It is Not Necessary to Change

Managing Culture and Change (4HRM7B8) Why is it not possible to produce a blueprint for managing organisational culture?Support your argument with critical analysis of published change models

“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory”

(W. Edwards Deming)

The above quotation hold a very realistic value to the organisations of this globalised

world, it simply means that if company’s wants to survive in this world they would

definitely have to adopt to change otherwise they would not be able to survive.

Supporting this assertion is Garratt (1997) who points that

Learning > Change = Survival

The above equation emphasize that for an organisation to survive they not only have

to change but also have to learn how to bring about and deal with change, this is what

the organisations have to do to be at bear minimum stage where they are alive and

working, otherwise they face are grave danger to their existence. Learning how to

change is very important, the way in which the change shall be brought about is

essential ingredient to the change process itself. Researchers and practitioners have

provided organisations with vast variety of theories and models that would help

organisation achieve change.

Burnes (1996) criticizes the models for being prescriptive, and if organisation acts in

any other manner of what the theory lays down this actually militate against the

interests of the organisation whereas according to Todnem (2005) the models are

contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged

hypotheses (Guimaraes and Armstrong, 1998). Concerning the nature of

comtemporary organisational change which is with little dispute the primary task for

today’s leadership this also prompts the major obstacle for organisations in selecting a

model from the excess that is available and most importantly what is appropriate

(Sidorko, 2008), attributing the failure of major change programmes to lack of

framework of how to implement and manage change. The reason of this failure can be

that every organization has its own culture, character, nature, and identity and has its

own history of success that reinforces and strengthens the organization's way of doing

things (Burnes, 2004).

K F Latif (11644893) 1


Organizations are communities of people with a mission; they are not machines

(Schneider, 2000). It can be said that like one medicine is not appropriate for all

humans facing sickness, likewise one model might not be appropriate for all

organisation, a change in disease requires change in approach, assessing the damage

these change program do to the organisation Beer et al (1990) point that One-size-fits-

all change programs take energy away from the efforts to solve key business

problems, thus explaining why so many managers don’t support programs.

Handy (1985) finds that change is often unpredictable, tends to be reactive,

discontinuous and often triggered by situation of crisis (Dyer in Brown, 1998)

whereas Gagliardi (Brown, 1998) points to start of change with leader employing a

vision thus what might trigger change for one organisation might not do so for the

other, thus change in the real world organisation might not trigger the way the model

triggers change and these models might be applicable to one organisation but at the

same time they cannot be applied to the other, the reason is pointed out by Beer et al

(1990) who points that these models are guided by theory of change that is

fundamentally unsound. For instance the dyer Model of cultural evolution predicts

conflict between proponents of old and new leadership but when applied to Nissan

(Japan) Brown (1998) found that conflict seems very “plausible” but Japanese

organisation being what they are there is little direct evidence for it.

The concept of change has evolved overtime; previously it was thought that

organisation constantly changing could not be effective in improving performance

(Rieley and Clarkson, 2001) but now its argued that organisations need to constantly

undergo change in order to improve (Burnes, 2004) and an approach that might suit an

organisation at one stage is not necessarily appropriate forever (Handy, 1985).

In change management there is considerable disagreement regarding the most

appropriate approach to changing organisations. Organisations can opt for two

different approaches to change management. One is planned approach and the other is

emergent approach to change. Discussing the planned approach to change, it is

iterative, cyclical, process involving diagnosis, action and evaluation, further action

and evaluation (Burnes, 2004). Planned change has dominated the theory and practice

K F Latif (11644893) 2


of change management for the past 50 years and is based principally on the work of

Lewin (Bamford and Forrester, 2003).

Planned change has its own share of adversaries. Schein (1985) criticises planned

change for its emphasis on isolated change and its inability to incorporate radical

change. The planned approach is based on the assumption that everyone within the

organisation agrees to work in one direction with no disagreement. Unfortunately, this

is not always the case. Within any group of individuals, differences of opinion on

important matters will always exist (Bamford and Forrester, 2003) thus when one tries

to change the previous behaviour to successfully adopt the new behaviour there is

resistance to change.

Planned approach to organisational change typically follows Lewin three steps. Lewin

(1947) talks about change as levels which are Unfreeze, Change, and Re-freeze. The

first level is to unfreeze the present level of behaviour through an emotional stir-up,

Lewin (1947) does mention that permanency to new level for a desired period shall be

included in the objective. The second is to move to the new desired level and

refreezing actually establishes ways to make the new level “relatively secure against

change” (Burke, 2008). The three step model by Lewin has been criticized by Eldrod

II and Tippett (2002) for being broad and linear (Kippenberger, 1998) whereas

Carnall (2007) points to Lewin being Unitary in focus taking the concerns of the most

powerful into account, thus making it more appropriate for organisations with power

culture at its centre as identified by Coram and Burnes (2001) who find it a response

to top down, autocratic, rigid, rule-based organisations operating in somewhat

predictable and controlled environment thus it would not hold applicable in today’s

turbulent and chaotic world and is unable to incorporate radical and transformations

change where there is no refreezing, there is no rest and no getting ready (Zigarmi et

al, 2007).

Lewin has been criticized for its refreezing, as it is likely to engender a new cycle of

single loop learning with the construction of norms and defensive routines that could

hinder future change and adaptation (Duberley et al, 2000) similarly planned change

aim to move organizations into new future state, but an understanding of the future as

K F Latif (11644893) 3


a “temporal dimension” with its own unique dynamics has been virtually ignored

(Purser and Petranker, 2005).

Lewis (2000) found out that planned approach relies much on the essence of

communicating effectively before actually implementing it; thus Lewin planned

approach won’t be applicable to the organisation lacking strong channels of

communication as Lewis reports that 89 implementers of planned change noted

problems in communicating vision and negative attitudes. The negative attitudes can

be attributed to the assumptions the organisations operate under constant conditions

and they can move to a pre-planned manner from one stable state to another (Bamford

and Forrester, 2003). Bess et al (2007) criticises these basis of Lewin approach by

noting that change cannot occur from one stable state to another in the unstable

business environment that exists today. The reason of this can be that by the time

organisation takes the initiative to change there would be another change hovering

around organisation, Business world today is not stable.

Lewin’s model is expert-centred, the change agent or action researcher acts as a

feedback mechanism ensuring transitions between states of stability while helping to

diffuse resistance (Caldwell, 2005) and this dependence on change agents would

actually halt change process as in many instances they do not have full understanding

of their actions (Todnem, 2005).

Bess et al (2007) point to application of Lewin Model, it would likely strengthen skills

and capacities of personnel who work in tightly linked interdependent structures thus

forcing workers to direct attention to specific tasks and process (Process Culture) but

Lewin’s change model, with its assumptions of linearity, progressive development,

goal seeking, and disequilibrium as a motivator, is not applicable when change is

viewed as complex, and nondiscrete and when more directive approaches like a

situation of crisis or rapid environmental transformation (Burnes, 1996). Burnes

points that change seeking internal stability more likely to pursue planned change.

Lewin approach mainly relies on an episodic conception of change processes;

emergent understandings suggest a continuous, evolving, and incremental view of

change (Purser and Petranker, 2005).

K F Latif (11644893) 4


Lewin’s work on change was increasingly criticized as relevant only to small-scale

changes in stable conditions, and for ignoring issues such as organizational politics

and conflict. Esain et al (2008) criticizes Lewin planned approach of change to

presume that everyone in the organisation is willing and interested in change, thus

there wont be any conflict, this approach actually bring it closer to organisations with

Unitary frame of reference which according to Rasmussen and Lamm (2002) assert

that Unitarist frame of reference builds on the image of Army and managers

“prerogative” is stressed, raising issues is not considered an acceptable norm.

All the criticism cited above relate to Lewin work regarding organisational change

However, it needs to be recognized that his 3-Step model is not only of organizational

issues and is a model for social change (Lewin, 1947) and Lewin ‘refreezing’, refers

to preventing individuals and groups from regressing to their old behaviours. In this

respect, Lewin’s view seems to be similar to that of his critics (Burnes, 2004).

More telling, though, is that when Elrod and Tippett (2002) compared a wide range of

change models, they found that most approaches to organizational change were

strikingly similar to Lewin’s 3-Step model.

In response to criticism to planned approach to change, a new organisational approach

to change gained strength, called the emergent approach to change. Burnes (1996)

calls on emergent approach as being driven by bottom up, and stresses that change is

continuous and open ended process of adapting to changing conditions, and involves

learning. thus making the approach more suitable to dynamic organisations, which is

the norm of today’s organisation, thus making planned approach suitable of

organisations of which are stable, process based, autocratic, and power based.

This actually points to first criticism against emergent approach to change making it

more suitable for organisation operating in dynamic environment thus by its own

definition it’s not applicable to stable environments (Coram and Burnes, 2001).

Another criticism comes from Bamford and Forrester (2003) argue that emergent

approach lack coherence and diversity of techniques and builds on a process having a

beginning, middle and end as pointed out by Sidorko (2008) that Kotter 8 model for

change falls in three categories namely, preparation, action and grounding.

K F Latif (11644893) 5


Bess et al (2007) points to the situation where emergent approach to change can be

applied; he points that when facing multiple tasks at different stages, under these

conditions this type of change would be more appropriate as it allows organisational

members to develop capacities for engaging in multiple simultaneous projects. Thus

Burnes (1997) points that change seeking external stability more likely to pursue

emergent change

Kotter (1996) developed an eight-step model for transformational change which has

had wide practical application:

1. Establish a sense of urgency.

2. Create the guiding coalition.

3. Develop the vision and strategy.

4. Communicate the change vision.

5. Empowering broad-based action.

6. Generating short-term wins.

7. Consolidate gains and produce more change.

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture.

The model useful and points that it doesn’t have a unitary view as creating guiding

coalition is a political process (Carnall, 2007) and values employee involvement but

Kotter (1996) does not avoid criticism. Although from emergent school of thought

(Burnes, 2001, Coram and Burnes, 2001, Todnem, 2005), the model is criticised for

being prescriptive (Coram and Burnes, 2001) because of its step wise nature. Dawson

(2003) talks about the “untidy and messy nature of change”. Justification for the use is

that it provides clarity and focus and provides a framework by which change within

the subject organisation can be understood (Palmer, 2006). The steps have been

criticised of its order, the third stage about vision should start before second stage and

be developed in combination with the first stage - the guiding coalition should help

set, validate and elaborate strategy before building the initial guiding coalition

(Mackinnon, 2007).

K F Latif (11644893) 6


Analysing the application of Kotter in a change process where objective was to

integrate library and other educational support services in an Australian university,

Sidorko (2008) finds out that although the model served organisation well in

facilitating the change process, but there was steps lacking, like dealing with the

human side of enterprise, whereas Eddy (2008) in his study by applying Kotter for

bringing change in community college found that it lacks impact of team leadership

and influence of varying leadership styles. Apart from this there was little evidence

about methodologies for evaluating the success of change (Sidorko, 2008) as it does

talk about anchoring the new approaches in the culture but doesn’t actually identify

the means through which organisation assess the success of their change and would

actually get to know whether it works or not after it implementation. The Kotter

model has been appreciated for pumping energy into the organisation (Cameron and

Green, 2004), as it starts off by creating of hurriedness in the people and helps them

keep anticipating something.

Burnes (2004) from XYZ experience finds out that planned and emergent changes are

not competitors, nor each one seeks to show that it is better than other. Nor are they

mutually exclusive or incapable of being used in combination. Rather they are allies,

each one appropriate to particular change situations but neither appropriate for all

change situations. Thus if one approach is weak in a certain situation, the other can

brought to the help of organisation. As Bamford and Forrester (2004) concluded, there

is no “one best way” to manage change. Thus key issue here for managers is to

understand what they are trying to achieve, the context in which their organization is

operating and the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches as the managing

director of XYZ adopted a planned approach to change the organization’s structure

rather than an emergent one although emergent change had served the company well

in bringing about changes in the attitudes and behaviour, and in improving the

organization’s performance

Another set of models for change are contingency models, which according to Burnes

(1996) is a rejection of “One best way for all” approach and sustains that structure of

an organisation is dependent (“Contingent”) on the situational variables it faces like

environment, technology and size. For success organisations need to align their

structures with the particular contingencies they face. Since no two organisation

K F Latif (11644893) 7


would face the same contingencies, their structures and operations would be different

thus “One Best way for all” would be “One best way for each” organisation (Todnem,

2005).

Contingency theory has its share of criticism, Managers may have significant degree

of choice and influence not only over structure but also over the situational variables

(Burnes, 2004), making the structures the result of bargaining and compromise

(Cornall, 2007) plus it has also been criticised for difficulty in relating structure to

performance, also being accused of ignoring difficulty in adopting new approach to

change (Burnes, 1996). Cornall (2007) notes that contingency theory may become a

trivial exercise for managers in encouraging a sort of checklist approach, ignoring

how variables themselves may interact thus despite its attractiveness, it fails to

provide convincing explanation for the way in which organisations do and should

operate (Burnes, 2004).

Conclusion

The above discussion provides evidence that change is ever present in organisations;

therefore a successful management of change is a highly required skill. Failure in

change programmes can be attributed to lack of framework on how to implement and

manage change (Todnem, 2005) and making it more complex is that there is not one

solution fits all. Burnes (2004) suggests that combination of approaches can be used,

cemented by the case of Esain et al (2008) who point to the empirical evidence that

suggests that both planned and emergent approaches to change exist in organisation.

Thus there is a need for managers to be clear about aims, organizational context and

the strengths and weaknesses associated with the different approaches to change as

demonstrated in case of XYZ which make a particular approach useful in a particular

scenario.

There are so many models for organisational change, and many of these model share

lots of characteristics (Sidorko, 2008), looking at the Lewin planned approach to

change and Kotter emergent approach (Mitchell, 2003, Palmer, 2004), Kotter model

seems to stem out from Lewin’s work

K F Latif (11644893) 8


Unfreeze is actually Preparation for organisation

Change denotes the Actions to be taken

Re-Freeze truly means Grounding the new way of working in the organisation

Burnes (1997) point out that the preferred approach to change actually stems out from

its culture, cementing the assertion is Sidorko (2008) points that successful change

model relies on right leader and the right environment and culture thus the right for

one organisation may not be right for other since organisation operate in a dynamic

way (Senior, 2006).

Certainly change models have a role to play in organisational change, but they should

complement the organisation as just like the change comes in all shapes and sizes so

does the models (Burnes, 1996). Thus rather than arguing between planned and

emergent, they can be better looked upon approaches addressing situational variable

(Contingencies). Planned models suits stable and predictable situation where change

is top down whereas emergent is for fast, unpredictable environments stemming from

bottom to top. Strengthening the assertion is (Mackinnon, 2007) who points that in

practice it may be useful to combine Kotter's framework for organising change

management activity with some other change model which engage more closely with

the “psychological processes” of change that individuals have to go through when

asked to move to “new behaviours, activities, roles and identities in an organisation”.

Organisations need to think of appropriateness, as it’s evident from above discussion

that it’s impossible to produce a blueprint for organisational change as organisation

face varied contingencies in their operation. In summary, there are too many models

for change, the same way there are many situation in which they would be used, and

it’s not about using the “Best Practice” laid by the latest expert (Burnes, 1996).

Word Count: 2,830

K F Latif (11644893) 9


References:

Cameron, E., and Green, M., (2004). Making Sense of Change Management.

1st Edition. Kogan Page: London.

Bamford, R, D., and Forrester, L, P., (2003). Managing planned and emergent

change within an operations management environment. International Journal

of Operation and Production management. 23 (5), 20-27. [online] Available

from: Emerald Fulltext < http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm >

[Accessed 24th Nov. 2008].

Beer, M., Eisenstat, A, R., and Spector, B., (1990). Why Change Program

Don’t Product Change. Harvard Business Review. pp 156-166

Bess, L, J and Dee, R, J., (2007). Understanding College and University

Organisation: Theories for Effective Policy and Practice. Volume 1. Stylus

Publishing.

Brown, A., (1998). Organisational Culture. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education

Limited: Essex, England

Burnes, B., (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or

allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management. 24 (9), 886-902. [online] Available from: Emerald

Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm > [Accessed 8th Dec.

2008].

Burnes, B., (1996). No such thing as … a “one best way” to manage

organizational change. Management Decision. 34 (10), 11-18. [online]

Available from: Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

> [Accessed 8th Dec. 2008].

Burnes, B., (1997). Organisational Choice and Organisational Change.

Management Decision. 35 (10), 753-759. [online] Available from: Emerald

K F Latif (11644893) 10

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm


Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm > [Accessed 18th Dec.

2008].

Caldwell, R., (2005). Things fall apart? Discourses on agency and change in

organizations. Human Relations. 58(1), 83-114. [Online] Available From:

Sage Publications < www.sagepublications.com > [Accessed 15th December

2008]

Carnall, C., (2007). Managing Change in Organisations. 5th Edition. Essex:

Prentice Hall.

Charles, Handy., (1985). Understanding Organisations. 3rd Edition.

Harmondsworth:Penguin

Coram, R, and Burnes, B., (2001). Managing organisational change in the

public sector - Lessons from the privatisation of the Property Service Agency.

International Journal of Public Sector Management. 14 (2), 94-110. [online]

Available from: Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

> [Accessed 8th Dec. 2008].

Dawson, P. (2003), Reshaping Change: A Processual Perspective, Routledge,

London.

Duberley, J., Johnson, P., Cassell, C., and Close, P., (2000). Manufacturing

change: The role of performance evaluation and control systems. International

Journal of Operation and Production management. 20 (4), 427-440. [online]

Available from: Emerald Fulltext < http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-

3577.htm > [Accessed 24th Nov. 2008].

Eddy, L, P., (2003). Change in Community Colleges Through Strategic

Alliances: A Case Study. Community College Review. 30 (1), 1-20. [online]

Available from: Sage Publications <

K F Latif (11644893) 11




http://crw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/1 > [Accessed 8th Dec.

2008].

Eldrod, ,D, P., and Tippett, D, D., (2002). Empirically testing the impact of

change management effectiveness on company performance. Journal of

Organizational change Management. 15 (3), 273-291. [online] Available from:

Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm > [Accessed 8th

Dec. 2008].

Esain, A., Williams, S., and Massey, L., (2008). Combining Planned and

Emergent Change in a Healthcare Lean Transformation. Public Money and

management. 8 (1), 21-26. [Online] Availale from: Wiley: Interscience <

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119409876/PDFSTART

[Accessed 9th Dec 2008].

Garratt, B., (1997). The Power of Action Learning. In: Pedler, M., (ed.) Action

Learning in Practice. Hampshire: Gower, pp.15-30.

Guimaraes, T., and Armstrong, C., (1998). Empirically testing the impact of

change management effectiveness on company performance. European

Journal of Innovaiton Management. 1 (2), 74-84. [online] Available from:

Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/ > [Accessed 8th Dec. 2008].

James, B., and Clarkson, I., (2001). The impact of change on performance.

Journal of ChangeManagement. 2(2), 160 — 172. [online] Available From:

Informaworld <

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618 > [Accessed

9th Dec 2008].

Kippenberger, T., (2003). Planned change: Kurt Lewin's legacy. The Antidote.

3 (4), 10-12. [online] Available from: Emerald Fulltext <

K F Latif (11644893) 12


www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000006617 > [Accessed 10th

Dec. 2008].

Kotter, J, P., (1996). Leading Change. 1st Edition. Harvard Business Press.

Lewin, K., (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field

Theory in Social Science. Social Science Paperbacks: London

Lewis, K, L., (2000). Communicating Change: Four Cases of Quality

Programs. Journal of Business Communication. 37 (2), 1-20. [online]

Available from: Sage Publications <

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/128 > [Accessed 8th Dec.

2008].

Mackinnon, K, A, L., (2007). Think Differently. [Online] Available from:

<http://www.think-differently.org/search/label/change%20management >

[Accessed 9th Dec. 2008].

Mitchell, J., (2003). Strategy-Making in Turbulent Times. 1st Edition. ANTA:

Melbourne. [Online] Available from: <

http://www.reframingthefuture.net/docs/2003/Publications/2CM_Strategy_ma

king.pdf >

Palmer, R., (2006). Marketing of beef and lamb in England: the role of

EBLEX. Management Decision. 108 (10), 808-823. [online] Available from:

Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm > [Accessed 8th

Dec. 2008].

Purser, E, R and Jack Petranker, J., (2005) . Unfreezing the Future: Exploring

the Dynamic of Time in Organizational Change. Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science. 41(2), 182-201. [online] available from: Sage

K F Latif (11644893) 13

http://www.think-differently.org/search/label/change%20management

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000006617


Publications < http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/2/182 >

[Accessed 10th Dec 08].

Rasmussen, E. and Lamm, F., (2002). An Introduction to Employment

Relations. 1st Edition. New Zealand: Addison Wesley.

Rieley, J, B., and Clarkson, I., (2001). The impact of change on performance,

Journal of Change. Management. 2 (2), 160 — 172. [Online] Available from:

< http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618 > [Accessed

10th Dec 2008].

Kippenberger, T., (2003). Planned change: Kurt Lewin's legacy. The Antidote.

3 (4), 10-12. [online] Available from: Emerald Fulltext <

www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000006617 > [Accessed 10th

Dec. 2008].

Schein, E, H., (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic

View. 1st Edition. Jossey Bass Publishers: San Francisco.

Schneider, E, W., (2000). Why good management ideas fail:: the neglected

power of organizational culture. Strategy & Leadership. 28(1), 24-29. [Online]

Available from: Emerald Fulltext <

www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10878570010336001 > [Accessed 11th Dec

2008].

Senior, B and Fleming, J., (2006). Organisational Change. 3rd Edition. Prentice

Hall: Essex.

Sidorko, E, P., (2008). Transforming library and higher education support

services: can change models help?. Library Management. 29 (4/5), 307-318.

[online] Available from: Emerald Fulltext < www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-

5124.htm > [Accessed 8th Dec. 2008].

K F Latif (11644893) 14

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000006617

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618


Todnem, R., (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review.

Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369 — 380. [Online] Available From:

Informa World <

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618 > [Accessed

20th December 2008]

Zigarmi, P., Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., and Hoekstra, J., (2007). Leading at

Higher Level. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, pp.193-218.

K F Latif (11644893) 15

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618%20

Documents

It is Not Necessary to Change