A thorough review of the history of change management research, as well as an exploration of many change-focused theories and models, shows a distinct shift in response to a transformed (and still transforming) macro environment. Let\u2019s explore this shift and its impact on leadership using a few question prompts:<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0How have the theories\/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic and societal contexts?<\/em><\/p>\n The change management arena is littered with change processes intended to suit all organizations, regardless of change scope, organizational readiness for change, or any other factor.\u00a0 These \u201cone fit\u201d processes were the norm up until the early 1990s \u2013 and were, understandably, high-level and often comparable. \u00a0For example, Lippet et al.\u2019s Planning Method included seven, rather generic, steps: Scout, Enter, Diagnose, Plan, Act, Stabilize & Evaluate, and Terminate (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). \u00a0Alas, the dismal change success rate of under 30% (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) suggest that \u201cone fit\u201d processes such as these were ill-advised \u2013 and researchers took notice.<\/p>\n As early as the 1990s, researchers in the change management arena proposed that no single change process could produce success in all cases; change strategies must suit the context of the change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). \u00a0However, it was not until the late 2000s that it became more widely accepted that many methods would be required to suit the wide variety of change contexts (Burnes & Jackson, 2011, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). \u00a0This attitudinal shift prompted many researchers to consider factors like organizational context, readiness, and change type as important inputs to process design.<\/p>\n As we operate in an increasingly complex, competitive, and ever-shifting macro environment, it is no wonder that a multitude of factors determine change success, and that those factors are not constant across applications. \u00a0Although there are many promising multi-factor theories and models emerging (e.g. Weiner, 2009, Weller & Anderson, 2013, Al-Haddad & Koutner, 2015), the field is too new yet to offer any well-supported guidance on change strategies that factor in multiple variables.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Which theories\/models do you think best align with your own approach to leadership? Do these approaches align with your organizational context?<\/em><\/p>\n Weiner\u2019s theory of organizational readiness for change, which \u201ctreats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so\u201d (Weiner, \u201cSummary,\u201d 2009, para. 1), resonates with me because it places emphasis on the importance of employee beliefs and motivation to the success of organizational change. \u00a0The \u2018hearts and minds\u2019 of employees as individuals and as a collective is particularly critical to change success in my organization because it is high-change environment and changes almost invariably require an alteration in collective behavior in order to be successful.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0What role does leadership play in managing change?<\/em><\/p>\n Leadership plays a key role in managing change \u2013 both organizational leaders and change leaders. It is critical that our organizational leaders \u2013 from the Executive tier down \u2013 visibly support the change, and that we have strong change leaders who ensure a smooth, inclusive change process is outlined and followed. \u00a0As Elaine Biech (2007) says, we \u201cmust plan the work and work the plan\u201d in order to realize change success (“Models of Change,” 2007, para. 2).<\/p>\n 4. What are the unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments? <\/em><\/p>\n There are many unique challenges in managing change in a digital learning context, with the dominant one arguably being ensuring that function and identity are retained through any change as these are \u201cparticularly relevant to scholarship\u201d (Weller & Anderson, 2013).\u00a0 As I work in the Research department of a Research firm, this is also a dominant consideration for me as I design online experiences for our members: to deliver an exceptional online experience based on the same core functions as our in-person offerings where nothing is lost because of the change in form.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015).\u00a0Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change.\u00a0Journal of Organizational Change Management<\/em>,\u00a028(2), 234-262.<\/p>\n Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In\u00a0Thriving Through Change: A Leader\u2019s Practical Guide to Change Mastery<\/em>. Available from https:\/\/library-books24x7-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca\/toc.aspx?bookid=22651<\/p>\n Weiner, B. J. (2009).\u00a0A theory of organizational readiness for change.\u00a0Implementation Science<\/em>,\u00a04(67).<\/p>\n Weller, M., & Anderson, T., (2013).\u00a0Digital Resilience in Higher Education.\u00a0European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning<\/em>,\u00a016(1), 53-66.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A thorough review of the history of change management research, as well as an exploration of many change-focused theories and models, shows a distinct shift in response to a transformed (and still transforming) macro environment. Let\u2019s explore this shift and its impact on leadership using a few question prompts: 1.\u00a0How have the theories\/models for change … <\/p>\n