PPT

orangepink

WEEK1.pptx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >PPT

INTRODUCTIONS

You are boarding the aeroplane MGMT862 at an airport but YOU have lost your passport.

Someone in the boarding lounge has your photo and they are looking for you

There is a lot of ambiguity

Your seat in this MGMT862 aircraft has changed

When found the person with your photograph will will show you to your seat

If no one has your passport see the flight attendant Dr Gaye Greenwood

Critical focus question

How credible (trustworthy, reliable believable) are the underlying theories, methods and ideas on change, that managers and consultants adhere to?

More than 30 yrs ago Tichy (1983) sounded a warning

Over the past two decades billions of dollars were spent on management and organization development with the apparent intention of changing organizations. Examples are programs to implement Management By Objectives (MBO), programmed for organization development, the managerial grid, leadership courses, models for strategic planning and, more recent, quality circles. Almost none of these efforts were structurally monitored or assessed. As a result, methods to improve organizations have come and gone one after the other, and yet we are none the wiser of which methods work, which ones don’t and why. (Tichy, 1983, pp. 363)

Paper aim is to:

Examine the theories, concepts and best practices that managers draw on to manage the change process while being aware of external and internal stakeholder perspectives. Provide knowledge of the role of human resource management, ethics and communication for effective organisational change management.

Learning Outcomes

Critically evaluate the complexity of organisational change

Examine and apply theories, concepts and practices of leading and managing change

Analyse the role of human resource management in facilitating change management

Demonstrate the importance of ethics and communication in the change process

Establish the impact of change on individuals and their careers

Critically evaluate the outcomes of organisational change from different stakeholder perspectives

Critical focus question week 1

How credible (reliable trustworthy) are the underlying theories, methods and ideas on change, that managers and consultants adhere to?

Assessments

Item	% of mark allocation	Maximum mark	Group/individual	Due date
Assessment 1 Self-Reflection	40%	40	Individual	Week 5
Assessment 2 Case study	40%	40	Individual	Week 9
Assessment 3 Change engagement project	20%	20	Individual	Week12

Content

Concepts, theories and practices of change including stakeholder perspectives

Leading and managing change in a global and domestic context

The role of human resource management in organisational change

Engaging support and managing resistance through the change process

The role of ethics and communication in the change process

Individual experiences of organisational change

Reviewing and evaluating the change process

Kurt Lewin (1947)

Kubler Ross (1969)

Burke Litwin (1992) Transformational & Transactional systems dynamics

McKinsey’s (1972) interdependency 7’s model of change- tension, hardware & software

Common process assumptions?

Individually

Take a sticky write the name of a significant change story you have experienced

In Pairs Uninterrupted story telling

Storyteller

Tell the stories of change to you partner

Listener

Listen without interrupting

Paraphrase the change stories

Reverse roles

In pairs take two sets of different coloured stickies & map a timeline of two significant change stories

In teams share the illustrated stories and identify key aspects including:

Clarity of vision

Urgency

Support for change

Doubt and resistance

Rumour

Strategic alliances

Consultation communication participation

Re- training

Reflection on performance & evaluation

Organisational development (OD) & change management

“a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness” (Cummings & Worley, 2015, p. 2).

There is overlap between change management and OD as processes and practice which “are not meaningfully separated” p54.

ten Have, W., Graamans, E., & ten Have, S. (2019). Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development: An Evidence-Based Change Management Perspective. In R. Hamlin, A. Ellinger, & J. Jones (Eds.), Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development (pp. 52-75). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Chpt 3.

Change management

Change management is commonly defined as a set of the processes to ensure change is implemented in a systematic, controlled and orderly fashion to result in organizational change.

Change management is about managing people in a changing environment so that business changes are successful and the desired business results are realised.

Hiatt, & Creasey, (2003,p10)

Hiatt, J., & Creasey, T. J. (2003). Change management: The people side of change. Prosci.

What do ten Have et. al say about the relationship between research and practise?

many of the themes managers and consultants deem relevant for change in practice are often under-researched, especially related to methods and contingencies

(see also Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens & Weir, 2006)

What is at the intersection of theory and practise of the change management story?

Context matters

The contexts in which managers operate are becoming increasingly complex:

digitalization

globalization

changing laws and regulations

sustainability and compliance

conflicting stakeholder interests

emancipated (socially economically and politically powerful)customers.

Change story assumptions from; ten Have et al. (2016, 2019)

262 managers from 43 organizations, including Philips, DSM and a government ministry, were interviewed (ten Have, ten Have & Janssen, 2009).

a selection of 54 bestsellers relevant to organization change and change management. From the top 100 bestsellers in 2015 on organization change and change management (from a total of 17,559 books listed on Amazon

54 books were selected \relevant to the perspective of managers and other practitioners, such as consultants.

Criteria for selection of assumptions about the “change story” (p54.)

focus on the how instead of the what of the organization change

written from a position, claim or clear convictions and assumptions instead of primarily focused on oversight

giving recommendations and guidance for the actual practice (ten Have et al, 2016).

The ten Have et al, (2016) research process

A team of four independent researchers reviewed the books and marked the assumptions and claims. Through team analysis and a process of validation through consensus, a list of 18 assumptions was drawn up and selected for further review. Together these assumptions form the ‘story of change’:

The 18 assumptions that inform the story of change

1. Seventy per cent of all changes fail (e.g., Maurer, 2010; Mourier & Smith, 2001)

2. A clear vision is essential for successful change (e.g., Allen, 2002; Ibarra, 2015)

3. Without a sense of urgency people do not change (e.g., Kotter, 1996, 2012)

4. Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 2012)

5. When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional style of leadership (e.g., Collins, 2001; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009)

6.Organization change requires managers with high emotional intelligence (e.g., Goleman, 2015).

7. Support from the immediate manager is decisive for the success of change (e.g., Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2012)

8. An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization (e.g., Hesselbein & Johnston, 2002; Kotter, 1996/2012)

9. The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change (e.g., Conner, 1992; Mourier & Smith, 2001)

10. Participation is the key to successful change (e.g., Connors & Smith, 2011; Watkins, 2013; Zaffron & Logan, 2009)

11. Resistance is damaging for change to succeed (e.g. Lawrence, 1954)

12. A fair change process is important for successful change (Brockner, 2006)

13. To change the organizational culture takes a lot of time and is complicated (e.g., Davidson, 2002; Humble, Molesky & O’Reilly, 2015; Watkins, 2013)

14. The organizational culture is related to the performance of an organization (e.g., Connors & Smith, 2011; Keller & Aiken, 2014)

15. Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for managers to effect change (e.g., Novak, 2012)

16. Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it (e.g., Fredberg, Beer, Eisenstat, Foote, & Norrgren, 2008)

17. Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance (e.g., Heller, 1998; Conner, 1992, 2006)

18. Self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change (e.g., Laloux, 2014).

Seventy per cent of all changes fail

Scholarly research does not support this premise (e.g., Cândido & Santos, 2015; Hughes, 2011; Slater, 2015).

no reliable study has shown that change initiatives are doomed to fail

Repeating and stressing this constantly as a coping mechanism for managers responsible for change- can legitimize failing

A clear vision is essential for successful change

a clear vision is necessary for successful change (Baum, Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Hoch, Roeding, Purkert & Lindner, 1999).

. When a vision meets requirements (eg clarity about the targets, being inspiring and being motivating), it does contribute to the successful realization of change (e.g., Farmer, Slater & Wright, 1998; Luo & Jiang, 2014

clearly define and communicate the vision and related targets when managing change.

create one common vision. Employees, it turns out, paint their own picture based on their experiences. The main function of a clear vision appears to be to galvanize people and to get things moving.

Without a sense of urgency people do not change

Scholarly research does not support this assumption.

urgency incites people to change their behavior and, in that way, can contribute to change (Akgün, Lynn & Byrne, 2006).

when the urgency is artificially created, for example by a manager framing an event as a crisis, or when employees are not able to learn the required new behavior, it can lead employees to think in the short-term and to strive for survival (Gray, 1999).

Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change

Scholarly research shows that trusting management is indeed a very important factor for change to succeed (e.g., Balliet & Van Lange, 2013; Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002)

creating trust is not a one-way street, leaders can certainly exert influence on their own trustworthiness. For instance, by promoting authenticity and integrity and by being honest about their competences and shortcomings. Showing interest in the employees also contributes to the increase of trust and in the long term can lead to better insights (Colquitt et al., 2007).

When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional style of leadership (e.g., Collins, 2001; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009)

Scholarly research shows that transformational leaders can indeed make a positive contribution to organization change (Chiaburu, Smith, Wang & Zimmerman, 2015; Herrmann & Felfe, 2013; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Courtright & Colbert, 2011).

Transactional leadership styles have also been found to positively influence certain change outcomes (Burpitt, 2008; Diab, 2014; Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda, 2012; Zagorsek, Dimovski & Skerlavaj, 2009).

style of leadership depends on targets linked to the changes. When an accomplishment of a group or the creativity of employees are decisive for the success of the changes, a transformational style of leadership is more effective.

if the individual productivity is a crucial factor for success, then a transactional style is more effective (e.g. Wang, Oh, Courtrights & Colbert, 2011, Chiaburu, Smith, Wang & Zimmerman, 2014). In many cases, a balance between the two sides is needed to realize change successfully.

Organizational change requires managers with a high degree of emotional intelligence (e.g., Goleman, 2015).

Questionable- Emotional intelligence (EQ) is weakly linked in a positive way to work performance (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver & Story, 2011; Joseph, Jin, Newman & O’Boyle, 2015; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).

Support from the immediate manager is decisive for the success of change

According to scholarly research support from the immediate manager is an important factor to increase commitment (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013; Neves, 2011; Ng & Sorensen, 2008), satisfaction (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013; Luchman & Gonzáles-Morales; Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun & Xie 2008; Ng & Sorensen, 2008) and performance (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013)

It is wise for the manager to be accessible, to show compassion and to take the time to listen to employees and use their input whenever possible (Logan & Ganster, 2007).

An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization

leading coalition to realize change has not been sufficiently researched by scholars. It is self-evident that – based on Kotter’s (1992) description of a leading coalition – such a team with enough power (e.g. Lines, 2007), credibility and expertise (e.g., Gabris, Golembiewski & Ihrke, 2001; Posner & Kouzes, 1988), and strong leadership skills (e.g., Gilley, Dixon & Gilley, 2008) would be more effective in realizing change than one individual or a team of individuals that do not have those skills.

The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change

insufficient scholarly support for this claim

however, important to invest in the capabilities of employees, but also indicate that means such as money, time and knowledge as well

elements like systems, leadership and structure determine an organization’s capacity for change to a significant degree (Buick, Blackman, O’Donell, O’Flynn & West, 2015; Judge, Naoumova & Douglas, 2009; Soparnot, 2011).

Participation is the key to successful change

The many studies on the effects of participation appear to indicate that this assumption is unfounded.

Scholarly research shows that participation and successful organization change are only weakly related (Wagner & Lepine, 1999).

However, what is known is that participation enables managers and employees to share knowledge, which improves the quality of the decision-making process.

Also participative strategies are not proven to be superior to more authoritarian strategies in all instances (Kleingeld, Van Mierlo & Arenas, 2011).

Resistance is damaging for change to succeed

Scholarly research into the effects of resistance is scarce and the methodology is weak.

Nevertheless, results do show a possible (low) negative effect on target realization (Kunze, Boehm & Bruch, 2013), job satisfaction (Oreg, 2006) and creative performance (Hon, Bloom & Crant, 2014).

There are insufficient studies which confirm that resistance as such is damaging to the success of change.

The important question is which of the underlying factors determine the resistance and how these can be dealt with. In that framework it is important for a change manager to consider resistance an important signal and set out to unravel the underlying factors that may be the cause of that resistance such as a lack of trust in the leader, low job satisfaction and low commitment.

A fair change process is important for successful change

supported by scholarly research (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Van Dieren- donck & Jacobs, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002).

A fair change process is seen as a process that is gone through consistently, accurately, without prejudice and openly, and primarily affects the degree of acceptance (Tyler & De Cremer, 2005) and commitment (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field & Walker, 2007) during the change process.

A lack of time or means can hamper the implementation of a fair process, for instance due to the interests of the stakeholders. In such instances, it is advisable for the change manager to be transparent about deviating from an essentially fair process, by explaining the decisions made and putting them in perspective.

To change the organizational culture takes a lot of time and is complicated

Based on the many theories about culture, logic and intuition, the premise appears self-evident.

However, it is only slightly supported by scarce empirical studies. These are mostly very insightful case studies that nonetheless by their very nature have to be appraised as studies with a lower level of evidence (e.g., Faull, Kalliath & Smith, 2004).

This premise is difficult to prove or disprove, in part because organizational culture as a construct is multi-faceted and in itself already implies tenacious behavior.

A potential danger is that when something is poorly understood, but tenacious problems arise, managers may hide behind the construct ‘organizational culture’ and refrain from analysing the situation any further (i.e. search for the underlying behavior patterns).

The organizational culture is related to the performance of an organization

organizational culture has an effect on many important performance indicators (e.g., Biswas, 2009; Farley, Hoenig & Ismail, 2008).

However, on the basis of these studies it is not possible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the effect of organizational culture on the performance of organizations in general.

There appears to be no agreement in the literature on what culture exactly is and how to measure it (e.g., Dauber, 2012). The fundamental question of exactly how an abstract notion like organizational culture affects concrete behavior and performance in the first place remains unanswered (Voestermans & Verheggen, 2013).

recommend managers not to settle for generalizations and abstractions in the guise of culture, but to get to the bottom of what people actually do (Graamans, ten Have & ten Have, 2016).

Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for managers to effect change

Based on scholarly research this assumption is most likely true.

Setting specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-limited targets contributes to better performance (e.g., Mento, Steel & Karren, 1987).

It is important in these cases to regularly give feedback, on the process as well as the actual (interim) results (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Neubert, 1998).

It is also important that this feedback is aimed at (a better execution of) the task or the job, because feedback on the general performance of an employee can distract him or her from the task at hand (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it

Commitment to change can, according to scholars, be important to successful implementation (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

when employees commit themselves to change targets, they will also be tempted to contribute to activities linked to the change process.

At the same time, this commitment is not a guarantee for successful change. Other factors, such as trusting the leader and support from/to management, appear to play a more important role (ten Have et al., 2016).

Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance

According to scholarly research, financial rewards are an effective instrument to motivate employees and improve their performance (e.g., Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford, 2014; Garbers & Konradt, 2014; Wegge et al, 2010; Weibel, Rost & Osterloh, 2010).

Take a good look at the context of the change. Rewards that are directly linked to clear-cut results (such as commissions) appear to be especially effective when employees have to perform less interesting tasks and are judged on quantity.

However, these direct rewards have a negative effect on the intrinsic motivation of employees. Intrinsically motivated employees who are primarily judged on quality, appear to consider rewards in the form of, for instance, an education (indirect reward) a better instrument (Cerasoli et al., 2014).

Garbers and Konradt (2014) state that when a team has increased its efforts the reward should be divided evenly among the team members, otherwise it could damage the individual motivation.

Self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change

This is not supported by scholarly research. To test this assumption, the research performed so far is inadequate, in part because the term ‘self-management’ is still relatively young.

contextual factors play a large role in the success of self-managing teams. Sometimes evidence is presented of a positive relation between self-managing teams and performance (e.g., Fausing, Joensson, Lewandowski & Bligh, 2015) and sometimes research cannot establish evidence to support it (e.g., Gupta, Huang & Niranjan, 2010).

In organizations with a high degree of hierarchy, regulations and procedures, self-managing teams appear to perform less effectively (Tata & Prasad, 2004).

In high-tech companies where innovation plays a prominent role, self-managing teams appear to perform better (Patanakul, Chen & Lynn, 2012).

Practitioners found the following assumptions worked

Premise 2: A clear vision is essential for successful change

Premise 4: Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change

Premise 7: The support of immediate managers is decisive for a successful change

Premise 15: Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for managers to effect change

Premise 12: A fair change process is important for successful change

Practitioners said It depends!

Premise 18: Self managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change

disagreement among the respondents concerning self- managing teams and change. Of the respondents 35 per cent assumes that self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams; 42 per cent disagrees and 23 per cent does not know.

Research especially illustrates that self-managing teams not only offer advantages; significance and effect depend on the specific context. For instance, in organizations with high levels of hierarchy, rules and regulations, self-managing teams appear to underperform.

In innovative high-tech companies, however, self- managing teams appear to work far better. Self-managing teams have a positive effect on job satisfaction and work ethic. But studies show that self-managing teams with structural problems tend to implement dysfunctional process changes instead of solving their structural problems.

Premise 8: An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization

In the case of the importance of leading coalitions there is not much disagreement

75% of respondents assume that a leading coalition during change works. Scholarly research does not sup-port this point of view, however it did show that factors linked to leading coalitions – such as position of power, expertise, credibility and leadership skills – do have a positive effect during change.

Premise 9: The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change

Nearly 75% of the managers and consultants assume that the ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change. However, scholarly research does not support that wholeheartedly. Factors like organizational structures and systems also influence the change capacity of an organization.

Premise 11: Resistance is damaging for change to succeed

resistance is never far away when it comes to change and behavior. Especially in popular management literature we researched, resistance is blown up as a subject and is seen as problematic.

Most respondents have a different opinion; when it comes to resistance the popular management books appear to have little influence They believe that resistance dur- ing change is not such a big deal.

Perhaps they consider resistance part of the game: no pain, no gain. Given the not-exactly-overwhelming available scholarly research, a word of caution is appropriate here.

Research shows that resistance can definitely have negative effects on factors that are important to and that can influence change processes, for instance: job satisfaction, the inclination to change position, the degree of commitment, reaching targets, creativity and trusting management. The subject of resistance during change requires a nuanced approach; it is complex and the amount of proper research is limited. Science and practice would benefit from more and better research.

Premise 16: Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it

Commitment requires more research

limited and methodologically weak research.

Nuance and restraint are especially important here, because the group of respondents is decidedly positive: 87 per cent believes that commitment to change is essential.

Existing scholarly studies, however, show that only a specific kind of commitment (affective) has an effect on performance, and the effect is relatively small at that.

But other research does show that specific types of commitment to change, relatively speaking, can better predict support for a change initiative than a more general commitment to the organization.

Practitioners think it works but research suggests it doesn’t.

Premise 6: Organization change requires managers with a high degree of emotional intelligence (EQ)

Daniel Goleman, claims that “for star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities” (Goleman 1998, p. 34). Many believe him, while hundreds of studies have been done that did not produce any convincing evidence to support this claim. Measuring people’s EQ is certainly not any more important than measuring their IQ

Nevertheless, there is now an industry around emotional intelligence worth millions and an alleged high or low EQ can make or break careers.

Premise 3: Without a sense of urgency people do not change

Harvard professor John Kotter, quite famous among managers and consultants, sees sense of urgency as a critical condition for successful change

That probably helps to explain why two-thirds of the respondents are convinced that change without a sense of urgency will not work.

Kotter (1996) even argued for the creation of artificial crises.

Naturally, there are situations where change is stimulated by a crisis or necessity, but Kotter’s claim is not supported by scholarly research.

Premise 17: Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance

A large majority of respondents disagree that financial rewards are effective in stimulating change and improving performance.

Research has shown that financial rewards can be an effective tool to improve performance, especially in connection with uninteresting tasks and work that is not obviously or intrinsically motivating.

direct rewards, such as commissions, have a positive effect on the extrinsic motivation and in stimulating output,

However, other research shows that financial rewards can have a negative effect on the intrinsic motivation of employees.

indirect rewards, such as fixed monthly wages or an education, can have a positive effect on the intrinsic motivation and the quality of performance.

Premise 5: When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional style of leadership

More than half the respondents think that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership during a change process.

But scholarly research shows that both types of leadership have a positive effect on performance.

Research proved that transformational leadership has a positive effect on individual creativity and team performance.

But it appears that to realize more complex change tasks, a combination of both styles is more effective and may even be necessary.

Whether one style or the other is more effective depends on the specific situation and goal. Creativity fares better under transformational leadership, while individual productivity fares better under transactional leadership.

Conclusions – high degree of uncertainty & complexity

a change process is complex not something that is clear-cut.

doubt and uncertainty prevail

when there is a lack of evidence, it means one should decide to try prototyping, to experiment and try out things.

and evaluate where there is sufficient evidence, apply the best method of intervention with confidence

What might a safe to fail experiment mean?

Identify assumptions underpinning change stories

The Nokia change story

The Hewlett Packard- Compaq merger

McDonald change to nutritious meals

Dupont sustainable change

Managing change at Joseph Rowntree IGI global

Change at JC Penney 2008 -2014

Change at Kiwi Build

Next week:

Complexity Culture and Change