Approaches to change implementation

To round out the picture of organisational readiness for change as a precondition for successful change implementation, it is useful to have a brief look at change implementation as well as to show the interdependencies. The literature on change implementation is vast and advice on procedures ranges from individualistic and more behavioural-focused approaches to system-orientated, methodical organisation-wide programmes. An example of an individualistic way to induce change within a company is described by Meyerson (2001). She delineates paths to

50 / 225

change corporate culture by a form of less visible and more modest leadership, initiated by individual managers. Even though this possibility to change by quietly challenging prevailing wisdom and provoking cultural transformation seems to be a powerful opportunity for a company, it is more suitable for evolutionary change. Moreover, it is a technique that is not suitable for a controlled, broad-based, intentionally started and planned change process.

Regarding planned organisational change, Burke (2008) points out the paradox of planned change: Change must be planned, but at the same time it must be anticipated that things will not turn out quite the way it was planned. First an initiative is launched, but then things turn out to be different and barriers are identified, therefore a step back has to be taken to fix the problems to go on with the process, which is called “loop back”. The change process can be described in loops of different sizes. The idea of proceeding in loops is also stressed by the description of change as an ongoing approximation to increasingly ambitious goals (Moran & Brightman, 2001). This description of change includes a regular assessment of the actual situation and the continuous adjustment of the goals of the change. The idea of change processes proceeding in loops is also compatible to the understanding of change as single- or double-loop learning (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; see 2.1.2). According to Burke (2008), there are unplanned obstacles occurring and adjustments to the process itself. Over time a loop pattern can emerge and the change goals can be reached. However, no pattern will emerge without clear goals. Unanticipated consequences will arise as the company’s normal ways of doing things are interrupted with new ways. For planning a long-term process, it is important to anticipate the unplanned or to leave enough space for adjustments in the planned process.

Important articles about leading change were written by Kotter (Drerup & Wömpener, 2014; Kotter, 2007, 1997), who describes eight steps on how to successfully undertake change. One aspect Kotter highlights is that high pressure is needed for people to leave their zone of comfort. The aspect of high pressure or urgency is also found in the concepts of organisational readiness (Armenakis et al., 1999). This is not an inconsistency though; if organisational readiness is understood

51 / 225

as a precondition for successful change implementation and urgency has a positive impact on organisational readiness, urgency or high pressure is an important prerequisite for successful change implementation. Another condition named by Kotter (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Kotter 2007) is the claim to have a strong guiding coalition. This again can be mapped with the concepts of readiness for change that call for principal support (Armenakis et al., 1999). However, in the view of Kotter, the guiding coalition will work in most cases to some extent outside the organisational hierarchy, which he reasons by the statement “if the existing hierarchy were working well, there would be no need for a major transformation” (2007 p. 98). This implies either that need for change is ‘home-made’ or existing management have failed to respond appropriately to external developments that cause the need for change. In disagreeing with this statement I believe that there is a point in time when external development and pressures cause a need for change, to which current management may react adequately, but the environmental conditions have changed again. Another advice given by Kotter (2007) is to develop a clear vision and to communicate it effectively. This recommendation can also be found in concepts of organisational readiness for change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). In summary, Kotter proposes a straightforward approach to implementing change, which cannot be distinguished precisely from the ideas assimilated in the concepts of organisational readiness. However, since Kotter does not differentiate between the steps of creating readiness for change and implementing change, his concept may be viewed as an integrated approach.

Very close to the model of Kotter, Jørgensen, Owen and Neus (2009) identify key challenges and give advice to implement change programs. Some approaches can be found giving phase models, while highlighting different aspects, for example eight steps to alternate business emphasising the emotional factor (Pratt, 2005) or six steps highlighting involvement of management on every level and then the entire organisation (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990). Even though “change through persuasion” is a more communication-based concept, it does not contradict Kotter’s model (Garvin & Roberto, 2005).

52 / 225

Beer (2009 pp. 544-548) lists seven steps for successful change with a long-term focus. Some of these can be mapped against the concept of organisational readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993) as follows:

Table 1: Steps for successful change and change readiness model

Another, more project-related approach for a successful change process execution is given by Sirkin, Keenan and Jackson (2005) with their DICE model. Their research showed that certain factors have more influence on a positive change project outcome than others. A differentiation is made between soft factors, as culture, motivation and leadership, and hard factors that are duration (in particular time between project assessments), integrity that indicates the project teams’ capabilities; commitment of senior executives and effort that outlines the extra work employees need to do for the new processes. These factors – duration, integrity, commitment and effort – are subsumed within the acronym DICE. Sirkin et al. (2005) recommend the assessment of each of the four DICE elements before a transformation process is launched. Executives are asked to rate each factor in terms of likeliness of contribution to success for the project. The ranking shows which factors might become critical and need more resources allocated. This implies

53 / 225

that careful project planning focusing on the critical factors can increase likelihood of success.

The focus of research has moved to some extent away from a single general model for successful change implementation towards a contingency theory of organisational change. This should specify alternating strategies, from which the one fitting best the stage of development of the company can be chosen (e. g. Jarrett, 2009; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Strebel, 1994; Beer, 1987). By a situational analysis, for example assessing the strength of forces or the needed speed for change respectively and expected resistance to change, strategies for change are proposed. While Strebel (1994) recommends eight different change paths, with varying weight on dealing with either the forces of or resistance to change, Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) for example suggest methods dealing with varying degrees of resistance to change. Serving the call for a contingency model of change implementation, Jarrett (2009) supplies a model with four typical situations in terms of environmental forces and adaptive strategies. Important factors to make change happen are clustered into the three groups: external environment, strategic leadership within the company and organisational inertia. Companies should be assessed based on these factors to select an appropriate strategy for the company. Jarrett states that a crucial point is to have a strategic goal to align external drivers with the core internal capabilities for organisational change. Depending on an evaluation of the companies’ external conditions and their internal capabilities, four main groups of strategies are described to successfully lead change. This model may be an exemplary basis for change insofar that first external factors and drivers for change in the industry are analysed and then their implications for the company assessed. The alignment of the organisation with its environment is the determinant for the change strategy to be chosen. Concluding, Jarrett (2009) argues that an organisation has to take its capabilities to change into account for choosing and applying an adequate change strategy.

54 / 225