If we look at our approaches to change from Chapter 1 we see that the different approaches will have different things to say about orientating for change.
The machine metaphor assumes that those in charge will design the process that will have a clear direction and be able to formulate a plan that will simply get us from A to Z, the final destination. The design process will probably follow straightforward analytic lines – external and internal analysis, assessing strengths and weaknesses and generating strategic options through a rational problem-solving decision-making process. Once the direction or end state has been decided then it really is just a problem to be solved as to how to carry it out. Any hurdles in the way can be resolved in technical terms and the human side of change doesn’t figure too much in the thinking.
The political metaphor will involve considerably more discussion and negotiating a way through the various stakeholder groups and communities of interest. It will be no use in setting out in a particular direction unless there is a real sense that the key players are ‘on board‘ with the idea. The more you can factor their ideas into the final direction then the more confident you can be of a successful change process. The change is not seen so much as a tech-nical problem to be solved as a coalition of the willing.
The organism approach to change would suggest a more ongoing responsiveness to external conditions, emerging needs and internal dysfunction, so a final destination might not be fully envisaged, although various organiza-tional imperatives might emerge as the key issues that need to be worked on. Given that the health of the organi-zation is at a premium, a lot of effort would be made in ensuring there was healthy functioning across the organization as a whole and especially at its boundaries. The direction could well be in making the organization better, more responsive, more effective, maximizing its potential in the now rather than a theoretical end state.
Like the organism metaphor, an organization immersed in the flux and transformation mindset is more likely to be focusing on themes emerging within the present rather than the future. Effort would be put into building capability and capacity and enabling the organization to respond to and harness environmental changes and to spot areas of movement, improvement, creative tensions and innovation hot spots and blow on those particular emerging embers.
In terms of de Caluwé and Vermaak’s paradigms of change, we can see that the orientation process would take different paths depending on which
paradigm you were operating from. So the blue (change through design) would follow similar lines as the machine metaphor in using strategic analysis and a project and programme management mindset and toolkit. The yellow (change through addressing interests) would be similar to the political metaphor in bringing together different interests groups and power-broking agreement. The white (change through emergence) would involve a greater collaboration with perhaps future search conferences, open space meetings and self-organized task groups looking into areas of special interest:
Open Space technology is ‘a whole system participative work approach…
enabling participants to define their own agendas and focus on the issues they consider most important. It relies on four basic principles: Whoever comes is the right person; whatever happens is the only thing that could have; whenever it starts is the right time; and when it is over, it is over.’
Future Search is a ‘large-group intervention method developed by Weisbord and Janoff which aims to create a vision of a desired future for a department, company or community. It explores possible agreements between people with divergent views and interests, and helps them to search for common ground and plan consensually. This approach is particularly suited to addressing complex problems within large systems.
(Huczynski, 2001)
Red (change through people) would probably use a variety of techniques depending on the industry and the prevailing company culture. Typically organizations operating out of this metaphor would have well developed HR processes and as such might well have processes of engagement to involve staff at critical stages of the change process. Early participatory workshops and employee reference groups could be a feature of the orientation process.
The green (change through learning) may well have previously invested in knowledge management processes tapping into the explicit and tacit knowledge within the organization, have installed feedback loops to monitor organizational performance and have ways of changing course as a result.
Summary
Before any change is undertaken it makes complete sense to undertake an appraisal of the organization and its operating environment. This would comprise an external and internal analysis together with a stakeholder mapping and analysis.
The resulting highlighting of internal strengths and weaknesses, with external threats and opportunities, and understanding the needs and wants of stakeholders, should combine into an understanding of what needs to change in the vision, mission, and strategy.
Beckhard and Harris’s change formula is a simple but practical tool to evaluate where you are stand in the change process:
C = [D x V x FS] > R
Where C is the change that will occur; D is the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo; V is the desirability of the proposed change, the end state or vision; FS is the first practical steps of the change; and R is the resistance to change.
Undertaking a rigorous analysis of both the external and internal operating envi-ronments will help you decide on the need for change but also help you articulate the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Creating a clear vision and mission of where you want to go linked to rectifying the causes of the dissatisfaction is a crucial early stage in the change process.
Developing clarity of from where and to where you are moving (from > to analysis) coupled with a force field analysis will help set your direction.
Remember, the different approaches to change will dictate the degree to which you focus on a planned or emergent approach and the style you take: machine, political, organism, and flux and transformation metaphors; change through design;
addressing interests; emergence; people; and learning paradigms.
This page is left intentionally blank
Part II
This page is left intentionally blank
3. Organizational Case Studies
Introduction
Over the course of the last two years I tracked the management of change in seven organizations:
• the organizations were managing change relatively well;
• there was a mixture of large and small organizations;
• there was a mixture of public and private sector and some in between;
• there was a variety of changes being managed including a large scale global information system rollout, a Europe-wide restructure, a merger, a culture change, a start up and operational performance improvement;
Orientation
Mobilization
Case Studies Organization
Implementation
Integration
Transition
• there was a variety of leadership styles; and
• there was a variety of change approaches adopted.