Change in organizations
Name
MMSL 6000 - Dynamic Leadership
2022
Change in organizations
Change management is the effective management of a business change such that executive
leaders, managers and front line employees work in concert to successfully implement the
needed process, technology or organizational changes.
The goal of change management is to implement these business changes quickly in an attempt to
improve organizational performance through minimizing the impact on productivity, avoiding
unnecessary turnover or loss of valued employees, eliminating any adverse impact on their
customers and achieving the desired business outcomes as soon as possible.
(Organizational change management is the management of change from the perspective of a
manager. It is the perspective of “business leadership” from the “top” looking down into the
organization. The focus is around broad change management practices and skills that will help
the organization understand, accept and support the needed business change leading to improved
organizational performance. The primary focus is around change management strategies,
communication plans and training programs. Organizational change management provides the
knowledge and skills to implement a methodology and tools for managing change throughout an
organization (Nickols, 2006).
Individual change management is the management of change from the perspective of the
employees. They are the ones who ultimately must implement the change. The focus here is
around the tools and techniques to help an employee transition through the change process.
The characteristics of organizational change are mainly categorized along the following two
dimensions; radical versus incremental change and reactive versus proactive change.
Nadler and Tushman (1999) refer to radical changes as changes that have an impact on the
whole system of the organization and fundamentally redefine what the organization is or change
its basic framework, including strategy, structure, people, processes, and (in some cases) core
values.
On the other hand, they interpret incremental changes as changes that happen all the time in
organisations, and they need not to be small. Such things as changes in organization structure,
the introduction of new technology, and significant modifications of personnel practices are all
large and significant changes, but ones which usually occur within the existing definition and
frame of reference of the organization. Johnson (1998) claim that the incremental approach to
change is more common and this type of change is commonly used to maximize short term
performance. The logic behind the incremental view is that the environment is constantly
changing and incremental change being a continuous process is the only way to secure the future
of the company and improve organizational performance. However, in some situations, such as
after a period of flux or unexpected rapid change in the environment, a radical approach to
change may be necessary to address more fundamental problems (Johnson and Scholes, 1997).
In terms of the proactive/reactive nature of change, Nadler and Tushman (1999) characterise
reactive change as that implemented in response to some external event and or serious internal
operational and managerial problems. They see proactive change as that where the company is
not currently experiencing any serious problems but managers anticipate the need for change to
put the company in a better position or avert potential future problems. Though this anticipatory
approach to change is generally preferable, in practice most companies tend to take a reactive
approach, usually as a consequence of the commonly held view that there is no need for change
if current performance is satisfactory. Additionally, the hotel industry has been heavily criticized
for being reactive largely as a result of its strong operational orientation and a tendency to focus
on short-term results.
Resistance to change.
Many authors (Maurer, 1996; Strebel, 1994; Waddell and Sohal, 1998, among others) stress that
the reasons for the failure of many change initiatives can be found in resistance to change.
Resistance is a phenomenon that affects the change process, delaying or slowing down its
beginning, obstructing or hindering its implementation, and increasing its costs and generally
reducing organizational performance (Ansoff, 1990). On the other hand, resistance is any
conduct that tries to keep the status quo, and thus avoid change (Maurer, 1996; Rumelt, 1995).
Resistance has also been considered as a source of information; being useful in learning how to
develop a more successful change process therefore it’s not a negative concept as it could show
change managers certain aspects that are not properly considered in the change process (Waddell
and Sohal, 1998).
Behavioural reaction to change.
How employees perceive a change greatly affects how they react to it. If employees cannot
foresee how the change will affect them, they will resist the change or be neutral, at best. If
employees clearly see that the change is not compatible with their needs and aspirations, they
will resist the change. If employees see that the change is going to take place regardless of their
objections, they may initially resist the change and then resignedly accept it. If employees see
that the change is in their best interests, they will be motivated to accept it. In spite of attempts to
minimize the resistance to change in an organization, some reactions to change are inevitable.
Negative reactions may be manifested in overt behaviour, or change may be resisted more
passively. People show four basic, identifiable reactions to change: disengagement,
disidentification, disenchantment, and disorientation. Managers can use interventions to deal
with these reactions (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
According to Waddell and Sohal, (1998),Disengagement is psychological withdrawal from
change. The employee may appear to lose initiative and interest in the job. Employees who
disengage may fear the change but take on the approach of doing nothing and simply hoping for
the best.
The basic managerial strategy for dealing with disengaged individuals is to confront them with
their reaction and draw them out so that they can identify the concerns that need to be addressed.
Drawing them out and helping them air their feelings can lead to productive discussions.
Disengaged people seldom become cheerleaders for the change, but they can be brought closer to
accepting and working with a change by open communication with an emphatic manager who is
willing to listen.
Another reaction to change is disidentification. Individuals reacting in this way feel that their
identity has been threatened by the change, and they feel very vulnerable. Many times they cling
to a past procedure because they had a sense of mastery over it, and it gave them a sense of
security.
Employee participation is a strategy that can be used here. When employees are allowed to
participate, they are more committed to the change; they become involved in the change and
establish a feeling of ownership in the process.
Disenchantment is also a common reaction to change. It is usually expressed as negativity or
anger. Disenchanted employees realize that the past is gone, and they are mad about it. They may
try to enlist the support of other employees by forming coalitions. Destructive behaviours like
sabotage and backstabbing may result. It is often difficult to reason with disenchanted
employees. Thus, the first step in managing this reaction is to bring these employees from their
highly negative, emotionally charged state to a more neutral state. The second part of the strategy
for dealing with disenchanted employees is to acknowledge that their anger is normal and that
you do not hold it against them. Sometimes disenchantment is a mask for one of the other three
reactions, and it must be worked through to get to the core of the employee’s reaction.
A final reaction to change is disorientation. Disoriented employees are lost and confused, and
often they are unsure of their feelings. They ask a lot of questions and become very detail
oriented. They may appear to need a good deal of guidance and may leave their work undone
until all of their questions have been answered.
Disorientation is a common reaction among people who are used to clear goals and unambiguous
directions. When change is introduced, it creates uncertainty and a lack of clarity. The
managerial strategy for dealing with this reaction is to explain the change in a way that
minimizes the ambiguity that is present. The information about the change needs to be put into a
framework or an overall vision so that the disoriented individual can see where he or she fits into
the grand scheme of things (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
Managers need to be able to diagnose these four reactions. Because each reaction brings with it
significant and different concerns, no single universal strategy can help all employees adjust. By
recognizing each reaction and applying the appropriate strategy, it is possible to help even strong
resisters work through a transition successfully (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
REFERENCES
Ansoff, I.H. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, London: Prentice Hall International, Ltd.
Burnes, B. (1994). Managing Change, London: Pitman Publishing.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the Code of Change, Harvard Business School Press.
Carnall, A. (1995). Managing Change in Organisations, Hertfordshire : Prentice-Hall.
Drucker, P. (1993). The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Review pp. 3.
Fevzi, O. (1999). Management of the change process in hotels, Oxford Brookes University.
Go and Pine, (1995). Globalization Strategy in the Hospitality Industry, London: Routledge.
Grundy T. (1993). Implementing Strategic Change, London: Kogan Page Limited.
Hill and Jones, R.G. (1992). Strategic Management, An Integrated Approach , Boston :Houghton
Company.
Hiatt,J.&Creasey,T. (2010). Change Management, Prosci Research.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1997).Exploring Corporate Strategy, Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall.
Kaiser. J. (1989). The Principles and Practices of Management In the Hospitality Industry, New
York: Reinhold.
Kotter.J. (1995).Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review. Free
press.
Lewin,K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science, New York : Harper and Row.
Mugenda, O., Mugenda, A. (1994). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques.
Nairobi : African Centre for Technology Studies.
Nadler, A. and Tushman, M.L. (1999). Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership and
organisational change, California Management Review, 32 (2), pp. 77-97.
Thompson, J. (1998). Strategic Management, Awareness and Change, London: Chapman & Hall.
Wood, R.C. (1994). Organizational Behaviour for Hospitality Management , Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann Ltd.
Waddell, D. and Sohal, A.S. (1998) Resistance: a constructive tool for change management,
Management Decision, 36 (8), pp. 543-548.
