Different Types of Evaluation
There are a lot of methods and techniques, which let leaders and managers evaluate the effectiveness of the change they implement. Key Performance Indicators (or KPIs) are probably the most efficient ones. Key Performance Indicators present the information in the form of measurable variables and demonstrate the success of a company or a group in achieving particular objectives. Measuring the same values before the change implementation and then regularly during it, leaders can compare the results and make a conclusion about the progress or regress of the team. KPIs are different for every team and every task.
For the same purpose, graphics, schemes, and diagram can be used. Just like KPIs, they are able to transform the information into quantitative values and enable leaders to make an analysis.
Quantitative Methods versus Qualitative Ones: How to Choose?
The primary aim of every method of evaluation described above is to provide quantitative data. It is easy to comprehend and useful for the further analysis. However, it is usually not enough. Let us consider the following situation. Gholami, Parsa, Shalviri, Sharifzadeh, and Assasi (2005), conducted a study aimed to find out the percentage of people who had the adverse effects while taking anti-infective drugs. They saved only quantitative data, which showed that 38 out of 460 patients complained about side reactions, 20 (42%) of those reactions were severe, and the majority of them were induced by antifungal and antituberculosis agents (Gholami et al., 2005).
However, that information is not enough. The side effects of anti-infectives vary widely. How many people had stomach upset or nausea? Who complained about rashes, breath shortages? What patients had comorbidities, which could affect the results of the research? All of those nuances should be taken into consideration, and that is why qualitative methods are necessary. The prime examples of those are the individual and group interviews and observations.
To conclude, before choosing between quantitative and qualitative methods, managers should determine whether they want to generalize the information or not. If there is any data that can not be presented only qualitatively, perhaps, the qualitative approach or a combination of both methods should be used.
Challenges of a New Change Model
According to the research conducted by Palmer (2015), only 15% of 120 transformational change programs that had been observed succeeded in achieving their goals (para. 7). Nearly 20% of those got relatively satisfactory results, and approximately 65% were deeply dissatisfied (Palmer, 2015, para. 7).
Such kind of statistics can be explained by the challenges that leaders face while creating and implementing new change models. For example, the plan is not well-thought-out, or it is great but not suitable for a particular team. The model does not consider important nuances (for example, there is no method of evaluation). The model promises vague or insubstantial results. And this list can be greatly expanded.
Still, as George Box, the professor of statistics, once said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (Patton, 2011, p. 123). Indeed, all of them have many drawbacks. Moreover, none is right and can be appropriate in every possible case or for every team. As a prime example, Kurt Lewin created his famous three-stage “unfreezing-change-refreeze” model, but Edgar Schein later decided that it needed some improvements (Wirth, 2004). Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958) did not find Lewin’s method spotless as well and supplemented it with four more stages. That is why Box says that all models are wrong. However, if the team is able to get through the challenges a model brings, then this model can actually be rather useful.
To overcome the challenges of creating a new change approach, leaders should consider the basic principles of the old ones. Besides, they also should examine various critics, reviews and studies in relation to those. In such a case, there would be a chance to use the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of previous models.
References
Gholami, K., Parsa, S., Shalviri, G., Sharifzadeh, M., & Assasi, N. (2005). Anti-infectives-induced adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 14(7), 501-506.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Palmer, J. (2015). Change Management in Practice: Why Does Change Fail? Web.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wirth, R. A. (2004). Lewin/Schein’s Change Theory. Web.