Executive Summary
The growing uncertainties in the world of business mean that corporate leaders have to be wary of the effects of their environment on the continuity of their businesses. In any case, it is only natural that cautious managers would consider methods that would help to avoid the adverse effects that would come with such changes. The changes would always mean that businesses strategize if they are to survive and endure the change periods. The described ideas constitute the elements of change management, which are the core of this research report. The report delves into the lessons learned about change management through the course, including the approaches to change facilitation, the dynamics of change, and the criticality of stakeholder participation, the use of language, trust building, and the elimination of fear. The author uses the Lewin’s change management model, two of the five learning disciplines, which are team learning and systems thinking. Overall, the essay concludes that change management is effective in avoiding the negative effects that would result from attempting to change the culture of an institution without effective coordination of the required activities.
Change Management and Its Scope
Ongoing rapid change is a characteristic of the modern society. Considering the pace at which the corporate world moves the markets, most organizations have been struggling to adapt to the changes that occur. The meaning of the phenomenon described is the fact that contemporarily, any successful corporate institution is founded on the capacity of its management to predict and adapt to the rapidly transforming environment (Tripon & Dodu, 2005). Consequently, comprehensive, active, reliable, and fast countermeasures designed to deal with the accumulated stereotyped notion and a conventional organizational within the contemporary environment of business is the most critical success factor for the modern organizations. In the meantime, change management is one of the tools designed in line with the scope of change and the characteristics of the modern business environment. What is the real meaning of this concept?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Todnem (2005), change management relates to the stepwise activities that entail the preparation of firms for and the institution of ongoing changes in the environment to facilitate the perpetuation of the businesses. In other terms, change management concerns the innovative approaches as well as speedy activities designed to deal with sudden and variable changes that would affect the operations of a given organization (Aladwani, 2001). Additionally, the adopted definition of change management could entail elements of models of individual change management, which capture the people’s side of the changes being addressed.
Change management could deal with the comprehensive components of the operations of businesses, which range from planning to the control of its activities. For instance, the activities could address the structure of governance and organization of the companies, the development of products, customer satisfaction, and other activities. In this case, related studies, such as Jung (2011), suggest that success with change management betters the state of the organization in terms of the structures of governance that require to be changed. The same study suggests that change management has the ability of improving the productivity of the institutions that apply its principles to the optimal levels through the modification and complementation of the extant systems of the organization. Through the processes of change management, for instance, customer satisfaction could be attained alongside the improvement of the corporate image of an organization, which would be beneficial to its operations.
The attainment of optimal results through change management would require that all the stakeholders of the organization work collaboratively for the maximization of their capacity. From the entry-level to management-level employees of any firms, such stakeholders need to coordinate their voice according to the goals and visions of their company. Nevertheless, it should be noted that each organization would always have a group of people who would compromise the process of change. The existence of such diversities in the workplace requires leaders to be effective in the provision of sense of direction to their juniors. Through this approach, therefore, the duty of the ‘change manager’ is critical in the control of the variable that exists within their organization.
Additionally, effective change management should consider the active role played by the sponsor of the change as well as the levels of input that such processes require. Even in situations in which companies have effective types of leaders, it should be known that change management is unlikely to succeed without the critical input of partnership and sponsorship (Carnall, 2007). The citied study suggests that visible and active sponsorship is the most critical contributor to the success of the processes of change management. Through the interactive and collaborative association between several stakeholders within the organization, the institutional leaders are able to both exchange ideas concerning change and to ensure that they conduct their businesses on grounds of mutual benefit (Aladwani, 2001).
A Theory of Change of Management
The Lewin Change Management Model
Kurt Lewin developed one of the cornerstone approaches to the comprehension of organization change in the 1940s and it is still relevant to the present landscape of corporate management. The Lewin model is referred to as the unfreeze-change-refreeze approach. In practice, the model contains three stages that managers should follow if they want to handle change effectively within their organizations. He conceptualized that for one to transform a block of ice into a cone of the same properties, they were first required to melt the cube (unfreeze) before molding the iced water into the desired conical shape (change) before solidifying the product to obtain the final product (refreeze) (Miller & Proctor, 2016). Through the conceptualization of change as a procedure involving different stages, corporate leaders can prepare themselves for what may come their way and device plans that would be critical in the management of the transition period. The model directs that leaders in the corporate world must always understand why they need to change before they plan anything else that would effect the transition.
The Lewin change management model suggests that unfreezing is the first phase of the change management process. This phase entails the preparation of the organization for the acceptance that transitioning would be desirable for the case of its operations. Therefore, Lewin conceptualized that managers were required to first break down the extant status quo within their institutions before proceeding to build the new way of operations (Burnes, 2004; In Goksoy, 2016). Central to the process is the development of compelling messages depicting the need to change the old mode of operation. The lessons from this module have thought me that this step would be the easiest to frame for any manager when they can identify weaknesses in their current situation, such as low staff morale, uncoordinated working, poor financial performance, and other negative statistics of their companies. In any case, such negative statistics would always be pointers of the need for the organizations to review their operations to determine the causes of the undesired outcomes.
A successful preparation of the organization requires that the concerned persons start from its core—they need to challenge the behaviors, attitudes, values, and beliefs that define their organizations currently (Burnes, 2004). Through the analogy of a building, it is critical to analyze and be prepared to transform the current foundations in the event of the need to develop add-on storeys since the existing ones may not be strong enough to sustain the additional pressure. Unless critical care is given to the ability of the foundations to stand the pressure from additional weight, the whole building may collapse. It means that the first phase of change management, according to the Lewin Model, is always the most difficult. Precisely, the process causes a disturbance to the flow of things within the institution. In such cases, the persons seeking to change their organizations always evoke reactions from the rest of the stakeholders because they always tend to find change as disturbing an almost unnecessary (Cameron & Green, 2015). Through compelling organizations to examine their cores, managers effectively develop controlled crises that result in the building of a strong motivation critical for seeking out new equilibria (Cameron & Green, 2015). It is critical noting that it would be impossible for corporate leaders to get the required support and participation for the realization of any meaningful change.
After a successful completion of the unfreeze stage, the Lewin Model suggests that managers should then proceed to the change phase. During this stage, the stakeholders of the change process will embark on finding solutions to the uncertainty that the unfreeze situation caused to the nature of their working conditions (Burnes, 2004). What is critical for this stage is the belief that people develop in their actions towards the realization of the desired change. It is imperative noting that the transition to change from the initial unfreeze stage is not a spontaneous occurrence. The reason for this idea is the fact that people will always require time for them to embrace the adopted direction and to engage proactively in the process of changing their organizations.
For the stakeholders within the companies to accept the proposed changes and contribute positively to its success, they are required to comprehend the manner in which the new state would benefit them (Jung, 2011). In this case, not each person in the organizational setting will fall in line for the fact that change was necessary and that it would be beneficial for the company. Situations such as this suggest that while change would be obvious in the manner that it would benefit organizations, some people will always oppose the proposed transformations. Therefore, communication and time are two of the most critical factors to change if it has to be developed successfully. Stakeholders require enough time for them to understand the meaning of the proposed transformations in their organizations. In addition, literature on effective change management suggests that people should also be highly connected to their organizations throughout the entire period of change (In Goksoy, 2016).
The Lewin Model of change management suggests that refreezing is the last phase of successful transitions in the activities of corporations. It is necessary to understand that the organization is considered to have attained the refreezing phase when upon examination, it can be inferred that the proposed changed have taken place and the stakeholders have embraced the new working ways (Todnem, 2005). The external sign of the refreeze phase are stable organization charts, consistent job descriptions, as well as other related activities. The last phase of the Lewin Model of change management also requires the input of stakeholders and the corporate institutions in the internalization or institutionalization of the changes. This statement suggests that that corporation is critical in ensuring stakeholders adopt the changes and that they incorporate such changes into their organizational cultures. The employees and other stakeholders will always feel comfortable and confident with the new ways of operations with the new senses of stability that the refreezing process would develop.
Extant studies suggest that the rationale for the creation of new senses of stability in the ever changing is always the center of focus in change management (Jung, 2011). In this case, while change is a constant element within the corporate landscape, the refreezing process is quite relevant. Without this process, the workers of an organization may be trapped in the transition process in which they will be unsure of the manner in which things should be done or in which they will never complete any task to the fullest capacity possible. Tackling the next initiative of change would be quite difficult for the organizations in the absence of a new frozen state of the organization after the initiation of previous change initiatives (Carnall, 2007). Therefore, the change management would only be effective following the completion of the three phases of the Lewin Change Management Model.
Peter Senge’s Five Disciplines Model-Systems Thinking and Team Learning
Peter Senge conceptualized that change management for any organization was part of learning and teaming (Senge, 1990). According to the cited study, it is possible for organizations to learn to change for the fact that people are always learners deep down in their consciousness. He seeks to suggest that the idea of the world being subject to separate and unrelated forces is an illusion, which must be dealt with through a novel way of thinking. Consequently, according to Senge (1990), managers and other corporate leaders can create learning organizations when they give up such an illusion. In the new type of organizations, stakeholders would be involved in a continual expansion of their abilities to create results that they desire. In the same settings, the stakeholders would be in a position to create and nurture new and expansive thinking patterns, set free collective aspiration, and create conditions that cause people to continue nurture the need for them to learn together (Senge, 1990). The Five Disciplines of learning, according to Senge, are team learning, building shared visions, mental models, personal mastery, and systems thinking. However, for the objective of this essay, only systems thinking and team leaning are conceptualized.
Systems thinking conceptualizes that different components of organizations are always interconnected. It means that the model is an approach that perceives that complex situations are always inter-connected and that understanding the nature of such situations would always require a deviation from the simplistic and linear cause-and-effect approach to analyzing issues within organizations that are often faulted. In this way, the systems thinking approach enables organizational stakeholders to unravel subtleties that are often hidden and plan change programs that would resulted in deeper understandings of the manner in which the different systems of organizations operate for the efficiency (Senge, 1990). What the systems thinking approach appears to suggest is the fact that managers should always analyze the manner in which different components of their operations would contribute to the existence of a given issue that requires to be handled through change management. Therefore, this approach to change management premises corporate leaders creating long-lasting solutions to problems through increasing the interconnectivity of the different sections of their organizations.
The learning discipline advanced by Senge suggests that effective teams are built on the idea that thinking together is a useful element of any strong organization. Thinking together entails the different stakeholders of any type of industry sharing skills, knowledge, insights, and experiences with each other on the manner in which they would do things better (Senge, 1990). The study also suggests that teams create reflections, inquiries, and skills of discussion in the conduction of more skillful conversations on change with each other. Such encounters, as literature indicates further, forms the foundation of the creation of a shared vision concerning change as well as making decisions on the common commitments to the required course of action.
The two disciplines suggest that change management is a collective responsibility of the organizational stakeholders. For instance, in the realization that adopting the most robust change programs requires studying the connection between different departments and systems of the same organization will always inform the need for stakeholders to collaborate in critical decision-making. The lesson that managers can learn from the two theories, Senge’s Five Disciplines and Lewin’s Model, is that change management is not a spontaneous process, but it requires effective planning for success.
Team Development Findings Summary
The two sessions of team development concerned the need for the Human Resources Manager to bolster staff morale. For instance, the process became a necessity after realizing that the team had lost the energy required to handle their duties within the required standards and that some of them were losing the commitment to work for their organization. Therefore, the conduction of needs assessment procedure resulted in the discovery that the Human Resources Manager needed to conduct sessions that would enhance creativity, corporation, communication skills, decision-making, shared vision, collaboration, and commitment to the attainment of set goals.
Both the Lewin Model of change management and Senge’s Five Disciplines models were applicable to the cases of team development sessions. First, the sessions depicted the fact that changing any element of the organization required a rigorous undertaking that would first determine the need for change, initiate the change program, and follow up the activities to determine their efficiencies. In applying the ideals of systems thinking, the sessions were founded on the idea that the loss of momentum among the employees would be attributed to their inefficiencies in communication, critical thinking and decision-making, team working, and other elements. Therefore, the sessions entailed modelling the different skills identified through the systems thinking approach through different practical activities. Consequent, the sessions resulted in the discovery that it was easy for managers to model shared visions, which is another element of Senge’s model, using team learning. Specifically, the employees who took part in the sessions were able to share their skills and idea on dealing with some of the challenging situations within the organization, which changed their insight and motivation to work.
Lessons from the Facilitation of Team Development Sessions
I learned that change was easier to attain from a team perspective that when managers would approach the subject singly. The most interesting factor that worked during the two sessions used in modelling change was the fact that that it was easy to drive a sense of shared vision among the team members. In this case, the experiments used were interpreted effectively since the teams realized the critical need for them to collaborate in attaining the ambitions defined by the experiments. Communication was one of the core elements in the success of the experiments.
However, as much as the sessions were effective in modelling shared visions among the team members, it was not easy to assess their effectiveness in transforming the organizational culture. The reason, as I discovered, is related to the idea that the sessions included only representatives from the staff of the organization. In any case, the experiments were not extensive enough to weigh their contribution to change management from the practical organizational context. Therefore, in my next team building sessions, I will use larger groups that would include a wider representation the rest of the employee at the organization.
I found the theoretical ideals of change management realistic in their practical use. Specifically, the sessions revealed that change management is a gradual process whose success relies mostly on the approach to planning for changes. The learning disciplines, for instance, were useful in directing the need for managers to analyze the interrelationship between different elements of an organization and leveraging the different skills and capabilities of different stakeholders in the institution of change.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This module’s core leaning point has been on change management in theory and practice. The sessions undertaken teach that change management is a holistic approach that requires the input from different stakeholders, which can only be attained through effective planning, communication, and coordination of teams. When planed properly, change management is easy to execute because it starts with seeking the approval of the rest of the stakeholders of organizations, which makes coordination easier than when managers would attempt to enforce the change parameters on employees. For such a reason, it is recommended that managers wishing to change specific elements of their organizations approach the process with a coordinated plan. In any case, corporate leaders should always strive to begin their change processes from the elementary levels, which is to include the rest of the stakeholders in the determination of the need to change and the right approach to the execution of the procedures involved. Without proper involvement of different stakeholders in the change process, the leaders will always find themselves struggling with the changes adopted.
References
Aladwani, A. M. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process management journal , 7 (3), 266-275.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re‐appraisal. Journal of Management studies , 41 (6), 977-1002.
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change . Kogan Page Publishers.
Carnall, C. A. (2007). Managing change in organizations . Pearson Education.
In Goksoy, A. (2016). Organizational change management strategies in modern business. IGI Global; New York: NY
Jung, C. (2011). The Importance of Change Management in Organisations . GRIN Verlag: Amsterdam
Miller, D., & Proctor, A. (2016). Enterprise Change Management: How to Prepare Your Organization for Continuous Change . Kogan Page Publishers.
Senge, P. (1990). Peter Senge and the learning organization . Retrieved May 23, 2018 from Rcuperado de: http://citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/viewdoc/download.
Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of change management , 5 (4), 369-380.
Tripon, C. & Dodu, M. (2005). Change management and organization development . Retrieved May 23, 2018 from https://www.apubb.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OD_Suport_de_curs_masterat.pdf
