Influencing Change in Organizations
The First Commandment of Influencing Changes
Always remain flexible and adapt to environmental influences: Change is the only constant in organizations, so you should always adapt to new processes and new methods. Failure in adapting to different situations does not result in positive long-term outcomes for both individuals and organizations.
Burke (1992) states that any organizational change, especially changes that are related to business strategies, are mainly responses to external factors because environmental impacts shape the aims and services a business can offer its clients. For example, the proposed model has eight main dimensions, and the external environment directly impacts the mission, business strategy, leadership, and culture dimensions of the model. Those dimensions further impact the structure, practices, and performance of an organization. All dimensions affect one another, so it is possible to observe various relationships within the model.
Burke (1992) proposed an organizational model based on the open-systems theory, so it supports the causal nature of environmental influences. The theory is supported by findings from various studies that observed the impact of environmental circumstances on organizational performance and productivity (as cited in Burke, 1992). Furthermore practical case studies showed that the external environment defined the corporate culture directly, so it is possible to suggest that adapting to external influences by implementing required changed in organizations is the only method to preserve an organization. For example, when the British Airways became a customer-focused business, the change of their external environment determined the change in their mission statement, business strategies, and culture (Burke, 1992). If they had resisted those changes, they would not have remained functional as an organization in a different environment.
The Second Commandment of Influencing Changes
Balance short-term and long-term strategies: An organization should distinguish between long-term and short-term goals, and the leaders should allocate their resources to meet both short-term and long-term objectives in implementing changes and developing an organization. While Berv (1995) suggests that workers who want to resist changes should focus only on short-term goals, there is no sound security without long-term planning. All vague aims and mission statements are a form of long-term goals that need short-term strategies and goals to allocate the resources of all organizational departments towards one common goal. However, without a common-long term goal, an organization cannot evolve and develop constantly, so the resources will not be spent productively and short-term goals at the expense of long-term goals should be avoided.
Norton and Kaplan (1996) introduced the concept of balanced scorecards because they wanted to create a system that would allow the company to balance its long-term goals with short-term strategies. Because the mission statement is often vague and does not clarify how each department within the organization should function in order to meet the common mission, Norton and Kaplan (1996) proposed balanced scorecards as a method of translating the common mission statement to different aspects of the organization and align short-term goals with the long-term goals. Most importantly, meeting short-term goals related to the long-term goals successfully, gives the change credibility and momentum.
Kotter and Cohen (2002) provide an example of a trucking company that reduced the amount of paperwork required for operations within one month. Previously, the senator who owned a trucking company complained about the 15 forms that had to be filled. Because the company has jobs and customers, filling out unnecessary and repetitive forms consumed too many resources. A team shortly redesigned the forms and replaced the 15 forms with only one form. While that was only one short-term goal that aimed to save resources and increase efficiency, it occurred quickly and produced a positive change people could feel immediately, so they gained support and motivated more people towards producing changes within the organization.
The Third Commandment of Influencing Changes
Always be proactive, suggest improvements, and remain open for discussions: Most importantly, create a sense of urgency for change by influencing personal feelings of the people in the organization. Being proactive is always a positive trait because it allows leaders to identify problems before they occur. However, constant and detailed changes will most likely damage the integrity and morale of the organization and its members, so creating a sense of urgency should always follow any proactive suggestions on improving the organization and its functions.
A common concept for making changes in organizations is that analyzing methods and desired outcomes is something that inspires changes and motivates the members to work towards a common goal. However, rather than intellectual analysis, people are affected by influences that impact their feelings, and they tend to change their behavior and opinions only after successful change leaders create a sense of urgency among the relevant people in the organization (Kotter & Kaplan, 1996). However, some cases suggest that promoting urgency in change is an unnecessary step when influencing a change, so it is up to the change leader to determine whether a step is necessary or not.
For example, in IBM, when Lou Gerstner became the CEO, he told people that IBM did not need a vision until they fixed their urgent matters by focusing on short-term objectives (Kotter & Kaplan, 1996). When a company is already in a crisis, it is not necessary to spend resources on developing a long-term vision because the short-term issues have to be removed before making any long-term goals and visions. In that case, the urgency already exists, so proactive practices and creating a sense of urgency works only when the aim of changes is to optimize processes rather than produce drastic changes.
The Fourth Commandment of Influencing Changes
Workplace interactions are a key determinant for high productivity and morale: A leader should always understand that overworked and overloaded members of the organization require support. If it is a problem, change a leadership style that is more appropriate in a stressful environment to keep productivity and morale high. While Berv (1995) suggests that resisting changes should rely on stimulating morale by implementing the reward and punishment system through various methods, that system is slowly becoming obsolete. Contemporary change leaders require more constructive solutions to improving workplace morale and productivity.
According to Kotter and Cohen (2002) and their eight stages of successful organizational changes, leaders should never demote, threaten, or fire their followers when they resist change. Instead, they can resort to other practices that will enable employees to gain different perspectives on their resistance to a change or alter their leadership styles from transactional to transformational. Although transformational and transactional styles of leadership are often considered opposite forms of leadership, they are also sometimes considered complementary because they can be implemented simultaneously. However, a transformational leadership style is more suitable for implementing changes while preserving productivity, morale, and performance.
Lee Iacocca is an example of a transformational leader who assumed the role of the CEO of Chrysler during the late 1970s (Tichy & Ulrich, 2007). Iacocca was responsible for changing the internal processes, policies, management practices, and various other changes responsible for bringing Chrysler from near bankruptcy to profitability. Tichy and Ulrich (2007) suggest that transformational leadership is a suitable style for implementing changes because it reviews the vision, culture, and establishes short-term goals that work towards the common long-term goal.
The Fifth Commandment of Influencing Changes
Always consider both positive and negative aspects of changes: Neglecting negative aspects often produces only negative outcomes. Observing both risks and benefits is crucial in making beneficial changes because pessimism does not necessarily resist a change. When an organization emphasizes optimistic perspectives while neglecting and suppressing pessimistic perspectives, it fails to think critically, so it cannot make productive and calculated changes.
DeBono (1999) proposes a methodical thinking system for decision-making that relies on six main modes of thinking. Change leaders can assume various perspectives in organizations, but optimistic and pessimistic worldviews should always be complementary, and observing potential benefits and risks should be a part of introducing any change in a business. In some cases, pessimism does not encourage a change, but it prevents leaders from wasting resources and encourages them to make realistic decisions with positive outcomes.
There are several examples where observing a situation pessimistically could have saved resources. For example, Kotter and Cohen (2002) provide an example of a change implementation that failed because the initiative was based on poor assumptions that did not account for pessimism and other negative perspectives on a change in software that should have improved the existing system. Another example was a team designated to build a curriculum for high schools in Israel that wasted eight years for a curriculum that was seldom in use later because they failed to listen to a pessimistic viewpoint (Lovallo & Kahneman,2003).
References
Berv, E. J. (1995). Thinking about resisting change (with tongue tucked firmly in cheek): The ten commandments of resisting change. Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(1), 77.
Burke, W. W. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-545. doi:10.1177/014920639201800306
DeBono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 75-85.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(July), 56-63.
Tichy, N. M., & Ulrich, D. O. (2007). The leadership challenge: A call for the transformational leader. In J. S. Ott, S. J. Parkes, & R. B. Simpson (Eds.), Classical Readings of Organizational Behavior (4th ed.) (pp. 65-73). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Original work published 1984).
