A key theme emerging from the case study analysis was the need to clearly define the current state of the organization along certain axes and then develop a clear, cogent and coherent description of the end state. The focus at the organization stage of the change process is being able to identify the steps it would take to bridge the gap between the two. It is often the strategy, structure and systems that are more easily defined.
Although many of the organizations took a planned approach to change the analysis suggests that actually the overall parameters were well defined but there was always room for manoeuvre within the change process itself.
For example, Aster had developed a clear overarching vision with an agreed structure and an initial business plan. However, the actual working out of what was going to remain local and what was going to be centralized was open for discussion. Likewise, although there was some convergence of policies and procedures, each business unit was allowed to adopt what was best for its situation.
The Institute of Public Health on the other hand had a clear vision and set of values. It also knew who its major stakeholders were. It was only during the ongoing developing relationship with these stakeholders that an acceptable strategy could be formulated, and this strategy for change was always going to be subject to evolution.
Biogen Idec’s change organization process was along project management lines, very much evidence-based – with a lot of data gathering from reputable
sources and looking at best practice across the industry, across geographies and across specialisms. The decision-making process was well planned and methodical and although the initial outcome of the change – deciding on the new location – was uncertain, the next phase of negotiations with staff, restructuring plans and finding new offices and transferring old staff and recruiting new staff lent itself to be extremely well project planned.
The British Council’s change initiative was organized through a programme team comprising people drawn from the affected stakeholders and the business, and with experience in change management and process re-engineering. The team also had a strong, visible sponsor in the person of the Deputy Director General. In terms of organization the team followed the programme best practice as laid out by the Office of Government Commerce using the Managing Successful Programmes methodology. It was important to note that at all times the systems change was subservient to the organi-zation’s strategy and didn’t deviate from this alignment.
In developing the plan for how to restructure the department in Aarhus, the change team didn’t concentrate merely on the mechanics of the change but developed a programme which addressed both task and process. They developed a workable formal organizational structure and a plan for imple-menting it, but they also ensured that the structure was supported by the necessary lines of two-way communication and a common understanding of new roles and responsibilities, and the healthy engagement vertically, hori-zontally and externally, within the new structure.
The organization of change within the kitchenware company was relatively straightforward – they listened to what their customers wanted and re-engineered their back office processes to deliver the right products on time.
Everything was driven by the customer.
One of the first actions of the primary school head was to form a leadership team and then quickly extend involvement to all staff and all governors.
These comprised one-to-one and small group discussions, and culminated in an initial vision-creation workshop. Through her actions the head was organ-izing for change, orienting the organization and mobilorgan-izing stakeholders into action.
In the financial services company case study, the company planned the high level structure very well, involving all key people in the conversations and developing an implementation and communication plan.
Summary
Whatever your approach to change it is important that you have a conceptual framework in which to operate so that you are clear how you will approach change. You need to understand what needs to be planned and what can emerge.
A useful checklist for organizing change comes from Balogun and Hailey’s change kaleidoscope:
• change path;
• change start point;
• change style;
• change target;
• change levers; and
• change roles.
There are a number of useful tools and frameworks to map the current state and the preferred future state across a number of relevant organizational dimensions.
The McKinsey 7Ss – how will you organize getting from here to there on the seven dimensions of:
1. strategy;
2. structure;
3. systems;
4. styles;
5. staff;
6. skills; and 7. shared values?
Alternatively on which of the key areas of Johnson and Scholes’ cultural web are you focusing:
• paradigm;
• control systems;
• organizational structures;
• power structures;
• symbols;
• rituals and routines;
• stories and myths?
How might you deploy Tichy’s three management tools of mission and strategy, organizational structure and systems, and human resource management within the technical, political and cultural systems?
To what degree will you adopt a project management or programme management methodology and which will it be?
How will you choose what overriding approach to use (in terms of the metaphors and paradigms) given the nature of the change and the current culture?
This page is left intentionally blank
5. Mobilization
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
I am personally convinced that one person can be a change catalyst, a
‘transformer’ in any situation, any organization. Such an individual is yeast that can leaven an entire loaf. It requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage, and faith to be a transforming leader.
(Stephen R Covey)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
(Margaret Mead)
Orientation
Mobilization Organization
Implementation
Integration
Transition
Introduction
Mobilization is the process of involving, engaging and catalysing the stake-holders affected by the changes. The aims of this chapter are to:
• understand what will motivate and mobilize people towards change;
• provide some frameworks for understanding stakeholders involved in the change;
• look at ways to address specific groups in the change process; and
• understand the types and levels of communication required in change.
If the art and act of mobilization are the process of involving, engaging and catalysing the stakeholders affected by the intended changes then we need to address a range of issues in order for us to successfully accomplish this. We will need to understand what motivates people to be ‘on board’ and engaged with the change process in the first place; we will need to identify who the stakeholders are, where their interests lie and what their possible contribu-tions to the change process will be; we will need to identify certain generic and specific groups of people who will need to be involved in the change process; and we will need to have a range of strategies to communicate with those who will be part of the change.