What Steps Are Used To Plan And Implement Change Within The Organization?

Introduction

Workers in organizations are oftentimes faced with the problem of introducing change to procedures that may impact the status quo. Some elementary changes effect in strong resistance, causing additional problems for direction. Other changes are usually accepted as worthwhile improvements. The purpose of this paper is to define why some changes are resisted, while others are accepted, and to draw how managers can use procedures that may result in a essentially higher rate of credence of proposed changes. This will include a model for analyzing ways to ameliorate the methods and for introducing change in a given situation.

Although the modify can exist of any type, this article will focus on changes in administrative systems. Examples of administrative changes would include the installation of a formal system of assay of uppercase investments, using the discounted cash flow technique for computing the return on investment; or the introduction of a system of development project planning and control based on the critical path method of network diagramming (CPM/PERT). Both types of new administrative systems would require changes in the way some of the system's personnel carry out their daily work.

The history of the introduction of administrative systems changes is replete with failures. Some new systems were never implemented, while others had modest initial success merely and so died out over time. For instance, a study by Davis [3] indicated that but 55% of the major structure firms in the USA were effectively using CPM. A study of corporate models in direction science indicated that just 3% had been implemented [12]. Each reader, I am sure, can think of several examples of systems that have been adult and not fully implemented.

Is at that place some way that we tin can explain why and then many proposed changes failed, and can we find procedures and processes for managing change that will avoid those reasons for failure and result in a higher rate of success? Equally the pace of change in the earth accelerates, this becomes a key outcome for the director struggling to assist his organization suit to an increasing rate of change in his surroundings.

Some modify is readily accepted and quickly implemented. For instance, inside a relatively few years after commercial introduction, a high percent of U.Due south. homes had tv set. The xerographic copy machine quickly changed several aspects of American business.

On the other mitt, there are many examples of seemingly valuable changes which have achieved only grudging credence later on a long period of time. In the surface area of project management, this would include the use of CPM and the development of integrated price and performance measurement systems.

Why are some changes readily accepted while other changes are resisted? How can we anticipate problems in introducing change? How tin we manage a modify state of affairs to handle anticipated problems? How tin tools and concepts from the behavioral sciences help managers implement modify more than successfully? These are the questions this article will attempt to respond.

Individual's Cost/Benefit Tradeoff on Modify

When faced with a proposed change, an individual weighs the potential rewards versus the potential punishments. Lorsch says, "The way persons respond to an try to change their behavior seems to depend on an implicit cost/benefit analysis which they brand of the modify" [seven], Similarly, Harvey has stated, "…I suggest that we forget the concept of resistance to change and search instead for those weather in an organization which make change rewarding or punishing" [5].

This tradeoff between rewards and punishments determines the individual reaction to change: credence if the rewards outweigh the punishments or resistance if the punishments seem greater than the rewards. I volition use this concept to build a simple model to analyze any modify procedure. Since the individual'due south cost/do good tradeoff depends on his perceptions of the potential rewards and punishments, we will also have to look at the factors of communication, perception, and personality which influence that tradeoff.

In this analysis of factors affecting the cost/benefit tradeoff, one will use a diversity of theories and concepts in the behavioral sciences to demonstrate their value to managers.

Analyzing Rewards and Punishments

In whatever change situation we need to know how the individual perceives the situation. His reaction can only be based on his perceptions of the potential rewards and punishments; consequently, the manager analyzing the proposed change must attempt to anticipate the employee'south potential perceptions of the rewards and punishments.

The existing situation, or status quo, has both rewards and punishments for individuals every bit does the proposed new or change state of affairs. The net effect towards or against change volition be a net sum of all iv of these factors, rewards and punishments of status quo and the modify.

Figure 1 is a course or checklist to be used to analyze the relative degree of motivational strength towards alter or towards the status quo. The existing state of affairs or condition quo is on the left side of the form and the proposed situation or change is on the right side. There is a space to define each of these situations at the top of the grade.

The managing director or analyst or individual lists the perceived rewards and punishments of both maintaining the status quo and instituting the change in the appropriate location on the form. The rewards of change plus the punishments of the status quo equal the motivational force toward the change. This force toward alter must be balanced against the forces for preserving the status quo. These are the rewards of the status quo and the punishments resulting from the change. In each of these cases we must use perceived rewards and punishments from the indicate of view of the private.

A subjective weighting system from ane to ten could exist used for each reward and punishment. The total toward modify could exist added up and compared with the total toward the status quo to achieve an indication of the internet relative forces toward either alter or the status quo.

Managing Change

The utilise of the unproblematic model in Effigy ane helps us to analyze the relative ease or difficulty that volition be encountered in introducing a specific modify. The key to managing modify is to apply the rewards and punishments analysis in Figure ane to develop a strategy for easing the issues of implementation. The strategy is to increase the forces toward change (rewards of alter and punishments in status quo) and to subtract the forcefulness maintaining the status quo (punishments of alter and rewards of status quo). In this way nosotros increase the motivational force towards change.

To illustrate this model, let us consider the case of a director who wants to implement more than formal project planning using CPM/PERT (critical path methods). He will start think through the rewards and punishments every bit perceived past his organization. From Figure 2 nosotros tin see that the motivational forces toward the status quo seem much stronger than toward change. The manager needs to increase the motivational forces towards change by increasing the punishments in the status quo and the rewards of change and reducing the punishments of change and the rewards of the status quo.

One of the potential punishments of the alter to CPM is the worry that formal plans on newspaper volition be used to "catch" the staff in delays and mistakes. This might be avoided by telling the staff that the plans are for their use and copies will non be sent to headquarters. Some of the rewards of modify revolve around the satisfaction of having washed a better job of planning. 1 strategy of implementation would be to involve the staff in a CPM grooming program so they volition offset to see the benefits of more formalized planning.

Analyzing Motivation Towards Change

Figure i
Analyzing Motivation Towards Change

Advantages of Rewards over Punishments

To manage alter, I accept indicated the strategy of increasing the motivational forces toward change and reducing the motivational forces maintaining the status quo. Since there are rewards and punishments in both directions, managers have the option of using either or both. Although in some situations punishments may have to be used, generally, information technology is improve to concentrate on rewards.

Punishments can be effective but carry with them a number of dysfunctional side furnishings. Psychological tension manifested equally fear or feet may result from penalisation. "Penalty may lead to avoidance and dislike of the punishing agent" [viii], Penalization may also generate counter aggression. Almost chiefly, punishment only changes beliefs when the threat of punishment is perceived to exist and only for the specific beliefs punished. In the case of new administrative systems, this can pb to the familiar situation where staff maintains the quondam forbidden organisation on a hidden or "under the tabular array" ground. As long as the dominate does not know about it they will not be punished.

Rewards, notwithstanding, will increase the probability of the change in behavior standing to occur.

Other Factors

The private's perceptions of the rewards and punishments of a proposed alter will be afflicted by factors of communications, perception and personality. Attractive potential rewards may not be noticed, or potential rewards might be perceived every bit punishments. A number of factors will influence communication and perception.

Communications

One of the key issues in managing change is reliable communication of the change to those involved. A host of psychological factors can affect the private's perception of communications. For example, the level of existing trust will affect the willingness to take and believe. People are selective listeners and tend to hear what they want to hear. The groundwork factors in the situation are extremely important in determining how the annunciation of modify will exist received. A variety of behavioral scientific discipline tools are available to manage communication finer.

Perception

The expectancy of rewards and punishments will be influenced by the perceptions of the individual as to what the change is well-nigh and what the consequences of the change volition be for the individual. The individual will operate on the basis of his perceptions even though they may exist erroneous or colored past a variety of factors, such as poor communication or internal psychological mechanisms.

Communication of Change as an Ego Threat

The first penalisation experienced by an individual facing alter is often due to the way the proposed change is communicated. The mode of communicating the message may be ego threatening and contain an inadvertant, covert bulletin that threatens the individual'southward cocky concept. For example, being sent to a training programme gives a message that you need training; therefore, something is wrong.

The resistance to the punishment in the message of change is an try past the individual to protect his self concept. When our self concept is threatened, nosotros react with feet, fear, avoidance, changes in perception, and hostility — all forms of resistance to change.

The solution is non easy for management. We must think how the change will be perceived by the private and endeavor to communicate in a rewarding rather than a punishing style. For example, we can telephone call a training seminar and invite skilled persons to contribute. This is an ego-satisfying message. Another manner is to set up processes so that individuals define and solve their own problems rather than having superiors dictate plans.

Personality

For any private, the relative rest betwixt advantage and punishment volition depend profoundly on the in dividual's personality contour. For case, Rotter [ten] has developed a measure of the degree to which people believe in internal versus external control. A person who is loftier on internal control believes that he can influence what happens to him and what outcomes he obtains. A person who is loftier on external command believes that fate and forces beyond his control influence what happens to him and what outcomes he receives. Rotter suggests that consistent individual differences announced on this dimension such that some people consistently feel they can influence what happens to them (internals), while others consistently tend to believe that things are beyond their control (externals) [4] [10]

Figure ii
Analyzing Motivation Towards Alter

Analyzing Motivation Towards Change

An "internalizer" would tend to take more than confidence in his ability to deal with change, while an "externalizer" might tend to view change as another punishment imposed upon him by outside forces. A manager could vary his approach to managing change based on diverse personality differences, such every bit those characterized past internals and externals. In that location are effective instruments for measuring the internal/external dimension as well every bit tests for many other personality factors.

Fear of Failure

Nosotros have seen that i of the potential punishments that causes people to resist change is the fear of failure. The private must protect his self concept and 1 way to do that is to avert situations that might lead to failure — a natural inclination to avoid punishment.

The managing director tin handle this potential problem by conscientious caption, past participation in the planning to reduce uncertainty, and past training and practice. It is also important in a change project to program for early on success. Everyone will be uncertain at the start of the project and information technology can exist very reassuring to attain an early on goal on schedule. In learning this is called psychological success, and information technology confirms the person's self concept and makes him feel practiced.

Loss of Freedom

Another psychological theory relevant to managing change is Brehm'due south Theory of Psychological Reactants [1]. Brehm feels that a person who perceives a loss of freedom will have a psychological demand to redress that loss of freedom. A change, such equally the installation of CPM planning or computer reporting which tends to centralize data and decisions in an organization, would probably be seen as a loss of freedom and a punishment of alter. The effort to redress that liberty would be seen as resistance to alter. To handle this problem, direction needs to show the individual that information technology is not a loss of liberty and, in fact, so design the new system that it volition not be a loss of freedom, or else build in rewards to counter this punishment.

Truthful Participation or Manipulation

In many cases, it may very well turn out that from the individual's point of view the change will exist perceived as resulting in more than punishments than rewards. And, information technology may also be that these perceptions represent the existent situation — the change is for the organisation'due south benefit, non for the individual's benefit. Hence, better advice will not improve the perception of rewards merely, in fact, will brand the punishments more evident.

The managing director must brand a decision at this point whether to choose a policy of participation or ability. If participation is chosen, then the manager must exist ready to accommodate his change to increase the rewards and subtract the punishments. Otherwise, he will be seen as manipulative and the situation will be worse.

If the state of affairs just does not allow adaption for the individual's needs, then the manager may be better off with a power strategy from the beginning. In this example, you explain your reasons merely you also motion quickly and with overwhelming power. Once more we see that the analysis of rewards and punishments gives u.s. a base of operations to build an implementation strategy.

Other Approaches

It appears that virtually bug of credence or resistance to change can be handled under this belittling concept of a merchandise-off of rewards and punishments. The concepts used in previous papers on this discipline tin be incorporated into this assay. Paulson used Maslow'due south concept of the Hierarchy of Needs [9], A need is an internal state that determines if the individual will come across the change every bit a reward or punishment. For instance, the threat to the condom need from fear of a computer replacing a worker would exist a perceived penalization. The Maslow bureaucracy could be a useful way of searching for and categorizing the rewards and punishments.

Wilemon et al. [xiii] used Lewin's Force Field Analysis to analyze the forces driving toward success versus the restraining forces. A like analysis has been extensively used in the past to clarify change. It is like to the rewards and punishments assay recommended in this paper.

Figure 3
The Effect of Participation on Perceptions

The Effect of Participation on Perceptions

Participation

E'er since the well known Coch and French [two] experiment at the Harwood Manufacturing Company, behavioral scientists have been recommending participation every bit a strategy for successful implementation of change. But how and why does participation work? By using our assay of rewards and punishments, we tin encounter why participation is constructive in some situations.

Effigy 3 lists the effects of participation in increasing rewards and decreasing punishments. Participation works in the following basic ways:

1. Increased information increases noesis of potential rewards and punishments and decreases fear of unknown punishments. It may also increase knowledge of potential punishments.

2. The increased involvement and control reduces fear of arbitrary punishments inflicted by management.

3. Being asked for a contribution enhances the self concept.

4. The feelings of buying lead to intrinsic rewards of satisfaction of accomplishment.

A participative approach changes the situation from one of potential extrinsic penalty to one of intrinsic advantage.

Rules for Managing Change

If the secret of modify is an private's weighing of expected rewards and punishments and then the lesson for managers is simple: Increment the rewards and reduce the punishments! The following points seem important while implementing that rule:

i. Know how the individual volition perceive the rewards and punishments. In other words, await at the trouble from the other person's signal of view.

ii. The manager must ensure that the organization is interim on good information when each private weighs rewards and punishments.

3. The managing director tin can come across what the prospects for the change are and can programme a program to increment the probability of success by setting upwardly an assay of rewards and punishments in the class of Figure one.

four. This is a procedure of irresolute the situation to increase the expectation of rewards or decrease the punishments by a sufficient margin to ensure a smooth change performance.

5. One way to increase the rewards substantially appears to be to apply a participative approach to analyzing, planning and implementing the change. Participation increases the potential intrinsic rewards and results in ownership and delivery.

half-dozen. True participation means the manager must exist ready to modify the nature of his project if the arrangement feels the punishments of change cannot be accepted.

References

one. Brehm, J.W. Responses to Loss of Freedom, A Theory of Psychological Reactants. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1972.

2. Coch, L. & French, J.R.P. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Human Relations, 1948, ane, 512-532.

3. Davis, E. CPM Utilize in Top 400 Construction Firms. Periodical of the Construction Division, American Society of Ceremonious Engineers, 1974.

4. de Charms, R. Personal Causation. Reading, Mass.: Addision-Wesley, 1968.

5. Harvey, J.B. Information technology'due south non my dog. OD Practitioner, 1975, vii.

half dozen. Lawler 111, East.E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1973.

vii. Lorsch, J.West. Managing Change. ICCH Example No. 9-474-187, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1974.

8. Nord, Due west.R. (ed.) Concepts and Controversy in Organizational Behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1976.

nine. Paulson, B.C. Homo Implementation of Computer Based Projection Direction. 1976 Proceedings, Drexel Hill, PA: Project Management Institute.

10. Rotter, J.B. Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs External Control of Reinforcement, Psychological Monographs 80 (1, Whole No. 609) 1966.

11. Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Visitor, 1975.

12. Urban, M.L. Building Models for Decision Makers. Interfaces, 1974, four, ane-11.

13. Wilemon, David L. et al. Managing Change in Projection Management in Realities in Project Management, 1977 Proceedings, Project Direction Plant, Chicago, Illinois.

¹This article was previously published in the 1978 Proceedings of the Project Management Institute, tenth Annual Seminar/Symposium, Los Angeles, California.

This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to reproduce this fabric, please contact PMI.