In the Unit 2 readings, I was quite astounded as to how many different theories and frameworks exist on change management. I have personally had experience where I believed the implementation of a large organizational change was successful and one where the implementation seemed to be a complete failure. One of the questions that I am still wondering is how we actually define the implementation of a particular change in our organizations as successful? If our definition of success means that the product was delivered on time and on budget, than I think we could say that many change initiatives are “successful” basically because we must complete these tasks in order to fulfill our job descriptions, but how well these changes are received may not actually be a part of the “success” criteria.

Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015), discuss two theories in relation to my concerns above, one is what they outline as “Theory E which is based on economic value” (p.239). I see this as being the bottom line, where the all mighty dollar dictates how, when, and why change should be implemented; or to be even more frank that change is just better for business. They discuss a second theory, which is referred to as “Theory O that is based on organizational capability” (p.239). This theory focuses more on the individuals that will  be responsible for the tasks that are necessary for the change to occur; the early adopters (through necessity) that will provide feedback and ultimately answer the call to aid in the development of the new processes and overall cultural shift in the organization. Theory O focuses on people, capabilities, and past experiences leading to strategic planning, consistent communication, logical resource allocation, and efficient and effective technology.

Feldstein (2017) writes about his idea of a digital learning platform which would have a cohesive relationship or replace the current learning management systems. In broader context, I think this actually speaks to the idea that any theory of change needs to be flexible. Since technology is always in a state of rapid advancement; any theory/model that is applied needs to be flexible to adapt to new requirements. With flexibility in mind, theories or models that include an evaluation process with feedback from others has the potential to open up discussions about other possibilities and lessons learned in the process.

After completing the readings and reflecting on my past experiences, I have actually gone through the entire process of the Six Sigma method as well as the Lean Thinking method. I think if done properly, these two methods can have a very positive effect when implementing change as well as trimming down the time and effort it takes to complete specific tasks. Both of these models involve each individual who is required to complete a task within the organization and all parties required to complete certain parts of the process are included in the discussions. This makes for an excellent way to understand each part and individual required in the process and many insightful discussions are had in order to improve processes and resource dependence to make the individual tasks easier and essentially more effective. The focus for Lean Thinking is essentially “purpose, process, and people” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p.247).

Leadership is an essential part of the change management process. Consistent messaging, actions, and sharing of important information is essential to end-user confidence building in the proposed change (Weiner, 2009). Leaders need to be early adopters of the change and they also need to champion the project so that those involved are also confident in the end result. “[L]eaders [are the ones] who have to make the right decisions at the right time to align the organization with the changing environment, and who motivate the people to work and implement the changes” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p.239). Leaders help to motivate coordinated action among interdependent actors without this collaborated effort; problems with implementation will more than likely arise (Weiner, 2009).

In my current role, we implemented a new software system to all our retail stores. I work in the Corporate Head Office and more than 80 stores were converted to a new software system to run their business. This was a large-scale project with large-scale changes effecting end-users. I can safely say that despite the project being delivered (not on time or on budget); I would not deem the project successful by any means. Our IT group is constantly fixing the system to deal with the inherent issues while we also continue to develop and enhance the software on a monthly basis to appease the end-users who have been resistant to the change and disgruntled by the software’s lack of readiness for use in the retail stores. In terms of this implementation, resilience was perhaps an after-thought. Implementation was just completed this year, so I think we will establish whether or not the system itself is resilient.. but if resilience is defined as “develop[ing] engagement, education, empowerment and encouragement”(Weller & Anderson, 2013) then I think we have a long way to go to achieve that end.

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet? [blog post].

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).

Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital Resilience in Higher Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.