Strategic Change: Defining and Analyzing Disconfirming Information within Change Process Framework Analytical Essay

Introduction

Change management seeks to define strategies and approaches that will allow a company to introduce shifts in various fields of organizational learning, development, and performance.

In this respect, there exist a great number of theoretical frameworks premised on different models and concepts contributing to change management, but all of them may be classified under two categories. The first one refers to individual change theories whereas the second one is more oriented on top-balanced change.

The former category is more congruent with the conceptual model introduced by Kurt Lewin and further developed by Edgar Schein. In particular, Kurt Lewin proposes a three-stage model of integrating changes in an organization, such as unfreezing, moving, and refreezing (Burnes 2004a).

All three phases are based on the principle of rejecting previous concepts and paradigms and accepting the new forces. Schein defines this process as cognitive redefinition that allows the members of an organization to move away from old principles of organizations and learn the new ones (Hughes 2007).

This transition, however, is a sophisticated and ongoing process because it involves numerous psychological, cognitive, social, and environmental factors.

Within these perspectives, both Lewin and Schein adhere to the principle of disconfirming information implying total rejection of previous organization’s mission as the basic condition for further change.

Disconfirmation, therefore, is the first stage of the unfreezing phases leading to dissatisfaction, which is the sign of significant gap between what is done at the moment and what needs to be achieved.

Main Discussion

Defining Disconfirming Information

According to Lewin’s change theory, there are three stages of accepting change – unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. The first one involves recognition of change as a fact (Burnes 2004a).

However, in order to recognize change, individuals should also be able to express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the previous situation. According to Lewin’s (1947) theory, “In the case of discrimination, for instance, certain social forces drive toward more discrimination” (p. 6).

In other words, the previously established equilibrium should be destabilized or unfrozen before old behavioral patterns can be unlearnt and the new ones can be successfully adopted (Schein 1993).

Disequilibrium may be achieved through disconfirming information as a driving force for discarding old behaviors.

The necessary shifts that need to occur in an organization are strongly associated with psychological dimension. Despite the fact that anxiety of learning could be much greater than anxiety of facing change, the role of an organization’s leader is to persuade their employees that changes are much more important.

Organizational members must be convinced that the current methods to organizational development are no longer efficient (Akgun et al. 2007; Hughes 2007). Under these circumstances, change managers should integrate disconfirming data into the employed environment, which must be convincing.

Hence, claiming that organization faces extreme difficulties is not enough (Akgun et al. 2007). Employees and managers must believe in the fact that organization should implement more efficient communication and economic restructure. The process of persuasion, therefore, stands at the core of the disconfirming information.

However, integrating disconfirming information is not sufficient for promoting change because some of the data introduced can be ignored or be regarded as irrelevant.

There is also a high probability that some of the disconfirming facts can cause conflicts and undesirable outcomes for the company and, as result, employees can just withdraw this information.

In this respect, “…the disconfirmation must arouse what we can call “survival anxiety”, or the feeling that if we do not change, we will fail to meet our needs or fail to achieve some goals or ideas that we have set for ourselves” (Schein 1999, p. 60).

Within the context of Lewin’s change theory, particularly its individual orientation, disconfirmation should be orientated downward and focus on separate individuals perceiving new information. Integrating new information also implies changing behaviors and responses of the individuals.

The role of change managers here is to choose the most efficient technique to delivering information and encourage employees to become more concerned with the state of affairs in an organization. The disconfirming information should closely relate to individuals’ personal backgrounds, including their social positions.

As it has been mentioned previously, disconfirmation causes survival anxiety, but the actual mechanism of its influence is ambiguous.

In this respect, the success of introducing challenging data lies in presenting the fact in the way that would make employees change their attitudes. Alternatively, they might fail to receive motivation.

The organization’s members can encounter disconfirming forces either directly or indirectly, especially when they are articulated by higher authorities.

With regard to the organizational position, disconfirming information can include several categories, such as an economic threat, a political threat, a technological threat, a moral threat, legal threat, and internal discomfort (Stragalas 2010).

All these fields undermine the employees’ perspectives of working for an organization. They should also pose a viable ultimatum for the workers to make them think over the organization’s future (Hughes 2007).

The last factor – internal discomfort – is especially important. Being spontaneous in nature, the force can provoke employees’ desire to work more efficiently.

The main underpinnings of disconfirmation are scandal and disaster. These factors have a potent impact on the way organization overcomes challenges, as well as presents evidence that some practices do not work.

Disaster and scandal also prove that an organization needs to reassess the operational processes from a deeper cultural background (Schein 2010). Apart from psychological factors, disconfirmation can be predetermined by introducing new technologies.

As Schein states, (2009), “new technology as a force for change is most visible in the impact that the introduction of computers and information technology has had most organizations” (p. 109). Indeed, technological adjustment is vital for improving organizational performance and culture.

Employees, however, may face challenges in adjusting to new equipment and technical devices. In order to adapt to a new technological environment, employees have to advance their learning and take part into the training programs to remain the member of an organization (Schein1989).

Finally, charismatic leadership is another potential source of disconfirmation motivating employees to recognize and accept changes.

Schein’s model of the change process is under intense focus of numerous scholars who consider it as the basis for the development of leadership competency and organizational performance. In particular, Stragalas (2010) that Schein model is among the most important ones that can be applied both at an organizational and at individual levels. In addition, the researcher also notes that Schein discusses the three stages of change from the viewpoint of disequilibrium, which results in cognitive redefinition and development of a new context. I agree with Schein’s assumption about the importance of psychological dimension in promoting a favorable environment for change. Indeed, psychological safety ensures individuals’ motivation and encourages sufficient anxiety that leads to adequate reaction to change.

Though transformation often presupposes organizational and psychological challenges, Pryor et al. (2008) acknowledge the efficiency and relevance of Schein’s model of change management. In particular, the researchers express the necessity to introduce an action plan that would make the change happen.

Action-oriented research, therefore, should be implemented as a preliminary stage to promote change to employees’ awareness and cognition. Within these perspective, I believe that emotional and cognitive levels should be first to consider by employers to enter further stages of organizational transformation.

Further Stages of Change

Guilt or Survival Anxiety

As it has been mentioned before, accepting the disconfirming data is the first step to understanding survival anxiety. In such a manner, it is possible recognize the validity and relevance of disconfirming data.

However, there are serious obstacles to acceptance and reaction, which is referred as to “learning anxiety”, the feeling that allows a person to enter the change stages efficiently and enhance working experience (Schein 1996, p. 60).

To enlarge on the issue, human needs to become aware that they are not able to demonstrate high performance all the time and, therefore, they should be able to accept their mistakes. Inability to adapt to the changes prevents a person from fulfilling his/her creative potential.

In this respect, Schein (1996) states that learning anxiety is indispensible in restraining the force that goes in accord with the disconfirming information, which leads to maintenance of balance through avoidance of the confusing information.

It should be stressed, however, that survival anxiety is insufficient because the actual learning process produces anxiety inducing protective mechanisms by rejecting reality.

Creation of Psychological Safety

In order to create effective change management, leaders should ensure psychological safety for the employees through recognizing and reducing learning anxiety by introducing wider opportunities for education and training.

Within this context, Schein (1996) argues that insufficient psychological safety can lead denial of disconfirming information and, as a result, no survival anxiety can be revealed.

The best solution to ensure change management lies in the ability to strike the balance between the degree of challenges produced by disconfirming information and sufficient psychological safety to encourage employees to recognize change and accept the information.

The veritable efficiency of change management consists in a variety of techniques that change managers employ for building psychological safety. For instance, while working in groups, integrating parallel system provides employees with pressure releasing mechanisms.

As a result, employees are less fearful about errors and they manage to provide positive visions on learning and education (Schein 1996).

At this point, Thompson (2005) describes psychological safety as “taken-for-granted belief that others will respond positively when on exposes one’s thoughts, such as by asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a mistake or proposing a new idea” (p. 110).

Effective measures taken in management teams involve behavioral patterns for which outcomes cannot be predicted.

Cognitive Redefinition

In order to cognize new information and remove previous assumptions, it is essential to restructure the cognitive mechanisms and reframe the information.

In this respect, Schein (1996) defines three factors influencing cognitive redefinition, including semantic redefinition, cognitive broadening, and new standards of evaluation.

All three stages of reevaluating information are essentials for managers and their subordinates to move to the next stage of change management. It should also be stressed that managers do not only communicate new semantic and cognitive patterns during change implementation.

They undermine existing organizational patterns of behavior to promote further changes. The concept of cognitive redefinition closely relates to the concept of organizational sense breaking that “…achieves change specifically by destroying organizational meaning” (Mantere et al. 2012, p. 175).

Such a perspective can also contribute to redefining the concept of individuality in the context of team management. For instance, it was previously accepted that team management concept opposes attention to separate individuals.

In fact, efficient teamwork is an essential part of individuals’ skills and abilities. It identifies their readiness to communicate and cooperate in teams to make decisions and listen to others’ decisions.

Despite the attention to team management, the matter of privacy and individuality remains on the agenda because each team manager should express respect for individual opinion to weight pros and cons and provide the most optimal decision (Lundberg and Sproule 1968).

Thus, change management and cognitive definition is not associated with breaking stereotypes and previously fixed assumptions. Rather, change management is linked to changing the learning attitudes. Most of such decisions are made with regard to the new trends of organizational activities (Kuwada 1991).

Overall, integrating new information is possible through defensive identifications with available role models and through a trial-error process premised on analyzing the setting for new concepts.

Imitating Positive Identification with a Role Model

Cognitive redefinition is possible at the unfreezing stage, when employees are encouraged to face changes and receive new information. Once this stage is passed, it is highly important establish a conversational process within which the interpretation has been different from the previously practiced.

In other words, in case an individual is motivated enough, he/she is open to understanding a new perspective (Schein 1996). “Brain washing” are among the most relevant examples discovering the essence of positive or defensive identification.

According to this principle, “confessing one’s guilt, and acknowledging the incorrectness of ones social origins could one hope to learn” how to accept the new cognitive context (Schein 1996, p. 62).

Thus, defensive identification occurs when employees are captured by a hostile environment. In such situations, individuals have to imitate new role models to adjust to the situation.

The identification is an inherent component of unfreezing station because it encourages individuals to be more focused on the goals and objectives that have recently been introduced to an organization (Burnes 2004b).

In this respect, using such a perspective is beneficial for an organization, regardless of negative influences on the employees.

However, personal refreezing is considered to be the most challengeable during this stage because it implies personal decision making and increased awareness of the necessity to introduce ideological shifts to fit organizational goals.

Despite negative influences, the change model introduced by Schein/Lewin produces positive outcomes for overall organization’s restructuring. More importantly, organization should not implement changes only at certain stages of development.

Rather, change process is an ongoing phenomenon that requires managers to keep abreast of the external environment to integrate the corresponding shifts.

In addition to the above-presented concerns, I should also admit that the transformation process should capture all departments in an organization. Alternatively, the change process will not contribute to increased organizational performance.

Moreover, the organizational culture should also be reconsidered to encourage change and provide a new dimension for self-development and promotion. Therefore, Schein’s model of gradual transformation fits perfectly the identified goals of the change process, as well as introduces new directions for future growth.

Conclusion

Change management is an important condition for organizations to develop and enhance their competitiveness. However, in order to implement change successfully, specific emphasis should be placed on obligatory stages of change.

According to Lewin/Schein theory of change, individual is central to carrying out change because it is premised on reevaluation of personal awareness and cognition.

Within these perspectives, the stage of unfreezing should involve the process of disconfirming information, the phenomenon that allows managers to unfold new capabilities of an organization and integrate new concepts of business development.

Disconfirmation, therefore, is strongly associated with psychological and conscious dimension. The task of change managers is to make employees change their perceptions and attitude to the organizational process through individual acceptance as part of an organizational network.

Rejection of previously accepted concepts is the first step toward change. This stage is possible through implementing ultimate circumstances under which employees are not able to implement old concept for solving the problems.

Further stages of change implementation involve anxiety, cognitive redefinition, and negative identification – the stage that logically stem from the stage of disconfirming information.

Overall, disconfirming information and cognitive redefinition are considered essential for implementing change in an organization, as well as provide new perspectives for development.

More importantly, changes are beneficial for business firm because they provide wider opportunities for sustaining competiveness and increase productivity. Change managers, therefore, should work on strategies that would ensure constant shifts to organizational processes.

Reference List

Akgun, AE, Byrne, JC, Lynn, GS, and Keskin, H 2007, ‘Organizational Unlearning as Changes in Beliefs and Routines in Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Change Management. vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 794-812.

Burnes, B 2004a, ‘Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal’ Journal of Management Studies, vol.41, no. 6., pp. 977-1002.

Burnes, B 2004b, ‘Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?’, Journal Of Change Management, 4, 4, pp. 309-325,

Hughes, M 2007, ‘The Tools and Techniques of Change Management’, Journal Of Change Management, 7, 1, pp. 37-49.

Kuwada, K 1991, ‘Strategic Learning: A Design Perspective on the Dynamics of Strategic Behaviors and Organizations’, Working Papers (Faculty) — Stanford Graduate School Of Business, pp. 1-51.

Lewin, K 1947 ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’. In D Cartwright (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science, Social Science Paperbacks, London.

Lundberg, C. C., & Sproule, R. E. (1968). Readiness for Management Development: An Exploratory Note. California Management Review, 10(4), pp. 3-80.

Mantere, S, Schildt, H, & A. Sillince, J 2012, ‘Reversal of Strategic Change’, Academy Of Management Journal, 55, 1, pp. 173-196.

Medley, B, & Akan, O 2008, ‘Creating positive change in community organizations: A case for rediscovering Lewin’, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 4, pp. 485-496.

Pryor, MG, Taneja, S, Humphreys, J, Anderson, D, & Singleton, L 2008, Challenges Facing Change Management Theories and Research. Delhi Business Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-20.

Schein, EH 1989, ‘The Role of the CEO in the Management of Change: The Case of Information Technology’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1-48.

Schein, EH 1993, ‘How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green Room’, Sloan Management Review, pp. 85-92.

Schein, EH 1996, ‘Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes Toward a Model of Managed Learning’, vol. Sloan Management Review, 1, no. 1, pp. 59-74.

Schein, EH 1999, ‘Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes Toward a Model of Managed Learning’, Reflections, 1, 1, pp. 59-74

Schein, EH 2009, The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, John Wiley & Sons, US.

Sharma 2006, Change Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, US.

Stragalas, N 2010, ‘Improving Change Implementation’, OD Practitioner, 42, 1, pp. 31-38.

Thompson, LL, and Choi HS 2005, Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, Routledge, New York.

Wirth, R 2004, ‘Lewin/Schein’s Chainge Theory’, Organizational Change, pp. 1-2.