping an organization’s strategy. These are gap analysis, the PESTLE framework, scenario planning, elements of strategy, the strategic inventory, and the cultural web.

Gap Analysis

Gap analysis is a simple, flexible, and widely used tool for reviewing the current “as is” state of an organization, and what has to change. This involves asking three questions:

1. Where are we now?

2. Where do we want to get to?

3. What do we need to do in order to get there?

108

These are general questions that almost always elicit a response—from staff at all levels in an organization—and they are therefore a good basis for discussion. A key issue concerns the degree of consensus in the responses of those who are asked. If everyone agrees, then action may be rapid. However, if rapid action is not necessary in the circumstances, it can be useful to deliberately orchestrate a challenge to the consensus. That challenge could reinforce the consensus view, or it could prompt a reconsideration of “taken for granted” assumptions. A low degree of consensus prompts further attention to the organization’s goals, on the grounds that commitment to action should have a reasonably broad base of agreement, at least concerning the first two questions. Agreement on the third question may be desirable but is not necessary as long as there is commitment to support the formal decision on the course of action to be taken.

Gap analysis is flexible with regard to focus and timescale. The first question can relate to the organization as a whole, or to one or more divisions. If appropriate, it can address a range of other specific issues: where are we now with regard to staff engagement, updating our information systems, developing new product lines, streamlining our procurement processes, and so on. The second question may ask, where do we want to get to in six months, or two years, or five years, and so on. The simplicity and flexibility of this tool make it both easy to use and powerful.

As a change diagnostic, this can be a helpful way of establishing a change agenda (what do we need to do in order to get there?) that has been explored in depth and that is understood by those involved. Through open discussion, the resultant agenda can gain a high degree of consensus, but the disagreements that have been aired will also be known and understood. One problem with gap analysis is that it often suggests a felt need for deep, transformational change (see  figure 1.1 , p. 18), which immediately generates an overwhelming and potentially resource-intensive agenda.

PESTLE Framework

PESTLE is an environmental scanning tool, which provides a structured method for organizing and understanding complex trends and developments across the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and ecological factors that can affect an organization.  Figure 4.4  shows a typical PESTLE analysis. This is an illustration, and is not comprehensive. The tidy categories in the figure can overlap in practice; legislative changes may be politically motivated, and ecological concerns reflect changing social values and preferences. The point of the analysis, however, is to identify the environmental factors that may affect the organization now and in the future.

109

FIGURE 4.4

PESTLE Analysis

Environmental complexity makes prediction hazardous. We can predict demographic trends with some accuracy, with respect to mortality, and gender and age profiles. We can normally predict economic trends with some confidence in the short to medium term—say two to three years. Trends in social values and lifestyles, politics, technological innovation, or the impact of new technology cannot be predicted with much confidence—although that does not stop journalists and others from making the attempt. Predicting geopolitical events, such as terrorist attacks and wars, is even more difficult. PESTLE analysis thus relies heavily on informed guesswork and judgement.

As a change diagnostic, the environmental audit that PESTLE produces can be used to guide strategic decision making and contingency planning, to exploit opportunities, and to address potential threats and risks (Morrison and Daniels, 2010). The resultant agenda may involve immediate change initiatives and can also include longer-term change planning.

110

Scenario Planning

Scenario planning involves the imaginative development of one or more likely pictures of the characteristics of the possible futures for an organization sometimes, but not necessarily, considering “best-case/worst-case” possibilities. The organization can then plan an appropriate response to those futures (Verity, 2003). Recent concerns with regard to geopolitical risks have made scenario planning more popular (see “Scenario Planning in a High-Risk World, to 2018”). The results of a PESTLE analysis can of course contribute to scenario development. The Royal Dutch/Shell Company was responsible for developing scenario planning in the 1970s, and this tool is thus also known as the “Shell method.”

For example, the consultancy company PricewaterhouseCoopers used scenario planning to explore the future of work (Arkin, 2007). They developed three possible scenarios for 2020:

Orange world	Big companies have been replaced by networks of small, specialized enterprises. People work on short-term contracts, exploring job opportunities online through portals developed by craft guilds.
Green world	Demographic change, climate, and sustainability are key business drivers. Employment law, employee relations, and corporate responsibility are vital in this heavily regulated environment.
Blue world	Huge corporations are like mini-states, providing staff with housing, health, education, and other welfare benefits. Human capital metrics are sophisticated, and people management is as powerful as finance.

As a change diagnostic, scenario planning encourages creative “blue skies” decision making, to identify the most probable futures for the organization. This analysis then forms the basis for prioritizing, planning, and acting to implement appropriate changes. Chapter  exercise 4.2  invites you to carry out a scenario planning exercise for an organization with which you are familiar.

Scenario Planning in a High-Risk World, to 2018

The Economist Intelligence Unit (Mitchell, 2008) surveyed 600 global executives in 2008 and asked them which risks were the most threatening to their business over the next decade, to 2018. The top 12 risks that concerned these executives were:

· Increase in protectionism

· Major oil price shock

· Collapse in asset prices

· Emergence of a disruptive business model

· International terrorism

· Unexpected regulatory change

· Global recession

· Instability in the Middle East

· Increased competition from emerging-market companies

· Talent shortages

· Climate change

· Increased industrial pollution

Only 26 percent said that they used scenario planning regularly, 41 percent used it on an ad hoc basis, and 29 percent said that they would be using it in future.

111

Elements of Strategy

Strategy is often considered to be at the heart of change because it addresses the basic issues with which an organization has to deal: what are we seeking to achieve, and how? Strategy and change intersect because strategies can change (“change of strategy”) and change may be necessary in order to realize a set strategy (“change for strategy”). Donald Hambrick and James Fredrickson (2001) developed a framework that characterizes organization strategy in terms of five mutually reinforcing elements: arenas, vehicles, differentiators, staging, and economic logic ( table 4.2 ). Misalignment of these elements indicates a potential need for change.

TABLE 4.2

The Elements of Strategy

1. Arenas: What business will we be in? · Which product categories? · Which market segments? · Which geographic areas? · Which core technologies? · Which value-creation stages? 2. Vehicles: How will we get there? · Internal development? · Joint ventures? · Licensing/franchising? · Acquisitions? 3. Differentiators: How will we win in the marketplace? · Image? · Customization? · Price? · Styling? · Product reliability? 4. Staging · Speed of expansion? · Sequence of initiatives? 5. Economic Logic · Lowest costs through scale advantage? · Lowest costs through scope and replication advantage? · Premium prices due to unmatchable service? · Premium prices due to proprietary product features?

Source: Academy of Management Executive, Hambrick and Fredrickson © 2001 by the Academy of Management (NY). Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management (NY) in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.

From this perspective, only when all five strategic elements have been determined is it possible to assess the structures and systems that will be appropriate to pursuing the strategy. However, before moving to this stage, it is important to test the quality of the proposed strategy. Hambrick and Fredrickson (2001) suggest the six “key evaluation criteria” explained in  table 4.3 .

TABLE 4.3

Testing the Quality of Your Strategy: Key Evaluation Criteria

Key Evaluation Criteria 1. Does your strategy fit with what’s going on in the environment? · Is there a healthy profit potential where you’re headed? · Does strategy align with the key success factors of your chosen environment? 2. Does your strategy exploit your key resources? · With your particular mix of resources, does this strategy give you a good head start on your competitors? · Can you pursue this strategy more economically than competitors? 3. Will your envisaged differentiators be sustainable? · Will competitors have difficulty matching you? · If not, does your strategy explicitly include a ceaseless regimen of innovation and opportunity creation? 4. Are the elements of your strategy internally consistent? · Have you made choices of arenas, vehicles, differentiators, staging, and economic logic? · Do they all fit and mutually reinforce each other? 5. Do you have enough resources to pursue this strategy? · Do you have the money, managerial time and talent, and other capabilities to do all that you envision? · Are you sure you’re not spreading your resources too thinly, only to be left with a collection of weak positions? 6. Is your strategy implementable? · Will your key constituencies allow you to pursue this strategy? · Can your organization make it through the transition? · Are you and your management team able and willing to lead the required changes?

Source: Academy of Management Executive, Hambrick and Fredrickson © 2001 by the Academy of Management (NY). Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management (NY) in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.

As a change diagnostic, therefore, this analysis identifies the organizational changes that are necessary in order to pursue a desired strategy. If for any reason (cost, time, expertise) those changes are difficult or impossible to implement, then the strategy may have to be reconsidered. This approach can also help to generate an integrated package of change initiatives that are mutually self-reinforcing, and which are aligned with organization112strategy. While integration and alignment may sound like straightforward advice, this can often be difficult to achieve in practice. For example, problems can arise when changes that are optimal for one division of the organization undermine activities and changes in other divisions (see point 5 in  table 4.3  about spreading resources too thinly).

The Strategic Inventory

Strategy is about the future, committing resources to activities based on “assumptions, premises and beliefs about an organization’s environment (society and its structure, the market, the customer, and the competition), its mission, and the core competencies needed to accomplish that mission” (Picken and Dess, 1998, p. 35). These assumptions, premises, and beliefs, often formed over time through experience, become a “mental grid” through which new information is sifted and interpreted. To the extent that this grid comprises assumptions and beliefs that accurately reflect the environment, the quality of strategic decision making is enhanced. However, when assumptions fail to reflect key elements of the business environment, they can lead to the adoption of inappropriate strategies, a phenomenon known as “strategic drift.”

As a change diagnostic, identifying and validating management’s strategic assumptions can be useful in assessing whether or not strategy is consistent with key elements of113the business environment. This assessment can then identify whether an organization’s strategy should be a focal point for change. To establish the degree of consensus on dominant strategic assumptions, Joseph Picken and Gregory Dess (1998) developed a “strategic inventory” ( table 4.4 ).

TABLE 4.4

The Strategic Inventory

Defining the boundaries of the competitive environment

· What are the boundaries of our industry? What is our served market? What products or services do we provide?

· Who are the customers? Who are the noncustomers? What is the difference between them?

· Who are our competitors? Who are the noncompetitors? What makes one firm a competitor and the other not?

· What key competencies are required to compete in this industry? Where is the value added?

Defining the key assumptions

· Who is our customer? What kinds of things are important to that customer? How does he or she perceive us? What kind of relationships do we have?

· Who is the ultimate end user? What kinds of things are important to this end user? How does he or she perceive us? What kind of relationship do we have?

· Who are our competitors? What are their strengths and weaknesses? How do they perceive us? What can we learn from them?

· Who are the potential competitors? New entrants? What changes in the environment or their behavior would make them competitors?114

· What is the industry’s value chain? Where is value added? What is the cost structure? How does our firm compare? How about our competitors?

· What technologies are important in our industry? Product technologies? Production technologies? Delivery and service technologies? How does our firm compare? How about our competitors?

· What are the key factors of production? Who are the suppliers? Are we dependent on a limited number of sources? How critical are these relationships? How solid?

· What are the bases for competition in our industry? What are the key success factors? How do we measure up? How about our competitors?

· What trends and factors in the external environment are important to our industry? How are they likely to change? Over what time horizon?

· Are we able, in assessing our knowledge and assumptions, to separate fact from assumption?

Is our assumption set internally consistent?

· For each pair of assumptions, can we answer “yes” to the question: “If assumption A is true, does assumption B logically follow?”

Do we understand the relative importance of each of our assumptions?

· In terms of its potential impact on performance?

· In terms of our level of confidence in its validity?

· In terms of the likelihood and expectation of near-term change?

· In terms of its strategic impact?

Are our key assumptions broadly understood?

· Have we documented and communicated our key assumptions? To our key managers? To the boundary-spanners? To other key employees?

Do we have a process for reviewing and validating our key assumptions and premises?

· Is there a process in place? Are responsibilities assigned? Are periodic reviews planned and scheduled?

 

Picken and Dess (1998) suggest that, where there is consensus on strategic assumptions, the organization should seek an independent validation, to check for biases. Where significant divergence exists, attention should focus on which (and whose) assumptions are currently embedded in strategy, and which (and whose) can again be independently validated. The strategic inventory involves a more sophisticated analysis than that provided by the widely used SWOT approach to understanding an organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The danger with SWOT analysis is that it becomes a listing not of strengths but “perceived strengths,” not weaknesses but “perceived weaknesses,” and so on. It may simply capture existing beliefs, the current dominant logic, which may need to be challenged in order to improve organizational performance.

The Cultural Web

Organization culture is often seen as a response to performance problems and is a component of many change diagnostics. Gerry Johnson (1998; Johnson et al., 2013)115describes organization culture in terms of a “cultural web” that has seven elements ( figure 4.5 ):

FIGURE 4.5

The Cultural Web

Source: Based on Johnson (1998).

1. The paradigm: The set of assumptions commonly held throughout the organization with respect to basic elements of the business such as what business we’re in, how we compete, who our competitors are.

2. Rituals and routines: These concern how organizational members treat each other and, perhaps more importantly, associated beliefs as to what is right and proper and valued in this regard.

3. Stories: As told by organization members, stories are a form of oral history and communicate and reinforce core elements of the culture.

4. Symbols: Logos, office design, dress style, language use, and other symbols convey aspects of the culture.

5. Control systems: What is valued in the organization is communicated through what is measured and rewarded.

6. Power structures: These concern the most influential management groups in the organization.

7. Organizational structure: The formal and informal differentiation and integration of tasks.

As a change diagnostic, Johnson (1998; Johnson et al., 2013) describes the value of “mapping” the organization’s cultural web. First, exposing issues that are rarely discussed is a useful way of questioning traditional norms and habits. If what is taken for granted is never questioned, then change will be difficult. Second, cultural mapping can highlight potential barriers to change. Third, it may also be possible through this approach to identify aspects of the culture that are especially resistant to change. Fourth, a culture map116can be the basis for considering the changes that will be necessary to pursue a new strategy. Finally, practical ideas for managing those changes can then be developed.

The unit of analysis for the cultural web is the organization as a whole. The change manager with a specific initiative in a particular division, therefore, may not find this approach helpful in identifying ways to increase the probability of success of that change project.

LO 4.3Diagnosing Readiness for Change

The diagnostics that we have discussed so far have been designed to help decide whether or not an organization has to change, and if so, to determine what has to change. It is often appropriate to ask two other sets of questions before pressing ahead with implementation. First, is the organization as a whole receptive to change? We will explore this question through the concepts of the receptive organizational context, absorptive capacity, and the innovative organization. We will also discuss the technique of force-field analysis to assess how receptive an organization is to a particular change. Chapter  exercise 4.3  offers another readiness diagnostic. Second, are those who will be affected ready for these changes? In this section, therefore, we will explore both organizational receptiveness (or readiness) and individual readiness (or receptiveness) to change. The aim, of course, is not simply to establish levels of organizational and individual readiness. Understanding why readiness may be low is a platform for remedial action, to strengthen receptiveness and readiness where appropriate.

The Receptive Organizational Context

Organizations vary in their receptiveness to change. This variation depends on a number of conditions (Eccles, 1984):

1. Is there pressure for change?

2. Is there a shared vision of the goals, benefits, and direction?

3. Do we have effective liaison and trust between those concerned?

4. Is there the will and power to act?

5. Do we have enough capable people with sufficient resources?

6. Do we have suitable rewards and defined accountability for actions?

7. Have we identified actionable first steps?

8. Does the organization have a capacity to learn and to adapt?

Where the answers to these questions are “yes,” organizational receptiveness is high, and resistance to change is likely to be limited. However, without pressure, clear goals, trust, power to act, resources, and so on, receptiveness is likely to be low, and the changes will be more difficult to implement. It is important to note that an organization as a whole may be more or less receptive to change, regardless of the attitudes of individual members.

This simple receptiveness diagnostic highlights two practical issues. The first is timing. Some conditions (growing pressure, for example) may improve simply by waiting. The117second concerns action, to strengthen the conditions when receptiveness is low. Remedial actions could involve:

· Ensuring that the rationale for change is strong and understood.

· Articulating a clear vision of goals and benefits.

· Confidence-building measures to develop interpersonal and interdivisional trust.

· Ensuring that key positions are held by dynamic, high-performing individuals.

· Developing change management capabilities across the organization.

· Providing adequate resources (people, technology, training) to support the proposed changes.

· Aligning performance management and reward systems with change goals.

· Clearly establishing the initial action plan.

· Developing learning organization capabilities.

The key point is that organizational receptiveness to change can be managed, by taking steps to change the conditions that lower receptiveness. Most of those steps are cost-neutral.

Absorptive Capacity

Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal (1990) developed the related concept of “absorptive capacity,” which they defined as the ability of an organization to value, to assimilate, and to apply new knowledge. Absorptive capacity depends on an organization’s existing stock of knowledge and skills, and a “learning organization culture” with leadership and norms that support the acquisition, sharing, and application of new ideas. From their comprehensive review of work on this abstract and complex concept, Shaker Zahra and Gerard George (2002, p. 185) redefine absorptive capacity as “a dynamic capability pertaining to knowledge creation and utilization that enhances a firm’s ability to gain and sustain a competitive advantage.” They argue that absorptive capacity has four dimensions:

1. Acquisition: The ability to find and to prioritize new knowledge and ideas quickly and efficiently.

2. Assimilation: The ability to understand new knowledge and to link it to existing knowledge.

3. Transformation: The ability to combine, convert, and recodify new knowledge.

4. Exploitation: The ability to use new ideas productively.

Acquisition depends on the organization’s external links and networks, which are often available only to a small number of professional staff and senior management. Assimilation, transformation, and exploitation rely more on internal capabilities, relationships, and systems. These four dimensions can also be managed. Actions to increase an organization’s absorptive capacity include widening the exposure of staff to external networks; the use of job rotation and cross-functional teams to encourage the sharing of knowledge and ideas across organizational boundaries; wider employee participation in management decision making; and relaxing rules, procedures, and routines that stifle exploration and experimentation (Jansen et al., 2005). Once again, many of these actions are cost-neutral.

118

The Innovative Organization

A related perspective on receptiveness to change has focused on innovative organizations. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1983; 1989) makes a distinction between integrative and segmentalist organization structures and cultures. Integrative structures and cultures display the following features:

· Holistic problem-solving

· Team orientation

· Cooperative environment

· Mechanisms for ideas generation and exchange

· Sense of purpose and direction

· Ability to overthrow history and precedent

· Use of internal and external networks

· Person- and creation-centered

· Results-oriented

Segmentalist organizations, in contrast, are characterized by the compartmentalization of problem-solving and a preoccupation with hierarchy, efficiency, and rules. Segmentalist organizations, Kanter argues, are “innovation smothering,” and integrative organizations are “innovation stimulating.” It is usually not difficult to identify innovation smothering and stimulating cultures by observing both the physical features of the organization (layouts, color schemes) and staff behavior; see “Charlie’s Angels and the Red Star Corporation.”

If we understand the features of an organization that respectively stimulate and smother creativity and innovation, then we can start to change or remove those that smother and strengthen those that stimulate.  Table 4.5  illustrates the features to look for. These are not comprehensive lists, and you will be able to identify other stimulating and smothering features yourself, by observation.

119

TABLE 4.5

Organizational Features That Stimulate and Smother Innovation

Stimulating Innovation	Smothering Innovation
No boundaries	Large organization
Flat organization structure	Many layers of management
Small unit size	Risk aversion, negativity
Fast approval processes	Closed-door policy
Empowerment of staff	Bureaucracy
Cross-functional teams	Controlled environment
Job rotation	Cumbersome approval processes
Flexible career paths	Too many procedure manuals
Supportive rewards and recognition	Segregation—keeping groups apart
Management backing for innovation	Avoid competition
Allocation of resources, including time	Encourage mediocrity, “good enough” is OK
Sharing information	Perfectionism, “not good enough” is punished
Positive culture that celebrates successes	“We’ve tried that before, we know best”
Encourage creative processes, brainstorming	Inadequate resources
Allowed to take risks and make mistakes	Overload, stress, burnout, people leaving
Focus on results and not methods	Emphasize the urgent, not the important
Exploit problems to create opportunities	Culture of blame, recriminations for failure
Links to external organizations and events	Inward looking
Weekend retreats, informal, out of office	No resources for training and development

Charlie’s Angels and the Red Star Corporation

We are going to ask you to watch part of the movie Charlie’s Angels (Columbia Pictures, directed by Joseph McGinty Nichol [“McG”], 2000). Charlie’s Angels are three private investigators on a mission to rescue a billionaire who has been kidnapped for his sophisticated software skills. Go to DVD track 14, where Alex (played by Lucy Liu), masquerading as an “efficiency expert,” leads the Angels into the Red Star Corporation headquarters, in an attempt to penetrate their security systems. Watch this sequence until the end of Alex’s presentation, when she says, “Better yet, can anyone show me?” As you watch this short clip, consider the following questions:

· Is this an organization that stimulates or smothers creativity and innovation?

· How do you know? Identify the clues, visual and spoken, that support your assessment of the Red Star organization culture.

· What general characteristics of innovative organizations are illustrated here?

Rules for Stifling Innovation

Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2002) instructs management on how to stifle innovation:

Regard a new idea from below with suspicion, because it’s new, and because it’s from below.

Insist that people who need your approval to act first go through several other levels of management to get their signatures.

Ask departments or individuals to challenge and criticize each others’ proposals. That saves you the job of deciding; you just pick the survivor.

Express criticism freely, and withhold praise. That keeps people on their toes. Let them know that they can be fired at any time.

Treat identification of problems as signs of failure, to discourage people from letting you know when something in their area isn’t working.

Control everything carefully. Make sure people count anything that can be counted, frequently.

And above all, never forget that you, the higher-ups, already know everything important about this business.

120

Force-Field Analysis

Force-field analysis is a popular diagnostic, developed in the mid-twentieth century by Kurt Lewin (1943; 1951). As a change diagnostic, this tool has two main purposes. First, it can be used to assess whether or not an organization is ready for a particular change initiative. Second, if readiness or receptiveness is low, force-field analysis can help to identify and prioritize the preparation or “groundwork” that may be required before implementation can begin. The analysis involves identifying the forces that are respectively driving and restraining movement toward a given set of outcomes, called the “target situation.” The “field” is usually drawn like this:

Target Situation: Develop Customer-Orientation

Driving Forces	Restraining Forces
Static sales	Difficult to recruit capable sales staff
Increasingly aggressive competition	High turnover among part-time staff
Rising number of customer complaints	Trained and capable staff are “poached”
Brand being criticized on social media	Our competitors face similar problems
New chief executive supports this move	Cost of customer relationships training

This example is artificial, to illustrate the approach. It is unusual, for example, to have the same number of forces on the driving side as on the restraining side. Having constructed the field, the forces that have been identified can each be weighted or scored, say from 1 (weak) to 10 (strong), to produce a rough calculus to the balance of forces. This scoring procedure can give the analysis a false image of quantified rigor. More important than the forces and their scores is the discussion that produces the analysis. Who conducts this analysis is thus also important, often a project team or steering group. The underpinning discussion can expose wide differences in perception, both of the forces in play, and of their strength. The debate helps either to resolve those differences, or at least to allow those involved to know how their opinions vary, and how those differences have arisen.

If the driving forces are overwhelming, then the change can go ahead without significant problems. If the restraining forces are overwhelming, then the change may have to be abandoned, or delayed until conditions have improved. However, if the driving and restraining forces are more or less in balance, then the analysis can be used to plan appropriate action. The extent to which the force field is balanced is a matter of judgement. Used in a group setting, this method helps to structure what can often be an untidy discussion covering a wide range of factors and differing perceptions.

Managing a balanced force field to promote movement toward the target situation involves the following considerations:

1. Increasing the driving forces can often result in an increase in the resisting forces. This means that the current equilibrium does not change, but instead is maintained with increased tension.

2. Reducing the resisting forces is preferable, as this allows movement toward the desired outcomes or target situation without increasing tension.

3. Group norms are an important force in resisting and shaping organizational change.121

Individual Readiness for Change

Individual readiness for change is a predisposition, perhaps even impatience, to welcome and embrace change. Where individual readiness is high, change may be straightforward. But when readiness is low, as with organizational receptiveness, some “groundwork” may be required to increase levels of change readiness among those who are going to be affected.

Rafferty et al. (2013) view change readiness as an individual attitude that has both cognitive and emotional (or “affective”) dimensions. “Collective readiness” for change, of a group or organization, is based on the shared beliefs that develop through social interaction and shared experiences. Underpinning an individual’s change readiness, therefore, are five beliefs:

1. Discrepancy: The belief that change is needed.

2. Appropriate: The belief that the proposed change is an appropriate response.

3. Efficacy: The individual’s perceived capability to implement the change.

4. Principal support: The belief that the organization (management, peers) will provide resources and information.

5. Valence: The individual’s evaluation of the personal costs and benefits; no benefits, no overall positive evaluation of readiness.

Individual change readiness is demonstrated through support for, openness toward, and commitment to change. These attitudes and behaviors can be influenced by three sets of factors.

The first concerns external pressures, including industry and technology changes, new regulations, and professional group memberships. The second set of factors concerns what Rafferty et al. (2013) call “internal context enablers,” including change participation and communication processes, and leadership. The third set of factors concern personal characteristics and include needs, values, and traits such as self-confidence, risk tolerance, dispositional resistance to change, and self-efficacy.

From a change management perspective, therefore, individuals’ readiness for change can be assessed and can also be influenced. With regard to increasing readiness, research evidence points in particular to the power of the internal enablers. Individual readiness for change can be influenced by processes that are designed to enhance participation in decisions, by high-quality change communications, and by perceptions of the organization’s history of change (previous experience, support for change, congruence of values). Again, there are practical steps that change managers can take in order to increase the probability that a change initiative will be welcome and successful—and most of those steps involve little or no expenditure.

Stakeholder Analysis

Another approach to assessing individual readiness for change involves stakeholder analysis, which focuses on the positions of key stakeholders. A stakeholder is anyone who is likely to be affected by an organizational change or program of changes, and who can influence the outcomes, directly or indirectly. Those stakeholders may be members of the organization, or of external groups and agencies, including other organizations. Stakeholder analysis usually involves the following steps:

1. Identify the stakeholders for the change initiative under consideration. Stakeholders may have a formal connection to the organization: owners, managers, suppliers, customers, employees. However, other individuals and groups are often able to exert influence: regulatory bodies, financial institutions, local government officials.122

2. Establish what each of those stakeholders expects to gain or lose if the changes go ahead, and their respective power to support or block the initiative.

3. Check each stakeholder’s “track record” with regard to comparable issues. Were they supportive, or not? If possible, identify what position your stakeholders are taking with regard to the current change. Behaviors are more significant than attitudes. Those who say that they are supporters may quickly switch their views in the face of difficulties. Equally, however, those who are initially hostile to the change may become supportive if they believe that the change will happen and be of benefit to them.

4. Use the planned benefits of the change to strengthen support for the proposals. It is often possible to find ways to address the concerns of those who feel they will lose out, by altering the nature of the changes proposed, perhaps, or by offering to reduce their losses in other ways.

The levels of stakeholders’ power can be plotted against their interests, as shown in the “power-interest matrix” in  figure 4.6 . Action to manage the stakeholders for a given change initiative can then be based on this matrix (Grundy, 1997):

FIGURE 4.6

Power-Interest Matrix

Source: Based on Grundy (1997).

· Can new stakeholders be added to change the balance?

· Can oppositional stakeholders be encouraged to leave?

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

· Can the influence of antagonistic stakeholders be decreased?

· Can the change be modified in a way that meets concerns without undermining the change?

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

Stakeholder analysis informs change managers about the likely responses of key stakeholders, and steps can then be taken to manage those stakeholders, to weaken opposition and strengthen support.

It seems to be clear that, with regard to both organizational receptiveness to change and individual readiness to change, the change manager does not have to accept the diagnosis. There are practical—and often inexpensive—actions that can be taken to increase receptiveness and readiness. The diagnostic approaches described in this section help to identify what those actions could involve.

123

LO 4.4Built-to-Change

The observation that some organizations are simply better able to manage and implement change than others has a long history. This notion of ability to change is different from assessing whether an organization is ready to change or can absorb further change. For example, from their study of the electronics sector in Scotland in the 1950s, Tom Burns and George Stalker (1961) distinguished between mechanistic and organic management systems (what we now call organization cultures). By mechanistic, they meant rigid and bureaucratic. Organic systems, in contrast, are flexible and adaptable (or “agile”). Their main argument still holds: mechanistic organizations perform well in stable environments, but in turbulent environments, organic organizations perform better. As we discussed earlier, Kanter (1983) subsequently “rediscovered” this argument in her distinction between “segmentalist” (mechanistic, bureaucratic) and “integrative” (organic, agile) cultures.

Echoing those previous arguments, Christopher Worley and Edward Lawler (2006) note that many businesses are organized in ways that discourage change, and that this is not consistent with the contemporary need for agility and adaptation. The competing organizational need for stability and predictability leads to structures and management practices that are designed to minimize variability and instability. The problem, they argue, is that organizations are usually built to last. The answer is to design organizations that are built-to-change, that are efficient in terms of today’s performance and also flexible in responding to environmental trends and developments. The contrasts between traditional and built-to-change organization designs are summarized in  table 4.6 .

TABLE 4.6

Traditional and “Built-to-Change” Organization Design Principles

Traditional	Built-to-Change
Job descriptions that detail specific responsibilities	Goal-setting reviews to identify what individuals and teams should achieve in the near future
Hire people with the capabilities for the job for which they have applied	Hire people with initiative, who like change, who are quick learners and want development
Employment contract based on expectations set out in job description	Employment contract stating that support for change is an expected condition of employment
Job-related skills training	Ongoing training in skills to support change
Pay and rewards based on seniority and focused on individual job performance	Variety of rewards—bonuses, stock—for all staff, and group and unit bonuses linked to change
Pay for the job, and what it involves	Pay for the person, and what they contribute
Specialist market research and environmental scanning staff/departments; most staff thus have an internal focus	Maximize the “surface area” of staff in touch with customers and environment; most staff thus have an external as well as an internal focus
Hierarchical structures	Process-based, cross-functional network structures
Inflexible annual budgeting	Costs controlled by profit centers
Quarterly/annual performance updates	Transparent real-time performance information
Senior leaders set direction, give orders	Shared leadership, all levels in the organization
Leadership development for the “stars”	Leadership development for most staff

Source: Based on Worley and Lawler (2006).

124

The built-to-change organization uses design principles concerning talent management, reward systems, organization structure, information and decision processes, and leadership. This approach assumes that “continuous change is simply business as usual” (Worley and Lawler, 2006, p. 23). This presents a challenge to conventional approaches to change management, which assume the need for a planned organizational transition from one state to another. However, if an organization can be inherently built-to-change, then the processes and techniques of managing organizational change described in texts like this one may only be required rarely and in extreme circumstances.

From a survey of 40 service and manufacturing sector organizations, Worley and Lawler (2010, p. 2) conclude that any organization can develop agility, defined as “an evolving change and design capability, a leadership challenge that is never finished, only approached over time, but which yields consistently high levels of sustainable effectiveness.” The organizations with consistently high performance had higher agility scores, measured using the design principles in  table 4.6 .

Chapter  exercise 4.1  describes one organization that has developed “built-to-change” capabilities. Is this model effective, and is it more widely applicable?

Designed Not to Change

The reality is that today’s organizations were simply never designed to change proactively and deeply—they were built for discipline and efficiency, enforced through hierarchy and routinization. As a result, there’s a mismatch between the pace of change in the external environment and the fastest possible pace of change at most organizations. If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t see so many incumbents struggling to intercept the future.

Source: Hamel and Zanini (2014).

EXERCISE 4.1

The Capital One Financial Story

LO 4.4

As you read the following account, consider the following questions:

1. The “built-to-change” model has been promoted as desirable for most if not all organizations. However, from a corporate management perspective, what are potential disadvantages of developing a built-to-change organization?

2. From the perspective of an individual employee, what are the benefits of working in a built-to-change organization?

3. For the individual employee, what are the potential disadvantages of working in a built-to-change organization?

4. Capital One Financial operates in a fast-moving sector. To what extent will built-to-change design principles apply to organizations in other industries, with different environments?

Capital One Financial was one of America’s largest financial services companies, with annual revenues of more than $20 billion, 45 million customer accounts, and around 40,000 employees. Worley and Lawler (2009) tell the story of how Capital One became a “built-to-change” organization by developing an “enterprise-wide change capability.” Like all financial services organizations, Capital One had to respond, frequently and125rapidly, to regulatory changes and shifting market and economic conditions. To remain competitive, change had to be routine.

In an era when environments are changing faster and faster, the rhetoric on organizational effectiveness is clear: successful organizations must be more agile and adaptable. Redesigning work processes, integrating acquired businesses, implementing large-scale information technology systems, and entering foreign markets are a few of the challenging changes companies are implementing. Any one of them can prove very difficult to accomplish—most estimates put the success rate for a large-scale organizational change at about 25–30 percent. Successfully implementing several of them in a short time period is virtually impossible. (Worley and Lawler, 2009, p. 245)

How did the company develop its change capability? Worley and Lawler (2009) identify four elements in Capital One’s approach, summarized in  table 4.7 .

TABLE 4.7

Capital One: Built-to-Change Elements

Element	In Practice at Capital One
Focus on the future	Analysts’ time spent on exploring future trends and implications
Momentary advantages	“Test and learn” approach to developing new income streams
Organizational flexibility	Hire people who like change, flat structures, vague job descriptions, decentralized decision making, pay for results, flexible performance management process, frequent reorganizations
Change capability	Competencies related to change, and ability to change routinely

Recognizing the need for constant change, a small number of “high potential” staff were given training in leadership and change management. This was successful in generating valuable change initiatives. However, this approach could not provide the enterprise-wide change capability that the company believed was necessary. Management did not want to set up either a central corporate resource or a group whose members could be assigned to help business units implement change as needed. The solution was the “Building a Change Capability” (BCC) project, which had three components.

First, create “versatilist” line managers with the knowledge and skills to lead change; neither generalists nor specialists, these versatilists were able to accelerate the change process on their own initiative, without asking for help.

Second, to achieve simplicity and speed, Capital One decided to use a standard change methodology across the organization, replacing the 17 different models that were previously in use, along with 160 different tools. The chosen approach was the ADKAR model, which stands for creating Awareness, having the Desire, the Knowledge, and the Ability, and Reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006). This was easy for staff to understand and use, and was consistent with the previous change management training.

Third, two change courses were offered by the company’s corporate university, to explain the ADKAR model and identify change management behaviors. The model and other relevant materials were also disseminated through a change management portal on the company intranet, with case studies, diagnostic tools, and templates with which to develop change and communication plans. The BCC project also meant that there would be no staff126in the human resource management function with full-time jobs dedicated to change management, as the aim was to distribute those capabilities throughout the company.

BCC implemented several initiatives, including a large-scale systems conversion project, a human resources reengineering project, a system to measure and reward change management competencies, and a workplace redesign project called “Future of Work.” The outcome for Capital One was:

It does not “manage change” as if it were some unwanted intruder; it does not view change management as an afterthought to improve the chances of getting some key resistors to “buy into” a new initiative. Change is integrated into the way Capital One formulates strategy, structures itself, and measures and rewards performance. (Worley and Lawler, 2009, p. 245)

Success with this approach to change gave Capital One staff the confidence and desire to take on even more initiatives. Worley and Lawler (2009) argue that Capital One had effectively integrated change capabilities with business knowledge, creating a climate of continuous change. They offer three key learning points for other organizations. First, signal the commitment to developing change capability by providing training opportunities, and by rewarding the acquisition of change-related skills. Second, develop supportive organization structures and systems ( table 4.6 ). Third, be prepared to learn from experience in the process of developing the organization’s capacity for change. Change capability, they conclude, is the “missing ingredient” in organizational effectiveness.

 

EXERCISE 4.2

Scenario Planning

LO 4.3

Here is one structured methodology for scenario planning, for your own organization or for one with which you are familiar:

1. “Brainstorm” the range of environmental factors that have the potential to impact on the performance of your organization. In the spirit of brainstorming, accept all suggestions at this point, and suspend judgement as to the significance of any suggested factor.

2. Ask individuals to identify which factors from this list they believe to be the “key drivers” of the organization’s performance over a specified time period—say, five years.

3. Aggregating these individual responses, identify the five most commonly cited key drivers; these could be, for example, exchange rates, new technologies, entry by new competitors, mergers, competition for key staff, costs and/or shortages of raw materials.

4. Using these key drivers as the core elements, construct three future scenarios for the organization: the most likely, an optimistic scenario, and a pessimistic one. The “most likely” scenario is constructed on the basis of the “best guess” as to what will happen to each of the five key drivers over the specified time frame. Note that “best guess” does not imply a casual approach; best guess can be based on sophisticated market intelligence and forecasting. The “optimistic” and “pessimistic” scenarios focus attention on how the organization might respond to each of those outcomes. The construction of the scenarios requires skill, and it is not uncommon for organizations to employ external consultants who are experienced in scenario development. Scenarios need to be compelling and plausible narratives, even if they are unlikely to happen. This is necessary if they are to form the basis of discussion concerning the organization’s response to those three possible futures.

5. Finally, outline the different organizational change agendas that will be required to deal with each of those three possible futures.127

 

EXERCISE 4.3

Readiness for Change Analysis

LO 4.3

The purpose of this diagnostic is to assess whether a specific organizational change initiative, project, or program has been well planned. Before you begin this assessment process, therefore, you must agree on a description of the proposed change or changes:

The change proposal being considered is:

You can carry out this assessment on your own, or with colleagues in the organization—your steering group or project team, for example. Study the following items and circle the appropriate number on the scale. The number that you circle should reflect your view of the quality of the work carried out on that item, with respect to this change, so far. Keep the agreed definition of the proposed change in mind throughout this analysis.

This is a generic assessment tool, and the wording may not apply directly to your organization. If you feel that an item is not relevant to your circumstances, either ignore it, or think of a way in which that item should be reworded to make it more appropriate.

If you are working on this assessment with other members of your program, project, or change management team, complete this analysis individually before sharing and discussing your scores. You may find that different team members see things differently. Exploration of those differences can be extremely valuable in developing a shared understanding of the proposals, and in determining where the action priorities lie.

128

129

Source: Based on Waterman et al., (1980, p.18).

 

Scoring

Simply add the numbers that you have circled to produce a score between 20 and 140. If several members of your group or team have completed this analysis, then add all of their individual scores and calculate the average. What does the resultant score suggest?

20–40	Considerable anxiety should be experienced about the proposed changes.
41–80	Much work needs to be done to develop an effective change program.
81–100	The proposal is well developed, but change management can be improved.
101–140	This is a well-planned change proposal.

Action

Where are the main problems and blockages, and what can we do to address those? Identify those items that you scored with five points or less, or use the average item scores for the group or team as a whole. Select the five lowest-scoring items. Prioritize these, then brainstorm appropriate actions to address each of them in turn to improve readiness:

Problem Item	Appropriate Actions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Additional Reading

Blenko, M. W., Mankins, M. C., and Rogers, P. 2010. The decision-driven organization. Harvard Business Review 88(6):54–62. Argues that links between organization structure and performance are weak and that decision-making processes and decision quality are more important. Offers a diagnostic based on links between structure, roles, culture, and decisions.

Gardini, M., Giuliani, G., and Marricchi, M. 2011. Finding the right place to start change. Rome and Milan: McKinsey & Company. Argues the benefits of focusing initially on those staff groups who will have the most influence over the work that is going130to change; starting in this way can accelerate the change process and contribute to long-term engagement.

Kanter, R. M. 2006. Innovation: The classic traps. Harvard Business Review 84(11): 73–83. Describes the steps that organizations need to take to become more flexible and innovative; identifies the strategy, process, structural, leadership, and communications mistakes that organizations typically make, and how to remedy these.

Miller, P., and Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. 2013. The case for stealth innovation. Harvard Business Review 91(3):90–97. Argues that, if you have a great new idea, the advice that you “get a mandate from the top” may be misguided. Better to innovate by stealth, “under the radar,” until you have hard evidence and “proof of concept.”

Wilkinson, A., and Kupers, R. 2013. Living in the futures: How scenario planning changed corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review 94(5):118–27. Describes how Shell developed scenario planning in the 1960s and assesses the company’s use of the method. Finds that “a sustained scenario practice can make leaders comfortable with the ambiguity of an open future. It can counter hubris, expose assumptions that would otherwise remain implicit, contribute to shared and systemic sensemaking, and foster quick adaptation in times of crisis” (p. 127).

Roundup

This chapter has introduced a range of diagnostic tools that can contribute to the management of change by providing a perspective on a range of organizational situations. Models of “how organizations work” complement the implicit models that managers and others have in their heads. No one model is “correct” or “best,” but each offers the opportunity to view the organization from a particular perspective. Choice of approach is therefore likely to be influenced by the image or images of change of those managers who are responsible for making the decisions. The models, frameworks, and tools from this chapter are summarized in  table 4.8 , which suggests when each may be useful.

TABLE 4.8

Change Diagnostics and Their Uses: A Summary

Diagnostic	Use When You Want To …
Six-box model	Simplify the complexity, focus on key problems Be reminded of the systemic implications of actions in one area
7-S model	Recognize interconnectedness Pay attention to the “soft” factors as well as structure and strategy
Star model	Recognize interconnectedness and “knock on” effects Align your strategy, structure, people, processes, and rewards
Four-frame model	See the organization through different lenses at the same time Generate deeper understanding to develop creative solutions
Gap analysis	Develop a change agenda that addresses future conditions Generate understanding and consensus around the agenda
PESTLE framework	Understand the impact of multiple environmental pressures Exploit future opportunities and deal with risks and threats
Scenario planning	Encourage creative thinking and acceptance of uncertainty Prioritize, plan, and implement future-oriented changes
Elements of strategy	Identify changes necessary to pursue a given strategy Develop an integrated package of self-reinforcing changes
Strategic inventory	Clarify and validate strategic assumptions Decide what changes are necessary to drive strategy
Cultural web	Map and understand the components of the organization culture Challenge the taken for granted and identify barriers to change
Receptive context	Determine how receptive the organization is to change Decide action to increase receptiveness if necessary
Absorptive capacity	Assess the organization’s ability to assimilate and apply new ideas Increase absorptive capacity with appropriate actions
Innovative organization	Assess if the organization stifles or stimulates innovation Develop or strengthen innovative organization characteristics
Force-field analysis	Assess the driving and restraining forces for a given change Manage the balance of forces to encourage the change
Readiness for change analysis	Assess organizational and individual readiness for a given change Identify the “groundwork” needed before the change goes ahead
Individual readiness	Assess individual readiness for a given change Take appropriate steps to increase individual readiness
Stakeholder analysis	Identify how those affected could influence the change process Manage stakeholders given their power and their interest
Built-to-change model	Ensure that change happens more quickly and smoothly Design an organization in which continuous change is routine

Here is a short summary of the key points that we would like you to take from this chapter, in relation to each of the learning outcomes:

LO 4.1 Understand the use of diagnostic models in planning organizational change.

We explained a number of organizational models: the six-box model, the 7-S framework, the star model, and the four-frame model. Not difficult to apply in practice,131these models serve a number of purposes. They simplify complexity, highlight priorities, identify interdependencies, provide a common language, and offer a guide to the change implementation process.

Reflections for the Practicing Change Manager

· Do you feel that you now have knowledge of a number of diagnostic tools/models?

· Do you believe that you could apply those tools and models when necessary?

· If you were to select two or three favorite tools/models, which would they be and why?

· Is there a key area of organizational activity where you would like a diagnostic tool that is not provided in this chapter? Where might you go to find such a tool?

· To what extent do your image(s) of change influence which diagnostic tools you are most comfortable using or see as most relevant?

132

LO 4.2 Use strategic analysis tools to assess the need for organizational change.

We explained several strategic analysis tools: gap analysis, the PESTLE framework, scenario planning, the elements of strategy framework, the strategic inventory, and the cultural web. Gap analysis is a simple but powerful tool for assessing the need for change. The other tools in this section generate more detailed assessments on need for and nature of change, based on more in-depth questioning of current strategy and future goals.

LO 4.4 Diagnose organizational receptiveness to and individual readiness for change, and use those assessments as the basis for action to increase receptiveness and readiness.

We explored the features of the receptive organizational context, the concept of “absorptive capacity,” and properties of the innovative organization. We identified the steps that can be taken to strengthen receptiveness, to increase absorptive capacity, and to introduce organization features that stimulate (rather than smother) creativity and innovation. Force-field analysis can often be a useful technique in this respect. Organizational receptiveness may be necessary but is not sufficient, and we also explored the factors that influence individual readiness for change and how those can be influenced to strengthen readiness. Stakeholder analysis can often be a useful framework in this context.

LO 4.5 Explain the characteristics of the “built-to-change” organizational model, and assess the applicability, strengths, and limitations of this approach.

We contrasted “traditional” principles of organization design with “built-to-change” principles, concerning talent management, reward systems, organization structure, information and decision processes, and leadership. In an organization that is “built-to-change,” continuous change is “business as usual” and does not have to involve a planned transition from one state to another. In short, the built-to-change model of the organization challenges the conventional change management models and principles described in this chapter. Given the design principles involved, any organization could potentially develop the agility that “built-to-change” implies.

Debrief: Charlie’s Angels and the Red Star Corporation

Does the Red Star Corporation culture stimulate or smother innovation? Here is the evidence:

Clues	Implications
Straight rows of equally spaced desks facing in the same direction with identical tidy desktop layouts	Order, discipline, routine, standardization, regimentation, don’t “step out of line”
Absence of color, everything white, flat bright lighting	No distractions, no colors, no stimulations, focus on the task in hand
All-male workforce	No diversity; these are software engineers, forgive them, it’s not their fault133
A ditzy female administrator	Even less diversity, women limited to subordinate “backroom” positions
Identical male office wear	No freedom of expression, suppression of personal identity by “uniform”
Tiered formal lecture theatre	One-way, top-down communication is the norm using this layout
Procedures reward mediocrity	Radical thinking is discouraged
Managers reject ideas from below	Don’t challenge your boss, keep those great ideas to yourself, you’ll only get into trouble

The general characteristics of organizational innovation illustrated here are:

1. We are all capable of generating creative, innovative ideas.

2. Organization culture and management style can smother creativity and innovation.

3. It sometimes takes an “external shock” (or person) to recognize the need to change the organization culture, to become more innovative.

4. If you come up with a great idea, don’t tell me, show me.

References

Arkin, A. 2007. The generation game. People Management 13(24):24–27.

Blenko, M. W., Mankins, M. C., and Rogers, P. 2010. The decision-driven organization. Harvard Business Review 88(6):54–62.

Bolman, L., and Deal, T. 2013. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, W. W. 2013. Organizational change: Theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 30:560–85.

Eccles, T. 1984. Succeeding with change: Implementing action-driven strategies. London: McGraw-Hill.

Galbraith, J., Downey, D., and Kates, A. 2002. Designing dynamic organizations. New York: AMACOM.

Gardini, M., Giuliani, G., and Marricchi, M. 2011. Finding the right place to start change. Rome and Milan: McKinsey & Company.

Grundy, T. 1997. Accelerating strategic change: The internal stakeholder dimension. Strategic Change 6(1):49–56.

134

Hambrick, D. C., and Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Are you sure you have a strategy? Academy of Management Executive 15(4):48–59.

Hamel, G., and Zanini, M. 2014. Build a change platform, not a change program. London: McKinsey & Company.

Hiatt, J. 2006. ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community. Loveland, CO: Prosci.

Higgins, J. M. (2005) The eight “s’s” of successful strategy execution. Journal of Change Management 5(1):3–13.

Jansen, J. J. P., Ven Den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H. W. 2005. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal 48(6):999–1015.

Johnson, G. 1998. Mapping and re-mapping organizational culture. In Exploring techniques of analysis and evaluation in strategic management, ed. V. Ambrosini, G. Johnson, and K. Scholes (137–51). New York and London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., and Regnér, P. 2013. Exploring strategy: Text and cases. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Kanter, R. M. 1989. When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenges of strategy, management, and careers in the 1990s. London: Unwin.

Kanter, R. M. 2002. Creating the culture for innovation. In Leading for innovation and organizing for results, ed. F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, and I. Somerville (73–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanter, R. M. 2006. Innovation: The classic traps. Harvard Business Review 84(11):73–83.

Lewin, K. 1943. Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review 50(3):292–310.

Lewin, K. (ed.). 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock Publications. (UK edition published 1952, edited by Dorwin Cartwright.)

Miller, P., and Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. 2013. The case for stealth innovation. Harvard Business Review 91(3):90–97.

Mitchell, R. 2008. Risk 2018: Planning for an unpredictable decade. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd.

Morrison, M., and Daniels, K. 2010. PESTLE Analysis Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Pettigrew, A. M., Ferlie, E., and McKee, L. 1992. Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations—the case of the National Health Service. London: Sage Publications.

135

Picken, J. C., and Dess, G. G. 1998. Right strategy—wrong problem. Organizational Dynamics 27(1):35–48.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., and Armenakis, A. A. 2013. Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management 39(1):110–35.

Verity, J. 2003. Scenario planning as a strategy technique. European Business Journal 15(4):185–95.

Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., and Phillips, J. R. 1980. Structure is not organization. Business Horizons (June):14–26.

Weisbord, M. R. 1976. Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group & Organization Studies 1(4):430–47.

Wilkinson, A., and Kupers, R. 2013. Living in the futures: How scenario planning changed corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review 94(5):118–27.

Woodcock, M., and Francis, D. 1992. Change. Aldershot: Gower Publications.

Worley, C. G., and Lawler, E. E. 2006. Designing organizations that are built-to-change. Sloan Management Review 48(1):19–23.

Worley, C. G., and Lawler, E. E. 2009. Building a change capability at Capital One Financial. Organizational Dynamics 38(4):245–51.

Worley, C. G., and Lawler, E. E. 2010. Built-to-change organizations: Industry influences and performance implications. Center for Effective Organizations Working Paper, T 10-03 (571):1–13.

Zahra, S. A., and George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review 27(2):185–203.

136