1

An evaluation of change management philosophies and models.

Coster Nkala

Walden University
 2

Advancements in technology, the pace of competition, globalization, the need to control cost and

increase efficiency coupled with increasing customer expectations mean that organizations have

to evolve and regenerate in order to survive. Organisations now need to develop or acquire a set

of attributes (or executes actions) that allow it to perform better than their competitors or to

achieve desired goals.

In their study, Wetzel and Dievernich (2014) found that up to 70% of change initiatives fail.

They note that this poor rate of success seems to be caused by a flawed management of change.

(Wetzel and Dievernich, pp 280, 2014). For organization who are going through change,

Kotter identifies eight step model of change to lead organizations through a successful

change execution.

The first change management model that is identified is John Kotter’s eight step model of

Dr. John Paul Kotter is a leading professional when it comes to change management and a

world-renowned change expert. His eight step change process has been a base for many change

theories. According to Kotter, in his book “Leading change” he indicates that, to make a

prospering change in an organization, there are eight crucial success factors that will lead the

organization through a successful change. (Kotter, 2012).

Firstly, “converting the importance of acting immediately by showing potential threats and

scenarios showing what would happen in the future if the changes would not happen.” (Kotter

2012 p. 37-51). Leaders need to establish a high enough sense of urgency in fellow managers
 3

and employees. The sense of urgency must be created at the beginning of transformation. With

sense of urgency, people will give that extra effort that is important in change success.

Secondly, creating the directional team, a powerful coalition is important. According to Kotter,

convincing people to change needs strong leadership and support from the management. This

means putting together a group that has the ability to lead the change initiative. (Kotter, pp 53-

68, 2012). This collected group of people continues to shape the urgency and the

strength around the need of the change…. No matter how capable or dedicated the staff head,

guiding coalitions without strong line leadership never seem to achieve the power that is

required to overcome what are often massive sources of inertia. (Kotter, pp 55-68, 2012).

Thirdly, Kotter claims that when making a change initiative management needs to go through

ideas and solutions how make the change. By making a vision which is simple and clear to

remember as well as to understand, and making it part of the organization strategy, it will help

the employees to follow the change and be part of it. (Kotter, pp 69-86, 2012). Kotter (2012)

further suggests that vison plays a key role in producing useful change by helping to direct,

align, and inspire actions on the part of large numbers of people.

The fourth step relates to communicating the vision. According to Kotter, a vision is crucial for

the success of the change initiative. The vision has to be clear and frequently communicated as

well as implemented in to the da-to-day work, applying the vision in all operations from training

to performance reviews. (Kotter, pp 87-103, 2012). Graetz and Smith (2010) state that
 4

“implication is that his or her charismatic qualities in communicating the new vision are all it

takes to inspire and win over the masses.”

Fifthly, According to Kotter, an organization needs to abolish all obstacles that would interfere

with the change, change systems or structures. The organization has to identify the people who

are resisting the change and get them the needed tools, methods or support that would make it

easier for them to change, and solving the problems that are caused by the resistance. (Kotter, pp

105, 2012). Gobble seem to agree with the notion that removing obstacles is one other reason for

successful organizational change when he states that, “… the manager faced with designing for

change must rethink all of the elements of the organizational structure and how they interact.” A

structure that is misaligned to strategy, or aligned to an old strategy, will fail. A structure that

doesn’t balance autonomy and control in a way that aligns with the company’s strategy and

values will produce frustration and unhappiness, and likely fail. One way to avoid such

mismatches is to involve every stakeholder—from the front-line clerk. (Gobble, pp 64, 2015).

Sixthly, the leader should create short term wins. According to Kotter (2012), complex efforts to

change strategies or restructure business risk losing momentum when there are no short term

goals to meet and celebrate.

The seventh step is to avoid declaring victory too soon. (Kotter, pp137-152 2012). After going

through the engaging and enabling, the management needs to implement and sustain the change

by building on the change. According to Kotter, even if the early stages can be successful there
 5

will always be resistance, and the team cannot stop working to their main goals. (Kotter, pp .37-

152, 2012).

The last step is to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture. Kotter (2012) states that

change should be made part of the organizational culture. He further points that change stick

when it becomes “the way we do things here.” (Kotter, pp 153-165, 2012).

Gwanda municipality was in crossroads, characterized by an economic crisis of immerse

proportions, rampant and debilitating corruption, unprecedented levels of poverty and

unemployment, the health crisis, bye laws impasse and disrespect of the rule of laws. The need

to proffer solutions that can lead to the municipality out of this social, economic and political

quagmire became an obvious option available. Given the state of the situation, the leaders noted

that it was important to have both short term recovery strategies and long term economic

solutions. The question then became: What has to be done to achieve set targets.

The leaders of the municipality felt that change was unavoidable. There was also a feeling that

restrategizing, downsizing, quality efforts and cultural renewal was necessary. Reforms were

also to target management capacity building, implementation capacity enhancement, skills

competency, incentive altering structures, modernization of operations, and improved labor

productivity. This was the period during which there was political tension. The Municipality

policy making council was won by Movement for Democratic Change, an opposition party in

Zimbabwe. The councilors made sure that policies were influenced by their political beliefs.

That rendered the Municipality to be “viewed as a political system which employ a system of
 6

rules” (Graetz and Smith, 2010). They further explained that when one group with a political

agenda gradually gains power, they challenge the status quo in the hope of shifting the

organization toward their own interests. (Graetz and Smith, 2010) .

Just like any new initiative, the change process was not without challenges. The Town clerk

permitted some obstacles to hinder the change process by allowing some supervisor (aligned to

the ruling party) who refused to adapt to new dispensation. The Head of the Human Resources

blocked the entire change effort by human resources system to remain intact even when they

were clearly inconsistent with the new ideals. His failure to remove this obstacle derailed the

change process. However, implementation of the seven of Kotter’s 8 step model helped the

municipality achieve most of their goals of change.

“Lewin and Volberda (1999), counseled that progress requires combining and recombining

multiple theoretical lenses to improve the integration of theories and avoid increasing

fragmentation.” (Graetz and Smith, 2010). Graetz and Smith (2010) also explains that “

underpinning philosophical assumptions associated with various change interventions not only

help to map the terrain of change options, but also reveal why change is so difficult to introduce

successfully when a single approach is overlaid upon a complex and ambiguous organizational

scenario.” Therefore, no one model can be said to be the best fit. Graetz and Smith (2010)

discusses a number of change management philosophies which include (a) Biological, (b)

Institutional, (c) Rational, (d) Resource, (e) Resource, (f) Contingency, (g) Psychological, (h)

Political , (i) Cultural, (j) Systems, and (k) postmodern. In making comparison of these

philosophies, I find that most of these are interrelated. I also find that most of these points to
 7

Kotter’s 8 step model as a foundation. In this synthesis of the philosophies, I will only pick a

few.

Carnall and Carretal (as cited in Graetz and Smith, 2010) notes that in the rational perspective,

“change occurs simply because senior managers and other change agents deem it necessary. The

process for change is rational and linear, like in evolutionary and life cycle approaches, but with

managers as the pivotal instigators of change.” All the philosophies sees the importance to make

people ready and support them in the upcoming change, before even starting it. The emphasis of

all the models is on leaders and on people as change management agents. By focusing on the

people throughout the planning of the upcoming change, a successful execution of change can

happen.
 8

REFERENCES

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. 1st ed. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press.
Pages 3-153

Gobble, M. M. (2015). Designing for change. Research Technology Management, 58(3), 64-66.
doi:10.5437/08956308X5803005

Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of

change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 135–154.
doi:10.1080/14697011003795602

Wetzel, R., & Dievernich, F. E. P. (2014). Mind the gap. The relevance of postchange periods
for organizational sense making. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(2), 280–300.
doi:10.1002/sres.2198