Management of Change
Balagon, Julia & Hope Hailey, Veronica (2004). Exploring Strategic Change. 2nd edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Burnes, Bernard. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics. 4th edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
De Wit, Bob & Meyer, Ron (2005). Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage. 2nd edition. London: Thompson Learning.
Graetz, Fiona. (2000) “Strategic change leadership.” Management Decision 38(8), 550-562.
Luecke, Richard. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Moran, Baird K. And Brightman, John W. (2001). “Leading Organizational Change,” Career Development International 6(2), pp. 111-118.
Nelson, Lindsay. (2003). “A case study in organizational change: implications for theory.” The Learning Organization, 10(1), 18-30.
Senior, Barbara. (2002). Organizational Change. 2nd edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Todnem, Rune. (December 2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management Vol. 5, No. 4: 369- 380.
I have chosen to report on the following article published in the “Journal of Change Management”: Rune Todnem. (December 2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management Vol. 5, No. 4, 369-380.
Brief Synopsis of the Paper:
Based on the assumption of Burnes (2004)
that change is an ever present feature of organizational life, both at an operational and strategic level, Todnem suggests that there should be no doubt regarding the importance of “change” to any organization of its ability to identify where it needs to be in the future, and how to manage the changes getting there. Citing Senior (2002)
and Graetz (2000)
, the author stresses that due to the importance of organizational change, its management is becoming a highly required managerial skill.
The author compares and contrasts various main change management theories against the three categories of change developed by Senior
: “Rate of Occurrence,” “How it Comes About” and “Change Characterized by Scale.” Todnem reaches the conclusion that the management of organizational change currently tends to be reactive, discontinuous and ad hoc with a reported failure rate of around 70 per cent of all change programs initiated
. I n the author’s opinion there is a need for a new and pragmatic framework for change management. In order to construct such a framework he recommends to conduct further exploratory studies of the nature of change and how it is being managed. He also recommends that methods of measuring the success of organizational change management should be designed in order to evaluate the value of any new framework suggested.
Assessment of methods used and if you feel they are the most appropriate method (give reasons for your views)
Todnem
defines “change management ” as ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the of external and internal customers’ citing Moran, J.W. And Brightman, B.K. (2011)
. Since the need for change is often unpredictable, it tends to be reactive, discontinuous, ad hoc and often triggered by a situation of organizational crises.
The author is of the opinion that while there is an ever-growing generic literature emphasizing the importance of change and suggesting ways to approach it, very little empirical evidence has been provided in support of the different theories and approaches suggested. He finds that organizational change cannot be separated from organizational strategy and that, as such, successfully leading organizational change is the foremost task for management today. The author comprehensively refers to studies and research throughout his article. He suggests that research and theories concerning organizational change are confusing and contradictory and that most are supported by unchallenged assumptions. Within the Senior category “Rate of Occurrence,” Todnem argues against a discontinuous approach to change. Citing Luecke
(2003) he finds that “this approach allows defensive behavior, complacency, inward focus, and routines, which again creates situations where major reform is frequently required
.” What Todnem suggests as a better approach to change is “a situation where organizations and their people continually monitor, sense and respond to the external and internal environment in small steps as an ongoing process. I think that Todnem is very right with his assessment that both, the organization itself and the people working within in it, need to constantly and continuously focus on the external and internal challenges that their environment faces on a daily basis. In my opinion, valuable organizational change is a process. It is nothing that comes from one day to the other. It requires the combined efforts of the organization as a whole: Skilled managers and the commitment of an organization’s workforce alike.
Discussion of the paper’s results: What are the key findings? What does it add to the body of knowledge?
The key findings of the paper are threefold.
First, the current management of organizational change tends to be reactive in its response to the pace of change that has never been greater than today. Second, successful management of change within organizations is a . Third, further research into the nature of change management needs to be conducted and a new and pragmatic framework for change management is needed as a critical success factor for the management of change. It adds to the body of knowledge, that managerial skills alone will not be sufficient to successfully change the management of an organization. There is much more needed, including the involvement of all stakeholders including an organization’s workforce.
What does it tell us about change?
The article tells us that change is an ever-present element that has an impact on all organizations and that there is a clear consensus in the world of academia that the pace of change has never been greater than in the currently continuously evolving business environment. It furthermore gives indication that today’s management of organizational change tends to be reactive, discontinuous, and ad hoc with a reported failure rate of around 70 per cent of all change programs initiated.
Finally, it raises awareness that a lack of empirical research on change management within organizations, and an arguably fundamental lack of a valid framework for organizational change management impede the success rate of change programs in general.
Identication of the research’s practical implications (if any)
I do not think that the article has any practical implications as the author limits himself to only providing a critical review of current change management theories and approaches, applying Senior’s (2002) three categories of change as the focal structure.
The author — in his own words — “ made an attempt to highlight the need for a new and pragmatic framework for change management
.” Unfortunately, he leaves the reader alone with the question what particular features should the suggested “new and pragmatic framework for change management” have and which measures would be needed to evaluate its benefits.
Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper
I think the strengths of the paper is in raising awareness that change is inevitable for organizations if they want to be able to meet the manifold challenges of the modern organizational framework and to sketch the advantages and disadvantages of to organizational change management. I also find it a big “pro’ of the paper that the author stresses the need of aligning workforce strategies with business objectives. I consider it to be the weakness of the paper that the author does not indicate or suggest any model of “new and pragmatic framework for change management” able to better fit the many present challenges to successful organizational change. Only suggesting in the final sentence of the article “that methods of measuring success of organizational change management should be designed in order to evaluate the value of any new frameworks suggested
” does not do much help to improve the current situation.
Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics.
Senior, (2002). Organizational Change. 2nd edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Graetz, F. (2000) “Strategic change leadership.” Management Decision 38(8), 550-562.
Todnem, R. (December 2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management Vol. 5, No. 4: 369.
Senior ibid.
Balagon, J. & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change. 2nd edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Todnem, R. (December 2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management Vol. 5, No. 4: 369.
Moran, J.W. And Brightman, B.K. (2001). “Leading Organizational Change,” Career Development International 6(2), pp. 111-118.
Todnem ibid, 370 citing De Wit, B. & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage and Nelson, L. (2003). “A case study in organizational change: implications for theory.” The Learning Organization, 10(1), 18-30.
Luecke, R. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Todnem, R. (December 2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management Vol. 5, No. 4, 369, 372.
Todnem ibid, 369, 378.
Balagon, J. & Hope Hailey, V. (2004).
Todnem ibid, 369, 378.
Todnem ibid, 369, 378.
Todnem ibid, 369, 378.
