INTRODUCTION
“The only constant is change.”, Heraclitus.
In this repeat assignment the topic of significance change within the organizational context will be discussed. We will analyze what is the role that leadership plays in managing organizational change effectively, and will include a description of the sources of resistance to change.
1.1 Organizational Change
The phrase “the only constant is change,” is attributed to Heraclitus in ancient Greece, and was subsequently applied by Hegel to the laws of thought, and by Marx, to the dialectical movement.
This reveals that even from remote times where the environment was relatively stable, the human being always observed the permanent mutation of the environment. In the present, with the support of technology, scientific advances and the predisposition of the current culture to change, the dynamics of the environment represents a universe of opportunities and threats for all human endeavors and activities.
Organizations do not escape this reality, and in order to survive they must completely align themselves to the environment, which means to permanently revise and redo their strategy, structure, administrative systems, operations and processes, financial systems, accounting systems, legal political regulations, technology Information systems, sales systems and policies, etc.
Any process of organizational change involves moving from a real, known situation to an ideal, unknown but supposedly better than the present, and therefore desirable or convenient.
A process of organizational change involves many different factors, ranging from the repercussions in the organizational environment to the physical, intellectual and emotional reactions of employees. This cluster of variables involved in the change, some controllable and others not, means for the organization to expose itself to a level of risk that, depending on how the process is handled, can allow it to arrive at the desired new situation or, on the contrary, generate it Confusion, uncertainty, conflict and loss of various kinds.
Consequently, all changes must be managed, and for this, several scientists and organizational experts have developed models of change management. Among them, we can mention Kurt Lewin, John P. Kotter and the HCMBOK® standard, which we will briefly describe.
MODEL OF THE THREE STEPS OF KURT LEWIN (1946)
Lewin defines change as a modification of the forces that maintain the behavior of a stable system, a group of forces that drives change or impellers, and a group of forces that resist change (maintain the status quo) or restraining forces.
When both groups of forces are in equilibrium, the behaviors are maintained and a “almost stationary” equilibrium is achieved. The process of change then consists in modifying this quasi-stationary state, by which it is possible to increase the driving forces or to diminish the restrictive forces or to combine both tactics. In the process of change three stages are distinguished:
- Defrosting: It implies abandoning, undoing and breaking away from old practices, attitudes, and behaviors. Emphasis is placed on the need to change and on reducing resistance to change.
- Transition: Contemplation and experimentation of new practices, attitudes, values and behaviors, more effective and convergent with the proposed change. Emphasis is placed on identifying key attitudes and behaviors for new performance, as well as on the internalization and daily practice of these.
- Retrieval: Ideas and practices are definitely incorporated into behavior. This stage requires support for the maintenance of change, and for positive reinforcement to the stabilization and definitive consolidation of change.MODEL MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE ACCORDING TO JOHN P. KOTTER (1995)
Kotter proposes an 8-step model for change management, divided into three stages:
STEP 1. CREATE A CLIMATE FOR CHANGE
1 Create a sense of urgency
2 Form a powerful coalition
3 Develop a clear and simple vision
STEP 2. COMMIT AND ENABLE THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION
4 Communicate the vision
5 Eliminate barriers and obstacles
6 Ensure short-term wins
STEP 3. IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN TRANSFORMATION
7 Building on the same road
8 Anchor the change in the culture of the organization.
MODEL MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE HCMBOK (2012)
The HCMBOK (Human Change Management Body of Knowledge) is a toolkit, methodology and practice guide focused on Organizational Change Management.
The HCMBOK relates Organizational Change, Change Management, Project Management and Human Behavior in a set of variables where they interact in a holistic way, since each change involves behavioral aspects and to manage them assertively, it is necessary to apply implicit techniques in project management.
The HCMBOK standard was developed by Vicente Goncalvez and Carla Campos, and consists of 6 processes, 38 macro activities and 142 activities.
THE ROLE OF THE LEADER IN CHANGING ORGANIZATIONS
It is common to hear that the only thing permanent in organizations is change. And this is true in many ways, but how much have we been concerned to be sure of having leaders and, in general, a culture for change in our companies?
The environment in which the present organizations are developed, is highly dynamic and in many cases with behaviors difficult to perceive and, much less, to predict. It requires new skills and technological capabilities and adaptation of companies and with it, I refer to people’s relational skills and behavior to interpret, select and take action strategies relevant to the demands of the environment.
A leader must be prepared, not only emotionally, but with conceptual sustenance for the abstraction, interpretation, coordination and operationalization that this external and internal dynamism requires. Leaders highly trained in their areas and skills in managing change are needed.
The complexity of the system involves knowing and implementing different tools and methodologies. From the systems that could be considered simple by the number of elements and the amount of interrelationships to those of great variety.
And they are also influenced by the beliefs and behaviors of people interacting from outside or inside companies. Systems in which a mathematical model could represent them and make decisions related to optimization to those in which interventions in the culture and way of interrelating of the people are required. The strategies of change are different and require different knowledge and skills.
Between the two extremes that I present in the previous paragraph, a wide variety of behaviors can be found, which in many cases can appear more coercive generating a high social but also economic, or other more unitary wear where the agreements can be obtained with greater facility, But in all cases it is necessary to be able to understand the complexity in which these systems are developed and to apply appropriate methodologies to it.
In some cases it may be relevant to make diagnoses that allow us to identify situations that can be understood as problems. This, in some cases, requires external consulting firms that support the veracity of methodologies and results and that can offer proven alternatives for the resolution of these cases. These diagnostics are useful, although in some cases they may fail to show static images of the behavior of the system and be removed from the direct experience of the day-to-day business. Although it is relevant to consider that they allow to use tools developed and tested, in a way that takes advantage of the expertise and, in general, the expert knowledge of those who apply them.
On the other hand, it is possible to use dialogic methodologies, in which one does not seek to detect clearly isolated problems that must be tackled in a priority way, but rather, through dialogue, to align perspectives and goals on the good performance of the organization. These methodologies also seek to highlight best practices and share experiences to replicate in other areas and build knowledge in the company.
just a way of talking to identify “problems” and reach agreements to provide solutions, but as a way of coordinating proposals to build new ways to add value in organizations.
New skills are needed in leadership, such as the understanding of the relationship between the complexity of the environment and the complexity required in the internal organization of the company that allows the adaptation and, preferably, the development of the organization. Conceptual and technical skills are required to ensure that these transformations are consistent with organizational structures, but that such coherencies do not limit the flexibility of the organization. And finally relational skills are required with a systemic vision that allow through the dialogue to build the necessary ways to close the gaps between the vision of change and the current reality.
ORGANIZATIONAL RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
The nature of organizations tends to resist change. Often organizations are more efficient when performing routine tasks and are inclined to perform poorly when they do something for the first time, at least initially. To ensure operational effectiveness and effectiveness, organizations will create strong defenses against change. Not only that, often the change is opposed to interests already created and violates certain territorial rights or prerogatives of decision making that the groups, teams and departments established and have been accepted over time.
The most important sources of organizational resistance to change are:
Organizational Design: Organizations need stability and continuity to function effectively. The term organization implies that individual, group and team activities show a certain structure. The people assigned functions, established procedures to carry out the work, agreed forms of obtaining necessary information and similar aspects. However, that legitimate need for a structure also leads to resistance to change. Thus, in rigid structures, the probability of new ideas being eliminated is greater because they threaten the status quo. More adaptable and flexible organizations are designed to reduce resistance to change created by rigid organizational structures.
Limited Approach to Change: Organizations are made up of several interdependent systems. As a result, limited changes in subsystems tend to be overridden by the larger system.
Organizational culture: Organizational culture plays a fundamental role in change. Cultures are not easy to change and may become the primary source of resistance to change. One aspect of an effective organizational culture is flexibility to take advantage of opportunities for change. An ineffective organizational culture (in terms of organizational change) is the one that socializes with rigidity to the employees in the old culture, even before tests that no longer works.
Limitations and threat to established resource distributions: Some organizations want to maintain the status quo, others would change if they had the resources to do so. Change requires capital, time and skilled people. At any given time an organization’s managers and employees will have identified changes that could or should be made, but it may be necessary to defer or abandon some of the desired changes because of resource constraints. Resource constraints are not restricted to organizations with insufficient assets. Some rich organizations will not change due to fixed capital asset investments that can not be easily modified (equipment, buildings, land).
Those groups in the organization that control resources often see change as a threat. They tend to be happy with the way things are. Would the change, for example, mean a reduction in their budgets or a reduction in staff size? Those who benefit most from the current distribution of resources are often threatened by changes that may affect future distributions.
Inter-organizational agreements: In general, agreements between organizations impose obligations on people who can limit their behavior, and thus, limit the alternatives for change.
Group Inertia. The different ways in which team members perceive reality may be sources of resistance, since once the group forms a vision of its reality, they find it extremely difficult to change it.
Threat to Established Power Relationships: Some groups within the organization have certain bases of // power and influences // that were gained over time. Faced with a situation of change, these groups feel threatened, seeing as probable the loss of such acquired power, which can become a barrier to change. In addition, the uncertainty that usually generate the changes in the equipment contribute to the emergence of resistances.
Threat to Ability: Changes in organizational patterns could threaten the expertise of specialized groups.
Customs, values and ways of thinking: These factors that the group shares and which was acquired in its internal adaptation process may create barriers, because in certain teams the basic assumptions may become deeply rooted in the unconscious of the Members of the same.
...(download the rest of the essay above)