Implementing Change:

Change Management, Contingency, & Processual Approaches

Chapter 8

Change Management Approach

Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach

Focuses

on strategic, intentional and usually large-scale change Entails following a variety of steps; the exact steps vary depending upon the model used Belief that achieving organizational change is possible through a coordinated and planned approach Claims to be appropriate for all types of change
8-*

Kotters Eight-Step Model

Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

Kotters eight-step model is one of the best known:

1. Establish the need for urgency 2. Ensure there is a powerful change group to guide the change 3. Develop a vision 4. Communicate the vision 5. Empower the staff 6. Ensure there are short-term wins 7. Consolidate gains 8. Embed the change in the culture

Other N-Step Models

Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

Ten

commandements (Kanter, Stein and Jick 1992) Ten Keys (Pendlebury, Grouard, and Meston 1998) 12 Action Steps (Nadler 1998) Transformation Trajectory (Taffinfer 1998) Nine-Phase Change Process Model (Anderson & Anderson 2001) Step-by-Step Change Model (Kirkpatrick 2001) 12 Step Framework (Mento, Jones and Dirndorfer 2002) RANDs Six Steps (Light 2005) Integrated Model (Leppitt 2006)

N-Step Model Issues

Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

The sequences of steps The number of steps The timing of steps The resourcing of steps The involvement in each step Managing multiple steps Revisiting different steps Are all steps needed for particular

changes? Cyclical or linear

Change Management vs. OD

Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

There is a debate between proponents of OD and proponents of change management:

OD is criticized for giving attention only to human development, and not to technology, operations, and strategy Change management is criticized for having a focus on the concerns of management rather than on those of the organization as a whole being the product of management consultancy firms

Contingency Approaches
Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

Contingency

approaches challenge the view that there is one best way The style of change or the path of change will vary, depending upon the circumstances, including:
the scale of the change the receptivity to change of organizational members the style of change management the time period the performance of the organization

Contingency Approaches
Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

Huys

Contingency Approach categorizes change into 4 ideal types:

1. The commanding intervention Short-term and rapid senior executives Downsizing, outsourcing, divesting 2. The engineering intervention Medium-term and relatively fast Analysts Changing work design and operational systems 3. The teaching intervention Long-term and gradual Consultants Work practices and behaviours 4. The socializing intervention Long-term and gradual Participative experiential learning, self-monitoring Democratic organizational practices

Contingency Approaches
Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

Contingency approaches remain less common than change management approaches. Suggested reasons include:

Achieving fit may be difficult due to differing perceptions of the conditions in which the fit is sought Contingency approaches require greater analysis and decisions by managers; the prescriptiveness of change management models may be attractive to managers Contingency approaches focus on leadership style rather than a specific set of actions The use of different change styles at different times may raises questions in the minds of staff as to the credibility of senior management. There is a question about what is contingent to managing change

Processual Approach
Change Management Approach Kotters Eight-Step Model Other n-step models N-step model issues Change Management vs Organization Development Contingency Approaches Processual Approach
8-*

It

sees change as a continuous process rather than a series of linear events within a given period of time It sees the outcome of change as occurring through a complex interplay of different interest groups, goals, and politics. This approach alerts the change manager to the range of influences which they will confront and the way in which these will lead to only certain change outcomes being achieved This approach is often used to provide a detailed analysis and understanding of change retrospectively.

Learning more about one chagne management model: the Kotters model

First, know the theorist

Kotter has worked more any other theorist on the definition of leadership and how it actually differs from management. Management is more a set of tools while leadership is an art which can not be precisely codified. Comes to a definition of leadership that privileges its dimension of being an agent of change.

Believes that institutionalizing a leadership culture is the ultimate act of leadership.

John Kotter on Leadership & Management

Norfolk Southern: Case Study

When Katie Frazier first joined Norfolk Southerns Atlanta terminal, she felt it was running well but still felt more could be done to improve operations. She was also concerned about safety issues. As she got comfortable in her new job, she was wracking her brain, struggling with how to help the company take its safety and operations standards from just good enough to a higher level. One day, while in a local bookstores business section, she noticed a book with penguins on the cover. Penguins had always been her favorite animal, but she wondered what such a book was doing surrounded by books on management! The book, needless to say, was Our Iceberg Is Melting. Once she started reading it, she thought to herself, wow, this is really helpful. She noticed that behaviors in her company sometimes mirrored the penguins behaviors, for example, people would see a complex problem, and then either ignore it or wait for someone else to fix it. Katie thought that if she could get other people in the company to read the book, it might be a big help in giving people perspective on the bigger picture.Katie, being one of the few relatively young workers around, faced an enormous challenge in getting her older co-workers to buy in to the notion that penguins could help the organization. There were many skeptics. She showed the book to her manager, a former Marine. He told her that the book was something his granddaughter might read, not something he would value as a business leader. Katie

Step 1) Katie started by trying to create a sense of urgency around a willingness to raise safety and

operational standards. Through evaluation of these

problems, not only by Katie but also by the broader leadership team, people began to feel that urgency was more than just the latest fad. That process of raising the urgency level inside the Atlanta terminal of Norfolk Southern took about 2 months from start to finish.

Step 2) After sufficient urgency was raised, a guiding

coalition formed made up of a few conductors,

engineers & supervisors. Katies fear was that the group was too homogenous she actually wanted to include a few of the companys more skeptical employees to get their feedback and help strengthen the groups decision making. The Guiding Coalition began meeting regularly and called themselves The Iceberg Group. This group

started out small, but eventually grew to have about 9

people, changing over time, from different parts of the organization, meeting regularly to see how to implement the rest of the 8 Steps.

Step 3) The vision that the group created was designed to

change everyones mentality and attitude about safety.

Injuries could not be treated as an acceptable risk at a railroad they had to be reduced in order to get the railroads efficiency up and costs down.

Step 4) Communicating this vision was a constant battle, since most of a railroads employees are on the move at any given time. Furthermore, most of the crew members did not have access to modern communications like e-mail. As a result, the vision was communicated through a vehicle called job briefings, where the days weather & track conditions were discussed for crews about to go out on to the tracks. These briefings happen 3 times a day, at the beginning of every shift.

The Iceberg Group started communicating the change vision at

job briefings, around the clock, for two weeks straight. Over time, every crew member was touched by the vision multiple times, right at their point of highest awareness before going out to work on the trains.

Step 5)The largest barrier Katie felt she needed to overcome

were related to the concept of raising the bar on safety standards how can you make people really care about the highest possible safety standards, when current standards are already high? The way to do it, she said, was to make it personal get to the heart and not just the mind. They forced people to think about their families and how they would

feel about an injury to their loved ones. Over time, the message
began to sink in and people started to change their behavior. This created a high level of engagement with the crew.

Step 6) The Iceberg Group set a goal for a short term win six months injury free and communicated it broadly. Since the inception of the Iceberg Groups work, with the exception of a small muscle pull, the Atlanta terminal has gone almost 9 months injury free.

Other outcomes resulted as well, for example, because the

terminal became so proficient, theyve never had to reduce the number of shifts running, even as other companies have cut back. With injuries down about 97% over last year, the Atlanta terminal has had fewer missed days of work, fewer injury-related costs and more productive workers, enabling it to gain a critical advantage over the competition.

Step 7&8) Even with this success, the Atlanta terminal isnt content to let up. As they continue to move through the 8 Step process, they hope to make the change permanent by anchoring these new changes into the

culture. The Iceberg Group continues to meet, looking for

other ways in which they can help the company improve its operations, and hopefully, spread the Iceberg philosophy to other divisions of the company