Models of organizational change

Models of organizational change

Introduction

The economic patterns are constantly shifting to meet various needs or respond to the flow of goods and services. An organization’s future depends on its ability to make changes as dictated by the economy. Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli (2017, p. 1767) describes the organizational change as a combination of agents introduced by the management to introduce new behavior among employees in a manner that benefits the business. Despite the potential benefit or organizational change, most companies struggle to adapt to change, especially if it negatively affects some employees. Though there are many approaches to transformation, there is no ideal solution, and thus the selected plan must have an adaptation strategy (Appelbaum, 2017, p. 213). The paper attempts to explain the available models of organizational change and pick the most logical idea.

Models of organizational change

Lewin, a three-step model: The process of change considers the driving and opposing forces of change. Cameron & Green (2019, p. 104) states that for change to occur in Lewin’s model, the objecting elements must be lower than supporting one. This approach to change happens by releasing all influencers then moving them to see how they react and finally locking them in a stable state.

Bullock and Batten, planned change: This model takes a project management view that involves exploration, planning, action, and integration. According to Cameron & Green (2019, p. 109), exploration assesses the need for change while availing the needed material. The planning phase is where experts are involved in making critical decisions. The planning step will provide the necessary actions, and finally, results are incorporated into the organization.

Kotter, eight steps: This model emerged after eight lessons on organization change were concerted to change implementation steps. Cameron & Green (2019, p. 110), describes the eight stages as identifying a need for urgency, developing a guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others on the visions, creating short-term targets, making more changes from the improvements, and finally institutionalizing the new approaches. Nonetheless, this model is that it does not consider the impact of employees and management in change implementation.

Beckhard and Harris, change formula: This model uses a method in determining the necessary factor for change to occur. By multiplying the factor of change, if any element is zero or close to zero, the change will not happen either because of comfort with the current status or lack of a clear vision (Cameron & Green (2019, p. 113).Change implementation requires dissatisfaction, need, and a practical approach.

Nadler and Tushman, congruence model: This approach considers the interaction of external and internal factors in change implementation. According to Cameron & Green (2019, p. 114), the model’s ability to factor external and internal consideration provides a reasoning space to analyze the change process by considering the specific organizational needs. This is a tool to brainstorm change instead of having a fixed template that defines change.

William Bridges, managing the transition: This model distinguished planned change and transformation. The former is easy to implement because of its straight forward structure. However, the latter is slow and requires psychological understanding (Cameron & Green (2019, p. 118). The bridges model of change demands for termination of a previous process, then creating a neutral process before a new beginning.

Carnall, change management model: This approach to change considers broad issues that are unique to different organizations. According to Cameron & Green (2019, p. 121), implementing change under Carnall model requires effective management of transition and handling organization culture and politics. This process helps in explaining the new direction and assisting employees in adapting to change.

Senge, systematic model: Often, some change plans do fail to meet their goals. Cameron & Green (2019, p. 124) states that by incorporating skills like starting small, growing steadily, expecting challenges, and planning in sections, Senge plan helps avoid the failure of not meeting change objectives. The model focus is the effect of petty decisions on the future of a change process.

Stacey and Shaw, complex responsive processes: This perspective of change views the implementers as part of the transition. Cameron & Green (2019, p. 127) claim that evolution is a natural product of little tension, conflict, and clean communication. Thus managers should not seek how to manage change but how to participate in the process. By being part of the change, someone can better manage the uncertainty in the future of an organization.

The Appropriate change model

From the analysis of the nine models of change, Kurt Lewis provides the most logical plan of moving a company from New Jersey to Arizona. The process will move the business to a new location that the process must address. According to Cameron & Green (2019, p. 106), the Lewis change process starts with unfreezing of change determinants, initiating the process, and finally sustainably freezing the elements. This approach offers the company an opportunity to transform to the needs in Arizona. Hussain et al. (2018, p. 123) also added that organizational change shifts a business from known to unknown state because of the uncertainty. By unfreezing the factors for change, the Lewis model gives the business a chance to restructure to meet the new needs.

The first step in change, according to Lewis, is setting lose the status quo. Such actions identify the current state and the existing resisting and driving forces of change, which can forecast the required end state (Cameron & Green (2019, p. 107). Change occurs in all businesses irrespective of the size, and the world is fast evolving. Making an ideal change require loosening of some treasured ideas to give room for others perspective. In an organizational change, there are many variables a manager must consider in monitoring, evaluating, and planning for change in response to the external and internal environment (Hussain et al., 2018, p.124). These factors interact at different levels, and the company can only see such changes when the determinants are unfrozen. The reason why the business needs to have this view is that the change affects many people and structures. By unfreezing the factors, the manager can see what might be the effect of losing some employees of hiring new ones. These issues become more vivid when the firm has a less stringent consideration of the change determinants.

Once the factors are free, the change process begins by engaging employees, sharing knowledge, and leadership involvement. This stage Cameron & Green (2019, p. 107) refers to as engagement and participation chance. The objective of engaging the employees to increase the input on matters that affect their well-being and performance (Hussein et al., 2018, p.124). In this discussion, a change leader should consider factors that promote employee involvement. The elements include rewards, skills, knowledge, information, and power. In the case of the business, how the staff responds to change is directly related to their perceived benefits. The management has to demonstrate that it will take care of those who do not relocate to Arizona, and the new members will not be given preferential treatment.

The change process also occurs through the sharing of information on customer service, assignment, performance outcome, and technology. Hussain et al. (2018, p. 124) claim that sharing of information is vital for sustainability, competition, and a dynamic economy. Besides training, effecting change also depend on how employees share their experience, beliefs, skill, abilities, and competencies. In the case of the company, information sharing helps the employees make an informed decision on whether to join the Arizona team. Moreover, having the right information eliminates unnecessary resistance to change.

Besides, a change process can happen through leadership involvement. According to Hussein et al. (2018, p.125), leadership is the ability to influence others towards a collective goal. The right direction is critical for a smooth and sustainable transition. In the process of change, leaders provide motivation, vision, political support, and sustaining momentum (Hussein et al., 2018, p.125). As for the company, the management has the responsibility of making the staff see new opportunities through a definite vision.

Once a change is effected through engagements and leadership, the management consolidates the new status quo and freezes the resolution. Lewis model has support for psychologists as the most effective way to implement change through change management structure, activity planning, and commitment planning (Hussein et al., 2018, p.125). The freezing step can also make change implementation effective through rewarding success, setting policy, and developing new standards (Cameron & Green (2019, p. 107). Through this step, the company can have a firm ground in Arizona with employee pool who are motivated and ready to curry on the company agenda.

Conclusion

There exist several ways to implement change in an organization, but the Lewis model seems to be the best. However, the other models explain how to implement change in an organization in different ways. Some of the ideas provide a correct approach to change, while others give room for brainstorming on the change process. Given the interest of the company to relocate to Arizona, the Lewis model allows room for restructuring and seeing the new needs the company seeks to address. Finally, it fits the business intention as it engages employees, management, and facilitates the sharing of information.