There are several models and approaches to work for organisational change.

Some
approaches look at internal factors, others look at external ones, some combine these
perspectives, and others look for congruence between various aspects of the organization
being studied. Ultimately, the issue comes down to which factors to study.
While some models of organizational effectiveness go in and out of fashion, one that has
persisted is the McKinsey 7S framework. Developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters
and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting
firm, the basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an
organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful.
The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment perspective
is useful, for example to help you:

Improve the performance of a company.

Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company.
Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition.
Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy.

The McKinsey 7S model can be applied to elements of a team or a project as well. The
alignment issues apply, regardless of how you decide to define the scope of the areas you
study.
The Seven Elements
The McKinsey 7S model involves seven interdependent factors which are categorized as
either "hard" or "soft" elements:
Hard Elements

Soft Elements

Strategy

Shared Values

Structure

Skills

Systems

Style
Staff

"Hard" elements are easier to define or identify and management can directly influence
them: These are strategy statements; organization charts and reporting lines; and formal
processes and IT systems.
"Soft" elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe, and are less tangible
and more influenced by culture. However, these soft elements are as important as the
hard elements if the organization is going to be successful.

The way the model is presented in Figure 1 below depicts the interdependency of the
elements and indicates how a change in one affects all the others.

Let's look at each of the elements specifically:

Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage over the
competition.
Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to whom.
Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members engage in to get
the job done.
Shared Values: called "super ordinate goals" when the model was first
developed, these are the core values of the company that are evidenced in the
corporate culture and the general work ethic.
Style: the style of leadership adopted.
Staff: the employees and their general capabilities.
Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the
company.

Placing Shared Values in the middle of the model emphasizes that these values are central
to the development of all the other critical elements. The company's structure, strategy,
systems, style, staff and skills all stem from why the organization was originally created,
and what it stands for. The original vision of the company was formed from the values of
the creators. As the values change, so do all the other elements.
The McKinsey 7Ss model is one that can be applied to almost any organizational or team
effectiveness issue. If something within your organization or team isn't working, chances
are there is inconsistency between some of the elements identified by this classic model.
Once these inconsistencies are revealed, you can work to align the internal elements to
make sure they are all contributing to the shared goals and values.
The process of analyzing where you are right now in terms of these elements is
worthwhile in and of itself. But by taking this analysis to the next level and determining
the ultimate state for each of the factors, you can really move your organization or team
forward.

Lewins Three Step change model

Most theories of organizational change originated from the landmark work of social
psychologist Kurt Lewin. Lewin developed a three - stage model of planned change
which explained how to initiate, manage, and stabilize the change process. The three
stages are unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.
Let us now consider the three stages of change.
Unfreezing: The focus of this stage is to create the motivation to change. In so doing,
individuals are encouraged to replace old behaviors and attitudes with those desired by
management. Managers can begin the unfreezing process by disconfirming the usefulness
or appropriateness of employees' present behaviors or attitudes.
Changing: Because change involves learning, this stage entails providing employees
with new information, new behavioral models, or new ways of looking at things. The
purpose is to help employees learn new concepts or points of view. Role models,
mentors, experts, benchmarking the company against world-class organizations, and
training are useful mechanisms to facilitate change.
Refreezing: Change is stabilized during refreezing by helping employees integrate the
changed behavior or attitude into their normal way of doing things. This is accomplished
by first giving employees the chance to exhibit the new behaviors or attitudes. Once
exhibited, positive reinforcement is used to reinforce the desired. Additional coaching
and modeling also are used at this point to reinforce the stability of the change.

The Seven-stage Model of Change

Whilst Lewin's model provides a simple and understandable representation of the
organizational change process, more recent models have developed his model and
extended the idea into more depth. In 1980, Edgar Huse proposed a seven-stage OD
model based upon the original three-stage model of Lewin.
1. Scouting - Where representatives from the organization meet with the OD
consultant to identify and discuss the need for change. The change agent and
client jointly explore issues to elicit the problems in need of attention.
2. Entry - This stage involves the development of, and mutual agreement upon, both
business and psychological contracts. Expectations of the change process are also
established.
3. Diagnosis - Here, the consultant diagnoses the underlying organizational
problems based upon their previous knowledge and training. This stage involves
the identification of specific improvement goals and a planned intervention
strategy.
4. Planning - A detailed series of intervention techniques and actions are brought
together into a timetable or project plan for the change process. This step also
involves the identification of areas of resistance from employees and steps
possible to counteract it.
5. Action - The intervention is carried out according to the agreed plans. Previously
established action steps are implemented.
6. Stabilization & Evaluation - The stage of 'refreezing' the system. Newly
implemented codes of action, practices and systems are absorbed into everyday

routines. Evaluation is conducted to determine the success of the change process

and any need for further action is established.
7. Termination - The OD consultant or change agent leaves the organization and
moves on to another client or begins an entirely different project within the same
organization.

Reasons Why Change Programs Fail:

Change is happening all the time in the business world. From time to time, all
organisations will find themselves in a situation where it has to implement a more
structured and more radical change program. This might be due to factors such as:

Competition
Loss of stakeholder confidence

An adverse event impacting on business reputation

Technological advances

Change programs are common but it is claimed that up to 70% of them fail. While there
are multiple reasons here are 6 reasons why change programs fail.
1. Communication: It might be that the organisation is having problems delivering
the tough messages. Alternatively it might be inconsistency in the message
delivered by members of the leadership team. The problem might not be with
what is said but listening effectively to differing views and ideas.
2. Top Down: Senior people might lead the organisation, set the direction and put
the plans in place. Yet in reality they are not the people who can make it happen.
People at lowest level of the organisation determine whether a change program
delivers. They need to be involved.
3. Lack of space and support: Changes impact on individuals in a very personal
way. If organisations do not provide the space and support to individuals who are
impacted by the change, the chances of success are greatly reduced.
4. Unclear objectives: The objective or outcome of any change program needs to be
clear. Ambiguity makes it impossible to get across the reasons and benefits of the
change.
5. Lack of performance measures: Change is usually about improvement. Unless
there is a clear set of measures that can let people know whether they are on or off
track, that are monitored and people are held accountable for sustainable change
is unlikely.

6. Underestimating emotions: While everything on a spreadsheet or project plan is

highly rational, it is important not to underestimate emotions. Few relish change
and see it as an opportunity. This is neither right nor wrong it is just the way it is.
Awareness of peoples emotions can make a huge difference.
Change is a fact of business life and by taking some simple steps, the chances of success
can be greatly enhanced.
Process consulting for change management and organizational effectiveness
Process consulting is a powerful tool which is used to enhance group effectiveness,
shorten meeting times, and address conflict. It helps teams to work together more
effectively, and its effects can last long after the consultant has departed.
The benefits of process consulting are usually:

Shorter meetings.
More productive meetings.
Better decisions.
Increased feelings of participation or potency.
Greater satisfaction with the team or meetings.

Process consulting is carefully intervening in a group or team to help it to accomplish its

goals. The consultant does not try to help the team as an expert; instead, the consultant
helps the team to help itself.
These skills used in process work are quite different from those used in "expertise-based"
consulting, because the consultant must:

Concentrate on the way the team works, rather than what it is working on.
Stay silent even when issues s/he knows or cares about are discussed.
Ask questions instead of offering expert advice.
Help the team solve its own problems.
Not make value judgments or deal with content issues.
Understand group dynamics, conflict resolution, and manager/leader
development.

Process consulting also requires a client who is aware of their problems, and who is
willing to listen and change some habits if needed. In some ways, process consulting is as
difficult for the client as it is for the consultant, because they must put aside any natural
defensiveness and temporarily yield their authority in some ways. However, the rewards
far outweigh the efforts and risks.
Overall, process consulting is an invaluable but underused service which requires an
experienced consultant.

The Effects of Change on The Manager

Change and managing change are common topics among managers, management experts,
and consultants, but rarely do people pay any attention to the effects of high rates of
change, or difficult to manage change (like layoffs) on managers and executives. In this
article Bacal broaches this neglected topic.
One of the least mentioned effects of change relates to how it affects the manager leading
that change, and his or her ability to undertake the leadership role. We have already
talked about the effects of change on the individual employee, and of course managers
are subject to the same reactions, resistances and strains. Some types of change, such as
restructuring, or downsizing can put considerable strain on the leaders of an organization.
Stress, Stress & More Stress
One primary concern regarding change is the stress it imposes on those undergoing the
change. Managers, because they have obligations to their staff, not only have to deal
with change as employees but also need to carry some of the concerns of their staffs. In
the case of downsizing, the stress levels can be extremely high, because the manager is
charged with conveying very upsetting information.
Stress is part of the job, but in times of change, it is critical that you recognize that it may
cause you to act in ways that are less effective than usual. As with anything connected
with change, the major concern is not short term but long term. If your stress levels
result in marked loss of effectiveness, the risk is that a vicious cycle will be set up, where
ineffective leadership results in creating more long term problems, which increases your
stress, which reduces your effectiveness even more.
Avoidance -- A Common Response
A common response to unpleasant change is to ignore the situation. Avoidance can take
many forms. Most commonly, the avoiding manager plays only a minimal role in
moving the organization through the swamp. After announcing the change and doing the
minimum required, the manager "hides" from the change, through delegation, or
attending to other work. This tactic involves treating things as "business as usual".
The outcomes of this tactic can be devastating. By avoiding situations, the manager
abdicates any leadership role, when staff needs it most, during and after significant
change. In addition, the avoidance results in the manager becoming out of touch with the
people and realities of the organization.
While avoidance serves a need for the manager in the short run, it destroys the manager's
credibility, and results in poor decisions. The long term consequence of such action is
that the organization tends to deteriorate in terms of morale, effectiveness and
productivity. Sometimes this deterioration is irreversable.

Denial -- Another Ineffective Tactic

Sometimes the manager deals with change by denying its impact. Usually, the denying
manager takes a very logical approach to change. Decisions get made, systems are put in
place, or new procedures are developed. Unfortunately, this "logical" approach denies
the impact of change on the people in the organization.
The denying manager tends to refuse to understand "what the big deal is", and shows
little empathy with employees in the organization.
As with avoidance the denying tactic tends to drop the manager's credibility and destroy
any personal loyalty on the part of employees.
Key Points
1) Managers are put under stress by change, and that stress, if mishandled can result in
loss of managerial effectiveness. Managers need to be alert to the signs of stress upon
their performance.
2) A common management tactic is to avoid involvement in change when that
involvement is unpleasant. The affects of this withdrawal can be lethal to the
organization and to the manager.
3) Another common tactic is denial of the effects of change. Managers who do this tend
to under- estimate the impact of the change, and demonstrate an inability to respond to
employees' emotional reactions to change.
The term change agents is used in broad sense because a change agent can be managers
or non-managers, employees of organization or an outside consultants.
Terms such as OD Consultant, OD practitioner and Change Agent are used
interchangeably. For major change efforts, top managers are increasingly turning to
temporary outside consultants with specialized knowledge in theory and methods of
change.

A change agent is an event, organisation, material thing or, more usually, a person that
acts as a catalyst for change. In business terms, a change agent is a person chosen to bring

about organisational change. Corporations often hire senior managers or even chief
executives because of their ability to effect change.
Key Competencies of Change Agents
Objectives
1. Sensitivity to changes in key personnel, top management perceptions and market
conditions, and to the way in which these impact the goals of the project.
2. Setting of clearly defined, realistic goals.
3. Flexibility in responding to changes without the control of the project manager,
perhaps requiring major shifts in project goals and management style.
Roles
4. Team-building abilities, to bring together key stakeholders and establish effective
working groups, and to define and delegate respective responsibilities clearly.
5. Networking skills in establishing and maintaining appropriate contacts within and
outside the organization.
6. Tolerance of ambiguity, to be able to function comfortably, patiently and effectively in
an uncertain environment.
Communication
7. Communication skills to transmit effectively to colleagues and subordinates the need
for changes in the project goals and in individual tasks and responsibilities.
8. Interpersonal skills, across the range, including selection, listening, collecting
appropriate information, identifying the concerns of others, and managing meetings.
9. Personal enthusiasm in expressing plans and ideas.
10. Stimulating motivation and commitment in others involved.
Negotiation
11. Selling plans and ideas to others by creating a desirable and challenging vision of the
future.
12. Negotiating with key players for resources, for changes in procedures, and to resolve
conflict.
Managing up
13. Political awareness in identifying potential coalitions, and in balancing conflicting
goals and perceptions.
14. Influencing skills, to gain commitment to project plans and ideas form potential
skeptics and resisters.
15. Helicopter perspectives, to stand back from the immediate project and take a broader
view of priorities.

Change agents can broadly be classified as:

1. External Change Agents
2. Internal Change Agents
External Change Agents
These are outside consultants who are temporary employed in the organization to remain
engaged only for the duration of the change process.
Profile: Quality External Change Agent
A Quality External Agent:

Is appropriately credentialed and has a credibility and respect shared campus-wide

Is very knowledgeable with research-based information
Provides vision appropriate for the strategic initiatives by bringing in experiences
Is dynamic is presence by the inspiration, personal performance, and dedication
Motivates teams and individuals through hard work and optimism
Will not give up on any work team or individual but persists till change occurs
Is patience to give time for individuals to respond but constantly is challenging
quality
Is a transformative assessor who inspires others to advance assessment practices
Mentors key internal leaders resulting in stronger empowerment
Can facilitate multiple activities and provide key synergy between activities
Is flexible and adapts quickly to new challenges and changing conditions
Is trustworthy in keep information confidential when appropriately
Calculates risks and models timely risk taking
Comes across as non-threatening, personable, approachable, and a listener
Provides frameworks that can be adapted and owned by the campus
Is perceptive of internal processes and procedures of that institution
Is resourceful in locating what is needed and solving key problems
Is a quality communicator who is to the point, clear, and understandable.

Internal Change Agents

These are individuals working for the organization who know something about its
problems and have experience of improving situation in the same organization. These
Internal Change Agents, when assigned a responsibility of intervening in a system come
from entirely different department or division of their organization.
Profile of a Quality Internal Change Agent

A quality internal change agent:

Is consistently non-judgmental even when others are judgmental
Is sensitive to others through being a good listener
Is a good communicator and recognizes informational needs of others
Is flexible and adaptable to meeting needs of others
Is trustworthy with information
Is credible in the current change process
Is well informed and resourceful in getting things accomplished
Is enthusiastic on a daily basis
Is empathetic when things struggle and energy is down
Is efficient in using key resources to accomplish change
The Benefits of External Change Agents working with Internal Change Agents
1. External Agents can introduce fresh ideas and concepts with less
resistance
2. External change agents think outside of the box and the institutional
culture
3. External change agents are neutral and have no stakes in the institution
4. External change agents can make the process evolve quicker
5. External change agents increase engagement between external entities and
internal departments
6. External change agents bring information and experience from other
institutions experiences and best practices
7. External change agents can manage disputes and provide leadership
expertise
8. External change agents can aligned with strategic goals of top
management

9. External change agents can promote of communities of practice

10. External change agents provide a better chance of unbiased
accountability--external Agents may be able to provide more sound
accountability.