You are on page 1of 21

Chapter 8

Implementing Change:

Change Management,
Contingency,
& Processual Approaches

Change Management Approach


Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

Focuses

on strategic, intentional
and usually large-scale change
Entails following a variety of
steps; the exact steps vary
depending upon the model used
Belief that achieving
organizational change is possible
through a coordinated and
planned approach
Claims to be appropriate for all
types of change
8-2

Kotters Eight-Step Model


Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

Kotters eight-step model is one of


the best known:
1. Establish the need for urgency
2. Ensure there is a powerful change
group to guide the change
3. Develop a vision
4. Communicate the vision
5. Empower the staff
6. Ensure there are short-term wins
7. Consolidate gains
8. Embed the change in the culture
8-3

Other N-Step Models


Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches

Ten commandements (Kanter, Stein and Jick


1992)
Ten Keys (Pendlebury, Grouard, and Meston
1998)
12 Action Steps (Nadler 1998)
Transformation Trajectory (Taffinfer 1998)
Nine-Phase Change Process Model (Anderson &
Anderson 2001)
Step-by-Step Change Model (Kirkpatrick 2001)
12 Step Framework (Mento, Jones and
Dirndorfer 2002)
RANDs Six Steps (Light 2005)
Integrated Model (Leppitt 2006)

Processual
Approach

8-4

N-Step Model Issues


Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

The sequences of steps


The number of steps
The timing of steps
The resourcing of steps
The involvement in each step
Managing multiple steps
Revisiting different steps
Are all steps needed for

particular changes?
Cyclical or linear

8-5

Change Management vs. OD


Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

There is a debate between


proponents of OD and proponents
of change management:

OD is criticized for giving attention


only to human development, and not
to technology, operations, and
strategy
Change management is criticized for
having a focus on the concerns of
management rather than on those
of the organization as a whole
being the product of management
consultancy firms
8-6

Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

Contingency

approaches challenge the


view that there is one best way
The style of change or the path of
change will vary, depending upon the
circumstances, including:
the scale of the change
the receptivity to change of organizational
members
the style of change management
the time period
the performance of the organization

8-7

Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues

Huys Contingency Approach categorizes


change into 4 ideal types:
1.

2.

Change
Management vs
Organization
Development

3.

Contingency
Approaches

4.

Processual
Approach

The commanding intervention

Short-term and rapid


senior executives
Downsizing, outsourcing, divesting

The engineering intervention

Medium-term and relatively fast


Analysts
Changing work design and operational systems

The teaching intervention

Long-term and gradual


Consultants
Work practices and behaviours

The socializing intervention

Long-term and gradual


Participative experiential learning, self-monitoring
Democratic organizational practices

8-8

Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

Contingency approaches remain less common


than change management approaches.
Suggested reasons include:

Achieving fit may be difficult due to differing


perceptions of the conditions in which the fit is
sought
Contingency approaches require greater analysis
and decisions by managers; the prescriptiveness
of change management models may be attractive
to managers
Contingency approaches focus on leadership style
rather than a specific set of actions
The use of different change styles at different
times may raises questions in the minds of staff
as to the credibility of senior management.
There is a question about what is contingent to
managing change

8-9

Processual Approach
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotters EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

It

sees change as a continuous process


rather than a series of linear events
within a given period of time
It sees the outcome of change as
occurring through a complex interplay
of different interest groups, goals, and
politics.
This approach alerts the change
manager to the range of influences
which they will confront and the way in
which these will lead to only certain
change outcomes being achieved
This approach is often used to provide
a detailed analysis and understanding
of change retrospectively.

8-10

Kotter has worked more any other theorist on the definition of leadership and how it
actually differs from management.
Management is more a set of tools while leadership is an art which can not be
precisely codified.
Comes to a definition of leadership that privileges its dimension of being an agent of
change.
Believes that institutionalizing a leadership culture is the ultimate act of leadership.

John Kotter on Leadership & Management

Norfolk Southern: Case Study


When Katie Frazier first joined Norfolk Southerns Atlanta terminal, she felt it was
running well but still felt more could be done to improve operations. She was also
concerned about safety issues. As she got comfortable in her new job, she was
wracking her brain, struggling with how to help the company take its safety and
operations standards from just good enough to a higher level. One day, while in a
local bookstores business section, she noticed a book with penguins on the cover.
Penguins had always been her favorite animal, but she wondered what such a book
was doing surrounded by books on management! The book, needless to say, was
Our Iceberg Is Melting. Once she started reading it, she thought to herself, wow,
this is really helpful. She noticed that behaviors in her company sometimes mirrored
the penguins behaviors, for example, people would see a complex problem, and
then either ignore it or wait for someone else to fix it. Katie thought that if she could
get other people in the company to read the book, it might be a big help in giving
people perspective on the bigger picture.Katie, being one of the few relatively young
workers around, faced an enormous challenge in getting her older co-workers to buy
in to the notion that penguins could help the organization. There were many skeptics.
She showed the book to her manager, a former Marine. He told her that the book was
something his granddaughter might read, not something he would value as a
business leader. Katie persevered and insisted that he read it. After her manager
actually did, he quickly began to realize the same lessons could apply at Norfolk
Southern. He gave Katie approval to start applying the learnings.

Step 1) Katie started by trying to create a sense of urgency


around a willingness to raise safety and operational
standards. Through evaluation of these problems, not only
by Katie but also by the broader leadership team, people
began to feel that urgency was more than just the latest fad.
That process of raising the urgency level inside the Atlanta
terminal of Norfolk Southern took about 2 months from start
to finish.

Step 2) After sufficient urgency was raised, a guiding coalition


formed made up of a few conductors, engineers & supervisors.
Katies fear was that the group was too homogenous she
actually wanted to include a few of the companys more
skeptical employees to get their feedback and help strengthen
the groups decision making. The Guiding Coalition began
meeting regularly and called themselves The Iceberg Group.
This group started out small, but eventually grew to have about
9 people, changing over time, from different parts of the
organization, meeting regularly to see how to implement the rest
of the 8 Steps.

Step 3) The vision that the group created was designed to change
everyones mentality and attitude about safety. Injuries could not be
treated as an acceptable risk at a railroad they had to be reduced
in order to get the railroads efficiency up and costs down.

Step 4) Communicating this vision was a constant battle, since most of a


railroads employees are on the move at any given time. Furthermore, most
of the crew members did not have access to modern communications like
e-mail.

As a result, the vision was communicated through a vehicle called job


briefings, where the days weather & track conditions were discussed for
crews about to go out on to the tracks. These briefings happen 3 times a
day, at the beginning of every shift. The Iceberg Group started
communicating the change vision at job briefings, around the clock, for two
weeks straight. Over time, every crew member was touched by the vision
multiple times, right at their point of highest awareness before going out
to work on the trains.

Step 5)The largest barrier Katie felt she needed to overcome were related
to the concept of raising the bar on safety standards how can you make
people really care about the highest possible safety standards, when
current standards are already high? The way to do it, she said, was to
make it personal get to the heart and not just the mind. They forced
people to think about their families and how they would feel about an
injury to their loved ones. Over time, the message began to sink in and
people started to change their behavior. This created a high level of
engagement with the crew.

Step 6) The Iceberg Group set a goal for a short term win six months
injury free and communicated it broadly. Since the inception of the Iceberg
Groups work, with the exception of a small muscle pull, the Atlanta terminal
has gone almost 9 months injury free.
Other outcomes resulted as well, for example, because the terminal
became so proficient, theyve never had to reduce the number of shifts
running, even as other companies have cut back. With injuries down about
97% over last year, the Atlanta terminal has had fewer missed days of work,
fewer injury-related costs and more productive workers, enabling it to gain a
critical advantage over the competition.

Step 7&8) Even with this success, the Atlanta terminal isnt content
to let up. As they continue to move through the 8 Step process, they
hope to make the change permanent by anchoring these new
changes into the culture. The Iceberg Group continues to meet,
looking for other ways in which they can help the company improve
its operations, and hopefully, spread the Iceberg philosophy to other
divisions of the company