Photo by Ian Schneider on Unsplash
Change models, similar to technological change have grown more complex and multifaceted through the years (Biech, E., 2007). As Biech explains, in 1947 Kurt Lewin introduced a three step change management model, unfreezing, changing and refreezing. Lewin’s change theory remained the dominant theory for some thirty year and was not only relatively simple as well as sophisticated; it was also the basis for the evolving change theories that followed. Change theories have grown more in steps from Biech’s Six-Step Model to Ulrich’s Seven- Step Model to Kotter’s Eight- Step Model all the way to Evans and Schaefer’s 10 Tasks (Biech, E., 2007, Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T., 2015 ). With all of the complexity, it is important to note that each change model follows a similar path requiring similar actions. It makes sense, however, that something like Change Theory would change over time. As information, systems and technologies change more and more rapidly, so too must the theories that guide change management so as to enable organizations to prepare for coming changes, adapt more quickly, and allow change to be successful.
In order to choose the change management model that is best for an organization it is helpful to understand the various change theories that are the drivers of change models. From Systems Theory to Chaos Theory, there are a number of change theories to fit any context and provide a foundation for organizational change. In the context of the Not for Profit world, the change theory’s that seems to work best in creating a fertile ground for change management are Systems Theory and Theory O (Biech, E., 2007, Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T., 2015 ). While Systems Theory lays the ground work for managing change by assuming that all parts of an organization are connected and affected by the changes that occur in each department, Theory O lays the groundwork for creating an influential workplace culture that focuses on increasing organizational capacity. As a Not for Profit agency, we are keenly aware that we cannot create lasting change in people’s lives by working in a silo and therefore must be open to interdependency with partner organizations working together to help progress, not only our mission but also, the greater good in our community. Systems Theory helps to align our goals in the direction of different parts, like internal department and external partner agencies, to work together understanding that change in one part will ultimately affect all of the other parts. Theory O assists in driving the direction of this systemic change toward capacity building endeavors.
Those who understand change management, theories and practices, can be in a powerful position to lead change in an organization (Weiner, B., 2009). Leaders set the tone in an organization which means that leaders who have positive attitudes toward change will be better positioned to manage the inevitable challenges and conflict that comes with change (Biech, E., 2007). A positive attitude toward change, like someone who sees change as something new and exciting, will be better poised to counterbalance resistant or fearful attitudes toward change. Resistance to changing how we develop capacity is ever present in our organization as we have traditionally relied on stand and deliver, workshops and seminars to acquire new knowledge and build capacity. In our organization, for example, there is much skepticism and reluctance to move toward learning in digital environment because that represent a vast departure in the way learning has always been facilitated. As Weller & Anderson (2013) point out, people can be heavily invested in keeping things the way they were when it comes to technological change, but when we take into account the “resilience factor” of our organization, meaning how much change can the system tolerate without compromising its connections, a well formulated strategic plan that purposely sets out to implement changes incrementally over a long period of time is our best way forward.
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.
Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD
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.
February 17, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Hi Theresa,
Nicely done with tying in this week’s readings. I really enjoyed your post. Your comments about resistance in your organization to move toward a digital learning environment really resonated with me, especially as it relates to the reliance on the “stand and deliver” mode of delivering training. I volunteer for a non-profit charity which meets annually as part of a Summer Institute to deliver training and seminars over a 2 ½ week duration. Over the years this model of in-person training/seminars has continued to run at a deficit, with decreasing enrollment and very little change from how it was first organized 25-years ago. Many of us who began volunteering or teaching with the Institute have tried over the years to suggest changes including the development of online training/seminars to provide increased access to our global membership base, diversify the type of trainings, and reduce costs. These suggestions have not been received favorably and unfortunately the Institute is facing a crisis.
In thinking about this situation and the one you raised about resistance in your organization to change, Weiner’s (2009) argument about organizational readiness and the necessity of psychological mindset as well as change commitment and change efficacy seem to stand out. Weiner (2009) suggests that “organizational culture, for example, could amplify or dampen the change valence associated with a specific organizational change, depending on whether the change effort fits or conflicts with cultural values” (p. 4). In my example, people seem resistant to any suggestions of change in training modality to online because it conflicts with the founder’s cultural values and perhaps beliefs around online vs in-person training. However, I wonder if it is more fear-related, as there is a notable resistance to any digital technology (we still use paper-based surveys). My sense is that I am not so sure any change management theory will be of help at this stage as it feels like have resisted for so long, we’re unable to recover.
I am curious to know if you think fear of digital technology might also be a factor in your organization? If so, is the change to build capacity urgent enough to warrant a shift in “change commitment” (Weiner, 2009) and will people eventually get on board or is there enough time for organizational readiness the way Weiner (2009) approaches it? I don’t say this lightly as my experience with non-profits has shown there is often limited resources, competing priorities and a lack of time so the notion of adding in “one more thing” can tip the scale even with the best intentions and timelines in mind. What are your thoughts?
(Sorry this is so lengthy!)
Mel
Reference
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).