Understanding change
(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)
The main problem is that people may not see the need for change or may think the reason is mistaken; it may threaten practices that people value highly; may have unintended consequences; may threaten the interest of some staff. Some see it with enthusiasm others as a threat.
Our reactions will depends on our attitudes and on the circumstances and details.
Kanter et al (1992) identified three different roles in the change process:
\- change strategist or initiator
\- changer implementers
\- change recipients
Typically if you are the middle manager you are the recipient but also have some responsibility for implementing it which is a source of tension.
Our attitudes to change are shaped by what we perceive to be its likely consequences.
To change or not to change? The first problem is if it is warranted and feasible. We often only make sense of change after the fact. When initiating it you do not have the benefit of hindsight.
You may start with a vague ‘things are not right’ but only raise difficult issues until you are sure it is necessary which is why sometimes the crisis preleads the change.
Another issue is defining the scope. Where do you stop? Leavitt’s diamond provides a useful example. If you make a change in one area you need to consider the likely implications in other areas and the balance between the four components. Task, People, Structures, System.
You can use force-field analysis to assess the prospects. Kurt Lewin suggested that any group is held in balance and that means that it prevents movement.
You have driving forces and restraining forces and want to move the balance from the original state to the desired future state.
It often helps to cluster the forces:
\- personal
\- interpersonal
\- intergroup
\- technological
\- financial
\- organisational
\- environmental
Think about it. Are the driving forces going to grow stronger? Is it realistic to expect that restraining forces to slacken or could they build up? You should try to shift the forces in favor of change. There are may also be no such thing as an equilibrium and different parts will probably change at different rates.
The aim of force-field analysis is not to create well-defined battle lines but to make a realistic, all-round as
sessment of the prospects for change.
Some see the change process as a three-phase model. We set of knowing only roughly where we are headed and a key competence is the ability to tolerate, perhaps to even enjoy a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity.
The best known model is of Lewin (1951). Unfreezing, change or movement and then refreezing. Nowadays preparing, changing and consolidating is preferred as the other wording was too rigid.
Phase 1 – preparing should be about how best to mobilise support for your ideas from your managers, staff and other relevant parties. Leadership and networking will be important as well as communication and providing a sense of direction. This phase is about people coming to terms with the need for change and starting to consider possibilities. Your role will be to contain (neither rejecting nor reinforcing) the feelings and reactions.
Think like this:
Dissatisfaction + Vision of a better future + Safe first step there > cost
It may be possible to mitigate some of the costs by offering more help or assistance to those most affected by the change.
Phase 2 – changing is important is planning and control, managing individuals and groups; exercising power; using your leadership skills; keeping your group in step with external demands; managing decision making; self-awareness and style. Be prepared to encounter unforeseen factors, unanticipated sources of resistance and unexpected consequences and so on. Build some slack into plans.
Phase 3 – consolidating was described by Kanter et al (1992) as the phase of reinforcement and institutionalisation. Making sure the new behaviours are incorporated in the day-to-day operations.
Hence it is necessary to monitor and take appropriate actions.