Theories Of Planned Change Management Essay

Most companies today are facing the problem of globalization. An organizational change, refers to the planned change in theory, while Organizational Development (OD), refers to a long-term effort undertaken to improve problem solving capabilities and adapting to changes of the external environment. At a Government Business Conference held in 2007, Jeffrey Lucy AM, Chairman of Australian Securities and Investment Commission gave a speech.

“…So, if we were on par with other organizations, well funded to continue doing our job, and our people were committed to our agency goals, one might therefore reasonably ask: Why change anything?

– In my view, this would be a dangerous way of leading our agency and, while continuing to strive for improvements can be challenging, I believe that our staff agree we must never rest on our past achievements….” (ASIC 2007)

From the above abstract, Chairman Jeffrey is putting forth the message that in order for an organization to attain long-term sustainability, changes and improvements have to be made continuously.

THEORIES OF PLANNED CHANGE

There are three major organizational change theories being used to help organization members manage change:

Lewin’s change model – provides a general framework for understanding organizational change. This involves increasing forces pushing for change while decreasing forces maintaining the current state, producing less tension and resistance to change.

Action research model – depends on information gathered about the organization to guide subsequent actions. Results are then being evaluated and decided whether new actions are needed.

Contemporary approaches to change – is adapted from action research model, with the difference being there is a higher level of member involvement in the change process. This involves organization members to learn about their organizations and how to change it.

In actual practice, steps in planned change have to be modified or adjusted to suit the different organization’s needs and goals. Planned change can be used to solve problems, improve organization’s performance, adapt to external changes especially when coping with unplanned changes and also influence future changes. It is of utmost importance to bring about more effective organizations.

FORCES FOR CHANGE

Two major forces affects change in an organization. First, external forces comprising of changing market trends, new competitive entrants and improved technologies. Next, internal forces comprising of change of leadership beliefs and culture. These two forces will cause an organization to change in order for the organization to remain competitive.

CHANGE LEADERS

In order for an organization to implement changes, Organizational Development (OD) practitioners, also known as change agents, have to be hired or trained. OD practitioners refer to at least three kinds of people.

First, people who may be internal or external consultants offering professional and specialized services to organization clients. This group of people specializes in OD as a profession. Second, OD practitioner refers to people who do not have specialized training related to OD. These professionals gain competence in OD from working with OD professionals, and applying in their own respective specialized fields of work. Third, OD practitioner refers to managers or administrators who have gained OD competence by working with OD professionals in actual change programs.

In organizations, OD professionals who have been selected and empowered to make changes are known as change leaders for the organization. These leaders are further divided into internal consultants, people who are members of the organization, and external consultants, people who are not members of the client organization.

EFFECTS ON DIFFERENT STAGES OF CHANGE

Organizations hire both internal and external change leaders for their different expertise, specialization and influences at the different levels of change. Further elaboration would be done below at stage levels to understand their roles and impact.

First, at the entering stage, internal change leaders have an advantage as they have access to ready clients and relationships of clients have been built. They know the organization’s goals and problems faced, and have direct access to different information of the organization. This allows more efficient and smoother entry. Whereas external change leaders would need to spend more time obtaining data and information of the organization.

Second, at the contracting stage, internal change leaders have informal contracts and have lesser worry about expenses, but they must complete projects assigned to them. Whereas external change leaders have formal contracts and they can choose whether their skills and specialties matches the organization’s goals and needs before agreeing to undertake the assignment.

Third, at the diagnosis stage, internal change leaders tend to enjoy a basic level of trust and rapport with most organization members. Whereas external change leaders have to spend more time interacting with the organization’s member. But external change leaders enjoy higher status compared to internal change leaders which allows them to investigate more difficult issues and assess the organization more objectively.

Fourth, at the intervention stage, both types of change leaders must rely on valid information, making informed decisions, and having commitment internally to ensure success. However, an internal change leader would be overly cautious when making these decisions due to strong ties to the organization and someone with higher authority or power would be able to affect the decisions made. Whereas internal forces would have minimal or no effect on an external change leader.

Lastly, at the evaluating stage, internal change leaders can see change being implemented and take form. This allows them to make minor adjustments along the way as they have worked alongside professional OD practitioners and gained needed experience as mentioned in the beginning of change leaders. Whereas external change leaders seldom see long term results, meaning if adjustments need to be made along the way while the change is taking place, they are usually no longer available.

CASE STUDY

The following case highlights the need for external change leaders and their expertise:

The Blue Group, founded in 2002, by Ruby Lampard and Robin Sinclair, helps clients develop and maintain long-term profitable relationships through up selling and retention strategies. When Ruby and Robin first started, they did not have any idea regarding the types of clients they wanted to work with and the type of work they wanted to do. This led to random projects being accepted, resulting in long working hours clocked with minimal returns. After a year and a half, Ruby and Robin decided to seek help with an external consultant, who led them to plan and work for larger clients with long-term potential. Even though both Ruby and Robin were creative people, they still need the expertise of an external consultant.

The external change leader understands the external environment better regarding market shifts, different competitors and technologies available. Whereas Ruby and Robin were able to act as internal change leaders regarding the planning, organizing and controlling side for the change to take place. The external and internal change leaders were then able to come up with a strategy and structure for the organization. This resulted in a change of values with how Ruby and Robin worked. They were able to reap better rewards and management practices and structures were changed allowing them to hire workers which they didn’t dared to in the beginning.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, an organization cannot rely solely on an internal or external change leader to reinforce and implement changes. A mixture of both would be needed to bring about changes as they each possess different types of knowledge and skills, forming an internal-external consulting team. Internal change leaders can provide inside knowledge regarding the organization and allow external change leaders to be accepted easily. Internal change leaders would also be able to maintain in constant contact with clients. Whereas external change leaders would be able to combine their special expertise, vast experiences and objectivity with internal change leaders. External change leaders can also help train organizations and their counterparts, hence transferring OD knowledge and skills to the organization.

A balance needs to be struck in everything done. Since the opportunities an organization faces is huge and business markets are vast, organizations need to rely on not individual, but groups of people who are able to complement each other with their knowledge, continuous feedbacks and commitment to learn from one another, hence making it more effective than individuals working alone. If internal and external change leaders are not able to work together, they would be less effective than consultants working alone.