Issues In Implementing Change And Use Of Power

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

A challenge that every organization faces is to implement the change (Revenaugh, 1994). Implementation of change refers to the activities which take the real shape of design and making it operational (Smith and Mourier, 1999). Change brings about innovation, when implemented correctly it remains as innovation, failure of change results in desecrate of ideas, design and work (Russ, 2008). When talking about implementing the change there arises many questions: How to communicate the change? How to implement the change successfully? What are the issues faced while implementing the change? What is the role of power in implementing the change?

This report throws light on theoretical concepts of change implementation and answers the above posed questions. Firstly literature on change management, change implementation and power are discussed. Secondly, organizational issues such as communication, employee resistance in implementing the change with respect to various change management practices are discussed. In the fourth section Lewin’s basic change management theory is discussed and Schein’s and Jick’s theory of implementing change are related. Finally, a real case of implementing change in Italdata, Italian software company is analyzed with respect to the inter-related theories in section four, issues in implementing change and role of power are identified and summarized in the end.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Change and Implementation

An organization can undergo change starting from conceptual level (eg: culture) to most concrete level (eg: an ordinary equipment) (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992). Connor (1993) describes change in nature as ongoing process and never complete. While Paton (2000) says that planned change is possible but it’s often difficult to achieve. It is difficult to manage change in fast moving environment without losing control of organization (Paton, 2000: 6). For example in a survey of three hundred electronic component companies which underwent change in their organization ninety percent failed. The main reasons for failure were related to change implementation issues (Siegal et al, 1996).

"Changes are those that are ongoing, evolving and cumulative small uninterrupted adjustments" - (Pettigrew et al., 2001, 704)

Any change within the organization cannot be implemented without proper leadership qualities (clement, 1994). A manager must use his power where ever necessary in order to make the change successful (clement, 1994). Implementing change means acting on ideas, individuals in a team work on the task allocated to them as in the plan made for change which is overlooked by a change specialist for a time-frame and subjected to strict performance level (Connor, 1993: 62).

2.2 Change complexity and power

Change most of the times becomes more complicated, a leader who could motivate everyone, build trust and give confidence to others makes the change implementation successful (Nielsen, 2009). The role of analyst in an organization is to promote change. It is the duty of analyst to be authoritative and explain the necessary of change to upper management that change brings in more value to themselves as well as to the organization (Mintzberg, 1983).

"Power is the capacity of individuals to overcome resistance on the part of others, to exert their will and to produce results consistent with their interest and objectives"

-(Huczynski, 2007, P 798).

Managers use various styles and degrees of power sharing to implement change. There are 3 styles identified participatory, power sharing or delegating and authoritarian. In participatory approach everyone is invited when taking decision on change. In power sharing or delegating the manager allocates tasks to resources and monitors. Authoritative is a one in which all the decisions are taken by manager. Participatory and power sharing approach cannot be used in environment which required drastic change. But literature portrays these two methods are the best in terms of employee satisfaction. But when it comes to success authoritarian approach is expected when an organization faces crisis and when there is a call for immediate change (Dainty, 1990).

Tactics

Influencing technique

Assertiveness

Regularly reminding the influence of the request

Bargaining

Negotiating and explaining

Coalition

Mobilizing other people and strengthening the request

Consultation

Involving in decision of change

Ingratiation

Friendly behavior or praise while making request

Inspirational appeal

Developing emotional commitment

Personal appeal

Appealing based on friendship and loyalty

Table 1. Influencing tactics using power.

Source: (Huczynski , 2007, P 811)

Huczynski (2007) describes several influencing tactics of a manager using power in change management. These tactics described in table 1 should be selected and used by a manager appropriately according to stage of implementation.

3. Issues in implementing change

A change cannot be implemented immediately, as there are many issues in implementing the change process. This section of report focuses on some of the issues and challenges. Firstly, organizations culture cannot be readily changed or adapted. The culture of the organizations comes from the founder and his successors (Levin and Gottlieb, 2009). Internally, within an organization people are more comfortable with what they know and are more reluctant to change (Martins, 2007). One more issue is not engaging the critical stake holders who are affected by this change (Kee, 2008). A company’s success depends more on the employees. When the employees resist change the organization suffers. The main key to success lies in the attitude of manager towards his employees. He/she should inject a correct mix that supports employees "hearts" and "heads" (Kee, 2008). Resistance of the employees has many sources which include self interest, lack of trust and understanding, competing assessments of the outcomes and low tolerance of change (Huczynski, 2007, P 597). Communication is seen as an issue where the perception of the manager is different from employees understanding (Frahm, 2007). Aristotle in 350 B.C suggests that communication should be receiver oriented when there is a continuous change (Larkin and Larkin, 1994). If there is a difference in understanding what needs to be changed in an organization between management and employees then change fails (Frahm, 2007). Transformation because of change takes lot of time. It’s a general attitude of the people that after implementing change they expect the outcome of it within a short time. If there is a delay in the expected outcome people lose momentum, gets disappointed and does not proceed further. Employee motivation again plays a key role in this phase (Kotter, 1995).

4. Theories and Framework

This section of report discusses Lewin’s theory on change management and how other theories can be tuned and related Lewin’s theory. According to Lewin (1951) a successful change includes 3 aspects: unfreezing, moving and freezing. Unfreezing is where the need for change is revealed, moving is where action is taken to change the organization finally, freezing is where the new process are setup and the organization moves to a new level. Schein (1980), supports this three step model of Lewin and argues that unfreezing is a level where motivation should be induced and creates an inclination towards change. Schein (1980) relates moving to cognitive restructuring and in the final phase he insists relational freezing and integrating the change process (Siegal, 1996). Jick (1990) accompanies Lewin three stages of change and views the impact on individuals. On the first stage he suggests to accept the defeat from old experiences. Second stage (moving) called as "neutral zone" is more important where the employees develop a framework among them and identify what they can do for the changing organization. In this theory freezing phase is incomplete until the first two stages are accepted by the employees.

Figure1: Models of change implementation.

Source: Lewin (1951), Schein (1980), Siegal (1996), Jick (1990)

5. Case study - Italdata

This section of the report gives a brief introduction about Italdata Italiana a software company which demands change in organization including the management style of managers. The issues in implementation of change are identified and the theories discussed above are applied and critically examined.

5.1 About organization

During the late 1980s, Italdata’s sales and employees strength started growing. Employees were hired from other firms which caused a conflict between former and new recruits. Top level managers in the organization possessed power and each had different style of management. There was a strong resistance developed among the managers to get updated with the technology. Despite these the company also had the following problems: chaotic organizational structure, unhealthy social atmosphere, dissolving company culture, deficit of positive managerial attitudes and heavy fragmentation due to excess power held by unit managers. The next three sections evaluate the change process and identify the issues and effect of power in each stage.

5.2 Unfreeze

The need for change is clearly evident in this stage where the organizational structure should be reframed since the employee strength increased rapidly. There is a need for single organizational culture more than conflict between new and old resources. Also the managers recruited newly were from big organization. The main drawback being in very big organization was, the middle level managers were young aged, where as in Italdata the middle level managers were old who are with the organization from beginning. When comparing with proposed theory of Schein (1980) there is a complete lack of motivation from the managers as they themselves suffer from fragmentation. Every department in Inteldata was totally isolated from each other and there was no way that they communicate with each other. Managers being the secondary stakeholders of Italdata need motivation to work as they are going to be involved in the change process. When addressing the individual theory of Jick (1990) managers are not ready to accept or look back their past experiences and are more resistant to change process. Managers in Italdata practice delegating style and they want a real delegation of responsibility.

5.3 Move

Italdata did not maintain a proper documentation related to their organization structure. There was no proper channel of communication in the organization for example the operations committee of the company composed of same member of group operational committee with few adhoc invitation sent to managers for attending the committee meeting. But when viewing the organization in terms of Schein (1980), gives more emphasis on cognitive restructuring in move stage. Currently the organization is more irrational. Change when applied now will result in failure. Cognitive restructuring applying to Italdata means being more rational in approach where the managers should be ready to accept the challenges faced during the change and eliminate negative thoughts. This is more into being emotionally strong. As suggested by Jick (1990) the managers should be focused on the organization and should develop a frame work among them. Italdata requires drastic change but literature opposes using participatory style of power in an organization which needs drastic change, but still participatory style is recommended since employee morale is low and using authoritative power in this situation will result in failure of change because of more resistance and attrition of employees.

5.4 Freeze

It’s the general tendency of the people to overlook the problem and give up within short time of implementation as they expect results immediately. One of the managers of Italdata gave up on the change and left the organization to start his own business. If the person who has gone through all the procedures of change leaves an organization it’s a major loss and further results in more attritions. When viewing through Schein’s theory which imposes relational freeze and integrating. The disintegrated group of managers should overlook and motivate the people in this stage so that they don’t get dejected and stay focused. Since one of the top level managers left the organization the entrepreneur of Italdata wanted to be more authoritative and asked for a quick fix to change from his sub ordinates. Jick’s theory is very much applicable in this situation of for Italdata since the individual (manager) failed in the first two stages he was not able to face the change in a positive way and hence he failed.

5.5 Summary of case study

Stage

Implementation Issues Identified

Power style and tactics

Unfreeze

Conflict between new and old resource(Lewin)

Lack of motivation in managers (Schein)

Need for single culture

Lack of stakeholder (managers) engagement.

Resistant of employees (Managers).

Not ready to accept defeat (Jick).

Delegating style and using assertive tactics.

Move

Irrational behavior of managers ( Schein)

Poor communication before implementing change. (Lewin)

Lack of co-ordination between teams.

Participatory style and bargaining tactics

Freeze

Expect immediate returns from change (Lewin)

Attrition of employees due to poor performance (schein)

Small failures in change need of quick fix.

Authoritative style and assertive tactics.

6. Conclusion

7. Bibliography

Buchanan D, Badham R (1999), "Power, Politics and organizational change", sage publications limited, First edition, PP 39-67

Clement R, 1994, "Culture, Leadership and Power: the keys to organizational development" Business Horizons; January

Connor C.A, 1993, "The handbook for organizational change: strategy and skills for trainers and developers", McGraw Hill training series, pp 49-72

Dainty P, Kakabadse A, 1990, "Organizational change: A strategy for successful implementation", Journal of Business and psychology, Vol 4, Issue 4, PP 463- 483.

Frahm J, Brown K, 2007, "First step: linking change communication to change receptivity", Journal of change management, Vol 20, No 3, PP 370- 387

Huczynski A.A, Buchanan D.A, 2007, "Organizational Behaviour", sixth edition, Prentice hall, financial times,.

Kee J.E, Newcomer K.E (2008), "Why do change efforts fail? What can leaders do about it?" The public Manager, <www.thepublicmanager.org> , accessed on 17th May 2010.

Kotter J, 1995,"Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail", Harvard business review, March – April, Vol 73, No 2

Jick T.D (1990), "Note on the recipients of change" Harvard business school, Harvard business press, November.

Larkin, T.J. and Larkin, S. (1994), "How to communicate when everything is uncertain", Communicating Change: How to Win Employee Support for New Business Directions, McGraw-Hill,PP 227 - 239.

Levin I, Gottlieb J.Z, 2009, "Realigning organizational culture for optimal performance: six principles & eight practices", Organizational development journal, Vol 27, No 4.

Lewin K (1951), "Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers", Harper brothers publications, New York, PP 226-229.

Martins L P, 2007, "A Holistic framework for the strategic management of first tier managers", Management Decision, Vol 45, No 3, PP 616-641.

Mintzberg H, Westley F, 1992, "Cycles of organizational change", Strategic management journal, Vol. 13, special issue: Fundamental themes in strategy, pp 39- 59.

Mintzberg H, 1994, "Power in and around organizations", The theory of management policy series, Prentice-Hall inc, Englewood cliffs, PP 135- 140.

Nielsen R, 2009, "Your Business: Change statergy" Employee benefit adviser, President of leader labs, Vol 7, Issue 8, PP 64

Paton R.A, McCalman j, 2000, "Change management: a guide to effective implementation", Sage publications, second edition, PP 1- 25.

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), "Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 697-713.

Revenaugh D.L , 1994, "Implementing Major Organizational change: Can we really do it?", The TQM magazine research and concepts, Vol 6, Issue 6, PP 38-48.

Russ T, 2008, "Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches", Journal of change management, Vol. 8, Issue. 3, PP 199-211.

Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Siegal W, Church A.H, Javitch M, Waclawski J, Burd steffani, Bazigos M, 1996, " Understanding the management of change: a overview of managers assumptions and perceptions in the 1990’s", Journal of organizational change management, Vol 9. Issue 6. PP 54-80.

Smith M.E, Mourier P, 1999, "Implementation: Key to organizational change", Strategy and leadership, Emerald journals, Vol 27, Issue 6, PP 37-41.