ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT For organizations, the last decade has been fraught with restructurings, process enhancements,

mergers, acquisitions, and layoffsall in hopes of achieving revenue growth and increased profitability. While the external environment (competitive, regulatory, and so on) will continue to play a role in an organization's ability to deliver goods and services, the internal environment within the organization will increasingly inhibit it from delivering products required to meet the demands of the marketplace unless it is able to adapt quickly. The major areas of changes in a company's internal environment include: Strategic: Sometimes in the course of normal business operation it is necessary for management to adjust the firm's strategy to achieve the goals of the company, or even to change the mission statement of the organization in response to demands of the external environments. Adjusting a company's strategy may involve changing its fundamental approach to doing business: the markets it will target, the kinds of products it will sell, how they will be sold, its overall strategic orientation, the level of global activity, and its various partnerships and other joint-business arrangements. Structural: Organizations often find it necessary to redesign the structure of the company due to influences from the external environment. Structural changes involve the hierarchy of authority, goals, structural characteristics, administrative procedures, and management systems. Almost all change in how an organization is managed falls under the category of structural change. A structural change may be as simple as implementing a no-smoking policy, or as involved as restructuring the company to meet the customer needs more effectively. Process-oriented: Organizations may need to reengineer processes to achieve optimum workflow and productivity. Process-oriented change is often related to an organization's production process or how the organization assembles products or delivers services. The adoption of robotics in a manufacturing plant or of

laser-scanning checkout systems at supermarkets is examples of process-oriented changes. People-centered: This type of change alters the attitudes, behaviors, skills, or performance of employees in the company. Changing people-centered processes involves communicating, motivating, leading, and interacting within groups. This focus may entail changing how problems are solved, the way employees learn new skills, and even the very nature of how employees perceive themselves, their jobs, and the organization. Some people-centered changes may involve only incremental changes or small improvements in a process. For example, many organizations undergo leadership training that teaches managers how to communicate more openly with employees. Other programs may concentrate on team processes by teaching both managers and employees to work together more effectively to solve problems. Remember that strategic, structural, process-oriented, and people-centered changes occur continuously in dynamic businesses. Often, changes in one of these areas impact changes in the other areas. Many employees believe that a change is often reactive and nothing more than a quick fix; then they brace themselves for more changes in the future. Management needs to realize that serious underlying problems in organizations must be addressed with longterm consequences in mind. Thus, when management implements changes, careful thought must be given to ensure that the new processes are for the long-term good of the company. Major Types of Organizational Change Typically, the phrase organizational change is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in terms of various dimensions as described below. Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or rightsizing. Usually, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to one that has a more stable and planned development. Experts assert that successful organizational change requires a change in culture cultural change is another example of organization-wide change. Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver products or services. Transformational Versus Incremental Change An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an organizations structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a large amount of self-directing teams. Another example might be Business Process Reengineering, which tries to take apart (at least on paper, at first) the major parts and

processes of the organization and then put them back together in a more optimal fashion. Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change. Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize the change as such. Remedial Versus Developmental Change Change can be intended to remedy current situations, for example, to improve the poor performance of a product or the entire organization, reduce burnout in the workplace, and help the organization to become much more proactive and less reactive, or address large budget deficits. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because the problem is solved or not. Change can also be developmental to make a successful situation even more successful, for example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or services. Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those goals. Some people might have different perceptions of what is a remedial change versus a developmental change. They might see that if developmental changes are not made soon, there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial issues and then establish a developmental vision to address the issues. In those situations, projects are still remedial because they were conducted primarily to address current issues. Unplanned Versus Planned Change Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise. Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude. Note that planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants. Causes of Organizational Change This is a time of unprecedented change in our society. The changes one experiences are happening at faster and faster rates. As examples, the telephone, radio, TV, and microwave weren't even in use decades ago, and today these gadgets are commonplace, along with the computer, Internet, and fax machine. In just a few months, the technology that an organization uses on an everyday basis may be outdated and replaced. That means an organization needs to be responsive to advances in

the technological environment; its employees' work skills must evolve as technology evolves. Organizations that refuse to adapt are likely to be the ones that won't be around in a few short years. If an organization wants to survive and prosper, its managers must continually innovate and adapt to new situations. Every organization goes through periods of transformation that can cause stress and uncertainty. To be successful, organizations must embrace many types of change. Businesses must develop improved production technologies, create new products desired in the marketplace, implement new administrative systems, and upgrade employees' skills. Organizations that adapt successfully are both profitable and admired. Managers must contend with all factors that affect their organizations. The following lists internal and external environmental factors that can encourage organizational changes:

The external environment is affected by political, social, technological, and economic stimuli outside of the organization that cause changes. The internal environment is affected by the organization's management policies and styles, systems, and procedures, as well as employee attitudes.

Typically, the concept of organizational change is used to describe organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, and so on. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations (for example, restructuring to self-managed teams or due to layoffs), new technologies, mergers, or new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, and so on. Managers should note that all changes should be implemented as part of a strategy to accomplish an overall goal; these transformations should not take place just for the sake of change. Reasons why People Resist Change 1. The risk of change is seen as greater than the risk of standing still 2. People feel connected to other people who are identified with the old way 3. People have no role models for the new activity 4. People fear they lack the competence to change 5. People feel overloaded and overwhelmed 6. People have a healthy skepticism and want to be sure new ideas are sound 7. People fear hidden agendas among would-be reformers 8. People feel the proposed change threatens their notions of themselves 9. People anticipate a loss of status or quality of life 10. People genuinely believe that the proposed change is a bad idea

Managing or overcoming resistance to change

There are three basic elements in creating successful change:

1. The desire to change 2. The ability to change 3. The permission to change (for those in organizations) 1. The Desire to Change Most humans will not change their beliefs, habits, or behaviors unless they are motivated to do so. Most will not change, even if change is for the better, unless there is come compelling reason. As long as the perceived rewards of staying as we are remain greater than the rewards of changing, we will likely stay as we are. Or, conversely, as long as the perceived risks of changing are greater than the risks for staying the same, we will be unlikely to change.

Of the three elements required for change, the bias is that desire is most important. Little happens if there is no real motivation to change. And strong motivation frequently makes up for shortcomings in the other two. A central question, then, is how do we create this desire to change? Awareness First we must create awareness of the need to change. What are the compelling reasons to move away from the familiar and comfortable and move to something different and perhaps uncomfortable? In today's competitive world economy, more and more people are becoming aware of the need for improving the way or organizations work. However, if we really want to turn up the heat on change, we must discuss internally the specific challenges facing our organization. Who is our competition? What are they doing? What new products and services are they adding? Is the market for our product or service expanding or contracting? What are our costs and revenues per employee versus our competitions? Will our products be subject to new environmental controls? What will rapidly expanding telecommunications technology mean to us and our existing work processes? Can we reduce our overhead expenses to match those considered best in our industry? Could we really become "paperless?" How could we reduce our basic work process by 10 steps this month? How could we improve turnaround time by 90%? It is my opinion that the more profitable an organization is, the more creative it must be in creating the appropriate challenge. One organization I worked with wanted to increase the rate of implementation of employee involvement, which for several years had been painfully slow. The company was old, well established in its market, and experiencing continued earnings growth. What, I asked myself, would provide some motivation for these people to move forward?

By chance, I came across an article discussing one of their strongest competitors. The article related performance data of the competitor showing, for example, that its revenues per employee were twice that of my client! I shared this information with the management team and they were shocked by the numbers. They could now see the potential threat posed by a competitor with such strong financial performance. In this case, the risk of inaction became a greater motivator than the discomfort of changing to a participative style of management.

Again, the purpose of these strategies is to create some discomfort or dissatisfaction with the status quo--a realization that to stay as we are is more of a threat than to move forward with new concepts. The above strategies make one major assumption, however, and that is that management is not already destroying employee motivation and allegiance with destructive dictates and mandates. For example, those organizations prone to laying off employees at the first sign of financial weakness will find it difficult, if not impossible, to implement and sustain any form of participative management. A layoff as a first alternative to cost reduction contradicts the notion of participative management. Employees will find it hard to commit fully to the organization and its mission, goals, and ideals. 2. The Ability to Change If the motivation for change exists, then people will need some assistance developing the skills to change. Ignorant of the dynamics of human behavior, we assume that once people understand the need for change, they will miraculously move in that direction. However, what hold us back is our ingrained beliefs and resulting behaviors. For example, I may want to become a participative manager but all my previous training has conditioned me to be controlling and directive and, clearly, the decision maker. And down deep inside, I might really have doubts about this employee involvement stuff. To change my beliefs and ultimately my behaviors significantly, I will need some help. Because our prior training and conditioning is such a significant barrier to our ability to change, we need to take some very proactive steps (such as the strategies listed above). Our learned behavior is like a spring that pulls us back to a comfortable position whenever we stretch a little too far. Breaking free of that spring is difficult, but possible, if we take conscious actions that eventually replace the old behaviors with new ones.

3. The Permission to Change Finally there is the issue of permission. When a change is personal, we only have to give

ourselves permission to change. But when the change is in an organizational context, permission must be granted by those in power. I may have the desire to change, and I may have the knowledge and ability to change. But if I work in an environment that doesn't enable me to change, very little will happen. Desire and ability are there, but permission is not.

HRs role in change management People management and development professionals have significant role to play in any change management process. HRs involvement in certain areas was identified as sometimes being the difference between successful and less successful projects: * Involvement at the initial stage in the project team. * Advising project leaders in skills available within the organisation identifying any skills gaps, training needs, new posts, new working practices etc * Balancing out the narrow/short-term goals with broader strategic needs. * Assessing the impact of change in one area/department/site on another part of the organisation. * Being used to negotiating and engaging across various stakeholders. * Understanding stakeholder concerns to anticipate problems. * Understanding the appropriate medium of communication to reach various groups. * Helping people cope with change, performance management and motivation. Kurt Lewins Force field analysis Force field analysis provides useful background and a practical tool for assessing the case for change a necessary precursor for the creation and implementation of a change management initiative. Force field analysis is the creation of the American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, widely regarded as one of the early 20th century founders of modern psychology, who developed the change model - known as "Lewin's Freeze Phases" - and which still forms the underlying basis of many change management theories models and strategies for managing change. According to Kurt Lewin's force field analysis: "An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)". In Lewins view, organizations can be seen as systems in which the current situation is not a static pattern, but rather an "equilibrium" - or dynamic balance of forces working in opposite directions. Thus, any change that may occur is dependent on a shift in this balance or equilibrium where the driving forces need to exceed the restraining forces.

Force field analysis provides a framework for looking at the factors or forces that influence a potential change situation. Lewins freeze model suggests that change involves a move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo -and all this via a three-stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing and re-freezing. UNFRFEEZE----------------------------------------CHANGE-------------------------------REFREEZE The freeze change model recognizes that people like the safety, comfort and feeling of control within their environment. It also recognizes that they derive a strong sense of identity from their environment. At the unfreezing stage, the right environment should be created, whereas at the change stage, there should be enough support for the desired state and at the refreezing stage there is need for a reinforcement to anchor and safeguard change. Thus change is threatening to that status quo and causes discomfort. Lewin regarded this status quo as a 'frozen' state and suggested that significant effort may be required to 'unfreeze' them in order to get them to change. Unfreeze This first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is necessary, which involves break down the existing status quo before you can build up a new way of operating. Key to this is developing a compelling message showing why the existing way of doing things cannot continue. This is easiest to frame when you can point to declining sales figures, poor financial results, worrying customer satisfaction surveys, or suchlike: These show that things have to change in a way that everyone can understand. To prepare the organization successfully, you need to start at its core you need to challenge the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that currently define it. Using the analogy of a building, you must examine and be prepared to change the existing foundations as they might not support add-on storeys; unless this is done, the whole building may risk collapse. This first part of the change process is usually the most difficult and stressful. When you start cutting down the way things are done, you put everyone and everything off balance. You may evoke strong reactions in people, and thats exactly what needs to done. By forcing the organization to re-examine its core, you effectively create a (controlled) crisis, which in turn can build a strong motivation to seek out a new equilibrium. Without this motivation, you wont get the buy-in and participation necessary to effect any meaningful change.

In order for the Kenya government to achieve the vision 2030, one of its strategic changes that are currently being implemented is the structural change which started by instilling a need to Kenyans that they should discard the status quo and embrace a new dawn. Through civic education and campaigns, Kenyans were convinced about the need for change and despite the forces that were against the proposed change, the new order was greeted with great enthusiasm.

Change After the uncertainty created in the unfreeze stage; the change stage is where people begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things. People start to believe and act in ways that support the new direction. The transition from unfreeze to change does not happen overnight: People take time to embrace the new direction and participate proactively in the change. In order to accept the change and contribute to making the change successful, people need to understand how the changes will benefit them. Not everyone will fall in line just because the change is necessary and will benefit the company. This is a common assumption and pitfall that should be avoided.

Unfortunately, some people will genuinely be harmed by change, particularly those who benefit strongly from the status quo. Others may take a long time to recognize the benefits that change brings. Managers need to foresee and manage these situations.

Time and communication are the two keys to success for the changes to occur. People need time to understand the changes and they also need to feel highly connected to the organization throughout the transition period. When you are managing change, this can require a great deal of time and effort and hands-on management is usually the best approach. When the new constitution was promulgated in August last year, both the forces that were against the change and those that were for it embraced and supported the change. This is characterized by the strong adherence Kenyans to the new constitution.

Refreeze When the changes are taking shape and people have embraced the new ways of working,

the organization is ready to refreeze. The outward signs of the refreeze are a stable organization chart, consistent job descriptions, and so on. The refreeze stage also needs to help people and the organization internalize or institutionalize the changes. This means making sure that the changes are used all the time; and that they are incorporated into everyday business. With a new sense of stability, employees feel confident and comfortable with the new ways of working. The rationale for creating a new sense of stability in our every changing world is often questioned. Even though change is constant in many organizations, this refreezing stage is still important. Without it, employees get caught in a transition trap where they arent sure how things should be done, so nothing ever gets done to full capacity. In the absence of a new frozen state, it is very difficult to tackle the next change initiative effectively. How do you go about convincing people that something needs changing if you havent allowed the most recent changes to sink in? Change will be perceived as change for changes sake, and the motivation required to implement new changes simply wont be there. As part of the Refreezing process, make sure that you celebrate the success of the change this helps people to find closure, thanks them for enduring a painful time, and helps them believe that future change will be successful. It has now become business as usual when as we watch people being vetted for the top jobs in the country in public. Before August last year the Status quo was that the president was appointing top civil servant unilaterally, the current status quo is that the top jobs must vetting is a rigorous process subjected to public scrutiny. The change process Analysis Unfreeze 1. Determine what needs to change

Survey the organization to understand the current state Understand why change has to take place.

2. Ensure there is strong support from upper management

Use Stakeholder Analysis and Stakeholder Management to identify and win the support of key people within the organization Frame the issue as one of organization-wide importance.

3. Create the need for change

Create a compelling message as to why change has to occur Use your vision and strategy as supporting evidence Communicate the vision in terms of the change required Emphasize the why.

4. Manage and understand the doubts and concerns

Remain open to employee concerns and address them in terms of the need to change.

Change 1. Communicate often

Do so throughout the planning and implementation of the changes Describe the benefits Explain exactly the how the changes will affect everyone Prepare everyone for what is coming.

2. Dispel rumours

Answer questions openly and honestly Deal with problems immediately Relate the need for change back to operational necessities.

3. Empower action

Provide plenty of options for employee involvement Have line managers provide daytoday direction.

4. Involve people in the process

Generate short-term successes to reinforce the change

Negotiate with external stakeholders as necessary (such as employee organizations).

Refreeze 1. Anchor the changes into the culture

Identity what supports the change Identify barriers to sustaining change.

2. Develop ways to sustain the change

Ensure leadership support Create a reward system Establish feedback systems Adapt the organizational structure as necessary.

3. Provide support and training

Keep everyone informed and supported.

4. Celebrate success. Summary Lewins change model is a simple and easy-to-understand framework for managing change. By recognizing these three distinct stages of change, you can plan to implement the change required. You start by creating the motivation to change (unfreeze). You move through the change process by promoting effective communications and empowering people to embrace new ways of working (change). And the process ends when you return the organization to a sense of stability (refreeze), which is so necessary for creating the confidence from which to embark on the next, inevitable change.