Embracing Organizational Change–Literature Review

Why Change Fails.

     Step foot inside any organization and you may notice certain levels of resistance regarding progression. Through review of the following articles, we learn that executive leaders are heading in one direction, while the rest of the organization remains stagnant holding onto what they know and value. These differences between beliefs and directions enable roadblocks that result in ambiguity in the workplace. Employees are afraid of being cut from the team and executives are afraid of falling behind in the marketplace. What inhibits an organization’s ability to change? More importantly, what can we do to fix it?

     Not all change is good. Nevertheless, change may be inevitable to stay ahead of the competition. The most recent economical demise has taught us that we reside in a rapidly changing and somewhat unstable environment. Further examination of historical economic trends suggest that booms and busts are simply normal fluctuations of the economy. If organizational leaders are not prepared for what is around the corner, these fluctuations can wreak havoc on their daily operations.

     Investigating the answers to our questions, what inhibits organizational change and how can we fix it, I examine the findings of four comprehensive articles covering education, communication and direction of change. They conclude that organizational leaders spend too much time on what to change and not enough time on how to change while educating why change is necessary. Often, leaders overlook employee’s needs in the process of change. Employees are expected to fully understand the need without substantial information. This forms an uproar of conflict. Practitioners and professionals, however, found change to be most successful when it involved open communication and training that encompassed the entire organization.

“Generating Knowledge That Drives Change” (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012)

     Where does organization change derive? While serving as the Chair for the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke did not roll out of bed one morning suggesting bank mergers, acquisitions and relief funds. These changes proceeded months of research and deliberation. However, Mohrman and Lawler (2012) do not directly discuss the 2009 financial crises; they do reference extensive evidence that sets the premise for organizational change common amongst businesses today. Such research provides the knowledge needed to navigate future change. Furthermore, “having access to multiple sources of knowledge is critical to organizational effectiveness” (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012, p. 42).

     Organizations encounter elevated levels of confrontation in today’s fluid environment (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). As we will discuss further in this review, change is best embraced through effective communication—educating your organization to embrace change. Nevertheless, researching the need for change arms organizational leaders with the evidence needed to support this new direction. Mohrman and Lawler (2012) suggest that researchers who provide the evidence should work alongside practitioners within an organization to help develop new directions. This level of research surpasses the traditional microscopic view that inhibits the ability to implement theory directly from research into an organization’s practice.

     Through a series of five studies, documenting practitioner’s findings who worked directly with organizations and universities, Mohrman and Lawler (2012) investigate the importance of work-life balance, team generation, human capital investment, agility influence, and sustainable significance. They found that traditional monetary rewards geared toward progress and productivity are less effective (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). Employees really thrive on intrinsic achievement derived from feedback and choice when regarding organizational change. Moreover, by instilling employees with knowledge supporting change, employees “began to think of themselves as free agents with many opportunities…” (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012, p. 47). This vision augments adaptability to a changing environment.

“Reconsidering Communication” (McClellan, 2011)

     “Communication is frequently treated as either a tool for promoting change or an unproblematic component of organizing” (McClellan, 2011, p. 467). Organizations fail to embrace change when they do not recognize the true validity of communication. People talk amongst all levels of an organization, and through these conversations organizational norms form in which workforces reference when making daily decisions. Communication fails to empower change, McClellan explores, when change does not either align or challenge preconceived organizational norms (McClellan, 2011). “Change fails not because of a lack of communication about change, but because the ways change is talked about do not provide opportunities for new meanings to emerge” (McClellan, 2011, p. 471).

     In a six-month study McClellan observes failure of implementing change within a western U.S. University. The problems were not lacking channels of communication. In fact, McClellan observed that communication channels were simply “…not resulting in any meaningful changes to the college” (McClellan, 2011, p. 473). In fact, change was triumphed when the leader of the group halted all discussion regarding a specific topic that many felt contextually relevant. “Alternative meanings were suppressed and unable to be articulated above and beyond existing organizational discourses” (McClellan, 2011, p. 476). In turn, change at the college failed.

     McClellan states that communication should encourage conversation while collectively discovering how change either aligns or challenges current practices within an organization. An argument needs to be devised as to the reason for change and employees should be invited to participate in that argument. Furthermore, for change to work, organizations should refrain from using communication primarily to instruct and distribute policy. Rather, they should use the communication channel to educate and argue facts regarding validity for change as well as receive feedback. When accomplished “organizational change becomes a communicative process of celebrating conflicts of meaning, promoting disorder, and enabling conversations that allow for the reconstitution of alternative organizational realities within existing discursive frameworks” (McClellan, 2011, p. 477).

“Organizational Unlearning” (Akgün, 2007)

      Change threatens traditional belief structures, routine activities and physical artifacts otherwise known as core competencies (Akgün, 2007). “These core competencies, which might have taken years to develop and refine, can become core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1995), and can hinder an organization’s ability to compete and win” (Akgün, 2007, p. 797). Core competencies promote an organization’s competitive advantage. Nevertheless, in an ever-changing marketplace, managers must modify core competencies to coincide with future market demand. In order to embrace change, however, beliefs, routines and artifacts must be concurrently modified (Akgün, 2007) in order to present the most stable environment for successful change.

     According to Kurt Lewin’s model of change management, change occurs in three steps: unfreezing, transitioning, and refreezing (Akgün, 2007). Transitioning “involves cognitive restructuring” (Akgün, 2007, p. 800) and incorporates the practice of unlearning prior cognitions; making room to realign or redevelop an organization’s beliefs, routines and artifacts. “Unlearning is vital for organizations to learn how to survive and compete in the competitive landscape (Nyström and Starbuck, 1984; Herberg, 1981)” (Akgün, 2007). Without this process, future change could be inhibited by comparing innovation with past cognitions in which are obsolete.

     “Unlearning is a cognitive process” (Akgün, 2007) and involves modifying belief structures, intellectual functions, reference points and cognitive blueprints (Akgün, 2007). Akgün furthers this to mean changing beliefs, and routines (Akgün, 2007). People within an organization will modify routines when evidence suggests that new beliefs support the need. Moreover, unlearning is not as simple as forgetting the past and moving on with the present. Rather, unlearning ties the past and present together while setting a stronger foundation for future movement. Nevertheless, artifacts are not cognitive in nature and must be concurrently changed with beliefs and routines in order to complete the unlearning process (Akgün, 2007). Aligning your artifacts with changing beliefs and routines, Akgün suggests, sets a stronger foundation to reference in the event future measures are questioned.

Managing Change

     According to Saboohi Nasim and Sushil, who authored “Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of Managing Continuity and Change” (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011), there is no shortage for theories regarding change management. In fact, choosing the wrong stratagem could be attributed to the dismal failure rate amongst organizations attempting to implement change. Nasim and Sushil (2011) explore over one-hundred sources before authoring an article focused on answering one question: what connects change management to success? This question, and the research that follows, is a challenging one— specifically considering a near thirty percent success rate for implementing strategic change amongst organizations (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011). Nonetheless, Nasim and Sushil (2011) suggest a feasible “positive link between the proposed constructs of managing change and continuity and the strategic deliverables of an organization” (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011, p. 199).

     Nasim  and Sushil (2011) conclude that successful implementation and management of change especially take place with the role of the front-line manager. Managers who serve as the link between operational employees and strategic executives have great power to embrace the entire organization for change. Front-line managers seemingly deal with the “‘why, what, and how’ for addressing organizational change” (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011, p. 194). Furthermore, “Washington and Hacker (2005) established the link between the ‘knowledge of change and resistance to change’” (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011, p. 189), suggesting that communicating the importance for change is just as important as change itself.

     Managing change is not a simple matter of directing a transition from one point to the next. Rather, it is a method of combining both points together through collaboration. “It is imperative for managers today to embrace stability and learn to manage continuity if they want to survive” (Nasim, S., & Sushil, 2011, p. 193). Nasim and Sushil (2011) further argue that if either stability or continuity are embraced separately, disaster will ensue. Managers must find common ground between enhancing a stable environment while integrating change that matches an enviable emergent marketplace. When performed correctly, stability helps reduce ambiguity amongst employees concerned that change could threaten their position. Moreover, fear inhibits intuition. When managers remove or reduce employee’s fear, intuition, involvement and ownership of progression flourishes.

Conclusion

     Consistently, the articles referenced herein conclude that organizational change is often inhibited from lack of information. When change fails, it is evident that people will be separated by beliefs and routines based on interpretations derived from inconsistent information. Furthermore, change is also inhibited by fear of failure or loss of value. Examples include fearing that an organization will close its doors or fearing that autonomy and creativity will disappear. These value separations, and the fear that ensues, construct a rigid boundary that inhibits an organization to flourish.

     What can we do to fix this? Living in a technology abundant era, there certainly is not a lack for information. With no mistake, organizational leaders should arm themselves with as much knowledge supporting change as possible. Nevertheless, we must remember that change is not a simple matter of toggling on a two-way switch. Moreover, these overnight changes can destroy organizational efficiency and effectiveness—damaging moral while causing increased resistance to change. Evidence suggests that we must focus as much time on how to change as we do on what by empowering our workforce via iteration and feedback. Once buy-in is gained, intuition becomes ignited—setting the foundation for how an organization will unite and engineer an even stronger future.

References

Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 794-812. doi:10.1108/09534810710831028

McClellan, J. G. (2011). Reconsidering Communication and the Discursive Politics of Organizational Change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 465-480. doi:10.1080/14697017.2011.630508

Mohrman, S. A., & Edward E. Lawler, I. (2012). Generating Knowledge That Drives Change.

Academy of Management Perspectives. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 41-51. doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0141

Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2011). Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of Managing Continuity and Change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185-206. doi:10.1080/14697017.2010.538854