The importance of people and context in change management

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.

Burns (2004) suggests that the dimension and scope of a change project, and the relationship between these, can be analysed and investigated by means of a change continuum model, table 1.

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.

For different reasons and irrespective of the extent of change, individuals invariably represent the key factor for the successful implementation of change, inasmuch as Lucas (2002) claims that many change management programmes fail to achieve their intended results by reason of the people factor: ”organisations know where they want to go – but they are not taking their people with them.” It could be argued that not only employers should “take their people with them”, but that, during a change process, these should also go throughout the change path hand in hand with their employees. This is actually why constant communication and the involvement of all of the organization stakeholders, target groups, trade unions and individual concerned is of paramount importance.

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].

How to assess change feasibility

Whether a truly and genuine need for change, aiming at better meeting customers’ needs and expectations, clearly emerges and objective evidence supporting the existence of this need, namely a gap between the requisites dictated by the exogenous environment and the internal structure and system, have been gathered, this unquestionably means that time has come for the business leaders concerned to develop the plan of action necessary to introduce and implement change.

When performing this delicate and significant activity, employers should neither neglect nor underestimate the effects habitually associated with change and the likely employee adverse reaction and angry response. More often than not in fact individuals offer a sharp resistance to any change initiative fostered by employers.

Mayo (2002) avers that the main reason for individuals being sceptical about change is usually due to the circumstance that “organisations are littered with the debris … of yesterday’s (change) initiatives.” According to Mayo, people have learned through their experience that change attempts are essentially all too often associated with failure and deterioration, rather than success and improvement. This would indeed explain why the first individual reaction to change is suspicion, incertitude and mistrust.

Inasmuch as the main cause for individuals being habitually wary about change depends on their awful experience from the past, individuals actually resist change only whether they perceive it as being in some ways detrimental to them. Cunningham (2005) suggests that it is not true that people resist change at large, individuals rather “resist some change”: that change that they fear could undermine their status, position and stability. Individuals oppose therefore change which they perceive and fear could cause a deterioration of the status quo, whereas they would clearly “welcome change that makes things better”, that is, change which they perceive is intended to improve their status, working conditions and wellbeing at large.

One of the most, arguably the most, interesting and valuable approach aiming at thoroughly investigating and analysing the advantages and disadvantages of change is definitely represented by the Force Field Analysis (Lewin, 1947), which for simple it may deemed to be certainly still represents an incredibly useful model.

This approach is underpinned by the basic assumption that change is subject to both driving and restraining forces. As long as these opposite sets of forces are counterbalancing one another, or even worse restraining forces are prevailing over the driving ones, it will be virtually impossible for an organisation’s business leaders to successfully introduce and implement any type of change. In this case, still considering the issue from the change management perspective, a static situation of equilibrium will thus dominate.

Only when the driving forces prevail over the restraining forces it is indeed possible for an employer to start planning, designing and implementing change.

This analysis is of remarkable importance in that it enables organisations to find out whether their projects are viable as they stand or whether these need to be adjusted or improved before being implemented. Helping organisations to assess the likely impact on their projects of all of the possible “forces” emerging during the plan implementation, the force field analysis can also effectually contribute to determine whether the project is worth the efforts and resources it requires.

In order to better assess a project viability a score system (taking into consideration, for instance, a scale from one to five) could be put in place to associate with each force identified during the analysis, hence to both those in favour and against change, a specific score. A number of points can indeed also be allocated to each of the activities considered as beneficial to increase the chances of the successful plan implementation. Amongst the benefits provided by this approach, it should not be overlooked the support it offers employers to better measure and assess the cost/benefit ratio.

Whether from this analysis should emerge the need for some improvements, the areas of improvement should be promptly identified and reviewed accordingly. A plan of action enabling the employer to promptly counterbalance the restraining forces eventually triggered by the identified pressure points should be clearly also prepared.

A new plan may be for instance resisted by employees by reason of it requiring the introduction of a new technology. In this case, informing people well in advance that training sessions will be timely provided to enable all of them to acquaint themselves with the new technology, would surely contribute to eliminate or reduce the impact produced by this undesirable restraining force. In terms of points, the training programme may, for instance, imply a cost increase of 1/2 unit(s) according to the score system set up, whereas as a result of its provision the negative impact caused by the introduction of the new technology might possibly decrease by 2/3 units. Effectively communicating staff that the introduction of the new technology is of paramount importance for the organisation continuing to be competitive, and ultimately continuing to stay, in the market might help to increase of an additional 2/3 points the score in favour of change. Yet, making employees understand that the new technology the employer is planning to introduce can practically help them to carry out their daily tasks in a more straightforward and effectual way could help to provide additional 2 points to the total score in favour of change.

Comparing advantages and disadvantages does not clearly represent a mere theoretical, abstract exercise in that it effectively and realistically contributes to make the case for or eventually against change.

Whether employers, according to the suggestions provided by the force field analysis, should decide to encourage a particular behaviour, rather than impose or force staff towards a specific direction, it is obvious that this would definitely produce beneficial effects on the change implementation process.

Lewin’s force field analysis can reveal thus to be particularly useful to both analyse the different forces coming to play during a change development and execution process and to assess the positive and negative influence which each of these forces may play. The effectiveness and contribution of this approach, however, is not limited to this aspect; in fact, the force field analysis can be also effectively used to identify the key stakeholders involved in the process in order to acquire their full and genuine support and contribution and try to take advantage as far as possible of the influence these can exert on individuals.

The analysis is also useful to identify the opponents and supporters of the project at large in order to try and obtain their support and find suitable ways of offsetting the likely reasons for resistance. In unionised organisations, for instance, trying to implement change procedures without the support or at worst the lack of opposition of unions is virtually impossible.

Timely identifying supporters and opponents to change can clearly enable employers to determine the most suitable way of influencing them and getting their support. In any case, employers should invariably do whatever they can in order to avert having to face the explicit disapproval of any of the stakeholders and groups concerned.

Business leaders should also strive to identify the most effective ways of influencing the individuals directly concerned by the change implementation process, that is to say the target groups. Whether these consent to change, the resistance eventually offered from the individuals of different not directly involved areas of the business would clearly deflate and would thus be easier to overcome. Although having the full support of all of the organisation staff is of paramount importance for the successful implementation of any change plan, what matters the most, at least in the first instance, is to get the support and commitment of the individuals directly concerned. Notwithstanding, employers should not neglect that this could possibly not suffice, every change process, albeit intended to involve just a particular function, line or office of the firm, is likely to involve other areas at large, whether not all the different areas of an organisation.

It clearly appears that in order to successfully managing change what matters the most is being able to win the restraining forces arising before and during the change process. A great number of resistance factors have been identified over the years and it is crucial for employers to know what types of resistance these have to be ready to face in order to being eventually able to properly and effectively deal with them.

Resistance to change can be defined as “an individual or group engaging in acts to block or disrupt an attempt to introduce change” (CIPD, 2010). Employers should be aware that resistance to change can arise both from individuals and groups and that whilst resistance opposed by groups, although politically stronger, is easier to identify and very often openly declared, the resistance opposed by isolated individuals (that is, that coming from individuals not necessarily in agreed, declared conjunction one another), although politically potentially less dangerous, could cause even more practical disruptive effects in that it could be harder to identify, understand, assess and, consequently, to offset.

In actual fact, resistance to change can take a whole range of forms. Example of evident/declared forms may include industrial actions (strike) and information withholding. Less evident and trickier to understand and identify forms of resistance are typically represented by the diffusion of deliberately incorrect and inaccurate information and by the spread of alarmist and catastrophic rumours about the inevitable aftermath caused by the implementation of change.

The CIPD (2010) also stresses the importance of two different broad types of resistance associated to the substance and to the implementation of change, namely the resistance to the content, which refers to the object, aim and reasons for change and the resistance to the process of change, which essentially refers to the way change is introduced and implemented.

Employers should take extra care of the way they implement and introduce change, because whether it is clearly harder to contrast the resistance to change due to its content in that it is likely to be caused by different point of views on the reasons behind change; by contrast, employers are in the position to better and more speedily implement and introduce change when its reasons are largely supported by people. Businesses should hence avert to risk jeopardising the successful implementation of the plan for not having agreed with the relevant stakeholders and target groups concerned the way of introducing change.

Knowing the real reasons underpinning resistance is arguably the sole way of successfully overcoming the restraining forces to change. Only knowing the reasons behind it employers can try to come up with the most suitable and appropriate solutions to tackle and solve the problem. To this extent, it can surely be helpful summarizing the most recurring causes of individual resistance to change (Bedian, 1980; Nadler, 1983; Kotter et al, 1986; Recardo, 1991; CIPD, 2010): self-interest, lack of trust, differing viewpoints, coping, uncertainty, loss of control, threat to status, social considerations, tolerance, misunderstanding, shock of the new, economic reasons, inconvenience, interpersonal relationships, lack of respect, lack of consultation, poor communication, competence fears.

Individual and group resistance nonetheless are not the only causes potentially harming the successful implementation of change initiatives, also organisational issues can indeed have a remarkable impact on the expected outcome produced by the implementation of change management plans.

A typical example of that is when a change process, intended to involve just part of the organisation, is not planned and undertook duly considering the impact this is likely to make on the entire organisation or on the organisation considered as a whole. Without a doubt, the likeliness of achieving appreciable results reveals to be even more in jeopardy when change plans do not align with the organisation overall strategy, structure and systems and overlook the linkages with the issues associated with these organisational elements (CIPD, 2010).

A change plan aiming, for instance, at introducing a new structure, which defines this but does not consider and stress the importance of simultaneously introducing new systems coherent and consistent with the intended new structure, able to support it, is clearly inevitably destined to failure.

It can be concluded that whether change management is traditionally negatively perceived by individuals, in most cases, it depends on an organisation ability to effectively plan and implement it. Prior to undertake any change programme, businesses should invariably strive to carry out thorough and detailed analysis, involve and receive support from all of the target groups concerned and possibly from all the individuals within the organisation.

A careful analysis and assessment of the original plan enable employers to:

- Identify the potential driving and restraining forces,

- Timely amend plans accordingly, whether appropriate,

- Assess the strength of the identified forces,

- Develop and implement an appropriate plan of action to either curb and reduce the power of the restraining forces or emphasise and give strength to the driving ones or carry out a series of activities and actions aiming at achieving both of these results.

When change is perceived by people as a process which can actually contribute to improve their working conditions and life within the organisational settings, it is very unlikely that organisations may ever be prompted to face strong restraining forces. Openly and clearly explaining individuals that change is aiming at a general improvement, rather than deterioration habitually suffices to gain their genuine support.

As a general rule, change has to be hence invariably justified and the reasons behind it properly and openly communicated. Under these circumstances and whether individuals would not suffer any prejudice by reason of the change implementation, these are likely to accept it; whether, by contrast, change is intended to force individuals to undergo and experience worsening conditions, the strength of the restraining forces might reveal so powerful as to force employers to abruptly change their plans.

Longo, R., (2011), How to assess change feasibility; HR Professionals, [online].

Change Management: is it a real need or just a fad?

Every organisation is subject to a constant process of change, insofar as it could be agreed with Watson and Gallagher (2005) that “organisations are in a perpetual state of change.” Looking back on how things were managed within an organization 10, 5 or just a very few years ago, everyone would surely realise that things works fairly differently now and that many things have actually changed. It is indeed very likely that things will be different again in the not-too-distant future, too.

As for the frequency at which change occurs within organisations, the CIPD revealed in 2002 that significant reorganisations were occurring at least once every three years at the time. More recently, in order to underscore the acceleration at which change takes place within businesses, the CIPD (2010) has claimed that organisations are undergoing change at an “ever-increasing pace.” In contrast, what has not actually changed at all during the last decade or so is the rate of failure: over 40% of re-organisations in fact fail to meet their intended objectives.

There are indeed a whole range of reasons prompting employers to introduce changes within their firms. More in particular, change can be implemented for:

-  The planned or emerging need to innovate, which requires the introduction within the organisation of new technologies;

- The changing demand and circumstances which could in turn imply the need to develop new products and services;

- The need to change working procedures and systems, which could be in part also linked to the introduction of new technologies;

- The expansion/contraction of an organisation activity, which could mainly be linked to the good or bad health of the global or local market where the organisation operates (adapted from Watson and Gallagher, 2005).

There are indeed a few other relevant reasons which can account for organisations implementing change processes: changes in the overall business strategy, increased competitive pressure and new regulations, for instance, clearly also have a remarkable impact on an organisation need for change.

Although under some circumstances the rationale behind the need for change is provided by the endogenous environment, the reasons why organisations are subject to change are more often than not provided by the external environment. In the light of the pace technology develops and the external environment changes it can be argued that, as suggested by Mullins (2005), change is really “an inescapable part of social and organisational life.”

The pressure and influence exerted by the external environment on organisations is remarkable so that in order to avoid the dire consequences of dropping behind, businesses are constantly involved in a sort of adaptation and evolutionary process. What matters in terms of change is the business ability and capability to promptly respond and adapt to change and not to simply resist and avert it. The definition provided by Charles Darwin is self-explanatory: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most responsive to change.”

Public sector employers, by reason of their typical bureaucracy, procedural constraints and because of the several stakeholders with different if not competing priorities usually involved, habitually “face unique obstacles in leading” and managing organisational change (Fenlon, 2002). Notwithstanding, during the course of the last few years, public sectors organisations have been subject to and have actually undergone remarkable changes, too. In many cases, works are still well underway.

Before planning and implementing a change, business leaders and HR Professionals have to first and foremost become aware that a change is actually needed in their organisation. In order to initiate a change process, hence, a need for it has to clearly arise and be identified.

According to a research carried out by Roffey Park (2010) amongst more than 900 managers (called Management Agenda), the drivers pushing the more successful organisations to implement changes are represented by: their client needs, efficiency and quality; as opposed to the change procedures planned by employers with the aim of just curbing and containing costs. Findings of the Management Agenda Survey also revealed that when change is driven by these factors businesses are better able to deliver change quickly and effectively.

Employers should hence definitely avert to introduce change exclusively driven by internal politics or costs and rather focus on change aiming at better satisfying their customer needs.

The Roffey Park study also revealed the existence of a clear relationship between change management and performance, which further suggests that employers should avoid developing and implementing strategies aiming at achieving short-term cost containment objectives or just battening down the hatches. That, also in the event organizations are actually experiencing financial hardships. Business can in fact achieve far better results by innovating and looking for new market opportunities, rather than limiting their development and activity.

When designing and implementing change, employers should use an approach enabling them to proceed in an orderly and structured way, which will in turn ensure them to effectually and consistently achieve their intended final results.

Boddy (2008) suggests a model of change in which different stages are clearly identified, Figure 1.

For the purpose of this feature, we focus on the first stage of the model, that is, the one considering the reasons triggering a change process within an organisation.

As anticipated above, also in the light of the findings of the Management Agenda Survey, the need for change is mainly linked to the influences and changes which actually happen in the external environment, which clearly have a strong impact on any organisation irrespective of the industry to which it belongs.

The internal environment obviously is important too, but it does not represent the very starting point of the process. Employers initiate change when they ascertain the existence of a gap between what the external environment requires to be competitive and what the organisation, the internal environment, can actually offer. When a gap between the customers’ expectation and the actual organisation’s offer is identified, this clearly means that it is time for the organisation to introduce some changes.

As also confirmed by the Roffey Park investigation, the cause for the emerged gap between the desired and actual performance could be related to the organisation incapability to meet its customer demand. The existence of this circumstance jeopardises in turn the business capability to extend its customer network, both in terms of quality and quantity, and to achieve competitive advantage. What even worse, the emergence of this gap can ultimately cause a sensible sales revenues reduction, which can in turn hamper the organisation’s capability to acquire the resources it needs to carry out its transformation activity and produce its typical output.

Change aims at bridging this dangerous gap and enables an organisation to, if anything, keep pace with the constantly changing environment, avoiding this to be drowned by its competitors.

The model proposed by Boddy is particularly interesting in that it emphasises the circumstance that a change process is likely to generate somewhat of a knock-on effect. The change process, causing “practical issues of design and implementation”, will in turn produce the conditions for further, future changes.

The task of addressing the effect of a “perceived performance gap” is not really straightforward and the need to combine flexibility and stability, apparently in contrast, just contributes to make things even harder.

The current economic landscape, which is not expected to change in the future because of the constantly increasing competition trend, is dominated by two aspects which are also known as “performance imperatives” (Prastacos et al., 2002).

The first imperative is represented by the need for flexibility and the need for innovation. In such uncertain economic circumstances, organisations find it particularly difficult planning for the long term so that maintaining a high degree of strategic and organisational flexibility is definitely key (Boddy, 2008). At the same time, as suggested by Volberda (1997), employers also need to do whatever they can to maintain their processes stable and efficient.

As mentioned earlier, the objective of simultaneously achieving both flexibility and stability could appear contradictory, but it is actually intended to stress the importance that assumes for businesses their capability to react promptly and effectively to the external pressures whilst maintaining efficiency, which is also a very important component of organisational development.

The internal context needs, therefore, to promptly adapt to the external changing environment, but this does not mean that organisations merely need to adapt to the external changes to be successful. The internal context has indeed a remarkable influence to the successful implementation of this adaptation process, too.

To consider the importance of innovation, the second performance imperative suggested by Prastacos et al (2002), developing products having recourse to the cutting-edge technology offered by the latest advancements is not enough. Companies need to produce products which have to be perceived by customers as desirable and at prices which these are willing to pay for. All of that clearly depends on the internal management context.

 

The need for change, nonetheless, is not invariably perceived in the same way and with the same degree of urgency by the different individuals concerned. The petrol company BP, for instance, was subject to a particular competitive pressure in the 1980s, but it was only in the early 1990s that its business leaders considered the issue worth of careful attention and initiated a rapid process of change.

To produce effects and generate actions the need to activate a process of change has to be truly perceived by the most influential individuals within the organisation. Only when the organisations’ high ranks notice the gap between internal and external environment and consider it serious enough to threat the business stability a process of change will be actually initiated (Boddy, 2008).

Employers and trade unions can propose processes of change within organisations, but whether their views are not shared and supported by the most influential people within the business it is unlikely that change will yield the desired result.

The need for change is essentially subjective (Boddy, 2008): what is perceived as urgent by some individuals can be considered as something which can be postponed to the future or deemed even useless by others. Business leaders should pay extra care to this aspect and should be particularly cautious about the information they intend to disseminate to make the case for change. Those who want to avoid change will manipulate information in order to minimise the effects of a particular event or phenomenon, whilst those who are pressing for change could, by contrast, be tempted to manipulate information in order to emphasise the relevance of the possible consequences of doing nothing. Management should invariably double check information before taking action.

Organisational change is not a matter of showing who is the more influential person within an organisation, nor is it concerned with showing to the others how powerful one is. These processes require many resources and the full involvement of many people, if not that of the entire workforce. Change management is in general very expensive, is likely to produce remarkable effects and to meet the opposition of those contrary to its implementation: change hardly is a matter of plain sailing. It is important and even crucial develop and implement change processes when required, but not just as a mere exercise. Change has to be planned and implemented only to concretely help an organisation to stay competitive in the market and employees have all to be made aware of its real purpose.

It is very unlikely that a change involving an intended area of the organisation will not produce effects on others, one more reason to avoid underestimating the dire consequences of pointless change procedures.

From the procedural point of view, it could be useful considering also the approach to change management developed by Hayes and Hyde (1998), figure 2, to which the one proposed by Boddy is to some extent similar.

This model, starting from the identification of the need for change imposed by the external environment, considers an interesting intermediate stage where the management has to carry out a useful diagnose in order to assess the current situation and identify the likely future state that, with reference to the object of change, will be reached by the organisation.

The final stage of the process, called review, suggests that also in this case the process is very likely to start anew once finished. It is in fact possible that during the review the need for further improvement or change may emerge.

It can be concluded that the answer to the initial question is rather obvious: change management not only has not to be intended as a fad, but when justified it also represents a necessary practice for savvy employers which want to stay competitive in their market. A few conditions are, nonetheless, important:

a) The need for change has to be real and well determined,

b) The information provided to support this need have to be clear and objective,
c) Change, enabling the organisation to better meet its customer needs, is aimed at achieving competitive advantage and not at merely reducing overheads.

Longo, R., (2011), Change Management: is it a real need or just a fad?, HR Professionals, [online].