Introduction
Nowadays, it is apparent that many established organizations struggle to keep up to stay relevant in the market. On the other hand, less experienced executives continue to lead their teams to various successes in the industry. This happens mainly because of the company’s ability to adapt by being flexible and taking an efficient approach to any internal or external transformations. It is crucial for organizations to master the art of change in the reality of the 21st century’s business environment. It is impossible to avoid sudden and immense shifts, which puts corporations that can adapt quickly at a massive advantage (Harrison et al., 2021). This presentation aims to discuss a wide range of models for organizational change developed by influential scholars and authors in the field. Moreover, the agenda consists of choosing one model, which is the most appropriate for a mock-up scenario. The presentation’s goal is to answer the question of whether there is an approach most appropriate to manage a big company’s move from New Jersey to Arizona over the course of 12 months.
Nine Models to Navigate Organizational Change
Navigating change is no easy task for any company. There is a lot at stake when it comes to managing external or internal transformations, however large or small they may be. When the change is planned, the organization usually has an advantage. It can develop the most efficient change management strategy, which would include an appropriate model for change. There are various approaches a company can take while managing change. Cameron and Greene (2015) focus on the nine critical models for change as the main approaches available to a wide range of organizations around the world. They include Lewin, the three-step model; Bullock and Batten, planned change; Kotter; eight steps; Beckhard and Harris, change formula; Nadler and Tushman, congruence model; William Bridges, managing the transition; Carnall, change management model; Senge, systemic model; Stacey and Shaw, complex responsive processes. Each of them has its own unique characteristics in terms of approaching the change process (through metaphors) and defining the guiding principles important for a company to implement during any transformation. Moreover, no model is an exception and each one of them has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The Lewin Model
While some models are especially simple, others are rather complex and have nuances. It is evident that the Lewin approach can be considered the most simplistic one out of the ones presented in the text by Cameron and Green (2015). It consists of three rather simple steps: unfreeze, move, and refreeze.
The first stage implies clearly defining the current state of affairs in order to identify the driving and resisting forces. The second stage is all about developing strategies to move to a desired new state through involvement. The third includes the process of stabilizing all which has been accomplished as a result of initiating policies and establishing new regulatory standards. While it is apparent that the Lewin model is easy to understand, it has its disadvantages. One of them includes its lack of details, which prompts executives to fill in the blanks using another approach for organizational change. In addition, the Lewin model is rigid and the action of “freezing” the final behaviors is relatively ineffective to deal with the 21st century’s business environment. It is inefficient to commit to certain changes because it is very likely an organization will need to change a lot more in order to keep up with others.
Bullock and Batten’s Model for Planned Change
Bullock and Burton’s proposed model for planned change is largely inspired by the disciplines of project management. Cameron and Green (2015) examine exploration, planning, action, and integration as the main steps of this model. Exploration refers to justifying the change and gathering all the necessary resources necessary for its implementation. Planning implies a diagnosis of all the actions and stakeholders involved in the proposed transformation. The action involves the process of completing tasks defined in the plan and creating the proper feedback mechanisms to allow some space for potential mistakes. The integration stage refers to aligning the change with the direction an organization as a whole is aimed at. Moreover, integration involves the development of formal regulations, structures, and company policies. The model allows executives to isolate one part of an organization and, thus, save time and resources. The desire that this approach is not suitable for sudden and unknowable changes, which require fast and creative responses.
Kotter’s Eight-Step Model
Kotter’s eight-step approach to transformations within an organization is a bit more complex than the aforementioned Lewin model. It was developed as a result of the scholar’s research focusing on the key lessons in organizational change and its efficient management (Cameron & Green, 2015). This approach highlights the importance for a company to invest in developing efficient communication channels. Moreover, Kotter emphasizes the importance of a shared vision for a team. The eight steps include creating a sense of urgency, forming an influential and powerful group of employees to cooperate, developing a vision, then communicating the vision to the team, empowering employees to follow the vision and experiment, planning for short-turn successes, consolidating improvements, as well as institutionalizing the new behaviors. The steps are rather simple and lead to a staff that is more involved, engaged, and empowered. In addition, the Kotter model emphasizes preparation and takes potential obstacles into consideration. On the other hand, however, certain steps do not offer any guidance as to how to complete them causing the organization to look for additional strategies and techniques. Additionally, the steps are extremely time-consuming, which is why they are not suitable for implementing quick changes or responding to sudden transformations within or outside the company.
The Nadler and Tushman Congruence Model
This model aims to provide some sort of understanding of the inner dynamics of an organization going through transformations. The Nadler and Tushman approach does not present clear, descriptive answers, but rather stimulates brainstorming within an organization in the context of its own specific situation (Cameron & Green, 2015). The authors view an organization as a combination of subsystems interacting with each other based on the organism metaphor. These components include the work (day-to-day tasks of employees), the people (skills and characteristics of the staff), the formal organization (systems and policies within a company), as well as the informal organization (unplanned activities such as values and power). Nadler and Tushman argue that any changes eventually fizzle out of executives pay close attention to catering to all the four sub-systems, which would result in a lack of congruence. Thus, decreased congruence results in an organization increasing its internal energy resources in the form of power and control. The advantages of this model include its usefulness in developing a checklist for executives to clearly identify the gaps they might have in the operations, which would explain why past changes have failed. On the other hand, the approach is problem-focused rather than solution-focused, according to Cameron and Green (2015). This means that the model provides no guidance for an organization to set and achieve goals as a result of changes.
Beckhard and Harris Formula
The formula developed by Beckhard and Harris is essentially a method of defining the process of organizational change and determining the factors, which would allow for it to occur. The formula is C equals ABD > X, where C is changed, A is the level of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, B is the desirability of the suggested transformations or the final state the company is aiming at, D is the proposed change’s practicality, while X is the “cost” of changing. The formula is perfect for targeting the management effort and designing appropriate interventions.
The approach is simple yet exceptionally efficient in identifying the current state of affairs within an organization and minimizing the distractions occurring as a result of proposed shifts. However, the model’s simplicity can also be regarded as its weakness since the process of organizational change requires the development of concise systems, structures, and initiatives, which the Beckhard and Harris approach lacks. In addition, the authors imply that the weights of A, B, and D are equal although this is not necessarily true because every situation is different.
The Bridges Model
William Bridges emphasizes the distinction between change and transition, which is crucial to understanding the process behind the organizational transformation. He argues that transition is comprised of three main phases, including an ending, a neutral zone, and a new beginning. His approach is exceptionally efficient for organizations going through transformations related to inevitable endings and new beginnings such as redundancy, closure of a department, or acquisition. However, it is important to note that it is rather difficult to use the approach for anticipatory change since the beginnings and endings are fluid. In general, the Bridges model is a rather questionable substitute for approaches such as the Lewin model and should often be used along with other change management strategies.
The Carnall Change Management Model
Colin Carnall offers an approach to change management, which combines multiple perspectives. Thus, effective change management depends on the skill displayed by the management team in terms of dealing with transitions, organizational cultures, and organizational politics efficiently. The Carnall approach provides the management team with a useful and practical checklist in terms of its role in the change process. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the capacity of this model to offer strategic advice in regards to the organizational dynamics beyond management is rather limited.
The Senge et al. Systemic Model
When discussing the concept of sustainable change, it is impossible not to mention the systemic approach to change management offered by Senge et al. Some of their guidelines include starting small and growing steadily if a bit slowly. In addition, they argue that it is unnecessary to have a plan for the entire thing since nothing ever goes smoothly and has its challenges. This model differs from any other by emphasizing the importance of taking a long-term approach instead of focusing too much on the first steps of change management, including the development and communication of a shared vision, as well as excessive planning. The approach examines the issues typically associated with initiating, sustaining, and redesigning organizational change in order to provide executives with fresh ideas and suggestions. The Senge et al. model offers certain advice in regards to balancing a variety of forces within a company and creating resistance. Despite that, the approach lacks any formulaic solutions, granting more favor to thought-provoking ideas and abstract concepts. The current business environment often needs fast and proactive solutions, which this model cannot give.
Stacey and Shaw’s Responsive Processes
Shaw and Stacey use the metaphor and flux and transformation to explore change and the processes behind it. They believe change is a natural occurrence as a result of clear communication combined with conflict and tension. In addition, this approach recognizes the role of a manager as a participant and an integral part of the whole environment rather than an outside player who controls and manipulates the system. This model points out that it is essentially impossible to perfectly manage change. Thus, the role of a leader is to provide guidance and inspire the staff, rather than try to control it. In addition, for a manager, it is only needed to optimize the energy of the team and increase the connectivity between employees. On the one hand, such an approach is some sort of relief for people working in complex environments such as government or healthcare. On the other hand, other professionals can find it overly complex and confusing since the model offers no specific solutions.
The Chosen Model
The mock-up scenario chosen for this assignment is the company’s decision to move from New Jersey to Arizona over the course of a year. It is also important to note that the organization is quite big and employs 2500 workers. The decision-making process regarding relocation often implies the discussion of logistics, organizational alignment, job losses, and real estate. It is crucial to acknowledge that this change is huge in terms of the impact it can have on the company and its resources, particularly human resources. Thus, it is crucial to choose the most appropriate change management model for the executives of the chosen organization to apply. While it is evident that navigating any changes is almost impossible without using multiple approaches and strategies since each one has its own limitations, this presentation offers the basis for the company’s change management initiatives and chooses just one model. In this scenario, it is the Bridges model, which is the most appropriate to manage relocation from New Jersey to Arizona. Firstly, it is perfect for dealing with transitions, when they move from one state to another. This approach allows executives to acknowledge the emotional stress the employees will most likely go through as a result of the relocation. In addition, the Bridges model is extremely useful to allow the organization to adapt to inevitable changes such as the decision to move the operations to another state.
Steps Involved in Implementing the Bridges Approach
The primary stages a company will go through once it commits to taking the Bridges approach are ending, a neutral zone, and a new beginning. Each one of these steps is crucial in addressing the challenges the transition such as the one discussed in this assignment can pose. Ending refers to the organization’s efforts to recognize and address the feelings its employees might have in regard to the change (Leybourne, 2016). More often than not, these feelings are negative and include shock, aggression, irritation, disbelief, and even feelings of betrayal (Gregory et al., 2005). Therefore, the company has to manage these emotions by helping its staff to let go and adjust before moving on to the neutral zone. The most important goal of the ending stage is to minimize the impact of change on employees’ emotional states by utilizing effective communication strategies. The second phase is the neutral zone, which implies bridging the old and the new (Leybourne, 2016). During this period, the productivity of employees will most likely drop significantly. The primary goal of this stage is to prevent the company’s staff from giving up by effectively facing their resistance to the implemented changes. Lastly, the final stage is the new beginning, which refers to the change’s acceptance (Leybourne, 2016). Moreover, this period is characterized by high productivity, excitement, and creativity. During this stage, it is crucial to reward the employees who participated in the changes as a part of a team/department, or championed this shift independently.
The Timeline of Change (Months 1-3)
It is important to acknowledge that implementing the Bridges model goes beyond change management and occurs simultaneously with crucial organizational restructuring as a result of the decision to relocate. Therefore, the table presented in this slide has two columns: one is to address the change management activities, while the other offers a timeline of efforts undertaken to relocate in regards to logistics, real estate, etc. Thus, during the period between the first and third months, the first changes start to happen as the executive team plans the relocation. Some of the activities here include a partnership with the relocation project management company, conducting an initial assessment of what is staying and what is moving, creating preliminary schedules and timelines, as well as finalizing real estate agreements. During this stage, the organization should also engage in change management initiatives. It should assess its communication channels, reinforce a sense of shared values and vision via teamwork activities and seminars, as well as to conduct a stage 1 meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to address the potential change and ensure the employees are aware of the options they have. The company’s focus should be on making sure their staff knows how valued they are.
The Timeline of Change (Months 4-13)
During the period between the fourth and tenth months, the organization will make important decisions in regards to infrastructure, legal regulations, security, furniture, equipment, and insurance. At the same time, employees will enter the neutral zone, which has to be addressed via the stage 2 meeting and other corporate initiatives to minimize the drop in productivity. Additionally, the company will most likely look for new staff members in Arizona to address the gaps caused by some workers’ decisions to leave. The last two months before the move as well as the first couple of weeks after are essential for the company to monitor and finalize the process of relocation. During this stage, the organization must conduct the third meeting to congratulate everyone on the move, announced a formal event to celebrate, and acknowledge the efforts of relevant team members. In addition, the company should offer tangible and intangible rewards to the employees who have managed to champion the transition.
Conclusion
The current business environment is highly competitive and exceptionally dynamic. The digital era forces companies to innovate constantly and invest in fast responses to a variety of shifts every industry experiences. Organizational change is often sudden and inevitable, which means that the organizations have no choice but to commit to choosing the best change management model to address the challenges posed by the transformation. This presentation offers a detailed assessment of the most influential change management models. The mock-up scenario in this assignment requires the implementation of the Bridges approach to address the transition and minimize its effect on employee morale, engagement, and motivation. While there are certainly many benefits to the chosen model, it is important to note that it would be even more efficient if combined with other change management strategies.
References
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
Gregory, R., Lombard, J. R. & Seifert, B. (2005). Impact of headquarters relocation on the operating performance of the firm. Economic Development Quarterly, 19(3).
Harrison, R., Fischer, S., Walpola, R., Chauhan, A., Babalola, T., Mears, S., & Le-Dao, H. (2021). Where do models for change management, improvement and implementation meet? A systematic review of the applications of change management models in healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 13, 85–108.
Leybourne, S. (2016). Emotionally sustainable change: two frameworks to assist with transition. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 7(23).