Over the last 12 weeks, I have learnt that it is only through first understanding that change is impossible to avoid that companies and people can actually deal with change. However there are many problems and challenges when dealing with change. This brings me to my favourite chapter in the book Managing Organizational Change by Palmer, Dunford and Akin (2009). That is the chapter, ‘Resistance to change’.

The chapters in the book that led to this one provided details on why change occurs, what changes in organizations and stories of change. There are references to the stories of Hewlett Packard and IBM in the first chapter. At IBM they made an underground culture of web users so that the change was taking place unofficially. People did not understand at that time about the immense changes that the internet would lead to. This story and others shows how change at times has to be happening underneath because it can be very unwelcome. It requires a vision and it has to be strategic therefore involving intense leadership skills. However this idea of it happening underneath although it can lead to the situation of internal support being provided is interesting. It shows how change can be resisted even when companies like IBM or Kodak or McDonalds are threatened with low revenue. Often, there is pressure from stakeholders such as shareholders or customers who are not keen on change. This then brings me to the chapter on resistance to change.

In this chapter there is a story about the FBI who have to work to become ‘more skilled at preventing acts before they occur’ (Palmer et al. 2009, p.163). This small section of the story is at the centre of change management which is often about making predictions. The other book of Brown and Eisenhardt (1998), Competing on the Edge, refers to reacting to change, anticipating changing and leading to change so that reacting and anticipating change are defensive strategies but leading change is meant to be the highest level of change. This requires edge of chaos thinking or edge of time or using time pacing. However all this chaos can necessarily lead to resistance.

Change is risky and uncertain. Government laws can change and new technologies can be introduced. It can be difficult to predict. When Palmer et al. (2009) refer to the breaking of the psychological contracts, the upsetting of employees’ expectations about the future, and the problems of too much change, this seems understandable. Creating resistance profiles for people in the company seems difficult and likely to lead to more resistance. However it is understandable that the company needs to do everything to enable change. The examples throughout the text prove that.

In my future work and study, I will try to monitor my own resistance to change and resistance to ideas that are not in accord with the ones I have had for a long time. I want to incorporate change as inevitable, as fundamental to all work, study, daily life. I believe that it is important to try to predict it and this can be done underground, through listening and watching. I think that understanding the inevitability of change can help me but I also believe that it is important to understand resistance.

References

Brown, SL & Eisenhardt, KM 1998, Competing On The Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2006, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York.

According to the scholars Dunphy and Stace (1993) the contingency approach to change addresses some of the inadequacies of the other models, namely the traditional organisational development (OD) model. They claim that this is because the OD models requires participation whereas much change occurs under directive leadership style. The other major reason they cite is that the OD model requires change within a particular paradigm or framework and in many situations, the change that has to occur is transformational. Nevertheless they do note that the traditional OD approach of Participative Evolution can be useful for some organisation such as Macquarie Bank which they explain is effective because of its relatively small size, its innovative niche-oriented business strategies that are combined with a ‘continuously adaptive loose-coupled flexible organisation’ (p.906).   The value of the contingency approach to change has to be seen therefore in relation to the market environment and in relation to the needs of the organisation. So, when MLC Life Ltd changed to regain high profitability, they used dictatorial transformation. They were going into a new business, with new technologies, changing the culture in a changed political climate. Force ensured the survival of the organisation (Dunphy & Stace 1993). Therefore in times of turbulent change, a contingency model, also referred to as a situational model by Dunphy and Stace (1993) can be very effective and ensure turn around in profitability rather than a change strategy based on an OD model only allowing for incremental change (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2009).   The contingency model is used to vary change strategies for achieving optimum fit with the environment. Its value lies in the fact that it is an adaptive strategy providing different paths of change for organisations at different time. These include change approaches that are developmental transitions, task-focused transitions, charismatic transformations and Taylorism which focuses on fine tuning change. Medium to large companies such as MLC Life can take different pathways which they did beginning with directorial transformation and then moving to Modular Transformation and coercive change management (Stace & Dunphy 1993).   In conclusion, in the existing dynamic and turbulent market environment, organisations do need to go on different pathways. The OD model dominates change thinking. The contingency model arguing for dictatorial and coercive change at times seems controversial but also liberating for companies particularly in times of dynamic change, as when the banks were deregulated. Although these models have disadvantages because they are ambiguous, depend on knowledge about organisation environment fit and depend on leadership style, they also present opportunities for creative thinking that can go beyond prescriptive approaches (Palmer et al. 2009).

References

Dunphy, D & Stace, D 1993, ‘The strategic management of corporate change’, Human Relations, 46(8), 905-921.

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2009, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York.

The professor’s role as interpreter meant that he illuminated the local meaning of effective supervision, high performance, and what made up a good day of work. He was able to undrstand the culture that allowed individuals in the organisation to adapt to different projects over time and this culture then provided a way to incrase their commitment. In this case culture is something the organisation has. The culture is strong in this case allowing the team members to operate freely within certain understandings, typical of a knowledge intensive company (Robertson & Swan 2003).

The understanding of the metaphor that the teams used then  provided a framework for those with leadership roles for managing or in this case, experimenting with change. The professor understood the values and the culture of the workers and the group dynamics of team building. Organisational change and active learning requires a ‘willingness to manage interfaces, disseminate information ad achieve a shared interpretation’ through the organisation. When the interpretation is shared understanding is facilitated and active learning can take place overcoming problems of distrust, ambiguity and uncertainty (Palmer et al. 2009, McCarthy, Garavan & O’Toole 2003).

The intervention potentially contributed to greater organisational effectiveness though better understanding of the culture and the values of the workers therefore making it easier to experiment, making it more inclusive and reinforcing interdependence (Palmer et al.  2009).

References

McCarthy, A, Garavan, T & O’Toole, T 2003, ‘HRD: Working at the boundaries and interfaces of organisations’, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 27, nos. 1,2, pp. 58-72.

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2006, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York.

Robertson, M & Swan, J 2003, ‘Control – what control? Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge intensive firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), pp. 831-859.

It is not suprising that people do not like change. People in organisations due to the pressures of globalisation are experiencing chaos and uncertainty in an environment they perceive as characterized by excessive change (Stensaker et al. 2002, in Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2009) and people can’t tolerate too much uncertainty. The challenge for management is to manage people and their reactions to change and this requires understanding emotions, values and assumptions according to Karp and Tveteraas Helgo (2008)

When people believe that the timing is wrong or that change is unnecessary or even if they are experiencing change fatigue, managers can try reconfiguring existing practices. This is called tinkering, kludging and pacing by Abrahamson (in Palmer & Dunford 2009, p.176). It involves leveraging existing capabilities and adapting product models or ideas  or mixing major change initiatives. However, although these and other methods such as the use of power, reason, even ignoring the resistance and manipulating those who oppose can be effective, when people do not like change and this is part of their identity and reality making, and if this is strong, it can potentially undermine change initiatives and become even more difficult to manage.

References

Karp, T & Tveteraas Helgo, TI 2009, ‘Reality revisited: leading people in chaotic change’, Journal of Management Development, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 81-93.

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2006, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York.

The 7-S framework provides a visual framework for the emphasis of how the different variables interconnect. These are structure, strategy, systems, style, staff, skills and also superordinate goals. This is particularly useful since the Boeing case study prepared by El Felletto (2006, in Palmer, Dunford & Akin (2006, pp. 153-154) indicates that the factors of systems and superordinate goals or vision are not being considered equally at Boeing. When the company diversified and changed its headquarters, its culture was damaged. They didn’t try to sell the new vision for the company, connecting style to the use of systems such as redesigning reward systems, which connects to staff whose commitment needed to be leveraged, skills for extra training to meet the demands of new systems, and structure. All this should connect to the vision approach for change (Palmer et al. 2006).

The structure variable would examine the different departments which are not coordinated leading to 400 different systems an little collaboration. The study could lead to a more decentralised structure but with greater accountability. The systems element would further improve accountability, providing better communication, and could also include a rewards system to promote greater productivity and greater commitment to new goals.

The 7-S framework shows how these inefficiencies have occurred. Although the company has adopted a new technological platform to improve collaboration, reduce costs, and increase innovation, this system was not connected to the superordinate goals and other variables such as style, staff, skills, indicated by the 7S framework and has not been effective. The diversification into information services and the space industry with the merger and change of headquarters, without changing the systems or the vision or the staff had had an even worse impact.

The 7S framework shows how if the company pays attention to the interconnectedness of the variables, so that when they do diversify or change they can be successful.

References

El Feletto 2006, ‘Case study, Boeing’, in I Palmer, R Dunford & G Akin 2006, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York, pp. 153-154

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2006, Managing Organisational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw Hill Irwin: New York.

The series of internal reforms to alter public perceptions of the company have been effective at restoring some reputational credibility. They invested up to US$500 million in renewable energy (Frynas 2003) They publicized this environmental concern and social responsibility and by 2007, the company was identified as one of the company’s whose reputation had most improved (Paine 2007). In contrast, Exxonn has denied climate change and taken no notice of environmentalists. Its reputation has suffered compared to both Exxon Valdez and BP. BP has been able to deal with accidents such as broken pipelines through taking a strong environmental attitude and communicating this clearly throughout the company and to all stakeholders (Paine 2007).

However Royal Dutch-Shell has ongoing problems with reputation and in 2004 appointed an executive to manage the US division’s reputation to deal with some of the issues related to reduced oil reserves. When they tried to shut a small refinery in California, they experienced such a strong negative public feeling that they had to postpone the sale (Biers 2005).

The company has made presentations to the media, to parliament and non government organisations about their corporate citizenship policies and at the same time recognized their most important stakeholders as their workforce who expect the company to be driven by values (Maitland 2003). They have ongoing work to do in relation to their reputation.

References

Biers, J 2005, ‘DJ Shell US appointment latest step to rebuild reputation’, OsterDowJones Commodity Wire, 19 January, online Factiva.

Ekeinde, A 2009, ‘Shell Nigeria deal won’t end image problem – activitists’, Reuters News, 10 June, online Factiva.

Holt, R & McNulty, T 2008, ‘Securing the license to act: a foundational capability’, Journal of Strategy and Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 72-92.

Maitland, A 2003, ‘Tools to build a reputation’, Financia Times, 19 January, online Factiva.

Paine, K 2007, ‘Image patrol: reputation implications: It’s the difference between tak and walk’, PR News, 5 February, vol. 63,no. 5, online Factiva.