Posted on 11-10-2009 at 09:35
The "C" word!
Change affects us all and it happens every day, it happens without us noticing by accident and by design. This is true of organisational change, societal change, personal change and changes across the world.
This blog is the first in a series where we will discuss planned organisational change and some of the issues and choices that managers and organisations have.
Change can be approached in a variety of ways and there is no one best way. The approach(s) you use will reflect your assessment of the situation and will be contextual. All change management projects involve people and it is the people element that make change so exciting, challenging, vibrant, interesting but also problematic and frustrating.
Thurley and Wirdenius (1973) describe a number of classifications of strategies and the difference appears to be the relative degree to which change is imposed on the recipient.
Directive- Management’s right to manage change.
This is about authority and managers using that authority to impose change without the involvement of those affected. The main advantage of this approach is speed, without bothering to consult or involve others it can be implemented much quicker. However the downside is that it does not take into account of the feelings, views or ideas of those affected by the change.
The obvious repercussion being an increase in the likelihood of resistance to the change. Resistance could slow the change or even stop it altogether.
Expert- Change management as problem solving
This is usually adopted when a change results from a technical problem that requires a solution from experts. (A new IT system, a new accounting package etc) These changes are usually implemented by special project teams and usually without too much involvement from those affected by it. Usually this approach allows the change to be undertaken quickly and allows specific expertise and technical knowledge to be applied to the problem.
Unfortunately, this approach can also lead to resistance. Those affected may not see the problem as a technical one but they may also have different views to those of the experts and so question the legitimacy of the team.
Negotiating- This is about having a willingness to negotiate with other stakeholders and to accept that concessions to others may have to be made. This approach acknowledges that people and groups have the right to have a say in the change. However it does often mean that it will take longer and that the actual outcomes may not match the planned outcomes. A typical example of this would be the involvement of works councils, unions etc in change projects within the car industry both before and during the economic recession.
Educative- Hearts and minds. This involves winning support by changing values so that they support the change and are agreed on a shared set of values. Typically it requires a mixture or sub-set of strategies which could include education, persuasion, training and even selection. Often specialist teams are brought in to assist in the process. The advantages are clearly that, if successful, people are much more likely to be committed and buy into the changes. The disadvantages are that it can take a very long time, could consume huge volumes of resources and will take much, much longer.
Participative- This approach involves those affected by the changes in the whole process. The people tasked with carrying the change forward will probably be those affected by the changes themselves, or at least their representatives. This approach may also require specialist teams brought in from the outside. Because people are involved they are more likely to accept the changes and the involvement of people can help to create a “buzz” and an enthusiasm for the process. Additionally the knowledge and skills of a much broader organisational base can be brought to bear on the planning and implementation plus the people involved in the process will “learn by doing” and this can be an incredibly powerful personal and organisational development tool.
The biggest downside is that this strategy can take a very long time and is much more complex and difficult to manage. As with a negotiating strategy the outcomes will also be much more difficult to predict and the financial costs could be very high.
Change affects us all and it happens every day, it happens without us noticing by accident and by design. This is true of organisational change, societal change, personal change and changes across the world.
This blog is the first in a series where we will discuss planned organisational change and some of the issues and choices that managers and organisations have.
Change can be approached in a variety of ways and there is no one best way. The approach(s) you use will reflect your assessment of the situation and will be contextual. All change management projects involve people and it is the people element that make change so exciting, challenging, vibrant, interesting but also problematic and frustrating.
Thurley and Wirdenius (1973) describe a number of classifications of strategies and the difference appears to be the relative degree to which change is imposed on the recipient.
Directive- Management’s right to manage change.
This is about authority and managers using that authority to impose change without the involvement of those affected. The main advantage of this approach is speed, without bothering to consult or involve others it can be implemented much quicker. However the downside is that it does not take into account of the feelings, views or ideas of those affected by the change.
The obvious repercussion being an increase in the likelihood of resistance to the change. Resistance could slow the change or even stop it altogether.
Expert- Change management as problem solving
This is usually adopted when a change results from a technical problem that requires a solution from experts. (A new IT system, a new accounting package etc) These changes are usually implemented by special project teams and usually without too much involvement from those affected by it. Usually this approach allows the change to be undertaken quickly and allows specific expertise and technical knowledge to be applied to the problem.
Unfortunately, this approach can also lead to resistance. Those affected may not see the problem as a technical one but they may also have different views to those of the experts and so question the legitimacy of the team.
Negotiating- This is about having a willingness to negotiate with other stakeholders and to accept that concessions to others may have to be made. This approach acknowledges that people and groups have the right to have a say in the change. However it does often mean that it will take longer and that the actual outcomes may not match the planned outcomes. A typical example of this would be the involvement of works councils, unions etc in change projects within the car industry both before and during the economic recession.
Educative- Hearts and minds. This involves winning support by changing values so that they support the change and are agreed on a shared set of values. Typically it requires a mixture or sub-set of strategies which could include education, persuasion, training and even selection. Often specialist teams are brought in to assist in the process. The advantages are clearly that, if successful, people are much more likely to be committed and buy into the changes. The disadvantages are that it can take a very long time, could consume huge volumes of resources and will take much, much longer.
Participative- This approach involves those affected by the changes in the whole process. The people tasked with carrying the change forward will probably be those affected by the changes themselves, or at least their representatives. This approach may also require specialist teams brought in from the outside. Because people are involved they are more likely to accept the changes and the involvement of people can help to create a “buzz” and an enthusiasm for the process. Additionally the knowledge and skills of a much broader organisational base can be brought to bear on the planning and implementation plus the people involved in the process will “learn by doing” and this can be an incredibly powerful personal and organisational development tool.
The biggest downside is that this strategy can take a very long time and is much more complex and difficult to manage. As with a negotiating strategy the outcomes will also be much more difficult to predict and the financial costs could be very high.
