In this continuously evolving business environment, change management should be a process and cannot be viewed as an intermittent project with a beginning and an end
Change is the only constant. This adage cannot be more true in today’s business world as markets, technologies and customer preferences keep shifting. These factors can have a significant impact on internal operations and at some point in time or other, all organisations must grapple with change. However, according to McKinsey and other studies, despite huge investments made by companies in tools, trainings and several publications of about 83,000 books on change management, as much as 70 per cent of change programmes fail to achieve their goals. So, is something wrong with the concept of change management or is it to do with its implementationij
Traditionally, there are several frameworks on change management, like lewin’s change management model, McKinsey’s 7S model, Kotter’s Eight Success Factors, Nudge theory, ADKAR, Bridges Transition Model, Kubler-Ross change curve and the Satir change management model, in addition to the best sellers like, Who Moved My Cheeseij by Johnson Spencer that have guided organisations in their change management journeys.
lewin’s change management model is one of the popular approaches as it splits the change management process into three stages, which account for both the processes and people in any company. lewin describes three stages of change management as Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze.
Upon realising that the company needs to change, the first step is to “unfreeze” the current process and take a look at how things are done. This means an in-depth analysis of every step and human interaction for potential improvements, thereby eliminating any existing bias and commonly accepted mistakes. Unfreezing prepares the company for any upcoming changes and, therefore, reduces natural resistance to it.
Once the company is unfreezed, changes and adaptations can be pursued with proper communication, support and educating/training the team. Once the changes have been deployed, measured, and tweaked according to feedback, “refreeze” the new status quo. This is vital to any change management model — it is pointless if old habits resurface after this huge change management exercise. An organisation can use lewin’s change management model when the business needs to drastically change in order to succeed. However, it could be difficult and time-consuming to enact due to the scale of unfreezing process. It is only worthwhile to pursue if the business requires a complete overhaul.
On the contrary, instead of supporting deep analysis and large shifts, the McKinsey 7S model is good for analysing how coherent a company is. By analysing the following seven aspects of a company and how they affect each other, the model highlights the changes needed to create a united approach to business: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared values, Style, Staff and Skills. The model is best suited for those companies that want to know how they can change for the better. By creating an overview of how coherent and effective the various elements of the company are, one can then go on to analyse the current situation and draft changes to tackle the problem. In other words, this model is great if the organisation doesn’t know where to start, but if the managers are just looking to assess the viability of a specific change, it might be best to use a model which has a smaller scope.
Kotter’s theory is the one of the first approaches that focussed less on the change itself and more on the people behind it, although in a top-down point of view. He developed an eight-step framework in a world of constant turbulence and disruption and suggested a more agile, network-like structure that operates in concert with the traditional hierarchy-based system to form a ‘dual operating system’. By inspiring a sense of urgency for change and maintaining that momentum, Kotter’s theory can be used to great effect in adapting the business to the current climate.
The Nudge theory is odd, in the sense that it really is just a theory: There’s no set change management model but a mindset and tactic, which can be used to frame the changes in a more attractive and effective manner. The basic theory is that “nudging” change along is much more effective than trying to enforce it in a traditional sense. So, instead of telling the employees what to do and how to change, the organisation paves the way for them to choose to do so by themselves. The trick is knowing how to present these nudges.
The ADKAR model (acronym for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement) is a bottom-up method which focuses on the individuals behind the change. It’s less of a sequential method and more of a set of goals to reach. ADKAR is a great model for cutting through any complicated setups and getting straight to the point with how to improve employees’ reaction to change. However, this model severely lacks in terms of a high-level plan. If a manager does not have a set change in mind, it’s best to analyse the company with something like the McKinsey model first.
Bridges model focuses on transition rather than change. While that might seem like a needless difference, this small factor alters the entire way that change management is approached. Change happens to people and this can be considered intrusive. It’s usually pushed despite what the recipient wants and they’re forced to adapt despite their feelings on the issue. Meanwhile, a transition is more of a journey over time than an abrupt alien shift. This makes this model helps in guiding the employees through the reaction and emotions they will encounter when dealing with the changes. It does so by detailing three stages of transition, each of which the employee must be guided through for the change to be successful: Ending, losing, and letting go; the neutral zone; and the new beginning.
This model is best for guiding the organisation through a period of slow improvement or transition. Unfortunately, when it comes to a large-scale change, this model is unable to match up. In other words, this model is fantastic to apply to the core employees, be it managers or the entire team if the organization is small. Beyond that, Bridges’ model can be useful for predicting the general effect of changes in your workforces’ mood and, therefore, productivity.
The Satir model predicts and tracks the effect of changes on overall performance and is made up of five stages: late Status Quo; resistance; chaos; integration and new status quo. Even though there are a number of change management models, there is only a 30 per cent chance that change management in an organisation is successful.
In addition, employee resistance is one of the major challenges in change management. So, is something wrong with the employees or the change management systemij In reality, there has been no proper development of the capacity of managers to actually implement the change management programmes. Outsourcing of the change management process to consultants has been detrimental to the strengthening of managers’ ability to manage change and be accountable for the same. This approach is the single largest determinant of the failure of the change management.
Many large organisations are not comfortable for any changes, as the main focus of organisations are controllability, routinisation, stability and risk-avoidance. How can employees who are used to these habits take to change easilyij Change and stability do not go hand-in-hand and the result will be friction and organisational fatigue.
The traditional top-down approach does not take into account any suggestions from the general employees of the company and change management comes from the top. This needs to be changed to incorporate the ideas of employees. The organisational environment should be open to creativity and divergent thinking.
Critical feedback that endures detection of flaws and continuous learning and adaptation, should be the integral part of the process, otherwise, companies can fail big in their effort to bring about change. And most importantly, change management should be a continuous process and cannot be viewed as an intermittent project, with a beginning and an end.
In this continuously evolving business environment, change management is important. To make it effective, however, there needs to be a core competence of managers. Their role has changed from the ability to complete change projects to design the organisations in a way that enables continuous adaptation to an ever-evolving environment.
(The writer is Assistant Professor,Amity University)
