Change management: Coping with change
Section four of the Personnel Today Management Resources one stop guide on change management, covering how change affects individual employees, the 'coping cycle', and how to resolve issues arising from change. Other sections.
|
Understand how change affects individual employees
Learn about the 'coping cycle'
Understand how to resolve issues that staff face when coping with change
|
When changes are imposed from others, it can be difficult to accept. This section considers the impact of change on the people directly affected, which will often include many middle and senior managers. We are concerned here with the people who must take on new tasks, develop new skills, are transferred, re-graded or retrained and work with new technology or with new teams.
Once changes emerge, people must learn to cope as individuals. We will describe a simple model of how people experience change, and we will examine how they can cope with the pressures created by change. Understanding this can enable HR managers to provide practical support to people undergoing change and avoid creating constraints on people, which makes their personal task of coping all the harder.
Demands on individuals
Coping with the process of change places demands on the individuals involved. Various issues need to be faced, either by the individuals or by their managers. We will set down a practical framework for coping with change below, based upon ideas from various workers in the field, including Cooper (1981), Argyris (1982), Kirkpatrick (1985), Kanter (1983), and my own experience.
Building self-esteem
Consider the example of a diversified group that introduced computerised photocomposition for a newspaper company in the early 1970s.
The company had allowed the typesetters to try out the visual display units in a test room but not in a training environment. Providing support, they avoided any sense of formal training and were surprised to find that, allowed to learn at their own pace, the typesetters embraced the technology enthusiastically and quickly. This is important; giving people the chance, the time and the support to try things out for themselves is a way of allowing them to build their self-esteem under their own control and to solve the problem of change along the way. Only then does formal training have a really effective role as a means of ensuring consistent performance, disseminating best practices and so on. While it is often said that not enough training is done, it is too easy to be beguiled into introducing formal training programmes too early.
Resistance to change
Often, the problems of implementing change are discussed largely as if 'resistance to change' is the main concern. In this section, we see that the situation is, first, more complex than this and, second, is capable of much more positive or optimistic construction. Indeed, it is often possible to encourage resistance to change by dealing with people as if that is the only response you expect. We have discussed various responses to change in Section 3 , when our focus was on planning and implementation of change. Now we pick up the threads of this argument to consider the practical and positive steps, which can be taken to support people as they cope with change.
Anxiety, uncertainty and stress
Change creates anxiety, uncertainty and stress, even for those managing change, and even if they are fully committed to change. Seldom are there any guarantees that the new approach will work. Those who wish the change to be successful often find themselves working long hours, dealing with problems, trying to overcome the doubts of others, and doing everything needed to see the changes through.
In working life, change and role strain are two important sources of stress. Role strain can be caused by not being involved in decisions, having inadequate managerial support, and having to cope with technological or other changes. It can also be caused by having to maintain standards of performance even under difficult circumstances, and having responsibility for people who are unco-operative, which are all likely in a period of change. In non-working life, moving home is a key source of stress and this sometimes flows from change. Therefore we should not be surprised by the links between change and stress.
One helpful idea for managers dealing with change involves looking at the relationship between self-esteem, performance and stress. The relationship applies to both performance and self-esteem. The problem is that people are different.
We do not all fit neatly onto one curve. Is there a threshold beyond which behaviour becomes volatile and unpredictable? In fact, people respond differently. Some stress motivates people by providing challenge. But we need to avoid stressing ourselves and others - it can lead to people feeling 'swamped'.
The coping cycle
Changes that have a significant impact on the work that people do will have a significant impact on their self-esteem. Linked to this impact on self-esteem will be an impact on performance.
Learning-curve effect and progress effect
The new systems, processes, structures and so on, will have to be learned. This takes time. There is a learning-curve effect as people build up their performance up through learning. There is also a progress effect as the new system is commissioned, the snags ironed out and modifications introduced to enable performance to be improved.
I remember being invited to a large new factory in Scandinavia 'to see our new robots'. There were 27 of them, but on the day of the visit, only six were working. In some cases, this was because the staff involved had not yet learned to program or maintain them. In others, it was because the robot had proved incapable of meeting the task requirements without modification.
Therefore, while learning-curve and progress effects are interrelated, they are, however, quite different in origin. New systems never work 100% to specification first time, let alone if the specification is wrong.
Self-esteem effect
In addition to these performance effects, there is also the self-esteem effect. Significant organisational changes may create a decline in self-esteem for many of those who are directly affected. This decline has an impact on performance. The link between satisfaction, feelings of well-being, self-esteem and performance has been the subject of much research, such as Lawler (1978) and Steers and Porter (1979). What-ever the causal mechanisms involved and the direction of the relationship, there does seem to be a clear link, albeit a small one.
All effects are interrelated
Combine the suggested self-esteem effect with the learning-curve effect and the progress effect and we get a significant potential effect on performance. All the effects are inter-related. The driving force for rebuilding performance subsequent to a major change may be the rebuilding of self-esteem. But, as we shall see, this can be helped by action on the learning-curve and progress fronts.
These points are summarised with a simple model based upon the work of de Vries and Miller (1984) and Adams et al (1976). In the model above, we propose five main stages.
Stage 1: Denial
When significant changes are first mooted, the initial response may be to deny the need for change: 'We have always done things this way.'; 'Why change, we are making a profit, aren't we?'; 'Don't change a winning team'; 'We tried that before but it did not work'; 'You will never make it work', and so on.
Faced with the possibility of changes, people will often find value in their present circumstances, often in work situations, which they would bitterly complain about at other times. That this is paradoxical should not surprise us. Our actions are impelled by complex and often contradictory motivations. Therefore, miners threatened with the closure of their pit can defend their pit and jobs with vigour, yet still believe fervently that working conditions are dangerous or arduous.
Paralysis
If major organisational changes come suddenly and dramatically, then paralysis can often result. Some experienced managers often refer to a kind of immobilisation or a sense of being overwhelmed, of being unable to reason, to plan, or even to understand what is going on. For the individual, a suddenly announced redundancy can have such an impact, but there is often a longish period of gestation as ideas are discussed and the changes are planned. If the changes are not particularly new or dramatic, and if there are obvious opportunities for people, then this paralysis is felt less intensely.
Self-esteem increases
The tendency to deny the validity of new ideas, at least initially, does seem to be a general reaction, however. Built into this is the likelihood that self-esteem actually increases in this first stage. The advantages of the present job are emphasised, attachments to the job, the work group and valued skills are recognised. The sense of being a member of a group subject to external threat can lead to increased group cohesiveness.
All this may lead to increased self-esteem. A sense of euphoria can develop. We have shown performance to be stable, however. If self-esteem does increase, we would guess that performance would not improve, either because the discussion of impending change can absorb energy or because often there are systems in place which may hold back performance improvement (payment systems, for example).
Performance declines
If the change is dramatic, novel and traumatic (say, involving a sudden job change or redundancy), then this stage can involve an immediate decline in performance. Generally, however, there is a warning period and performance will not decline immediately. One way of handling the stage is to minimise the immediate impact of the change. This allows people time to face up to a new reality.
Stage 2: Defence
The early discussion of changes leads to concrete plans and programmes of change. Next, the realities of change become clearer and people must begin to face new tasks, working for a new boss or with a different group of people - perhaps in a different department or a new location. Therefore, they become aware that they must come to terms with the way in which they work, and maybe with more general changes in life (for example, if relocation involves moving home).
Ritualistic behaviour
This can lead to feelings of depression and frustration because it can be difficult to decide how to deal with these changes. This stage is often characterised by defensive behaviour. People may attempt to defend their own job, their own territory. Often this will be articulated as ritualistic behaviour. Consider the introduction of computer-aided learning in business schools many years ago. Many embraced these ideas enthusiastically; many simply rejected them. One colleague provided an impressive show of activity on the computer, finally concluding that after much effort, he had failed to make computer-aided learning work for that subject. Years later, computer-aided learning in that subject is commonplace. Was this a ritual? Again, this defensive behaviour seems to have the effect of creating time and space to allow people to come to terms with the changes.
Stage 3: Discarding
The preceding stages have focused powerfully on the past. Now people begin to let go of the past and look forward to the future. We do not know how this happens. Support can be helpful, as it can provide people with the opportunity to experiment with new systems without the pressure of formal training programmes, and so on.
Optimism
Now it is possible for optimistic feelings to emerge. It may well be that the discarding process is impelled by an awakening sense that the present anxieties are just too much to bear, or that perhaps the future is not as forbidding as it first seemed.
Now behaviour may be observed that identifies the individual with the changes involved. They will start to talk openly and constructively about the new system, ask questions about it and in a sense will say: 'Well here it is - we are committed to it - here's how I see it.'
People may begin to solve problems, take the initiative and even demonstrate some leadership. Therefore, self-esteem improves.
Perception
Discarding is initially a process of perception. People come to see that the change is both inevitable and/or necessary. It becomes apparent to them. Adaptation starts with recognition. Here we see human courage amid difficult circumstances as the individual accepts new 'realities'. This can be exciting for individuals and groups. By taking the risks of publicly facing a new reality, they re-establish their own identity, which may have seemed threatened by the changes. There-fore, self-esteem begins to flow back.
Time to grow
The crisis of change creates tensions for those involved. It creates a plethora of reasons for people to feel upset and disorientated. The new job we have been assigned to appears to be of lesser status, valued skills seem unnecessary and the new work appears to be frustrating. The new system or machine appears to be unusual, although with practice it becomes commonplace. The crucial point is that this process needs time. Discarding involves experimenting and risk. Time is needed for staff to recreate their own sense of identity and self-esteem as they 'grow' into the new situation.
Stage 4: Adaptation
Now a process of mutual adaptation emerges. Rarely do new systems, procedures, structures or machines work effectively first time. Individuals begin to test the new situation and themselves. They try out new behaviours, work to different standards and work out ways of coping with the changes. Therefore the individual learns.
Other individuals also adapt. Colleagues, supervisors and managers all learn as the new system is tried out. Finally, technical and operational problems are identified and modifications made to deal with them; thus progress is made.
Trial and error
Significant amounts of energy are involved here. The process of trial and error, of effort and setback, and the slow building of performance, can often be a source of real frustration. In these circumstances, people can show anger. This is not resistance to change, it is the natural consequence of trying to make a new system work, experiencing partial (or complete) failure, which may or may not be under the control of the individuals concerned.
This anger does not result in attempts to oppose but, rather, articulates the feelings of those trying to make the new system work. While managers should ensure that the right training and support is available, they should generally remain in the background, allowing those directly involved to make it work. By doing so, they will develop the skills, under-standing and attachments needed for the system to be run effectively in the long-term.
Stage 5: Internalisation
Now those involved have created a new system, process and organisation. New relationships between people and processes have been tried, modified and accepted. These now become incorporated into an understanding of the new work situation. This is a cognitive process through which people make sense of what has happened. Now the new behaviour becomes part of 'normal' behaviour.
Acceptance
People experience change initially as disturbance, perhaps even as a shock, then come to accept its reality. They test it out and engage in a process of mutual adaptation, and finally come to terms with it.
Self-esteem and performance vary, initially declining and then growing again. The 'engine' for rebuilding performance is the self-esteem of the people involved. People don't go through these stages neatly - they don't all go through them at the same time, or at the same rate. Some may not go beyond the denial of change. The important point is that people do seem to experience significant changes in these ways, and +that this leads to a number of practical ways in which the problems of coping can be handled.
Coping with change: Issues to be faced
Coping with the process of change places demands on the individuals involved, so various issues need to be faced, either by these individuals or by their managers. Note, however, that these issues are of concern to all affected by an organisational change, including managers. In the following pages, we will set down a simple framework of coping with change, identifying issues to be faced.
Know yourself
Issues: Would I have chosen this to have happened? Do I accept it? Can I benefit from the changes? What is the worst that can happen to me?
Solution: Here we are concerned with feelings about the changes to be introduced. In particular, we are concerned with the question of the worst that can happen to the individual. This might be the loss of a job. Alternatively, it might be a transfer to a new job or new department. Or it might mean taking on new skills. It is often difficult for managers to provide this kind of detailed information. However, it is often possible to provide some level of guarantee at an early stage. Doing so sets boundaries on the problems for the individuals concerned. It provides them with vital data as they try to make sense of how the changes will affect them and how they feel about it. It puts them back into a position of feeling they have some control over their situation.
Issues: Do I know what I want? Do I know what I don't want?
Solution: These are difficult questions to face. How many of us have clear answers to them? Yet answering them (even if only in a tentative way) is essential if we are to come to terms with changes. In essence, individuals can be encouraged to think about these questions through using various diagnostic techniques. A good way of doing so would be to use a job diagnostic survey, which aims to obtain information about how people react to different jobs, including their present jobs and jobs they might prefer.
The approach involves examining responses in terms of issues such as various job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback, dealing with others), experienced psychological states (experienced meaningfulness of work, experienced responsibility for work, knowledge of results), and effective outcomes (satisfaction, internal work motivation and growth satisfaction). An approach of this kind can be used, perhaps as part of a workshop activity, to encourage people to think about their present job and the demands it places on them, their own preferences and the jobs likely to result from the changes. This could allow them to examine work design problems, and could be a process through which individuals begin to think about the new situation in a constructive fashion.
Issues: What skills and abilities do I possess? How might I develop new skills?
Solution: This issue emerges directly from the last one. If we can begin to answer questions about the kind of job we want, then we can consider the skills and abilities we possess and view them in the light of the changes to be introduced. How relevant will they be? What new skills are needed? Can I develop such skills? Can such development be seen as an evolution from my present skills? For example, if we consider the case of a typist being introduced to word processors, it is clear that some of the existing skills (keyboard skills, layout skills, and language usage) will be transferable and some new skills will be needed. Again these issues can be examined by using an instrument such as the job diagnostic survey and approaches more directly concerned with skills analysis and competence models.
Issues: Have I experienced similar changes? How did I cope? Can I take the initiative?
Solution: Many people have undergone many changes either at work or in their personal lives. What can they learn from those past experiences? What methods did they use to cope with the changes? How long did it take them to resolve issues and make the personal adaptations necessary? Facing questions like these helps us set the present changes in a broader life context. It also enables us to develop ideas about coping with those present changes or of where we need help to do so.
Issues: Can I cope with stress? Am I able to handle conflict? Can I avoid conflict? How well do I manage my time? Do I blame myself?
Solution: We have already seen that stress is a necessary part of organisational change. Similarly, conflict is a necessary part of change. We need to develop means of dealing with these linked phenomena. In particular, we need to examine how we respond to conflict and whether we are able to minimise or deal with it. Conflict is likely to increase the level of stress that we experience. Can we limit its impact? Perhaps more importantly, we must face the issue of self-blame. Individuals undergoing changes which appear to make their skills or experience unnecessary will often blame themselves. If change undermines self-esteem, self-blame merely reinforces that situation. People should be encouraged to face this issue. Do I blame myself? Do I feel useless, paralysed, confused? Can I begin to deal with those feelings? What can I do to overcome them? Will working out a new role in the new situation allow me to do so? Self-blame in these circumstances seems to be unavoidable - making it explicit can help.
Issues: Do I take stock of my situation? Am I prepared to reflect on myself and how I feel about change? Do I expect others (perhaps managers or union representatives) to deal with these issues?
Solution: We noted earlier that discarding the past had an important element of risk and personal growth attached to it. People handle crises in their non-working lives (divorce, bereavement, and so on). There is no reason to suppose that they cannot do so in their working lives.
Know your situation
Issues: Can I describe the situation? Can I explain the new system - for my own work area or for the department as a whole? Can I explain why the changes are necessary?
Solution: If you don't understand the changes, you're in no position to come to terms with them as an individual. There is no better test of understanding than the task of explaining to another. If people cannot understand the changes, then this implies a failure to communicate them effectively. While managers often say they have described the changes to their staff, it may be that they have not done so in a manner which those people find intelligible. This means describing it in the listener's own terms, which does not necessarily mean describing it in a lower or simplified form - rather, it means in a relevant form.
Issues: Do I know how I am expected to behave? What standards of performance will be required? Who will I work with? Who will I report to? Who will I be responsible for?
Solution: If you don't understand the new situation, you're unlikely to be able to deal with these questions. Yet if people are to adapt, they need to be able to answer them. These questions are really the behavioural element of the questions raised under the last section. They also begin the process of establishing precisely what others expect of us in the new situation.
Issues: Can I try out the new system in advance? Is it possible for me to experiment with the new system - to learn by trial and error?
Solution: Coming to terms with new systems takes time, requires experiment and risk, and involves learning. Very often, the first time that many people face a new system is either on a training course or when the system is installed. Both situations create expectations, which can mitigate against risk. Often, training programmes, unless sensitively handled, involve comparisons between people. No-one welcomes feeling stupid or ineffective in front of others. If we are trained to handle a new system, we may feel that we cannot control our own learning because we are holding back the group, or because the trainer has so much ground to cover and we feel we cannot or should not hold things up.
Trying out new systems for ourselves and by ourselves allows us to become familiar with the system at our own rate. We can begin to come to terms with new systems if our first attempts are not organised in such a way as to make us feel we are being evaluated.
Consider a newspaper group, which introduced computerised printing technology. In doing so, the company had bought a number of workstations long before they were needed for production purposes. These workstations were placed in a room that operators were allowed to use at any time, and unsupervised. Instruction was available but was delivered at the rate that the operator wished and not to a predetermined training plan. Therefore, the operators controlled their own learning. The company found that people made rapid progress, including many who had been considered unlikely to take on the new technology.
Know others who can help
Issues: Is there a benefit in talking things over with family, friends or colleagues? With my manager? With strangers?
Solution: There is some evidence to suggest that many people do not discuss work 'in their own time'. If change creates uncertainty and stress, this can mean staff lose important opportunities. Simply talking through a problem can be helpful - this of course requires that we understand the changes well enough to be able to describe them to others. It seems to make sense to encourage people to discuss their problems. Discussion with colleagues can be facilitated by running workshops. Much the same applies to talking things over with the manager involved. And sometimes there is benefit to be had from talking things over with a complete stranger.
Working on self-esteem
Issues: Testing out ideas and beliefs.
Solution: Working with our ideas and beliefs about a change can form the basis for building our self-esteem. Consider the case of a department in which computers are being introduced. The people involved might believe that computers create unemployment and that they will therefore lose their jobs. Is this true? What has management said about the issue? Is it the subject of negotiations? Have guarantees been given? People might also think that they are too old to get to grips with the computer. Is that true? What help can be obtained? Can I try it out now?
Work on the issues discussed above will feed into this and help people to make progress. Perhaps the important point is for us to recognise that we need to build our self-esteem as part of dealing with a programmed change. We need to recognise that this is an essential, unavoidable part of this process.
Issues: Should you talk out issues with yourself?
Solution: On the face of it this may sound rather silly. Discussing the point recently on a senior management programme, one manager said that he always got his people to write out those issues that they felt were important in a change situation.
Talking or writing involves thinking through systematically. Writing creates a publicly-available record. To deal with our feelings about changes, we need to understand them better. So, talking about them (or writing them down) is an important facilitating process, and something which could form part of a workshop programme.
Issues: Letting go of the past.
Solution: We have already discussed the need, and the processes through which people will discard the past. It is important to recognise that this will create a sense of loss and will cause anger. It is important for all of us to recognise that this is inevitable. Managers must ensure that time and space are allowed for people to experience these feelings and that this is legitimate. The temptation to calm people down, to soothe their fears and anger, may be compelling but must be treated with caution. If we are not careful, we deny feelings that must be experienced if change is to be accepted. Most importantly, we should recognise that this process of letting go of the past, while painful, does involve learning, and is really part of the process through which individuals choose the future.
Issues: Setting goals, acting and looking for gains.
Solution: We've discussed issues and questions that must be faced, and ways of doing so. They could form the basis of a series of workshop activities for people who are involved in significant change programmes. While not a blueprint for success, they do provide a basis for constructive work and progress. Problems of layout, work design and work organisation often abound with new systems. Problem-solving activities to deal with these matters provide an excellent opportunity for people to get to grips with a new system.
Crafting change for the individual
Individuals have four main categories of need if they are to rebuild their self-esteem amid a programme of organisational change.
They need to understand the changes and therefore need intelligible information. They will probably need to develop new skills, if only the skills of dealing with new people as colleagues or supervisors. They will need support to help them to deal with the problems. Encouragement to try out new systems is important. Provision of short workshops planned to achieve part or all of the work discussed in the preceding section can help, as can technical support to solve problems, accessing to people who can help, and allowing people to control their own learning.
Empathy
First and foremost, empathy and understanding is a key issue. This is one of the key skills for managing change. A good definition is as follows:
We use empathy all the time. We constantly guess what people think and feel. The problem is that in most cases we guess wrong. We assume that what is going on in somebody else's mind is identical to our own psychic processes. We tend to forget that we are all different. To practice empathy is to recognise and take full advantage of these differences.
We see empathy as the struggle to understand. We can never fully see a situation as others see it. But we can try, and people will respond where you are seen to genuinely see things from their point of view.
In this section, we have discussed a range of ideas that can be used as a way of developing or practising empathy - of trying to see changes the way others see them and using that as a basis for building self-esteem. If these four needs can be met by appropriate resources, then it is possible for people to adapt to changes and develop new skills, abilities and roles with which to face the future.
However, two problems must be faced immediately. The issues we have discussed are difficult for individuals and groups, whether employees or managers, to face and discuss. The first relates to the provision of information by individuals. Is that as straightforward as it seems on the face of it, or are there problems here? What processes can hinder coping activities? The second problem relates to the problem of ineffective behaviour.
Providing information
At a practical level, much of what we have said has been concerned with information. People need to understand the new system if they are to understand their own part in it. Information must be shared if people are to judge the impact of changes on themselves and on 'their' jobs. Does this mean that openness and sharing information is a good thing, and the more, the better? Some will say that this is so. We can only make mature judgments if we have all of the relevant information.
Others will point to the uncertainty surrounding many changes. What if the manager you exhort to pass on information does not have it to share? Then the question of confidentiality is often raised.
In fact, there is a dual problem that must be faced when significant changes are underway. For the individuals concerned, the demands of a change situation can be revealing to themselves and to others.
We often respond emotionally because we feel that the new situation strips away barriers and reveals parts of ourselves that we have kept private. Your recent performance - the good and the bad - are now examined as the planners gather data to justify the change. Your skills are examined and explored. Your work behaviour comes under observation and analysis. The individual is asked what they feel about the present system, process, job, machine or structure. How well does it work? What are its problems? How might it be improved? What are the best things about it? What are the worst things about it? So, the individual provides information.
This is not without problems. To the extent that this probing enters the individual's personal domain (or territory), then it is an invasion of the self. That human beings will use ingenious means to protect their privacy has long been understood. Should we be concerned about it? Yes, if we want to see these people actively supporting and committed to the changes. What does this mean? It tells us how important it is to collect information from people on their own terms.
Information is needed, of course, but the more we can get the people involved to collect and interpret their own information, feeding it into the broader analysis of the section, department or organisation, the better. Empathy becomes a crucial skill. Do we mean that people should be free to keep poor performance or problems a secret? The question is one of balance. Secrecy may be indispensable to individuals, to groups and to organisations.
Some degree of control over information provided may be justified at the individual level to protect identity, plans and action, or choices for the individual. So it applies as much to the senior manager as it does to the employee. This, then, is the dual nature of the question.
Pressures
Openness and sharing of information is valuable as a means of facilitating change. Yet other pressures apply. There are counteracting pressures that create limits for the individual whose job may be changed, for the people who have taken the initiative, planned and gained support for change, and who are now seeing it through to implementation.
Our concern, then, should not simply be to provide information but, rather, to establish the means by which people involved can control the information to be provided.
There is no guarantee here against abuse. But no such guarantee exists short of domination and coercion. Making the issue explicit seems likely to create conditions under which valid and relevant information can be established without undermining the identity of those involved. To do otherwise is to be careless of the people involved in a change situation and careless of the quality of information to be obtained.
Give people time
People need time to get through a major change. This is especially true if the change requires them to solve problems. Spend time with people. It is important to listen to their views. They may well know better than you about the details of a particular job, system or work area. Always reinforce the new situation in your discussion. Empathy is important but remember that the concern should be to help them build energy for change. Encourage people to put off those decisions that are not needed immediately.
Recognise that everyone needs to feel their way forward in a period of change. Help them to see personal milestones, jobs to train for, objectives to achieve and systems to get working. Routines and milestones provide stability and structure. People need time to get through change, but they also need to structure that time. Do not impose this structure. Encourage it to emerge.
Involving people
Whether, when, to what extent and how people are involved in a change situation needs careful thought because there are both advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below:
Advantages:
Improves decisions because people have better detailed knowledge of jobs and systems
People will better understand the aims of the change, and the working of new systems
Creates a feeling of ownership
Redirects energy in support of change rather than against change
Allows us to experiment
Builds a better understanding of change and how to achieve it.
Disadvantages:
Takes longer, particularly at the planning stage
Requires more time and effort in the early stages.
In addition, involving people may lead to greater uncertainty and instability as individuals or groups use the involvement process as a means of opposing change. However, if the objective is the effective implementation of change, this is less of an issue. These same people are likely to oppose the change, whether or not they are involved. If they are not involved, the opposition will come out in different ways. Below, we list some useful criteria in planning how people are to be involved in change.
Involving people
This may depend on the following:
The complexity of the changes and the strength of linkage between different parts of the changes
The expected opposition and the level of dissatisfaction with the present situation
The level of credibility of the people promoting change
Impact of change on people, both positive and negative - how many 'winners', how many 'losers'?
Where the quality of the decisions is more important than their acceptability alone
Where rumour is likely, whatever happens.
These factors need to be considered. Sometimes changes are probably best imposed by top management. But, just as important, involvement of top management is not always the way forward. However, there are two further points to add. Because there are real advantages in involvement, some level is always worth considering. Usually, there are many details to be resolved in which people can and should be involved. The point here is to make clear precisely how and to what extent involvement is planned. Just as important is involving key power-holders and opinion-leaders. They will influence the attitudes and behaviour of others and therefore their open support is worth seeking.
All of the points raised in this section will take a little time. But if you do it well, it will release energy in support of change. We often underestimate the time and energy needed to introduce change. Paying attention to the issues dealt with here will save time in the long run. The current changes will be implemented more quickly and, as a result, the organisation will become more receptive to overall change.
|
Section two: Implementing strategic change Section three: Culture and change Section four: Coping with change
|
