Abstract
Organizational change has frustrated executive-level leaders and project-level managers for decades. The dynamics of organizational behavior support a plethora of excuses in response to the common question, Why is change so difficult? This article addresses the question why and the question how: How do executive leaders and project managers effectively plan, lead, and sustain change? To answer these questions, 26 experts worked together following grounded theory protocols to inductively determine an organizational change theory for planning, leading, and sustaining change. This article details not only the research method and findings, but importantly, the application of the theory within businesses today.
Introduction
Anyone challenged to plan, lead, and sustain organizational change understands difficulty, frustration, and failure. The literature abounds with both the detailed need for organizational change and chronicled stories noting the difficulty of organizational change. Kotter's (1996) evaluation of organizational change initiatives concluded that many fail, only a few succeed, and most produce results that are less than expected. Burke (2002) succinctly noted that most efforts to change an organization “do not work” (p. 1). Scholars and practitioners alike are stymied by the question why: Why is it so difficult to plan, lead, and sustain change?
Answering the question why is becoming increasingly important due to the prominence of change within organizations. The pressures for organizational change are diverse, ranging from advancements in technology (Lai & Guynes, 1997), fluctuating economies (Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000), global markets (Ghoshal, 1987), and the diversity in customers and employees (Richard, 2000). These pressures are ubiquitous across business sectors, but Walker (2005) called specifically for government agencies to “change their cultures” and “fundamentally reexamine their business processes, outmoded organizational structures, management approaches, and … missions” (para 1). The challenge with such reform is beyond the change itself because “[government] agencies do not yet have sufficient abilities, leadership, and management capabilities to transform their cultures and operations” (Walker, p. 8). Even if government business had the leadership ready to address change, there is a lack of specificity regarding how to plan, lead, and sustain change. Jaworski, Gozdz, and Senge (1998) noted that although much has been written about organizational change, there is little offered in the literature about how to achieve change. Beer and Nohria (2000) added that existing organizational change theory is not sufficient to address organizational transformation, especially the people side of change. Wall (2004) echoed in this void, claiming there is still no practical organizational change process, technique, or formula available to plan, lead, and sustain change.
Due to the aforementioned pressures to change and the lack of success in so doing, a group of experts set out to design a practical approach to planning, leading, and sustaining organizational change. The focus was delimited to state government business. This delimitation was in part because of Walker's (2005) perspective, but also because most studies of change focus on the private sector (Coram & Burnes, 2001). Thus, findings from this study address a pressing need in government business and a void in literature.
Method
The research took a constructivist knowledge claim position and followed Glaser and Strauss' (1967) grounded theory protocols. Appropriate due to its systematic methodology, this strategy studied rich experiential human conditions to generate “relevant, plausible theory” (Hutchinson, 1988, pp. 126-127). Due to the nature of the method, the sample was emergent, but was determined purposefully (Patton, 2002) based on experiential knowledge of the phenomenon organizational change. Each member of the sample was identified by senior managers in their organization as a change agent and as having at least five years of organizational change experience.
The criterion sampling initiated the study with 14 experts. Based on multiple semi-structured interviews with those experts, another 12 people were identified by means of theoretical sampling (Patton, 2002). Data saturation was reached with these 26 experts; 11 women and 15 men from four government agencies located in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. In addition to interviews, each sample member participated in email-based Delphi activities used to confirm interview data and build the theoretical understanding of the findings. Structured layering techniques (Flick, 2002) were employed as a means to review interview notes and provide feedback to validate data and conclusions. This approach mitigated possible data manipulation from social facilitation (Bandura, 1986) and groupthink (Janis, 1972). Further, this approach allowed the sample to participate in determining data categories resulting from open and axial coding. The categorical findings and interdependencies thereof facilitated the emergence of the organizational change theory as described henceforth in nine propositions and a framework.
Results
It has been argued that “the whole theory of change is reducible to … Kurt Lewin” (Hendry, 1996, p. 624). Lewin (1951) conceptualized change as a three-stage process of unfreezing the old behavior, moving to a new level of behavior, and freezing the behavior at the new level. According to Hendry, this is the originating idea of organizational change theory, thus everything since is a derivative of his three-stage change theory. A meta-analysis of the literature initiated this study and included the work from Lewin (1951) and other prominent organizational change authorities.
In review of the organizational change models, processes, and theories from the literature, similarities emerged. For instance, when examining the processes noted by Lewin (1951), Beckhard and Harris (1977), Bullock and Batten (1985), Bridges (1991), Kubler-Ross (1969), Jaffe, Scott, and Tobe (1994), Grimley, Prochaska, Veilicer, Blais, and DiClemente, (1994), Kotter (1996), Anderson and Ackerman-Anderson (2001), Carter, Ulrich, and Goldsmith (2005), and LaMarch (2006), it is clear that all recommend phases of work to process through change. These authors' descriptions of the activities taking place during the phases of change are also similar. Lewin suggested unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Beckhard and Harris suggested present state, transition state, and end state; Bullock and Batten suggested exploration, planning, action, and integration. Bridges suggested ending, neutral zone, and new beginning. Kubler-Ross detailed the phases of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Jaffe et al. noted the phases of denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment. Grimley et al. noted a four-staged process of precontemplation, contemplation, action, and maintenance. Kotter's eight-step process is to establish a sense of urgency, form a powerful guiding coalition, create a vision, communicate the vision, empower others to act on the vision, plan for and create short-term wins, consolidate improvements and produce more change, and institutionalize new approaches. Anderson and Ackerman-Anderson suggested upstream, midstream, and downstream. Carter et al. suggested diagnosis, assessment, design, implementation, support, and evaluation. LaMarch suggested the need to identify the change, prepare the change, plan the change, implement the change, and sustain the change. Exhibit 1 summarizes these findings.
Exhibit 1 – Summary of Phases Recommended in Organizational Change Models, Processes, and Theories
Similarities noted in Exhibit 1 have implications to successfully implementing organizational change. First, the similarities suggest change is a process in which planning must take place prior to leading the implementation of change and sustaining the change. Second, because of the high-level nature of these phases, it must be assumed that leading and managing change is not scientific. This assumption is supported by the myriad of organizational change failures prevalent today (Bowman, Singh, Useem, & Bhadury, 1999; Cameron, 1998; McKinley, Zhao, & Rust, 2000) and the call for organizational change implementation theory (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Jaworski et al., 1998; Wall, 2004). Thirdly, because change is met with conflict (Lewin, 1951), coupled with the notion that personal change evolves through emotional phases (Kubler-Ross, 1969; Jaffe et al., 1994), timing must be considered a paramount factor in leading and managing change. The construct of time here is important not only from the perspective of reaching the final, sustaining, phase of a change initiative, but also because of the paramount importance of people involved in change and their individual timing relative to resistance, acceptance, and ownership of the change. Thus, building a readiness for change in pace with personnel time and project time is critical.
Fernandez and Rainey (2006) also consolidated similarities among organizational change models. The commonalities are noted as organizational change success factors. These factors include understanding the need for change, a plan, internal support and means to overcome resistance, top management support and commitment, external support, resources, institutionalization of the change, and desire to accomplish more comprehensive change. These factors have been documented by many authorities throughout history. The clarity of need (Lewin, 1951), urgency (Kotter, 1996), awareness (Kubler-Ross, 1993) was documented. So too was to have a plan (Bullock & Batten, 1985; LaMarch, 2006) and vision (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2001; Kotter, 1996). The need for support, both internal and external, was noted by many (Carter et al., 2005; Cummings & Worley, 1993; LaMarch, 2006). Kotter (1996) noted support in terms of a coalition. Anderson and Ackerman-Anderson (2001) noted support as a commitment and capacity for change. Managing and leading through resistance was noted as critical by Jaffe et al. (1994), Kubler-Ross (1969), LaMarch (2006), and Lewin (1951). Having appropriate resources is paramount and embedded in most of the change models. Specifically, Tichy (1983) noted the importance of networks for effective change and Kanter (1983) outlined resources as a power tool for change. Lastly, the institutionalization of change was noted as refreezing (Lewin, 1951), end state (Beckhard & Harris, 1977), integration (Bullock & Batten, 1985), new beginning (Bridges, 1991), sustaining momentum (Cummings & Worley, 1993; LaMarch, 2006), acceptance (Kubler-Ross, 1993), commitment (Jaffe et al., 1994), maintenance, (Grimley et al., 1994), institutionalize (Kotter, 1996), integrating (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2001), and implementation (Carter et al., 2005). Exhibit 2 summarizes these best practice similarities.
Exhibit 2 – Common Success Factors Supporting the Findings of Fernandez and Rainey (2006)
The aforementioned similarities in change theories, processes, and success factors, were used to facilitate semi-structured interviews with the 26 organizational change experts. The interviews and subsequent data analysis yielded nine theoretical propositions (Exhibit 3) defining requisite conditions to effectively plan, lead, and sustain change.
Exhibit 3 – Theoretical Propositions Defining Means to Effectively Plan, Lead, and Sustain Change
After these propositions were defined, the sample arranged a model framework for change that integrates requisite protocols into an overarching organizational change (also known as business transition) methodology. The high-level phases that were noted in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3 as important are found in this framework (see Exhibit 4). The framework includes six phases of work, including pre-initiate, initiate, plan, execute and control, close, and operations and maintenance. Associated tasks within each phase are also illustrated.
Exhibit 4 – Business Transition Management and Organizational Change Integrated Framework
Since there is a linear aspect to this framework, it is important to note that some (Grubbs, 2002) have argued against the practicality of such a mechanistic model. However, many process models stemming from Lewin's (1951), and including his, have been linear. Kotter (1996) recommended that his eight-step process be followed sequentially and warned that if not followed in order, change initiatives fail. Further, Werr, Sternberg, and Docherty (1997) researched five prominent business consultancies, all of which conduct business change from the point of a linear model. Similarly, this study's sample noted the importance of this mechanistic model. The structural design of government business lends appropriateness to such mechanistic protocols; as such, this type of model is necessary to successfully plan, lead, and sustain change.
This framework also allows for a system view while simultaneously providing a step-by-step task view. This mitigates daunting concerns of planned, second-order change. As noted in Exhibit 4 by the illustration of the beginning of pre-initiating and the ending tasks of operations and maintenance, continuous diagnosis is encouraged and should be based on short- and long-term goals and associated performance targets. These measures help in the aspect of a learning organization. Relative to the need to build involvement and readiness, the framework calls for readiness assessments to complete the business case in pre-initiating and throughout executing and controlling to go live with the launch of the change initiative. Each of the activities in the illustration has an associated tool or template (see Appendix A) for use by change project teams and thus supports the effective planning, leading, and sustaining change in state government business.
Conclusion and Application of Results
The aforementioned organizational change theory is currently in use. Beyond the sample, this methodology has been widely embraced by project managers. All project managers introduced to this methodology agreed that organizational change (business transition) management is a discipline that has been long overlooked and much needed in their project toolset. To date, the methodology has been used in multiple state agencies on over a dozen projects with budgets ranging from $1 million to $80 million. This illustrates a key feature of the framework: it can be modified based on the scope of any change project, as described by the results of assessment activities (complexity and risk assessment, business and impact assessment, and readiness assessment) associated with the pre-initiating phase tasks. Similarly, this model has designed and integrated change facilitation activities and plans (such as communication, resistance management, building organizational readiness, training and development, and performance measurement plans), along with tools and protocols from disciplines like project management, business process engineering, Lean Six Sigma, change management, and The Open Source Architecture Framework. Due to this integration of disciplines, one agency refers to the model as an Integrated Project Framework. This Framework is administered from the agency's Business Process Management and Project Management Office. This office provides analysis and solution recommendations, consulting, training workshops, and facilitation activities in support of large-scale change projects. The staff expertise encompasses the integration of business transition management and its practices using templates, tools, and processes for support in change project initiatives.
Since its implementation in 2007, the Integrated Project Framework has been accompanied by a reference manual, process guide, and a host of tools and templates. These materials are a result of close collaboration between business transition managers, project managers, business process management staff, and other participants from a cross-section of government agencies. To date, nearly 50 people have contributed directly to the development of these materials. With the Integrated Project Framework being used, concerted efforts to identify and harvest lessons to be learned are underway, ensuring continuous improvement and subsequent change project success. Lessons to date have supported the aforementioned nine propositions and point to the ongoing need to create finer templates that facilitate the mechanistic processing of organizational change. To date, the recurring themes in the lessons learned include resourcing, learning, and facilitating change; each is addressed below.
While it is important to resource project managers to focus on project mechanics on all projects, it is also necessary to resource business transition managers to focus on change management, organizational readiness, communication, and business process engineering. Both resources must understand the discipline of the other and how they integrate together. The following lessons were documented by a project manager leading a $60 million change initiative:
- It is important to choose someone from the business unit to lead the business transition effort for the project. It is unusual to find someone, however, with deep business knowledge and an aptitude for managing in a project environment. Therefore, project management training and mentoring for the business transition manager are critical. If possible, train future business transition managers on existing projects before they assume a business transition management role on their own.
- When hiring a business transition team, knowledge about the business is a more critical skill than knowledge about business transition. Training for the business transition staff on the framework, including the vision, concepts, and activities of business transition, is vital to the success of the effort.
- The business transition team should be formed and normed with the entire project team as early in the project lifecycle as possible, preferably during (or before) early planning.
Aspects of these resourcing lessons lead to a further delineation of the need for learning. Formal classroom training should be accompanied with practical hands-on application when possible. Moreover, continually harvesting the knowledge from experienced project managers and business transition managers in joint meetings and community of practice sessions is vital for all team members. Part of this learning is about understanding the dynamics of roles and responsibilities. A project manager offered this lesson:
It is easy to confuse the roles and responsibilities of the business transition team members with those of business analysts on the project. This confusion can cause contention and risk project success. Clearly defining and communicating roles of the people on the business transition team, including areas where there will be overlap and collaboration with other team members, is a critical success factor.
A final lesson necessary to highlight here is the use of facilitating tools. The two most critical facilitation tools are communication and building a readiness for change. Both have consistently been offered as critical success factors on change projects. The following are the lessons from business transition managers and project leaders:
- A good communication plan is vital. Communication should be happening early, regularly, and at all critical points of the project and change.
- Email is so easy to ignore and delete that it is not generally an effective communication tool to facilitate business transition, except when a message needs to be delivered quickly and to everyone at the same time. Face-to-face communication is preferable. This opens the communication to a dialogue—the difference between communicating to and communicating with people is critical to understand.
- Relative to communication, choosing “point people” or “transition leaders” in the business unit to act as liaisons between the project's business transition team and the business unit workers can be effective and vital for communicating, but only if the point people are well trained, know their role, receive ongoing communication from the project, and present a consistent message.
- Using a readiness assessment change tool is important on all change projects. This tool helps to determine effectiveness of the project team, their work in regard to involving people from the business units in the change, the effectiveness of the communication plan and other facilitating plans, and the reality of the project's scheduled time line. The flexibility of the Integrated Framework's readiness assessment allows for its use in all phases of the project, from building the business case all the way through go-live.
Lessons like these are continuously being harvested from the application of the Integrated Project Framework. In reciprocating fashion, the lessons are informing the creation and refinement of tools and templates. It is expected that the Framework, originally built by 26 government experts, will continue to be redesigned by many more experts in an ongoing effort to effectively plan, lead, and sustain change.