Change Process Theories

flip-flop Process Theories A Review Outline Introduction Four types of organisational Change Theories Van de Ven and Poole dialectic Kurt Lewin maturation o Lippitt, Watson, and Wesley o bartlett and Kayser Teleology o Edgar Schein o Prochaska and DiClemente Life Cycle Ichak Adizes Conclusion Introduction An constant quest of caution scholars is to explain how and why faces deepen. The addresses of agitate or sequences of events experience been difficult to define, let alone manage. Researchers have borrowed many concepts from many palm of study, including sociology, biology, and physics.Van de Ven and Poole (1995) proposed four categories of organisational miscellany dialectical, evolution, teleological and keep cycle. dialectic opening is the knowledge of an governing through the conflict, competition, and/or collaboration of congenital or outside(a) interests, wherein the status quo is falsifyd regard little of the overall benefit or detriment to the insti tution. Evolutionary theory views system of rulesal change as the cumulative change brought astir(predicate) through the continuous cycle of variation, selection and incorporation, and retention, caused by competition for scarce resources, environmental change or imposed conditions.Teleology is the meaningful risement of an plaque towards a specify end result or in line with a predetermined collective ideology by means of repetitive sequences of goal definition, implementation, evaluation and modification. Finally, Life Cycle theory is the linear, organic development of an organization from a homogenous, undefined entity to a divers(prenominal)iated, unified entity through accumulated experiences arising from the pressure of external events as mediated by intrinsic logic, rules or programs.Within these four categories, I fork over sextette theories of organisational change to illustrate the underlying concepts within each category. Dialectical Theory Kurt Lewin is bigly regarded as one of the pioneers in the study of change fulfiles. A social scientist, Lewin postulated that humankind sort is based on a relatively stationary counterweight of two groups of exponents. While driving forces further change by pushing in the desired direction, counterforces known as restraining forces immediately sprout to hinder the change.When a significant change in these forces occurs, conduct must also shift to maintain equilibrium. After equilibrium is reached, the young behaviors gradually catch the standard for maintaining the status quo. Lewin described this process in his article, Frontiers in assemblage Dynamics A change toward a high-pitcheder aim of group per pass waterance is frequently short lived afterward a shot in the arm group demeanor in short go downs to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level.Permanency of the parve nu level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. A successful change includes, at that placefore, three aspects unfreezing (if necessary) the personate level, moving to the tonic level, and freezing group brio on the sore level (p 34). The Evolutionary Theories Lippitt, Watson, and Westley expanded on Lewins work by introducing the idea of a relationship between the change agent and the lymph gland or organization to be changed. Lippitt et al. s theory proposes seven phases. The low phase focuses on developing a need for change.A node must not however be aw argon of a knobbed situation, but must believe a better state of personal business is possible, and that the change agent (whether a consultant or method) is relevant and available. material body two is the establishment of a change relationship. As with any human relationship, one of the most delicate insofar absolutely crucial elements in forming the change relationship is the fi rst impression. Often the client system seems to be seeking assurance that the potential change agent is different plenty from the client system to be a real expert and yet enough like it to be horoughly understandable and approachable (Lippitt et al. p 134). physiques three, four, and pentad argon an elaboration on Lewins moving peak, and can be grouped together under the heading moving toward change. These straightforward phases are (3) Clarification or Diagnosis of the clients caper (4) trial run of the Alternative Routes and Goals and Establishing Goals and Intentions of Action, and (5) Transformation of Intentions into Actual Change Efforts. Lippitt et al. return to Lewins Refreezing head with phase six The generalization and stabilization of change.A comminuted federal agent in the stabilization of change is the spread of change to neighboring systems. A change is much more likely to be retained if reinforced by colleagues usage. The final phase, achieving a terminal relationship, focuses on preventing a addiction on the change agent for support and developing a form of client self-reliance for future problem-solving. Lippitt et al. issue a final caution, noting that the seven phases present are not always sequential, and the phases can intersection mention or repeat themselves throughout the change process.Bartlett and Kayser (1973) propose that successful change depends on a reactive redistribution of proponent within the structure of an organization. This power redistribution optimally occurs through a six phase series of stimuli and re natural actions. stimulant 1 Pressure on slip by direction takes the form of both internal pressure (such as union strikes, low productivity, high cost or interdepartmental conflict) and external pressure (such as lower sales, make outowner dis kernel, or a competitors breakthrough. When these pressures offset one an otherwisewise, e. g. high sales contempt employee grumbling, there is little incent ive for top focusing to induce change. However, when internal and external pressures are aligned, answer 1 Arousal to take action senior management seeks a consultant or other symptomatic tool to discover the problem. comment 2 Intervention at the top While long-term managers tend to look for individuals and groups to blame, outsiders tend to see the organizational structure or processes as equally likely culprits.The outsider, presumably hired and respected for his expert ability to improve organizational practices, is in an ideal position to Reaction 2 Reorient top management to internal problems. In order to Stimulus 3 Diagnose problem areas effectively, top management speaks with multiple levels of the organization. This step largely determines the success of the change. pinnacle menagers who only consult their immediate subordainates gather little to no new data.Managers who conduct a comprehensive hierarchy-spanning feedback search not only acquiremore training but have a positive reinforcing effect on the change to come. By consulting all hierarchy levels, managers achieve employee buy-in, drawing employees to believe that not is management itself departing to change, but actual important problems are cosmos acknowledged and ideas from lower levels are being valued by swiftness levels (Bartlett and Kaser, 1973, p. 58). In contrast, manager who take a unilateral approach are making changes based on limited viewpoints with little to no employee buy-in. possibly even worse is the CEO who delegates the change to a subordinate, who potentially has less(prenominal) information, less clout within the organization, and the lingering uncertainty that top management isnt sincere about the change. Reaction 3 Recognition of specific problems embed through the diagnosis process will cause deliberation resulting in the Stimulus 4 Invention of a new solution. Suggestions for solutions can be gathered in phase 3. Barlett and Kayser place particular importance on group collaboration for generating potential solutions.Through this collaboration, there is greater Reaction 4 Commitment to the new courses of action. Stimulus 5 Experimentation with new solutions inevitably produces occasional setbacks and/or outright failure. During this period, the multi-level employee endorsement of change go aways critical as the organization Reaction 5 Reviews the results of the change. While non-effective solutions are thrown out, effective solutions are propagated and expanded. Ideally, the quietly discarded solutions only briefly horrify their advocates, while the retained superior solutions have an infectiously positive effect.Finally, this Stimulus 6 Reinforcement from positive results ushers in a full case Reaction 6 Acceptance of the new practices. Teleological Theories Edgar Schein further defined Lewins three power point theory, proposing that the Unfreezing form can be subdivided into three stairs Disconfirmation, Induction of Guilt or surv ival fretting, and Creation of psychological Safety. Disconfirmation is characterized by the dissatisfaction and/or frustration with the live state of affairs. Survival anxiety occurs when the dissatisfiers are accepted as valid and linked to the nonattainment of goals.The primary restraining force at this stage is learning anxiety having to admit that the current behaviors are wrong and the additional fear that attempting a new process may result in failure and a loss of esteem. The Creation of mental Safety step is the addressing and overcoming of this fear. Schein further subdivided Lewins theory by change integrity the moving process into three phases. The first phase, Cognitive Redefinition is typified by organizational members discovering that the definitions, concepts and other anchors previously relied upon are not absolutes.While the unfreezing stages create pauperism for change, the second phase, termed Imitation and Identification with a Role Model, determines whet her the change is skilful or harmful, depending on the role model chosen. However, if there are no attractive role models, the third phase, Scanning of Alternatives and Trial and Error, comes into play. Occasionally, if there is adapted psychological safety, impulsive insight into a solution may occur.This spontaneous insight is highly valuable because such insights much take into rate both stated and hidden unique obstacles to a change, unlike process consultants who often can only address the stated barriers. With regard to the Refreezing stage, Schein notes that the new behaviors must be at least somewhat compatible with the stay behaviors or the cycle of disconfirmation may restart, potentially reversing the progress made, or devolving into an unfailing cycle of new behaviors. Prochaska et al (1992) developed a change behavior model for the health care field which has gradually been extended to other disciplines.Much like Lewins model, their model defines the general proce ss of change. Unlike Lewin, Prochaska et al. present their five stages of behavioral change as cyclical in temper or else than as a simple progression. Please see look-alike 1. Precontemplation (PC) is the stage at which there is no intention to change behavior in the near future. Typically, an external force such as a lawsuit or technological advancement occurs to push an organization into the adjoining stage. Contemplation (C) is the stage where the problem or undesirable behavior is recognized, and somber consideration is given to change the behavior.This stage is characterized by the weighing of current opportunity costs once morest the actual costs of modifying the problem. Preparation (PP) is a stage that combines intention and initial attempts to change behaviors. The organization intends a full revolution of the indicated problem behaviors in the very near future. The cessation of undesirable behaviors and treat of the new behaviors marks the advent of the Action (A) stage. The Maintenance (M) stage is often, and incorrectly, viewed as a static stage. In truth, this stage is the continuation and reinforcement of the new behaviors.This stage aims particularly pertinent when the initial attitude of new and improved begins vesture thin and organizational members consciously or subconsciously attempt to return to the old and trusted methods. This backslide can continue (precontemplation) until the problem is once again addressed (contemplation). Life Cycle Theory In his 1998 book, Adizes presents one of the clearest descriptions and in depth refinements of Life Cycle organizational development models to date. Based on ten sequential stages of development, he addresses the attitudes, issues, and threats at each stage of life.These life stages are categorized into the growing phase, second birth and coming of age, and aging organizations. Please see figure 2 for reference. (In the interest of brevity, a some potential alternative stages have been omitted. ) The Growing Phase begins with the courtship stage where the organization is only an idea in the founders mind. At this clip, the founder is building inspirational momentum revving his courage so that when the time comes to make the decision to take the risk, he has the internal commitment to endure the external doubts and hardships.During the courtship stage, this commitment determines whether the idea will result in a healthy organizational child or if it is merely an affair, a momentary infatuation with entrepreneurship. Once the risk has been undertaken, the nature of the organization mutates drastically. At this Infancy stage of the organization, there is an overriding emphasis on doing rather than thinking thinking of new products may be useful in the future, but sale of current products ensures a future will exist.The organization is incredibly personal, with little hierarchy. Formal procedures are non-existent except for those imposed by outside forces, i. e. la ws and government regulation. Like an sister, the organization requires periodic infusion of milk (cash) and the constant tending of its creator. The period of infancy is necessarily short. The energy level required plateaus as brand loyalty builds, suppliers stabilize, and the production problems are no longer a daily crisis the baby begins sleeping through the night.The infant organization moves into the Go-Go stage. With the idea working, ends meeting, and sales flourishing the founder and the organization become arrogant. The struggle to survive fades to the back of the mind and every opportunity becomes a priority after all, if one dream came true, why not other dreams as well? The toddler shoves every opportunity into its mouth, without regard for nutritionary value. Whereas in the infancy stage there was no hierarchy, the Go-Go stage begins development of a structure.At the beginning of the stage, the responsibilities are shared and many tasks overlap the organization is or ganized around the people not the tasks. The CEO risks travel into the Founders Trap failing to realize the organization has moved beyond a one-man show, that decentralization and delegation have become imperative. The signs of imminent crisis, the arrogance, undisciplined growth, lack of structure and centralized decision making, are obfuscated by gallant sales, overconfidence from success, and the residual stubbornness of an entrepreneur fighting for his dream.When the crisis hits, the participation falters and a second birth occurs. The Second Birth and Coming of Age Phase begins with Adolescence an awkward period that is more painful and prolonged than infancy. Like a teenager trying to establish independence from his family, the adolescent organizations characteristic behaviors include conflict and inconsistency. In delegating, the founder must content himself with offering advice instead of taking control he must cede his organizational child to make mistakes in order to learn from them.Gradually, the organization establishes its sovereignty, with the occasional clash with old management. This can precipitate a divorce, especially if the founder decides that the organizations goals have become incompatible with his own. The adolescent organization experiences a shift from merely generating more sales, to generating better sales with less overhead and more profit. When the overall structure of the administration stabilizes and leadership roles become institutionalized, the organization moves to the next stage of development Prime.Prime is the optimum point on the life cycle curve, combining the vision and aggressiveness of a Go-Go with the structure solidified in Adolescence to back it up. This is not to say that a company in its prime has stopped growing, but that growth has become planned and controlled. The challenge of Prime is to continue the momentum, and not become self-complacent and ride the inertial growth from previous stages. If a Prime organization does not refuel this momentum, organizational vitality will level off, and will enter the stage called Stable, the end of growth and the beginning of decline.The Stable stage is first in the Aging Phase in the organizational life cycle. The organization slowly loses flexibility the persistent sense of urgency departs and is replaced with a feeling of security in the relatively stable market share acquired over the years. Several changes slip in the developmental spending calculate grows while the product and market research budgets decline, management training is substituted for management development, and there is a power shift to the finance department from engineering, marketing, or research and development. Despite these changes, there is markedly less conflict in the Stable stage.There are no major transitional events in the Aging phase as there were in the Growing phase. Instead, there is a slow process of deterioration. As the organization draws back from perso nalize attention to each client, it slides into Aristocracy. The organization is often cash rich, leading organizational members to misclassify themselves as in the prime stage. Dont make waves becomes the company motto, and uniformity of thought, dress, and address becomes the norm. While Bob and Mary may be on a first name basis outside of the office, or behind closed doors, during meetings it is inevitably Mr.Smith and Ms. Jones. Another notable intercourse change is that focus is placed on how something was said, rather than what is said. Because of the organizational tabu against pioneering conflict, consultants are brought in to give voice to the deadly trend of expecting external forces to increase market share without the executives having to admit anything. The consultant reports are often read, but ignored until the advent of Early bureaucratism. With revenues and profits plummeting and a high turnover of good people, the Early Bureaucracy witch hunt begins. midland conf lict, back stabbing and paranoia obliterate any remaining customer focus. The organization focuses on who caused a problem rather than on what to do about it. The remaining creative individuals jump ship or are discharged as though they were the source of the problems. The organization has two options remaining Bureaucracy or Death. If a company is subsidized or nationalized, it has attached itself to life support autonomic (administrative) functions are kept moving, but the vital spark from the infancy stage has been extinguished.The organization has become a Bureaucracy its only purpose is to perpetuate its existence. Eventually, through internal decision making or government reallocation of funds, the organization quietly dies. Conclusion As theories develop, they become more specific and therefore more limited in scope. Scholars examining these theories develop a form of tunnel vision, and can become stymied by unexplainable behavior outside their specialty. Van de Ven and Pool es taxonomy of change theory types helps to reacquaint researchers with the wide variety of possibilities.Further research on the meta-analysis of change theories is indicated. References Adizes, Ichak. (1988). Corporate Lifecycles How and wherefore Corporations Grow and Die and What to do About It. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey. Armenakis, Achilles and Bedeian, Arthur. (1999). organizational Change A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s. ledger of Management. 25. 293 315. Bartlett, Alton and Kayser, Thomas. (1973). Changing Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey Lewin, Kurt. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics.Human Relations. 1. 5-41. Prochaska, James, DiClement, Carlo, and Norcross, John. In Search of How People Change Applications to Addicitive Behaviors. American Psychologist. 47. 1102 1114. Romanelli, Elaine. (1991). The Evolution of New Organizational Forms. Annual Review of Sociology. 17. 79-103. Retrieved November 29, 200 6 from JSTOR. http//links. jstor. org/ sici? sici=0360-0572%281991%2917%3C79%3ATEONOF%E2. 0. CO%3B2-M Van de Ven, Andrew. (1995). Explaining organic evolution and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review. 20. 510-540.