Strengthening Organizational Change Processes
Strengthening organizational change processes
The article begins noting many organizational change efforts fail or do not fully meet stated goals or objectives resulting in a variety of negative outcomes, including sunk costs, organizational ineffectiveness, customer dissatisfaction, low morale, high turnover, and wasted resources. (Whelan-Berry, et. al., 2003). This is because the executives’ vision is not uniformly implemented and it is not uniformly embraced. Why, is the question, what happened to the vision? The answer is major change does not take place without groups and individuals changing. It is understood why the executives want change and the process it will take to effect change. But that is not enough, unless the whole organization is just the executives. It is equally required to understand the group and individual change processes as well. It’s no surprise then that organizational change actually includes three processes: executive, group, and individual change. The article’s purpose is to determine, “(a) What constitutes a comprehensive change process as initiatives move from the organizational level to the group and individual levels of implementation? and, (b) What does an analysis of the individual and group change processes in large scale organizational change add to our understanding of organizational change processes?” (Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings, June 2003).
It is first noted that all of the levels of change require momentum. At the simplest level it is feedback, implementation, and adoption. Said differently all levels require action that is in step with and demonstrates acceptance of the change. Momentum drives pace of change, transition and interplay between levels. Pace of change should be nearly identical at all levels, everybody is in step. If the executive level is ahead it’s because they have been working at it longer than the group and individual. Let all catch up. And, I feel, the steps for each level at any given time
The article begins noting many organizational change efforts fail or do not fully meet stated goals or objectives resulting in a variety of negative outcomes, including sunk costs, organizational ineffectiveness, customer dissatisfaction, low morale, high turnover, and wasted resources. (Whelan-Berry, et. al., 2003). This is because the executives’ vision is not uniformly implemented and it is not uniformly embraced. Why, is the question, what happened to the vision? The answer is major change does not take place without groups and individuals changing. It is understood why the executives want change and the process it will take to effect change. But that is not enough, unless the whole organization is just the executives. It is equally required to understand the group and individual change processes as well. It’s no surprise then that organizational change actually includes three processes: executive, group, and individual change. The article’s purpose is to determine, “(a) What constitutes a comprehensive change process as initiatives move from the organizational level to the group and individual levels of implementation? and, (b) What does an analysis of the individual and group change processes in large scale organizational change add to our understanding of organizational change processes?” (Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings, June 2003).
It is first noted that all of the levels of change require momentum. At the simplest level it is feedback, implementation, and adoption. Said differently all levels require action that is in step with and demonstrates acceptance of the change. Momentum drives pace of change, transition and interplay between levels. Pace of change should be nearly identical at all levels, everybody is in step. If the executive level is ahead it’s because they have been working at it longer than the group and individual. Let all catch up. And, I feel, the steps for each level at any given time
References: Whelan-Berry, K., Gordon, J., and Hinings, C. (June 2003). Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 186 - 207