|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#9
|
General Model of Planned Change
|
|
|
|
General Model of Planned Change
The three theories of planned change in organizations described
above—Lewin's change model, the action
research model, and contemporary adaptations to the action
research model—suggest a general framework
for planned change, as shown in Fig. 10. The framework describes
the four basic activities that practitioners
and organization members jointly carry out in organization
development. The arrows connecting the
different activities in the model show the typical sequence of
events, from entering and contracting, to
diagnosing, to planning and implementing change, to evaluating
and institutionalizing change. The lines
connecting the activities emphasize that organizational change
is not a straightforward, linear process but
involves considerable overlap and feedback among the activities.
Figure: 08
Entering and Contracting:
The first set of activities in planned change concerns entering
and contracting. Those events help managers
decide whether they want to engage further in a planned change
program and to commit resources to such
a process. Entering an organization involves gathering initial
data to understand the problems facing the
organization or the positive opportunities for inquiry. Once
this information is collected, the problems or
opportunities are discussed with managers and other organization
members to develop a contract or
agreement to engage in planned change. The contract spells out
future change activities, the resources that
will be committed to the process, and how OD practitioners and
organization members will be involved. In
many cases, organizations do not get beyond this early stage of
planned change because disagreements
about the need for change surface, resource constraints are
encountered, or other methods for change
appear more feasible. When OD is used in nontraditional and
international settings, the entering and
contracting process must be sensitive to the context in which
the change is taking place.
Diagnosing:
In this stage of planned change, the client system is carefully
studied. Diagnoses can .focus on
understanding organizational problems, including their causes
and consequences, or on identifying the
organization's positive attributes. The diagnostic process is
one of the most important activities in OD. It
includes choosing an appropriate model for understanding the
organization and gathering, analyzing, and
feeding back information to managers and organization members
about the problems or opportunities that
exist.
Diagnostic models for analyzing problems explore three levels of
activities. Organization issues represent
the most complex level of analysis and involve the total system.
Group-level issues are associated with department
and group effectiveness. Individual-level issues involve the way
jobs are designed.
Gathering, analyzing, and feeding back data are the central
change activities in diagnosis. Describes how
data can be gathered through interviews, observations, survey
instruments, or such archival sources as
meeting minutes and organization charts. It also explains how
data can be reviewed and analyzed.
Organization members, often in collaboration with an OD
practitioner, jointly discuss the data and their
implications for change.
Planning and Implementing Change:
In this stage, organization members and practitioners jointly
plan and implement OD interventions. They
design interventions to achieve the organization's vision or
goals and make action plans to implement them.
There are several criteria for designing interventions,
including the organization's readiness for change, its
current change capability, its culture and power distributions,
and the change agent's skills and abilities.
Depending on the outcomes of diagnosis, there are four major
types of interventions in OD:
1. Human process interventions at the individual, group, and
total system levels.
2. Interventions that modify an organization's structure and
technology.
3. Human resource interventions that seek to improve member
performance and wellness.
4. Strategic interventions that involve managing the
organization's relationship to its external
environment and the internal structure and process necessary to
support a business strategy.
Implementing interventions is concerned with managing the change
process. It includes motivating change,
creating a desired future vision of the organization, developing
political support, managing the transition
toward the vision, and sustaining momentum for change.
Evaluating and Institutionalizing Change:
The final stage in planned change involves evaluating the
effects of the intervention and managing the
institutionalization of successful change programs. Feedback to
organization members about the
intervention's results provides information about whether the
changes should be continued, modified, or
suspended. Institutionalizing successful changes involves
reinforcing them through feedback, rewards, and
training. It demonstrates how traditional planned change
activities, such as entry and contracting, survey
feedback, and change planning, can be combined with contemporary
methods, such as large-group
interventions and high levels of participation.
Different types of Planned Change:
The general model of planned change describes how the OD process
typically un-folds in organizations. In
actual practice, the different phases are not nearly as orderly
as the model implies. OD practitioners tend to
modify or adjust the stages to fit the needs of the situation.
Steps in planned change may be implemented
in a variety of ways, depending on the client's needs and goals,
the change agent's skills and values, and the
organization's context. Thus, planned change can vary enormously
from one situation to another.
To understand the differences better, planned change can be
contrasted across situations on three key
dimensions: the magnitude of organizational change, the degree
to which the client system is organized, and
whether the setting is domestic or international.
Magnitude of Change:
Planned change efforts can be characterized as falling along a
continuum ranging from incremental changes
that involve fine-tuning the organization to quantum changes
that entail fundamentally altering how it
operates. Incremental changes tend to involve limited dimensions
and levels of the organization, such as
the decision-making processes of work groups. They occur within
the context of the organization's existing
business strategy, structure, and culture and are aimed at
improving the status quo. Quantum changes, on
the other hand, are directed at significantly altering how the
organization operates. They tend to involve
several organizational dimensions, including structure, culture,
reward systems, information processes, and
work design. They also involve changing multiple levels of the
organization, from top-level management
through departments and work groups to individual jobs.
Planned change traditionally has been applied in situations
involving incremental change. Organizations in
the 1960s and 1970s were concerned mainly with fine-tuning their
bureaucratic structures by resolving
many, of the social problems that emerged with increasing size
and complexity. In those situations, planned
change involves a relatively bounded set of problem-solving
activities. OD practitioners are typically
contracted by managers to help solve specific problems in
particular organizational systems, such as poor
communication among members of a work team or low customer
satisfaction scores in a department store.
Diagnostic and change activities tend to be limited to the
defined issues, although additional problems may
be uncovered and may need to be addressed. Similarly, the change
process tends to focus on those
organizational systems having specific problems, and it
generally terminates when the problems are
resolved. Of course, the change agent may contract to help solve
additional problems.
In recent years, OD has been concerned increasingly with quantum
change. The greater competitiveness
and uncertainty of today's environment have led a growing number
of organizations to alter drastically the
way in which they operate. In such situations, planned change is
more complex, extensive, and long term
than when applied to incremental change. Because quantum change
involves most features and levels of the
organization, it is typically driven from the top, where
corporate strategy and values are set. Change agents
help senior managers create a vision of a desired future
organization and energize movement in that
direction. They also help executives develop structures for
managing the transition from the present to the
future organization and may include, for example, a variety of
overlapping steering committees and
redesign teams. Staff experts also may redesign many features of
the firm, such as performance measures,
rewards, planning processes, work designs, and information
systems.
Because of the complexity and extensiveness of quantum change,
OD professionals often work in teams
comprising members with different yet complementary areas of
expertise. The consulting relationship
persists over relatively long time periods and includes a great
deal of renegotiation and experimentation
among consultants and managers. The boundaries of the change
effort are more uncertain and diffuse than
in incremental change, thus making diagnosis and change seem
more like discovery than like pro
blem
solving.
It is important to emphasize that quantum change may or may not
be developmental in nature.
Organizations may drastically alter their strategic direction
and way of operating without significantly
developing their capacity to solve problems and to achieve both
high performance and quality of work life.
For example, firms may simply change their marketing mix,
dropping or adding products, services, or
customers; they may drastically downsize by cutting out marginal
businesses and laying off managers and
workers; or they may tighten managerial and financial controls
and attempt to squeeze more out of the
labor force. On the other hand, organizations may undertake
quantum change from a developmental
perspective. They may seek to make themselves more competitive
by developing their human resources; by
getting managers and employees more involved in problem solving
and innovation; and by promoting
flexibility and direct, open communication. That OD approach to
quantum change is particularly relevant
in today's rapidly changing and competitive environment. To
succeed in this setting, major multinational
organizations (firms such as General Electric, Kimberly-Clark,
ABB, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola) are
transforming themselves from control-oriented bureaucracies to
high-involvement organizations capable of
changing and improving themselves continually.
Degree of Organization:
Planned change efforts also can vary depending on the degree to
which the organization or client system is
organized. In over organized situations, such as in highly
mechanistic, bureaucratic organizations, various
dimensions such as leadership styles, job designs, organization
structure, and policies and procedures are
too rigid and overly defined for effective task performance.
Communication between management and
employees is typically suppressed, conflicts are avoided, and
employees are apathetic. In under organized
organizations, on the other hand, there is too little constraint
or regulation for effective task performance.
Leadership, structure, job design, and policy are poorly defined
and fail to control task behaviors effectively.
Communication is fragmented, job responsibilities are ambiguous,
and employees' energies are
dissipated because they lack direction. Underorganized
situations are typically found in such .areas as
product development, project management, and community
development, where relationships among
diverse groups and participants must be coordinated around
complex, uncertain tasks.
In over organized situations, where much of OD practice has
historically taken place, planned change is
generally aimed at loosening constraints on behavior. Changes in
leadership, job design, structure, and
other features are designed to liberate suppressed energy, to
increase the flow of relevant information
between employees and managers, and to promote effective
conflict resolution. The typical steps of
planned change — entry, diagnosis, intervention, and evaluation
— are intended to penetrate a relatively
closed organization or department and make it increasingly open
to self-diagnosis and revitalization. The
relationship between the OD practitioner and the management team
attempts to model this loosening
process. The consultant shares leadership of the change process
with management, encourages open
communications and confrontation of conflict, and maintains
flexibility in relating to the organization.
When applied to organizations facing problems in being under
organized, planned change is aimed at
increasing organization by clarifying leadership rules,
structuring communication between, managers and
employees, and specifying job and departmental responsibilities.
These activities require a modification of
the traditional phases of planned change and include the
following four steps.
1. Identification:
This step identifies the relevant people or groups who need to be involved in
the change
program. In many under organized situations, people and
departments can be so disconnected that there is
ambiguity about who should be included in the problem-solving
process. For example, when managers of
different departments have only limited interaction with each
other, they may disagree or be confused
about which departments should be involved in developing a new
product or service.
2. Convention:
In this
step the relevant people or departments in the company are brought together to
begin organizing for task performance. For example, department,
managers might be asked to attend a
series of organizing meetings to discuss the division of labor
and the coordination required to introduce a
new product.
3. Organization:
Different organizing mechanisms are created to structure the newly required
interactions
among people and departments. This might include creating new
leadership positions, establishing
communication channels, and specifying appropriate plans and
policies.
4. Evaluation:
In this
final step the outcomes of the organization step are assessed. The evaluation
might
signal the need for adjustments in the organizing process or for
further identification, convention, and
organization activities.
In carrying out these four steps of planned change in under
organized situations, the relationship between
the OD practitioner and the client system attempts to reinforce
the organizing process. The consultant
develops a well-defined leadership role, which might be
autocratic during the early stages of the change
program. Similarly, the consulting relationship is clearly
defined and tightly specified. In effect, the
interaction between the consultant and the client system
supports the larger process of bringing order to
the situation.
Domestic vs. International Settings:
Planned change efforts traditionally have been applied in North
American and European settings but
increasingly are used outside of those cultures. Developed in
western societies, the action research model
reflects the underlying values and assumptions of these
geographic settings, including equality, involvement,
and short-term time horizons. Under such conditions, the action
research model works quite well. In other
societies, however, a very different set of cultural values and
assumptions may operate and make the
application of OD problematic. For example, the cultures of most
Asian countries are more hierarchical
and status conscious, are less open to discussing personal
issues, more concerned with saving "face," and
have a longer time horizon for results. Even when the consultant
is aware of the cultural norms and values
that permeate the society; those cultural differences make the
traditional action research steps more difficult
for a North American or European consultant to implement.
The cultural values that guide OD practice in the United States,
for example, include a tolerance for
ambiguity, equality among people, individuality, and achievement
motives. An OD process that encourages
openness among individuals, high levels of participation, and
actions that promote increased effectiveness
are viewed favorably. The OD practitioner is also assumed to
hold those values and to model them in the
conduct of planned change. Most reported cases of OD involve
western-based organizations using
practitioners trained in the traditional model and raised and
experienced in western society.
When OD is applied outside of the North American or European
context (and sometimes even within
those settings), the action research process must be adapted to
fit the cultural context. For example, the
diagnostic phase, which is aimed at understanding the current
drivers of organization effectiveness, can be
modified in a variety of ways. Diagnosis can involve many
organization members or include only senior
managers; be directed from the top, conducted by an outside
consultant, or performed by internal
consultants; or involve face-to-face interviews or organization
documents. Each step in the general model
of planned change must be carefully mapped against the cultural
context.
Conducting OD in international settings is highly stressful on
OD practitioners. To be successful, they
must develop a keen awareness of their own cultural biases, be
open to seeing a variety of issues from
another perspective, be fluent in the values and assumptions of
the host country, and understand the
economic and political context of business there. Most OD
practitioners are not able to meet all of those
criteria and adopt a "cultural guide," often a member of the
organization, to help navigate the cultural,
operational, and political nuances of change in that society.
Critique of Planned Change:
Despite their continued refinement, the models and practice of
planned change are still in a formative stage
of development, and there is considerable room for improvement.
Critics of OD have pointed out several
problems with the way planned change has been conceptualized and
practiced.
Conceptualization of Planned Change:
Planned change has typically been characterized as involving a
series of activities for carrying out effective
organization development. Although current models outline a
general set of steps to be followed,
considerably more information is needed to guide how those steps
should be performed in specific
situations. In an extensive review and critique of planned
change theory, Porras and Robertson argued that
planned change activities should be guided by information about
(1) the organizational features that can be
changed, (2) the intended outcomes from making those changes,
(3) the causal mechanisms by which those
outcomes are achieved, and (4) the contingencies upon which
successful change depends. In particular,
they noted that the key to organizational change is change in
the behavior of each member and that the
information available about the causal mechanisms that produce
individual change is lacking. Overall,
Porras and Robertson concluded that the necessary information to
guide change is only partially available
and that a good deal more research and thinking are needed to
fill the gaps.
A related area where current thinking about planned change is
deficient is knowledge about how the stages
of planned change differ across situations. Most models specify
a general set of steps that are intended to
be applicable to most change efforts. We already know, however,
how change activities can vary depending
on such factors as the magnitude of change, the degree to which
the client system is organized, and
whether change is being conducted in a domestic or an
international setting. Considerably more effort
needs to be expended identifying situational factors that may
require modifying the general stages of
planned change. That would likely lead to a rich array of
planned change models, each geared to a specific
set of situational conditions. Such contingency thinking is
sorely needed in planned change.
Planned change also tends to be described as a rationally
controlled, orderly process. Critics have argued
that although this view may be comforting, it is seriously
misleading. They point out that planned change
has a more chaotic quality, often involving shifting goals,
discontinuous activities, surprising events, and
unexpected combinations of changes. For example, managers often
initiate changes without clear plans that
clarify their strategies and goals. As change unfolds, new
stakeholders may emerge and demand
modifications reflecting previously unknown or unvoiced needs.
Those emergent conditions make planned
change a far more disorderly and dynamic process than is
customarily portrayed, and conceptions need to
capture that reality.
Finally, the relationship between planned change and
organizational performance and effectiveness is not
well understood. OD traditionally has had problems assessing
whether interventions are producing
observed results. The complexity of the change situation, the
lack of sophisticated analyses, and the long
time periods for producing results have contributed to weak
evaluation of OD efforts. Moreover, managers
have often accounted for OD efforts with post hoc testimonials,
reports of possible future benefits, and
calls to support OD as the right thing to do. In the absence of
rigorous assessment and measurement, it is
difficult to make resource allocation decisions about change
programs and to know which interventions are
most effective in certain situations.
Practice of Planned Change:
Critics have suggested several problems with the way planned
change is carried out. Their concerns are not
with the planned change model itself but with how change takes
place and with the qualifications and
activities of OD practitioners.
A growing number of OD practitioners have acquired skills in a
specific technique, such as team building,
total quality management, large-group interventions, or gain
sharing and have chosen to specialize in that
method. Although such specialization may be necessary, it can
lead to a certain myopia given the complex
array of techniques that make up modern OD. Some OD
practitioners favor particular techniques and
ignore other strategies that might be more appropriate, tending
to interpret organizational problems as
requiring the favored technique. Thus, for example, it is not
unusual to see consultants pushing such
methods as diversity training, reengineering, organization
learning, or self-managing work teams as solutions
to most organizational problems.
Effective change depends on a careful diagnosis of how the
organization is functioning. Diagnosis
identifies the underlying causes of organizational problems,
such as poor product quality and employee
dissatisfaction. It requires both time and money, and some
organizations are not willing to make the
necessary investment. Rather, they rely on preconceptions about
what the problem is and hire consultants
with skills appropriate to solve that problem. Managers may
think, for example, that work design is the
problem, so they hire an expert in job enrichment to implement a
change program. The problem may be
caused by other factors such as poor reward practices, however,
and job enrichment would be
inappropriate. Careful diagnosis can help to avoid such
mistakes.
In situations requiring complex organizational changes, planned
change is a long-term process involving
considerable innovation and learning on site. It requires a good
deal of time and commitment and a
willingness to modify and refine changes as the circumstances
require. Some organizations demand more
rapid solutions to their problems and seek quick fixes from
experts. Unfortunately, some OD consultants
are more than willing to provide quick solutions. They sell
prepackaged programs for organizations to
adopt. Those programs appeal to managers because they typically
include an explicit recipe to be followed,
standard training materials, and clear time and cost boundaries.
The quick fixes have trouble gaining wide
organizational support and commitment, however, and they seldom
produce the positive results that have
been advertised.
Other organizations have not recognized the systemic nature of
change. Too often they believe that
intervention into one aspect or subpart of the organization will
be sufficient to ameliorate the problems,
and are unprepared for the other changes that may be necessary
to support a particular intervention. For
example, at GTE of California, the positive benefits of an
employee involvement program did not begin to
appear until after the organization redesigned its reward system
to support the cross-functional
collaboration necessary to solve highly complex problems.
Changing any one part or feature of an
organization often requires adjustments in the other parts to
maintain an appropriate alignment. Thus,
although quick fixes and change programs that focus on only one
part or aspect of the organization may
resolve some specific problems, they generally do not lead to
complex organizational change or increase
members' capacity to carry out change.
Case: The Dim Lighting Co.
The Dim Lighting Company is a subsidiary of a major producer of
electrical products. Each subsidiary
division operates as a profit center and reports to regional,
group, and product vice presidents at corporate
headquarters. The Dim Lighting subsidiary produces electric
lamps and employs about 2,000 workers. The
general manager is Jim West, an MBA from Wharton, who has been
running this subsidiary successfully for
the past five years. However, last year the division failed to
realize its operating targets, and profit margins
dropped by 15 percent. In developing next year’s budget and
profit plan, Jim West feels that he is under
pressure to have a good year because two bad years in a row
might hit his long-term potential for
advancement.
Mr. Spinks, Director of R&D
Robert Spinks, director of R&D, was hired by West three years
ago, after resigning from a major
competitor. Mr. Spinks has received a number of awards from
scientific societies. The scientists and
engineers in his group respect his technical competence and have
a high level of morale.
Although Spinks is recognized as a talented scientist, other
managers feel that he is often autocratic, strongwilled,
and impatient. Spins left his former company because management
lacked creativity and innovation
in R&D.
The Proposal
Spinks has submitted a budget request for a major research
project, the micro-miniaturization of lighting
sources so as to greatly reduce energy requirements. He sees
this as the Lamp of the Future. The proposed
budget requires $250,000 per year for two years, plus another
$300,000 to begin production. Jim West
immediately contacted corporate headquarters, and although top
management praised the idea, they were
reluctant to spend on the proposed project. Spinks feels the
project has a 70 percent chance of success, and
will develop a net cash flow of $1 million by the third year.
The Budget Meeting
West called a meeting of his management group to discuss the
proposed budget. Spinks presented a wellreasoned
and high-powered sales pitch for his project. He suggested that
the energy crunch had long-term
implications, and if they failed to move into new technologies,
the firm would be competitively obsolete.
Carol Preston, accountant, presented a financial analysis of the
proposed project, noting the high risk, the
uncertain results, the length of time before it would contribute
to operating profits. “These scientists are
prima donnas, who can afford to wait for long-term results.
Unfortunately, if we don’t do something about
the bottom line right now, we may not be here to enjoy it,” she
noted.
Bill Boswell, production manager, agreed with Preston: “We need
new machinery for our production line
also, and that has a very direct payback.”
Pete Newell, marketing, agreed with Spinks: “I don’t feel we can
put our heads in the sand. If we don’t
keep up competitively, how will our salespeople be able to keep
selling obsolete lighting products? Besides,
I’m not sure that Carol’s figures are completely accurate in
measuring the actual return on this low-energy
project.” A stormy debate followed, with heated arguments both
for and against the project, until West
called the meeting to a halt.
Later, thinking it over in his office, West considered the
situation. Going ahead with the microminiaturization
project was a big gamble. But if he decided against it, it was
quite possible that .Spinks
would resign, which would shatter the R&D department he had
worked so hard to assemble.
Case Analysis Form
Name: ____________________________________________
I. Problems
A. Macro
1. ____________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________
B. Micro
1. _____________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________
II. Causes
1. _____________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________________
III. Systems affected
1. Structural ____________________________________________
2. Psychosocial __________________________________________.
3. Technical ______________________________________________
4. Managerial _____________________________________________
5. Goals and values __________________________________________
IV. Alternatives
1. _________________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________
V. Recommendations
1. _________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________
Case Solution: The Dim Lighting Co.
I. Problems:
A. Macro
1. Will Dim Lighting be reactive?
2. Will Dim Lighting be proactive?
B. Micro
1. Will Jim West be influenced by thoughts of what a second year
of un-obtained targets will do to
his career in making this budget decision?
2. West feels threatened every time Spinks does not receive his
demands or “wish list.”
II. Causes:
1. Previous unprofitable year.
2. Spinks’ past history of leaving a company that “lacked
creativity and innovation”.
III. Systems affected:
1. Structural – the structure is a traditional functional
structure. This may not encourage the
development of new products and ideas.
2. Psychosocial – other departments feel threatened by Spinks.
Also, Jim West feels he is under
pressure to improve the profit margins immediately.
3. Technical – both the production manager and Spinks want money
to upgrade technical
aspects of the company.
4. Managerial – West feels caught between being innovative and
trying to improve the bottom line
immediately.
5. Goals and values – corporate headquarters does not seem to
value risk taking and moving into
new projects. If their rejection of the lighting proposal is
indicative of their decisions, the company
as a whole may become entrenched in old technology.
IV. Alternatives:
1. Before making a budget decision, West should contact
corporate offices to see if additional
funds are available for R&D. Spinks’ project would have a
long-term effect on entire industry and
possibly the parent company would contribute to the R&D project.
2. If additional funds are unavailable, the budget committee
needs to make some compromises
and come to a consensus-it should not be an all-or-nothing
proposition. Funds should be allocated for
both R&D and for upgrading essential equipment.
3. West should also ask the accountant, Preston, to make a
three-tiered analysis of the project: (1)
best-case scenario, (2) worst-case scenario, and (3) probable
scenario.
4. West also needs to resolve his mixed feelings about the
possibility of Spinks leaving. West needs
to approach Spinks, praising him for what he has accomplished in
the R&D department and asking
him to help spread that high degree of morale across the
company. West needs to make Spinks an ally
rather than a potential deserter.
V. Recommendations:
1. First try to obtain additional funds from parent company.
2. If additions are not available, obtain a consensus from the
budget committee. Compromises will
have to be made on length of time for R&D projects, what
equipment is needed, etc.
|
|
|
|
|