Change management is always a difficult issue, and the makeup of people in an organization—and that organization’s general culture—plays a very significant role in the way that change is handled as a whole. Most researchers suggest that there is a top-down approach that is necessary for appropriate integration of new ideas into institutional culture; change can occur and be accepted only if leadership begins the change process. In this particular discussion, we will discuss the use of the Change Management Simulation and the successes and failures during the duration of the simulation. In addition, assessments will be done to determine the changes that should be made to the change process in the future.
Beer and Nohria (2000) suggest that there are two competing theories of change that must be balanced for overall success, but that the most effective change comes with a pure application of these theories. These theories are based either on a top-down approach or a participative approach to change, and both are particularly important in the light of the simulation. In the simulation, the hypothetical began after a retreat, in which it was decided that a joint task force would be formed to attempt to address the issue of sustainability and financial security in the organization. Immediately following the retreat, I, the CEO, initiated an email message to the company as a way to remind everyone of what was discussed and the decisions that were reached. The simulation said that this email was largely ignored, but this is one decision that I certainly stand behind: I believe that informing employees of the changes that are likely to occur—and the decisions made by leadership—is a way to integrate what Beer and Nohria (2000) term “theory E” and “theory O”—that is, a top-down and participative approach. Although each time an email or notice was sent it was ignored, I still believe that allowing people access to this information is something that should be considered by leadership.
After the email, I got a consultant to support what I was saying; this was indeed helpful, and got a few people on board with the changes that I wanted to make. I felt that it was important to announce goals and deadlines to the company as a whole as well, so I used this lever, but it was largely unsuccessful; however, Kegan and Lahey (2001) suggest that communication along with the determination of competing commitments are essential to the implementation of change in any organization (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). My next decision was to “walk the talk,” which I felt was particularly appropriate, especially early in the process of change when more people needed to be convinced of the issues and the changes that were likely to occur (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009). This was positive and had a good impact on the company as a whole, as people began to see me, as a leader, implementing some of the changes that I was discussing.
I next chose to revise the reward system, because I believed that now that more of the company was aware of the changes that I wished to implement, I could alter the system slightly to give them rewards for participating in the change; however, this was unsuccessful as well. My next step, holding town hall meetings, was much more successful, and engaged a number of people in the potential project. I tried to ride this success and conduct a pilot project, which was similarly successful—the momentum seemed to help, as Higgs and Rowland (2005) suggest (Higgs & Rowland, 2005).
After this success, I tried to recognize an adopter as a way to build more internal support for the project, but it was largely unsuccessful. My attempts to conduct private interviews went well, which is potentially due to the personal engagement that the CEO has with the employees during this kind of interaction (Beer & Nohria, 2000). After this, I held town hall meetings again and then tried immediately to build a coalition of support, which was indeed successful in winning people to the trial phase of integration. I also got a consultant’s support while there was good momentum, which kept the interest in the project high (Franken, Edwards & Lambert, 2009). Momentum is something that I wanted to maintain throughout the simulation, as a way to keep people from forgetting about the changes and reverting to their old way of thinking.
I continued to build coalitions and hold town hall meetings, and I privately confronted a resister once; however, privately confronting a resister had little effect, as I suspected it would. I was hesitant to use this lever to begin with, as I feel that a single resister should not necessarily be put on the spot and asked to change, as this might galvanize their decision to remain apart from the crowd; perhaps this employee has a competing commitment that kept them from engaging fully in the process (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). I tried to conduct private interviews and allow people the chance for internal and external training, but while these affected individuals, they did not affect the overall outcome of the organization. Again I tried to issue an email notice and hold a town hall meeting, to little avail.
I clearly made some mistakes with the simulation, and there are certainly things that I need to address insofar as my own leadership skills are concerned. In the end, I convinced eleven of the twenty people needed to make the appropriate change; however, there are some things that I feel that I did appropriately during the simulation as well. First, I feel that I maintained good momentum for the change throughout the simulation. With the tools that I was given, I addressed all the employees in the simulation with some regularity, ensuring that they were all aware of any potential changes that might affect them and their work environment during the course of the change. I also feel that, during this simulation, I did a good job positively interfacing with the employees. I confronted resisters only once, and I did so mostly as an experiment during the simulation to see the potential outcome; there was no real effect, and I didn’t expect one necessarily.
Beer and Nohria (2000) suggest that there are two different theories to organizational change that can be implemented, and that both of these theories are equally valid when they are implemented. However, there are problems when both “theory E” and “theory O” are implemented in tandem—that is, when the top-down approach and the participative approach to business change implementation are utilized together.
This, I think, was perhaps my biggest problem during the simulation: I tried to lead by example, but also tried to integrate a participative approach to change that focused on culture and process-driven change. Instead of choosing to try both approaches, it would have been more prudent for me to make a decision as to what type of leader I wanted to be—top-down or participative—and move from there. Of course, the simulation is limited in its scope, and the levers available were limited as well, but this does not mean that in the future, when making decisions, I should not keep this kind of distinction in mind.
While I do believe that a CEO or leader of any kind should lead by example, my personal leadership style is much more participative. This is why I stayed away from the incentives-based levers and did not implement those levers in the change simulation; as a leader, I tend towards the process-driven changes with emergent planning and a focus on cultural change (Beer & Nohria, 2000). I don’t believe this to be a better process, necessarily; however, as Higgs and Rowland (2005) suggest, even small changes in leadership can have a very significant impact on the overall state of the organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). In the simulation, I was not an effective change agent; however, I learned a lot from the simulation and I believe that if I ran the simulation again, I could be much more effective as a change agent. I also believe that I learned significant things about myself as a leader from this simulation, and I hope that I can implement this knowledge into my day-to-day dealings with people as a leader.
References
Beer, M., & N. Nohria. (2000). Breaking the Code of Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & M. Overdorf. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review 78 (2): 66-76.
Franken, A., C. Edwards, & R. Lambert. (2009). Executing strategic change: Understanding the critical management elements that lead to success. California Management Review (Spring).
Higgs, M., & D. Rowland. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management 5 (2): 121-151.
Kegan, R., & L. L. Lahey. (2001). The real reason people won’t change. Harvard Business Review (November): 85-92.
