Change Management and the Role of Managers

Contents

Introduction 2

Statement of Problem 3

Analysis of the Issues 3

Conclusion and Recommendation 6

References 7

Introduction

Defined as an effort, which consists of physical changes to the operations and stimulations of an organization, change is always painful and almost undesirable in the workplace. The undesirability of change in the workplace borrows from the idea that it necessitates the transformation of policies and actions from the known to unknown, which may cause uncertainty if not properly managed. For example, employees and managers may want to express resistance to change because of the fear of doing new tasks to which they are to accustomed. Usually, the transformation period is associated with confusion that may affect the performance of organizations in the short-run, but some of the issues may persist in the future. Effective managerial skills, therefore, are necessary in change management. This paper considers the roles of the management in dealing with change, especially on the coordination perspective. The essay appraises the role of the management in choosing the change agent—the persons and resources required for change management—and the effects that a wrong choice would have on the success of change management. The author concludes that as opposed to the practice in which most large organizations chose external change agents, managers should select an internal team and pair them with an external one to spearhead change management to avoid the cultural clashes that might arise from the use of external teams. 

Statement of Problem

Change agents could be internally generated, such as employees or managers who are selected to oversee the process of change. In most firms, which are driven by innovation, employees and managers alike receive training in change management, which enhances their resourcefulness in dealing with the process. Apart from the internal resources, change agents could also be generated externally from sources, such as consultancy services. It is notable that most large organizations may want to use external resources in the institution of organization-wide changes (Lunenburg, 2010). Since the hired consultants are from outside the organization, they are mostly not aware of the traditions, politics, and culture of the organization. The hired agents are able to establish a different approach to the situation that requires change, and to challenge the organizational status quo. Nevertheless, despite the advantages that external change agents could bring to the organization, their presence could disadvantage the organization for their lack of an understanding of the operating procedures (Ionescu, Meruţă, & Dragomiroiu, 2014). Therefore, for fear of failure in change management, some managers have panicked about the approach to use, which necessitates effective advice from best practices recommended in literature. 

Analysis of the Issues

Analyzing the issues presented in the statement of the problem that this paper addresses requires comprehending the pros and cons of using each of the change agents. The first advantage of using internal change agents is the idea that they understand corporate culture, which might speed up the process that would lead to the realized objectives (Lunenburg, 2010). The cited literature suggests that that corporate culture should always inform the process of change, and that any changes that attempt to force the transformation of this culture would result in resistance. As much as most of the changes may challenge corporate culture, the role of the management is to ensure a smooth transition, which implies that an internal team may be easier to manage than an external one. Change managers would also take less time in assembling their team than they would do using an external one. Since any change process should take the shortest time possible to normalize the activities of the affected organizations, it is imperative that managers have a time delivery metric to guide their activities. The mentioned two advantages of using internal change agents indicate that managers should have the ability to assemble effective teams and to inspire them to work towards the attainment of the set goals, which could be challenging and costly when external agents are considered. The cost issue factors into the advantages of using an internal change agent through considering that there would be a lower cost spent on team assembly and training compared to using an external one. 

Despite the identified benefits of using the internal change agents, it should be noted that internal teams may be limited in their perspective of problem-solving. For example, because of the fear that is associated with change, such as the need for employees to shift their roles, some employees might be biased in their decisions, or they could simply resist most of the change proposals (Chew, Cheng, & Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2006). Where such a situation may arise, the managers and those in charge of coordinating the process may experience a difficult time in inspiring the desired change, and the chances of a failed attempt are increased. At times, teams that are not selected to capture the diversity of the workplace may experience resistance, which calls for the team managers to be multiculturally competent and sensitive. 

The primary advantage of using external change agents is the idea that it diversifies the approach to problem-solving. Most of the change management consultancy teams are carefully selected and trained to deal with diverse challenges (Chew, Cheng, & Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2006). The teams, consequently, raise the probability of success in the implementation of the desired objectives compared to internal teams. The probability of success is further underpinned by the fact that an external team may be unaware of the corporate culture, which lowers the chances of biased perspectives in driving change that is inherent of internal change agents. The role of the management in this case would be to ensure that they coordinate with the external agents to orient them with the organizational values that would inspire change. 

As much as external change agents have the mentioned advantage, it is obvious that this approach is associated with higher costs compared to the use of internal teams. Being professionals in the field of change management, members of the consultancy agencies that companies might want to hire would expect higher returns for the services rendered, which might raise the cost of instituting the desired change. Furthermore, additional costs would be required to coordinate a smooth corporation between the hired professionals and internal resources with the objective, for example, of comprehending corporate culture. The second issue that might emerge while using external change agents would be the fact that they have little information of the values and culture of the organization. Consequently, when they fail to blend well with the rest of the internal resources in charge of the change management process, external agents may slow the realization of the desired outcomes or fail in doing so. The identified problem may be realistic where employees combine to resist change because of the perceive threat to their wellbeing that might result from the process. The role of the management, therefore, is to ensure that achieve effective blending of the internal and external teams of change management through visionary and transformative leadership. 

Conclusion and Recommendation

Change is an inevitable part of organizational development and growth. Despite importance of change, some managers may not have the right qualities to deal with the challenges that would come with the process. Consequently, change management skills are vital for managers. The issues reviewed in the preceding section highlight the contributions of managers to the efficiency of change management strategies. The issues indicate that despite the choice of the approach,—whether to use external or internal change agents—the management plays a vital role of coordinating the rest of the resources towards the attainment of the set objectives. Managers who do not want to consider external resources in change management risk failure that would result from resistance to change, especially if they do not have effective team management skills. Contrarily, those who do not want to use internal agents would incur extra costs and attain little results, especially if they are not effective coordinators. 

Because of the challenges that may come with the choice of each of the agents several recommendations might help managers to realize greater benefits of change management. It is proposed that managers adopt a generic strategy of change management. The success of the proposed approach, however, would rely significantly on the levels of coordination between the two teams. The managers should first select their internal change management agents that would be responsible for sensitizing the rest of the employees concerning the need for change. The managers should then facilitate a smooth working between the two teams through orienting the external team to the values and culture of their organization and by encouraging a collaborative approach to managing change. The teams that are selected should also be culturally sensitive to ensure that they are consistent with the transforming workplace diversity metrics in the recent past. 

References

Chew, M. M. M., Cheng, J. S., & Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2006). Manager’s role in implementing organizational change: case of the restaurant industry in Melbourne.  Journal of Global Business and Technology, 2 (1), 58-67.

Ionescu, E. I., Meruţă, A., & Dragomiroiu, R. (2014). Role of managers in management of change. Procedia Economics and Finance, 16(13), 293-298.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Managing change: The role of the change agent. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 13(1), 1-6.