Monday, October 11, 2010

The Art of Leadership through Golf.wmv

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Open letter to a Management Client "Managing Change"


Dear Management Client,

You may recall that during a meeting earlier this year we discussed the constant change occurring in your business and I mentioned that managing change of an area of expertise. I committed at the time to writing to you and sharing with you the way change management theory may be of use. Let me start by saying I wish I could say that I am about to give you the solution to all issues you discussed with me, unfortunately as I know you are aware that is certainly not the reality of managing change. Here I hope to summarise the change management considerations I was exposed too. In doing so I have endeavoured to provide links to the references mentioned so that you may review further any of the theories that may assist you in your current organisation, you will also find at the end of this letter a list of references that may be of use.

I recall you mentioned a number of change factors both internal and external that were driving change in your organisation. External change influences including competitor activity such as price reductions and the introduction of new products to market; Customer behavioural change, preferences or perception of value changes; Economic influences including the recent ‘global financial crisis’ which impacted your sales with a 10% drop in a month; Legislative influences including changes to laws such as industrial relations. Internal influences included efficiency and productivity initiatives as well as suggested improvements coming from internal customers (or staff) based on your total quality management program. One could add to his list of change drivers to include, technology; social, culture and the exponential growth of access to information (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 40). You discussed the pain this constant change creates in terms of increased anxiety and the unanticipated consequences that result. I hope below to provide a summary of the key themes that may assist with the issues you articulated, or at least promote consideration for options available.

The key themes I would like to cover include the need to understand change, strategy and change, organisational change theories, change management tools, human resources influence on change, organisational culture, leadership, organisational politics and the measurement and evaluation of change.

As you well articulated there are a myriad of influences for change and so I will not take up your time restating these. Rather I would make the statement that change involves a complex set of interacting influence. One may propose then that the goal should not be to understand the change process per se but rather to enhance the understanding of change more broadly, of the necessity for it, and the inevitability of it.

The context of the change is one such consideration, it may be incremental, continuous, singular, transactional or transformational (Graetz et al. 2006). Understanding the type of change you face has ramifications for the approach to managing change. The organisational context for change must also be considered, Salman and Asch (2003) discuss changeas involving organisational structural change, a process change, a cultural change or a combination of these. One can see how the outcome or goal of your change initiative based on the context above can assist in the management of change by enhancing an awareness of both the desired outcome and the reason for the change. An enhanced understanding also results in consideration of appropriate methods for managing change, the time that may be required and the level of consultation that may be needed for success to result. Managing any change successfully will require a conscious awareness of these contexts; if this awareness does not exist one could see how anxiety, conflict and resistance would permeate the environment. To understand change one must be reminded that change is in fact a human process and as such one must consider human behaviour in the change process, particularly the, reason for and adjustment to change (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 334).

In fact here we begin to see the impact of leadership in this process. An interesting consideration is raised by Barker and Sarros (2002, pp. 3) in their review of ‘transformational leadership’ defined as a style of leadership that it is future orientated and change focused and that generates followership through personalised interactions, consistency and situational specific motivations. The authors describe well the behaviours required of such a leader in a constantly changing environment and include leadership behaviours that exhibit, role modelling, consistency, reinforcing their future visions, transparency, integrity, effective communication, taking time to know followers, encouraging others to think of new ways and then encouraging rather than disparaging unsuccessful attempts and breaking down barriers to change. These behaviours highlight the impact a leader may have on creating an environment conducive to change.

With such complexity, taking a strategic approach to change, meaning taking a systematic approach to capturing information, analysing and making decisions based on this analysis, is a key consideration. Change is non-linear, but dynamic and flexible (McMurray, Morgan & Deftereos 2009, p. 14) and as such to reduce ambiguity in the environment taking a strategic approach to managing change can reduce negative impacts such as unanticipated consequences for both people, the organisation and the resulting success of the initiative. Strategic approaches may include a personal change approach, such as the four-stage personal change model discussed by Carlopio, Andrewartha & Armstrong (2005), who suggest organisations don’t change it, is people that do. This four-stage approach includes Unlearning, Changing, Relearning and Institutionalising change, and is, based on Kurt Lewin’s three step model, generally including the Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Each stage has a set of criteria that must be achieved in order to progress to the next. Lewin’s stages were based on force field analysis theory which describes the balance between driving and opposing change forces (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 114; Burnes 2004) and is a useful way of analysing and understanding change, preparedness, progress, rate and probability of success in an organisation.

An alternate to personal change theory is, organisational strategic planning such as Mintzberg’s, ‘Five Ps Strategy’ for organisational change defined as a plan, a ploy, a pattern, a position and a perspective (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 73). This approach focuses more on the organisation process and systems that must be employed to manage change. A limitation however here is that change is not an either / or process as these models might suggest. Change may also not be a process conducive to the prescriptive approaches described in these theories; it is perhaps the combining of these approaches that may yield most benefit. The combining elements of linear and adaptive strategic views are discussed by Weick (2001) and assist with the attempt to understand the chaos that is the organisation.

The concept then of ‘strategic thinking’ (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 79) then emerged with a focus concerning the constant shifting and evolutionary requirements of the modern organisation, as opposed to the traditional longer term strategies previously proposed. Strategic thinking is concerned with enabling ‘dynamic abilities’ (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 78) of those in the environment to plan for, deal with, manage or lead the inevitable and necessary change. Perhaps this is what John Kotter had in mind when developing, ‘The 8 step process’, which he describes as a holistic approach to managing change (Kotter 2010).

Another approach to organisational change theory was Dunphy and Stace’s situational model (Stace & Dunphy 2001) here an explanation is offered for how different management strategies relate to the differing circumstances an organisation may be faced with at the time. That is, that a different approach to managing the change may be required dependant on the scale of change (Stace & Dunphy 2001). However a concern with this approach may include the inconsistency of management practice and the effect this may have on stability for the relationships between leaders and followers in the organisational environment. A more balanced approach that includes consideration for the politics of change, the context of change and the substance of change may be found in Dawson’s processual framework (Dawson 2001). While Dawson considers situational factors as in Stace and Dunphy model there are key differences. Including managers becoming facilitators of the process rather than the doers; change is considered a continuous process best occurring in small to medium increments engaging multiple levels of the organisation where change focus is more politic-social than analytical-rational. Key activities include continuous information gathering (both external and internal), analysis, communication, discussion, engagement, and learning. This approach appears to have merit based on the rate, speed and constant change requirements that a modern organisation faces.
You discussed your organisations utilisation of change management tools and specifically discussed total quality management; a consideration to make here is the application of the tool. Widely regarded as the father of the continuous improvement movement Edward Deming’s TQM model must be considered for appropriateness in the following contexts. Firstly Deming was a man of his time, where it may be argued that change was not occurring at the exponential rate that we experience today. With this in mind whilst the principles may still be valid the timeframes with which we have to apply the principles should be considered. Further the cultural context where the principles are to be applied should be reviewed. Much of Deming’s quality movement was based on his work in the Japanese culture (Graetz et al. 2006, p. 125), a collective society with considerably differing cultural attribute to our individualistic society and workplace. These cultural differences should be considered when reviewing the stringent and systematic requirements of TQM particularly when combined with the requirements for precise and uniform application of outcomes of TQM by the workforce. Perhaps we should also be reminded of Deming’s other key contribution to continuous improvement, the, Plan, Do, Check and Act (PDCA) cycle, and in fact consider (the Check phase) if the TQM model in its traditional form is the most appropriate model for the organisation.

Another interesting theme is the need to continually review and align the human resource management of our organisations with the organisational strategy. As I am sure you have already picked up throughout this letter change management in the modern context is heavily concerned with the development of individuals in the environment to deal with, manage, contribute to or lead change. With this in mind the approach of human resource management must be to ensure alignment of HR strategies to the requirements of the organisational strategy. Perhaps HR’s role could best be redefined as facilitating the emergence of the learning organisation with the goal of an organisations ability to learn faster than its competitors being considered a source of competitive advantage (McMurray, Morgan & Deftereos 2009, p. 30).

The final topic I wish to include is leadership; in fact this really is three topics in one as leadership arguably depicts organisational culture, politics and the measurement and evaluation of change. One may suggest that leadership really sets the environment that enables these themes to contribute positively to organisational change or not. Some key questions to ask to this regard might include the following; are we managing an organisation which is highly focused on maintaining a status quo or are we in fact leading an organisation which as I referred to early as future and change orientated? Has the leadership defined an overarching consolidating goal that allows collaboration across the organisational functions? Has the leadership allowed for the inclusivity, empowerment, and collaborative efforts of all the human resources of the organisation to engage in the necessary and inevitable change of a modern organisation? To what extent has leadership within the organisation considered the impact of power and politics on the success or otherwise of change? A review of these aspects may reveal whether a shift from an old style of high command and control management that may not be conducive to change practice in the modern workplace to a more conducive collaborative approach has occurred.

I know I have not here provided the silver bullet that will reduce the pain you so clearly articulated that your organisation is feeling. Based on the numerous and complex interacting internal and external change drivers you articulate however, I hope I have been able to provide some themes for you to consider and a summary overview of a number of aspects that may move an organisation toward embracing change as an inevitable and in fact necessary way of organisational life.

I wish you all the best in your endeavours to manage change in your organisation and encourage you to review some of the references and visit some of the links provided in this letter.

Yours Sincerely,
Tony Pearson
www.ipsgroup.com.au



References
Barker, C. & Sarros, J. 2002, Inside the minds of Australian Executives (online), http://www.aim.com.au/research/AIM_abls_whatausleaderswant.pdf [Accessed 1 September 2010]
Burnes, B 2004, Managing change: a strategic approach to organisational dynamics, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 288-316.
Burnes, B 2004, 'The planned approach to organisational change', in Managing Change : a strategic approach to organisational dynamics, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 267-285.
Carlopio, J, Andrewartha, G & Armstrong, H 2005, 'Chapter 12, pt.4. Group skills', in Developing management skills: a comprehensive guide for leaders, 3rd ed, Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest, pp. 660-673.
Dawson, P 2001, 'Organisational change', in Wiesner, R & Millet, B (eds), Management and organisational behaviour, Wiley, Milton, pp. 211-223.
Graetz, F, Rimmer, M, Lawrence, A & Smith, A 2006, Managing Organisational Change, 2nd Australasian edn, Wiley, Milton QLD.
Kotter, J 2010, Kotter International, Because change is essential, The 8 step process, viewed 2 September 2010, http://www.kotterinternational.com/KotterPrinciples/ChangeSteps.aspx.
McMurray, D., Morgan, K. & Deftereos, C. 2009, MNG00166 Managing Change: Study Guide, 3rd edn, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Salaman, G & Asch, D 2003, Strategy and capability: sustaining organisational change, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-22.
Southern Cross University 2009, Book of Readings, MNG00166 Managing Change, 3rd edn, Lismore
Stace, D & Dunphy, D 2001, 'Translating business strategy into action: transitions, transformations, turnarounds', in Beyond the boundaries: leading and re-creating the successful enterprise, 2nd ed, McGraw-Hill, Sydney, pp. 103-149.
Weick, K 2001, 'Chapter 15. Substitutes for strategy', in Making sense of the organization, Blackwell, London, pp. 345-355.