Introduction
Change is an indispensable element of development, especially when it comes to economic progress. The issue of change is especially acute in the case of economic turmoil or the current climate in the global economy that is characterized by constantly transforming the market, technologies, and empowered workforce. What is more astounding is the fact that once the organizations were created to be stable and change was believed to be a negative phenomenon. However, nowadays, organizations are forced to change if they desire to remain operative and competitive.
As the business environment constantly evolves forcing organizations to adapt to the newly established conditions, they developed various models of and technologies and instruments for implementing change. It gave rise to massive investigations of the nature and consequences of change and the formation of a new branch of management – change management. This paper aims at studying the primary approaches to change management, tools, and techniques used in its design and implementation, and its potential consequences for the further development and activities of organizations. Special attention will be paid to providing the dialog where researchers agree and disagree on the subject of analysis.
Synthesis Style
This paper will be organized in the form of a literature synthesis. It will provide a relatively wide range of opinions on change management, the process of its implementation, and its consequences. The foundation for the study is twenty-one scientific articles written by researchers from all over the world. Such a broad database of information will make it possible to determine whether there are any commonalities and differences in the approaches to defining change management in organizations and a single global position on the subject under investigation.
The work will be organized as follows: first, it will present a short review of ideas proposed in the chosen researches that aims at determining the area of opinions and, second, it will seek the points of intersection and distinctions in the authors’ views on change management.
Some authors study the nature of change. Coetzee, Visagie, and Ukpere offer an in-depth investigation of different approaches to defining change claiming that it is vital to understand the essence of the concept to successfully and effectively transform an organization (12068). This work provides the theoretical background necessary for the apprehension of the subject under research. Another comprehensive theoretical study on the nature of change is that proposed by Al-Haddad and Kotnour, who provide various classifications of change types and methods based on numerous criteria (895, 898).
McKendall pays specific attention to the concept of planned change concentrating on potential outcomes for the organization’s employees pointing out the fact that this type of change is almost always painful and meets resistance (94). Grieten and Lambrechts also describe the nature of change, but they shift from transformation as such to actors involved in it highlighting that it influences relationships between those involved, and the impact can be both negative and positive (4).
Other researchers investigate the nature of the concept of change management. Malek and Yazdanifard, for instance, believe that change management is “the process of planning and coordinating the implementation of all changes through individuals, teams, and organizations” (99), i.e. the transition from the current state of an organization to the desired future one. Kogetsidis points to some limitations of this approach as the foundation for improving performance.
The author draws four widely accepted types of changes (in organizational processes, functions, culture, and power distribution) and stresses that the drawbacks of this model are related to them. Among primary restrictions, he mentions interrelation of these four types of changes, i.e. when one aspect is transformed, it has an impact on all the rest, and the fact that only one field of activities is usually taken into consideration, so the outcomes of implementing changes are sometimes hard to predict (Kogetsidis 3-4). Merrell loves the idea that “effective change management is a little bit art and a little bit of science” (20).
Many researchers focus on techniques used in implementing change management in organizations. Bold, for example, distinguishes such tools for change embodiment as management by objective, ad-hoc portfolio analysis, business process reengineering, focusing on basic skills, and the balanced scorecard (6-12). Some authors concentrate on management styles and practices and their influence on implementing change. For instance, Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes, and Roig-DobĂłn reflect on the participative management style, i.e. the model of shared responsibility and joint decision-making in an organization.
The authors claim that this management style has a positive influence on implementing changes because it helps decrease the level of resistance to change because all employees are involved in designing the framework for the organization’s transformation and work on bringing it to life (Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes and Roig-DobĂłn 1856-1857). Kushalappas and Pakkeerappa as well focus on participative management style for implementing change stressing that it is the most efficient one for decreasing resistance and improving mutual understanding in a team (1099). Rao focuses on leadership style noting that what is required from the leader is being flexible enough to adapt to new conditions or deal with resistance, communicative, creative, and have the desire to change one’s team, organization, and oneself (36-37).
Raineri conducts an in-depth analysis of the performance of those organizations that exercised various change management practices and finds out that they are only beneficial for implementing changes and have nothing to do with the economic outcomes of the organizations such as the level of sales or incomes (271). Giniat et al. offer a wide range of practices that benefit the process of transformation such as carefully assessing potential risks and the level of resistance to change in a team, aligning an organization to make sure that the stakeholders and employees are willing to support the new strategy, and develop a vision of the targets and communicate it to everyone involved (87).
One more author focusing on techniques used in change implementation is Wigham, who states that change can only be achieved if senior managers harvest employee’s ideas, motivating force, and assure that the process is slow and steady, i.e. give the workers time to accept the transformation and gain necessary skills and knowledge to bring it to life (10-11).
Another group of authors pay specific attention to the issues affecting the outcomes of embodying changes. Nastase, Giuclea, and Bold believe that there are social (mood of employees) and technical (resources) factors affecting the consequences of change implementation (15).
Moreover, they stress that no change can be achieved without people. For this reason, senior management should guarantee the maximum level of informing the employees, so it will decrease the resistance to change. Gernal, Sergio, and Al Shuali stress on possible errors that lead organizations to undesirable results of their activities, i.e. failing to embody changes, drawing special attention to presenting the change as non-urgent, underestimating the difficulties of the process, lack of communication between senior management and employees in an organization, and declaring the end of the process too soon (5-6).
Vaccarezza and Rizzi highlight significant aspects of the process naming them change management dashboard (46). The authors claim that the outcomes may rely on taking into consideration the targets of the proposed change, time frame (implementing it only in programs lasting for more than six months), and perimeter (initiating only large-scale programs). They also divide the factors into two groups – technical and behavioral (Vaccarezza and Rizzi 50).
Merrell develops the idea of Big Six – activities that are used as a single set to guarantee successful change implementation: communicating, leading, measuring, involving, sustaining, and learning (20). Kerber and Buono as well determine two groups of factors that have an impact on change implementation, but they separate business complexity and socio-technical uncertainty as the forces that have the most significant impact on the pace of the transformation process (29).
Some researchers focus on the process of change implementation. That said, Malek and Yazdanifard distinguish such stages as a request for change, assessing potential risks and consequences, creating readiness for change, and, finally change coordination (101). Sullivan, Rothwell, and Balasi propose their model of organizational development including numerous transformations. The authors believe that the process starts with the change in one of the employees, who is competent and skilled enough to lead the team and senior management down the path of change. Later, the executive team, most members of the team, and stakeholders are involved (18-20).
Gotsill and Natchez determine several steps that are necessary to guarantee that change is accepted and successful: making the focus on people, i.e. employees and their interests, communicating strategic messages inspiring workers to implement the change, and combining communication and training, i.e. mobilizing all team members into the process of gaining new knowledge and skills (26). Paul and Franckeiss see the whole process as a continuous cycle comprising of five stages: direct, describe, define, deliver, and develop. The authors call it the Five Dimensions of Change approach (Paul and Franckeiss 36).
Agreement points of researchers
Providing literature review demonstrated that there are numerous points of intersection in the ideas presented by the authors of the investigations used as the foundation for this research. This representation of opinions mentioned above is the first point of intersection of the authors’ thoughts on change management because it highlights that researchers from different corners of the world have common areas of interest.
However, closer analysis helps determine smaller commonalities in their works. For instance, most authors accept the fact that change is impossible to implement without a strong leader (Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes and Roig-DobĂłn 1844; Gernal, Sergio and Al Shuali 11; Kushalappas and Pakkeerappa 1096; Raineri 268; Coetzee, Visagie and Ukpere 12071; Rao 36; Paul and Franckeiss 41) and involvement of people through effective channels of communication as the driving force of the transformation process (Giniat et al. 87; Al-Haddad and Kotnour 898; Sullivan, Rothwell and Balasi 20; Merrell 20; Raineri 269; Kushalappas and Pakkeerappa 1097; Malek and Yazdanifard 101; Paul and Franckeiss 41).
This idea is supplemented by the belief that resistance to change is one of the most frequent causes of failing to implement changes (Gernal, Sergio and Al Shuali 4-5; Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes and Roig-DobĂłn 1843; Nastase, Giuclea and Bold 6; Malek and Yazdanifard 100).
Moreover, some researchers agree that numerous factors are affecting the success of the transformation process. In general, they involve those related to resources and equipment and ones including reactions of employees (Vaccarezza and Rizzi 50; Kerber and Buono 29).
In addition to it, what has an impact on the outcomes of implementing change is managing style. That said, participative management style, i.e. that model of management that implies communication, shared responsibility and joint decision-making, is believed to be the best practice for fostering transformation and decreasing the level of resistance to change among an organization’s employees (Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes and Roig-DobĂłn 1856-1857; Kushalappas and Pakkeerappa 1099).
This approach can be supplemented by Gotsill and Natchez, who stress that the primary focus should be made on people, not the organization’s performance (26). The authors stress that taking people’s interest first and listening to their needs might significantly decrease the level of resistance and make the process of change implementation smooth and flawless. In addition to it, this step will contribute to the establishment of the atmosphere of trust and openness in a team and benefit an organization because employees will be willing to share their ideas on proves improvements and the ways for further development.
Another commonality is the idea that the process of change should be moderate. It is represented by Wigham, who tells that it should be slow and steady (11), i.e. employees should have enough time to gain new knowledge and skills necessary for matching with new conditions and requirements. It can also relate to the idea developed by Vaccarezza and Rizzi, who stress that changes should only be implemented through programs lasting more than six months (50). This idea can be extended by the belief that presenting the change as non-urgent is one of the primary errors of an organization’s senior management that leads to failure of the transformation strategy (Gernal, Sergio and Al Shuali 5).
Disagreement points of researchers
Detecting disagreement points in the ideas of researchers will be conducted in several ways. First of all, this section will define the studies that provided nearly the same information but used different terminology. Second, it will present the differences in the scale of researches, i.e. mention those that had limitations and ones that had a broader coverage. Finally, it will offer information on the unique views in change management that were mentioned only in one paper.
Several studies provided nearly the same information but used different terminology. For example, when researchers mentioned factors that influence the change implementation process, they separated those relating to equipment natural resources and those regarding employees. Vaccarezza and Rizzi called them technical and behavioral (50) while Nastase, Giuclea, and Bold used terms technical and social (15).
In addition to it, some authors provided a unique approach to defining the factors that business complexity and socio-technical uncertainty as well are driving forces of change (Kerber and Buono 29). Business complexity is the intricacy of the system that refers to the impossibility to assess and predict how many organizations are changing at a time. Socio-technical uncertainty refers to the potential lack of natural, technical, and human resources and the fact that their stock is constantly changing.
Moreover, there is one unique opinion presenting a system of six factors affecting the outcomes of the transformation process. It is known as Big Six – a set of activities developed by Merrell that are used as a single whole to guarantee successful change implementation: communicating, leading, measuring, involving, sustaining, and learning (20). Communicating is simple and refers to the existence of efficient channels for sharing information from senior managers to employees, and vice versa. It implies that no global steps are made without informing those who would be involved or influenced by the change.
Leading is about leaders who can inspire workers. Measuring means that an organization develops a set of metrics that will be used for assessing the success or failure of its transformation process. It should be mentioned that these criteria are individual and applicable only to a particular organization. Involving stands for gathering the ideas regarding the further development from the employees and motivating them to become a part of the process.
Sustaining means that change is never-ending, so when the project is completed, the finish line is not drawn. Instead, some time is taken to make sure that the result of the change is positive and satisfies the initial expectations. Finally, learning is not about making employees gain new knowledge or skills, nut, instead, inspiring them to do so by providing them with resources for self-improvement and development.
Some unique ideas were mentioned only in one of the proposed investigations. For example, some authors noted the importance of strong leaders in implementing change (Pardo-del-Val, MartĂnez-Fuentes and Roig-DobĂłn 1844; Gernal, Sergio and Al Shuali 11; Kushalappas and Pakkeerappa 1096; Raineri 268; Coetzee, Visagie and Ukpere 12071), but none of them actually highlighted that being flexible and adapt easily to new conditions is the most significant character trait of a true leader. It means that a person who drives the change should remember that he or she is working with people who could resist the alteration or some new organizations might approach, so he or she should be ready to change in the first place and then lead others involved (Rao 36).
Furthermore, when speaking of change management techniques, some authors mention risk assessment and enhancing communication as one of the most effective ways for achieving change (Giniat et al. 87; Malek and Yazdanifard 101). However, they omit some widely used practices such as management by objective, ad-hoc portfolio analysis, business process reengineering, focusing on basic skills, and the balanced scorecard.
Taking a closer look at the author’s ideas, management by objective centers on the organization’s objectives, so management techniques, budgeting, scheduling, and economic activities should be changed with the transformation of the organization’s strategic goals. Ad-hoc portfolio analysis focuses on determining the organization’s strategic business areas and then looking for ways to implement changes to improve performance. Business process reengineering is based on studying available resources and re-designing management to increase the productivity from using these resources and reducing production and operation costs.
Another approach is known as focusing on basic skills, which is built on the idea of exploiting available skills to win new customers and improve performance. Finally, the balanced scorecard suggests viewing any organization from four perspectives (learning and growth, business process, customer, and financial) and changing the key business processes in each of them (Bold 6-12).
Moreover, some authors mention planned change (McKendall 94) and widely accepted types of change including changes in organizational processes, functions, culture, and power distribution (Kogetsidis 3). However, Kerber and Buono point to the fact that there are also directed and guided changes (25, 27). Planned change is a traditional approach implying that an organization follows a strict path of change. Directed change is driven by the top authorities of an organization, and it is flexible taking into consideration people’s reactions to transformation and involving the existence of efficient communication channels. Finally, guided change is an organic change that constantly evolves based on available resources and skills.
In addition to it, some authors describe the nature of change as something that happens to an organization (Coetzee, Visagie and Ukpere 12068; Al-Haddad and Kotnour 895). Unlike these researchers, Grieten and Lambrechts they shift from organization transformation as such to actors involved in it calling it a relational practice perspective (4).
The authors stress that even though change influences an organization, it has an even more significant impact on those involved in the process because it changes the model of relationships between them. For example, if an organization implements efficient channels of sharing information and communication or grants learning and development capabilities, them employees develop and become more open than they were before. In this case, the change in the relationships is positive. However, if the transformation is forced and those occupied at lower levels with less authority are ruled by senor management without an opportunity to free communication, then the influence of the change is negative.
Finally, most authors ignore the fact that change is a multidimensional phenomenon, and it is a never-ending process. It is the idea proposed and developed by Paul and Franckeiss who believe that change is made up of five stages (direct, describe, define, deliver, and develop) called the Five Dimensions of Change approach (36). Together they form an endless circle that cannot be broken up because the process of change should be continuous if an organization wants it to be effective.
Conclusion
This synthesis paper demonstrates that there is a wide range of opinions on organizational change and change management. Most of them have numerous agreement points of the ideas of researches, but there are even more differences. In addition to it, some unique theories were never mentioned by other authors. That said, most authors agree that change implementations usually fail because of a lack of communication in an organization and a high level of resistance to change.
Moreover, they agree that there are numerous managing practices for implementing changes and tools for doing it. However, not all researchers realize that more attention should be paid to actors involved in the process of change or that transformation is a cyclic process. So, what can be said is that the concepts of organizational change and change management can be successfully put into practice only in the case of learning different approaches to defining them because, if studied as a single whole, the investigations mentioned above can assist in becoming an efficient change management.
Works Cited
Al-Haddad, Serina, and Tim Kotnour. “Preliminary Framework for Aligning Organizational Change.” Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2013. San Juan, Puerto Rico: ISERC, 2013. 894-903. Print.
Bold, Elena-Oliviana. “Instruments and Techniques Used in the Design and Implementation of Change Management.” Journal of Advanced Research in Management 1.3 (2011): 5-13. Print.
Coetzee, Rein, Jan Visagie and Wilfred Ukpere. “Leading a Successful Change Intervention in a Modern Organization: Key Elements to Consider.” African Journal of Business Management 6.51 (2012): 12068-12075. Print.
Gernal, Liza, Rommel P. Sergio and Mohammad Al Shuali. “Looking Ahead: Scanning Change Management and its Implications to Human Resource Management Practices.” IAMURE International Journal of Business and Management 7.1 (2013): 1-17. Print.
Giniat, Edward, Brad Benton, Eric Biegansky and Robert Grossman. “People and Change Management in an Uncertain Environment.” Healthcare Financial Management 66.10 (2012): 84-89. Print.
Gotsill, Gina, and Meryl Natchez. “From Resistance to Acceptance: How to Implement Change Management.” T+D 61.11 (2007): 24-27. Print.
Grieten, Styn, and Frank Lambrechts. “Co-creating High Quality Relational Practices: A Micro-Process View on Organizational Development and Change.” Proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 2010. Cancun, Mexico: IIE, 2010. 1-7. Print.
Kerber, Kenneth, and Anthony Buono. “Rethinking Organizational Change: Reframing the Challenge of Change Management.” Organization Development Journal 23.3 (2005): 23-38. Print.
Kogetsidis, Harry. “Change Management: The Need for a Systems Approach.” International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach 6.2 (2013): 1-12. Print.
Kushalappas, S, and P Pakkeerappa. “Participative Leadership Style: An Effective Tool for Change Management.” International Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives 3.3 (2014): 1095-1100. Print.
Malek, Reza, and Rashad Yazdanifard. “Overview of Change Management and Its Implementation.” International Journal of Operational Management, Marketing and Services 1.1 (2011): 99-102. Print.
McKendall, Marie. “The Tyranny of Change: Organizational Development Revisited.” Journal of Business Ethics 12.2 (1993): 93-104. Print.
Merrell, Phil. “Effective Change Management: The Simple Truth.” Management Services 56.2 (2012): 20-23. Print.
Nastase, Marian, Marius Giuclea and Oliviana Bold. “The Impact of Change Management in Organizations – a Survey of Methods and Techniques for a Successful Change.” Review of International Comparative Management 13.1 (2012): 5-16. Print.
Pardo-del-Val, Manuela, Clara MartĂnez-Fuentes and Salvador Roig-DobĂłn. “Participative Management and Its Influence on Organizational Change.” Management Decision 50.10 (2012): 1843-1860. Print.
Paul, Victor, and Anton Franckeiss. “The Five Dimensions Of Change: An Integrated Approach to Strategic Organizational Change Management.” Strategic Change 11.1 (2002): 35-42. Print.
Raineri, Andrés. “Change Management Practices: Impact on Perceived Change Results.” Journal of Business Research 64.3 (2011): 266-272. Print.
Rao, MS. “The tools and techniques of effective change management.” Human Resource Management International Digest 23.1 (2015): 35-37. Print.
Sullivan, Roland, William J. Rothwell and Mary Jane B. Balasi. “Organization Development (OD) and Change Management (CM): Whole System Transformation.” Development and Learning in Organizations 27.6 (2013): 18-23. Print.
Vaccarezza, Alessio, and Gianluca Rizzi. “Change Management Dashboard: An Adaptive Approach to Lead a Change Program.” People and Strategy 37.1 (2014): 46-50. Print.
Wigham, Ross. “The More Things Change…” Training & Coaching Today. 2008: 10-11. Print.