Systems Design Project
Change is integral to the survival of any commercial enterprise in today’s globalized, technologically advanced business environment. This requires stakeholders to have personal and organizational transition skills to attain the desired change for future success (Hughes, 2006). Strategizing drives organizational change giving it direction through activities (Thornhill, Lewis, Millmore and Saunders, 2000). Internal and external environmental considerations are both relevant; along with change management required to align with strategic change. Singular change is integral to organizational modification; a concept that bears adopting as a precursor to internalizing change across the organization.
The change agent is responsible for comprehending the concept of strategic change which encompasses an understanding of change models, approaches and tools for proper implementation. Furthermore they must possess an aptness for analytical assessment of contexts, critical thinking adeptness – both of which will be applied along the change continuum within the organization through use of interpersonal and influential capabilities (Balogun and Hailey, 2008). Finally, a change agent must also possess self- awareness while having the expertise to separate organizational from personal perspectives.
Change approaches and tools
The three states of the change process are current, transition and future; and the models are punctuated equilibrium and continuous (Balogun and Hailey, 2008). Accessing these may be done via the varied approaches of emergent, planned Theory Z, Theory O, and Theory E; tools of implementation may include PESTEL, change kaleidoscope, cultural web or Porter’s five force analysis. The aforementioned breadth of choices underscores the realization that no one approach or tool is considered ‘best’. Cincom must consider its own internal and external environment and context when making decisions.
Change approaches
The planned approach to change occurs by the deliberate development of a rational and intentional process that is implemented on a top-down basis and assumes a stable environment (Hayes, 2002). The aim is to realize effective improvement of the human aspects of an operation through group applications of the change program (Burnes, 2004). It assumes change as a series of linear events applied across the employee landscape. Conversely, the emergent approach is best suited for an unpredictable environment and springs from multiple interrelated variables; perhaps decision making and an external environment. In emergent approaches the process is open-ended and occurs in a bottom-up paradigm (Hayes, 2002).
Tools of change
The premier tools for organizational analysis of the external business environment include Porter’s five forces and PESTEL; while those most suitable for internal organizational analysis are the Force field, Culture web and change kaleidoscope. SWOT is applicable to both. Let us consider each separately. Porter’s five forces is a ‘scope-down’ tool that examines the industry in which a company exists; identifying their own competitiveness within the industry and associated threats such as supplier and buyer power, rivalry, substitutions and more. PESTEL is also a tool for analyzing macro-environmental factors such as technology, society, politics, legal and economic issues (Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2009).
A change kaleidoscope is designed to review only three factors – organizational context, change contextual aspects and the design or implementation choices available for change (Balogan and Hailey, 2008). The culture web identifies obstacles currently facing an organization while offering advice for altering the organizational culture. A force field analysis identifies those forces that are either inciting or restraining change on the level of the individual. Here there are three levels of attitude alterations labeled unfreezing, learning and refreezing (Balogun and Hailey, 2008). Finally, SWOT is an analytical tool that examines the strengths and weaknesses within an organization and outside influences.
GlaxoWellcome will be the focus of this essay; having many of the same features as Cincom; a culture with an aged CEO who is likely out of touch with progressive technologies and who inserts himself in all aspects of such things as sales and pricing and customer service. It is apparent that change management is essential for Cincom to remain competitive.
Overview of GlaxoWellcome Case Study
GlaxoWellcome is a pharmaceutical company located in the United Kingdom. Originally formed by a merger in 1995; a second merger in 2000, and several other changes have propelled it to the second largest pharma company in the world.
First Glaxo change stage in 1994
Increasing competition led to this first round of changes at Glaxo. An important patent expired, legislation increased and the National Health Service was also undergoing change. Other problems were a loss of confidence in management, slow decision making and general ineffectualness. A change program was implemented called RATIO program or Role clarity, Acceptance of change, Teamwork, Innovation, and Output orientation. The intent was to infuse new behaviors in employees that would then be applied to the job (CMLC, 2009). It was successful in creating a sense of collaboration that reinforced a multiplicity of values germane to improved processes across the organization. Senior management also underwent training that was later delivered to the entire 700 employee business. RATIO, for all practical purposes, was deemed a success in creating awareness of culture change; but did not preclude the need for further professional development (Hailey and Balogun, 2002).
Second change stage at Glaxo – 1997
In 1997 Glaxo underwent a complete restructuring of the organization and overhaul of programs; reemerging as Wellcome Company. The hierarchy shrunk from 7 levels to 4; and shifted focus from the individual to disease management; and reduced R & D. expenses by creating collaborative relationships with universities. Team work was emphasized; networking became the new business paradigm; customer service was paramount. Also, a reward system was implemented; an expanse of coaching and consulting activities was the center of professional development experiences. Technology-based customer evaluations became commonplace and internal organizational restructuring was implemented to model the structure of the NHS (Hailey and Balogun, 2002).
Evaluating the Emergent and Planned Approach
The emergent approach occurs in unpredictable environments and is lacking in prior planning. Its benefits are short implementation periods and a fluidity of the working process. The planned approach requires programming and considers group performance (Chris, 2009). The circumstances of crisis in the emergent approach are more appropriate for facilitating transformation. However, there are limits to its effectiveness when factors are uncontrollable such as a loss of management. In this case the planned approach is more apropos for its top-down change model (Dellana and Hauser, 2000).
The four elements of the planned approach are field theory, group dynamics, action research and three-step models. The first two are tools for analyzing the formation, motivation and maintenance of the social group. Additionally, the three stop models are unfreezing, relearning and refreezing – all of which . We recommend the use of the planned approach for organization structure change (Burnes, 2004).
Application of the emergent approach to this Glaxo Case study
We find that Glaxo utilized both planned and emergent approaches at different stages of organizational change. To address the changing business environment they adopted the emergent approach that emphasized change awareness and supported program updates. The planned approach supported long-term organization change. RATIO supported the analysis of employee behavior – unfreezing employee adaptability to new systems.
Change kaleidoscope
The prerequisite to successful organizational change is an analysis of its context for appropriate implementation. Here is where change kaleidoscope is effective for its range of implementation options and contextual features analysis. Choice of path, start point, style, target, interventions and roles are all applicable. Kaleidoscope educates organizations through self-awareness and is useful in solving change problems by assessing contextual enablers and constraints, determining change paths, and selecting additional change choices (Govindarajan, 1988; Kanter, 1999; Scheffler, 2000, SQA, 2009).
Be forewarned that a complete change design will require the use of other tools such as the cultural web – implemented in simultaneously with kaleidoscope. Too, Kaleidoscope allows for the establishment of a well-structured transition state but all processes must be synchronized; and the complexity of the task requires the change agent to possess exceptional analytical, judgment and implementation abilities. Kaleidoscope is best suited to scenarios of planned change with preconceived goals (Hailey and Balogun, 2002).
Application of change Kaleidoscope to Glaxo Case Study – first stage of change
The contextual enablers and constraints identifiable from the application of Kaleidoscope include time, scope, diversity, and capacity. Preservation and readiness are the main constraints; while power and capability are deemed neutral (Hailey and Balogun, 2002).
1. Time (+) – There is no sense of urgency; but the need for change is apparent.
2. Scope (+) – Realignment of employee behavior is necessary but not deemed exceptionally challenging.
3. Preservation (-) – Workforce talent must be preserved to ensure continued operational capabilities – a constraint to change.
4. Diversity (+) – Sales division has lack of diversity – but small challenge to change.
5. Capability (n) – This area is neutral in change management – breadth of capabilities
6. Capacity (+) – Marked positive due to Glaxo’s affluence – able to invest in change.
7. Readiness (-) – Readiness is negative to change due to low change awareness of employees.
8. . Power (n) – Employee preservation is high; therefore power of the board of directors to stand against change is the short-term result of neutral targets for power.
When both the nature and result of change are taken into account fully; it appears
Glaxo’s decision to utilize senior management as change agents followed by RATIO program was a well-advised approach. Too, the use of an outside organization to deliver some professional development netted impressive results.
Application of Change Kaleidoscope to Glaxo Case Study – Second Stage of Change
Following the first round of change approach implementation; Glaxo forged ahead with a second series of changes that analyzed a variety of factors including, time, capacity, power and diversity – all of which remained the same while other features changed as follows.
1. Time (+) – The mark remains positive as there is no change in urgency.
2. Scope (-) – Scope modified from durable transformational change.
3. Preservation (n) – Preservation is lower due to ability to hold on to talented workforce but changes in workforce in general are increasingly realized.
4. Diversity (+) – Glaxo remains homogeneous.
5. Capability (+) – The RATIO program & outside professional development trainers improved
6. Capacity (+) – Investment abilities unchanged.
7. Readiness (+) – RATIO program vastly improved readiness for change.
8. Power (n) – Senior management power remained constant.
As this second round of change adaptations appeared successful, Glaxo forged ahead with the following additional implementations.
1. Change path – Glaxo had originally adopted an evolutionary path through the restructuring and reengineering program for the purpose of creating a . This can be seen in the increase in emphasis on customer service and relationships. But the results of one attitude questionnaire revealed there was no significant change in the employees’ values
2. Starting point -Top-down remains the change model as mandated by management.
3. Style -Collaboration in real-world implementation was the main style of change. This did not preclude organizational strategies and change processes that were deemed essential by senior management.
4. Target -Employee behavior and work output levels are the change target.
5. Intervention -Interventions employed by Glaxo for the purpose of restructuring the power structure, control systems, appraisal and evaluation system, routines and rituals utilized a variety of tools including but not limited to coaching, counseling, and more and were deemed effective and necessary to the process.
6. Roles – Roles are a combination of change and external facilitating factors due to the understanding that Glaxo change is administered by senior executives and exterior consultants.
Recommendations for Cincom
Managing change in the frenzied global business environment of today must take into consideration a variety of factors and acknowledge the possibility of success with various change tools and approaches. Cincom must begin with an analysis of their internal and external environments as a precursor to choosing an option most apropos to their individual situation that will ferry a successful change program through their organization. After review of information provided; I recommend that Cincom embrace a combination of planned and emergent approaches to change. It is my opinion that both are required for comprehensive transformational long-term change. The change Kaleidoscope tool would be effective in analyzing Cincom’s contextual features in order to select the most appropriate design choices for implementation of change; after which a level of change awareness should have occurred that will usher in a second level of transformational change. It may mirror Glaxo’s inability to reach a preconceived and preferred level as there has been no confirmation of a change target; nor has there been a completely finished development of desired business strategies.
The remainder of this essay will focus on the future state of Cincom’s competitive position; which will occur by identifying both internal and external contexts that indicate a need for change. Said change will then be generated through a transition state that will be designed upon completion of a review of the organization’s status with specification of future desired change (BAlogun and Hailey, 2008).
Punctuated Equilibrium for Cincom: Model of Change and Continuous Model of Change
Let us begin this review of Cincom with a definition of the punctuated equilibrium model. This refers to a performance standard with change interspersed periodically through periods of convergent and revolutionary change. The former refers to only minor changes that are apparent over a set period of time that occur via the adaptation of current operations; which is then punctuated by radical or revolutionary change. The latter is the result of simultaneous change of an organization’s systems, structure, strategies and/or culture – triggered by impending crisis (Balogun and Hailey, 2008). Said change emanates from a situation of disequilibrium and is characterized as ‘revolutionary’ (Hayes, 2002). It is further named ‘new’ equilibrium over the course of the next period of change. Convergent change indicates a longer time period of implementation and completion; and there is usually evidence of inertia and resistance to change that springs from new systems processes that are generated from revolutionary change (Balogun and Hailey, 2008).
Regarding the continuous model; that is appropriate in cases where there is intense competition and advanced technology within an industry; change must be ongoing and continuous to better ensure (but not guarantee) an organization’s survival within the perennially changing environment. The punctuated equilibrium model is more suited to organizations that exist in industries that do not experience frequent changes. In this case, an enterprise’s competitive advantage may be maintained over a longer time frame and even then will not show signs of a need for substantial change (Balogun and Hailey, 2008).
Layer of Business Environment for Cincom
The common model of the external business environment of an organization is the existence of the macro-environment which is considered the premier level; the industry as a second level and competitors rounding out the paradigm as the third level (Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2009).
Change Kaleidoscope applied to Cincom
The model of the change Kaleidoscope consists of an inner and outer ring. The latter is a comprehensive indication of an organization’s contextual features including time, preservation, diversity, capability, scope, readiness, and power. The inner ring is specific to the design or implementation options that include change path, change starting point, change stylization, change markers, change levers and change responsibilities. The details of Cincom’s contextual feature and implementation choices follow (Balogun and Hailey, 2008).
The Contextual Features of Cincom (Balogun and Hailey, 2008)
1. Time -This will take into account the amount of time & the specific time frame that will be required by Cincom to implement and realize those changes identified as needing to be accomplished.
2. Scope -This factor refers to Cincom’s comprehensive ability to realign and transform according to identified degree of change.
3. Preservation -Cincom will take into account its assets, practices and characteristics deemed to be instrumental to the organization as it goes forward during the change process.
4. Diversity -Cincom will assess the various components of diversity within the organization. This will include a determination of different levels of employees, divisions, groups and other stratifications. The purpose of this exercise is to identify those who will be affected through the change process – either in terms of newly adopted norms, attitudes and values.
5. Capability – Cincom will draw on this component to assess their organizational competency with regards to managerial skills, abilities and personal knowledge.
6. Capacity -This refers specifically to Cincom’s organizational resources available to support the change process including their human resources, cash on hand and an adequate amount of time to ensure its success
7. Readiness -Cincom must assess and acknowledge the need for their employees to be aware of and prepared for the expected change process; again as a precursor for its success.
8. Power – Cincom must evaluate the level of power that is required to initiate the change process itself.
Design or Implementation Choices (Balogun and Hailey, 2008)
1. Change Path -Cincom is advised to consider this option. The resultant changes would be categorized in one of the following four types: evolution, adaptation, revolution and reconstruction that would be adopted according to the nature and desired results of the change choice.
2. Change Start Point -Cincom would be required to decide and indicate at what point they wish change to be initiated according to any of the following forms of division.
1. Top-down change -Cincom’s top management may initiate the change process.
2. Bottom-up change -Cincom may opt to initiate change using a ‘bottom-up’ model in which the bottom line is the basis from which change emanates.
3. Pockets of good practice -Cincom might be well-advised to adopt this notion of initiating change by taking advantage of ‘good practices’ that are occurring in different areas of the organization and utilizing them as a model for the remainder of the company.
4. Pilot sites -Cincom may choose an individual part of their organization as a test area – or to pilot- a change component before applying it across the breadth of the company.
3. Change Style -There are five common styles that are utilized to manage the change process – and are recommended for review to Cincom who will then make their choice of which is most appropriate for their needs. Each style has positive and negative aspects that should be taken into consideration.
1. Education and Delegation – Cincom would apply this through the realization of small group briefings and/or a discussion of the change process to garner employee support for organizational change.
2. Collaboration -As the name of this style indicates; collaboration naturally refers to extreme employee involvement in the decision making process regarding changes to an organization – a model that Cincom could find advantageous.
3. Participation -Conversely, this model offers only limited employee involvement in the decision making process of change and may be less appealing to Cincom; but have minor applications nevertheless.
4. Direction -Cincom would be required to name a change leader who would then be responsible for directing and controlling the change process.
5. Coercion – As with the participation model; coercion would have the least appeal to Cincom if their goal is to be inclusive in the change process. Coercion is – as it sounds – the imposition of change through authoritarian means.
4. Change Target – Cincom may choose to employ outputs, behaviors, and values; or one of the three forms of change targets.
5. Change Levers – This refers to the levels of levers and interventions required for overall organization change. Cincom may use these to identify both their organization culture and any barriers to change they are presently experiencing. Cincom may refer to the following information regarding the culture web and interventions; the components of which include symbols, power structures, organizational constructs, control measures, schedules and norms, and stories.
Cultural Web
1. Change Roles -Cincom should recognize the various roles of change agents as one of the following.
a. Change Champion – Cincom’s company leaders could play an essential role in the success of change
b. External Facilitation -Cincom may tap an external consultant to play a key role in effecting organizational change
c. Change Action Team -Cincom may identify a team to implement change action
d. Functional Delegation – Cincom may identify a particular function to carry the responsibility for change.
Conclusion
Cincom faces formidable challenges to its operations due to their current organizational culture in which the CEO continues to play a role in the breadth of decisions that are made within the business. It is obvious that for Cincom to remain viable change must be implemented that will increase their operational effectiveness in this highly competitive global market. Cincom is advised to employ PESTEL and Porter’s five forces for the purpose of analyzing the external business environment; and the change Kaleidoscope and culture web as tools for internal analysis. SWOT is applicable in both scenarios. Cincom can expect that PESTEL will offer an analysis of the macro-environment and factors that will be influential in their success or failure including politics, technology, society, economics and the law (Johnson, Schloes, and Whittington, 2009). Porter’s is a ‘scope-down’ analysis of the industry and is used to identify competitiveness and industry attractiveness. It considers threat of entry, threat of substitutes, power of buyers, power of suppliers and competitive rivalry.
The change Kaleidoscope analyzes organization, context, change contextual features, and the design or implementation choices for the change process (Balogan and Hailey, 2008). The cultural web will best serve Cincom by identifying obstacles to change and offering advice as to the direction required to adjust the culture within the organization by identifying those forces that can effect change at the individual level. Attitudes that accompany change are unfreezing, learning and refreezing (Balogun and Hailey, 2008) while SWOT examines the organizational strengths and weaknesses according to threats outside the organization.
References
Balogun, J., and Hailey, V.H. (2008), Exploring Strategic Change, Pearson Education Limited, England
Burnes, B. (2004), ‘Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The case of XYZ construction’, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 886-902
Change Management Learning Center (2009), ‘Five tips for: Succeeding in change management’, Change Management Learning Center, available at: http://www.change-management..htm (accessed 19 November 2009)
Chris, R. (2009), ‘Working with Emergent Change in Organisations’, available at: http://www.oikos-uk.com/docs_influences/Emergent%20Change%20print.pdf (accessed 20 November 2009)
Dellana, S.A., and Hauser, R.D. (2000), ‘Corporate Culture’s Impact on a Strategic Approach to Quality’, American Journal of Business, Vol. 15 No. 1, available at: http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?p=284 (accessed 20 November 2009)
Govindarajan, V. (1988), ‘A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit-Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms with Strategy’, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 828-853
Hailey, V.H., and Balogun, J. (2002), ‘Devising Context Sensitive Approaches To Change: The Example of Glaxo Wellcome’, Long-Range Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 153-178
Hayes, J. (2002), The Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave, New York, N.Y.
Hughes, M. (2006), Change Management: A critical perspective, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2009), Fundamentals of Strategy, Pearson Education Limited, England
Kanter, R.M. (1999), ‘The Enduring Skills of Change Leaders’, Leader To Leader Journal, No. 13, available at: http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=50 (accessed 18 November 2009)
Scheffler, C., (2000), ‘Change Analysis at Central Linen Services’, Grin, available at: http://www.grin. (accessed 25 November 2009)
SQA (2009), ‘Management: Strategic Change’, Scottish Qualification Authority, August, pp. 3-111, available at: http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_ccc/CB4559_Stategic_change.pdf (accessed 20 November 2009)
Thornhill, A., Lewis, P., Millmore, M., and Saunders, M. (2000), A Human Resource Strategy Approach: Managing Change, Pearson Education Limited, England
