Change management paper

Macro perspectives of change.

I. Evolutionary approaches.

A. variation---selection---retention

population scarcity

environmental selection

competition.

B. Downs

1. Shrinking violet syndrome-defensive posture to hold market

2. Superman syndrome-infringe on other tasks

C. Kotter and Heskett, Cultural approach

1. Strong culture

2. Strategically appropriate culture

3. Adaptive culture

D. Greenwood and Hinings, Institutional Theory

Institutional pressures lead organizations to adopt the same organizational

form. Convergent change occurs within the parameters of an existing archetypal template.

Radical change, in contrast, occurs when an organization moves from one template-in-use to

another.

Hypothesis 1: Organizations are structured in terms of

archetypes (templates of organizing), which are institutionally

derived.

Hypothesis 2: Radical change (movement from one archetype

to another) is problematic because of the normative

embeddedness of an organization within its institutional

context. Convergent change is the more normal occurrence.

Hypothesis 3: The greater the normative embeddedness

of an organization within the institutional context, the

more likely that when change occurs it will be revolutionary

rather than evolutionary (i.e., the pace of upheaval

will be fast, not gradual, and the scale large, not modest).

Hypothesis 4: Radical change in tightly coupled institutional

fields will be unusual, but when it occurs, it will

be revolutionary.

Hypothesis 5: Radical change in loosely coupled fields

will be more common (than in tightly coupled fields),

and when it occurs it will be evolutionary.

Hypothesis 6: Institutional fields that are impermeable

will be associated with low rates of radical change.

Hypothesis 7: Radical change that occurs in impermeable

institutional fields will be revolutionary in pace.

Hypothesis 8: Institutional fields that are permeable will

be associated with a higher incidence of radical change

than will occur in impermeable institutional fields.

Hypothesis 9: Institutional fields that are permeable will

be associated with evolutionary change.

Thus, what becomes critically important in explaining

the possibility of radical change is the pattern of value commitments

within the organization, of which four generic patterns can be identified:

1. Status quo commitment, in which all groups are committed to the pre vailing

institutionalized template-in-use.

2. Indifferent commitment, in which groups are neither committed nor

opposed to the template-in-use. This situation is frequently one of unwitting

acquiescence.5

3. Competitive commitment, in which some groups support the template in-

use, whereas others prefer an articulated alternative. (The articulated

alternative would have its origins in the institutional context.)

4. Reformative commitment, in which all groups are opposed to the

template-in-use and prefer an articulated alternative.

Hypothesis 10: Radical change will occur if the pattern

of value commitments is competitive or reformative, irrespective

of market and institutional pressures.

Hypothesis 11: Interest dissatisfaction will lead to radical

change only if it is associated with a competitive or reformative

pattern of value commitments. Otherwise, interest

dissatisfaction will precipitate convergent change.

Hypothesis 12: A reformative or competitive pattern of

value commitments is more likely to occur (a) in peripheral

rather than core organizations, (b) in organizations

with a complex portfolio of product/services, and (c) in

institutional contexts that are loosely structured.

Hypothesis 13: A reformative commitment will be associated

with revolutionary change.

Hypothesis 14: A competitive commitment will be associated

with evolutionary change.

Hypothesis 15: Radical change will not occur without an

enabling pattern of power dependencies combined with

either a reformative or competitive pattern of value commitments.

Hypothesis 16: Radical change will not occur without a

sufficient enabling capacity for action combined with

either a reformative or competitive pattern of value commitments.

Hypothesis 17: High capacity for action will be associated

with revolutionary change.

II. Dialectic

A. thesis vs. anthesis---conflict---synthesis

1. Diversity

2. Confrontation

3. Conflict

B. Downs

1. Forces of inertia

a. Sunk costs

b. Size/cost of innovation

c. Self-interest

2. Force of change

a. Desire to a good job.

b. Desire for aggrandizement

c. Self-defense

C. Paradox of Group Decision-making-Anything that increases the quality of decision making decreases the chances of implementation.

1. Task conflict

2. Emotional conflict

3. Solutions

a. dialectical

b. devil’s advocate

c. consensus

D. Attraction-selection-attrition.

Fit is key factor : personality/values/workstyle could fit with:

--culture of the company

--Group you are a part of

--Profession/occupation/job

--Structure of organization

Attraction – assess company and culture and what you are like and make

judgments about where to apply.

The type of organizational culture influences the type of people who apply.

Judge and Cable study.

A. Innovative cultures attract applicants with open personalities but do not attract conscientious people.

B. Detailed oriented cultures attract people with open personalities and people are conscientiousness.

C. Aggressive cultures attract extraverts, conscientious people, but do not attract people with open personalities or who are agreeable.

D. Outcome oriented cultures attract extraverts and conscientious people but do not attract agreeable people.

E. Supportive cultures attract agreeable people but do not attract extraverts.

F. Reward oriented cultures attract disagreeable people.

G. Decisive cultures attract disagreeable people.

H. Team oriented cultures attract extraverts, agreeable people but do not attract conscientious people.

It is difficult to find accurate information about the organizational culture – either

erroneous or no info about culture. Worst sources of fit are advertisements,

mission statements, websites. Interpersonal sources are not always accurate.

Selection – does it matter if you stress fit in interview? Yes. Matters to get next interview.

Interview strategies:

Stress fit and credentials but smiling, opinion conformity and ingratiation is not helpful.

Recruiters are good at assessing actual fit. However, they do have biases.

Biases – tend to think you will fit:

a. if they like you,

b. you have excellent credentials,

c. Physically attractive

d. Applicant is a high self monitor who ingratiates during the interview.

e. No relationship to gender

Problem: People lie during interviews.

Attrition – why you stay and why you quit.

Different types of fit:

a. More fit with job increases job satisfaction

b. Job fit increases commitment to org

c. Job fit increases identification to org

d. Job fit negatively affects stress – more fit =less stress and less likely to quit.

e. Culture predicted quit only, not satisfaction or identity, stress, etc.

f. Personality fit with culture and value system to culture? Value system matters more regarding whether or not you’ll quit.

Down side of fit:

· Homogenization effect – employees too much alike in attitudes and values

· Superficial diversity (race, etc) vs values

· Good for efficient communication and reducing level or conflict; bad for creativity (alternate ways of doing things)

III. Life cycle

A. Downs

1. Growth accelerator effect.

a. Stimulus event

b. Infusion of capital

c. Adding personnel

d. Expanding tasks

2. Decelerator effect.

a. Internal competition for resources

b. Decrease in talent

c. Hard to replicate initial success.

3. Result

a. Death

b. Reinvention

B. Gersick

1. Equilibrium change.

a. Maintaining/carrying out functions

b. Superficial adjustment

c. Forces to resist change.

1). Cognition-know one way to look at things.

2). Motivation-fear of change.

3). Obligations to stakeholders

4). Benefits.

2. Revolutionary change.

a. Change in the deep structure of an organization. Culture.

b. Causes

1). Internal changes

2). External changes.

3). Crises/failure/time pressure.

3. Patterns of revolutionary change.

a. Slow rather than fast.

b. Nonlinear rather than linear.

c. Failure with success.

d. Central areas first then branch out

C. Geiner, Life phases of an organization.

1. Phase 1: Evolution Growth through creativity.

2. Phase 1: Revolution: Crisis of leadership

3. Phase 2: Evolution: Growth through direction.

4. Phase 2: Revolution: Crisis of autonomy.

5. Phase 3: Evolution: Growth through delegation.

6. Phase 3: Revolution: Crisis of control.

7. Phase 4: Evolution: Growth through coordination.

8. Phase 4: Revolution: Crisis of red tape.

9. Phase 5: Evolution: Growth through collaboration.

10. Phase 5: Revolution: Crisis of ????

IV. Teleology

A. Dissatisfaction—Search/interact—Set-envision goals—Implement goals.

B. Downs-Performance gaps.

1. Causes

a. Inevitable internal turnover.

b. Internal technological change.

c. Repercussions of own performance.

d. External factors.

2. How organizations react.

a. Do nothing.

b. Conform to view of stakeholders

c. Deny there is no gap.

d. Convince others to change expectations.

e. Change stakeholders.

3. Biases

a. Screen out alternatives that hurt self.

b. Give more weight to alternatives that benefit self.

c. Won’t totally comply with all changes.

d. Distort information to look good.

4. Types of managers.

a. Self-interested.

1). Climbers-maximize own power, income and prestige.

2). Conservers-maintain own power, income and presige.

b. Mixed motive. Care about self and organization.

1). Advocates-care about department.

2). Statesmen-care about organization.

3). Zealots-care about policy

5. Search problems.

a. time pressure

1). Consider minimal alternatives

2). Biases become greater.

3). Restrict participants.

b. Costs.