Module - 6

HR Leadership and Organisation Transformation

 INTRODUCTION

• All organizations are based on systems of internal and external expectations.

• The external expectation can be informal (customer wan) or formal (government

regulations).

• Similarly internal expectations also can be formal or informal.

• As a result organisations evolve in a pattern of learned predictive behaviour.

• Organizations which can change and adapt can survive and thrive in the
market and the ones which don’t, often loose the market.
 FORCES DRIVING CHANGE

Globalization has become relentless, with outsourcing and offshoring becoming the
clear choice of the large enterprises.
There are a good number of theories on the drivers of the necessity for a change,
which is whatever gave birth to the desire or need for change in the organization.
New leadership, laws, regulations and competitors can also drive the need for
change.
A number of factors responsible for creating compulsions for change in an
organization. These factors are both internal and external. The external factors are
those affecting the organizations both directly and indirectly.
 CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Change is considered as something which can make or break an organization. Hence there should be
conscious process to control it by providing leadership and direction in a manner that the outcomes are
those desired.
Types of Change
1. Developmental: It can be planned, evolved, or incremental. It is aimed at adding to or altering
existing aspects of an organization, often targeting skill or process improvement
2. Transitional: It describes a quest for an envisioned state that is different from the current state. It is
episodic, planned, or radical. This is the conventional topic of change in organizations.
3. Transformational: It is fundamental in nature. It demands a shift in the mental models of the
organization and employees. Transformation can lead to the evolution of a different organization that
varies vastly in structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, see the emergence of a
learning organization.
 PLANNED VERSUS EMERGENT CHANGE

The traditional approach in responding to change is “planning in anticipation”. It

consists of sequential steps for modifying institutional or individual behaviour.
Planned change has been found to be most suitable when there is an anticipated
need for structural changes which, has limited impact on organizational learning or
the sustainability of change efforts
Emergent change is the unfurling of change in a seemingly natural and un-
prescheduled. This change cannot be foretold or planned. It can occur anywhere, and
can be self-organizing in a limited way.
 KURT LEWIN’S CHANGE MODEL

Kurt Lewin offered a three stage model for change in organizations.

The model brings together elements from field theory, group dynamics and action
research.

Lewin suggested the present state as a dynamic social equilibrium, or a condition

of balance maintained by the active driving and resisting social forces. His model
describes change as planned, collective, goal oriented moves.
 KURT LEWIN’S CHANGE MODEL

Stage 1: Unfreezing
Undesired behaviours and need for change is identified and articulated
Stage 2: Change
Change is gradually brought about by a process of trial and error. It involves
conceptualizing a problem, obtaining data about concerned forces, identifying or
formulating alternative solutions, and deciding on an action plan.
Stage 3: Refreezing
Change gets embedded to enable learning and assimilation for sustainability in the
future
 EPISODIC VERSUS CONTINUOUS
CHANGE
Episodic changes are occasional, discontinuous and deliberate.
This kind of change is tagged “episodic” because takes place in definite time periods,
warranted by external events like technology change or a change in key leadership.
Episodic change often involves replacement of one strategy or programme with
another.
Such change occurs during periods of divergence when an organization has decided
to move out of its comfort zones. This situation arises when there is a disconnect
between the internal structure of the organization and assessed needs of the
business environment.
 EPISODIC VERSUS CONTINUOUS
CHANGE

Continuous changes are ongoing, evolving, and cumulative changes.

The distinctive quality of continuous change is the idea that small continuous
adjustments, created simultaneously across units, can cumulate and create
substantial change.
That scenario presumes tightly coupled interdependencies. When interdependencies
loosen, these same continuous adjustments, now confined to smaller units, remain
important as pockets of innovation that may prove appropriate in future
environments.
Continuous change is characterized by people constantly adapting and editing ideas
they acquire from different sources.
The continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can collectively create
substantial change.
 FIRST VERSUS SECOND ORDER CHANGE

Watzlawick et al differentiated between two levels of change. It implied a distinction

between qualitative changes to the system itself and adjustments within it.
Bartunek and Moch explained that first order indicated gradual modification that
make sense within an established framework, while second order change warrant
modifications to the framework itself.
Levy, defined first order as incremental adjustments that do not alter the system’s
core, while second order implies differences in the basic governing rules.

For Ford and Backoff second order change meant a step towards a different plane of
understanding or a shift in deep structures.
 RADICAL VERSUS INCREMENTAL
CHANGE
Pennington makes a distinction between radical and incremental change to illustrate
the degree of difficulty in implementing any change.

Radical changes to an organization’s core business are likely to result in higher level
of disturbances and involve higher degree of risk than incremental changes.

Incremental changes describe the peripheral changes, considered to be low

disturbance, low risk, and can be accommodated, if the concerned people have had a
successful past record of continuous change.
 FORCES ENABLING CHANGE
Changes in organization occur over a period of time. There are certain factors which
help the change process. They are variously named ‘change enablers’, ‘change
drivers’ ‘change accelerators’, ‘catalysts’ or ‘change levers’. The prevalence of these
factors increases the probability of the success of the change efforts.

Following are some of the forces which enable change:

1. Shared vision of change
2. Leadership
3. Communication
4. Training
5. Employee involvement
6. Convergence of practices, structures, processes and systems
 KOTTER’S EIGHT STAGE PROCESS
The eight stage process describes a sequence of steps to be taken to arrive at the
organizational change vision. Kotter’s change process highlights the role of leadership
in change and considers change as top-driven. It’s labeled as the best-fit for emergent,
rather than planned change management.
Kotter’s eight stage process can be summarized as follows:
1. Establishing a sense of urgency
a. Examine the market and competitive realities.
b. Identify and discuss crises, potential crises, and opportunities.
2. Creating the guiding coalition
a. Put together a group with enough power to lead the change.
b. Get the group to work together like a team
 KOTTER’S EIGHT STAGE PROCESS
3. Develop a vision and strategy
a. Create a vision to help direct the change effort.
b. Develop strategies for achieving the vision.
4. Communicating the change vision
a. Use every vehicle possible to constantly communicate new vision and
strategies.
b. Have the guiding coalition role model the behaviour expected of
employees.
5.. Empowering broad-based change
a. Get rid of obstacles.
b. Change systems and structures that undermine the change vision.
c. Encourage risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities and actions
 KOTTER’S EIGHT STAGE PROCESS
6. Generating short-term wins
a. Plan for visible improvements in performance and wins.
b. Create those wins.
c. Visibly recognize and reward the people who made those wins possible.
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change
a. Use increased credibility to change all systems.
b. Hire promote and develop people who can implement the change vision.
c. Reinvigorate the process with new projects, themes and change agents.
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture
a. Create better performance through customer oriented behaviour.
b. Articulate the connect between the new behaviour and organizational process.
c. Develop means to ensure leadership development and succession planning.
 HAYNES AND HYDE MODEL
1. Recognize that external events or internal circumstances require a change to take
place.
2. Start of the change process. Decide
a. Who to involve?
b.What to make public?
c. Who should have management responsibility?
3. Diagnosis- correspond to what Kurt Lewin called unfreezing
a. Identify the current scenario
b.Develop the preferred scenario
4. Prepare and plan for implementation- correspond to the stage of moving in
Lewin’s model.
5. Implement change
6. Review and consolidate - similar to the stage of refreezing in Kurt Lewin model.
HAYNES AND HYDE MODEL
 MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Resistance to change is widely considered as an important determinant of successful or
failed change initiatives. A study undertaken by Maurier revealed that resistance was a
‘little recognized, but critically important contributor’ for abortive change initiatives.
CIPD defines resistance to change as, ‘an individual or group engaging in acts to block or
disrupt an attempt to introduce change’. Resistance to change can be difficult to
overcome even when it is not detrimental to those concerned, but an attempt must be
made’. CIPD identify that resistance to change is not necessarily negative, as it may be an
indication that the change initiative needs rethinking.
The process of change is about the how of change. It is further reported that in a typical
change initiative, about 20% of an organization embrace the changes, 60% of the
organization tolerates it, but 20% of the company will resist, and may sabotage the
change.
 MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

The reasons for people to resist change are varied. It can be triggered by ‘the shock of the
new, economic fears, inconvenience, uncertainty, symbolic fears, threat to interpersonal
relationships, threat to status and skill, and competence fears’. A broad classification
covering the different reasons presented from time to time can be broadly grouped as
follows:
a.Rational factors- indicates the rational evaluation of the consequences of change which
may lead an individual to oppose changes.
b.Non rational factors- implies an individual’s preferences and biases which guide his
choice of a position on change. Can include emotional factors.
c.Political factors- are coloured with political dynamics and may include factors like
favouritism or scoring a point.
d.Management factors- inappropriate management style.
 THURLEY AND WEIRDNIUS MODEL

Directive
The foundation of this approach is the belief that it is the manager, who is responsible
for managing change. Therefore the manager can use his authority to direct the
implementation of change plan, with or without consultation or participation of
employees. The approach can ensure speed in execution, but by ignoring views of the
stakeholder, it fails to use all relevant inputs to make change effective.
Expert
This approach , suitable for implementing technological change, relies on expertise of
few to lead change. It seeks no input from the multitude of stakeholders, affected by
change. The advantage is that it is solution focused , and experts can swiftly
implement the solutions also. It suffers from the possibility of resentment of those
who, not being a party to the solution search, have to accept them.
 THURLEY AND WEIRDNIUS MODEL
Negotiation

The change managers are flexible to bargain and concede on issues. It results in a higher probability of
change adoption, since it accepts the stakeholders’ say on changes which affect them. Conversely, it can
consume time, and the eventual outcome may not be on planned lines.

Education

It aims at moving the employees to a set of shared values and employs a combination of methods to win
their hearts,( usually with the help of external or internal consultants) - education, training , persuasion,
consultation etc. It builds employee enrolment in change, but entails time consuming process.

Participative

It engages people to the maximum extent possible, and although driven by senior managers , it is largely
led by teams and individuals. It considers the vies of the people affected by change comprehensive
manner. It is a costly and time consuming approach, but it has the potential for being most effective
among all strategies by virtue of focus on building stakeholder commitment.
Thank you!