Discussion Thread - Diagnosing Change
ShayDiva
Readingsfromthetextbook.docx
Kotter’s 8-step change model
Kotter (2012a) proposes that there are processes – ‘accelerators’ – which enable such structures to work. The eight accelerators are:
1. Creating a sense of urgency around a single big opportunity. This is absolutely critical to heightening the organization’s awareness that it needs continual strategic adjustments and that they should always be aligned with the biggest opportunity in sight. Urgency starts at the top of the hierarchy and it is important that leaders keep acknowledging and reinforcing it so that people will wake up every morning determined to find some action they can take in their day to move towards that opportunity.
2. Building and maintaining a guiding coalition. The core of a network is the guiding coalition (GC), which is made up of volunteers from throughout the organization. The GC is selected to represent each of the hierarchy’s departments and levels, with a broad range of skills. It must be made up of people whom the leadership trusts, and must include at least a few outstanding leaders and managers. This ensures that the GC can gather and process information as no hierarchy ever could. All members of the GC are equal; no internal hierarchy slows down the transfer of information.
3. Formulating a strategic vision and developing change initiatives designed to capitalize on the big opportunity. The vision will serve as a strategic direction for the dual operating system. A well-formulated vision is focused on taking advantage of a big make-or-break opportunity. The right vision is feasible and easy to communicate. It is emotionally appealing as well as strategically smart. And it gives the GC a picture of success and enough information and direction to make consequential decisions, without having to seek permission at every turn.
4. Communicating the vision and the strategy to create buy-in and attract a growing volunteer army. A vividly formulated, high-stakes vision and strategy, promulgated by a GC in ways that are both memorable and authentic, will prompt people to discuss them without the cynicism that often greets messages cascading down the hierarchy. If done properly, with creativity, such communications can go viral, attracting employees who buy in to the ambition of the message and begin to share a commitment to it.
5. Accelerating movement toward the vision and the opportunity by ensuring that the network removes barriers. For instance, Kotter (2012a) gives the example of the case where a sales representative receives a customer complaint about the bureaucracy in the company which he does not know how to fix or have time to think about. Someone in the network hears about this and says, ‘I’ve seen that. I volunteer. I’ll put together a group to address the issue.’ That person writes up a description and sends it out to the volunteer army, and five people immediately step forward. They set up a call to begin learning why this is happening, figuring out how to remove the barrier and designing a solution – a better CRM system, perhaps. The team probably includes someone from IT who has technical expertise and can help identify where the money for the new system might come from. The team works with additional volunteers who have relevant information – from whatever quarter may be germane – to act quickly and efficiently. The time between the first call and this point might be two weeks, which Kotter (2012a) defines as a model of accelerated action. The network team settles on a practical solution that properly supports the sales team. Then its members take their thinking to their boss, who gives feedback and may offer the budget and the resources.
6. Celebrating visible, significant short-term wins. A network’s credibility will not last long without confirmation that its decisions and actions are actually benefiting the organization. Sceptics will erect obstacles unless they see proof that the dual operating system is creating real results. As people have only so much patience, proof must come quickly. To ensure success, the best short-term wins should be obvious, unambiguous and clearly related to the vision.
7. Never letting up. This means that organizations should keep learning from experience and not declare victory too soon. They must continue to carry out strategic initiatives and create new ones, to adapt to shifting business environments, and thus to enhance their competitive positions.
8. Institutionalizing strategic changes in the culture. No strategic initiative, big or small, is complete until it has been incorporated into day-to-day activities. A new direction or method must sink into the very culture of the enterprise and it will do so if the initiative produces visible results.
Diagnostic tools
One way to collect internal as well as external data is to use diagnostic tools. We will examine some of those tools in the next section. The result of conducting a diagnosis is the identification of key issues that the organization needs to address, and therefore changes that the organization needs to make. Typically this will result in a proactive planned approach to managing change. Even when there is a systematic process in place for diagnosing the internal and external environment there will be times when an organization needs to react to drivers for change that could not have been anticipated, such as major shifts in a competitor’s strategy, natural disasters, economic crises and the sudden and unexpected loss of key leaders from within the organization. In these situations, organizations that have a formal process to assess internal strengths and limitations will be better placed to make necessary changes than those whose understanding of their internal and external environment is less clear.
Diagnosis
Identification of the appropriate strategic and organizational changes comes from diagnosis, which means analysing the organization in its environment, understanding its strengths and limitations, examining the various parts of the organization at each level and how they affect and are affected by one another and by the whole, and analysing the implications of anticipated changes. Postma and Kok (1999) define organizational diagnosis as a process of research into the functioning of an organization that leads to recommendations for improvement.
This definition highlights that diagnosis is a formal process that enables leaders and managers to understand an organization better and to identify areas for improvement. This formal approach to diagnosis is important because managers and leaders in an organization carry around in their heads their own views as to how things work and what causes what within the organization. In this sense, diagnosis exists whether or not models are used. Although these views may not be explicitly stated, as implicit models they still have a powerful capacity to guide how leaders and managers think about situations that they face in their organizations, how they talk about these situations, and what they think are appropriate interventions. While implicit approaches may provide valuable insights based on accumulated experience, they do have limitations. They are likely to be based on the limited experience of one or a few individuals, so their generalizability is questionable, as it can be subjective.
Explicit, formal diagnosis involves the collection, integration and analysis of data about the organization and its environment. Burke (2008) suggests that the diagnostic study of change is assisted by the use of models or frameworks that allow the categorization of enormous amounts of data into manageable chunks that ‘help us to be more efficient and to be more rational as we attempt to understand and to change an organization’ (p. 192). Burke (2008) goes on to identify that such models for collecting data can be useful for:
• making the complexity of a situation where different things are going on more manageable by reducing that situation to a manageable number of categories
• helping to identify what aspects of an organization’s activities or properties are those most needing attention
• highlighting the interconnectedness of various organizational properties, such as strategy and structure
• providing a common language with which to discuss organizational characteristics
• providing a guide to the sequence of actions to take in a change situation.
Component and holistic models
Component models focus on particular aspects of organizational functioning, such as motivation, decision-making, group dynamics, and organizational structures and so on, whereas holistic models consider the organization as a whole. Nadler and Tushman (1980) acknowledge the utility of component models but caution against combining, in some additive way, the specific assessments they provide because they may produce an incomplete or misleading view of the organization. They argue that there are properties of the whole that cannot be understood by simply adding together the component parts. Indeed, part of the dynamic of the whole concerns the nature of the interaction among the different components of organizational behaviour.
A useful starting point can be to use holistic models to provide an overall assessment before focusing attention on specific issues using a component model. This will provide a more complete view of the organization.
A method for diagnostic frameworks
While recognizing the utility of component models we have chosen to use a method that clusters some of the holistic models around a small number of key questions. This is because these questions are likely to be at the forefront of the minds of leaders and managers whenever they attempt to make links between the immediate pressures of organizational life and change interventions. The four questions used are:
1. How can we understand complexity, interdependence and fragmentation? What frameworks can help with thinking constructively about living with this kind of complexity?
2. Why do we need to change? What frameworks can help to share an understanding of why change is needed?
3. Who and what can change? What frameworks can help to identify the key areas for attention?
4. How can we make change happen? What frameworks can help to create a change initiative that will really deliver the results that are needed?
Figure 6.1 Diagnostic tools, models and approaches
The questions and the clusters of models under each question are set out in Figure 6.1. It is not suggested that these questions and clusters are the only way to organize the models nor that all relevant models are included. Neither are they intended to be a prescription for managing the process of change. Their purpose is purely to make the models and frameworks more accessible.
1. How can we understand complexity, interdependence and fragmentation?
To address this question we need to consider the frameworks that can help with identifying the current situation in the organization and what needs to change.
Future–Present model
A basic framework to use is the Future–Present model (Wardrop-White, 2001), which focuses on identifying what the current situation is and what the future situation should be (Figure 6.2). The left-hand box (The Present) is defining what the current situation is. While the right-hand box (The Future) is about what the future situation should be. There is debate about whether the process should start with looking at the present or the future. The argument with starting with the present is to ensure that the change is not conceived as a utopian leap to an unrealistic future that cannot be reached from the current situation. While on the other hand, focusing too heavily on the present may limit horizons and lead to the goals for change being too cautious and constrained by current experience. It can also lead to getting too bogged down in what is wrong with the current situation rather than focusing on what the future should look like.
Figure 6.2 Future–Present model
The present state of the organization can often only be understood in terms of the context of its history, its external environment, and the reactive and self-reinforcing sequences that have contributed to the current situation. Common reasons for reviewing the present state are to: help identify the required change by diagnosing the cause of a problem; identify current deficiencies or clarifying opportunities; establish a baseline so that it is clear what is changing; and help define the future direction.
What is required when identifying the future state depends on the kind of change (incremental or transformational) to be carried out. Defining the future state may be about developing a view or vision of what the organization (or team/department) ought to look like in the future and the likely impact of the change.
Some of the key questions to ask when using this framework are:
• What should the future situation look like or what would ‘better’ look like? How will we know when we get there? What will it look like, feel like?
• What is happening in the present situation?
• What is the context in which things are happening?
• What will hinder progress towards that future?
• What will help progress towards that future?
This is a simple model and does therefore have limitations. It provides only an initial analysis of the situation and at a relatively high level. It can, however, be used effectively with teams and groups of individuals at different levels in an organization to gain an overview of the current situation and what the future should look like. As with all such frameworks they are more effective when used in conjunction with other models, such as COPS or Seven-S.
The ‘COPS’ framework
The COPS framework (Wardrop-White, 2001) can be used for scanning an organization internally to establish how healthy the organization is and whether the different elements are aligned with one another. Four separate aspects of the organization are considered and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each are assessed. The four elements of the COPS framework are:
C = Culture (beliefs, values, artefacts, manifestations)
O =Organization (structure, job roles, reporting lines)
P = People (staff, competencies, experience)
S = Systems (processes and procedures)
The COPS framework can be used to establish how healthy the organization (or team) is and how aligned the four elements are with the strategy and with one another. It can also be used as a basis for data-gathering activities, such as interviews, focus groups or questionnaires. Questions can be designed for each of the four areas (for example, How would you define the Culture in this organization?). The four elements can also be used to structure and present the data gathered about the organization.
COPS is a framework which can be used to do a ‘quick and dirty’ analysis. It does therefore have some limitations. While it may be tempting to build a picture of what is going on in an organization by looking at the various components separately, the picture this produces may be incomplete. The systems nature of organizations implies that there are properties of the whole that cannot be understood simply by adding together the component parts. Indeed part of the dynamics of the whole concerns the nature of the interaction among the different parts.
Seven-S framework
A framework that does focus on the interaction of different parts of an organization is the ‘Seven-S’ model which was developed by Pascale and Athos (1981) and further honed by Peters and Waterman (1982), and eventually became known as McKinsey’s Seven-S model. The premise of the model is that successful change is based on the interdependence between seven elements: strategy, structure, systems, staff, style, skills and shared values.
• Strategy. The purpose of the business and the way the organization seeks to enhance its competitive advantage.
• Structure. Division of activities; integration and coordination mechanisms; nature of the informal organization.
• Systems. Formal and informal procedures and processes for measurement, reward, resource allocation, communication, resolving conflicts and so on.
• Staff. The organization’s employees’ experience, skills, knowledge, education and attitudes, as well as demographics.
• Style. Typical behaviour patterns of key groups, such as leaders and managers and other professionals, and the organization as a whole.
• Shared values. Core beliefs and values, and how these influence the organization’s orientation towards customers, employees, shareholders, the external community and other key stakeholders.
• Skills. The core competencies and distinct capabilities of organizational members.
Managers using this model can draw on their knowledge of the seven elements in the organization to construct a Seven-S matrix to assess the degree of alignment between each of the elements. This analysis might point to areas where it is necessary to use component models to design an intervention to change an element. However, changes to one of the elements can affect all the other components, as they are an interconnected set of levers. For example, if changes are being made to the information systems in order to make the organization more customer-responsive, managers making the changes need to carefully consider the implication on the other elements and be prepared to manage the change in a holistic fashion. Making changes to one of the elements while ignoring the implications on the others is a recipe for disaster. The Seven-S model is useful as part of the data-gathering process as it helps to ensure that the key components are covered when assessing the internal factors. However, this focus on internal factors is also a limitation because leaders and managers also need to consider the external environment. The model does not contain any external environmental variables. It is a description of the seven internal elements and shows how they interact to create organizational patterns, but there is no explanation of how each element affects another or how the seven dimensions are affected by the external environment.
PESTELI
A framework that covers the external factors is PESTELI (Iles and Sutherland, 2001), originally known by the acronym ‘PEST’, which stands for:
• Political. Political forces and influences that may affect the performance of, or the options open to, the organization
• Economic. The nature of the competition faced by the organization or its services, and financial resources available within the economy
• Societal. Demographic changes, trends in the way people live, work, and think
• Technological. New approaches to doing new and old things, and tackling new and old problems
More recently the list has been expanded to PESTELI, and in addition includes:
• Environmental factors. A definition of the wider environmental system of which the organization is a part and consideration of how the organization interacts with it
• Legislative requirements. Originally included under political, relevant legislation now requires a heading of its own
• Industry analysis. A review of the industry of which the organization forms a part
More commonly a PESTELI+ is used, which includes reviewing competitors and customers as well as the traditional PESTELI parameters.
To provide an analysis of internal and external factors, however, the PESTELI does need to be used in conjunction with a tool that diagnoses the internal environment, such as the Seven-S model.
Combining internal and external frameworks: the ‘outside to inside’ frameworks
It is possible to use two or more frameworks together, as in the example in Figure 6.3, where the Seven-S and the PESTELI frameworks come together. This allows managers and leaders to consider the link between what is happening in the outside world and how it will be dealt with in the organization.
Burke–Litwin model
The Burke–Litwin (Burke and Litwin, 1992) model seeks to address the complexity and interdependence of the internal and external factors affecting change. It illustrates how the external environment affects the performance of the organization and how organizational performance affects the external environment. The model is predictive rather than prescriptive in that it specifies the nature of causal relationships and predicts the likely effect of changing certain elements rather than others (Figure 6.4).
It also differentiates between two types of change: transformational change, which occurs in response to important triggers in the external environment, and transactional/incremental change, which occurs in response to the need for more short-term transactional improvement. The variables located in the top half of the model (environment, leadership, mission and strategy, and organizational culture) are identified as the transformational factors. Changes to these organizational factors are seen as likely caused by interactions with the external environment. Initiatives in this area are difficult to manage because they challenge core beliefs and assumptions about the organization and what it should be doing. They entail significantly new behaviour by organizational members and major alterations to other variables in the model. However, when fundamental reorientation and re-creation are a necessity, they may represent the only viable approach to organizational rejuvenation and long-term success.
The remaining variables are identified as the transactional factors because they are more directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the organization. Changes of an incremental nature can occur without necessarily triggering changes in the transformational factors. This can be seen in on-going quality improvement initiatives, management development programmes, work realignment and other incremental interventions aimed at refining and improving internal practices in order to enhance fit and, therefore, performance.
A brief description of each of the 12 variables is outlined below:
• External environment. The key external factors that have an impact on the organization must be identified and their direct and indirect impact on the organization should be clearly established.
• Mission and strategy. The vision, mission and strategy of the organization, as defined by the top management, should be examined in terms of the employees’ point-of-view about them.
• Leadership. An analysis of the leadership structure of the organization should be carried out, which clearly identifies the chief role models in the organization.
• Organizational culture. An organizational culture analysis should seek information on the explicit as well as the implied rules, regulations, customs, principles and values that influence the organizational culture.
• Structure. The analysis of the structure should not be confined to hierarchical structure; rather it should be a function-based structure focusing on the responsibility, authority, communication, decision-making and control structure that exists between the people of the organization.
• Management practices. This would entail an analysis of how well the managers conform to the organization’s strategy when dealing with employees and the resources.
• Systems. Systems includes all types of policies and procedures with regard to both the people and the operations of the organization.
• Work unit climate. This involves an assessment of how the employees think, feel and what they expect. The kind of relationships the employees share with their team members and members of other teams is also an important aspect of work unit climate.
• Tasks and individual roles. This involves an understanding of job roles, and skills and knowledge that an employee must have in order to fulfil the task responsibilities of their role.
• Motivation level. Identifying the motivation level of the employees will make it easier to determine how willing they are to achieve organizational goals. This would also involve identifying motivational triggers.
• Individual needs and values. This variable seeks to explore employees’ values and needs, as well as their opinion about their work so as to identify the factors that will result in job satisfaction.
• Individual and organizational performance. This variable examines the level of performance, on individual and organizational levels, in key areas such as productivity, quality, efficiency, budget and customer satisfaction.
Burke and Litwin (1992) present an impressive, if somewhat selective, summary of studies that provide empirical support for the causal linkages hypothesized by their model. One of the benefits of the model is that it provides a conceptual map of the organization, with a set of variables that help explain organizational dynamics. By separating variables into transformational and transactional, the model provides a way of examining the impact of changes on different variables. However, this complexity makes it difficult to keep track of all variables and develop clear action plans. Additionally, while the model does have both the environment and individual/organizational performance as variables, these are viewed as just two of the 12 variables. As a result there is no direct flow from environment to organization to performance.
Use the Burke–Litwin model to analyse a change you are considering either at a team or organizational level:
1 Is the change you intend to make transformational change or incremental change, or is it a blend of both? What kind of change does the organization really need?
2 What elements of the model have you not yet considered in your change plan?
3 In which ‘boxes’ will you have problems?
2. Why do we need to change?
Tools that can be used to address the question, ‘Why do we need to change?’ include SWOT and the Ishikawa diagram.
SWOT
SWOT is an acronym for examining an organization’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, and using the result to identify priorities for action (Selznick, 1957). The main principle underlying SWOT is that internal and external factors must be considered simultaneously when identifying aspects of an organization that need to be changed. Strengths and weaknesses are internal to the organization; opportunities and threats are external. Many leaders and managers will have experience of working with this framework. The strengths and weaknesses should be identified first, preferably using a checklist such as the Seven-S model, and then the opportunities and threats, using a checklist for the external environment such as PESTELI. On its own this information is rarely helpful or usable and must be considered further. This requires asking questions about each of the factors listed under the four headings.
For strengths and weaknesses the questions to ask are:
1. What are the consequences of this? Do they help or hinder us in achieving our mission/purpose?
2. What are the causes of this strength (or weakness)?
For opportunities and threats the questions are slightly different:
1. What impact is this likely to have on us? Will it help or hinder us in achieving our mission/purpose?
2. What must we do to respond to this opportunity or threat?
SWOT is one of the most widely used tools. However, in a review of its use in 50 UK companies, Hill and Westbrook (1997) found that SWOT often resulted in over-long lists, descriptions, a failure to prioritize issues, no attempt to verify any conclusions and the outputs, once generated, were rarely used. So if not used effectively then SWOT can be translated into a Substantial Waste Of Time. In order to overcome such limitations it is important that actions to exploit the strengths and opportunities are identified as well as actions to reduce the weaknesses and threats (see Box 6.1). These need to be put into an action plan with specific, measurable, agreed and time-bound objectives, with the accountability for achieving each objective identified.
The Ishikawa diagram can be used to help understand the root causes of problems or opportunities. It was devised by Kaoru Ishikawa (1985), who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards in Japan. The diagram is also known as the fishbone diagram because of its resemblance to the skeleton of a fish. It can be used to help think through all of the possible causes of a problem and what needs to change. The model provides a cause-and-effect analysis, which aims to identify the causes, factors, or sources of variation that lead to a specific event, result, or defect in a product or process.
The effect or problem being investigated is shown at the end of a horizontal arrow; potential causes are then shown as labelled arrows entering the main cause arrow. Each arrow may have other arrows entering it as the principal causes or factors are reduced to their sub-causes. Brainstorming can be effectively used to generate the causes and sub-causes. The various causes are grouped into categories and the arrows indicate how the causes cascade or flow toward the end effect.
The steps to carrying out a cause-and-effect analysis are:
1. Define the effect. Be specific.
2. Choose categories. The most common set of categories are Equipment, Process, People, Materials, Environment, Management. Categories can be added to or removed based on the specific case.
3. Brainstorm possible causes for each category in turn.
4. Ask why? To find the root causes ask ‘Why?’ or ‘Why else?’ over and over until possible root causes are identified. ‘Improper safety procedure’ is not a root cause, while ‘Failing to wear a safety helmet’ might be closer to a root cause. But, you could still ask ‘Why was he/she not wearing a safety helmet?’ with the possible response ‘There were none available.’ It is a lot easier to take action against the inventory problem than just the generic ‘improper safety procedure’.
5. Investigate. After the possible causes have been identified, gather data to confirm which causes are real or not.
The cause-and-effect model encourages people to think about the issues that provoke the problem rather than focusing attention simply on the effects of that problem; as such it allows people to tackle root causes rather than just the symptoms. The effectiveness of the model is, however, dependent on people being able to accurately identify the causes of the problem; where the causes are not properly identified, the focus of any subsequent changes will be inappropriate and therefore likely to fail to achieve desired outcomes.
3. Who and what can change?
To gather data to address the question of ‘Who or what can change?’ frameworks such as the force field analysis can be used.
Force field analysis
The force field analysis, developed by Kurt Lewin in 1947, is a diagnostic technique which can be used in identifying the forces that will help or hinder a change. It is based on the concept of forces, a term that refers to the perceptions of people in the organization about a particular factor and its influence. Driving forces are those forces affecting a situation and which are attempting to push it in a particular direction. These forces tend to initiate change or keep it going. Restraining forces are forces acting to restrain or decrease the driving forces. A state of equilibrium is reached when the sum of the driving forces equals the sum of the restraining forces.
Constructing a force field diagram
The approach to using the force field analysis comprises four steps:
1. Think through the current situation and the desired future state (using the Future–Present model).
2. Write down a definition of the change to be implemented – the solution as you see it. Draw a line down the middle of the page and head the left-hand column ‘Driving Forces’ and the right-hand column ‘Restraining Forces’.
3. List the ‘Driving Forces’ and by each force draw an arrow pointing to the right. Next list the forces that will work against the solution being achieved. List these forces in the ‘Restraining Forces’ column and draw an arrow pointing to the left.
4. In both cases identify the most important drivers and restrainers to address. Create a strategy to weaken each of the key restrainers and a strategy to strengthen each of the key drivers. See Appendix 6.1 for an advanced force field analysis.
Once the analysis is complete the next step is to identify the actions to take for each of the forces identified, as outlined in Table 6.1.
The force field analysis provides a picture of a given moment in time. It is therefore useful to use the tool at various stages of the change process and also to use it with other frameworks. For instance, it can be used with the Future–Present model to identify what will help and hinder moving to the desired state. It can also be combined with the COPS framework. A combination of frameworks is helpful in beginning to identify what needs to change. Figure 6.5 shows how the Future–Present and PESTELI models can be combined. This approach provides a deeper analysis.
Activity
Think of an organization that you are familiar with and analyse it using one of the frameworks we have discussed in this section.
Based on your analysis consider the changes that you believe would improve things.
4. How can we make change happen?
The final question in our model is ‘How we can we make change happen?’
Frameworks that can help to create a change initiative and that will really deliver the results that are needed include but are not limited to organizational development, organizational learning, action research and project management. We examine each of these in later chapters.
Diagnosing where an organization is in the present is a prerequisite for identifying its future direction. Addressing the question of ‘why change’ is a precondition to being able to define the desired future state or the vision. If the question ‘why change?’ is never addressed, no one should expect the emergence of any sense of a shared vision. The answer to ‘why’ is a prerequisite to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of change.
Diagnosis should not be a one-off activity but ongoing. It can begin with a review of the total organization and then a review of its different functions, departments and teams. However, you should develop a healthy scepticism towards the utility of different models and constantly reassess which is most appropriate for the intended purpose. All models are simplifications of the real world, and the utility of any particular model, in the context of change, needs to be judged in terms of whether or not it provides a helpful conceptual framework for the change process. The choice of model is often one of personal preference. Frameworks should be customized to meet the needs of the situation.
Assessment of readiness for change
The assessment of readiness for change allows an organization to tailor efforts to make success more likely. Armenakis and colleagues (1999) identified the following as indicators of an organization’s readiness for change: the need for change is identified in terms of the gap between the current state and the desired state; people believe that the proposed change is the right change to make; the confidence of organizational members has been bolstered so that they believe they can accomplish the change; the change has the support of key individuals that the organizational members look to; and the ‘what is in it for me/us?’ question has been addressed. Judge and Douglas (2009) used a more rigorous approach to assessment, with the identification of the following eight dimensions related to readiness for change:
1. Trustworthy leadership – the ability of senior leaders to earn the trust and credibility of others
2. Trusting followers – the ability of stakeholders to willingly support the change
3. Capable champions – the ability of the organization to attract and retain capable champions
4. Involved middle managers – the ability of middle managers to effectively link the change proposed by leaders with the rest of the organization
5. Innovative culture – the ability of the organization to establish norms of innovation and encourage innovative activity
6. Accountable culture – the ability of the organization to carefully steward resources and successfully meet predetermined deadlines
7. Effective communication – the ability of the organization to effectively communicate vertically, horizontally and with customers
8. Systems thinking – the ability of the organization to focus on root causes and recognize interdependencies within and outside the organization’s boundaries
Along with such lists there are a number of generic approaches to readiness assessment that organizations can use singly, in concert or in multiple combinations. These approaches, which help gauge the readiness for change, include:
1. Conducting an audit of the thoroughness of the content and strategies used in communication about change (Armenakis et al., 1999).
2. Observing employees for behaviour that will reveal their reactions. Observation should be relatively unobtrusive. It involves being attentive to rumours, increases in absence or turnover, or any unusual behaviour associated with denial or opposition to change.
3. Discussing with employees their reactions toward the change, either in one-to-one interviews or in focus groups.
4. Conducting an organizational survey, consisting of responses to Likert-style items and open questions (such as ‘what …?’, ‘why …?’, or ‘how …?’
When conducting readiness assessments it is important to be cognizant of the behaviours that demonstrate readiness and non-readiness for change. These behaviours are illustrated in Table 6.2.
Use a variety of tools for diagnosis
Organizational diagnosis is a process of research into the functioning of an organization that leads to recommendations for improvement. Diagnosis is not, however, a one-off activity. It can be carried out using tools such as COPS, Seven-S and Burke–Litwin. When using diagnostic tools, consider the implications of changing one part of an organization, for example the structure – review what the implications will be on the other parts of the organization.
Identify what influences readiness for change
Readiness for change refers to organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes (Armenakis et al., 1993: 681). Managers and leaders need to be aware of what influences employees’ readiness for change, such as existing organizational conditions, the nature of the change, and individuals’ belief in their ability to change. Existing organizational conditions (such as culture, management and leadership style) can affect employee loyalty, commitment or other feelings toward an organization and its leaders, consequently influencing readiness. Effective management practices (planning, delegating and communicating) have been found to influence employee cooperation and perceived equity and to be associated with higher employee readiness for implementing improvements in procedures and problem-solving. In contrast, ineffective practices are associated with lower readiness to change (Fox et al., 1988). The nature of the change may also affect individuals’ readiness for change. Transformational change, such as changing from a functional form to a strategic business unit organization or from an assembly line to an autonomous workgroup arrangement, requires different behaviours from individuals and the development of new skills. On the other hand, incremental change, such as rearranging desks to a more efficient layout, requires lesser modifications of behaviours and a simple fine-tuning of working arrangements.
Creating readiness involves proactive attempts by leaders and managers to influence the beliefs, attitudes, intentions and ultimately the behaviour of employees. By considering what is promoting and inhibiting change readiness, actions can be taken to enhance readiness. Developing change readiness is an important aspect to laying the foundations for sustaining change.
Consider whether change is necessary
To answer the question about whether change is necessary, leaders and managers need to take two critical steps. The first step is to recognize the possible need for change and the second is to assess the strength of that need. The recognition that change needs to happen is only the starting point. Initiating changes that do not resolve or improve the underlying issue is sometimes worse than making no changes at all.
When considering whether or not an organizational change is necessary, leaders and managers may want to consider the following questions, which we have adapted from the work of Weisbord (2012). Answer each of the questions then rate each one at the end.
1. Is there a good business reason for making this change?
a. How much pressure is there for change?
b. What is the business reason?
c. What are the benefits, risks and costs?
d. How do the costs and benefit of this change compare to those of other changes the organization is making now or could make?
e. To what extent does the organization have the capacity to implement the change?
2. Is there committed leadership for the change?
a. How willing are you as a leader/manager to take risks to achieve this change?
b. To what extent are other levels of leadership supportive of the change?
c. To what extent is there a clear and shared vision of the goal and direction?
d. How much effective liaison and trust do you have?
3. Are those people affected by or doing the work involved energized to take this change on?
a. What are the costs and benefits of the change to the staff?
b. What are the costs and benefits of the change to other key groups who are affected by the change?
c. How does this change compare to other changes that staff are facing?
d. How does the change compare to other changes that stakeholders are facing?
e. How able are the staff to come together to understand joint concerns and to act together in meeting them?
f. To what extent do we have capable people and resources to take on and cope with the change?
g. To what extent do we have suitable rewards and defined accountability?
h. To what extent is there a will and the power to act?
