Lecture 4

1. Flawed communication process

2. Concern that the change has been ill conceived

3. Lack of experience with change or locked into old habits

4. Prior negative experience with a similar change

5. Prior negative experience with those advocating change

6. Fear that they lack skills they’ll need to perform well

7. The negative reactions of others that recipients trust &/or with whom they will have to work in the future

8. The change process seen to lack procedural or distributive justice and breaching their “contract”

9. Negative consequences perceived to outweigh the benefits

Mixed feelings are common as recipients try to make sense of the change

• Ambivalence generates discomfort as they seek to resolve a multitude of issues about the change: People find it easier to voice concerns about conflicting beliefs than about conflicting emotions

Once they resolve their ambivalence, feelings solidify and subsequent change to attitudes become more difficult to change again

Invest the time needed at the front end of the change to respond to ambivalence positively - or prepare to face a more difficult task later, when it turns to resistance

Reactions vary from positive to negative, and ambivalence often comes first.

Recipients do not always react negatively – it depends on how they perceive the change • Recipients will have questions and concerns, as they attempt to make sense of the change

Resistance is not inevitable – listen, work to understand and respond in ways that build understanding and support. Do this early and often – don’t wait for ambivalence to become resistance

1. Education and communication: This strategy involves using education and communication to help others develop an understanding of the change initiative, what is required of them, and why it is important. Often people need to see the need for and the logic of the change. Change leaders may fail to adequately communicate their message through the organization because they are under significant time pressure and the rationale “is so obvious” to them they don’t understand why others don’t get it.

2. Participation and involvement: Getting others involved can bring new energy and ideas, and cause people to believe they can be part of the change. This strategy works best when the change agent has time and needs voluntary compliance and active support to bring about the change. Participation fits with many of the norms of today’s flattened organizations, but some managers often feel that it just slows everything down, compromising what needs to be done quickly.

3. Facilitation and support: Here change agents provide access to guidance and other forms of support to aid in adaptation to change. This strategy works best when the issues are related to anxiety and fear of change, or where there are concerns over insufficient access to needed resources.

4. Negotiation and agreement: At times, change leaders can make explicit deals with individuals and groups affected by the change. This strategy can help deal with contexts where the resistance is organized, “what’s in it for me” is unclear, and power is at play. The problem with this strategy is that it may lead to compliance rather than wholehearted support of the change.

5. Manipulation and co-optation: While managers don’t like to admit to applying this tactic, covert attempts to influence others are very common. Engaging those who are neutral or opposed to the change in discussions and engaging in ingratiating behavior will sometimes alter perspectives and cause resistors to change their position on the change. However, trust levels will drop and resistance will increase if people believe they are being manipulated in ways not consistent with their best interests.

6. Explicit and implicit coercion: With this strategy, as with the previous one, there is a negative image associated with it. Nevertheless, managers often have the legitimate right and responsibility to insist that changes be done. This strategy tends to be used when time is of the essence, compliant actions are not forthcoming, and change agents believe other options have been exhausted. Change leaders need to recognize the potential for residual negative feelings and consider how to manage these

7. Systemic or system adjustments: Open systems analysis argues that adjustments can be made to formal structures, systems, and processes that reduce resistance while advancing the desired changes. For example, if employee resistance has coalesced in a group of employees who are employed in a particular function, organizational restructuring or the reassignment of group members to other areas may reduce resistance markedly. However, if it is mishandled, it can mobilize and escalate resistance in others.

engaging those who are neutral or opposed, or engaging in ingratiating behaviour, flattering behaviour

Covert attempts might reflect manipulation; Trust might drop and resistance increase!

Different purposes: • Diagnosis of the need for change (What) • Monitoring change and taking corrective actions (How) • Change agent’s vulnerabilities • Motivating for change (How)

The reality is that measurement and control systems incorporated into change initiatives can clarify expected outcomes and enhance accountability. This leaves some change agents feeling vulnerable. They worry that critics will use the measures to second-guess an initiative and even undermine both the change and the change agent.

1) frame the need for change and the implications of the change vision in terms of expected outcomes;

(2) monitor the environment;

(3) make monitoring and decision criteria more explicit and testable;

(4) help protect against biases when measures are wisely selected;

(5) help others involved and/or affected by the change to better understand what is expected of them;

(6) guide the change, gauge progress, and make midcourse corrections; and

(7) bring the change to a successful conclusion

• Focus on Key Factors

  • In the Gillette case, this involved measures that demonstrated the negative consequences of trade loading, showed the positive consequences of the change vision, and assessed progress with the change and performance in ways that aligned with the change vision and targeted outcomes.

• Use Measures That Lead to Challenging but Achievable Goals

  • Employees need to believe that they can achieve challenging goals. Measurements that note small steps to the larger goal and measures within an individual’s control will tap into desired motivations.

• Use Measures and Controls That Are Perceived as Fair and Appropriate

  • Employees’ perception of the appropriateness and fairness of the measures and control processes is driven as much by the process used to develop and legitimize them as by the outcomes they deliver. Even reasonable measures may not be acceptable if people feel the measures were forced on them. Good processes will reduce resistance through communication, as communication provides opportunities for input and feedback while building trust and support. Avoid applying measures in ways that punish people who take reasonable actions based on their understanding of the change goals and what is expected of them.

• Avoid Sending Mixed Signals

  • For example, an organization may initiate changes aimed at enhancing quality and customer satisfaction but then “wink at” the shipment of flawed products to meet just-in-time delivery metrics and avoid exceeding its internal scrap and rework targets. Managers do this even though they know that substandard products will increase warranty work, require customers to do rework, and put the firm’s reputation with the customer at risk. The fundamental problem in this example is that measures are not aligned with goals.

• Ensure Accurate Data

  • Employees, customers, and others are likely to supply accurate and timely data when they trust the measurement system and believe that data will not be used to harm them. Excessive rewards for success, undue sanctions for missed targets, or a very stressful work environment can lead to flawed information from carefully designed sets of measures

Interactive control systems

Boundary systems

Belief systems

Diagnostic and steering controls system

The systems that sense environmental changes crucial to the organization’s strategic concerns. For example, this would be market intelligence data that helps firms better understand and anticipate competitor actions.

Interactive control systems help sensitize change leaders to environmental shifts and strategic uncertainties and the relevance of these on the framing of the change initiative. This will allow them to modify change plans in the face of environmental factors and tend to play the biggest role when dealing with issues related to assessing the need for change and vision for the change.

the systems that set the limits of authority and action and determine acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For example, these would be limits to spending authority placed on managerial levels. These focus on what is unacceptable and identify both what is prohibited and what is sanctioned.

Understanding the organization’s boundary system means change leaders know what sorts of actions are appropriate and which are viewed as inappropriate or off limits. The firm’s rules or boundaries need be respected and place limits on what actions are appropriate. If it is believed that such boundaries need to be questioned, change leaders can discuss and debate them explicitly, but they need to do so in an ethical and transparent manner.

the fundamental values and beliefs of organizational employees that underpin the culture and influence organizational decisions. For example, these are the stated organizational values that often accompany the vision and mission.

An understanding of the organization’s belief system informs leaders about the culture and how beliefs and values influence action. This allows change leaders to frame initiatives in ways that are aligned with the core beliefs and the organizations, and the higher-order values of individuals, and use this alignment to help motivate desired actions and overcome resistance to change. Data in this area comes from direct experience with others in the organization, employee surveys, and a systematic evaluation of past decisions, practices, and behaviors.

the traditional managerial control systems that focus on key performance variables. For example, these would be sales data based on changed selling efforts.

a well-developed diagnostic and steering control system helps change agents understand and track critical performance variables and milestones, and modify their approach to encourage desired behaviors and outcomes while discouraging dysfunctional ones. These are the steering controls and metrics they use to help them navigate their way on the change journey. As you can see, these controls and their related measures address the determination of the nature of the desired change, how it will be framed, and how progress will be monitored and assessed along the way

At the beginning of a major change, mission, and vision (i.e., belief systems), interactive control systems (e.g., environmental assessments), and boundary systems (risks to be avoided) play particularly important roles in clarifying the overall direction, as options and potential courses of action are explored. Data from primary and secondary research, exploratory discussions, internal organizational assessments, and initial experimentation are helpful at this stage because they allow projects and alternatives to be considered in a grounded manner. The organization’s readiness for change can be assessed and steps taken to enhance readiness. Information from multiple sources is used to sort out options, assess what should be done next, and make an initial go/no-go decision on whether to proceed in the development of the initiative.

At this point, change leaders want to be able to track and receive timely and accurate feedback on progress and people’s reactions to what is going on. Change leaders need to recognize whether the people’s reactions are leading or lagging the desired outcomes at that stage of the change process. Milestones and road markers need to be developed through project planning and goal and objective-setting activities. These markers can then be used to track progress and reinforce the initiative of others by recognizing their achievement

As the end of a planned change approaches, diagnostic and steering measures are replaced by concrete outcome measures. What was accomplished and what has been the impact? How do the results compare with what change agents expected at the beginning? What can be learned from the change experience? Change leaders need to capture the observations and insights from those who have been involved in the change, as it will help them prepare for future initiatives.

When properly deployed, strategy maps provide change leaders with a powerful organizing and communication tool.34 This visualization helps people understand what is being proposed and why. It clarifies why certain actions are important and how they contribute to other outcomes that are critical to achieving the end goals of the change (i.e., cause–effect relationships). It helps people focus and align their efforts and appropriately measure and report progress. It can assist change leaders to identify gaps in their logic, including missing objectives and measures.

the balanced scorecard integrates measures into a relatively simple way of tracking the critical success factors. Kaplan and Norton argue that four categories of goals and measurement data need to be highlighted in a balanced scorecard: financial, a company’s relationship with its customers, its internal business process, and its learning and growth. In doing so, management can achieve a balanced, integrated, and aligned perspective concerning what needs to be done to produce the desired strategic outcomes

Robert Simon has developed a risk exposure calculator for use in assessing the level of risk associated with a company’s actions.37 Simon argues that risk is related to the rate of growth of the company, its culture, and how information and data are managed. The tool focuses primarily on internal rather than external environmental risks. Although it was designed for use on the overall organization, it has been modified to assess the risk exposure related to a particular change initiative as well as maintaining the status quo.

The first three risk drivers are grouped under change pressure. When the change leader is (a) under significant pressure to produce, (b) there is a great deal of ambiguity, or (c) employees are inexperienced in change, then the risks associated with the change initiative will be higher than if the pressures being experienced were lower for one or more of these three factors.

Change culture identifies the second set of risk drivers. If (a) the culture pushes risktaking, (b) executives resist hearing bad news, or (c) there is internal competition, then risks will be further elevated.

The final set of risk drivers is grouped under information management. When (a) the change situation is complex and fast changing, (b) there are gaps in the diagnostic data that change measures, and (c) decision making regarding change is decentralized, then risks will rise once again. These nine risk factors are cumulative in nature. The overall level of change risk rises as the total number of significant risk factors rises.

A process-oriented approach to assessing and managing the risks associated with change projects

Duration

Integrity

commitment

Effort