Infographic created using Venngage Inc. (www.venngage.com).

 

After conducting three different interviews with employees who have been a part of major organizational changes, many revelatory details around leaders’ approaches to change management have emerged.  Two of the organizations were educational in focus (one arts and one for language) and non profits.  The other was a private tech company.  This differentiation alone provided insight into differing approaches. 

The tech company utilizes more of a systematic approach to business in general, and really realizes how important “mobilizing talent, allocating resources, and formulating strategies are necessary for the organization’s profitability and for maintaining the competitive advantage” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 239).  The movement to implement a new HR manager and online approach to employee reflection and feedback has boosted employee morale through small but noticeable changes in the office.  This company as well has adopted a “structured methodological process” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 254) that uses a constant feedback loop as projects develop, giving staff ample opportunity to contribute to how projects are completed.  Weiner (2009) also mentions how implementation needs to feel like a team sport, and this HR change does definitely generate that sentiment.

In the case of the two non profits, Kotter’s (1996) Leading Change theory can apply to a certain degree.  In the case of the language institution, a sense of urgency was established at the first professional development session when staff were informed that this blended learning approach was the start of a long term plan to build online programming.  Staff were given ample opportunity as well to build the skills, and some who were quick learners were praised and asked to mentor others.  Unfortunately though in this case, there was a lack of inclusion in the learning approach, as “intra-organizational groups or units had limited opportunity to interact and share information” (Weiner, 2009, p. 3).  Teachers teaching the blended program had no communication with those building the activities.  Step five of Kotter’s model was also lacking, as staff empowerment to act was low due to the fact the leader didn’t encourage dialogue, seek feedback, or stimulate participative decision making (Castelli, 2016).

For the art school, the leadership was very strong and consistent, and she was “a positive role model whose actions demonstrate integrity” (Castelli, 2016, p. 221).  Trust also increased through her transparency and constant communications (Castelli, 2016).  She did a fantastic job of communicating the vision (Kotter, 1996) of changes in budget policy, and then empowering others to act on these changes right away.  Though there was some initial resistance to having weekly meetings to explain specific items as well as making such drastic changes, the leader “worked with all members to elicit change for the greater good of the organization” (Khan, 2017, p. 180).  There was no favouritism, with all department heads required to be accountable for budget choices. This change encouraged immediate reflection on actions and choices, which created quite a few short term wins (Kotter, 1996) through instant budget reductions for items which were not necessary.  These short term changes also molded staff, as they were then shown how this new approach can impact long term annual budget predictions. 

These three examples, and the degree to which they were successful, have reinforced many of the concepts around change management from this unit.  It is certainly true that non profits deal with many funding constraints which don’t exist in private companies, limiting their ability to make constant systematic changes.  Hierarchy also has a huge impact.  These examples have definitely revealed that change contexts where staff are involved in decision making, and leaders display a clear vision which represents common goals or values as well as open communication, definitely promote atmospheres where staff adopt new approaches and feel empowered in the process. 

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.

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.  

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).  

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–9.