MANAGING PLANNED CHANGE

THE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN MANAGING PLANNED CHANGE
By Tan Thai Soon

1. Introduction

The main objective of this paper is to look into various contemporary issues in relating to managing planned change in the organization change. The content theories are about managing planned change. Robbins (2005) describes a planned change as an interventional, and goal-oriented activity, it concern with the adaptability to changes in environment and it seeks to change employees behavior in the organization.

In today competitive and dynamic environment, such as globalization of economy, development of information technology and highly mobilization of workforce, organizations are compelled to change within a shorter period at a great frequency. The older and traditional systems are making way for the new technology, tool and technique. The aim or purpose of change could be for improving the performance, increase potential synergy or even for survival.

This paper start with review of the early theories of planned change by Kurt Lewin, who developed the first model of the change process in 1940's. Scholars and academics have generally regarded Kurt Lewin as the "father of change theory".

2. Review of Theories of Planned Change

2.1 The Early Theories of Planned Change

The early models of organization planned change can be found in Lewin's change model (Lewin, 1951). The model viewed the effective changed process consist of three steps, that is unfreezing the current situation, moving to the new level or desired condition, and refreezing to stabilizes at a new state of equilibrium. To unfreeze an old behavior or habit, as we are all conditioned by our old behaviors and habits, an organization must feel discomfort with the old habit and want to change. The movement step is the implementation of actual change programmed. The final step is to refreeze the new behaviors or habits, this can happen when the individual feel satisfied with the new situation.

Lewin's Force Field Analysis Model provides a basis framework for subsequent research in the study of organization change. Since then the new theories have emerged. Lippitt (1958) further develop the model into seven steps: scouting, entry, diagnosis, planning, action, stabilization and evaluation, and termination.

2.2. Action Research Approach

Action Research Approach focuses on planned change as a cyclical process. Action Research have been described as "change process based on systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on what the analyzed data indicate." Also, it have been refer to as "the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change" (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).

It is a scientific method of managing planned change and adapted to organization development field. It has been classified into eight main steps as follows: define the problem; consultation with a behavioral science expert; data gathering and preliminary diagnosis; feedback to key-client or group; joint diagnosis of problem; joint action planning; action; and data gathering after action (Ocasio, 1994). It is a data-based with problem-oriented process that identified the need for change.

The action research model, from it early notion by Lewin have been adapted to many aspect of organizational change in the contemporary organizations: from the smaller system to a bigger system; from a more local setting to international setting; and from organizational issues to more social change issues.

3. Contemporary Change Issues

3.1. The current issues on change

The study and research on organizational change also look into the change process, factors, and strategy that affect the success or failure of change interventions, and the effect of organizational change on organization performance.

3.2. Planned or Emergent?

First, there are issues that whether change process should planned or emergent? There are contrasting views how these change process should be implemented. Ghoshal and Bartlett, emphasized the important of systematic plan of action that followed a carefully phased approached and sequences of the various stages of change. The approach focused on the developing particular organizational change capabilities in appropriate phased sequence of change. They argues that, companies that were most successful in change process are those pursue a more focused sequence of planned actions. They conclude that the organization change process should be more planned and systematic and not be left to evolve on its own accord. (Beer and Nohria, 2000, chp 10).

On the other hand, some writer, suchas Karl Weick, argued that organizations are constantly evolving, therefore the change process must be more emergent than planned. The emergent in this sense refer to the fact that change is continuous, ongoing, cumulative and without explicit intentions. The advantages of emergent change over planned change include: more sensitive to local contingencies; suitable for on-line real time experiment and learning; proneness to swift implemendation; easy to exploit tacit knowledge; and it shortened the feedback loops from results to action. (Beer and Nohria, 2000, chp 11)

Pettigrew proposed a more balance approched; he tries to synthesize these two approaches. Using he longitudinal studies of change in organization, he argues that the change process can take on a difference character at different times. (Beer and Nohria, 2000, chp 12)

3.3. Universal and Contingent

Dunphy and Stance (1993) investigate the controversy between universal and contigent approaches to corporate change. It examine why a transformation approach is needed in a more dynamic changing environment.

Their study focus on two contrasting models on organizational change, that is, universal or traditional model and contigent or transformation change model. The writer argues a contingency approach would achieve a better "fit" with the dynamic changing environment.

Dunphy and Stace approach provides a good framework, which act as a basis for further study. Their paper did not mention the relationship between organizational change and organizational performance. However, the inclusion of this multi-dimensional framework is by no mean an easy task, but it would provides a new insight on organizational performance through organizational change in the dynamic business environment.

3.4. Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Models

Van De Ven & Poole (1995) introduced a concept for organizational development and change that based on four ideal-type theories, namely, life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution. The article also develop a framework of logically possible explanations of organizational change and development, which allow us to compare and contrast various organizational change theories carried by other authors over a long period of time.

The writers have shown that the studies of organization change involve difference dimensions and nonlinear dynamic circumstances. They conclude that organization changes are often more complex than any one of the theories suggest, therefore interplay among the theories should be encouraged.

3.5. Temporal and Nontemporal

Quy (2001) aim to contribute to the development of planned change by introduced the dimension of time and the content of change. The writer propose four ideal type of planned change processes, with temporal and nontemporal assumptions.

The writer pointed out that the assumptions differ widely between ideal types, therefore the introduction of multiple intervention types is necessary. The writer concludes that for large-scale change, it may require multiple intervention types. It therefore require temporally capable change agents to effectively sequence, time, pace, and combine various interventions.

The writer by introduced four type of planned change and identifying some of the time dimensions, thus provides a good conceptual frameworks and platform for future research.

3.6. Sustainability and Decay

Buchanan (2005) and his fellow writers try to develop a provisional model of the processes influencing change sustainability and decay. The writer succinctly explain the difficulties in sustaining change in an organization in the turbulent and volatile economic environment. There are many reasons why change cannot be sustained. The major factors identified were substantiality, individual factors, managerial, financial, leadership, organizational, culture, political, processual, contextual, and temporal.

As memtioned early the writers have emphasized the important of change in the turbulent and volatile economic environment. However, acceptance of change and sustaining the change requires considerable thought and action. Each situation is different and each corporate context is different. It is granted that making the change is the more difficult step but sustaining the change to derive all the benefits also needs to be looked into. Managing organizational change is therefore an art and a science.

The writers have made a clear case for studying sustainability of change. The cost of implementing change is substantial and therefore sustainability becomes imperative.

3.7. Participative and Directive/Coercive Leadership

Dunphy and Stace (1993) studies revealed the contrasting style of participative and directive/coercive leadership approach in the organizational change. the writers attempt to synthesize and reconciles the two approaches. They advised for change program to be successful, consultative and participative approach should not be ignored, but complement to the new transformative change using directive leadership approach. The writers conclude that two approaches are complementary and their effectiveness and usefulness would depend on the particular circumstances and a mindful flexibility of choice between the two approaches.

The writers is right to suggest a more mindful flexibility of leadership style and approaches in the planned change, as we are living in a culturally diverse global world.

3.8. Cultural issues in managing change

With the current fervor of internationalism and globalization, the study of culture has generated great interest by academicians and practitioners of organizational change. The meaning of culture, according to Hofstede (1981) is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the member of one human group from those of another. It is a system of collectively held value.

The cultures vary in terms of group value and beliefs toward organizational change. Some cultures are more proactive and some are more passive toward change. The culture also differ in term of timeline, some culture such as United State demand a shorter time toward change to obtain result, on the other hand, culture such as Japan, took a longer term with continuous improvement for positive outcome.

The issue of power distance culture also affects the change effort. The high power distance cultures are generally more autocratic in implementing their effort. On the other hand, the low power distance culture value democratic and participative change process (Hofstede, 1994). Finally, but not least, the study of culture dimensions on individualism and collectism also important. Generally, American have show more individualistic as compare to their counter part such as Japan and in other Asian countries.

In short, the study of culture is paramount important, it require the implementation of organization change to be more sensitive to the local culture and to develop a more contingency-oriented perspective toward the cultural value of the regional organizations.

4. Conclusion

This paper has focus on the theory of planned change, which seek to modify the structures strategies, and the processes to improve organizational performance and effectiveness, through adaptability to changes in environment and change in employee behavior in the organization. The Lewin's change model, a three-step process of unfreezing, movement, and refreezing were discussed. This paper also discussed the Action Research Approach, a more scientific method of managing planned change, which focuses on planned change as a cyclical process.

The paper continues with the discussions on various contemporary issues that relating to the planned change. The question whether the theory should be more planned or more emergent, dynamic and contingent in the organization change are discussed. Similarly, the study contrasting the traditional and contingency theories in organizational change as an important issue. The understanding of the nonlinear dynamic system models is also an issue. The study of the temporal dynamic situation, that focuses on sequencing, timing, pacing, and combining of intervention type have been discussed.

The factors influencing change sustainability have been discussed and need further research. While change is necessary to meet current and future challenges it sustainability in the longer period is paramount important. However the cost of implementing change is substantial and therefore sustainability becomes imperative. Finally, but not least, the challenge in the future study of organizational change is a new pluralism for this area of research (Pettigrew, 2001). There should be an exploration of multiple levels of analysis and a reciprocal study of contexts and action. The new pluralism should entail a new dedication to time and history and a willingness to reveal the relationship between change processes and outcomes on a continuous basis rather than being episodic. Finally, with the current fervor of internationalism and globalization, comparative studies between countries are essential. It is a culturally diverse global world and scholars from different backgrounds can add to this challenging research frontier in the theories of planned change.