Once the need for
change and its feasibility have been both objectively ascertained, also by
means of some specific tools, employers need to draw up a detailed plan of
action aiming at introducing and implement it.
The continuum encompasses at one end incremental changes, that is to say small scale change projects not implying and not intended to introduce radical changes, and at the other end transformational changes, those changes which, by contrast, relate to large scale projects and which can be thus considered as having remarkable, widespread effects upon the organisation. Examples of transformational changes are those consequent to merger, acquisition and restructuring.
The importance of people
Employers tend to
be more careful and to pay growing attention to transformational change
projects at large, rather than to those concerned with incremental change. This
approach can be however considered as questionable. It is not in fact the scale
and dimension of a change project which should be considered as a reference to
define the degree of attention and care to be paid to individuals when devising
a change plan, but rather the severity of the impact that the introduction of change
is intended and is thus likely to make on people.
To this extent
Armstrong (2006), after having identified two main types of change: strategic
change, related to “long-term and organisation-wide issues” and operational
change, concerned with the introduction of new systems, procedures or
technologies, by reason of the direct and “more significant” repercussions that
operational changes usually have on individuals, warns organisations about the
importance of dealing with the latter taking the same care and paying the same attention
for people as when dealing with the former.
All of that does
not obviously mean that businesses have to completely revert or substantially
modify their plans; this is not indeed the main reason for employers involving
their employees in the process of change and for opening with these a constantly
open communication channel. Paraphrasing Lucas, it can be maintained that employers
do not need to change their final destination. The main objective should rather
be that to verify individual and hence the whole organisation readiness to
change and find out whether something should be better redressed in terms of plan,
design and schedule before its implementation or during the unfolding of the
process. It is very likely that thanks to the involvement of all of the
business stakeholders could emerge some useful suggestions and hints which whether
implemented, although do not modifying the overall project objective and aim,
could help employers to make smoother and plainer the process. Whether some restraining
forces, risking jeopardising the overall change project effectual
implementation, should necessarily emerge sooner or later, it is obviously
better that these emerge sooner, rather than later in order to timely and
effectively cope with the identified issues and avert to deal with these when
it could be too late or anyway much more difficult to contrast and deal with the
emerged troubles.
It could not be
truer what Armstrong (2006) suggests to this extent: “It is important to bear
in mind that while those wanting change need to be constant about ends, they
have to be flexible about means.” This clearly also entails a thorough
knowledge and understanding of the change models available and the use of the
one which mostly suits and fits the circumstances.
The capacity and
accountability to identify and assess the impact of the restraining forces
coming to play and to investigate and monitor the way these may be subject to
change themselves over time clearly rest with the employer and its management.
An organisation likeliness to attain effective and durable competitive edge
actually depends on these abilities and on the employer’s capability to
identify, organise, activate and manage the necessary resources required to yield
and maintain the desired results over the years (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991).
The significance of context
Another good reason
for keeping in due consideration the importance of people is directly linked to
the fact that is very unlikely that a change process may not involve several,
if not every, individual within the organisation, eventually as the result of
somewhat of a knock-on effect.
Inasmuch as employee
behaviour is sensibly influenced by the elements composing the internal organisational
context in which these operate (table 2), when employers want to change this
behaviour they try to develop changes essentially affecting the elements of the
endogenous context which are most likely to influence, towards the intended
direction, employee behaviour.
Since every change process aiming at increasing organisational performance produces considerable effects on the elements showed in table 2, it consequently derives that every change process make an impact on the organisational context.
Boddy (2008) claims
that it is actually uncommon which a “significant change” may ever affect only
one of the different elements composing the organisational context. On account
of the “systemic nature of organisations” any change implemented in any given
element composing the endogenous context is thus due to produce consequences, somewhat
of a ripple effect, for the other components.
A good example of
this is represented by the series of choices Tesco needed to make when decided
to set and run its Internet shopping service in addition to its established
retail business. One of the first elements coming to play was technology: Tesco
needed to set an internet website in order to enable its customers to place
their orders online and make payments in a safe and secure way by means of
electronic transactions. Tesco management needed subsequently to make decisions
about the structure of the new line of business. Had to determine hence whether
it was preferable to create additional local/regional warehouses, where to store
and from where to deliver the items ordered by its customers, or using the
existing retail store network. This decision clearly had an immediate effect on
the decision concerned with the organisation of staff, that is to say people. The
retailer choice to enter the online service also made an impact and entailed changes
in the financial element of the organisation on account of the relevant number
of payments processed online. Last but not least, this activity also had a
relevant impact on the business process, how would have an online order been
transformed in a box full of items to be delivered directly to the house of
each purchaser?
Apparently the
decision had just been the one to “simply” enable Tesco customers to place
their orders online, but the knock-on implications it caused and the decisions to
make, following that idea, were really copious and involving practically all
the components of the internal environment.
In order to influence individual
behaviour and achieve change, managers basically attempt to essentially alter the
elements forming the context. These, nonetheless, can react favouring or
hampering the successful achievement of that bid. The elements of the internal
context all exist and are in place before any change is implemented and the way
these are operating when change is introduced is likely to influence the way
managers implement change (Boddy, 2008).
An organisation’s
culture and its shared values and beliefs can act as powerful drivers or obstacles
to change. Individuals are likely to accept change which they perceive as
suiting the organisation values and beliefs, whereas they tend to oppose change
whether they feel that this is in contrast with the organisation’s culture
(Boddy, 2008). Companies like eBay and Google, where change is part of corporate
culture, have usually no problem to develop and implement frequent changes, but
things are not so straightforward when change is not part of a firm’s culture.
Research shows that
the success of change is sorely influenced by the context. More in particular,
a study carried out by Pettigrew et al (1992), aiming at finding out why some
managers were able to achieve success whilst others were not, within the same organization
(namely the UK NHS), confirmed that the context plays indeed a relevant role
for the successful attainment of the intended change. The study in fact
revealed that some environments, called “receptive contexts”, are more likely
to favour and ease change whereas others, called “non-receptive contexts”, are more
likely to favour the erection of barriers to change.
The study
identified seven factors, linked amongst them, which when existing provide the
settings for a receptive change context. Although the research was carried out
within the UK NHS sector the elements identified, summarised below, can be
easily adopted and adapted to the other organizations:
1 – Quality and
coherence of policy,
2 – Availability of
key people leading change,
3 – Long-term
environmental pressure – intensity and scale,
4 – A supportive
organisational culture,
5 – Effective
managerial – clinical relations,
6 – Cooperative
organisational networks,
7 – The fit between the
district’s change agenda and its locale.
Still considering the
important role played by the context, it must be added that also the outcome of
the past bids for change have an impact on the success of the present and
future attempts. The history and the different levels of change certainly
influence people approach and disposition toward change. In an organisation where
past change attempts have been characterised by failure it is comprehensible
that people would be wary about the future plans for change. In this instance previous
failures clearly constitute the basis for a non-receptive, hostile context to
change.
Employees’ optimistic
approach and behaviour is usually associated with success (Boddy, 2008). In this
case, is the attitude of people which can clearly influence the context and make
a difference; the positive approach of employees can indeed create good basis
for a receptive context where effectively and successfully developing and
implementing change.
The different level
at which change is developed and operated, for instance at corporate or
divisional level, can also influence the success of the overall change process.
The activities performed by managers at one level might under some
circumstances jeopardise or favour the success of the process at a different
level.
Albeit employers
can, according to the circumstances, do little or nothing to avoid restraining
forces to emerge, but can vigorously counterbalance them once these have
ascertained their existence, businesses should do whatever they can to prevent that
problems are generated by the organisation’s management. Managers must, for
instance, avert the pitfalls associated with the silo thinking syndrome also when
acting as change agents. They have to be aware of the ripple effects their
activities and decisions can have on the other elements and levels of the
organisation and have hence to be careful when making decisions and taking action,
invariably duly considering beforehand the possible wider effects of their initiatives
and actions.
One of the fundamental manager
duties during the unfolding of a change process is to favour the creation of a
coherent and consistent context aiming at encouraging and fostering the desired
employers’ behaviour, in line with the organisation culture, values and beliefs.
Longo, R., (2011), The importance of people and context in change management, HR Professionals, [online].
