Columbia Southern Kotter and Lewin Change Models Behavior Comparison Paper InstructionsAl-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) describes the change models of Kotter and

Columbia Southern Kotter and Lewin Change Models Behavior Comparison Paper InstructionsAl-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) describes the change models of Kotter and
Lewin. In an essay, compare and contrast these change models or any other
early research that focuses on individual behaviors and resistance to
change.
Explain each step of the change model. Compare and contrast each model
of change. Explain the impact of each
model on implementing change and resistance to change. Your essay should be three pages in length, not including the title page or
reference page. Cite at least one scholarly article from the CSU Online
Library (not including the referenced case study article). You must accompany
all referenced, paraphrased, and quoted material and sources used with
in-text citations in the proper APA format. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
JOCM
28,2
Integrating the organizational
change literature: a model for
successful change
234
Serina Al-Haddad and Timothy Kotnour
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute a roadmap to the change management literature,
and provide definitions for describing change types, change enablers and change methods. This paper
also proposes aligning the change type with the change method to find the effect on the change
outcomes. New researchers can use this paper to get an overview of the change management discipline
along with the main concepts that help in understanding the different dimensions of and relationships
between the change types and methods in the literature. Managers can use this paper to describe and
classify their organizational change situation and select an implementation method for systematic
change and for change management.
Design/methodology/approach – This framework is designed based on literature review and
experts judgment.
Findings – The results of the research propose a hypothesis that describes the relationships between
the change types and methods and how this relationship can affect the change outcomes.
Originality/value – The main contribution of this research paper is to connect three main knowledge
areas of change types, change methods and change outcomes. These three areas are standalone
subjects in several publications in the literature. Some researchers connected the change types and
change methods, while other researchers connected the change methods and change outcomes.
But connecting the change types, change methods and change outcomes remains a new research
territory to explore.
Keywords Alignment, Change management, Organizational change, Systematic change
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 28 No. 2, 2015
pp. 234-262
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
1. Introduction
We are living today in a constantly growing global business environment, where
change has become the norm for organizations to sustain their success and existence.
Industrial and governmental organizations are constantly striving to align their
operations with a changing environment (Ackoff, 2006; Burnes, 2004a; By, 2005; Hailey
and Balogun, 2002; Kotter, 1996; Mintzberg, 1979; Moran and Brightman, 2001).
Organizations and their leaders are also changing as a natural response to the shift
in strategic importance, from effectively managing mass markets and tangible
properties to innovation, knowledge management and human resources (Dess and
Picken, 2000). Many approaches and methods have been suggested to manage
change, yet organizations undergoing change vary significantly in their structure,
systems, strategies and human resources.
Organizations need an integrated approach to drive systematic, constructive change
and minimize the destructive barriers to change, as well as addressing the
consequences of making the change. In implementing change, different definitions
and methods have been proposed to manage change; however, organizations still
report a high failure rate of their change initiatives. The literature provides many cases
on organizational change; yet, the success rate of change initiatives is o 30 percent
(Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Grover, 1999). And more recent
articles note the fact that this rate is not getting any better ( Jacobs et al., 2013; Jansson,
2013; Michel et al., 2013; Rouse, 2011). Those failure rates indicate a sustained need
for investigating and finding what factors increase the probability of successful
organizational change and debatably imply a lack of a valid framework for
organizational change (By, 2005; Rafferty et al., 2013). Reasons behind organizational
change failure have attracted only limited attention (Buchanan et al., 2005). Dunphy
and Stace (1993) argued that “managers and consultants need a method of change
that is essentially a “situational” or “contingency” method, one that indicated how to
vary change strategies to achieve “optimum fit” with the changing environment”
(p. 905). When reviewing relevance and validity in the available methods, the literature
shows a considerable disagreement regarding the most appropriate method to
changing organizations (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). With the high variation
between organizations undergoing change, a directive change approach or method
would not be suitable for all situations as change methods should depend on the
organizational context (Michel et al., 2013; Nyström et al., 2013). One-size-fits all
methods frequently result in failing change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008).
Burnes and Jackson (2011) argue that even writers, who have addressed why
change initiatives fail, recognize that reasons go beyond poor planning or lack of
commitment to change: “The underlying cause is a clash of values between the
organization and the approach to and type of change it has adopted” (p. 135). Conner
(1998) believes that organizations have to realize that the drivers of change are
all connected and affect each other; any change action has a chain reaction that impacts
the whole organization.
Today, successful change management is a major topic for all organizations, and
how to successfully achieve organizational change during economic crises is being
asked by many organizations (Ashurst and Hodges, 2010). Many writers have
suggested methods to implement change; nevertheless, in recent years, it has become
more recognized that one or even two methods to change cannot cover the vastly
different change situations (Burnes and Jackson, 2011). The growth in theories
and methods dealing with change requires having a framework that integrates and
categorizes the various methods (Goes et al., 2000). Change methods need to be
continuously evolving to align with the environmental factors.
This paper addresses the question: How can organizations align their change type
with the most appropriate change method? This paper is divided into six sections. The
first section introduces the need for change and the gaps this paper is addressing.
The second section reviews and integrates the change literature history and the main
authors that addressed change. The third section proposes and discusses a taxonomy
to the change literature and discusses the different change types, enablers, methods
and outcomes and explains how the alignment concept between the change types and
methods. The fourth section discusses opportunities for future research. And the fifth
section summarizes the paper with an overall conclusion.
The main contribution of this research to the scholarly literature is to connect the
three main knowledge areas of change types, change methods and change outcomes.
These three areas are stand-alone subjects in several publications in the literature.
Some researchers connected the change types and change methods (Burnes, 2004a; By,
2005; Goes et al., 2000; Meyer et al., 1990), while other researchers connected the
change methods and change outcomes (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2004a;
Integrating the
organizational
change
literature
235
JOCM
28,2
236
Miller, 1982; Mintzberg, 1979). But connecting the change types, change methods and
change outcomes remained a new research territory to explore.
2. A review of the change literature history
This section provides a review of history of change as a discipline and reviews the
primary authors that have addressed the different contributing disciplines of change
such as: sociology and psychology; management and leadership; and engineering
management (EM) and industrial engineering (IE). Figure 1 shows the change literature
timeline along with the authors in each area.
As shown in Figure 1, research in change in the areas of psychology and sociology
started with the Lewin studies in 1946 in organizational development (OD). Kurt Lewin
was a humanitarian who thought that human conditions could only be enhanced by
resolving social conflicts (Burnes, 2004b). Lewin is considered the intellectual father of
the philosophies of OD, applied behavioral science, action research and planned
change. Working during Second World War, Lewin focussed on how to change human
behavior, spurring an entire generation of research addressing change and
implementing it as a process (Schein, 1988). Lewin’s theories inspired studies in the
role of human behavior in organizational dynamics. Individuals’ and groups’
perspectives revealed how people react to organizational change. Figure 2 shows the
different perspectives in OD.
As shown in Figure 2, each of the individual theories assumed it was able to
translate the human actions correctly (Lovell, 1980; Pavlov, 1960; Skinner, 1974).
Looking at group dynamics as part of OD is probably the oldest perspective (Schein,
1969). Group dynamics were identified and defined by Kurt Lewin in 1948; he believed
that since organizational structure was becoming more team-based, individuals’
behavior must be a function of the group environment and can only be seen and
modified in terms of groups.
Supporters of the group dynamics perspective claim that change has to occur on a
team level and should concentrate on changing and influencing the norms, roles and
values of its members (Cummings and Huse, 1989; French and Bell, 1984). As a result
of both perspectives, of individuals and groups, the open systems explanation of OD
emerged; the open systems school looks at the organization from a broader perspective.
As the name implies, this school views organizations as being open externally to the
surrounding environment, and internally where various subunits interact with each
other (Buckley, 1968; Scott, 1987). Lalonde (2011) argues that the open systems require
ongoing change to adapt to the revolutionary environment and this creates a strategy
of continuous learning that becomes integrated within the organizational culture. OD
affects the organization by changing the individuals and altering the overall
performance; consequently, change is a natural conceptualization of OD (Kezar, 2001).
Weisbord and Janoff (2010) promote the idea of participation when discussing
organization development and change by introducing “future research.” They note that
when issues involving people are explored, more creative energy is released, leading to
projects that everyone identifies as significant and no one could accomplish alone. In
the social studies area, the change management literature has been associated with OD
studies. Moreover, it has been argued that change management is a proper replacement
for OD as it includes both business and human needs (Worren et al., 1999).
First introduced in the early twentieth century, the discipline of management was
introduced by Fayol as a part of general administration and has since emerged as a
major focus of research. Fayol is also known for developing the 14 principles of
• Why/how people do or
do not change
Why this discipline is
important to change
EM & IE
• Values and skills needed
for change
• Processes and
integrated systems by
which change happens
• Detailed methods of
change
• How planning, organizing
and directing people and
resources affect change
accomplishing change
goals
Management & • How certain principles
and practices help in
Leadership
Psychology
& Sociology
Discipline
Schein (1988)
Simon
Kotter (1996)
1900
1920
1940
Time
1960
The Father of Statistical Quality Control
Shewhart
Cross Functional Management
& Resistance to Change
1980
14 Rules of TQM
Deming (1986)
2000
By What Mehtod
Juran
Sink et al. (1995)
Crosby
Doing it Right the First Time
Taylor
The Father of Scientific
Management
Kanter (1984)
The Change Masters & The
Human Side of Change
Insurrection Model
Hamel (2000)
Theory “E” & “O”
2010
Beer and Nohria (2000)
Leading Change Model
Operations Research
& Idealized Design
Change & Ambiguity
McCaskey (1982)
The Incremental
Change Concept
Mintzberg (1979)
Administrative Behavior
Management Functions
Ackoff
The Practice of
Management
Drucker
Corporate Conservatism
Sloan
Mass customization
Ford
Weihrich and Koontz (1993)
Miller and Rice (1967)
The Four Org. Subsystems
The Piecemeal Change Concept
Fayol
Productivity & Future Research in Transformation
Weisbord
Action Research Model
Cummings & Huse (1989)
Organizational Psychology
Management Functions
Action Research
& Organizational Development
Lewin (1946)
Primary Authors
Integrating the
organizational
change
literature
237
Figure 1.
Change management
timeline
JOCM
28,2
Behaviorist Theory: assumes that change is initiated only when the external
consequences and effects on the individuals are modified
Individuals
Gestalt-Field Theory: assumes change is initiated by aiding individuals
understand themselves and circumstances they are in, and
this is what leads to a successful change of their behavior
238
Organizational
Development
Perspectives
Group Dynamics: Change has to be on a team level and should concentrate on changing
and influencing the norms, roles and values of its members
Organizational Goals
and Values Subsystem
Figure 2.
Organizational
development
perspectives
Open Systems: Organizations are open externally to the
surrounding environment, and internally
where various subunits interacts with
each other
Technical Subsystem
Psychological Subsystem
Managerial Subsystem
management. In 1949, Fayol wrote a book titled General and Industrial Management
in which he discusses what he considered the most important 14 principles of
management and explains how managers should organize and interact with staff
(Fayol, 1950). Carter (1986) argues that most management textbooks recognize Fayol
as the father of the first theory of administration. Fayol also divided the functions of
administration or management into five elements: planning, organizing, commanding,
coordinating and controlling (Babcock and Morse, 2002).
In 1974, Drucker defined management as a process of accomplishing tasks with the
help of other people and resources (Drucker, 1974). Drucker argues that business has to
be managed by balancing the different organizational goals and objectives that became
a popular term in management called “management by objectives” (Drucker, 1986).
McFarland (1979) argues “management was originally a noun used to indicate the
process of managing, training, or directing” (p. 5). Mcfarland also defines management
as an administrative process and can be seen as a science or an art.
Weihrich and Koontz (1993) define five main functions of management:
(1) planning, which includes setting a mission and vision and prepare for future
actions;
(2) organizing, which involves creating a formal structure of people’s roles in the
organization;
(3) staffing, which means employing people to fill in the positions on the
organizational structure;
(4) leading, which means having the authority to influence and direct employees to
willingly accomplish certain objectives or achieve common goals; and
(5) controlling, which involves following up and correcting employees’
performance to ensure they conform to the goals and objectives set.
Nicholas and Steyn (2008) define management as the execution of all of what is
important to accomplish a task or a system of tasks, or completing a project on time
and with the allocated resources. Ackoff and Emery (1972) discusses the importance
of systematic thinking in managing human behavior. Ackoff (2006) also stresses on the
importance of plans and procedures in providing guidance when managing change.
Authors in management also have proposed methods for managing change at an
incremental rate. Mintzberg (1979) and Miller (1982) define incremental change as an
approach in which organizations progressively alter a few elements or form new
strategies. Miller (1982) argues that sometimes the most economical and cost effective
change strategy is to adopt the semi-incremental approach with stable intervals
punctuated occasionally by revolutionary periods of change. Managing change and
its associated uncertainties can be is stressful and poses a lot of physical, emotional and
psychological tolls (McCaskey, 1982).
Leadership can be defined as a process whereby a person influences and directs
others to accomplish a certain objective or achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007).
Kouzes and Posner (1995) suggest that the five main leadership practices, or what they
call the “exemplary leadership,” are: “modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision,
challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart” (p. 13).
Soderholm (1989) argues that leadership is about the innovation of new ideas and new
concepts that brings new desirable outcomes. The entrepreneurship, creativity and
innovation embedded in leadership are very important to successfully managing
change. In addition, Hamel (2007) believes that mobilizing talent, allocating resources,
and formulating strategies are necessary for the organization’s profitability and for
maintaining the competitive advantage.
A leader is the person who makes sure that the organization is heading in the right
direction (Winston, 2004). The continually changing business environment needs
quick responses that only a leader can provide. And it is the leaders who have to make
the right decisions at the right time to align the organization with the changing
environment, and who motivate the people to work and implement the changes
(Goleman, 2000; Haidar, 2006). In complex and ambiguous situations, managers have to
deal with major uncertainties that arise; those who can successfully deal with this
uncertainty distinguish themselves and become key people within the organization
and gain great impact and authority (Thompson, 1967).
As defined by Griffith-Cooper and King (2007), change leadership refers to “a set of
principles, techniques, or activities applied to the human aspects of executing change
to influence intrinsic acceptance while reducing resistance” (p. 14). Change leaders are
people with creative visions, who are able to foresee a new reality and how to get to it.
Change leaders have to understand how their employees perceive change and ensure
they accept the change and are ready for it. They have to motivate employee to take
responsibility and be an active part of the change (Gioia et al., 2013; van et al., 2013).
Kanter (1984) describes them as the architects or ultimate masters. Kanter (2000)
suggests that the classic skills for change leaders are:
(1) “Tuning in to the environment.
(2) Challenging the prevailing organizational wisdom.
(3) Communicating a compelling aspiration.
(4) Building coalitions.
(5) Transferring ownership to a working team.
(6) Learning to preserve.
(7) Making everyone a hero” (p. 34).
Beer and Nohria (2000) identify two basic change theories for leading change: Theory E
that is based on economic value, and Theory O that is based on organizational
capability. Theory E represents the “hard” approach to change; its focus is the
Integrating the
organizational
change
literature
239
JOCM
28,2
240
shareholder value and usually involves using economic incentives, layoffs and
downsizing. On the other hand, Theory O represents the “soft” approach; its
focus is developing the organizational culture and people’s capabilities and
usually welcomes people’s involvement, feedback and reflections. Acts of leadership
enable the organization to respond to the changing environment by creating a vision
and making prompt decisions in terms of resources and technologies (Ekvall and
Arvonen, 1991;…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment