Introduction
Guiding organizational change initiatives prove to be a decisive test for most leaders. This is because it has been made apparent that no business is capable of surviving over long-term proviso it is incapable of reinvesting itself. However, the nature of human beings as what it appears to be makes elementary changes to be habitually opposed by those it most significantly affects. That is to say, those found in business trenches. Therefore, leading the change processes initiatives materialize to be both incredibly difficult and absolutely essential.
Perhaps no one comprehends the organizational change anatomy better than Kotter (1996, p.3). In his book titled leading change, Kotter (1996, p.5) used various models to explain and highlight the critical success factors for change initiatives and the reasons why most change initiatives fail.
Approximately 66% of them fail. Based on one of the proposed change theories named teleological theory, this paper intends to highlight the reasons why most key change initiatives are bound to fail. The essay draws on the key triumph factors for change ranging from the shifting culture, generating short-range wins to the institution of an amazing sense of exigency.
Teleological Theory
Despite fighting to meet the demands for the currently competitive markets, most corporate change initiative efforts appear to be very unsuccessful. In fact, it is estimated that sixty six percent of such transformation initiatives are utter failures. That is, whether the change initiatives are geared towards reversing corporate death spirals, improving culture or even boosting quality, they merely breed lukewarm outcomes.
Most of them indeed fail miserably. Kotter has various reasons why this is the case. For instance, Kotter states that nearly all administrators hardly recognize that revolution is not an incident bar a transformative progression. It progresses from one particular stage to another and it is duly built on one another. While literatures show that change initiatives are supposed to take years, managers are pressurized to step up the processes, thus they skip other stages.
Thus, drawing on the teleological theory, it becomes much easier to discuss why the desired change initiatives fail. Under this theory, it is presumed that an organization is adaptive and purposeful. This means that change takes place because change agents, leaders as well as others observe the importance of change.
The change process is both linear and rational, yet individual organizational managers are very instrumental to the change process. The theory asserts that the motivation and success of change initiative accrue due to internal organization decisions and features instead of the external environment (Kotter 1996, p.7). Derived from this fact, teleological theory claims that there are numerous errors that organizations do make while executing change initiatives which ultimately results into failures.
According to teleological theory, the following errors are attributable to the reasons why nearly 66% of most change initiatives fail.
Non establishment of an immense sense of urgency
Basically, various successful change initiative efforts instigate whenever groups or individuals begin to observe keenly the competitive situation of a corporation, the level of financial performance, technological trends and market position. The focal point is to ideally center on the waning tendencies in central business limits, prospective returns dive whenever essential copyrights terminate and the surfacing of fresh marketplaces that are being overlooked by all and sundry.
The groups then communicate such info dramatically and broadly particularly when great opportunities or potential crisis seem to be very apt. Thus, this initial step is very crucial given that to get a change initiative program on track, much individual aggressive cooperation is required. In fact, any corporation that initiates change initiative program without necessarily motivating the parties concerned goes nowhere and is bound to fail (Stanley et al. 2005, p.429).
Most corporations assume that the first step in implementing change initiative is easy. However, various corporations have considerably failed in this phase. The reasons for failure are that corporate executives tend to undervalue the difficulty involved in trying to compel individuals out of their respective comforting zones. Occasionally, corporate executives disgustingly overvalue the level of success they have achieved by increasing the level of urgency. For instance, they implement change initiative without being patient.
Most often, corporate directors are paralyzed by shortcoming possibilities. Their main worries are that senior employees are likely to be defensive, short term business outcomes might be jeopardized, procedures may turn out of control and stocks may shrink (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, p.568).
The fear is that they may be blamed for any crises created. Since change demands leadership and requires a novel system, most change initiatives fail because the initial phase lacks enough hired leaders or leaders promoted to senior positions to oversee the implementation of the change initiatives. As a result, huge challenges are anticipated in cases where change champions are lacking.
Whenever there is urgency for change initiatives, the change champions should facilitate frank discussions with both the internally and externally involved parties. It is undesirable to the executives to depend on outside unwanted info only. Nevertheless, there is the need to pump up the rate of urgency to ensure that change initiatives processes succeed to avoid putting the corporations’ long term prospects into jeopardy.
Hence, literature reveals that the rate of urgency when implementing change initiatives is not high when approximately 75% of the corporations management are candidly certain that the usual business is unacceptable and change initiatives must be implemented. Anything that is below that may generate grave change initiative problems in the late phases of change initiative implementation (Feldman 2000, p.613).
Stoppage to craft adequate influential steering alliance
Habitually, key change initiative regeneration programs initiate with merely either two individuals or an individual. However, when a change initiative effort becomes successful, the coalitions in leadership tend to grow over time. Yet, failure to realize even minimum mass in the initial change initiative effort makes nothing valuable to take place. Studies show that key change initiatives become impractical without active support of the organizations heads.
This implies that, either the executives or divisional general managers must form a coalition with at least five to fifty other people in order to jointly develop collective commitments that would ensure change renewal initiatives are excellently performed (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, p.568). The coalition group must not necessarily incorporate all the executives given that not everybody accepts change in the first instance.
Despite the fact the change initiative guiding coalition constitutes of non senior management members, they might operate external to the customary hierarchy by designation. While this may be perceived awkward, it is ideally essential.
For instance, it is as a result of non performance of the existing hierarchy that the need for change arose. This necessitates that, for change initiatives to succeed, the current system must be reformed (Stanley et al. 2005, p.429). Nevertheless, reforms usually demand for formal protocols, expectations and boundary activities.
Advanced administrative position exigency assists in putting the change programs steering partnership jointly. Failure to have an individual who can put such personalities together, create minimum communication and trust levels as well as aid them in the development of shared corporations opportunities and problems assessments, would definitely lead to change initiatives failure.
Therefore, in as much as the change initiative leader may be dedicated or capable, any group that spearheads such an initiative without a powerful line leader may fail to realize the required power.
Vision deficiency
Triumphant change programs always call for the steering partnership to build up an eventual portrait which is reasonably easier to plea and converse with the workforces, stakeholders and consumers. A change initiative vision must be beyond plans to be achieved in five years.
In essence, the vision needs to highlight and elucidate on the direction that the corporation wants to take. Because the initial draft is made by an individual, it is usually blurry and the coalition needs to work on it overtime to produce something better (Feldman 2000, p.613). The coalition change initiative leaders ought to ensure strategies for accomplishing the visions are developed.
Devoid of rational apparition, the transformation program hard work could simply soften into mismatched and perplexing development records which might take a firm nowhere or even in the incorrect course.
Transformational change initiatives in various corporations are reported to considerably fail given that such organizations have change initiative directives and programs without visions as well as un-accomplishable plenty plans. Thus, teleological model puts it clear that, whether a corporation has a compelling and clear change initiative statement, the change can hardly be realized without a proper vision to offer guidance and direction.
Vision under communication
Irrespective of the pattern that the organizations heads use to communicate corporate vision, there are chances that very visible senior employees and executives could behave in unethical manner to negatively taint the vision. This is likely to make the communication belief amongst troops to go down while causing cynicism to go up.
The resulting effect is that most change initiatives will fail because just a few individuals are willing to make short term sacrifices and offer help. Without plausible statement, the psyches and compassions of business workers or firm affiliates are hardly gotten. The strategy for communicating the desired change initiatives should be convincing enough to make employees believe that change is essential to an extent that they would accept making short term sacrifices (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, p.568).
The fourth phase of initiating change program is quite challenging provided job losses are incorporated in the short-term sacrifices. To gain support and understanding of the change plans prove to be very tough when vision includes downsizing. Therefore, successful change visions normally incorporate the commitments to fairly treat lay-offs and new growth possibilities.
Change initiatives fail where executives include and poorly communicate change program messages. Provided important individuals’ behaviours are contradictory with their wordings, the change initiatives will be undermined and consequently fail (Stanley et al. 2005, p.429).
Failure to remove the new vision’s obstacles
Triumphant change initiatives instigate by involving various individuals and groups as the change procedures progress. Directorial affiliates are encouraged to grant headship, to build up original thoughts and attempt novel strategies. In case few people are involved, the outcomes would be unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, employees often comprehend the new visions and aspire to accomplish them, but some change initiative leaders tend to block their paths. In such circumstances, change initiatives are bound to fail because the employees hardly belief that there is nonexistence of external obstacles. If the organizational structure creates an obstacle to change, it becomes difficult for change initiative leaders to get rid of each obstacle due to limited time, power and momentum.
When the obstacles are individuals or groups, they must be fairly treated in a manner that is in line with the vision (Feldman 2000, p.613). Failure to maintain the change credibility while empowering others would thwart the change initiative efforts and the result would be failure to implement and realize the change initiatives.
Non-systematic planning and creation of short term wins
Change initiatives require short term goals to be met and accelerated in order to avoid losing momentum given that actual change necessitates a lot of time. Devoid of short term wins, various groups and individuals are likely to give up. Others would wish to take up the ranks of change resistors.
Since most of them have different introduction to the change initiative process, unambiguous results might be generated. To avoid this, organizations must compel change leaders to generate short term wins. This is because when employees realize that key changes are long-term, they would drop the level of urgency. Failure to generate short term win might decelerate the levels of commitments and urgency, hence change initiative failure (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, p.568).
Finally, if organizations change initiative leaders declare victory too soon, it might be catastrophic to the company. The change initiatives ought to be given time to sink into the culture of the corporation. When the urgency is minimal, ambiguity exists in the vision and power lacks in the coalition. Hence, celebrating premature victory may lead to a deceleration in the change initiative momentum or even some major drawbacks. The end result could be failure in change initiatives.
References
Feldman, M 2000, “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”, Organization Science, vol.11 no.6, pp.611-629.
Kotter, PJ 1996, “Leading change: Why transformational changes fail?” Harvard Business Review, vol.21 no.7471, pp.1-10.
Stanley, DJ, Meyer, JP & Topolnytsky, L 2005, “Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change”, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol.19 no.2, pp.429-459.
Tsoukas, H & Chia, R 2002, “On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change”, Organization Science, vol. 13 no. 5, pp. 567-582.