Imperial Law Firm Change Management Plan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Change Management Plan Analysis for Imperial Law Firm
Change Management Plan Evaluation
Change Process
Outcome Analysis
Recommendations for Future Change Management Initiatives
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Change management can be said to be a structured shift of individuals and organizations from a current operating state to a future desired state. Change management plan can therefore be said to be a process aimed at aiding employees, management, stakeholders and the organization at large to embrace and cope with changes before and after its implementation in their work places (Cummings & Worley, 2006).

Two people who have greatly contributed to the development of change management process are John M. Fisher and John Kotter. These individuals have developed change management models.

The John M. Fisher theory seeks to address how peoples tend to respond to change and also identifies eight key stages that people go through upon introduction of the change. The John Kotter’s change model on the other hand seeks to identify key steps needed to make change successful (Filicetti, 2007).

This paper focuses on Imperial Law Firm, an organization that has just shifted from a past paper filing system to a computerized one. The firm’s management chooses to interlink both the John M Fisher and the John Kotter models of change management plan to help their staff go through the change process in the smoothest way possible (Filicetti, 2007).

They held a view that Fisher’s model would help the change management agent understand the people’s feelings while Kotter’s model would provide key steps necessary for the change to be effective and successful.

Change Management Plan Analysis for Imperial Law Firm

Change is inevitable and all should be ready to embrace it whenever it arises. Any organizational change is aimed at improving the prevailing conditions and the performance of the organization (Phillips, 1983). Change should therefore aid an organization to cope with developing trends of competitors as is the case with Imperial Law Firm.

Communication is also an important aspect of a change management plan (Fisher, 2005). Leaders should communicate their vision honestly to their juniors and also point out the benefits of doing so. John Fisher in his model insists that change should not be imposed on people.

It is therefore vital that the change agent listens to the people to understand their fears and concerns with regard to the change. The change agent together with the management of Imperial Law Firm discussed with their employees the importance of using a computerized filing system as compared to the paper filing system

Fisher’s model also emphases that Training of workers prior to implementing the change equips them with skills to enable them work efficiently even after effecting of the changes. The Imperial Law Firm thus contracted a local computer college to provide in-service training for the employees.

It is cheaper to train the existing workers rather than hiring new ones (Marshak, 2005). This boosts the people’s confidence that they are ready and that they will be able to cope and withstand the changes with time.

John Kotter in his model states that a good change management plan should also evaluate future expectations bound to arise as a result of introduction of the change.

Imperial Law Firm evaluated the performance of their current systems and those intended to be put in place and after careful considerations, all the stakeholders came to an understanding that a computerized system was beneficial to the organization as opposed to the old filing system. Through this evaluation, even the workers would be more convinced that the change was for the good of the firm (Marshak, 2005)

Change Management Plan Evaluation

John M Fisher in his theory holds a view that the change agent should embrace dialogue with the people to try and reason with them and the changes should only be implemented ones everyone is ready (Fisher, 2005). The change agent spearheading change should not be in a hurry to implement the change. The change agent should lead the people step by step for the change to be successful.

John Kotter in his models states that a good change management plan should ensure vigilance by the change agent and the leaders. Leaders should be able to command respect from their juniors so as to realize full implementation of the change (Fisher, 2005).

The Imperial Law Firm management should keep track of the implementation. Leaders’ having embraced the change makes it easier for their juniors to follow suit and embrace computerization.

It is also important to evaluate the expected change and its worth. Change will considerably influence workflow and also impact on the people in the new system. The management of Imperial Law Firm with the assistance of the change agent should scrutinize the change plan and its implications before implementation.

They change agent should also acknowledge that it might not be possible to help everyone move through the change (Kotter, 2011). Kotter in his theory acknowledges that some people go through the change process with ease more than others.

Change Process

Upon adequate preparation, an organization can go ahead and implement the change (Kotter, 2011). Patience is important during the transition process. It is also important to note that people should be involved in the change and not change imposed on them.

Imperial Law Firm was transparent in an attempt to lobby the employees to embrace the change. Fisher in his theory acknowledges that the people facing the change will first be faced with anxiety. In this stage, no one really knows what the future holds for them.

The anxiety stage will soon be followed with a stage of happiness. Factors that catalyzed the change should also be put into sharp focus so as not to get off track. Fisher however acknowledges that this state is short-lived and soon the people move to the next stage is fear (Kotter, 2011).

People will strive to resist the change afraid of the life ahead and the negative effect the change will have on them. The people working in the Imperial Law Firm are not sure what the future holds and this makes them prefer to remain in their previous working conditions.

John M Fisher in his theory also points out that this state of fear will be closely followed with the state of threat. The change agent handling the change in the Imperial Law Firm should be patient and acknowledge that the hostility and resistance is normal and give the people time to move on through the changes (Fisher, 2005).

Fisher also states in his theory that the threat stage will also be succeeded by a stage of guilt and disillusionment.

Fisher attributes this guilt and disillusionment to the workers past experiences in their work place. Some people feel that past failures in their work place will actually cost them after the implementation of the change. This state soon brings up a state of depression and hostility.

Fisher attributes this state to a variety of issues such as culture and the social impact the change will have on the people. Many people belonging from the older generation may view change as a risk (Marshak, 2005). Dialogue was employed to bring about acceptance of the change.

John Kotter in his theory states that the change agent should however employ certain measures to try and change this turn of events. The change agent should try and create a sense of urgency among the people (Cummings & Worley, 2009). The change agent in the Imperial Law Firm acknowledge the possibility that he or she is not able to help everyone trough the change.

John Kotter in his theory also states that the people should be empowered to act on the vision. The change agent should spend more time working with those people who are quick moving and appreciate the change. These people help others to reach a similar view. This will in turn lead to gradual acceptance by the people. This stage marks a turning point in the change process.

Short term wins should be set to divide the change process into achievable short term goals (Anderson & Anderson, 2001).The change agent in the Imperial Law Firm sets short term goals and strives to push the team to achieve them. This will boost the people’s morale to implement the change.

Fisher’s theory states moving forward as the final stage of change in change management. During this stage, the change agent should consolidate improvements and consolidate more change. New approaches should also be institutionalized to speed up the process.

People should also be closely monitored to help them not slip back to their old habits of doing things. The change agent at the Imperial Law Firm should remain there even after the full implementation of the change to ensure that the changes actually become part of the firm’s culture (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Outcome Analysis

The outcomes of a change management plan greatly depend on the implementation process (Phillips, 1983). The change agent at Imperial Law Firm was finally able to effect the new changes with few hurdles.

Combining both the John M Fisher and John Kotter’s theories proved to be quite effective. Through computerization, the organization can now manage data and workers are proud of the change they themselves have overseen (Kotter, 2011).

Recommendations for Future Change Management Initiatives

For an organization intending to make future changes, dialogue should be given the first priority (Whelehan, 1995). The new change should win over the hearts of the majority. Imperial Law Firm evaluated past position and where it intended to be upon effecting the change. It is important to come up with achievable changes so as not to stifle the workers’ morale (Filicetti, 2007).

The success of the change process in the Imperial Law Firm can be attributed to the use of sound change management plan theories, the John M Fisher’s and the John Kotter’s theories. These theories give guide lines to an organization on hoe to smoothly go through the change process (Marshak, 2005).

Conclusion

Change is inevitable in contemporary organizations. It is normally initiated to improve the prevailing conditions. Change should not be imposed upon people. Instead, they should be consulted to develop a positive attitude towards it as illustrated by the Imperial Law Firm management.

Change can at times upset those whose jobs are threatened. Such people should be treated with respect to prevent a possible fall out. Change should be expected and embraced (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

References

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2001). Beyond change management: Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders. New York: Free Press.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley C. G. (2009). Organisation and change. Organization, Development and Change, 3 (9): 123-143.

Filicetti, J. (2007). Project management manual. London: PM Hut.

Kotter, J. (2011). Change management vs. change leadership — What’s the difference? International Journal of Management, 2 (8): 168-177.

Marshak, R. J. (2005). Contemporary challenges to the philosophy and practice of organizational development. London: Harvard University Press.

Phillips, J. R. (1983). Enhancing the effectiveness of organizational change management. Human Resource Management, 2 (6): 132-167.

Whelehan, S. (1995). Capturing a moving target: Change management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, J.M. (2005). A time for change. Human Resource Development International, 8 (2): 257-264.

Click Here To Order Now!