|← Multinational Restructuring||Value Congruence in the Work Place →|
Developing a sense of urgency around the need for change is the first step that the organization's management did to introduce change to its work force. In the first week, holding numerous meetings to discuss the strategic position of the organization was the initial step. This makes the members of the work force feel their contribution to change is necessary, hence having their loyalty to the process.
Identification of the core problems with the current system helps to identify the channels that need changing. There was apparent need for the transformation of the organization to fit a modern setting. The needs of the education industry are changing with time. There is the introduction of modern technology that has taken the world's infrastructure to a new level. The generation that is being educated has different social needs as compared to the past ones. Therefore, the means and ways of reaching out are changing. There are new opportunities that need exploitation to make the organization efficient in their work. In addition, the management of the organization together with the parents and other stakeholders created the need for urgency.
The second step in the change module involves the formation of a powerful coalition. The management identified that in order to apply change, there needed to be a leader who would convince people that change was required. A principled leader leads by example as the rest follow as opposed to the ones that force change on the workforce. In two weeks that followed, different departments from different levels of management worked together to achieve the teamwork that continued to build progress on the urgency for change. This influenced the team to work together in the implementing of the changes.
The third step involves creating a vision for change. The stakeholders raised unusually many potential ideas during the brainstorming for ideas. It took a week to collect many ideas from different approaches from different parties with different points of view. A clear vision was determined by agreeing upon the values that are central to change. This was by linking all the concepts to an overall vision that is of importance to every stakeholder. A simplified version of the vision capturing the future expectation of the organization links all the stakeholders.
A strategy to implement and execute the vision was determined. The importance of this is to keep all the stakeholders interested in the change as every one of them works towards accomplishing their part. People make added sense of the directives they are supposed to achieve when they see them for themselves. (Kotter, 1996)
Communication of the vision is the fourth step of the model. Creating a strong message with the vision that will reach out to the workforce is vital. In this organization, addressing the vision for change frequently worked for it since there was need for the stakeholders to get familiar to it. In order to reduce anxiety and concern, demonstration of the vision is in all aspects of operations whether they are minor or major is essential. The use of the vision daily to make decisions and solve problems helps the members to ease into it as opposed to cases of having to force them to adapt.
The fifth step of the model is removing obstacles. In the next three weeks, the workforce got an introduction of the ideologies of the change. Some of the stakeholders might be resistant to change as they approach this level of implementation. They need motivation from their colleagues and the leaders who lead by example and not by issuing commands. Identifying and assisting them to understand and conform to the needs of the change by explaining the vision to them and showing them its benefits to them reduces the rebellion. However, some resist due to fear of the unknown due to changes in the structure at the end of the process. An evaluation of such cases was undertaken in these three weeks, and solutions to the discrepancies that might have occurred were reached.
The organization elected leader whose main role was to deliver the change and ensure that all staff know the benefits promoted in the change. Rewarding and recognition of people putting an effort to make the change happen helped in executing the vision for change by empowering them. He put in a structure and continually monitored it for obstacles and barriers, while fixing them in the process. Leading by example as opposed to leading by issuing orders enabled the leader to reach out to the stakeholders and motivate them.
Step six of the model is the creation of short-term wins. According to Kottler, nothing motivates people more than success. The organization set achievable targets in the change vision and worked towards them. Those who achieved theirs moved on to the next agenda motivated the entire staff to achieve their part. A ripple effect made up of short-term targets led to the implementation of the vision bit by bit. This gave the leader room to analyze potential failures, and to solve them as soon as they occur.
Building on change is the seventh step. Many projects are not successful due to immature declaration of victory. The achievement of short-term goals does not justify the success of the set long-term vision. New goals that provide momentum for growth, that is necessary to keep the concept of change moving. An analysis by the leader ensured that after every win, he learned what was right and what needed more motivation or continuous improvement. This helped in fixing problems along the way and investing in the promising projects.
The last step in the process in the last week was the introduction of the eighth step; the one involving anchoring the changes in the corporate culture. Changes should become core of the organization structure to ensure that they stick. The organization adapted to new values in their day-to-day work. Leaders made significant efforts to ensure that the changes made existed in every aspect of the organization. Ideals in the recruitment and hiring of new staff included the changed system. It is necessary to make public recognition of the key members of the change and the process involved so that the stakeholders can identify with the process.
The leaders in the organization continued to support the change and talk about their progress to make sure the staff embraced it fully. If the leaders do not continue to spread the advantages of the change to the workforce, their motivation reduces and the change becomes in effective. (Laporta, 2003)
The change process had numerous outcomes. The first one was a change in the vision and goals of the organization. An introduction of new short term and long-term goals led to a different vision. This had effects on both the leaders and subordinates, as they got motivated to acquire new goals and objectives that are in line with the modern changing times.
At the end of the whole process, the organization had made an improved team that was more coordinated than the previous team. The activities that they were involved in during the making of the new policies and the implementation resulted in improved teamwork. There was better coordination of work in the different levels and departments of the organization.
There was better communication in the organization, both between the leaders and the subordinates and the staff body. This improved the efficiency of the workforce, as everybody's opinion was necessary hence reducing resistance in the workplace.
There emerged extra leaders after the implementing of the change. Introduction of short-term projects that were used to motivate the adaptation of the process evolved to improved projects. There was evident growth in individuals as well as teams that worked together for the cause.
Different aspects inhibited the decision to change. Among the internal aspects was the change in the structure and management of the board of governors. The new chairperson for the board had a better and more ambitious vision than the ones in the past. This had an adverse effect to the administration of the organization causing a change in the management structure. With the support of the parents' body, the management and the staff leaders who shared the same goals and objectives, the zeal for change was introduced and implemented in due time.
The management structure of the organization needed restructuring so that it can accommodate new additions to the workforce. The rapidly expanding school with more students and staff members than in the past, required a stronger management body that can cater for the expansion effectively.
The dynamic education environment was one of the external factors that inhibited change. The world is changing at a high speed, and so is the education sector. People are adapting to new lifestyles, new rules and laws, new languages due to globalization, new technology, and communication skills. The education sector must keep redefining itself to be able to accommodate all these changes. The management must adapt to the latest technology that helps them to attend to the increased numbers of students without compromising the standard of the services offered. It also made their workload to be easier.
Competition from similar organization triggers change. In order for the organization to keep up with the rest in the industry, there was a change of redundant processes and adaptation of new ones. This enabled them to attract more students whose interest is services that are at par with the time.
The organization is required to keep changing to meet the expectations of the stakeholders. They expect a well organized and efficiently managed organization with a vision to expand and offer the best services. They tend to leave and join the ones that offer what they want if their expectations are not met. Therefore, the organization keeps re inventing itself so that it can retain the stakeholders and keep them satisfied.
Every change process has the people that are in charge of introducing the rest in the process. These are the change agents. In this organization, every sector had its agent. In the management sector, the chairperson of the board of governors took the leading role of introducing the change. He motivated the management via the departmental leaders who helped in the implementation, by asking them their opinions on the process and involving them in the progress. He was also the best example as he put the improvements of the process in every aspect of his work, and this motivated the rest to follow.
The different stakeholders at different levels also contributed to the change. The concept of involving the staff members by putting them in charge of projects in the process led to the emergence of a workforce that ready to take part in the implementation. The staff members did their part to influence the students, who influenced the parents and the process was complete. The elected leader who was in charge of the introduction, monitoring and implementation of the process was the most influential agent to the change.
The outcome would have been different if the company had used a different model to implement the change. According to a Kurt Lewin there are three phases of change. (Gary Dessler, 2007)The model; known as the 'unfreeze- change- refreeze model', involves a static change from one condition to another via a progression. The first stage is unfreezing; the state that the organization has been operating in that is no longer viable for progress. The second is the transition process, which involves adding better processes and systems to the previous condition to make it better. The final step of the model is refreezing; which involves changing all variables to fit the improved model.
If the organization adapted this model, it would have started by creating the right conditions for change to occur. This involves understanding why the change must take place and how to implement with minimal losses and less rebellion. Abrupt introduction of change without a proper introduction or justification of the cause results to resistance. In Kotter's model, the first step is talking about change and involving the stakeholders in the process, as opposed to Lewin assuming that changing the conditions will automatically change the conditions is not accurate.
The difference in reaction from this model would have resulted due to resistance from the workforce because they were not involved in the introduction of the process. The model begins by adding new concepts to the already existing ones to monitor the changes that occur. This would cause discomfort to the stakeholders who feel that their system is working at a reasonable pace and might not want to change. The introduction of urgency to change by Kotter works better as it gives the individual the time to come to terms with the change.
The second step of Lewin's model involves the transition process. In this step, the stakeholders begin to resolve their uncertainty and do things in a new way. The disadvantage in this is that the resolutions that they make may not be at par with the requirements for the change. In kotters model, clear goals and obligations were set, and every individual got advice to work towards them. There would be a difference in the outcome because in this model, no clear goals are set and this would result in the management having different goals from the staff members or the parent body. The model assumes that everybody will fall in line, and that does not work. Others may take a long time to adapt and realize the need for change, and this result to the organization having no teamwork.
In the model, the third step is refreezing. When changes are taking place, people embrace new ways of working and refreeze. This involves making use of the changes all the time, and replacing old systems and processes with the new. In the model that the organization adapted, the change process was a systematic system spread across seven weeks. This model makes the transition in one-step. The difference in implementing causes different reactions due to the different period allocated. Kotter allows the idea to become familiar to all the stakeholders. This gives them time to accept it hence resulting to no or minimal resistance.
The leaders that emerged after the process would not be there since each would have adapted to change at their own pace. There would have nave been problems in harmonizing the system as some members work at a comfort zone where they do not feel the need to change. If the organization had taken the Lewin's model, there would have been rebellion against change because they lack a proper introduction. Other people may feel that initiating change or participating in the process is for the benefit of others and pay no attention to it.
Every step in the change model was essential as they created a working process. The first step was the communication of the vision to change. The essence of this step was to ensure that all the stakeholders were together in the process. Communication keeps all the parties involved from the beginning to the end. It is essential for the communication to be two ways, because it opens up the process, and dealing with problems as soon as they arise becomes easy because all the stakeholders have an open communication system. (Stanley Deetz, 2000)The effective communication by the different stakeholders gave them a channel to air their opinions, hence helping in the building of strong goals and objectives that accommodated everybody.
The holding of multiple forums was another essential change factor. Ensuring that people got updates of progress at the completion of target projects was crucial as it kept them motivated all thru the process. They offered a forum for discussions on improvement and progress. Those who were persistent to the change got motivation from attendance of the forums.
Repetition of the vision and goals from the agents of change to the people ensured that they were on track all through the process. This was essential as it makes the change get acceptance by reducing the mystery of it all. Ideas sink in deeper when they repeatedly talked about, and they become part of the required routine.
Choosing the leader to introduce and implement the change was essential. Behavior from influential people motivates the rest to emulate them. A leader who leads by example gets effective results with minimal resistance since he has gained their trust. It was also noteworthy that he motivated those who felt that they were not ready for the change.
The addressing and explanation of inconsistencies was essential. While undergoing the change process, the simplest barrier to the next step can discourage the stakeholders and cause resistant if not explained well. When it is improved being discussed, it becomes a stepping-stone to higher ground.
Giving the people time to adapt to change is crucial as it allows them to understand why the change is for their benefit, this is essential as it reduces rebellion and loss of interest in the change. Its essence is to allow people to explore how the change favors them, adapt to it and get ready to move on the next transition. Change is not a destination it is a process.