«MICHAIL MAVROMATIS JOHAN OLOFSSON Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Division of Construction Management CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF ...»
7. Consolidating gains and produce more change Use creditability from early wins to change structures, policies and systems that hinders the fulfillment of the vision, develop employees that can implement the vision, strengthen the process by new projects and change agents. Be careful to declare victory too soon.
8. Anchor new approaches in the culture Express the connections between newly developed behaviors and the change success for the organization and create a leadership and leaders that is consistent with the organizations new approach.
Luecke’s (2003) seven steps are:
1. Mobilize energy and commitment through joint identification of business problems and their solutions The starting points for change efforts are to identify what the business problem is and ask the question, why do we have to do this? This question shall lie as foundation for motivation throughout the organization. It is important to convince at least 75% of the managers that the status quo is more dangerous than change, and also to identify the urgency for change, which is necessary for the change to start. Change efforts have to start in the top management, at the board of directors or through the CEO, but then it must permeate down through the organizations levels, creating commitment and motivation for change. It is vital for success that the CEO is an active supporter and not only figuring as a controller. The second part of this step is to develop a solution to the problem, through involvement of the employees.
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness Those in charge of the change process must develop a clear vision that shall provide a clear picture of the desired future. The vision shall be easy to communicate and explain how it improves the business and how these improvements shall benefit employees. An effective vision gets most of the employees ready for, and on the side of, change wherefore it is important that the vision is anchored in the company's core values.
3. Identify the leadership Ensure a visible leader and sponsor of change, someone that owns and leads the change processes. The leader shall act as a champion, assembling resources and takes responsibility for project success or failure. An important aspect of this is to not put the human resources department in charge of the change, since they have know-how about personnel and behaviors, but might lack competence of operation. Also, it is important that the unit undergoing change is responsible for it, and that the unit leader has control and responsibility over the process.
4. Focus on results, not on activities
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2013:120 13 A common mistake made by changing organizations is to focus on measurement and management attention towards soft and long-term activities such as training and team-creation, which supposes to generate desirable results. These activities are said to sound good, look good and allow managers to feel good, but produce little or nothing in terms of bottom-line performance i.e. measurable performance improvements. Therefore, it is important to focus on shortterm wins like measurable performance improvements goals, even though the change program is long-term.
5. Start change at the periphery, then let it spread to other units without pushing it from the top A change process has better odds to succeed if they are initiated in small, and fairly autonomous, groups, wherefore managers shall not try to change the whole organization at once. Instead they shall accomplish change in a small scale and let it be witnessed by employees in adjacent units making the change diffuse throughout the organization.
6. Institutionalize success through formal policies, systems and structures When the objectives of the change are achieved, it is important to institutionalize the success in order to preserve the gains and not let them slip away.
Therefore, the gains must be consolidated through work policies, information systems, new reporting relations and performance measurements that is keeping the organizations focus on the metrics. The goal is to get the employees to concern as much about institutionalizing the changes as with the implementation process itself, reaching continuous improvements.
7. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the change process Leaders and managers must learn that change programs almost never go according to the plan, there are always unexpected problems occurring, both internal as external. A need of flexibility and adaption is important, as well as being prepared to occurring problems, wherefore their change plans must be robust according to schedules, sequences and personnel. This can be done through self-diagnosis after the change, leading to organizational learning.
Oakland and Tanner’s (2007) framework for reinforcement of change is:
1. Gain commitment to change
2. Develop a shared vision of what is needed
3. Define measurable indicators of success
4. Identify critical success factors to move forward
5. Break down success factors into key processes and gain ownership
6. Break down the key processes into sub processes, activities and tasks and form teams around these
7. Monitor and adjust the process as problems arise The steps within the model is similar to those presented in the theories above, wherefore the model is used as a framework that aims to reinforce change and obtain continuous improvements within the organization, as seen in Figure 5.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2013:120 Figure 5 The framework for reinforcement of change as continuous improvements (Oakland and Tanner 2007, pp. 584) Another way at looking at change is described by Senge et al (1999). They state that most change programs fail to deliver despite a high resource allocation, talented managers and the board’s support due to the lack of the organizations ability to learn. Instead, a learning organization is of great importance. An organization that is ready for and accepting changes will welcome change initiatives and by that giving the project a much easier start, that is more likely to deliver project success in the end. Change is initiated through three simultaneously on-going supportive processes which are committed people working with the process, achieving a personal gain for peoples involved and that the whole process shall end in positive results for the organization.
The objective for commitment is to focus on goals rather than on detailed plans. (Ibid) claims that the internal change and evolution is inevitable and depending on the relation between strengthening and limiting elements of the organization. Authority driven change may prove fast and great results in the short run, but to the cost of lower productivity, profitability and morale. These changes will lose momentum, since they are being pushed forward. To make changes not lose momentum, it is suggested that changes shall be learning initiatives, which is based in widespread commitment. Starting in a small scale, which will increase until reaching a large number of peoples and activities where the participants learn from their successes and mistakes. Also, by not being dependent on a single person, the initiative will be self-perpetuating, being more of a cycle of continuous improvements.
2.3.2 Identifying the type and level of the change When planning for the implementation of a change program, one has to identify and diagnose the type and level of change, in order to be able to decide what type of leadership that is most suitable. Balogun and Hope Hailey (2008) have developed a framework for identifying the type of change depending on the level of change, see CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2013:120 15 Figure 6. This framework combines the nature/speed of the change with the extent of the change, explaining what type of change to expect.
Figure 6 Framework for identifying change depending on the nature/speed and the extent of change (Balogun and Hope Hailey 2008, pp. 21) The nature/speed of change identifies how the change is implemented; it ranges from an all-at-once, Big Bang, implementation to a step-by-step incremental implementation. The extent of change ranges from a transformational to realignment, where the transformation entails the changing of the organizations culture while realignment does not.
The different types of change defined are evolution, revolution, adaption and reconstruction. Evolution is a change that is implemented gradually through interrelated activities, likely proactive actions for the need of future changes. Revolution is a change where simultaneous activities are occurring on many fronts, most likely to be forced as a reactive action. Adaption is a change in realignment of how the organization operates, implemented through a series of controlled steps. Reconstruction is like an adaption, but that many actions are implemented simultaneously, often forced by a change in the competitive context.
Balogun and Hope Hailey’s (2007) model is based on the Dunphy and Stace (1993) change matrix, see Figure 7. The Dunphy and Stace model is a bit more extensive than Balogun and Hope Hailey’s model, also taking into consideration the style of change management when defining the type of change.
Figure 7 Identification of change depending on leadership and level of change (Dunphy and Stace 1993, pp.
908) CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2013:120 This model has a contingency approach towards change management, challenging the view of one best way of managing change. It takes into consideration the size of the organization, how big the change is and who will be the recipient of the change program. The Dunphy-Stace model depends upon two factors: the scale, or size, of the change and the involved leadership styles when implementing the change.
The different scales of change are fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation.
The fine-tuning is characterized, as an on-going process where the organizations fit i.e. the match between the organization’s strategy, structure, people and processes are fine-tuned in order to increase the organizations departmental/divisional effectiveness.
For example: refining policies, creating specialist units, fostering commitment or clarifying established roles.
An incremental adjustment is characterized by modifications, or incremental adjustments, of corporate business strategies, structures and management processes in order to adapt to environmental changes. For example: expanding sales territories, improving production processes, articulating modified mission statements or adjustments to the organizational structures.
A modular transformation is characterized by a focus on realignments of departments or divisions rather than at an organizational level. For example: major restructurings of particular departments, changes in key executives, reinforced goals or introductions of new processes.
The corporate transformation is a radical strategic shift of the whole organization where revolutionary changes are found throughout the whole organization. For example: reformed mission and core values, altered power structures, reorganizations i.e.
major changes of structures and processes, revised interaction patterns i.e. new procedures and decision making patterns or new executives in key managerial positions from outside the organization.
The different styles of leaderships during the change are collaborative, consultative, directive and coercive.
The collaborative approach involves widespread employer participation during important decisions.
The consultative approach involves consultation with the employees, where their involvement is limited to their area of expertise or responsibility.
The directive approach involves managerial authority and directing as the main decision making form.
The coercive approach involves executive, managerial or external parties who imposes or forces change of key groups.
Altogether, this leads to four different types and levels of change. These are the participative evolution, charismatic transformation, forced evolution and dictatorial transformation of organizations.
This suggestion of change/leadership approaches can be used to identify which type of leadership approach that is most suitable towards a certain need of organizational change. Higgs and Rowland (2005) have identified four approaches to change management, which support that view, and corresponds with the magnitude of change and CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2013:120 17 how complicated they are to manage. These four approaches are: directive or simple, master or sophisticated, self-assembly or DIY and emergence.
The directive changes is a combination of a one look and straightforward changes, which suggests that the change is driven, controlled, managed and initiated from the top management or a small influential/powerful group. Simple change theories, few targets set, and small range of interventions, tightly controlled communication and where engagement is about control of objectives characterize it.
The master changes are a combination of a one look and complex changes, which suggests that a small group or the top management drives the change. They use complex change theories with a lot of elements, a wide range of interventions, extensive engagement and explicit project management.
The self-assembly changes are a combination of local differentiation and straightforward change, where the directions are tightly set and the accountability for change emerges from local managers. It focuses on capacity or capability development and has strategic direction but local adaption.
The emergent changes are a combination of local differentiation and complex change, relying on few big rules and loosely set directions where change is initiated anywhere in the organization which aims to share the best practices and include new peoples.
Another view of identifying changes is made by Todnem By (2005), who suggests a framework based on the rate of occurrence and how it comes about.
The changes characterized by the rate of occurrence are based on the assumption that change can be discontinuous, incremental, bumpy incremental, continuous and bumpy continuous.