Friday, May 25, 2018

Organizations are continuously under pressure to adapt to changing circumstances, such as changing client wishes, new policy developments, and the introduction of social media (Josserand et al., 2006). Armstrong (2014), states that Human resource management (HRM) is concerned with all aspects of how people are employed and managed in organizations. It covers the activities of strategic HRM, human capital management, knowledge management, corporate social responsibility, organization development, resourcing (workforce planning, recruitment and selection and talent management), learning and development, performance and reward management, employee relations, employee well-being and the provision of employee services. It also has an international dimension.

Video 1.0 : Human Resource Management
(source :  Monash, 2012)

Change Management


According to Senior (2002,), the change management has been deļ¬ned as ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers’ (Moran and Brightman, 2001,p111). According to Burnes (2004) change is an ever-present feature of organizational life, both at an operational and strategic level. Therefore, there should be no doubt regarding the importance to any organization of its ability to identify where it needs to be in the future, and how to manage the change.


Lewin's change management model

Video 2.0 : Lewin's Change Management Model: Kurt Lewin's Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze Theory.



(source :  MindToolsVideos, 2014) 


According to Cummings,S., Bridgman,T and Brown,K.G.(2016) Lewin’s model of change are as follows:


1. Unfreezing – altering the present stable equilibrium which supports existing behaviors and attitudes. This process must take account of the inherent threats change and fear presents to people and the need to motivate those affected to attain the natural state of equilibrium by accepting change.


2. Changing – developing new responses based on new information.


3. Refreezing – stabilizing the change by introducing the new responses into the personalities of those concerned. Lewin also proposed a methodology for analyzing change which he called ‘field force analysis.


As stated by by Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) point out that once a manager has understood the restraining forces and the change management problems, there are a number of approaches and options for managing resistance to change, i.e.,
(i). Education and communication.
(ii). Participation and involvement.
(iii). Facilitation and support.
(iv). Negotiation and agreement.
(v). Manipulation and co-optation, and
(vi). Explicit and implicit coercion.

Beer et al Beer et al (1990).


Beer et.al (1990,p158) states in a seminal Harvard Business Review article ‘Why change programs don’t produce change’, that most such programmers are showed by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed. This theory situation that changes in attitudes lead to changes in behavior. ‘According to this model, change is like a conversion experience. They have confidence in that this theory gets the change process accurately backwards, and commented: In fact, individual behavior is strongly shaped by the organizational roles people play. The most effective way to change behavior, therefore, is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new duties, responsibilities and relationships on them. This creates a situation that in a sense ‘forces’ new attitudes and behavior on people. They prescribe six steps to effective change, which concentrate on what they call ‘task alignment’– reorganizing employee’s roles, responsibilities and relationships to explain specific business difficulties in small units where goals, process and tasks can be obviously defined. The aim of following the overlapping steps is to build a self-reinforcing cycle of commitment, coordination and competence.


1. Mobilize commitment to change through the joint analysis of problems.
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage to achieve goals such as competitiveness.
3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move it along.
4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top – don’t force the issue, let each department find its own way to the new organization.
5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems and structures.

6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process.

Why organization need change management

According to Armstrong (2006), the main reasons for resisting change are as follows: 

● The shock of the new – people are suspicious of anything which they perceive will upset their recognized routines, approaches of working or conditions of employment. They do not want to lose the security of what is familiar. Employees may not believe statements by management that the change is for employee benefit as well organizational development, change and transformation as that of the organization; sometimes with good reason. Employees may feel that management has ulterior motives and, sometimes, the louder the protestations of managements; the less they will be believed.
● Economic fears – cost of money, fears to job safety.● Inconvenience – the change will make life harder.● Uncertainty – change can be worrying because of uncertainty about its likely impact.● Symbolic fears – a small change that may affect some treasured symbol, such as a separate office or a reserved parking space, may symbolize big ones, especially when employees are uncertain about how extensive the programmed of change will be.● Threat to interpersonal relationships – anything that disrupts the customary social relationships and standards of the group will be resisted.● Threat to status or skill – the change is perceived as reducing the status of individuals or as de-skilling them.● Competence fears – concern about the skill to cope with new weights or to acquire new skills.


Organizations are continuously under pressure to adapt to changing circumstances, such as changing client wishes, new policy developments, and the introduction of social media (Josserand et al., 2006). Swift adaptation to changing conditions has always been considered crucial for the survival of private-sector organizations (Tushman and O’Reilly, 2013). However, nowadays a critical public opinion and shrinking budgets pose threats to the survival of public organizations as well, which requires them to change rapidly and profoundly (Kuipers et al., 2014; Van der Voet et al, 2013).


Even if employees are generally willing to change, the change process can be a stressful burden.(Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). Employees have to change their daily routines, acquire new knowledge and face peaks in workload. Such a situation can lead to resistance to further changes, burnout, and staff turn-over (Rush et al., 1995). To cope successfully with organizational change, positive psychology scholars argue that job proactivity and vitality are of particular importance (Ghitulescu, 2013; Shirom, 2011). Proactive employees anticipate possible future events and take initiative (Grant and Ashford, 2008). High levels of proactivity are beneficial when working in new, uncertain, circumstances such as when confronted with organizational change (Hornung and Rousseau, 2007). Vitality is defined as one’s conscious experience of possessing energy and liveliness (Kark and Carmeli, 2009). Vital employee can potentially better deal with change because they possess more energy (Carmeli and Spreitzer, 2009).


According to Chen (2010), Toyota Management Change

Concept of “JIT” (just in time) the oldest and first way by TOYOTA and still uses it now. The purpose of JIT is to reduce the cost, and promoted the benefit of product. It could divide to 7 points: the extravagance on overproduction, time of wait, handling (work place collocate absurdly), artifact (use the bad technology), backlog, action (the action had no productivity), and bad production (Liker & Jeffrey, 2003). According to the basic principle - “Benefit = (Price - Cost) × Account”, TOYOTA’s plan do the low cost. On next way, TOYOTA advanced benefit and account of product. After foundation on JIT way, TOYOTA add automation concept into the management that cause it to be success. Soon, other enterprises wanted to learn TOYOTA’s way, and TOYOTA way is also the most important change in TOYOTA’s management. The “TPS” became a philosophy of production management. Jeffrey analyzed “TPS” for 20 years, and arranges 14 management principles from TPS (Jeffrey K. Liker, 2004):
Principle 1.          
Base your management decisions on a long - term philosophy, even at the expense of short -term financial goals.
Principle 2.          
Create continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface.
Principle 3.          
Use “Pull” systems to avoid overproduction.
Principle 4.          
Level out the workload (heijunka,).
Principle 5.          
Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time.
Principle 6.          
Standardized tasks are the foundation for continuous improvement and employee               Empowerment.
Principle 8.          
Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes.
Principle 9.          
Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to  others.
Principle 10.        
Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company’s philosophy. 
Principle 11.
Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and  helping them improve.
Principle 12.        
Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation (genchigenbutsu,). 
Principle 13.        
Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly (nemawashi ).
Principle 14.        
Become a learning organization through relentless reflection (hansei) and continuous improvement (kaizen).

Change Management in Sri lanka

The organization which I worked (producing adhesives to the local and export markets) had to undergo a change program to the overall production line by introducing new machinery and technology. This technology could produce multiple adhesive products for changing market preferences. The resistance from employees was the lack of knowledge on how to operate the new machinery, fear of meeting hourly targets, loss of current incentives, loss of jobs due to some areas being automated, and loss of power due superior skills acquired on previous machinery. Hence, based on Lewin’s model the first step of unfreezing the management decided on communications to address these issues and agreeing on ample training, assuring incentives will remain as it is or even increase due to productivity improvements, and while the change program was continuing management celebrated on quick wins through formal meetings recognizing performances, both informal and formal meeting were conducted for regular feedback, and providing support and solutions to reduce the learning curve of employees.

Conclusion

Finally in conclusion all organizations have to undergo change due to ever changing market conditions, this in turn will result in a resistance to change from employees, and hence it is the management’s duty to successfully manage the transition by building confidence and gaining support among the employees.Most of the failed projects which are under change did not take into account the human factor. To avoid this failure the assistance of change experts or change agents (in most cases professional consultants) should be sought. Not only that most employees have no or little experience in the field of change management. In most cases people are used to their environment and emotionally unwilling to change.

References

  • Armstrong, M. (2014). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management  Practice, 14th ed., Kogan Page.
  • Armstrong, M. (2006). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management  Practice, 10th ed., Kogan Page.
  • Beer, M, Eisenstat, R and Spector, B (1990) Why change programs don’t produce change, Harvard Business Review, November–December, pp 158–166
  • Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th ed., Harlow Prentice Hall.
  • Carmeli, A. and Spreitzer, G.M. (2009), “Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 169-191.
  • Chen, A. (2010), “Toyota Organization Change Management Principles”, The Journal of Global Business Management, Vol. NA, No. NA, pp. 3-5.
  • Cummings,S., Bridgman,T and Brown,K.G.(2016) Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management, human relations,Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 34-35.  
  • Ghitulescu, B.E. (2013), “Making change happen: The impact of work context on adaptive and proactive behaviors”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 206-245
  • Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, No. NA, pp. 3-34.
  • Hornung, S. and Rousseau, D.M. (2007), “Active on the job—Proactive in change: How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 401-426.
  • Jeffrey K. Liker (2004). The Toyota Way. U.S.: McGraw-Hill.
  • Josserand, E., Teo, S. and Clegg, S. (2006), “From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: The difficulties of transition”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 54-64.
  • Kark, R. and Carmeli, A. (2009), “Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 785-804.
  • Kotter, J. P. and Schlesinger, L. A. (2008), ‘Choosing strategies for change’, Harvard Business Review . Available: http://hbr.org/2008/07/ choosing-strategies-for-change/ [accessed 31 May 2015].
  • Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M.J., Kickert, W.J.M., Tummers, L.G., Grandia, J., and Van der Voet, J. (2014), “The management of change in public organizations: A literature review”, Public Administration, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
  • Lewin, K (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York.
  • Liker, Jeffrey (2003). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer, First edition, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-139231-9.
  • Moran, J. W. and Brightman, B. K. (2001) ‘Leading organizational change’, Career Development International, 6(2), pp. 111–118.
  • Rush, M.C., Schoel, W.A. and Barnard, S.M. (1995), “Psychological resiliency in the public sector: ‘Hardiness’ and pressure for change”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 17-39.
  • Senior, B. (2002) Organisational Change, 2nd ed., London Prentice Hall.
  • Shirom, A. (2011), “Vigor as a positive affect at work: Conceptualizing vigor, its relations with related constructs and its antecedents and consequences”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 50-64.
  • Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2013), Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
  • Vakola, M. and Nikolaou, I. (2005), “Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 160-174.
  • Van der Voet, J., Groeneveld, S.M. and Kuipers, B.S. (2013), “Talking the talk or walking the walk? The leadership of planned and emergent change in a public organization, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 171-191.

Posted by at 64 comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)