Abstract
One of the primary tasks of leaders in any organization is to initiate changes. Different models describe changes in various perspectives. The leaders of an organization may use any model depending on their systems and the type of change implemented.
The paper compares Price Waterhouse and Michael Beer models. It covers the strengths and weaknesses of each model and implications they have if applied in organizations. Both Price Waterhouse and Michael Beer models shows how to transform change effectively in employees.
Introduction
Change is inevitable in an organization or a company. Employees react differently to organizational changes depending on the models used. Some employees may have positive reactions and others may have negative reactions. While some of the changes receive joyous reactions, most of these organizational changes face fierce reactions. Psychologists attribute these variations in reactions to the nature of human brains.
There are two systems in human brains, emotional and rational systems. Emotional system deals with emotional changes, while rational system in the brain deals with logic and thoughtful changes. Employees receive organizational change easily and positively when the two systems are in alignment.
It is possible to overcome negative reactions to hard changes in organizations by making sure that emotional system and logical system align. To transform change in their employees effectively, organizations use different steps and models.
A comparison of steps and models used by Price Waterhouse and Michael Beers to implement change within organizations successfully
Although the steps and models used by Price Waterhouse and Michael Beers to implement changes within organizations are different, the results of the steps and models in transforming changes to employees correlate the two.
According to Chip and Dan, (2010), different leaders use different models to transform and implement changes within their organizations (p.298). However, there exist similarities in the strategies, which organizations use to transform change in their employees.
Comparison
Price Waterhouse model requires an organization to make changes in all departments and processes. Redesigned processes in an organization lead to changes in procedures and jobs. As stated by technologies and systems also need to change to keep up with the dynamic needs of customers.
Changing “the processes, procedures, and system removes barriers to implement change for the employees and they are able to adapt to the changes and new processes” (Herzog 1993, p.87). In Michael Beer model, changes in the organization should only involve organizational processes and should not affect the employees.
The model does not require changes in all departments like in the case of Price Waterhouse. Michael Beer model requires for changes in the staff when the individuals/employees in the organization are unable to develop commitment and skills used in the new organizational arrangement.
Price Waterhouse models describe the process of change mainly using organizational leaders, but consultants have the freedom to adopt the process. On contrary, Michael Beer model does not involve a sponsor in any of its steps. The model does not have a change team that is in charge of change within the organization. Organizational leaders are not the key people used in the process of change.
In the Price Waterhouse model, the change team in the organization has the responsibility of planning, which involves looking for the necessary resources and setting the required goals. The change team must have a leader who focuses on the change program within the organization. The responsibility of the team leader is to pass the change message to relevant departments.
He/she also informs them concerning the transformation and leads them to focus their vision on the transformation of the organization. On the other hand, the work of a change leader in Michael Beer model is to clarify the need for organizational change to the members. The leader explains to the members why there is need for change and gives its future vision (Michael, 2008, p. 10).
The leaders in this model avoid imposing change programs from the top, unlike in Price Waterhouse model where the top management is in charge of change implementation. The leaders in various sub units redefine the goals, values, and strategy and later involve their top teams.
The next step in Michael Beer model is data collection for the organization and people alignment. The purpose of the data is to stimulate organizational and personal change.
New organizational arrangements do not require staffing changes if employees are able to develop commitment and skills. The similarity between the two models is that they both involve the low-level management in implementing changes. They also seek to transform change in employees effectively using different modes and steps.
My evaluation on their steps or models
Price Waterhouse
The change models used by Price Waterhouse require involvement of every person in the organization. Price Waterhouse models seek to achieve high performance, measured difference, and improved results with the help of motivated and empowered employees (Herzog, 1993, p. 87).
The models focus on transforming change effectively based on customer needs. Price Waterhouse models successfully accomplish organizational change with guiding principles. The steps used by Price Waterhouse results into transformation change of employees.
Michael Beer
The change model used by Michael Beer model of implementing change within organizations use behavioral and agency theoretical perspectives. Behavioral theory gives vehemence on the importance of the top management to participate in the processes. The participation helps them to develop commitment to organizational change.
It focuses on the behavior in the firm such as teamwork and commitment. Agency theory emphasizes on economic outcomes; does not deal with the organizational behavior inside the firm (Michael, 2008, p. 10). In Michael Beer model of implementing change within organizations, planned organizational change is the first step taken by an organization to improve its performance.
The steps only involve the top management and sub unit managers. The use of Michael Beer model might take a shorter time in its implementation because the low-level leaders are involved in the initial stages and they initiate most of the organizational changes. Michael Beer model shows how to transform change in employees in an effective way.
Strengths and weaknesses of their steps or models
Strengths
One of the strength associated with the steps used by Price Waterhouse and Michael Beer is that the employees and the low-level organizational members are involved in implementation of organizational change (Herzog, 1993, p. 87). Price Waterhouse model uses consensus to incorporate all levels whereas Michael Beer model encourages the leaders of various sub units to involve top leaders in redefining values, strategies, and goals.
In Michael Beer model, unit leaders only involve corporate leaders, which reduce resistance to change by the staff. The strength associated with Price Waterhouse model is that it involves every member of the organization and therefore all the employees are able to adapt to changes without barriers.
Weaknesses
Involving leaders of various sub units may result into ineffectiveness of step used by Michael Beer as these leaders may take time to initiate the appropriate changes (Michael, 2008, p. 10).
The skills and experience of the sub unit leaders may be limited relative to that of effective corporate leaders, and they may therefore take time to manage performance improvement and involve top leaders in redefining strategies and goals of the organization.
The responsibility of the change team to set goals without the involvement of the relevant departments and employees is the major weakness of the steps followed by Price Waterhouse.
The team leaders only inform the employees and other stakeholders of the organization once they have instituted the changes. This may result into fierce resistance to the organizational changes.
Major implications for application to organization
Price Waterhouse
The implication of changing all the processes used in an organization is that it removes barriers for the employees. The employees are able to adapt to new changes without barriers when everything else in the organization has changed. Redesigned processes, jobs, procedures, systems and technologies make it easier for the employees to implement, transform, and accept changes (Herzog, 1993, p. 87).
It becomes easier to transform change of employees in any organization by training them on new processes. Effective change of employees measures the success of an organization.
In Price Waterhouse model, the implication of having a sponsor to initiate mandate for change is that there might be problems in communicating the changes to the employees and other teams involved in the organizational change.
To overcome these problems, the language used to communicate must be specific and easy to understand. All levels in the organization should understand the change mandate translated by the sponsors (organizational leaders).
The sponsors designate change process to a change team, which takes over from the sponsor and the implications is that it may take time for the change team to understand the details of the change, since they do not initiate the changes. The team then proceeds with the other procedures, which involves setting goals and looking for the necessary resources (Herzog, 1993, p. 87).
The implication of the use of change team is that it gets the responsibility of developing programs that may be of great help within the organization. The programs developed gives direction to the team managers to transform changes in the employees in an effective manner.
The implication of having a team leader in the change team is that he/she is able to convince employees and other members of the organization on the expected organizational changes.
It also implies that the organization can change the team leader in case he/she does not perform satisfactorily. However, establishing that the leader is doing a good job in implementing changes takes some time since changing a culture in an organization does not occur rapidly.
The time taken to change the culture of an organization would reduce by changing the key people in the leadership of the team. Application of the method would lead to rapid changes because everything including the leaders of an organization would change. Because of the transformation, changing the culture will be easier for the organizational change management, and it will be easier to transform change in employees effectively.
The implication of having new leaders is that the employees and the sub unit leaders might not want to support and follow the new leaders. Since the top management supports organizational change, it implies that the other levels of the organization would follow suit, thus forming a high consensus.
Michael Beer
One of the major implications of using Michael Beer models or steps in implementation of change within organization is that the employees and other members of the organization respond to the transformation more rapidly.
The reason behind the quick response is that initiation of the changes involves all levels of the organization. Implementation of the changes may take a very short time because it will face less resistance from the employees and the low-level leaders.
The implication of encouraging and demanding leaders to manage performance improvement is that it simplifies the steps used. There is no much time taken to communication on the new ideas to the employees, because they are involved from the initial stages (Michael, 2008, p. 10). The sub unit managers do most of the work while the top teams do little.
The responsibility of the top teams is to work together with the sub unit managers in redesigning the values, goals, and strategies of the organization. However, in large firms, the steps involve the top management who manage the performance improvement like the sub unit managers.
Lack of commitment in the leaders may lead to delayed implementation of organizational change. Inadequate commitment of the leaders exposes their inability to deal with resistance from members/employees of the organization.
The leaders should be commitment and should have enough skills to make it possible for them to succeed through the whole process of change. The implications of Michael Beer model is that the new organizational arrangement will help to transform change in the employees effectively.
Conclusion
To transform change in employees in an effective manner, the leaders of the organizations need to use available models or steps. The leaders of the organization need to seek advice from consultants who are able to provide them with better information and appropriate information on the best models to use. All the models will show the leaders how to transform change in employees in an effective way.
References
Chip, H., & Dan, H. (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. New York: Crown Business.
Herzog, T. (1993). Fine-tuning Price Waterhouse’s model. Mortgage Banking, 53(12), 86-89.
Michael, M. (2008). Organization Behavior and Development. Web.