The Change Construct, Process, and Triggers
Is “Change Management” Too Big a Word?
An examination of the change management literature as well as the appeal to common sense illustrates a potential core problem with the concept of change management. Change management is a “construct.” Although the word is defined as “the management of the planning and introduction of new methods, techniques, and processes in an organization,” it is a single term that refers to many things and is therefore understood differently by different people. Also, when the term is used, it is not clear exactly what specific action should be taken. For example, if the executive were to tell an employee to “Start implementing change management tomorrow!” few would likely know exactly where to begin. Given that most change models, including a down-to-earth common-sense approach, involve a sequence of steps, change management is best envisioned as an emergent property arising from the completion of a number of steps. Perhaps “change management” is too big a word to use when embarking on change initiatives. Instead, greater understanding and less resistance may follow when the organization is led through a series of small steps. Once the last step has been executed, then it could be said that change management has emerged, at least for a time. Then, the next sequence of steps begins. To illustrate the underlying complexity of the change management construct, a word frequency analysis was undertaken by retrieving several articles, definitions, and commentaries on the subject of change management. The resulting word cloud with word size weighted by frequency of word appearance provides a graphical view of the many different viewpoints on the subject (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 The many words of change management
Change as Problem-Solving
When caught up in the heat of the moment of a significant change initiative, it is not uncommon to wonder, “What problem is it that I am trying to solve?” Change is often triggered by a need to solve a problem in the organization. The problem may be generally spoken of in the hallways of the company, but when it comes to addressing it, the definition and analysis of the problem may become a bit “fuzzy.” It is as this point that a manager could clarify the reason for the need to change by stating: “The problem I am attempting to solve is ________________,” or “The specific issue I am attempting to address is _________________________________.” There is the old saying that it is “hard to be easy,” or rather “it is difficult to be simple.” Yet, the inability to express a problem in a succinct and clear way suggests that the problem is yet to be fully understood. The simple exercise of stating the problem is best done in writing. It could be written on a piece of paper, on a computer screen, or on a white board in front of a team. The key is that writing involves thinking. Notice how writing stops and then pen or chalk or keyboard is put away when an unclear point is reached. What happens next? A pause to more fully consider the intended point. The key to remember is that clarity is given in any change effort and succinctly stating the problem in writing helps achieve it.
The problem-solving paradigm may be useful when presenting the need for change to organizational stakeholders. Instead of promoting change, promote the specific problems that need solutions, and then propose solutions and request stakeholder input on such solutions. The solutions could be viewed as change initiatives, but if considered strictly as efforts taken to solve problems, buy-in from stakeholders may be more readily attained. It is one thing to hear about change, grow concerned, and then resist it, but quite another to be convinced the problems exists and that stakeholders are invited to join in the development of a solution.
When and Why to Change?
Although change management initiatives are frequently linked to problem-solving, this is not always the case. Change could be triggered by a major shift in the macroenvironment of the firm. For example, an important client could go out of business, there could be a major shift in interest rates, or perhaps two major competitors merge thereby creating market efficiencies that cause the market price levels to dramatically shift. The cause of the external trigger always varies, but it is a fact that the macro environment can be turbulent and companies must change accordingly or face failure as a business. The disruption caused by technology is also a trigger of change. Consider, for example, the rise of video streaming services and the resulting fall of cable television services and video rentals. Finally, change may be triggered internally, for example, the loss of a key employee or the recognition that the current organization is not producing optimal results or is not keeping up with changes in the marketplace. Rather internal or external, the answer to the question of “When and why?” when it comes to a change management is that change is often a response to a problem, issue, situation, or event. Change is therefore said to be “triggered.” In this sense, change is a response to a stimulus. The problem with stimulus–response change to the organizational structure, to the product line, or to business systems is that they are usually triggered by a lack of competitiveness. When this is the case, management becomes aware of the need because sales are falling, expenses are increasing, and morale is low. This situation is analogous to making the decision to embark on a mountainous travel route upon discovering that the car is almost out of gas and the engine needs an oil change. Change requires funding and it requires energy; so as a result, change initiated during a time of decline and crisis is a high-risk endeavor that is not likely to succeed (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 Change and change triggers
It could be suggested that change management is not something that should be limited to the response to a trigger. A company that practices continuous improvement is an example of change carried out as a response to a crisis, but to improve systems before the crisis occurs. Companies that are able to implement such ongoing change are likely to become familiar with the process and less prone to view the change with fear triggered by the uncertainty of change. Further, embarking upon change when the company is doing well tends to tap into the energy and positive morale of the employees as well as the funding made available from strong sales. Should leaders initiate change management efforts when triggered by an event or serious situation? The answer is likely to be “yes.” On the other hand, is it preferred to implement an ongoing change management process to harness the efforts and resources of the organization when it is at its best? The answer also is “yes.” To make a crude analogy, when the Titanic was sinking, this was not the ideal time to change the décor in the dining rooms or to rearrange the deck chairs. Such decisions, including the appropriate number of lifeboats, were best made before leaving port, and especially prior to hitting the iceberg.