The outcome of globalization is evident in the opening of various markets. In many organizations, this has created an opportunity to expand operations by tapping into new markets. This means that an entity has to re-evaluate its strategies, policies, goals and work force. Thus, change is unavoidable (Riley, 2006). Amongst the work force, change is associated with uncertainty, necessitating the need to enhance management.
Various scholars have developed different methods to implement and manage change. Despite the resources committed efforts and personnel attempts to implement change result in failure. The discussion below highlights various models that aid in implementing change, diagnostic instruments and organizational change interventions.
Change implementation model
Lewin initially studied the societal and psychosomatic aspects of people by hypothesizing a three-stage conjecture of how to execute various changes in an organization. Lewin model acknowledges the imperative role played by the behavioural nature of human beings in the work place. The three steps included; “unfreezing, moving and refreezing” (Schein, 1995).
Unfreezing is the initial stage towards change implementation. Its overall goal is to create goodwill and acceptance for the pending changes. Change creates uncertainty among the workers and this stage serves as an appropriate avenue to communicate the intended transformation. The management should engage the workers and request for their contribution on impending changes (Schein, 1995).
Organizational changes involve overhaul of many organizational procedures and implementation of new policies. This stage’s sole objective is to equip staff members with the necessary skill to enable them work under the new procedures. Seminars and refresher courses facilitate fostering of novel policies to the staff (Schein, 1995).
The new system implemented will be the day-to-day routine of the workers. This stage prevents workers from resuming to their old routine. In essence, it facilitates the internalisation and institutionalisation of new procedures. Entirely, refreezing results in stability (Schein, 1995).
Pros and cons
Lewin model prioritizes informing employees about the forthcoming changes this enables implementation with minimal hitches. The main disadvantage of this model is that most organizations spent too much resources and effort on the initial stage, influencing negatively on the overall implementation process (Schein, 1995).
Kotter’s phased change model
Kotter is a specialist in changes and is instrumental to the “Harvard Business School”. He made it his objective to study change in the corporate world. Kotter admits that implementation of change is a pain taking process that consumes a significant proportion of time. In his investigation, he found out that the implementation could be disintegrated into eight distinct steps.
Establish sense of urgency
The need for change becomes evident when the organization becomes susceptible to financial woes or loss of market share. Creation of urgency that will necessitate sufficient action is an off-putting task. Consultants may come handy in such an event (Coutts 2000).
Powerful guiding coalition
In most cases change begins with an individual, it then grows when significant proportion of people embrace it. This is a decisive juncture since it enables change to gather impetus. Leaders who champion for change assist in rallying other staff members (Coutts 2000).
Creating a vision
A vision is an illustration of what the future will be. It clarifies to followers which direction the organization will take. Vision sets the stage to attract followers and sparks passion among members for change (Coutts 2000). It equally, sets the platform for the subsequent processes.
The leaders should make an estimate of their following and set up appropriate communication means. This enables the followers to understand, commit and value the vision. This model identifies that failure to converse the vision will likely lead to letdown (Coutts 2000).
Enabling others to act in the vision
The management should eliminate all obstacles that hinder the workers from working as per the new vision. In this stage, workers ought to receive training that will enable them to have adequate skills to work under new procedures (Coutts, 2000). Failure to enhance such a stage culminates in dissatisfaction in the subsequent processes.
Worker are human by nature, and will look forward to seeing immediate results therefore management will be hard pressed to deliver short-term results. Change is a lengthy process and the management should generate shot-term results and at the same time remain focused on the long-term goals (Coutts 2000).
Consolidate gains and keep the momentum going
This stage seeks to assert that implementation of change is a slow process and the management should not declare success in overhauling its policy. However, it should embark on consolidating achievements made. The management should cautiously assess progress made and give a critical picture rather than create euphoria that will reduce motivation to pursue change (Coutts, 2000).
Institutionalize new business practices
Members of the work force should routinely perform the fresh procedures. This is because they are the new norms of the business. At this stage, the management is aiming at entrenching the new practices into the culture of the organization (Coutts, 2000).
Pros and cons
The model clearly breaks down what is to be done at each stage and acknowledges that change implementation is a lengthy process that should be allocated ample time. It also identifies that leader have a key role to play in steering the implementation of change. The use of this model would mean that that the implementation would drag on for considerable time and need a significant amount of resources (Coutts, 2000).
Organizational change intervention
A strategic plan encompasses the definition of what the company wants to achieve in future. It equally entails the allotment of necessary recourses and personnel. Moreover, it ensures that the efforts and the resources of an organization are channelled towards achieving the identified goals.
Traditionally, strategic planning was the preserve of the top administration but in the current business environment the management has to seek the ideas of all workers and make them part of the plan. The top management has to lead this process by clearly giving their plans to help the company achieve its objectives.
Such interventions focus on collecting ideas from workers, brainstorming, carrying out feasibility studies, developing tactics, coining an overall plan and finally communicating the strategies (Beitler, 2005). Most organization fail to develop strategic plans as the business environment changes rapidly, in effect results to turmoil in the organization.
Most organizations are market driven and should set up a plan that clearly focuses on how to maintain and expand market share. For strategic plan to be effective as an intervention, then each level of the entity must have a plan. Strategic planning main strengths lie in the ability to centre the resources of an organization towards achieving specific goals.
In addition, it collects ideas from most employees making them part of the development of the strategic plan. The major undoing of this form of interventions is where a poor plan is developed, that becomes obsolete within no time. To set up a quality plan, requires some form of expertise (Beitler, 2005).
An executive structure defines the company flow of authority. It undoubtedly sets out the corporation hierarchy. A company structure provides the needed labour to achieve the goals under the strategic plan. To achieve the objectives, a suitable and proficient flow of authority is necessary. To eliminate bureaucracy, the different positions must have clearly defined tasks.
The aim of this intervention is to give the organization the appropriate structure to achieve its goals. Due to the rapidly altering commerce environment, the organization must constantly review its structure by “business process re-engineering”, which is the fundamental re-thinking of how an entity delivers its products (Beitler, 2005).
An organization must choose a structure that best suits it. Examples of these structures include matrix based, process based and product based. Organization with branches should prefer a network kind of structure while those multiple products should institute a product based structure.
The main undoing of restructuring as an intervention is that it keeps shifting worker to various positions thus they never settle at their work place. Its strength is that it maintains the needed work force hence an efficient organization. Overall, this intervention recreates and re-defines the organization structure so that is relevant to the organizations’ industry, product portfolio, and client base (Beitler, 2005).
For change to flourish, the pioneers of the change must provide a vivid picture of the transformations they wish to institute. The transformations serve as the vision, and sparks enthusiasm to pursue transformation. The vision acts as a guide and a measure of the progress made in instituting various changes.
For this diagnostic instrument to be successful, the vision must be elaborate and put together after wide consultations with the employee and the management on the issues that need to be changed. The people at the helm must practice what they emphasize for this instrument to be successful.
Failure to communicate their properly will definitely lead to failure of vision as a diagnostic instrument. It is most effectual when the vision is well put together, communicated and appreciated by employees (Coutts, 2000).
Urgency of change
When individuals realise that the organization is susceptible to loss of customers or loss of credit finances, they spark into action, trying to create urgency for change. Most executives’ underestimate the difficulty in getting the populace to apprehend they need to do things differently in order to avert a looming crisis.
This instrument assesses the clamour for change among the employee in the entity. Urgency’s main objective is to create a state of necessity for change. Creation of urgency is usually the beginning of a lengthy process of enacting change in an entity (Coutts, 2000).
Beitler, M. (2005). A practitioner’s guide for change leaders and consultation. Web.
Coutts, P. (2000). John Kotter on Leading Change. Web.
Riley, G. (2006). Globalisation – Effects. Web.
Schein, H. (1995). Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in the. Web.