The classic change cure is a diagrammatic representation of various stages through which the change process takes place. Its beauty manifests by featuring the cycle of the change that comes across the initiation, implementation and concluding along with sustainability. And according if the change leader, if can maintain his pro-activeness, the resistance to change can be reduced, leading to making change accepted, implemented and sustained soon. Discomfort initiates the changes but this dissatisfaction has to be positive, a thrive or a zeal to get something new and this in terms of Kurt Lewin is unfreezing; a state where a change leader creates a passion for change, having done with this he deconstructs the inertia to the new level, termed as moving but as there are always the chances of change decay, the leader should focus on making it sustainable through refreezing, preventing people from drifting back.
The curve focuses on the non-linearity of performance of change with the elapsed of time, in general the change phenomenon initiates with high expectation which generally declines during the middle of change process where they feel to be in the valley of despair but if managed well then this gloomy situation cloud be transmitted soon for better performance (Palmer, Dunford, & Buchanan, 2016). Each stage is characterized by their qualities, so if the leaders can project before the happening, they can minimize the risk of failure. Besides the change in the organization, there should also be the change in employees. Employees resistance leads to the loss of organization resources like money, energy and time. So, the organizational change process and employee acceptance to a new level should go hand in hand. Thus, this curve helps the change manager to understand the organization change and manage employee transition accordingly.
This curve could further amalgamate various change model like of Kotter’s eight stage mode, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross five stages of grieving, and lets the change initiator use dialogic OD, appreciative inquiry and sense-making. The implementation stage, which I believe could be termed as a preparation or an attraction stage is all about arousing a positive discomfort for the change, here a leader could lure his employees for the change depending upon the nature, some could be intrinsically motivated whereas others extrinsically, this phase, if synchronized with (Kotter, 2007) Eight Stage model, could be about establishing a sense of urgency for the change. My friend previous organization(bank), where he initially worked, during the annual general meeting (AGM) shared the necessity of restructuring the company in a bid to be competitive, the management disclosed various volunteer retirement schemes and pension funds programs. Soon, then it became a company-wide issue, some appreciated whereas some agitated. In an active co-ordination of Government, Donors and banks management, the process was inducted. The bank management was initially prepared for negotiation with trade unions which they had already projected to happen, the valley of despair didn’t last for long, in terms of Kotter Eight stages bank formed a powerful guiding coalition, effective inducing, clear and transparent vision, communicated well and trusted its middle-level manager for the change process.
Now most recently, the bank earned pretty good profit, ranking it in the first position in the industry. With all high tech accounting software, attractive infrastructure, educated and well-trained staffs bank did well but still the risked of divergence exist, out of the three objectives of change, the third one which is to be started now is about privatizing the government-owned bank, donors have already declared financial support of worth millions of dollars, but employee are agitating, against the management projection of smooth streamlining of the process. The chances of employee drifting back to the valley of despair are higher as with the privatization, employees feel to lose their rights. If reconciled with Kuber –Ross change curve, the issue of privatization regressed backed the whole change process to the stage called denial. So with two of the objectives completed (i.e., computerization and downsizing), regarding classic curve, the privatization is to be accomplished before the refreezing the corporate culture.
Had the classic curve incorporated the theory of retrospection, it would have helped to extrapolate the past experiences, similarly, if the change manager in context of my friend's organization if had reviewed previous cases of failure and employees resistance to privatization, other modality could have been created, i.e. joint venturing or progressive privatization to minimize this unanticipated outcome. So as wisely directed by the classic curve, leader has to follow a light of hope which appears after crossing a valley of despair and as precaution by (Kotter, 2007), the change, basically transformational are always an ongoing process, until the changes are fully embedded in firm, victory should not be declared as chances of change decaying are higher. So, in context of my friend's organization, they had just celebrated some of our achievements that were in route.
Indeed thorough out the change process, the leader should be pro-active enough to analyze various impacting variables that may support or de-rail the change process like organization culture, organization structure policies or any other external factors. So to make the change sustainable and to protect it from pre-mature decay the leader should be able to redesign the reward system effectively, its example can be extra financial benefits of the basic salary linked to overall branch performance, free and fair communication path, delegate the power for prompt action et cetera.
An in-depth understanding of the classic change curve helps the change leaders to thoroughly understand the change phenomena assisting in reconciling the journey towards the change of organization and employee. Moreover, unexpected happens and to minimize those fluctuations, overall skills of appreciative inquiry, and contingency planning is an essence.
Bibliography
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Buchanan, D. A. (2016). Managing Organizational Change A Multiple Perspective Approach. MC GrawHill Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment