Perspectives Of Strategic Change Management

Perspectives Of Strategic turn ManagementThere is atomic number 53 quote from Heraclitus that nation frequently part when talking ab come in pedigree, the wholly constant is interpolate itself. transform is a severalise feature to business environment nowadays, the ability to strategi chattery over stick out(p) spay is often perceived as whiz of the core competencies of palmy disposals (Burnes, 2004, Okumus and Hemmington, 1998).In the face of globalization, innovation of technology and economic fluctuations (Burnes B. , 2004), raw business puts and captivate strategic responses have to be formulated in order to influence uncertainty, variability and ambiguity (Clayton et al., 2005) at bottom the mount of what DAveni(1995) called hyper-competition.However, current theories and climaxes to alternate commission be massive (Armenakis Bedeian, 1999)and often contradictory, regarding the complexity of alter and signifi fagt differences in perspectives towards i t (Burnes, 2004 By, 2005). Even though, it travel toms that aconsensushas been reached that internally or out-of-doorlydriven transmits argon occurring regardless of shape, form or surface (Burnes, 2004 Carnall, 2003 Kotter, 1996 Luecke, 2003),henceinfluence every geological formation in every industry. This article get out critically review part of the key theories and approaches concerning administrational social sy report and close, andtry to apply the examples discussedinto a case study to see whether they argon representent with empirical evidences.Diagnosis reposition and Managing Change description of ChangeFrom the origin of the concept, assortment is delimitate by Oxford English lexicon as the act or instance of making or enough variant. It is often referred to as the movement from a current nominate toward a future state (George J mavens, 1996). In his Management textbook, Robins defines swop as an adaptation in structure, technology, or race. (1994, p. 381)In this definition, structure refers to alteration in structural variables in damage of complexity, formalization, degree of centralization, etc. Technological aspect of commute is related to to methods or equipment involved. People, as the third concern in vary, looks at theaspect of modification in attitudes, perceptions, values, or behavior (Nagaike, 1997).Taking into storey the personality of both strategy and ex motley, strategic lurch is exposit as distinctionin judicatures alignment with their outside environmentin the shape, form, or state over a certain period of timescale(Van de Ven Poole, 1995 Rajagopalan and Spreitze, 1996).The alignment here denotes the thorough pattern of present and think resource deployments and environmental interactions that proves how the organization will achieve its objectives(Hofer Schendel , 1978, p. 25).In thestrategic level, Pettigrew (1985)argues that inwardly an organization, motleys occurs under different situation s, ranging from commercial events,to managerialinsight, options and actions, which indicate a classification both on macro and micro perspective. Managers, see the internal setting of change consists connections with structure, gardening, power, and levels of control. The relevant parts of the environment (Schien, 1985)had to be re-evaluated in order to check.Change is a continuous anddistinctivefeature of organisational life, both operationally and strategically (Burnes, 2004).As a result, corporate strategy cannot be taken out fromorganizational change (Rieley Clarkson , 2001).Strategic Change ManagementThe term strategic change anxiety is very popular amongacademic articles together with freshspapers and magazines. Joan Magretta and Nan Stone (2002) augur out that coping with various changes is one of the most challenging tasks in the management argonna. Moreover, comments of powerful management gurus such as Peter Drucker who propose that organizations have to command c hange, rather than simply reacting to it stimulated much touch on in this very topic (1995).Strategic change management is defined as the motion of managing the implementation of alteration in organizational strategies,by which an organization achieves efficacious changes in objectives, performances, relations, procedures and organisms (Bridges, 1991), gets to its future state and attains its vision for private-enterprise(a) advantage. Via a make for characterized as sensegiving (Gioia Chittipeddi), a vision for change is created and thence disseminated(Whetten, 1984) to peple whoplay the change agents power to reach the created vision. Everett Rogers (1995) described change agents as figures with one foot in the old world and one in the pertly creators of a tide over across which differentlys can travel.Strategic change management alters change agents (Weick Quinn, 1999) and opposite stake scoreers of theorganization to access to the effective strategiesand allow for t ryouts in redesigning the organization s image and identity (Mintzberg, 1989)and execute the new vision.Types of ChangeHow change is perceived varies in related literary productions close tohas regarded it asexecuted from top-down whileothers bottom-up, some sees it an emerging phenomenon while others think it s planned (Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science, 1951) different scholars have described it as additive, punctuated and continuous (Burnes B. , 2004)Different kinds of change call for different strategies to successfully effect and make a difference to the way things are through around here which referred to overcoming resistance to implementing organization change. Before getting into the expand of managing change, it s helpful to review the types of change in organizations and then write down to look at specific approaches toward change.Planned and Emergent Changesometimes changeis classified as planned,which isrationally embarked upon and directed by organizations ( Burnes B. , 2004). The term of planned change was commencement ceremony mentioned by psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947),to describe change as deliberate,and a harvest-time of rational intellection and actions (McGreevy, 2008). Planned change may as hearty be called blueprint, top-down, rational, linear change with the need for focus on basal or transformational change (Hayes, 2010), and also be referred to as episodic change as opposed to continuous change (Weick Quinn, 1999). Strategically speaking, planned change s more termed second-order change, often encompassessubstitution of certain strategy with another as well as a significant survival of crisis and take into storey the multiple consequences of any such changes (Buchanan Boddy, 1992)in order to distinguish from the change of doing die in what we already do (Watzlawick et al., 1974).In contrast, change sometimes is kindaunplanned. Thiskind of change is recognized as rising change, which is ongoing and is an unpredic table process of adjust and realigning to a turbulent environment (Burnes B. , 2004). Emergent change occurs spontaneously, involving gradual process of continuous adjustment, cumulative effortmodifications in work and social context that passel improvise and learn in daily basis (Hayes, 2010). Also indicatedas incremental or first order change, emergent change has an importantfeature that concerns the fact that people frequently adjusting and correcting thoughts and knowledge they obtain from internal or out-of-doorenvironments, which can store and amplify then create significant changes (Weick Quinn, 1999).As discussed frequently in organizational development literature, which followed the work of Lewin (Cummings Huse , 1989), the difference between planned and emergent change helps clarify the school of thoughtsondevelopment of organizations and developmentof long-term organizationalgoals (Naderi, 2010), which is agreed with the strategic thinking of change management.Inste ad of organism a fixed, coherent, or well-ordered process, organizational change is chaotic or uncontrolled most of the time (Iles Sutherland, 2001), often involving emergent or non-linear elements and the consequences of uncertainty andchance (Dawson, 1996). The term strategic change then, is the explanation of the magnitude of change in structure, culture, recognizing the second order effects of these changes (Pettigrew, 2000). uprisemental, transitional and transformational changeChange mayas well be viewed from the perspective of frequency and s tell apart (Iles Sutherland, 2001). Ackerman (1997)outlines one-third types of most frequentchange in organizational literature developmental,which is change that augments or modifiespresentfacets of an organization, spotlight on the enhancement of skills or processes in order to maintain competitive transitional,intrusive as it bring more or less completely new processes or procedures to the organization. Examples of transitional change includes corporate restructuring, merger, acquisitions, new merchandise or service designs, and instigating new technologies and transformationalchangewhichrequires a perfect redefinition of the organization and some of its key features including a ripe definition of the business, a different strategic orientation, oandsignificant change in terms of structure, processes, and corporate culture (Dunphy Stace, 1993).Theories in change literature are more concerned with developmental and transitional change, leaving transformational change as a difficult and unsolved when implementation is under consideration.Burnes(2004) has a slightly different classification of change, in the need to consider strategically concerning the internal and external environment, which includesincremental, with separateorganizational segments responding progressively and independently to one problem or goal at a time punctuated equilibrium, with evolution through relatively grander twosome of ti me of stability punctuated by shorter bursts of revolutionary change and continuous transformational change, with the organization continuously aligning to their environment which races to more organized management of strategic change.Cultural PerspectiveIf real change is to occur in organizations, it has to retrieve at the heathenish level. Culture has long been a key element in organizational change literature. As early as the 1950s, psychologist Jaques wrote about cultural influence in a changing factory for the first time(1952). though there is no consensus on definition, the share values and divided patterns of understanding(Schien, 1985) instituteded in the meaning of culture are at the core of organizational change.In fact, Schien s definition of culture best represents functionalist school of cultural approaches to change. He defines culture of a crowd as the collective or shared learning of that unit as it develops its capacity to survive in its external environment and to manage its own internal affairs (1990, p. 58).It is stated by scholars that to create effective and powerful change, organizations and individuals have toface, cultivate or gainsay core cultural values, thenparticipants of the organization come up against a overpowering change in perceptionthusturn to another direction(Dunphy Stace, 1993). Then in this sense, two locomote have to be taken when we look at culture in terms of change management. First, the resistance of change from the existing culture, which requires anexplicitcomprehension of the corporate culture. The diagnosing of current culture will determine the second step, which how to change the culture and implement change at a strategic level.Johnson and Scholes Cultural meshThe cultural weave is a good diagnostic tool for ? looking for at corporate culture. (See Figure 1) The paradigm in the center of the net is the set of core beliefs, which maintains the unity of the culture. The petals includedsoft aspects such assymbols, routines, political processes and hard counterparts as structures and control systems. They are theculture sexplicitexpressions of the impact of the paradigm(Johnson Scholes, 1999). Cultural web not only recognize current cultural layouts merely alsoable to map future culture required by change. tho to be critical, environment and contextual factors are more or less ignored in cultural web framework.Figure 1. Cultural web (Johnson and Scholes, 1992)Structural Perspective Opportunity and apologyMintzberg(1989)describes structure in a dynamic form. He points out the environmental influence on organizational structure,plus the mannerof its evolvement. It is proposed that complexity plays animportant role in organization s structure, due to its relationship tothe diversity in the environment and the renewing of structures in organizations and the pace of change they are confronting.From the practical perspective,both internal and external structural aspects are acc ountable for organization change in some way(Miller Friesen, 1982).Guth and Ginsberg point out that industry structure affects opportunities for successful new product development(Guth Ginsberg, 1990), thus leads to the innovation and renewal of the product cycle of an organization. From inside, the structures of organizations vary. How individual and ag collection engage and coordinate within an organization influence the ease or challenge of organizational change.It is argued by scholars that there is no perfect approach of organizing an organization (Mintzberg 1989 Drucker 1999). Situational variables involve the environment, objectives, technology, age and size of the organization. For instance,when organization s size increases, structural explanation and dignifiedmechanisms for planning, decision making, and resource allocationwill become more complex(Quinn Cameron, 1983), therefore, are able togenerate progressively greaterconfrontationand inertia to basic change(Tushman Romanelli, 1985).New markets and competitive pressures from the industry call for constant internal innovation and change of prevailing structural dimensions to enable firms to better achieve their strategicobjectives.Restructuring could be a powerful gear for change, in rearrange the resource within the organization and also give strong signals to both customers and employees that things are changing, thus helps to build a innovative image. But sometimes structural change becomes too obvious a choice, without considering other factors such as culture(Clarke, 1994) it can then be at great cost to time, morale, and also ultimately unproductive. So reorganization is not the one solution to every issue.To make it effective, one should always take into account the context of both formal and informal structures, and the bonding alignment of structure and culture, to enable individuals and organizations to cope with uncertainty, variability and ambiguity.Leavitt et al. Four Levers of Cha ngeThe organization change can be driven by various factors such as function, structure, and also value and culture alike. Leavitt et al. (1973)suggest that four levers of change constitute the sub-system in an organization, including structure, which involves hierarchy, authority, centralization and decentralization task, which indicates work design, uniformity, different levels ofcorporate inescapably, sovereignty and option technology, which consists levels of complexity, expiration of employee engagement and obligation and people, which includes cultural aspects such as values, beliefs, attitudes, motives, etc. lastingness Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin,) personnel office field analysis provides a framework for checking structural levers in terms of inertia as well as opportunities.By looking at both sides of the organizational driven forces, Lewin s modeling helps to examine the barriers and resistance of change, and figure out the main facilitators.Figure 2. Force field analysi s object lesson (Lewin, 1951)As shown in Figure 2, one party is attempting to support change drive forces and the other seeking to hold things back restraining forces. In Lewin s model, organizations are more as a dynamic balance of forces effecting in opposite ways. If change is to occur, the equilibrium has to be broken by the driving forces exceeding the restraining forces.Strategy to Change contextual Features and Implementation OptionsOrganizational change is often triggered by outside driving force, so the circumstances that form the setting for change cannot be unheeded in understanding and assessing strategic change management.Figure 3. Change Kaleidoscope Model (Balogun Hope Hailey , 2002)A change kaleidoscope model is discussed in regard to diagnosis of the context for change (Balogun Hope Hailey , 2002). The authors presents a framework derived from a kaleidoscope metaphoras shown in Figure3, that encompassesan outer(prenominal) ring which illustrate the key change context featureswhich every facilitate or confine change, as well as an versed ring concerning to options openwhen implementing a change.They carry out an analysis of needs, apply thought on what is most critical, and decide which interventions to implement and the orders to be taken. The design choices consist change start-point, change path, change way, change targetand change roles.It is notcontextual feature s impact on the design choices that matters (Balogun Hope Hailey, 2002), they need to work together in a systematic and consistent way. It is argued that the organization mechanisms such as strategy, structure, and peopleshould be aligned with each other to make an effective organization in this sense, good strategic alignment is crucial to change (Tichy, 1985).Approaches to Change Models and FrameworksLewin Three-Stage bear upon of ChangeMost theories on planned change stem from the three-phase model Lewin (1951)developed in describing how an organization undergoes c hange as following* Unfreezing keenness or willingness to accept change.* Moving choosing appropriate strategies for change itself.* Refreezing acceptance and stabilisation of new behavior.Figure 4. Three-Stage Process of Change(Lewin, 1951)This social-psychological approach to management is about how people in an organization go about changing. First, the members of the organization have to be convinced of the necessityand demand for change, have a sense of urgency, or else null will be willing to move and the management will be the only ones believing in the reorganization. Second, the change has to be carried out. And finally the new situation after the second stepneed to be institutionalized, organizational members, have to embed new behavioral patterns, new working(a) methods, new values and norms, otherwise people will soon return to their old habits prior to the change.Later descriptive models all followed this basic outline in how an organization will change.Kotter Eight- stage Process of Creating Major ChangeBased on studies of why organizational change so often fails, Kotter (1996)developed the following conditions for successful change in anorganization.i. hit a sense of urgencyii. Create the guiding coalitioniii. Develop a vision and strategyiv. Communicate the change visionv. present employees for broad-based actionvi. Generate short-term winsvii. Consolidate gains and produce more changeviii. Anchor new approaches in the culture.In textbooks and journal articles on managing change numerous other multi-stage models of change management are presented (Burnes, 2009 Carnall, 2003).All of these models provide organizations with a road map for change they illustrate what steps the organization must(prenominal) take for change initiatives to be adopted within their organization.Application A Case Studyof Strategic Change ManagementIntroduction and BackgroundEmirates is one of the biggest international aviation service providers. Not satisfied with just being a successful airline go with, it aims to evolve into a globally influential travel and tourism conglomerate. In this case, Emirates plans to open the very first Emirates Hotels and Resorts (EHR).This element first focus on the change context for EHR (which uses part of kaleidoscope framework) and followed by an analysis of the cultural dimensions of change using the cultural web framework. And then identify the implementation of change options by applying the rest of the change kaleidoscope model. Finally, a conclusion and recommendations are provided concerning the change management process at EHR. context of use of ChangeSuccessfully dealt with the change problem in the beginning of its operation, the context which EHR is in should be firstly illustrated. Launched in 2006, Emirates Hotels and Resorts (EHR) isthe premier hospitality management divisionof Emirates Group. present EHR is facing the problem of opening its flagship property within a short timescale and inc ongruous force on its side (Carmazzi, 2008). Time, scope, readiness, diversity and strength are identified as contextual features of particular importance in this case.Figure 5.Context of Change in EHRResource by author, adapted from the kaleidoscope model Time. The hotel will be welcoming its first customer in 4 weeks time so everyone is extremely busy and everyone has urgent deadlines ahead to secure his or her task. Scope. asks the question of what degree of change is needed. EHR has various choice for managing this change, and since the sought after type of service should be gummy with the Emirates philosophy, so top-down, transformational change is required. Readiness. Apparently, the work force is not ready to change, employees are performing as individuals, and a cohesive way of working is then needed. Diversity. The people involved are quite diversified, but the different background will bring about meshing in service style as well as working values. Capability. Leader of this change is the administration manager, who has his own routine of work. So consultancy was hired to help manage the change.Organizational CultureAs discussed in the literature review, organization s culture concerns the shared values and beliefs within it. The cultural web provides a useful perspective to assess what is happening within the company.Figure 6.The Cultural Webof EHRBefore the consultancy started working, EHR was more or less in a mess everyone was lead around to get their own business done. The paradigm of EHR shows that in the situation of only 4 weeks left, there are no recognized vision, and lack of unified identity and cohesive force. Though the top and senior management did create a vision for what should be like in the future, but the power of doing their own task is even so held by line managers. For example, spa manager has her distinctive view of what are the priorities from the accommodation manager. The status of work and terminologies used at work varies from group to group, individual to individual. Although managers tried hard to communicate the Emirates philosophy to formulate an unshared service style, the busy, stressed workforce, trained in absolutely diverse background, whose running towards their own deadlines have low interest of what other people are doing, and are not buying in what is forced upon them.Change ChoicesThe outer ring of the kaleidoscope model has been discussed above as to identify the contextual features of the change environment of EHR. That left us with the inner ring of the model, which provides a board of design options. When change is under consideration, management, as well as other change agents, can find help within this framework.In order to cope with the change effectively, the approach the consultant agency follows can be summarized using the change choices ring in the model. Change path. The change path can range from adaption, reconstruction, evolution or revolution. In EHR s case, th e consultancy think it needs a quick win due to the time limit but still not wise to carry out a major(ip) transformational turnaround. Change start-point. To start with, the consultants seek for management commitment to the result from a top-down perspective. Then by identifying real issues and key influencers within the company Change target. The attitude and behavior is the major targets of the change process. By group working and sharing, both middle managers and employees expand their psychological foundations by themselves, which lead to a more voluntary transition in attitude and way of doing things. Change style. The changing process is more of a participation style rather than direction or education, with the effort of the consultancy of bringing management and employees together. Change levers. The driven force of the change is interpersonal rather than technological or political. The concept of ownership and self-leadership is conveyed and ignites change in culture from w ithin. Change roles. It is emphasize that every staff is responsible for the change. The key influencers perform as change agents and share with others, so other employee can relate to their own examine at work.Conclusion and RecommendationThe subsystems of organizations shown in the culture web are all to do withthe levers of change. Transformational change requiresthe alignment of considerably softer levers within anorganization as well as the hardcore gears it is easier to succeed if paying more attention to subtle mechanisms in regard to people (Balogun Hope Hailey, Exploring Strategic Change, 1999).Here are some recommendations on the change management implication of EHR within a short timescale such as 4 weeks to 3 months.1. credit process of both the context and change itself should always be carried out carefully. What is happening in the environment has great influence on the nature and type of change.2. Alignmentof individual factors of the organization should be exami ned to check whether a fundamental change is required to assure the change undergoes toward the strategic goals.3. Interventions requireconscientiouslyplanningin order to egest the inertia and barriers to change as shown in the cultural web, to create new subsystems including structures, systems, routines, rituals, symbols, and stories.4. Seen the weakness of an organization, in order to fix it,support from other sort of disputation such as training is required. Individuals need to go through additionalpreparation and be exposed to extra initiatives before they can accept the vision of organizational change.