|
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: A PRIMER Purpose and Audience The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad overview of the concept
of "change management." It was written primarily for people who are coming
to grips with change management problems for the first time, and for more
experienced people who wish to reflect upon their experience in a
structured way. Three Basic Definitions In thinking about what is meant by "change management," at least three
basic definitions come to mind:
The Task of Managing Change The first and most obvious definition of "change management" is that
the term refers to the task of managing change. The obvious is not
necessarily unambiguous. Managing change is itself a term that has at
least two meanings. One meaning of managing change refers to the making of changes in a
planned and managed or systematic fashion. The aim is to more
effectively implement new methods and systems in an ongoing organization.
The changes to be managed lie within and are controlled by the
organization. However, these internal changes might have been triggered by
events originating outside the organization, in what is usually termed
"the environment." Hence, the second meaning of managing change. Managing change also refers to the response to changes over which
the organization exercises little or no control (e.g., legislation,
social and political upheaval, the actions of competitors, shifting
economic tides and currents, and so on). Researchers and practitioners
alike typically distinguish between a knee-jerk or reactive response and
an anticipative or proactive response. An Area of Professional Practice The second definition of "change management" is that the term
designates an area of professional practice. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of independent consultants who will
quickly and proudly acknowledge that they are engaged in planned change,
that they are change agents, that they manage change for their clients,
and that their practices are change management practices. There are
numerous small consulting firms whose principals would acknowledge these
same statements about their firms. And most of the major management
consulting firms claim to have a change management practice area. Some of these change management experts claim to help clients manage
the changes they face, the changes happening to them. Others
claim to help clients make changes. Still others offer to help by taking
on the task of managing changes that must be made. In almost all cases,
the process of change is treated separately from the specifics of the
situation. It is the task of managing this general process of change that
is laid claim to by professional change agents. A Body of Knowledge Stemming from the view of change management as an area of professional
practice there arises yet a third definition of change management: the
content or subject matter of change management. This consists chiefly of
the models, methods and techniques, tools, skills, and other forms of
knowledge that go into making up any practice. The content or subject matter of change management is drawn from
psychology, sociology, business administration, economics, industrial
engineering, systems engineering, and the study of human and
organizational behavior. For many practitioners, these component bodies of
knowledge are linked and integrated by a set of concepts and principles
known as General Systems Theory (GST). It is not clear whether this area of professional practice should be
termed a profession, a discipline, an art, a set of techniques, or a
technology. For now, suffice it to say that there is a large, reasonably
cohesive albeit somewhat eclectic body of knowledge underlying the
practice and on which most practitioners would agree -- even if their
application of it does exhibit a high degree of variance. To recapitulate, there are at least three basic definitions of change
management:
The Change Process as Problem Solving and Problem
Finding A very useful framework for thinking about the change process is
problem solving. Managing change is seen as a matter of moving from one
state to another, specifically, from the problem state to the solved
state. Diagnosis or problem analysis is generally acknowledged as
essential. Goals are set and achieved at various levels and in various
areas or functions. Ends and means are discussed and related to one
another. Careful planning is accompanied by efforts to obtain buy-in,
support, and commitment. The net effect is a transition from one state to
another, in a planned, orderly fashion. This is the planned change model.
The word "problem" carries with it connotations that some people prefer
to avoid. They choose instead to use the word "opportunity." For such
people, a problem is seen as a bad situation, one that shouldn't have been
allowed to happen in the first place, and for which someone is likely to
be punished -- if the guilty party (or a suitable scapegoat) can be
identified. For the purposes of this paper, we will set aside any cultural or
personal preferences regarding the use of "problem" or "opportunity." From
a rational, analytical perspective, a problem is nothing more than a
situation requiring action but in which the required action is not known.
Hence, there is a requirement to search for a solution, a course of action
that will lead to the solved state. This search activity is known as
"problem solving." From the preceding, it follows that "problem finding" is the search
for situations requiring action. Whether we choose to call these
situations "problems" (because they are troublesome or spell bad news), or
whether we choose to call them "opportunities" (either for reasons of
political sensitivity or because the time is ripe to exploit a situation)
is immaterial. In both cases, the practical matter is one of identifying
and settling on a course of action that will bring about some desired and
predetermined change in the situation. The Change Problem At the heart of change management lies the change problem, that is,
some future state to be realized, some current state to be left behind,
and some structured, organized process for getting from the one to the
other. The change problem might be large or small in scope and scale, and
it might focus on individuals or groups, on one or more divisions or
departments, the entire organization, or one or on more aspects of the
organization's environment. At a conceptual level, the change problem is a matter of moving from
one state (A) to another state (A'). Moving from A to A' is typically
accomplished as a result of setting up and achieving three types of goals:
transform, reduce, and apply. Transform goals are concerned with
identifying differences between the two states. Reduce goals are concerned
with determining ways of eliminating these differences. Apply goals are
concerned with putting into play operators that actually effect the
elimination of these differences (see Newell & Simon). As the preceding goal types suggest, the analysis of a change problem
will at various times focus on defining the outcomes of the change effort,
on identifying the changes necessary to produce these outcomes, and on
finding and implementing ways and means of making the required changes. In
simpler terms, the change problem can be treated as smaller problems
having to do with the how, what, and why of change. Change as a "How" Problem The change problem is often expressed, at least initially, in the form
of a "how" question. How do we get people to be more open, to assume more
responsibility, to be more creative? How do we introduce self-managed
teams in Department W? How do we change over from System X to System Y in
Division Z? How do we move from a mainframe-centered computing environment
to one that accommodates and integrates PCs? How do we get this
organization to be more innovative, competitive, or productive? How do we
raise more effective barriers to market entry by our competitors? How
might we more tightly bind our suppliers to us? How do we reduce cycle
times? In short, the initial formulation of a change problem is
means-centered, with the goal state more or less implied. There is a reason why the initial statement of a problem is so often
means-centered and we will touch on it later. For now, let's examine the
other two ways in which the problem might be formulated -- as "what" or as
"why" questions. Change as a "What" Problem To frame the change effort in the form of "how" questions is to focus
the effort on means. Diagnosis is assumed or not performed at all.
Consequently, the ends sought are not discussed. This might or might not
be problematic. To focus on ends requires the posing of "what" questions. What are we
trying to accomplish? What changes are necessary? What indicators will
signal success? What standards apply? What measures of performance are we
trying to affect? Change as a "Why" Problem Ends and means are relative notions, not absolutes; that is, something
is an end or a means only in relation to something else. Thus, chains and
networks of ends-means relationships often have to be traced out before
one finds the "true" ends of a change effort. In this regard, "why"
questions prove extremely useful. Consider the following hypothetical
dialogue with yourself as an illustration of tracing out ends-means
relationships. "Why do people need to be more creative? I'll tell you why! Because we
have to change the way we do things and we need ideas about how to do
that. Why do we have to change the way we do things? Because they cost too
much and take too long. Why do they cost too much? Because we pay higher
wages than any of our competitors. Why do we pay higher wages than our
competitors? Because our productivity used to be higher, too, but now it's
not." "Eureka! The true aim is to improve productivity!" "No it isn't; keep going." "Why does productivity need to be improved? To increase profits. Why do
profits need to be increased? To improve earnings per share. Why do
earnings per share need to be improved? To attract additional capital. Why
is additional capital needed? We need to fund research aimed at developing
the next generation of products. Why do we need a new generation of
products? Because our competitors are rolling them out faster than we are
and gobbling up market share." "Oh, so that's why we need to reduce cycle times. Hmm. Why do
things take so long?" To ask "why" questions is to get at the ultimate purposes of functions
and to open the door to finding new and better ways of performing them.
Why do we do what we do? Why do we do it the way we do it? Asking "why" questions also gets at the ultimate purposes of people,
but that's a different matter altogether, a "political" matter, and one
we'll not go into in this paper. The Approach Taken Mirrors the Management Mindset
The emphasis placed on the three types of questions just mentioned
reflects the management mindset, that is, the tendency to think along
certain lines depending on where one is situated in the organization.
A person's placement in the organization typically defines the scope
and scale of the kinds of changes with which he or she will become
involved, and the nature of the changes with which he or she will be
concerned. Thus, the systems people tend to be concerned with technology
and technological developments, the marketing people with customer needs
and competitive activity, the legal people with legislative and other
regulatory actions, and so on. Also, the higher up a person is in the
hierarchy, the longer the time perspective and the wider-ranging the
issues with which he or she must be concerned. For the most part, changes and the change problems they present are
problems of adaptation, that is, they require of the organization only
that it adjust to an ever-changing set of circumstances. But, either as a
result of continued, cumulative compounding of adaptive maneuvers that
were nothing more than band-aids, or as the result of sudden changes so
significant as to call for a redefinition of the organization, there are
times when the changes that must be made are deep and far-reaching. At
such times, the design of the organization itself is called into question.
Organizations frequently survive the people who establish them.
AT&T and IBM are two ready examples. At some point it becomes the case
that such organizations have been designed by one group of people but are
being operated or run by another. (It has been said of the United States
Navy, for instance, that "It was designed by geniuses to be run by
idiots.") Successful organizations resolve early on the issue of
structure, that is, the definition, placement and coordination of
functions and people. Other people then have to live with this design and
these other people are chiefly concerned with means. Some organizations are designed to buffer their core operations from
turbulence in the environment. In such organizations all units fit into
one of three categories: core, buffer, and perimeter. In core units (e.g.,
systems and operations), coordination is achieved through standardization,
that is, adherence to routine. In buffer units (e.g., upper management and
staff or support functions), coordination is achieved through planning. In
perimeter units (e.g., sales, marketing, and customer service),
coordination is achieved through mutual adjustment (see Thompson).
People in core units, buffered as they are from environmental
turbulence and with a history of relying on adherence to standardized
procedures, typically focus on "how" questions. People in buffer units,
responsible for performance through planning, often ask "what" questions.
People in the perimeter units are as accountable for performance as anyone
else and frequently for performance of a financial nature. They can be
heard asking "what" and "how" questions. "Why" questions are generally asked by people with no direct
responsibility for day-to-day operations or results. The group most able
to take this long-term or strategic view is that cadre of senior
executives responsible for the continued well-being of the firm: top
management. If the design of the firm is to be called into question or,
more significantly, if it is actually to be altered, these are the people
who must make the decision to do so. Finally, when organizational redefinition and redesign prove necessary,
all people in all units must concern themselves with all three sets of
questions or the changes made will not stand the test of time. To summarize:
Content and Process Organizations are highly specialized systems and there are many
different schemes for grouping and classifying them. Some are said to be
in the retail business, others are in manufacturing, and still others
confine their activities to distribution. Some are profit-oriented and
some are not for profit. Some are in the public sector and some are in the
private sector. Some are members of the financial services industry, which
encompasses banking, insurance, and brokerage houses. Others belong to the
automobile industry, where they can be classified as original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) or after-market providers. Some belong to the health
care industry, as providers, as insureds, or as insurers. Many are
regulated, some are not. Some face stiff competition, some do not. Some
are foreign-owned and some are foreign-based. Some are corporations, some
are partnerships, and some are sole proprietorships. Some are publicly
held and some are privately held. Some have been around a long time and
some are newcomers. Some have been built up over the years while others
have been pieced together through mergers and acquisitions. No two are
exactly alike. The preceding paragraph points out that the problems found in
organizations, especially the change problems, have both a content and a
process dimension. It is one thing, for instance, to introduce a new
claims processing system in a functionally organized health insurer. It is
quite another to introduce a similar system in a health insurer that is
organized along product lines and market segments. It is yet a different
thing altogether to introduce a system of equal size and significance in
an educational establishment that relies on a matrix structure. The
languages spoken differ. The values differ. The cultures differ. And, at a
detailed level, the problems differ. However, the overall processes of
change and change management remain pretty much the same, and it is this
fundamental similarity of the change processes across organizations,
industries, and structures that makes change management a task, a process,
and a practice. The Change Process as "Unfreezing, Changing, and
Refreezing" The process of change has been characterized as having three basic
stages: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. This view draws heavily on
Kurt Lewin's adoption of the systems concept of homeostasis or
dynamic stability. What is useful about this framework is that it gives rise to thinking
about a staged approach to changing things. Looking before you leap is
usually sound practice. What is not useful about this framework
is that it does not allow for change efforts that begin with the
organization in extremis (i.e., already "unfrozen"), nor does it
allow for organizations faced with the prospect of having to "hang loose"
for extended periods of time (i.e., staying "unfrozen"). In other words,
the beginning and ending point of the unfreeze-change-refreeze model is
stability -- which, for some people and some organizations, is a luxury.
For others, internal stability spells disaster. Even the fastest of hares,
if standing still, can be overtaken by a tortoise on the move.
Change Management: The Skill Requirements Managing the kinds of changes encountered by and instituted within
organizations requires an unusually broad and finely-honed set of skills,
chief among which are the following.
Change Management: Four Basic Change Strategies (see Bennis, Benne, and Chin)
Note: The fourth and last strategy above is not one of those
presented by Bennis, Benne and Chin. It is instead the product of the
author's own experiences during some 20 years of making and adapting to
changes in, to, and on behalf of organizations. Factors in Selecting A Change Strategy
Which of the preceding strategies to use is a decision affected by a
number of factors, but some of the more important ones are as follows.
One More Time: How do you manage change? The honest answer is that you manage it pretty much the same way you'd
manage anything else of a turbulent, messy, chaotic nature, that is, you
don't really manage it, you grapple with it. It's more a matter of
leadership ability than management skill.
Selected Sources The Planning of Change (2nd Edition).
Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (Eds). Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York: 1969. Human Problem Solving. Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1972. Organizations in Action. James D. Thompson. McGraw-Hill, New
York: 1967. About the Author Fred Nickols is employed as an executive director at Educational Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey, where he heads the Strategic Planning and Management Services unit. He also holds a position as a senior consultant with The Distance Consulting Company. He may be reached by telephone at (609) 490-0095, by e-mail at nickols@worldnet.att.net, and by regular mail at 91 Woods Road, East Windsor, New Jersey 08520. |