Theoretucal Discussion On Change Management Principals

"... as we move into the twenty-first century, we face more change rather than less, and the pace of change will quicken for both governments and enterprises alike. In particular, we face the challenge of transforming organizations, traditional production and consumption patterns and our personal lifestyles to reflect the fact that we are an integral part of a global community and an ecology vital to our welfare and survival. We must all become change agents now."

The quote from Stace and Dunphy (2001) is made in the context of the impending changes organisations will need to make to deal with the changing social norms of an eco-friendly society, what Maynard and Mehrtens refer to as "The fourth wave". It would be simple then to determine that they are referring merely to the need for organisations to be more 'eco-friendly', however the deeper meaning is more about the need to develop what Kriegal and Brandt (1996) refer to as "Change Ready Organisations". An organisation where, as Stace and Dunphy (2001) suggest, "everyone is a change agent". The major implication therefore is the need to advance organisations to this point. Not just to change an organisation, but for them to be truly change ready, where all members of the organisation are change agents. To better determine how we should effect change, we need to look at why we need to change and why Stace and Dunphy (2001) believe that we "face more change rather than less".

Drivers

The principal driver for any organisation is to remain viable and relevant to its customers, thus maintaining existence. Put simply, "If an organisation is to survive, it must respond to changes in its environment" (Robbins et al. 1994: 787). This can be effected by a number of factors. Stace and Dunphy (2001: 21-42) cite 'globalisation', the 'rapid influx of technology', the 'shift from minerals and manufacturing into service and knowledge industries' and 'the shift in managerial focus from hierarchies to more fluid, homogenous structures' as the major trends influencing and forcing change. Whilst Bolman and Deal (2003: 124) agree on these points, what they add is the human factor discussed considerably in their "Human Resource Frame", and the argument that "there is a symbiotic relationship between individuals and organisations".

With regards to the pace of change, Stace and Dunphy (2001) are in good company, with many writings agreeing that the pace of change has been steadily increasing over time. "The pace of change has become so rapid today that it is difficult to adjust or compensate for one change before another is necessary." (Harvey & Brown 1996: 8) there are similar statements to be found in Burnes (2000: 251), Weisbord (2000: 70), Bolman & Deal (2003: 124) and Maynard & Mehrtens (1996: 1). This increase in pace can be attributed almost solely to Weisbord's (2000) "Third Wave", also referred to as the technological revolution.

Globalisation

Of the factors effecting change, probably the most influential

and most notorious is globalisation. The concept of the "global village" (McLuhan 1962) has been around for some time, and originally referred to the rapid information flow that was possible. However today's global village is one where "tariff walls and financial protection is lowered in order to force greater competitiveness against countries with lower labour and infrastructure costs" (Stace & Dunphy 2001: 21).

Globalisation affects change on two levels. Firstly businesses are becoming truly Global or more commonly referred to as Multi-National in that they utilise resources wherever they are most economically viable (Stace & Dunphy 2001: 21-23), hence they are no longer tied to one location or economy. The second is in relation to competitiveness, the phrase "the world is your oyster" now applies to customers on even the simplest of transactions. Consider in 1995, the local Dymocks bookstore, competing with a small, one man, internet based operation working out of a garage in Seattle, called amazon.com. Globalisation is thus affecting even the smallest local business, as the need to compete globally drives change at the local level.

Responding to the change drivers

There are many approaches to change and the means by which it can best be affected. The change itself can come by one of two models, continuous improvement or radical transformation (Stace & Duphy 2001: 10) (Burnes 2000: 254). For an organisation to deal with a great deal of rapid change, logic dictates that the continuous improvement model would be better suited than one of intermittent radical change. A closer examination of the two models and some of the theories which use them will explain why.

Radical transformation involves a rapid, major overhaul of an organisation shifting it quickly from one state of operation to another. Typical approaches to radical transformation include downsizing and reengineering and focus more on changing an organisation's structure and/or processes in order to generate the desired outcome (Stace & Dunphy 2001: 10). The short timeframes involved mean that organisations can reap the benefits of the change much quicker than a slower paced or staged implementation of change. There are however adverse effects of the RT model, particularly if it is not carefully managed. In particular it is easy for employees to lose both trust and motivation (Robbins et al. 1994: 792-798)(Bolman & Deal 2003: 135) and often actually work actively against the organisation (Bolman & Deal 2003: 120-123). To respond to rapid and ongoing changes in their environment, regular radical transformations would not be sustainable.

Continuous transformation appears to offer a much better model for responding to the environment discussed. The continuous improvement model advocates that the organisation is constantly looking at and responding to, the various environmental factors which affect it, thus being in a state of almost continuous change (Burnes 2000: 255). The major theories which follow the continuous improvement model include Total Quality Management, TQM and Organisational Development OD. (Stace & Dunphy 2001: 10)

"Organisation Development is defined as a long-range effort to improve an organisations ability to cope with change and its problem-solving and renewal processes through effective management of organisational culture" (Harvey & Brown 1996: 4)

Of course, changing the culture of an organisation