Solved by verified expert:The Brisson-Banks (2010) article in the required reading for this unit compares the five different change management models presented in this unit, and it describes various situational variables that could influence the effectiveness of each. Utilizing all of the knowledge accumulated through this and the previous units, write a critique of the article.
Brisson-Banks, C. (2010). Managing change and transitions: A comparison of different models and their commonalities. Library Management, 31(4), 241-252. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/287901868?accountid=33337
In your paper, be sure to include the following:
Evaluate different aspects of organizational change.
Discuss the role that leader vision and organizational climate plays in a change management strategy.
Discuss how effective change initiatives can influence organizational performance.
managing_change_and_transitions.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities
Author: Brisson-Banks, Claire V
Publication info: Library Management ; Bradford Vol. 31, Iss. 4/5, (2010): 241-252.
ProQuest document link
Abstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to analyze the commonalities of various change and transition
models developed over time to assist with and support managing organizational change.
Design/methodology/approach – The article provides an examination of change and transition models
through a review of relevant literature and the comparison of different models. Findings – Each change
and transition model has similar methods of handling change. Their unique methods and strategies
provide additional insights into possible applications to most organizations. In some cases, models could
be combined to form new models to best fit the circumstances of the organization. Practical implications
– This comparison can assist individuals in evaluating and selecting the model based on organizational
need while remembering to focus on both the physical and the emotional changes in an organization.
Originality/value – The article shows that human resource managers can benefit from learning the
commonalities between change and transition models when considering what will work for their
organization in conjunction with the review of a number of well known and relevant models.
Full text:
Introduction
Change is evident everywhere from the simplest everyday changes to the most difficult situations
encountered by human resource (HR) managers as management grapples with reorganizations,
downsizing and/or cutbacks. A crucial factor in the effectiveness of an organization is the ability to adapt
to change ([14] French and Delahaye, 1996). According to [7] Bridges and Mitchell (2000) “Business
conditions change and yesterday’s assumptions and practices no longer work”.
While it may seem uncommon to some, most businesses are told they have to change everything from
the way they think to the way they work ([24] Nortier, 1995). [31] Wagar (2000) provides a bit of history
by reminding us of how downsizing became an obsession in the 1990s, the phrase “lean and mean”
became a primary focus of most businesses at that time. Whether the success of downsizing tactics
worked is not the topic for discussion here, however, the tactics employed at the time are part of this
comparison. Today’s economic crisis has also added the new dimension of change needing to be
immediate instead of over a period of time. Add increased global competition, outsourcing, fast
changing and new technologies and you have a recipe for massive confusion to those involved in such a
volatile environment.
Literature review
When beginning a review of studies surrounding change models, it was discovered that much time and
energy has been devoted to bring about a better understanding of change as it relates to organizations.
While this topic has been looked at from various disciplines, this article will only touch on some of the
many change and transition models, which organizations have to choose from as they work through
their particular organization change.
An awareness of the need for change is the beginning of the whole change process ([1] Armstrong,
2006). A complete assessment of the current situation is necessary to begin the process of
implementing any kind of change in an organization. Unfortunately, this kind of assessment may take
longer than management or stakeholders have if the situation is very serious. What happened to bring
about the need for change? What kind of issues and problems have occurred to bring about this crisis
are questions which need to be answered as this helps to determine the best course of action to follow.
Which change and/or transition model will fit the organization?
Another facet within change models are the individuals involved in working together to implement
change. [30] Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) provide some insights to this element of the equation by
pointing out how “high-performing HR professionals make change happen successfully and thoroughly
with their most critical contribution being to make sure the change happens quickly”. Just how involved
the HR professional has to be for a successful change is up to the organization. There are a variety of
reasons their involvement is imperative to the success of any type of change. Additionally, their
familiarity with the organization’s culture and employees becomes a great asset to the individuals
responsible for organizing changes. This is most significant in a change process as follow through skills
become extremely valuable and adds to the facilitation of all types of organizational change.
Taking a step back to change itself, various studies have revealed additional strategies concerning the
very nature of change and how it relates to organizations. [16] Kanter (1985) relates how organizations
have to be able to adapt to change or face the possibility of losing out to competition. [16] Kanter (1985)
further expounds on how some in top management attempt to force change by just simply dictating it,
changing polices without warning and expecting their middle management to take charge and make the
change work. These experiences reflect how strategic-planning models are only a piece of the change
process, which usually results in some sort of modifications to work with an individual organization.
[8] Burke (2004) looks at where the organizational development field is in 2004, and expresses how
difficult it is to move forward without the knowledge of what is coming. [8] Burke’s (2004) review of
what is now known (in 2004) evaluates change processes and points out some of the change models
which will be covered further in this article. Additionally, change effort is now enhanced with the aid of
training and feedback. [8] Burke’s (2004) comments bring out how any value-based change effort
requires effective leadership and a business structure which includes strategy, mission plans and a
model. When a change model is used in conjunction with the business structure it has a better chance of
success and is part of the eight-step change model from [17] Kotter (1995) where “to work together as a
team united in the vision,” is necessary for success.
[2] Axelrod (2001) reminds us of how change management and models came to the point of unleashing
the power of employees. Previous studies conducted by Kurt Lewin during World War II revealed how
allowing input from employees when changes were needed added to acceptance of the changes with a
bonus of increased productivity. These studies were conducted with surveys and working together to
review the collected data which resulted in better change solutions. [2] Axelrod (2001) further explains
there needs to be a new paradigm involving more people and widening the circle of involvement.
[10] Dannemiller and Norlin (2001) have developed a different approach altogether calling it a wholescale change where the business comes together to connect the collective wisdom of the organization
creating the one brain and one heart methodology. This process brings in individuals from all levels of
the organization to create the alignment needed for success. The additional touch of requiring high
performance brings this model in line with another change model introduced by [25] Quinn (2006).
Following the path of working together, [28] Schein(2004) uses the term “culture” and shows how it is
extremely important to investigate and study the culture of an organization in order to work with them
in a more cohesive manner. This very notion of knowing the culture of the organization is the
responsibility of the leaders in order to determine how to lead or [28] Schein (2004) says the “culture
will lead them” making any change model more difficult to implement.
[13] Evans and Ward (2004) remind us how managers are in the position of needing to “be prepared for
two types of change-planned and imposed”. New managers are under pressure to make a good
impression and feel like they have to implement change correctly and operating under an unexpected or
forced change can cause great difficulties with staff. While change can be risky and is time-consuming,
careful preparation can enhance the process. Managers tackle the situation of how most people do not
enjoy change, but somehow, because change must happen, individuals will adjust over time with the
right people in management.
[4] Beer et al. (1990) conducted studies of change programs with 12 different companies and discovered
how most do not work unless everyone is involved and on board. [4] Beer et al. (1990) determined that
“effective corporate renewal starts at the bottom, through informal efforts to solve problems”. Their
studies revealed how senior officials can be committed to change and have to foster a climate of change
instead of mandating the changes from the top as may have been done in the past. They also discovered
how all departments and mangers need to be involved or the whole process can break down.
Additional organizational change studies were conducted by [12] Dunphy and Stace (1993) to show how
no one model is universally applicable. They point out how “turbulent times demand different responses
in varied circumstances, so managers and consultants need a model of change that is essentially a
situational or contingency model”. [11] Dunphy and Stace (1988) developed a contingency model using a
combination of leadership styles and different types of changes. Identifying the optimum mix of
leadership and change styles, while considering the organization, is what makes the change successful.
[7] Bridges and Mitchell (2000) provide what they call a new model for change. They remind us how,
over the years, a large amount of time and effort has been spent in studying the management of change
and yet it seems to have fallen short in providing the much needed solutions to the economical
situations organizations find themselves in today as they work through a variety of necessary changes
for survival. While change is not an easy or simple process, many still operate today as if it is and fail to
understand why a business is unable to create a plan and follow it through successfully. [7] Bridges and
Mitchell (2000) point out “most leaders imagine that transition is automatic – that it occurs simply
because the change is happening. But it doesn’t”. The human element of change needs to be addressed
for change to be successful.
[19] Kotter and Cohen (2002) have put together a collection of success stories using Kotter’s famous
eight-step change model from 1996 as well as situations which could be considered failures. In the book,
[19] Kotter and Cohen (2002) point out the reasons for success are “[b]ecause their most central activity
does not center on formal data gathering, analysis, report writing, and presentations … instead, they
compellingly show people what the problems are and how to resolve the problems”. It is this kind of
process that goes a long way into creating successful organizational changes. This change model will be
discussed in this article.
Change and transition models
Lewin
One of the earliest change models was developed by Kurt Lewin. According to [9] Burnes (2004) and [1]
Armstrong (2006) this model is referred to as the “3-Step Model” developed in 1947 and referenced in
his Field Theory in Social Science ([21] Lewin, 1951). This model breaks change down into three steps:
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, [1] Armstrong (2006) provides greater detail to this process as
follows:
– Unfreezing – is altering the present stable equilibrium which supports existing behaviors and attitudes.
This process must take account of the inherent threats that change presents to people and the need to
motivate those affected to attain the natural state of equilibrium by accepting change.
– Changing – developing new responses based on new information.
– Refreezing – stabilizing the change by introducing the new responses into the personalities of those
concerned ([1] Armstrong, 2006).
This could be compared to overcoming bad habits by replacing them with new and better habits. The
individual, like an organization, has to be resolved and committed to make the change and do what is
necessary regardless of any inconveniences involved in the process. The end goal is to succeed with the
change.
[9] Burnes (2004) points out that Lewin is one of the early pioneers of group dynamics and how
individuals will usually go along with the group norm whether it is a positive or negative situation or
actions. [1] Armstrong (2006) adds how “Lewin suggests a methodology for analyzing change which is
called ‘field force analyses'” and involves the following:
– Analyzing the restraining or driving forces will affect the transition to the future state; these restraining
forces will include the reactions of those who see change as unnecessary or as a constituting a threat.
– Assessing which of the driving or restraining forces are critical.
– Taking steps both to increase the critical driving forces and to decrease the critical restraining forces
([1] Armstrong, 2006).
How does this apply to an organizational change? [26] Ritchie (2006) sheds some light on how an
organization can apply this to a change situation. The unfreezing is the time process required to prepare
for change, to help the staff accept the coming change, and break down the status quo found through
the evaluation completed leading up to the realization that changes were necessary for survival. This will
force the organization to take a hard and difficult look at their very essence. [26] Ritchie (2004) calls this
a “controlled crisis” which adds the needed motivation to make a change.
Once the change is set in motion, individual workers may have to find new ways to accomplish their
jobs, whether they are the same jobs in new locations or new jobs in the same locations. Once the
workers have accepted these changes they easily support and adjust to the change. In [15] Johnson’s
(1998) Who Moved My Cheese?, the character Haw realizes he needs to move on and accept his
situation making the best of it, while Hem refuses to change and just remains in his same state. This is
often what happens in an organization when certain individuals refuse to accept the changes while
others move on and work through them.
[26] Richie (2004) states refreezing is at the point when there is a new stable organization, people are
accepting the reorganization by working through the new methods and ways of accomplishing daily
tasks. Once this occurs, confidence in the business increases and there is usually a new sense of hope
and the future looks brighter for all in the new organization. It is at this point when refreezing should
take place. A celebration of the new organizations should be held. This allows everyone to feel
appreciated for their part in the success of the change. (Remembering change is cyclical and may have
to be addressed again in the future.)
Beckhard
Richard [3] Beckhard (1969) developed a change program, which incorporates the following processes
(as cited in [1] Armstrong, 2006):
– Setting goals and defining the future state or organizational conditions desired after the change.
– Diagnosing the present condition in relations to these goals.
– Defining the transition state activities and commitments required to meet the future state.
– Developing strategies and action plans for managing this transition in the light of an analysis of the
factors likely to affect the introduction of change.
Depending on the circumstance, an organization may receive the latest quarterly reports and realize
that change is required in order to survive or successfully contend with their existing or future
competition. A business’s staff can work together to plan and implement change using this program.
To breakdown this change program further, [27] Rouda and Kusy Jr (1995) provide Beckhard’s definition
of organizational development; it is “[a]n effort, planned, organization-wide, and managed from the top,
to increase organization effectiveness and health through planned interventions in the organization’s
process, using behavioral-science knowledge”. This explanation provides additional insights in how the
change program can be used in a business setting.
Looking at this change program with this added definition helps to show how it can be applied in a
business or organizational setting when change is imminent. According to [27] Rouda and Kusy Jr (1995),
this model:
[t]akes a long-range approach to improving performance and efficiency in an organization by looking at
the total organization, adding the necessary support from top management by implementing it
themselves along with tying it to the bottom-line. Next apply incremental changes over a period of time
while involving the individuals in the business providing them an opportunity to make a positive
contribution.
Additionally, [23] Marshak (2004) states “The whole idea of planned change assumes, in essence, that it
is possible to determine rationally how to initiate and implement actions to achieve and then maintain a
predetermined, desired future state”. While these steps are not always applied in the correct order,
they all need to happen for change to be successful.
Thurley
A third change model described in [1] Armstrong (2006) was introduced by K. Thurley (1979) and has
five main strategies to managing change: “Directive, bargained, hearts and minds, analytical and actionbased”. Each strategy has advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. The primary starting
point is to recognize the need for change in an organization. An in depth review of each strategy is
valuable when determining if and when there is any commonality with each of the change models
discussed in this article exists and whether access to particular strategies will aid or hinder the success of
the organizational change. Both [1] Armstrong (2006) and [22] Lockitt (2004) provide ample
explanations of each strategy.
– Directive – “the imposition of change in crisis situations or when other methods have failed. This is
done by the exercise of managerial power without consultation” ([1] Armstrong, 2006). “The advantage
here is that change can be undertaken quickly, however, the disadvantage is it does not take into
consideration any views, or feelings, of those involved in the change” ([22] Lockitt, 2004).
– Bargained – “this approach recognizes that power is shared between employer and the employed and
that change requires negotiation, compromise and agreement before being implemented” ([1]
Armstrong, 2006). “[w]illingness by senior managers to negotiate and bargain in order to effect change.
This approach acknowledges that those affected by change have the right to have a say in what changes
are made, with disadvantages being the additional time to effect change” ([22] Lockitt, 2004).
– Hearts and minds – “an all-embracing thrust to change the attitudes, values and beliefs of the whole
workforce. This normative approach seeks commitment and a shared vision but does not necessarily
include involvement or participation” ([1] Armstrong, 2006). This strategy allows “full support of the
changes being made and a shared set of organizational values that individuals are willing and able to
support. Again the advantage is the positive commitment to the changes being made with the
disadvantages being that it takes longer to implement” ([22] Lockitt, 2004).
– Analytical – “a theoretical approach proceeds sequentially from the analysis and diagnosis of the
situation, through the setting of objectives, the design of the change process, the evaluation of the
results and, the determination of the objectives for the next stage in the process” ([1] Armstrong, 2006).
– Action-based …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
