Comparison of Change Management PDF

Preview

Summary

Comparison of Change Management...

Description

Chapter 24

Comparison of Change Management Models: Similarities, Differences, and Which Is Most Effective? Brian J. Galli

24.1

Introduction

Some people welcome change, while others fear it. People who welcome change concentrate on the great opportunities brought by it, while people who fear change focus on the risks. Currently in society, the change management has been implemented in almost every aspect of all business sectors because the world is a constantly dynamic community, where the opportunities and risks rotate regularly. The key factor in obtaining great opportunities in this constantly changing environment is within proper change management. Many researchers in the literature field have realized this point. Therefore, there exist many theories about change management. This research paper makes a precise comparison among several leading change management models. Through comparison, great similarities and differences are found among these change management models. For example, the Kotter ’s change model, the ADKAR, and the Lewin’s change management model share likenesses on many stages, but there are many. Thus, one cannot conclude model is most effective. Not only do these change management models emphasize different things, but their application circumstances differ as well. From this research, it is found that Kotter’s model pays close attention to the implementation of the organizational change from the perspective of the senior leaders. It is much more effective to adopt Kotter’s change model when the organizational change starts with the senior management. Moreover, the ADKAR model focuses on the large organization, and Lewin’s change management model concentrates on the reduction of the resisting force. Change management can perfectly fit into the IE field.

B. J. Galli (*) Long Island, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Daim et al. (eds.), R&D Management in the Knowledge Era, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15409-7_24

605

606

B. J. Galli

In the current market economic system, organizational change management is needed in almost every perspective of the industry and company. Continuous improvement, business reengineering, strategic alliance, adoption of the outsourcing pattern, and merger and acquisition, all belong to the range of organizational change management. Change could be a chance to improve, which constantly happens in each business sector. However, if the change is not being well managed, it might become dangerous and threatening [1]. It was once stated that change is not always in control by organizations. It is widely researched that it is highly significant to seek changes to gain a competitive advantage for the organization. For example, it is accepted that the sustainable development model is being regarded as an effective method to make the company possess the long-term competitive advantage [2, 3]. Additionally, the core conception of the sustainable development model is innovation, which refers to positive changes [4]. Therefore, change management is critical for any business sector. Within change management, the need for changes must be fully communicated and the crisis that might occur during the changes should be entirely evaluated. Some people resist change because they fear the unknown, so change management became extremely important in reducing fear through effective communication [5]. In this paper, a brief comparison among the major change management models in the current literature field will be made, including Lewin’s change management model, Kotter’s theory, the Prosci ADKAR model, Systematic model (Kast), etc. Among these primary change management models, three of them will be further investigated by exploring their advantages and disadvantages [6]. The hypothesis of this paper is that Lewin’s model, Kotter’s eight steps model, and the ADKAR model do share some similarities, while their differences make them the most suitable and effective models in different situations, respectively. This research paper will carry out a thorough and comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the five leading change models in the literature field, which might provide some instructive advices to the industry-engineering field about the implementation of the change plan [4]. As to the industry-engineering field, the demand for the change management model is equally high. The traditional industry engineering was being generated along with the occurrence of the mass production. However, mass production eventually cannot produce great economic interest along with the development of the market [7, 8]. The first oil crisis in 1973 marked the end of the era of large-scale business [9]. Since then, the market has stepped into the path of diversification, so the manufacturers are no longer the core of the market. Consequently, change management is becoming more important in the industry-engineering field.

24.1.1

Research Gap

Although there is existing research about change management, this study fills a gap left in that existing research, by examining different change management models. This research further explains when would be the best scenario to use certain models

24

Comparison of Change Management Models: Similarities, Differences. . .

607

versus others. Thus, the focus of this study is to evaluate the different change management models and suggest which ones different organizations could use, which is a gap in existing literature.

24.1.2

Research Objective

Aside from filling in gaps in existing literature, this study also assesses the similarities and differences between different change management models and how they interact in different environments. The study is structured in such a way as to be an easy read for people of all levels and to understand how to apply the findings to project management, operations, and performance in differing industries. Commonly asked questions will be answered based on evidence found in studying change management models and therefore, this study will act as an avenue for future research in the field.

24.1.3

Originality

This study incorporates data collected from existing research in a uniformed, wellmannered approach. By collecting existing data, this study achieves hypothesis testing. Some perspectives of other researchers were also incorporated to suggest new thoughts and implementations of change management models. This study is organized to outline existing development models. Discoveries, analysis, and suggestions for implementation are further provided. The findings identified illustrate the value of adopting different change management models per different scenarios. The models’ strengths and weaknesses are outlined together with implementing them into true-to-life situations. It cannot be stressed enough how valuable these models are, as practicing them is practical and applicable to just about any business. This study illustrates their value in this way.

24.1.4

Organizational and Managerial Contribution and Relevance

The results of this study can relate to different areas of business and benefit those areas to develop and grow further. A deeper understanding of the change management models can help businesses adopt the best one and become more efficient and effective overall. This study also recommends different ideas for

608

B. J. Galli

researchers in implementing differing models in the future. It holds value to the practitioners who may adopt more effective approaches in their organizations.

24.1.5

Contribution to the Field and Profession of Industrial Engineering

The industrial engineering profession and research field would benefit from this research, as it demonstrates better ways to economize on time, materials, money, energy, work hours, and other resources that may delay productivity. As a result, more goals can be met expediently and efficiently. Further, the findings of this study may help engineers learn how to categorize and conserve systems with the most upto-date technologies that will enhance productivity across the board. The easy-to-read language in this study benefits any reader seeking to learn about change management models, but also it benefits professionals seeking to improve their organization(s). The study not only shows unexplored avenues of change management research but also demonstrates how essential and effective change management is for any organization. Finally, the paper is strategically organized to benefit any reader type. Section two highlights the high-level literature review of existing research on the subject. The third section explains the used research methodology. Section four identifies the findings alongside the study’s analysis. Finally, the fifth section outlines implications regarding the findings, suggestions for future research, research limitations, and general conclusions.

24.2 24.2.1

Literature Review Lewin’s Change Management Model

The most influential change management model was Lewin’s model [10]. Lewin proposed a planned and organizational three-stage change manage model that contained unfreeze, change, and refreeze [11]. This three-stage model was being proposed to explain and to guide how to initiate, manage, and stabilize the process of the organizational changes [10]. This change management model is also referred to as the force field change management model. Lewin described the organization as a balance that is staying in a stable status, which is formed by reverse equal forces. He reckoned that many driving forces exist in the organization, including the pressure of the changes, the pressure of the competition, the transmission of the new technology, etc. [12]. Additionally, there are the resisting forces to balance these driving forces: solidified organizational conventions and customs, the agreement with the trade union, the organizational

24

Comparison of Change Management Models: Similarities, Differences. . .

609

culture and conceptions, etc. Only a certain force is being rested by another force, and then the balanced status can be achieved within an organization [13]. Lewin believed that the motivation of driving the changes within the organization is relying on the interaction between the driving force and the resisting force [13]. These two types of forces will replace each other along with the change of the environment, and the organization has been seeking to balance the status between these two types of forces. Whenever the organization achieved a new balance, it had just experienced the fierce changes [14]. Lewin declared that the change process of any organization could be imagined as the transition from the current balanced status to the desired status or the new balanced status [14]. Therefore, he proposed the three-stage theory. The first, the unfreeze stage, is prepared for change, in which the change has already been understood as necessary. Moreover, the organization is prepared to move out of its comfort zone. In this stage, the basis of the force field analysis database is to weigh the driving and resisting forces [15]. The mission in the unfreezing stage is to figure out the resisting forces of the organizational changes, and the solutions to conquer the resisting forces must be adapted to further sketch the blueprint of the organizational changes. Therefore, the direction of the organizational changes can be ensured to complete the organizational change proposal. During the second change stage, Lewin reckoned that the change is a process rather than an event [16]. This process is called a transition, which refers to the internal movement, when people respond to the change. The mission in this stage is to operate the specific change movements, following the finished change proposal so that the organization can transit from the current model to the target model [17]. During this stage, the role model shall be established to guide the new working attitudes and working behaviors. The change is the process of comprehension, which is being completed by acquiring the new concept and information. Thus, the communication styles and the cooperation patterns shall be particularly emphasized. The third stage proposed by Lewin is the freeze stage [18]. After organizational changes, both individuals and the organization are more likely revert back to the previous status. If so, the manager of the change project should adopt the methods to ensure the consolidation and the strengthening of the new behavioral patterns. The necessary strengthening methods, such as regulations and policies, must be adopted in the freeze stage [19]. Consequently, the new working attitudes and working behaviors can be stabilized for the organization to achieve a new balance. Without this stage, the result of the change management might vanish, which will cast the contemporary influence on the organization and its members.

24.2.2

The Systematic Change Model(Kast)

The systematic change model is formed based on the General System Model that was being proposed by Bertalanffy [20]. The systematic change model aimed at applying the General System Model into the organizational change practices,

610

B. J. Galli

which also worked out some useful theoretical frames. The major representatives of the systematic change model include Kast, Rosenzwig, etc. [21]. They added the organizational change analysis into the foundation of the open system model, which formed the systematic change model [22]. The so-called open system model mainly emphasizes that the organization is not only an artificial open system but is also an integration of all types of subsystems. This model contains three parts, which are the input, change elements, and the output [23]. The input refers to the vision, mission, strategic planning of the company, while the change elements are the organizational objective, human labor, social elements, organizational structure, organizational culture, etc. The output refers to the organizational integrated effectiveness [1, 24]. By this model, the representative Kast of the systematic theory proposed that there are six steps to implement the organizational change. (a) Inspecting the status. The project manager should make a thorough review and evaluation of the internal and external environment of the organization for changes to not be neglected. (b) Identifying the problems. The project manager should identify and analyze the problems that exist in the organization to ensure the need for the organizational changes. Moreover, the particular information about the changes can be provided to the related department of the organization. (c) Identify the gap. The project manager should explore the gap between the current and the desired status to analyze the problems. (d) Design the solutions. The project manager should propose and evaluate many solutions and alternatives, and the selection should be done after discussion and performance assessment. (e) Implement the changes. The project manager should implement the change proposal, which depends on the selected solution and plan. During the implementation of the change proposal, the side effects of the changes must be reduced and controlled to a great extent. (f) Give the feedbacks on the change management. The project must make the critical review of the new results of the output [25]. Through timely feedback, the consistency between the external environment status, as well as the internal environment status, can be inspected. When new problems are generated, these six steps can be recycled.

24.2.3

Levitt Change Model

The Levitt proposed the systematic model for change of the entire enterprise or other organizations. He believed that the content of the organizational change should include four aspects, which are the mission, human resources, technology, and the organizational structure [26]. The mission refers to the objectives and aims established by the organization. For the enterprise, the mission is to provide the products and services that are needed by the society [27]. Down to the internal enterprise, this mission is being distributed into the detailed working tasks in many aspects. The changes on the products and services, such as the adjustment of the product structure, the manufacturing of the new products, all belong to the important contents of organizational change [28]. Regarding the human resource, it refers to

24

Comparison of Change Management Models: Similarities, Differences. . .

611

the status of the leaders and employees in the organization, in which the working attitude, working competence, working expectance, beliefs, and working styles are being evaluated [29, 30]. To organize the human resource structure is another essential content within organizational change. Technology refers to the technological instrument and the technical solutions for manufacturing products and maintaining operations [31]. The major contents concerning the technology within the organizational change refer to the improvement of the technology, the implementation of the new technology, the adoption of the new materials, etc. To the change management on the organization structure, the responsibility allocation, structure design, and coordination pattern are all being involved [32]. From the organizational change system model proposed by Levitt, it can be indicated that the dependence of the change management among these four aspects is relatively high. For example, when the company adjusts the product structure, it is also demanded that the manufacturing technology should also be improved. Moreover, the adjustment of the product structure requires that the human resources should improve their quality. Accordingly, adjustment of the organizational structure and labor-management are also required. The change management of these four aspects usually happens at the same time.

24.2.4

Kotter’s Change Model

The organizational change model established by Kotter was being proposed by the summary of the enterprise’s organizational change practices from the 1980s to the late 1990s [33]. In his writing, he stated that the failure of the organizational change was due to such mistakes made by the senior leaders. Firstly, the senior leader might fail to develop a sense of urgency on the demand for organizational change [34]. Secondly, the senior leaders might fail to find a powerful and effective leader’s alliance to take charge of the change management. Thirdly, the senior leaders might fail to wipe out the obstacles in realizing the vision planning. Moreover, the senior leaders might lack effective communication about the vision planning [35]. Furthermore, the senior leaders might fail to make a systematic plan, so that the short-term economic interest can be acquired. The senior leader might announce the success too early, and the senior leaders might fail to consolidate the organizational change in the deep organizational culture [36]. Therefore, Kotter established an eight-stage process to guide the change management in the organization. He reckoned that the success rate for the organization change would be increasingly high if the organization strictly complies with the guidance of these eight stages. These eight stages include: (a) Establish the sense of urgency. The project manager should consider the confronted market and the competition of the organization. He also should identify and discuss the current crisis, the potential hazards, and the great opportunities, so that the sense of urgency can be established among the members of the organization. (b) Form the leader ’s alliance. The project manager should form a powerful change management leader ’s

612

B. J. Galli...