Understanding Organizational Change Process: A Pragmatic Approach

By Dr Zakayo Onyiego (PhD)

Preamble
Naturally, all organizations ought to change under the dictates of environmental dynamics as
well as intricacies of intrinsic pressures – the management’s intuition that something is not right
and hence change is imperative. Change is ordinarily driven by change agents; those who take
the devils advocate and champion change. Organizations carry out their operations in a highly
turbulent world. Organizations that don’t recognize and appreciate the need for continuous
improvement or remain complacent with status quo will surely fail or die.

This article attempts to explain, advice, and guide the agents of change on the best practices of
change management and how to overcome common hurdles of change. The article does not
pretend to offer a silver-bullet to the enigma called change. However, the concepts and insights
presented herein are highly helpful to those planning, implementing or contemplating
organizational change.

Forces that stimulate change

Some of the forces that necessitate change are as discussed under.

• New competition – When new competition enters the industry or become a player in the
market, the old strategy, tactics and rules of the game may become ineffective or obsolete
– a change in strategy may become necessary.
• Inflation- Inflation means change in consumer behavior as well as significant change in
economic activities. Demand for products and services will shift, the labor market and
wage levels will change – all these ought to call for organization change.
• New regulation – If the government comes up with new legislation, for example waste
disposal restrictions, a change in the way an organization conducts its business will surely
become necessary.
• Consumer demands – For any astute manager, the consumer should direct and guide
managerial decisions. If the consumer becomes dissatisfied with an organization’s current
product attributes, for example, it then becomes necessary to modify the design and
production processes of the product in sync with consumer demands.
• Arrival of new chief executive – A new CEO may come into an organization with fresh
ideologies and management philosophy, the current state of the organization may not
augur well with the new chief’s vision and foresight for the firm. It will therefore become
necessary to change things both internally and externally thus giving the organization a
new face.
• Evaluation results – Evaluation of jobs, organizational structure, or systems and
processes may reveal underlying issues/ weaknesses that vehemently call for change. For
example, if current job design does not conform to the current methods and procedures of
completing certain tasks, it then becomes necessary to imitate change.
• Stakeholders demand – Employees, members of the community in which the organization
does business, customers and suppliers can be considered stakeholders. One or more
members in the categories may identify a weakness or a problem that requires change for
proper functioning of the organization and conformity with their needs.
 • New wind of change – Across time in the organizational life, fashionable concepts come
about and the organization is under pressure to change in line with generally accepted
managerial framework. For example, when management by objectives (MBO) came into
play vast majority of organizations were and are under pressure to adopt the concept.
• New needs – Consumer taste and preferences appear to be dynamic. The value and
attributes consumers attach to a product is hardly constant. To meet these changing
consumer needs, an organization will be forced to altar or modify the current production
process, packaging and distribution policies and procedures. To unearth changing
consumer needs, it is important that an organization scans the environment periodically to
forecast the direction of change.

The practical meaning of change

Change in simple terms means to make different- the difference from the previous state. Change
is analogous to the two states of water – moving from liquid to ice state and vice versa. In the
current fast-paced changing systems in virtually all fronts of organizational life - political,
environmental, economic, technological and so forth - organizational change to cope with new
paradigms is inevitable. Organizational change is planned and organized movement from the
current state to a new planned state in response to internal and external forces.

To understand why it is important that all organizations whether for-profit or not-for-profit ought
to embrace and foster change or perish altogether, there is need to conceptualize how
organizations are constructed and nourished. Organization is basically two or more people
coming together to accomplish a common goal - this is over simplistic definition and can hardly
bring out the true meaning of an organization. An organization can be said to be made up of the
following building blocks in its basic sense: People, Structure, Policies, Procedures and process,
and Systems.

The organizations are nourished by external elements which in turn benefit from the organization
in what appears like a symbiotic existence. The building blocks are stabilized and harmonized in
and around the people who make up the organization. Across time, people change and so are the
elements making up the organization. These changes occur both internally and externally and in
effect exert pressure on the organization as an entity to alter its current state in tandem with the
changing needs of its stakeholders. All organizations, whether for profit or otherwise, exist under
the dictates of the foregoing forces. Non-profit organizations for instance exist because they
provide services to there “customers” (service customers), and such services must meet
expectations.

Subsequently, for profit organizations must meet the expectations of its customers for them to
make profit and continue to exist. All these organizations ought to conform to the regulatory,
economic, political, technological and social environment or commit financial suicide- all
organizations non-profit or for-profit require cash to continue existing. People in organizations
change in many ways: attitudes, personalities, behavior, and so forth. Over time the
organizational culture is affected by people who work in it, older employees and new ones alike.
As culture changes, it becomes necessary for an organization to change to avoid imploding or
exploding under the weight of its rigidity.
Organizational culture
Organizational culture is defined as a pattern of shared assumptions invented/ discovered and
shared by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration which has worked well enough to be valid and, therefore, is to be taught to new
members of the group as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.
In the organizational context, organizational culture is the historically transmitted belief,
symbols, behavior and values of an organization. In analyzing an organization’s ability to
change, organization culture is an important ingredient to consider in successful change
management. Organization culture may make management’s ability to foster change difficult or
easy. An organization culture with strong beliefs in status quo will make the work of a change
agent a herculean task. On the other hand, a liberal culture will be more adaptable to change. A
culture that is notoriously resistant to change will need to be changed before organizational
change can be effected. Culture provides continuity and stability of an organization hence people
will naturally resist change to a new culture.

A conforming culture to planned organizational change can help managers in change process in
the following ways:
• Limited resistance at all stages of change process.
• Development of positive attributes to new culture, new employees and new management.
• The change managers can be able to obtain ideas and helpful contributions from
employees during the process of change.
• Implementation of new systems, technological processes, etc., can be met with little
resistance if the people clearly understand the need and justification of change.
• Loyalty to the organization and respect of management can help management achieve its
goals of change process.

Organization culture can become an impediment to organizational change in varied ways. The
persuasive system of values, beliefs and norms that exist in any organization and defining
organizational culture can encourage or discourage effectiveness of organizational change. A
proposed change in work methods or installation of automated devise can run counter to the
expectations and attitudes of the work group. In such an event, the selected method of change
should be one that anticipates and manages the resulting resistance. The cultural constraints that
prevail within the present organization - if not factored in and methods designed to overcome
such constraints - may lead to dismal failure of organizational change. The prevailing conditions
constitute supportive ambience for change - if negative, failure is sure and certain. Managers in
such circumstances should intervene and right the existing cultural impediments in readiness for
planned change.

Some of cultural factors that may negate organizational change include:

• Negative attitudes towards social, technological and other changes.
• A culture of individualism where group and team work is anticipated in change process.
• Democratic traditions where management has seen necessity to introduce autocratic
management.
• Socialization and communication patterns for example change from bureaucratic
 information flow to humanistic communication information structure.

Approaches to change
The following are the two common approaches to change depending on circumstances and
Conditions under which change is to be effected:
Top- down change process-Top management uses its authority to direct change. This kind of
change occurs where top management recognizes the problem, diagnose and solve the problem
and then communicate and implement the solution. In this kind of approach, implementation is
usually by executive authority. The advantages of this approach are that the process is
accomplished faster, can have more immediate effects, it is less costly, and it comes in handy
when immediate solution is required to existing problem. It however results in low employee
morale, lack of commitment to change, likelihood of failure, group and organizational conflict as
well.

Bottom- up change process-Lower level employees may initiate change or may be asked by top
management to lead it. Either way, change begins at the grassroots and works its way through the
organization. This type of approach is prone to minimal resistance, easy to implement, promotes
training and development of workers in decision-making process, and empowers employees to
instill a sense of belongingness to the organization. Conversely, it is slower, may have little
impact, and has a high failure rate if stifled by disgruntled top management.

Five steps to plan organizational change taken by agents of change

These steps can be better explained by Lewin’s “expanded process model”. Change agent is a
person who will be responsible for managing the change effort. The change agent may be an
insider or a consultant to the organization. The following are the five steps to organizational
change under this approach.

• Forces for change- the management perceives the forces that are pushing for change. The
forces may include new legislation affecting the organization practices and policies or
changing market trends for which the company may adapt to capture an opportunity e.g.
untapped market niche.
• Recognize and define problem- at this point a need for change becomes necessary. The
issue becomes a subject of discussion within the corridors of the organization.
• Problem solving process- the usual problem solving and decision making process is
evoked at this stage. The management defines its goals in terms of what the organization,
processes or output will be like after
• The change- the futuristic general picture is visualized. Alternatives for change are
generated and evaluated and the best one is picked.
• Implement the change- under the direction of the change agent, a movement from the old
state to the new state is effected - permanent change is then assured.
• Measure, evaluate and control- the change agent assesses the degree to which the change
is having the desired effect.

The progress towards the goals of the change is measured and reviewed. If need be appropriate
changed or corrections are made.
Coping with resistance to change
Human beings have a natural tendency to resist any anticipated change. Moving from the known
to unknown state is a daunting task to most people. So quite naturally managers who advocate
change expect resistance on the following basis.

• Loss of control- people will ask “what is in it for me?” a question of “done to me” versus
“done by me” for the company. People who feed change of the organization state will
result in loss of control will more often not resist such a change. In such a situation, one
must build coalitions, one must anticipate who one’s opponents are going to be and
decide how to win them over.
• Excessive personal uncertainty- a change gives people a sense of walking off a cliff
blind-folded- they ask themselves “what’s it going to mean for me?” To overcome such
uncertainties change managers should provide more information to explain the personal
implications of the change. It doesn’t suffice to just explain what is happening but the
why question should be clearly explained. Building credibility by being honest is indeed
crucial.
• Concerns about competences- people may worry that “all I know about is old
management or I don’t know how to access the internet and they are taking away my
information technology technician”. The solution here is to train, coach and rehearse
people in readiness for anticipated change.
• More work – change always means more work. People do not like extra burden whose
implications they do not well understand resulting in passionate resistance to change.
Managers of change should be open about this new task ahead by explaining fully its
implications.
• Past resentments – people will resist change on the grounds of its originator. If the source
of change is from a person or an organization who or which they have negative feelings
about, a great resistance is granted. In this case the ghosts of the past come back to haunt
the future. However hidden resentments may be, one should unearth them and remove or
fix them to fit the future desired state.

Tools of change process

Before embarking on isolating the tools that can be utilized by change managers to overcome
both active and passive resistance to change and its potential consequences to the organization, it
is advisable to understand the nature of resistance to change. Resistance to change if large
enough can cause unbearable heat to the entire organizational structure and potentially disrupt
the operations of an organization. If resistance to organizational change is total then change is
smothered and the effect of change is not realized. However, if there is resistance but some
change is allowed to flow through the system, healthy change can ultimately be achieved. Some
resistance is useful to change agents so that corrective measures can be undertaken to achieve
smooth flow of change process and efficient, effective implementation of the anticipated change.
Organizational change as we basically understand it is a process that should be organized and
deliberate to achieve the desired results. In each step of the way there should be monitoring and
controls in place.

Resistance to organizational change takes two forms:

• Active resistance
 • Passive resistance.
In each form of resistance, there are appropriate tools and techniques that can be employed to
mitigate or control the situation to acceptable levels.

Active resistance - This implies explicit resistance to change. To overcome this kind of
resistance, initiators of change can employ the following methods:
• Manipulation and cooperation – this involves giving key persons a desirable role in
designing or implementing change. Even though this may lead to future problems if
people feel manipulated, it can be relatively quick and inexpensive solution.
• Negotiation and agreement – here change initiators negotiate with active resisters. This
may be achieved by even soliciting memorandum of understanding. Once this step is
achieved, future resistance to change may not be adversarial as the dissenters can be
referred to the agreements arrived at. This tool can be quite expensive although it is
relatively easy way to overcome major resistance.

Passive resistance - This refers to implicit resistance to contemplated organizational change

The following method can be employed to overcome such resistance:
• Facilitation and support - This kind of resistance occurs because people are facing
adjustment problems. Proper adjustment can be achieved through offering, retraining
programs, time off, emotional support and understanding people affected by the change.
This technique can be time consuming, expensive and may still fail.
• Participation and involvement - Members of the organization are asked to help design
change. Some people may have considerable resistance but this has not become manifest
in any case. This method is ideal in this situation because people who participate will be
committed to implementing change. The relevant information that they may have is
effectively integrated into the change plan. Nevertheless this can be time consuming if
participants design an inappropriate change plan.
Conclusively, managers should be crystal clear about the meaning of change and complexities
surrounding change process. More importantly, there is need to publicize and popularize change
as the only constant. Change ought to be viewed positively – a situation where change becomes a
culture practiced by all and sundry across all facets of the collectivity. Notably, true
organizational change is methodical, systematic, and strategic in nature. Change for the sake of
change is futile and can potentially disrupt organization process resulting in a chaotic
environment.

Bibliography
Griffin .W.R and Moorhead .G. (1986) Organizational Behavior (pp.624-696)
Herzberg, Fredrick. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?
Harvard Business Review. (Jan 2003 .P.87-96)
Ivancevich, M.J and Konopaske (2008), Organizational Behavior and Management (pp.480-481)
Rowland K.M and Ferris G.R (1986), Current issues in personnel management
Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Simbi, Margaret “change management” Development Associates, Zimbabwe (MSTCDC, 2005)