Managing Organizational Change: Change Agent Strategies and Techniques to Successfully Managing the Dynamics of Stability and Change in Organizations
Jonathan H. Westover, Utah Valley University, UT
Abstract
In our turbulent world, there is nothing more permanent than change. Organizations face the continuous prospect of change as they fight to stay afloat and compete in an increasingly competitive and globalized economy. The question is, how do organizations manage this change? This article provides a brief overview of the history of change theory, followed by a discussion on differing change agent strategies and techniques to managing change and stability in organizations, including an introduction into the emergence of role of the change agent, a discussion of the implications for agents of change or stability, and a discussion of the need for anticipating how people will be affected by change. Finally, I provide some specific tools for change agents, and discuss how to be an effective change agent in organizations.
Introduction
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “There is nothing permanent except change.” Change is an even greater reality in contemporary life; it is occurring at an accelerated pace, and there is almost no likelihood of slowing the pace of change. No longer is it possible to focus on “business as usual.” As organizational environments exert pressure for change, organizations must adjust if they are to survive and prosper. The challenge for today’s managers is to learn to manage change effectively.
In what follows, I will provide a brief overview of the history of change theory, followed by a discussion on differing change agent strategies and techniques to managing change and stability in organizations.
Brief Overview of the History of Change Theory
Changes exist in both the external and internal environments. To be successful in dynamic environments, organizations must be willing to expend considerable amounts of energy in examining fundamental questions to the organization. In the last half century, there has been great interest in the process of planned change and the role of individuals in creating change. Kurt Lewin (1947), described it in three phases: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Since his early contributions, a large body of literature on the theory of planned change has developed, including strategies for overcoming resistance to change and for the process of creating change in a variety of
organizations (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1969). This growing interest in the theory of planned change and resistance to change has been stimulated, in part, by the rapid and sometimes chaotic and uncontrolled changes in our society. Despite proliferating change, however, resistance still exists in areas in which many people feel change and growth should occur, thus increasing the current emphasis on the change process.
Noel Tichy (1982) categorizes the forces that exert pressures for change on organizations in three management areas: technical, political and cultural. •Technical refers to pressures for change brought about by changes in technology and economic conditions; e.g., advanced high-tech equipment, changing interest rates, and increased competition.
•Political refers to pressures for change brought about by issues associated with power, influence, and the allocation of resources; e.g., who has authority, who is rewarded, and who decides how rewards and resources are allocated.
•Cultural refers to pressures for change created by the values and beliefs of people; e.g., demographic composition and cultural diversity of the labor pool and societal values.
Because of the emphasis on promoting change and reducing resistance to change in the past, less att
ention has been paid to the need for stability, particularly after a successful change process. However, Lewin (1947) noted the tendency for group performance to slip back to original levels after a period of rapid change and considered stabilization efforts part of the change process. Therefore, when considering change, it is equally important to consider stability and its role in the change process.
Change Agent Strategies and Techniques
The following sections will (1) provide an introduction into the emergence of role of the change agent, (2) discuss the implications for agents of change or stability, (3) discuss the need for anticipating how people will be affected by change, (4) provide some tools for change agents, and (5) discuss more specifics on being a change agent in organizations.
The Change Agent
Interest in the theory of planned change has created the new professional role of the “change agent.” The change agent’s job is to develop a climate for planned change by overcoming resistances and rallying forces for positive growth. Such skills are needed in conditions of rapid change, particularly in systems that do not respond appropriately to changing environmental forces.
Implications for agents of Change or Stability
As society and its institutions are likely to continue facing tremendous change in the environment, a growing awareness must be developed of the impact of uncontrolled growth and the need for the process of stabilization as well as that of change. Agents emphasizing change and those concentrating on stability are not mutually exclusive individuals or types of behavior, although individuals may be predisposed to one role or the other.
Change agents must fully recognize, as Kurt Lewin (1947) initially did, the necessity of stability as a basis for growth. Respect for structural mechanisms and roles that promote stability must be maintained, even while one is trying to alter radically the existing system. In some cases, the functions of a change agent and an agent for stability will overlap. Furthermore, one person may have to shift back and forth between the behaviors characteristic of these two emphases.
In fact, a critical variable of organizational success is a leader’s ability to stabilize and maintain the setting after the initially enthusiastic phase of new creation has subsided. For example, when a major change needs to be initiated, change-agent behavior is called for. If successful, it will lead to a desired change in the circumstances and thus require, in turn, different behaviors or mechanisms to stabilize that change.
The environment, however, will continue to change around this newly re-stabilized organization, creating the need at some later time for yet another major change.
Anticipating How People Will be Affected by the Change
As change agents, managers generally are expected to implement organizational changes with a minimum of disruption to the work process. There are certain considerations that can help a manager to facilitate any change process. These considerations require the manager to anticipate and plan for the responses of subordinates and others who will be involved in implementing the change. Louis R.
Pondy (1967) offers a way to consider the extent or intensity of the response to change.
He uses five levels or stages of conflict.reactions to the online manage
1.Latent: The first of these is “latent” conflict. Latent conflict exists because
there are conditions in the working environment that can create conflict. An example of this is the fact that managers frequently must compete for scarce resources. Although there is a potential for conflict in the situation, conflict itself will not arise until a demand for limited resources actually is made.
2.Perceived: The second stage is “perceived” conflict. At this stage, it is
recognized that conflict exists (although, as Pondy states, conflict may be perceived when no conditions of latent conflict exist).
3.Felt: In the third stage, “felt” conflict, the conflict becomes personalized.
Hostile feelings may accumulate.
4.Manifested: In the next stage, “manifested” conflict, these feelings may
become obvious. The conflict is demonstrated through the behaviors of those involved.
Demonstrated behaviors can include arguments, lack of contact, or even overt contact with covert intentions.
5.Aftermath: The final stage of conflict is “aftermath.” Pondy refers to this
stage as the legacy of a conflict episode. Managers who tend to “smooth over” or suppress conflict will find that the legacy of a conflict situation is much like “latent”
conflict; it still has the potential to explode at any time.
The implication is that managers can predict that, in most cases, the most violent reactions to change will come from those who perceive that their areas of control are being violated. Furthermore, an individual’s response to change is highly dependent on the individual’s or area’s predisposition to change. Managers of change must plan accordingly and formulate a strategy to best create buy-in among the workforce and other key stakeholders.
Tools for Change Agents
As was briefly discussed earlier, Tichy (1982) believes that success in dynamic conditions requires a strategic realignment and strengthening of technical, political, and cultural systems. Tichy further argues that managers have three fundamental tools with which to accomplish these tasks: mission and strategy, organizational structure, and human resources management.
•Use of mission and strategy tools consists of defining the organization’s purpose, setting goals, developing action strategies, and all the managerial processes necessary to carry these out.
•Use of organizational structure tools includes the ways in which tasks are defined and grouped, the ways in which people are coordinated to accomplish tasks, and the managerial processes that are utilized to make the structure work. •Human resource management tools include recruiting, selection a
nd placement, training and development, performance appraisal, and developing financial and non-financial reward systems.
When change agents effectively utilize these tools, they will have the means whereby they can have the right people in the organization working together and they can communicate the organization’s vision and purpose in order to gain employee
buy-in. Such a synergistic system will not only be ready for change when it comes, but more importantly, welcome it and see it as an opportunity.
Being an Agent for Change in Organizations
Building on the theoretical and practical contributions of his predecessors, Ryan (1996) developed a seven-step intervention plan (though his intervention plan was specifically geared towards change agents in the public sector, the ideas can be applied to change agents in an organization). The following are practical interventions that managers can utilize in being an agent for change:
1.Setting a new leadership style:Managers should use a new leadership
style, called "participative leadership" to describe the involvement of supervisors, managers, and leade
rs as partners.
2.Creating a shared vision for quality results: Managers need to recognize
the importance of involving customers and representatives of the workforce in the command's strategic planning sessions.
3.Establishing process improvement through department teams:
Mangers need to value teams. The establishment of teams at the department level can introduce employees to the concept of continuous process improvement and helped them to understand how individual units support the organization.
4.Fostering employee buy-in through empowered work teams: Managers
must empower teams through training.
5.Specifying measurements to observe systems in action: Managers need
to provide team members training to help them gather meaningful data about their work processes so that analysis and improvement could begin.
6.Incorporating leadership and teamwork-skills training: Managers
should provide training on team problem-solving skills and leadership training for supervisors.
7.Continuous improvement through ongoing feedback and review:
Managers can initiate a customer satisfaction survey to serve as a report card for the work teams so that they can identify opportunities for improvement.
In addition, Ryan (1996) suggests it is best if the manager can describe the specific impact of the change on his or her area of responsibility and subordinates. Generally, the process is first to define the specific objective that will cause the change, then to describe the results that the change is expected to produce. The manager should then describe the impact that the change will have on the work unit or department.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。