Introducing and implementing change,
irrespective of its scale, habitually proves to be a daunting task for the
managers and professionals involved. What typically lies at the root of the
failure of most of the projects aiming at introducing and implementing change
is indeed their lack of accurate planning. Albeit many individuals are nowadays
genuinely aware of the importance of introducing change and of how inevitable
it actually is, insofar as every so often change initiatives are proposed by
the same individuals eventually affected by it, people at large tend to avert change.
One of the most significant phases of the
preparation of a change project is definitely represented by the correct
identification of its level, or rather, levels of intervention. The concept of “level
of intervention” is actually borrowed from Organization Development, which can
be in many important respects regarded as a broader and more pervasive “total
system” form of change management intervention. The main difference between
Change Management and OD is that whereas the former takes care of the effects
the introduction of change may produce upon individuals, the latter aims at
aligning the ever-changing business strategy with internal readiness to
effectually pursue it in practice. It can be contended that both of them aim,
albeit to a different degree, at enhancing organizational effectiveness.
The concept of “level of intervention” is
essentially associated with the precise and correct identification of the
target groups a planned change is aimed at, which clearly represents one of the
most significant phases of change management planning, somewhat of a
prerequisite before developing a concrete and realistic plan of action for the
introduction of change into an organization. It is indeed hardly conceivable that
change might be planned before having identified the people impacted by it and
the benefits it is intended to provide to the individuals concerned.
Change can actually affect an individual,
a group or a whole organization. Duly taking heed of this particular aspect and
developing the plan of action accordingly is of paramount importance for the production
of the desired outcome of the overall change management project. As contended
by Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015), each initiative is intended to produce the
desired results according to the different levels of the system it is directed
at. Developing a plan of action accurate for a level of the system, but
implementing it at a different level of the system is clearly destined to result
in a dismal failure.
According to some OD founders, the different
levels of the system at which change agents can actually intervene, typically
known as the “focus” or “units” of change, are:
- Total organization, intergroup, single
group or team, dyad or triad, role and person (Schmuck and Miles, 1976);
- Larger social system, organization,
intergroup, group, individual (Blake and Mouton, 1985);
- Group, interpersonal and individual
(Reddy, 1994).
Some of the descriptions of the different
levels of a system provided include the prefix “inter” already. By enabling
change management practitioners to derive two different sub-layers from the
main ones identified, the use of the prefixes “inter” (between) and “intra”
(within) can indeed help them to comprehensively detect the different layers of
a system. The sub-layers produced by the system level “individual” or “person”,
for instance, are “interpersonal” and “intrapersonal”, the former term refers
to the relationship existing between two or more individuals, whereas the
latter to an individual taken in isolation.
Intervening in a single level of the
system would prove not to be enough so that change practitioners should
seriously consider, according to the data available to them, intervening in
different levels of the system at once. It is broadly acknowledged that to
ensure the introduced change to be sustainable, the intervention should ideally
cover no less than three levels of a system (Cheung-Judge and Holbeche, 2015).
The Group Dynamics theory developed by
Lewin (1944, 1947) can effectively help change practitioners (and indeed OD
practitioners) to gain a deeper understanding of how crucially important the
correct identification of the right levels of a system and the overarching
knowledge of the interrelationship existing between these are, for the
development of a viable and successful plan of action aiming at introducing
change.
The findings of the experimental studies
conducted by Lewin (1944) revealed that individual decisions are sorely
affected by the decision of the group to which these belong. Individuals having
a personal negative attitude towards a proposed change, after a favourable group
decision, took a more positive stance on the change. Group decisions thus
contribute an individual the motivation to cooperate as a member of the group for
the attainment of the common objective, to the detriment of his/her personal
preferences and tendencies.
This type of individual behaviour clearly
accounts for the group or team to gain efficiency; this result, nonetheless, is
obtained dealing with each individual as a group member and not working with individuals
taken in isolation. Lewin studies suggest that it is relatively more
straightforward to change individual cultural habits and attitudes by working
with groups rather than with individuals. Yet, so strong is the link naturally
established between an individual motivation and his/her group decision as to having
a positive impact on the practical implementation of the decisions made by the
group and on the individual respect of the new norms eventually emerging from
the group decisions. This is indeed a process very similar to that
organizational culture develops. Once the shared values and beliefs are
accepted by all of the individuals forming a group, these become norms and
their strength reinforce with the passing of time, hence the difficulty to
change organizational culture. The powerful influence exerted by a group on the
individuals forming it can be consequently taken as axiomatic.
Whether change practitioners should deal
with a single individual to foster and execute change, these should be well
aware that the effect of their work is destined to vanish into thin air once
the person in question will go back to his/her group. The influence exerted by
his/her group is highly likely to prevail over any other external influence.
This groups’ feature should not be
necessarily regarded positively, it has in fact some considerable downsides, the
most significant of which is represented by the possible emergence of the
so-called groupthink syndrome. The circumstance an individual complies whit the
prevailing group viewpoint may prevent innovation in that individuals may
refrain from proposing new ideas for fear of these being rejected by the group.
It can be contended that all of the
layers or levels of a system are linked and interrelated. The successful
introduction and implementation of change is not only considerably affected by
the dynamics characterizing a group, but also by the impact that the change
planned for a layer may have upon the other layers of the system.
Identifying the immediate or direct
target of a change project does not hence suffice in that the planned change is
highly likely to impact other units or teams within the business, never mind
the whole organization. Do not carefully considering and timely dealing with the
consequences the change intended for a layer may potentially have on the other
layers of the system would definitely represent a major blunder, which can
produce irreversible catastrophic effects.
This is actually the reason why many
change projects, especially restructuring projects, fail. Once the primary target
layer has been identified, it is of paramount importance to determine the
organizational units or functions which may be affected by the execution of the
change programme. This may require processes to be reviewed, senior and middle
management competencies to be complemented with additional skills or some HR
practices to be adapted (Cheung-Judge and Holbeche, 2015). The list of
activities to be performed can clearly be much longer so that change
practitioners should act as risk managers in this case and give to each
activity a different level of priority so as to perform the identified tasks in
the most appropriate order, as required by the circumstances.
It is crucially important that every
aspect concerning the change initiative is duly taken into consideration and
that the interdependencies between units and functions are all investigated and
the issues eventually emerged properly addressed.
It is highly unlikely, for instance, that
a change project directly impacting the Market Management and Sales functions
of an insurance company would not make a considerable impact on its Underwriting
and Claims functions, and in turn on their (directly managed or outsourced) Call-centre.
This is just a general example, but it is self-explanatory of how the change projects
managed within any given function of an organization are likely to impact
others.
Lewin’s Group Dynamics theory essentially
holds that whether the object of change is an individual, at least the group or
team to which this belongs has to be also regarded as the direct object of
change. Notwithstanding, it is hardly believable that the activities performed
by a group within an organization’s function do not impact the activities
performed by other groups within the same function or other functions of the
organization. For the successful introduction and implementation of change it
is of paramount importance that these interdependencies are timely identified so
as to develop the most appropriate plan of action and avert having to deal with
foreseeable issues during the change implementation process. This does not
clearly entails that the execution of change is immune from problems, always
expect the unexpected, but duly taking heed of all the variables which may
affect the implementation of change during its preparation can definitely
enable every individual handling change to considerably reduce the chances of
failure.
It can be finally taken as axiomatic that
identifying the immediate objective of change does not suffice; since the very
beginning of the change preparation phase it is hence absolutely necessary to
identify the different levels of the systems which will be affected, directly
or indirectly, by the change initiative so as to develop the appropriate plan
of action. Also in change management, prevention is definitely better than
cure.
