Strategic Change Management

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.

Executive Summary

Strategic Change Management has become a strategic role of leaders in various organizations. Various business organizations have come to appreciate the need for change and have designed various methods and approaches of managing change.

It has downed on the management that the market competition requires leaders to embrace change and ensure that they are creative in order to manage market competition. The firm should bring all stakeholders on board and each given a role to play in the process of change management and implementation.

The model that firms would use in implementing change is Kurt Lewin Model of unfreeze, change and then freeze. Value based organization is the approach to monitor the implementation of change. The strategies must be implemented in an appropriate time to yield good results.

Introduction

Change is one of the most important factors that an organization must take into consideration when drawing its strategic goals and objectives. Daft (2009, p. 37) simply says that Change is constant. This statement is intriguing yet it is the best philosophical definition of change. The idea that change is constant raises a number of questions.

However, from an analytical perspective, change is always inevitable. Daft argues that change brings nothing new in the organization. It only enhances what is already in existence. McCarthy and Eastman (2010, p. 23) say, “the overarching purpose of change management is to accelerate the speed at which people move successfully through the change process so that anticipated benefits are achieved faster.”

As such, change should not be viewed as a shift from the norm. The only issue is that it brings new methodologies of handling the daily activities. In his book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Henry Mintzberg (1994), reprimanded himself and others for their sightless adherence to the strategic forecast practice.

His disputation rests with the exploration of the authoritative scientific explanation of the future. He demonstrates how planning can asphyxiate obligation, constrict an organization’s dream, make change unfeasible, and lead to the politicization of the affairs of the organization.

His point is based on the principle that analysis is not synthesis. Therefore, strategic planning is not strategy formulation (p. 321). According to this scholar, many managers would agree that change is one of the defining external factors that influence the operations of the organization. The management is always faced with various problems that would demand changes to solve them.

As a starting point, Griffin (2000) classifies the word management as a set of activities, including planning and decision-making, organizing, leading, and controlling, directed at an organization’s resources that is, human, financial, physical, and informational, with the aim of achieving organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner (p. 6).

In the definition, several key concepts are used. Foremost, it is comprehended that management applies uniformly to public, private, nonprofit, and religious organizations. Murphy (2002) was of the view that management is an organizational phenomenon and not exclusive to the world of profit organizations (p. 7).

Implementers of Change

Individuals charged with the responsibility of implementing changes influence the process. As Anderson (2011, p. 16) says, in most companies, the initiators of change are always part of implementers. In this regard, a number of implementers of change exist. Some are discussed in the subsequent sections.

The Management

McGregor (1957) in his book The Human Side of Enterprise stated that the management is severely hampered today in its attempts to innovate with respect to the human side of enterprise. This is due to inadequacy of conventional organizational theory (p. 245).

The management plays a very important role in the implementation of change in the organization. Given its role of co-coordinating and controlling, the unit has the duty of explaining change to employees and directing them on how these change strategies would be addressed.

As such, they have the responsibility of understanding the strategies before explaining them to employees. They are also the financiers of the policies of the organization. They have a role of ensuring that proper finances are allocated towards the implementation of the strategies.

General Employees

Sharma (2008, p. 26) says that employees have the greatest role to play in the implementation of change strategies. They are the implementers of the firm’s strategies. They have a duty of ensuring that they understand the organizational objectives.

They should therefore know how to intertwine the change strategies with the general goals and objectives of the firm. They would receive the policies from the management and implement them in a manner that would generate maximum benefits to the firm’s customers and shareholders.

The Recipients of Change

As explained above, these individuals are neither the initiators nor implementers of change. Recipients of change may not necessarily involve those individuals that do not have a role in the initiation or implementation of change.

According to some scholars, both the initiators and implementers of change may be viewed as the recipients of the change if they are affected by change policies, which is always the case. As such, all stakeholders may be considered recipients of change under different contexts.

The management would be the recipient of change if it affects the general growth of the firm either positively or negatively. The employees would be recipients if the process would result to benefit increment or change of position held in the firm.

Customers would definitely be the recipients through the benefits they would receive from the changed strategies of the firm. The competitors would be recipients if the change would also force them to redefine their own strategies.

The government would be the recipient if the change would result to a downward or upward adjustment of the tax they receive from the firm. The organization as a whole would also be considered a recipient of change.

This is because the organization would be forced to come up with changes in the production levels and styles and the general new product proposition it would assume in the market. The structures would also feel the effects of change.

In every organization, various structures are always put in place to serve various tasks. For instance, the structures put in place at the sales unit would be affected by new changes. The structures may need to be reorganized to reflect the new picture of the firm.

Generally, the entire system would have to be restructured. The new design would have to redefine the relationship of the stakeholders in the organization and the new roles that they would play.

In the implementation process, care should be taken to avoid chaos at all the stages. Chaos can be the most destructive factor in change management. Chaos, as defined in an older dictionary, is a condition of utter disorder and confusion as the unformed primal state of the universe (Funk and Wagnalls, 1940, p. 208).

In a more recent attempt to define the concept, Coveney and Highfield term it as unpredictable and apparently random behavior in dynamic systems (1995, p. 425). In the latter definition, we can see a loosening of the fixed order of the world that was embedded in the first definition.

Such scientists as Newton who accepted a fixed-order world as the ideal of objective knowledge laid the foundation (Prigogine, 1996, p. 2).

A tenet of the Industrial Age was that some grand design of the universe that needed to be discovered existed. However, current writers and thinkers in the area of systems thinking and Chaos Theory argue that no such fixed design exists.

In fact, writers such as Prigogine (1996) now define chaos as the behavior of systems in which close trajectories separate exponentially in time (p. 201). It is therefore the role of everyone to understand the need for change and cooperate in the process of its implementation. This would ensure smooth process of change implementation.

Strategies Available for Change Management

Government Office for the South West (2004, p. 43) state that it is worth recalling what we are trying to achieve. It should be clear to the team why change is important and what it would achieve. There are giant American companies that were brought to their feet due to either the failure to adopt changes that were needed or poor implementation of change.

Whichever the case, the underlying fact is that change is a fixed factor in any organization whose implementation should be done in a conscious manner that would make the firm remain competitive in the market. Rogers Adopters Theory provides the best available strategies for change management.

The categories are as follows:

Innovators

This strategy requires individuals who have a great desire for new ideas. It requires audacity and the willingness to pay the consequences of change. When implemented, the firm would implement changes as soon as they are availed in the business environment.

This strategy would be the best for any organization, but the consequences may outweigh the benefits. As such, many firms shy away from it because of the possible negative consequences. The popularity of this strategy is rated at 2.5 percent.

Early Adopters

Early adoption theory would involve embracing change early enough to be able to reap maximally from it, but after analyzing the consequences that are involved. Early adoption is good, but as innovators, a firm may not have reference to other firms which had implemented the strategy before.

As such, many firms would shy away from it for the fear of the unknown. However, given the nature of many organizations, this would be the best strategy that should be employed by in the process of managing change.

Early Majority

The early majority would adopt change before the average members, but will take precautions by keenly monitoring how the innovators and early adapters were affected by the changes.

Although very popular, this strategy is dangerous to an innovative company, such the Coca Cola Company because by the time it would be implementing the change, it might be too late to be competitive in the market.

Late Majority

Late majority are individuals who appreciate that change is necessary, but would want to evade any negative consequences. They would therefore wait for others to implement change and confirm that the consequences are positive.

They prefer going through the trodden path. This strategy may not work for companies such as Coca Cola because this industry is very dynamic and by taking this approach, it would always be several steps behind market standards.

Laggards

Kratschmer (2011, p. 19) describes this category of individuals as tradition keepers. They would want to maintain status quo, and because of this, they would fight any change in the organization.

This may not be considered a strategy for change management, but passes as one because it seeks to fight change. Those who hold this strategy would always be suspicious of change and all the change agents. This is the worst strategy of change management.

Role of Stakeholders

Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson (2005 p. 2) observe that managing change is tough, but part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what factors influence transformation initiatives. As stated above, the best strategy would be the early adoption. Various stakeholders would have different roles in this strategy.

The management has the duty to understand the concept put forth in the specific change item in order to create awareness among employees. The management is also responsible for funding the entire process of change implementation.

The employees should be flexible enough to adjust to issues concerning change management. They have the responsibility of positively responding to change and ensuring that the policies of change are well taken and are appropriately implemented.

The government, though it may not have direct responsibility, should ensure that the business environment is kept safe.

Top Down Model: System of Change Implementation

A system refers to a collection of different units or subsystems, which work as a unit to accomplish a given objective. Companies such as Coca Cola are made of a system of different stakeholders, each with different duties aimed at ensuring the firm’s strategic goals and objectives are achieved.

The diagram below shows the stakeholders in this system, as well as how they are related.

Stakeholders in the System

As shown in the above diagram, the system involves all the members of the organization in their various capacities. In this system, change would be effected from the top management and the lower cadre employees would be doing the implementation activities.

The system should be well coordinated in a way that no unit will clash with the other in the process of implementation of change strategies. The management must clearly set the overall goals and objectives of the firm. This should be made known to all members of the organization.

The overall objective would be to create a positive differential change to customers. The management would therefore create a system that would act as a wheel. The management, both top and mid level management, would form systems while the junior employees would form subsystems.

In this wheel, the management should transfer a desirable rotation to the employees, which would make them rotate customers in favor of the organization. This is demonstrated in the diagram below.

Employees and Customers Rotation

All members would share the new objectives, which would redefine the mission of the firm. As seen in the case study, the last and very important part is the implementation of the shared mission. The management should identify various teams and assign them different roles that would help accomplish the objective of the organization.

The management should consider developing units in the firm, with each unit having its own specific duties. The stakeholders should fit into the units, with each unit having specified role to play in the overall policy implementation process. The management can also consider having each specific stakeholder assigned his or her own role in the firm. The objective should be achieved within a specified period.

Resistance to Change

In many occasions, change would meet a lot of resistance from those who want to maintain status quo. They would ensure that all efforts are directed towards derailing change. Change can be resisted in a number of ways. The first type of resistance to change may involve adoption of the laggard approach.

Such an individual would try to cling to the traditional ways of operation as much as possible. Another approach may involve refusal to cooperate in the process of working as a system to implement change. The management can also resist change by failing to advocate for the same to employees.

They can also resist change by failing to allocate enough finances for change policies. The best way to manage any form of resistance is to make every member of the organization understand the need for and the urgency with which change is needed.

The management should ensure that all stakeholders are brought on board in the process of implementing change. They should be allowed to share their views and fears about change so that the concerned authorities may address it.

Appropriate Model for Change

A number of models for change are used by various organizations, given different scenarios. Some of the most popular models of change include ADKAR Model for change, Stephen Covey Seven Habits Model, Kubler Ross Stages of Change and Kurt Lewin’s Strategy of Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze.

These strategies are suitable in different scenarios. They have their own advantages and disadvantages that make each most suitable in different applications. Given the scenario of Coca Cola, the best model would be Kurt Lewin’s three staged Model of Change Management of Unfreeze, Change, and then Freeze.

Unfreeze is the first stage where the firm would need to appreciate that given the current market forces, there is need for change. As such, every member of the organization prepares psychologically for a possible change. After unfreezing, the next step is change. The members, having accepted the need for change, would embrace the same and adopt new strategies brought about by change.

The freezing stage, also known as refreezing, involves establishing stability after the adoption of change.

Strategies for Implementation of Change Model

There are measures that should be put in place to ensure that the implementation of change model is successful. The first measure is that there should be a clear procedure of monitoring change. Baekdal, Hansen, Todbjerg and Mikkelsen (2006, p. 7) observe that all models are guidelines.

You should always evaluate the relevance of each individual step vs. your situation and your project. Large projects often demands detailed analysis and documentation, while small projects can be finished with much lesser work. The concerned individuals should know the basis of objectives and goals of the organization.

With this, they should assess the effect of change against what was expected. The second measure is that the implementing parties should have a clear timeline for the achievement of various objectives. There should be regular meetings to review the success of the organization.

Another measure is that the management should set short-term manageable objectives to be achieved within a given timeline. A mechanism through which objectives would be measured should exist.

This way, it would be easy for the management to determine if the implementation process is effective or if some changes might be necessary. Above all, the stakeholders should all be made to appreciate the need for change and the potential benefits that may accrue from the same.

Conclusion

In a business set up, the top management is always under a constant challenge of planning how to manage change. Strategic change management has become one of the strategic duties of a firm. It is considered strategic because it affects the entire firm from the top management to the junior most employees, as well as all the departments of the firm.

Change management is considered strategic because, just like strategic goals and objectives, change should be initiated by the top management of the organization and channeled to other employees of the organization. Older members of the society, especially those that have already used to a certain way of doing things, may not find it easy to shed their normal ways of approaching their duties.

They are used to the normal methods and fear that they may not be in a position to adapt to these changes fast enough and as such would be seen as incompetent. Change must involve all stakeholders in the organization for success to be achieved.

The management must incorporate all its stakeholders and assign them different roles in the process of implementing change. Kurt Lewin’s three staged Model of Change Management of Unfreeze, Change, and then Freeze is the best strategy of implementing change in organizations.

List of References

Anderson, M 2011, Bottom-Line Organization Development: Implementing and Evaluating Strategic Change for Lasting Value, Elsevier, Burlington.

Baekdal, T, Hansen, K, Todbjerg L & Mikkelsen, H 2006, “Handle change management projects more effectively” Change Management Handbook, Vol. 1, no. 27, pp 7-57.

Coveney, P & Highfield, 1995, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World, Fawcett Columbine, New York.

Daft, R 2009, Organization Theory and Design, Cengage Learning, New York.

Government Office for the South West 2004, “Resource Efficiency and Corporate Responsibility: Managing Change, How to Manage Change in an Organization”, Envirowise and Government Office for South West, Vol. 3, no. 11, pp 10-27.

Griffin, R 2002, Management, Houghton Mifflin, Massachusetts.

Kratschmer, P 2011, Organizational Culture is Highly Resistant to Change: Discuss, GRIN Verlag, New York.

McCarthy, C & Eastman, D 2010, “Change Management Strategies for an Effective EMR Implementation,” Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Vol. 1, no. 39, pp 20-41.

McGregor, D 1985, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mintzberg, H 1994, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Management, The Free Press, New York.

Murphy, R 2000, Strategic Management vs Strategic Leadership: Untying the Gordian knot. Published Proceedings, Academy of Administrative Sciences and Business Conference, Vol. 2, no. 2, pp 89-112.

Prigogine, I 1996, The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature, The Free Press, New York.

Sharma, R 2008, Change Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi.

Sirkin, H Keenan, P & Jackson, A 2005, “The Hard Side of Change Management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp 1-18.

Click Here To Order Now!