Strategic Change Management
[Course Name and Number]
Strategic Change Management
SECTION One: Strategic Organisational Change Models
Strategic Organizational Change
The study of organizational practices that enact, construct and advance effective strategic change process is theoretically and practically based on the conceptualization of two main key concepts: (1) strategic change processes and (2) organizational practices of strategizing and enacting effective change. Consequently, this chapter reviews and discusses the relevant literature and theoretical foundations in two parts. The first one focuses on strategic change. It provides the underlying theoretical understanding of change from a contextual and procession perspective (Roberto & Levesque, 2005, 60). Organisations are experiencing considerable change in their environments and these changes, in many cases, have become an impetus for change. Theories in organisation suggest that organisational survival and growth require organisations to change their strategies, internal structures, culture and relationships to meet strategic goals. Thus, we see the strategic management of change as extremely topical in business and management literature. There are a variety of normative and descriptive analyses on the process of change with fewer being analytic in nature. Models of change
Many organizational models exist for diagnostic and evaluative purposes in change management. Quoting from Mantere, 2005, (157-184) : “Pick 100 organizational consultants, and we would have 100 different diagnostic models…After having seen at least as many as 500 of these models, I have yet to see two that are the same.” It is often difficult to differentiate between models of organizational behaviour and models of organizational change. In many circumstances a model of organizational behaviour is applied to a change management context. Ford, Ford & d'Amelio, (2007) congruence model of organizational behaviour has been used in the diagnosis and management of large-scale planned change. A side-by-side comparison of many of these models finds many similarities. Many models have built upon Leavitt’s (1965) conceptualization of organizations as multivariate systems with four interacting variables: people, task, structure, and technology. Flick, (2006) observed that the models had more similarities than differences basically due to their inclusion of four elements. Each model included representations of external environment, the mission or strategic direction of the organization, structure (as represented by formal organizational arrangements and prescribed networks, people and relationships, resources, tasks, and organizational processes (Feldman, 2003, 727). Few change models have been put through rigorous testing of validity. One exception has been the Burke-Litwin model, where the development, validation, and use of the model have been formally reported to at least some degree (Doolin, 2003, 51-52). The use of a consultant to operationalise the model has been a common theme of diagnostic change assessment activity. One reason is that expertise has usually been required to convert the change model’s abstract variables into concrete questions for a survey questionnaire. One emerges from this literature with the sense that the choice of a particular model may not be the most critical activity when organizing a diagnostic process for managing change. There is broad evidence that a number of these models have been successfully employed in change management efforts (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006, 31). One of the most prominent challenges for the management as well as the scholarly examination of strategic change processes is their high complexity. The complexity of change processes makes it very hard to identify, grasp, evaluate, explain or manage change and hence poses a great challenge to change practitioners and scholars alike(Balogun...
References: Beech, N. & Johnson, P. (2005): Discourses of disrupted identities in the practice of strategic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1): 31-47.
Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2005): From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573-1601.
Ahrens, T. & Chapman, C. S. (2006): Management accounting as practice. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 32(1/2): 5-31.
Doolin, B. (2003): Narratives of change: Discourse, technology and organization. Organization, 10(4): 751-770
Flick, U. (2006): An introduction to qualitative research, (3. ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & d 'Amelio, A. (2007): Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, in press.
Grant, D. & Hardy, C. (2004): Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse. Organization Studies, 25(1): 5-13.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005): Strategy as Practice: an activity-based approach. London: Sage.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007): Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1): 5-27.
Mantere, S. (2005): Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. Strategic Organization, 3(2): 157-184
Silverman, D. (2005): Doing qualitative research - A practical handbook, (2. ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Whittington, R. (2006): Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document