2.1 Effective Change Management 12
2.2 Structural 13
2.3 People-Centered 14
2.4 Process-Oriented 15
2.5 Strategy-Oriented 15
2.6 Summary 16
References 18
Introduction
What is change management and how does it relate to operational efficiency? When change is introduced to an organization, management itself on various levels normally decides on altering how operations and related work is practiced. The main categories of change management are organizational structure, job descriptions, operational systems, and processes. Change management varies from project management, where the former is defined as a process associated with the tools and techniques to regulate any personnel or people-related outcomes. The process of change management is intended to successfully transition the adoption of change. Changes often entail technological and social atmosphere within an organization. Although several theories have been formulated and validated through practical implementation, resistance ultimately occurs regardless of the future positive outlook (Levin, 2012). Much personnel struggle with changes as being impractical, whereas others only accept changes without any options.
In order for change management to create the most practical transition, operational efficiency needs to be optimized to deliver its services to its clients as well as minimizing resource redundancy to its internal framework. Operational efficiency is best defined as an organization’s ability narrowly channeling or streamlining its products and services from its internal forces toward its client base without compromising its workforce and corporate processing. Operational efficiency may not result in the most optimization for all departments, because each department carries its own protocols and procedures in accommodating its integrity. Hence resistance even to the most promising operational plan is imminent. The question becomes relevant to the process of change management itself and how it is to be implemented to reduce change resistance. To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of change management, researchers need to evaluate the input and output by empirical study to measure where operational efficiency is at its highest potential to justify change management. Measures of operational efficiency are comparable among various departments and branches because of the services and facilities they act upon.
The most competent personnel may experience decline in operational deficiency following change management because of readjustments to various criteria of an organization. Agents of change management affect strategic differentiation and performance indicators on various levels because one changed factor would have repercussions on future decisions although not all them disadvantageous but necessary. The objective of studying operational efficiency as a result of change management is to examine if it is really necessary to make changes and which levels are affected by change management. The strategic levels of an organization are improved by a few common alternatives by testing and toggling between input and output factors. The most prominent alternatives are changing the ratios between the input and output. Only by changing the ratio can the effects of operational efficiency be tracked to decide if proposed change management is optimized.
A list of research questions are included to gather adequate feedback from personnel and management to identify where change management affects operational efficiency and both parties may combine a proposal to function in tandem. Similar answers from both parties may reshape an organization’s operations management and future decision-making processes. Change management amounts to significant time and investment as does the procedure of forecasting operational efficiency. But all organizations have experienced some kind of change whether it is resizing, personnel and management, reassigning job responsibilities, or managerial recruitment. Each of the aforementioned can greatly affect operational efficiency because the changes occur on a level fully specified. Even personnel within the same department may not understand how changes affect their team and responsibilities. But usually an empirical observation does not provide the full detailing of change management because personnel may not identify the differences only noticed by management, whom do identify the problems but somewhat neglect to share them with personnel. It makes a difference when all personnel, management included, shares their concerns in operational efficiency and all accountable and strategic factors. What is illustrated in the next few sections describe the factors affecting operation efficiency through change management.
Literature Review
Change management is observed as being directly proportional to operational efficiency. Any macro company such as a corporation or immense organization generally undergoes management changes also meaning triggering changes to operational efficiency. Strategic management changes are met with challenges even if indicating great promise coupled with a plan. When Human Resources (HR) announces any changes to an aspect of operations, most personnel, including management, overlook how any program manager functions as a change agent (Levin, 2012). The first initial implications are suddenly defined as the reactions to change where personnel have the notion of forecasting they have no vocal participation with managerial changes and fear the expectations of maintaining efficiency. The highest management may have positive intentions and a systematic arrangement to implement variable rates of efficiency. Perhaps those occupying non-managerial positions initially experience the greatest fears because of unpredictable tasks upper management expects them to perform. But what happens when distinguishing the learning and experience curves among various personnel in regards to change management? (Vincent et al, 2011) interprets this with the prime example of increased productivity. A new team member learns the tools and eventually contributes to increased productivity. A team member already ahead of most members readily produces impressive results.
However, within large organizations and associations housing several levels of management, even those occupying managerial feel insecure. If there personnel do not perform as expected, the results reflect negatively on management. This report outlines the projections and results of organizational change management, how it affects operational efficiency, and the various aspects of understanding the advantages and disadvantages of experiencing organizational change (Jones, Aguirre & Calderone, 2004). Even the slightest form of miscommunication can bring about misunderstandings and negative reactions following announcements of change management and efficiency (Clampitt & Berk, 2015). The literature includes case studies, online source articles and academic reports on the feasibility and impracticality of specific change management. Descriptions of examples of real-life scenarios, including by the author, support sources as to how and why some changes to operational efficiency is necessary (Hornstein, 2008).
Firstly, as aforementioned, most personnel are resistant to change management for the fear of how changes will affect their expected performances in maintaining efficiency. Secondly, the question arises about if personnel are able to maintain efficiency as a result of change management. (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006) illustrate how changes within themselves are met with scepticism, but also on how frequently changes occur over short time intervals, which is a common denominator with most organizations. Some organizations only experience a few major management changes over decades, while many others nowadays are constantly experiencing changes leaving personnel with uncertainties in their future plans (McNamara, 2015). The frequency of change management produces delayed implementation of new procedures and plan execution and either stalls or declines operational efficiency. For example, technical changes implemented by information technology management (ITM), such as a new software program are being introduced to personnel to supposedly ease their work functions. However, understanding and working the new software requires much planned training, personnel meetings, and transitioning from their former work habits and may reduce efficiency because of adjusting to a mandatory learning curve (Turner, 2013). The transition may take months for personnel to become accustomed to new business software. Since most of their current work functions will depend on the proposed software, normally they are uninformed about the incompatibility between software versions. Similarly, changes to abstract working processes may add responsibilities to each of the personnel job descriptions generating stress in the working environment. Incorporating added responsibilities requires management to implicate higher expectations of their personnel. Team leadership management are compelled to lower the values of their teams because management changes create ripple effects throughout the workload.
The aforementioned example illustrates how resistance to change management removes personnel control and anticipates instability, not only with interaction among personnel, but also within individual achievements. Each personnel member feel isolated with added responsibilities and lack the time they once arranged to function in harmony with fellow personnel. Their workloads begin taking precedence over personnel interaction, which is the original intent of arranging workplace teams (Caum, 2013). To add to the problems with change management, (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005) explains how effectively management can communicate changes with a convincing speech, but when the specifics and difficult factors are neglected, most plan executions often fail without the full consultation with all stakeholders. Even the most insignificant details of plan execution may impact other or all stakeholders. Yet (Nickols, 2005) perception of four important factors (duration, integrity, commitment, and effort) similar to Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson may be perceived as early organizational etiquette, but they assist in an effective decision-making process to benefit all stakeholders, although some more than others.
Organizations find implementing change management draws the attention of its competitors bringing about constant and incremental shares in respective industries coupled with significant market shares. Effective marketing change also implicates being an effective leader in the market to remain a few steps ahead of competition (Lowder, 2009). Hence changes within an organization help identify what the organizational initially lacks within its departmental frameworks and work as a conglomerate to override its competitors. Examining management change among each department formulates a slower, but effective process to converge managers of various departments without surprising them with immense and often sudden changes. Hence personnel will respond less with resistance and accept it as a positive change with management. Most change implementations are deemed for the necessity to improve relations and working ethics, although productivity and flexibility are factored into the process. The result is a streamlined process where services are regarded as being optimized during the planning stage, but may be in favor of personnel. Perhaps in theory, the change management observes the streamlining process as effective and flexible, but personnel once again discover both sides of the spectrum are targeting their expectations (management and public service). Meeting either scenario of expectations finds personnel in a bind of certain doom to either party (Weiner, 2009) due to change management.
In order to implement the most effective organizational management changes, all factors and strategies are worth analyzing to alleviate any resistance to change. As resistance is observed as mostly a negative response, it may be relieved as a positive response to support change management. In the least resistance is an opportunity for personnel to present ideas toward effective management change, which in turn would encourage a positive working environment. But because changes serve different purposes depending on the organization, they are misunderstood as being imposing on organizational process deemed to be already effective (Kuppler, 2013). A blind implement change and mere personnel meeting interaction would not suffice in understand how the actual implementation would operate. What requires a welcoming change is the explanation of diverse roles of each individual change and update to reduce critical reception so as to observe ethical and technical changes of all department and managerial levels (Cabrey & Haughey, 2014).
Agents of change management need to recognize the quality and effectiveness of change besides reducing costs or observing changes a budgeting issue. If excessive changes only focus on budgeting such as reengineering, the organization will suffer quality productivity and ethics (Burrows, 2015). Unfortunately many organizations seek cost budgeting instead of quality productivity resulting in poor management decisions and higher expectations because of limited resources organizations may offer. One expedient tool not normally shared is operational management within each department. Organizational management cannot only measure productivity, but the timing and deadline targeting to meet specific goals of an organization. Operational management may prove difficult among departments within organizations because they do not often interact with one another. Other departments because of being accustomed to daily and regular functions may not favour an effective change of operations with a single department regardless of productivity. Personnel within departments are not efficiently trained to follow the specifics of operations management.
The alternative option would be to outsource personnel to familiarize themselves with operations management. In other words a specialist is required to partake in an exceptional role to assist current personnel (Lavit, Chan & Babin, 2011/2012). Specialists managed by HR or branch managers are tasked with innovating adjustments to organizational change. In times of need, management requires negligence of cost reduction to employ specialists to assist personnel and external stakeholders in understanding new managerial procedures and processes normally where department personnel cannot partake due to lack of skills and obstruction of time constraints. Having a specialist recognized by management as an essential tool for organizations has positive outcomes that increase resources to external stakeholders by providing effective communication best implemented by specialists (Clampitt & Berk, 2015). For example, management in building construction associations notices many inquiries regarding significant changes to building code by-laws that would immensely affect future permit applications for construction and renovations. One of the most prominent changes is energy requirements for new buildings or buildings undergoing extensive renovations, which will have heavy impacts on the energy upgrading requirements (lighting, exterior windows, heating/ventilation, personnel, etc.). Management foresees the implications the by-law changed will affect its personnel, and must outsource its resources to an external party to remain with internal personnel for a specific period and perhaps permanently. Hence, this implies change management integrates changes to work functionality and resource alterations besides personnel and departmental changes (Cupet, V. & et al, 2014). Organizational specialists may be regarded as an integral part of management as well to introduce occupational responsibilities.
In the final analysis, effective change management depends on the nature, functionality and personnel of the organization. Only by separating the theory and illustrating the practicality of changes to be implemented will personnel relent on resistance and recognize the positive results. The results will in fact vary with each department, but in the least if a plan in managerial changes are shared and discussed, personnel are more than willing to accept changes. However both advantages and disadvantages need to be evaluated to summarize the most effective changes to reduce or accept resistance. In other words, resistance by gregarious and multiple voices may alter the directions of changes in order for them to be effective.
2.1 Effective Change Management
For any large organization, company or association, especially nowadays, many changes occur as if corporate change has become the norm of all businesses and industries (Vaughn, 2012). The most prominent factors acting upon corporate changes are generally internal and external. In a traditional sense, many external factors cannot be controlled by management unless it is has been granted control. However, lacking external control depending on the organization can be somewhat a fallacy. For example, an engineering or architectural association plans to implement change management upon its members stating how the practices of their profession will change. The changes may affect each individual engineering and architectural member, but not necessarily affect their firms, at least not on a macro scale. However, the change management in practices may alter how they institute their practice policies throughout their firms. Additionally external factors may only minimally impact firms as far as practice policy is concerned (Tefler, 2012). Professional teams being familiar with one another’s terms and policies may not observe significant management change, but may notice externally how the industry has changed.
The purpose of change management is not only to redefine but reiterate where the changes take place and they were meant to create ripple effects throughout organizations. Policy management may have been officially implemented but has become stale due to specific management practices. Particular agents of change may continue to implement and encourage strategy as long as they hold their current positions to oversee change. However, once their positions have been terminated, or they have been transferred, implementation may discontinue. When change implementation becomes lost, organizational productivity also becomes lost. Management together with HR personnel undertake a systematic approach but usually recognized by conventional personnel employed by their own management. The delivery of communication varies depending on who messages the changes. Personnel are often more comfortable receiving change management tidings from their own departmental managers and experience more comfort because of their familiarity and approachable environment in which they are employed. However, personnel prefer not to receive news of change management from HR because personnel at lower levels of employment generally do not consult or interact with HR staff. Proponents of change do not always necessarily define various procedures of change. At times change management is a necessary action even if risk management is imminent. Hence research for this report indicates different change management is derived in what can be identified and classified as a dominating dynamic environment with forever changing technology and business practices (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). The following examples describe effects of change management for internal and external environments.
2.2 Structural
Large organizations necessitate changes to resume increased productivity to satisfy external stakeholders, so restructuring provides a process-oriented action in which the organization delivers its mission towards public or private service. The external environment frequently influences change management within organizational hierarchies to formulate goal-strategy characteristics and administrative procedures. Changes become classified and redefined structurally by reposting personnel or by altering their roles and responsibilities. New policies may dictate how an organization forwards its mission to its external stakeholders to meet their wants and needs. A physical structural change implemented by management such as relocation of an organization or a branch may have impacts on personnel. Regardless of careful planning, once the time arrives when personnel relocates, the new working environment may lack some of the facilities but need to accustom themselves to accommodate their customers.
Another example of restructuring is reducing the need for excessive personnel. Being a managerial decision, this is where personnel often fear their occupations. Although that may not be the result, personnel feel management is implementation an unnecessary action. What results is the increase in workload between remaining personnel affecting department ethics. Once again reducing personnel is a consequence of budgeting and management fails to foresee the consequences of eliminating essential services upon which external stakeholders seek.
2.3 People-Centered
Change management involving people-centered generally integrates the behaviors and attitudes of personnel. Additionally personnel performance within an organization is essentially the lifeblood of how an organization prospers. Management encourages effective motivation, communication, leadership and interaction among personnel. In some scenarios management purposely arrange specific personnel to function together to provide better harmony among them. Psychologically, personnel of the similar minds and attitudes are enabled to resolve issued regarding common projects. Change management initiates team leadership for personnel to relay advice and resolutions since upper management and authority are not as accessible as a team leader would be. Management focusing on people-centered processes become familiar with each other’s work habits and understand how they contribute to departments and the organization. People-centered processes are generally met with positive reviews as it encourages personnel to interact more comfortably.
2.4 Process-Oriented
Instead of restructuring an organization, management may require changes to specific processes also with a similar intent of restructuring. Management job descriptions may not need to change, but their working habits involving communication and delivery makes a difference. Technology may be one of the most prominent factors affecting process-orientation. But in the final analysis, management is tasked with the choice on what or when new technology will be introduced to enhance productivity. Technology alone being essential to increase productivity may be significant, but understanding technology is what exercises its use. The process of training personnel in a timely manner before technology is launched dictates how effective the technological system will operate. Electronic storage files for vast storage of important information on past projects may require for example, an upgrade to another software system. The new system may be advanced but not meet the expectations of personnel. Management shall examine the implications of new technology by providing training (by specialists) to retain their personnel’s pace.
2.5 Strategy-Oriented
Finally a strategic-oriented process is an essential management change to accustom an organization’s working strategy to meets its own goals and expectations. In order for an organization to adjust to external factors anticipated to affect an organization, adjusting internally is the initial process. Its approach toward problem solving and examining each department and branch deemed to be affected by new strategies in the near future. The organization needs to revisit how it will serve its clients, ensure their expectations are met, and whom they can consult with for resolutions. Strategy-oriented process is also revisited by joint ventures and partnerships, if organizations have any. Contractual agreements may prohibit specific strategies depending on the partnership terms and conditions. However, the relationships between management in various partnerships may need renegotiation if options are provided.
Summary
A natural resistance to change management get invoked in the perception of the ground level staff, as the concerned team or the department might not be able to receive the underlying expectations from the management, behind the implied change. For an instance, a change in productivity evaluation for a particular department needs to elucidate to the field staff via their immediate supervisors, in terms of why the management has adopted the changes and what would be the intended performance benchmark to meet them. The aforementioned literature review states resistance is normally the initial reaction and instinct with the assumption of lacking management skills and communication (Levin, 2012). A set of crucial factors which obstructs effective change management of automation involve 1) the quantity and scale at which the automation is implemented within a specific department or for the entire organization, 2) initial planning over capacity and magnitude of customized training for concerned personnel, 3) management’s expectations regarding the competency levels from the middle management and last level staff, and 4) the time span during which the implemented automation gets well acclimatized into work routines and the expected performances drives in from the focussed levels of implementation. Each of the above factors has to be worked upon to avoid obstacles to automation change management. For example, if organization implements automation at a level covering the entire organization, rather than gradually starting from individual department, the operational management team will be required to devise equivalent efforts at single stroke (and management’s deadline) to adapt with, this may provoke application errors. Similarly, lack of adequate training may be disastrous to assure acceptance and adoption of changed measures. The management expectations should be very well communicated to last level of staff, so that they do not focus over ambiguities of expectation from them and put maximum attention to training. The categories to be examined, for an individual and the organizational basis, as proposed by Telfer (2012) and (Vaughn, 2012) respectively, is to focus where both parties drive their decisions upon which aspect to change. Organizational change management often targets specific departments and question their motives upon changes. (Vincent et al, 2011) links operational strategy with various phases revolving about management, planning and implementation. The above mentioned aspects help us in deriving the factors which affect the effective change management by ascertaining workforce unity and utilization, like clear communication of organization motif and expected roles , behind the change implementation. But many researchers neglect their dependability to further the business model theory to assist the operational puzzle. Some pieces to a successful change can be misinterpreted between the organization and individual because the latter perceives change will draw excessive increments in short intervals. This especially occurs when companies ignore the value system for a sudden dramatic change that individuals find unattainable, yet management expects immediate adaptation (Jones, Aguirre & Calderone, 2004). The current research will be posing a series of questions to the mid level managers and their reporting staff and in this case, the research framework takes input from the surveyed personnel to extend a framework, involving the key factors which affect the operational efficiency, like those of extent and scale of alteration implemented, differences between apparent and required roles, a doubtless communication between the management and lowest level staff regarding what performance is expected from each individual and the department with respect to the change ,and internal force of the time span between change implementation to performance delivery. The response to these questions asked will give us data, which will lead us to evaluate the impact of above mentioned factors that will form a framework to affect the operational efficiency during change management.
References
Burrows, M. Accessed 21 May 2015. Operational Efficiency – It’s Not Just About Cost Cutting. BSM Review.
Available from: <http://www.bsmreview.com/oppseff.shtml>.
Cabrey, S.T. & Haughey, A. Mar 2014. Enabling Organizational Change Through Strategic Initiatives. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession In-Depth Report.
Available from: <http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Publications/Enabling-Change-Through-Strategic-Initiatives.ashx>.
Caum, C. 23 May 2013. Managing Change to Enable Agile Operations. Puppet Labs.
Available from: <https://puppetlabs.com/blog/managing-change-to-enable-agile-operations>.
Clampitt, G.P. & Berk, L.R. Accessed 22 May 2015. Strategically Communicating Organizational Change. University of Kansas UW-Green Bay.
Available from: <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Phillip_Clampitt/publication/242338129_Strategically_communicating_organisational_change/links/552590070cf24b822b40558a.pdf>.
Cupet, V. & et al. Jul 2014. The Dimensions of Change in Requirements Management. Project Management Institute Organization.
Available from: <http://www.pmi.org/learning/Change-Management/dimensions-of-change-in-requirements-management.aspx>.
Hornstein, H. Jan/Feb 2008. Using a Change Management Approach to Implement IT Programs. Ivey Business Journal.
Available from: <http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/using-a-change-management-approach-to-implement-it-programs>.
Jones, J., Aguirre, D. & Calderone, M. 15 Apr 2004. 10 Principles of Change Management - Tools and Techniques to Help Companies Transform Quickly. Strategy + Business.
Available from: <http://www.strategy-business.com/article/rr00006?gko=643d0>.
Kotter, J. & Schlesinger. Jul-Aug 2008. Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review.
Available from: <https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change/ar/1>.
Kuppler, T. 26 Nov 2013. The 9 Clear Steps to Organizational Culture Change. TLNT – The Business of HR.
Available from: <http://www.tlnt.com/2013/11/26/the-9-clear-steps-to-organizational-culture-change>.
Lavit, R., Chan, I. & Babin, R. Core Research 2011/2012. The 3 E’s of Effective Outsourcing Governance. Ted Rogers School of Management – Ryerson University.
Available from: <http://researchdb.core-outsourcing.org/files/tables/research.document.252.pdf>.
Levin, G. 2012. Embrace and Exploit Change as a Program Manager: Guidelines for Success. PMI Global Congress Proceedings.
Available from: <http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Knowledge-Shelf/EmbraceExploitChange_Levin.ashx>.
Lowder, B.M. 27 May 2009. Change Management for Survival: Becoming an Adaptive Leader. Academia.
Available from: <http://www.academia.edu/948780/Change_Management_for_Survival_Becoming_an_Adaptive_Leader>.
McNamara, C. Accessed 22 May 2015. Organizational Change and Development (Managing Change and Change Management). Management Help – Free Management Library.
Available from: <http://managementhelp.org/organizationalchange>.
Nickols, F. 11 May 2010. Four Change Management Strategies. Distance Consulting LLC.
Available from: <http://www.nickols.us/four_strategies.pdf>.
Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. 2006. Perceptions of Organizational Change: A Stress and Coping Perspective. Queensland University of Technology & the University of South Wales.
Available from:
<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Griffin2/publication/6835945_Perceptions_of_organizational_change_a_stress_and_coping_perspective/links/004635175e5622ef2e000000.pdf>.
Sirkin, H., Keenan, P. & Jackson, A. Oct 2005. The Hard Side of Change Management. Harvard Business Review.
Available from: <https://hbr.org/2005/10/the-hard-side-of-change-management>.
Telfer, J. Jan 2012. Performance Management with Individuals and Teams. Leadership Through Experience International.
Available from: < http://www.leadershipthroughexp.com/article.php?id=15>.
Turner, D.M. 11 Jun 2013. The Change Management Paradox. Thing Transition – Turner Change Management Inc.
Available from: <http://www.thinktransition.com/articles/the-paradox-of-change-management-2>.
Vaughn, M. 20 Aug 2012. How to Successfully Implement Organizational Change. Sand Hill Business Strategy.
Available from: <http://sandhill.com/article/how-to-successfully-implement-organizational-change>.
Vincent, M., et.al. 2011. Experience Curves: A Powerful Management Tool to Drive Operational Efficiency and Improved Forecasting. Deloitte & Touche.
Available from: <http://deloitteblog.co.za.www102.cpt1.host-h.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/How-to-drive-operational-efficiency-and-improve-forecasting.pdf>.
Weiner, B.J. 19 Oct 2009. A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change. US National Library of Medicine.
Available from: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770024>.
