Change literature is motivated by the desire to have a deeper understanding of the various factors that influence change within organizations. It begins with the understanding of change types, change enablers, change methods, and change outcomes. There are two types of change, these classified in terms of scale and duration (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Change enablers include resources, commitment and knowledge/ skills while change methods include systematic change and change management. The change process should ultimately lead to change outcomes which are customer satisfaction and achievement of the project goals and objectives. This understanding of organizational change as presented by Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) guide the scope of this paper whose purpose is to explain each step of the change model, compare and contrast each model of change, and explain the impact of each model on implementing change and resistance to change.
- Explain each step of the change model
According to the case study article by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) the steps of the change model are highlighted under the topic on change methods and specifically, the sub-topic on systematic change. There are a number of change models however the six steps model presents the most detailed steps of the organizational change process. The six steps were hypothesized by Beer, Eisenstat and Spector, B. (1990) who sought to introduce the concept of task alignment to the change literature. Their intention was to reorganize the roles, relationships and responsibilities of the employees and other stakeholders in the organization as a strategy towards helping them solve specific problems affecting businesses. The first step is to mobilize commitment so that the employees and stakeholders support the change process through joint effort and joint diagnosis of the problems affecting the business (Beer et al. 1990). The second step s to develop a shared vision on how best to organize and management the change process to achieve competitiveness. Third, to foster consensus for the new vision, enact the regulations made and work as a cohesive unit to realize organizational goals. The fourth step is to spread revitalization to the other departments within the organization without being pushed by the top management. Fifth, to institutionalize revitalization through formal structures, systems, and policies (Beer et al. 1990). The sixth step is to monitor, evaluate, and adjust strategies to respond to the problems.
- Compare and contrast each model of change
Observations by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) note that all the change management models provide broader literature compared to the systematic change methods. In addition, the change methods offer guidelines for undertaking large scale change and additionally, provides intervention strategies. As a result, the methods proposed by the change models help the organizations align their change initiatives with organizational strategy and missions through proper planning and creation of functional visions that encourage wholesome change. The models outline change management processes that embed change and make it part of the organizations culture. Another common observation noted across all the change management models is that they have underlying frameworks and theories of change management. These underlying frameworks are stipulated n forms of tools and principles of sociology, strategic change theories and information technologies. It is upon this common line of thought that different authors have developed diverse change management methods. Al-Haddad and Kotnour, (2015) outline six of these models, namely; Lewin’s method, Judson method, Jick & Kanter method, leading change method, Luecke’s method, and insurrection method. Kotter’s 8-step model for change is an additional method that has greatly influenced the implementation of change. A comparison and contrast of the Kotter’s and Lewin’s model shows that whereas Lewin posited a simple model composed of three approaches to change, Kotter’s model has eight steps. Lewin’s model begins with unfreezing, the actual change process and refreezing while Kotter’s change model begins with creating urgency followed by forming a powerful coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, removing obstacles, creating short-term wins, building on the changes adopted, and anchoring the change into the corporate culture of the organization.
- Explain the impact of each model on implementing change and resistance to change.
Lewin’s model provides a basic guide to change management. In fact, Grady, Magda and Grady (2011) note that the Lewin’s model pioneered all the other methods of change management. It provides a straightforward approach to implementing change. For instance, an organization that wants to change begins with unfreezing. This is achieved through introduction of incentives. It is followed by implementation of the actual changes. This could range from introducing a new leadership style, systems or processes. The last step of the implementation process is refreezing. In this stage, the organization embeds the changes implemented. One of the shortcomings of the Lewin’s model is that it fails to provide guidelines on how to deal with resistance to change (Smollan, 2011). Kotter’s model provides an elaborate guide to handling resistance to change but fails to adequately guide the organization in the actual implementation of the change process. As outlined in the previous question, the eight steps focus more on preparing the organization for change. For instance, the first step is to create urgency. The second step is forming powerful coalitions. Third, creating and sharing a vision. Fourth, communicating the vision. Fifth, removing obstacles. Sixth, creating short-term wins. Seventh, building on the changes and lastly, anchoring the changes (Grady et al. 2011). Following through these steps reduces instances of resistance to change.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of organizational change management, 28(2), 234-262.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.
Grady, V. M., Magda, B., & Grady, J. D. (2011). Organizational Change, Mental Models and Stability: Are They Mutually Exclusive or Inextricably Linked? Organization Development Journal, 29(3).
Smollan, R. K. (2011). The multi-dimensional nature of resistance to change. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(6), 828.