Tag: Doctorate in Strategic Leadership

Technology Structures and Social Boundaries Applied to the Natural, Rational, and Open Perspectives

From an organizational theory perspective, technology refers to the nature of work being carried out in an organization and the effects that technology has on the organizational structure. These ideas emerged after the development of the open systems approach to organizations. Several theories emerged in the 1960s that focused on the interdependence of organizational structures and the specific technical environment in which they operated. These theories were built on the contingency perspective, which assumes that the organizational structure depends on the nature of the environment in which it operates (Scott & Davis, 2007).

Technology refers to the work performed by a particular organization. It includes equipment, workers’ skills and knowledge, and the object on which the work is performed. It is the physical, intellectual, and knowledge processes through which material inputs are converted to outputs (Scott & Davis, 2007). Orlikowski’s theoretical model of technology shows that technology has three different effects on organizations: the intended and unintended effects, the direct and indirect effects, and the reconstitution in use effects. Reconstitution in use refers to when organizational participants reconstitute the technology in new ways. (Stroud & Weinel, 2020).

How technology affects structure can be viewed from rational and natural systems perspectives. In the rational approach, the organizational structure is designed specifically to deal with uncertainty, complexity, and interdependent tasks. In general, the organization is designed to buffer the technical core, adjust to the level of uncertainty and complexity, and coordinate the technical interdependence (Scott & Davis, 2007). Organizational theorist Jay Galbraith stated that the “structural mechanisms for coordination must provide the means to handle the amount and richness of information processing required by the uncertainty and equivocality of an organization/team’s task and environment” (Tenkasi, 2018, p. 69). As such, the rational approach provides a number of prescribed organizational structures to deal with the variety of information processing demands. These structures include simple structure, bureaucracy, functional, multidivisional, matrix, adhocracy, or networks (Scott & Davis, 2007).

From a natural system perspective, technology affects structure in a far less prescriptive and formal way (Őnday, 2018). Three major themes relate to the technological effects on natural system structures. They include the social and cultural factors shaping the relation between technology and structure, the substitution of informal for formal structure, and the importance of tacit knowledge under the control of participants versus the prescriptive performance programs designed by management (Scott & Davis, 2007). Natural systems help explain how similar technologies applied in various cultures have radically different effects on the structure of the organization. For example, German firms have a higher level of worker expertise, flexibility, and autonomy than French firms (Scott & Davis, 2007).

The natural system perspective also helps explain technology’s impact on organizational structure with the concept of strategic choice. In natural systems, strategic choice means that every new technology will create various adaptive strategies and responses by participants. Actors inside and outside the organization will create divergent perspectives and interests as a result of strategic choice (Scott & Davis, 2007). In the 1990s, for example, the use of increasingly powerful information technology in companies caused significant structural changes as participants made strategic choices to exploit new opportunities (vom Brocke et al., 2021).

Natural system theorists further acknowledge the importance of the tacit knowledge of workers in the organization. While rational system theorists emphasize the importance of detailed work requirements developed by engineers and technical staff to deal with technology, natural proponents point more towards the ingenuity of workers as they gain knowledge through experimental learning. Scott and Davis (2007) say that “much of the knowledge on which the organization relies is contained in the skills and tacit knowledge of its workforce” (p. 146). This skill base is the true DNA of the organization.

Scott and Davis (2007) provide an important reminder that organizations are not just technical systems, they are human and social systems, and social boundaries exist. These boundaries represent the edge of the organization, and organizational theorists concern themselves with the criteria organizations use to determine whom they will admit or reject based on specific characteristics. Jæger and Pedersen (2020) say that “social boundaries bind actors together in mutual relationships” (p. 4). Social boundaries exist in open systems, acting more like sieves than shells. Understanding social boundaries provides a foundation for understanding recruitment criteria and the division of labor within the organization.

From a rational perspective, boundaries contribute to organizational rationality when it comes to recruitment. Weber referred to it as the rational-legal systems that isolate an organization from its social context. He felt that, once recruited, participants should consider their role in the organization as their primary occupation (Scott & Davis, 2007). On the other hand, natural systems analysts recognize that organizational participation is just one of the many roles a participant plays. They acknowledge that some of the participant’s skills and abilities come from outside the organization. These skills are essentially imported in. They also recognize that a participant’s extra-organizational relationships can create value for the organization (Scott & Davis, 2007).

The concept of division of labor traces its roots to Adam Smith. This rational approach to labor relies on the concept of dividing work into a number of highly specified work steps as a means to gain productivity. Scott and Davis (2007) say that “division of labor supports the application of technology and rationalized procedures to work, increases the scale of work organizations and their markets, and gives rise to managerial hierarchy” (p. 160). The challenge is that this rational approach to labor creates significant issues for participants.

Technology Structures and Organizational Boundary Areas that Create Issues for Participants

Technology structures can provide issues for participants, especially as the levels of uncertainty, complexity, and the need for interdependent tasks continue to rise. In the past, for example, professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, and scientists worked independently and had their own separate practices. Today, with the increase in complexity and the need for interdependent tasks, most professionals are employees in larger organizations. There is also a rise in heteronomous organizational structures where professional employees are subordinated to an administrative framework, and their autonomy is relatively small (Scott & Davis, 2007).

The digital revolution has also affected participants in unprecedented ways. The falling cost of digital information storage, processing, and communication has increased the scale, scope, and complexity of opportunities organizations can exploit (Baum & Haveman, 2020). Davis and DeWitt (2022) say that this has changed how companies “raise capital, engage labor, acquire inputs, distribute to customers, and organize their internal processes” (p. 861). Companies today look entirely different from just thirty years ago. Many do not even have physical locations with employees doing observable tasks, and most have eliminated, automated, or outsourced manual processes (Davis & DeWitt, 2022). In general, organizations have fewer participants and are more physically dispersed and digitally connected than ever before.

From an organizational boundary perspective, the three types of issues for participants include alienation, inequity, and insecurity. Alienation is something Marx addressed. Arenas (2022) says that “Marx refers to the process in which the exchange of labor power and products occurs as something “alien and objective” to the workers, involving their subordination to relations that exist independently of them” (p. 393). Participants in a rational division of labor system are alienated from both the product of their labor and the process of production. This alienation comes in six varieties, powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, cultural estrangement, self-estrangement, and social isolation (Scott & Davis, 2007).

The division of labor also creates inequity in organizations over time. For example, the earnings gap between lower and higher ranks of employees has steadily increased since 1970. According to Uygur (2019), CEOs earned 30 times their workers’ compensation in 1978, and that ratio had increased to more than 300 as of 2014. The rise in compensation has not resulted in a corresponding rise in company performance either. In recent years, there have also been significant reductions in regular, normally-secure positions at companies, with many of those jobs replaced by part-time, temporary, or low-wage employees. The result leaves participants feeling disillusioned by the promise of more efficient and effective organizations (Scott & Davis, 2007).

Participants also have high levels of insecurity because of the apparent termination of the “implicit contract” over the past several decades. More and more employees feel they can no longer expect long-term employment from companies. Downsizing has become increasingly common, and positions that formerly carried the greatest safeguards are being eliminated. Additionally, companies have been moving more towards vertical disintegration by outsourcing many of their processes to outside companies, some of which are in low-cost countries (Scott & Davis, 2007). Companies in Western industrial nations now focus more on design and marketing. They are increasingly reducing their employee base and outsourcing their production, customer service, and even R&D to low-cost countries (Baum & Haveman, 2020).

Personal Perspectives

Technological and social boundary changes over the past decade have created the most significant impact on organizational structures since the development of organizational theory. Today’s companies look nothing like their predecessors. They are something new entirely. God told the Israelites through the prophet Isaiah that they would also see something new. In Isaiah 43:18-19, He says, “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland” (New International Version, 1978/2011). Isaiah was providing “messianic” prophecies to the Israelites about the coming Savior, Jesus, who would fulfill the law.

In many ways, organizational scholars will need to forget the former things as well when developing new organizational theories. Organizational theorist Jay Galbraith says that “innovations often happen in organizations first, then the scholar comes in and gives it theoretical meaning.” (Tenkasi, 2018, p. 69). Innovations have clearly been leading new theory development with the organizational shifts that are happening now in businesses. Roth (2021) says that the world is undergoing the most significant structural revolution in business and society since the end of World War II. He says there will be profound implications for organizational theory. Baum and Haveman (2020) agree and say that we are entering “a brave new world” with the emergence of organizational structures we have never seen before (p. 2020). Roth (2021) says that the “new normal” is so different that scholars need to “reassess the validity of theories that might be outdated now” (p. 539).

Technology, innovation, and globalization have permanently altered organizational structures in the past decade. These trends have given rise to new terms like financialization, nikefication, uberization, amazonification (Davis & DeWitt, 2021), and pop-up stores (Betta, 2019). A decade ago, the top ten companies in the United States would top the list of revenues, number of employees, and market capitalization. In 2021, only Walmart and Amazon appeared on all three lists (Davis & DeWitt, 2022). Today’s companies look nothing like their predecessors. For example, there has been a rise in companies that do not produce products or services. Their model connects private sellers and buyers like Airbnb, Turo, Etsy, Udemy, Gumroad, and eBay. Similarly, there is a rise in media companies that produce no content. Their model is to connect private content creators and consumers like YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, and Instagram.

There is also an intense drive for innovation that Betta (2019) says has created a phenomenon called “neocharisma.” This concept is where every individual thinks of themselves as creative and innovative. In the past, large corporations were the center of innovation and creativity. Now with technology, any individual can be an innovator. Technology has removed the gatekeepers. Anyone with a computer, cellphone, and microphone can be an author with self-publishing on KDP, a radio personality with podcasting on Spotify, a musician with Soundcloud, a television star on YouTube, a distributor with drop-shipping on Amazon, or a celebrity with TikTok. One person with technology today can make more impact in the world than entire companies in the 1950s. This trend will likely accelerate with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) over the past two years. It is undoubtedly “a brave new world.” The emergence of new, unique, and compelling organizational structures as a result of technology shifts will keep organizational theorists busy for the foreseeable future.

References

Arenas, N. (2022). Karl Marx’s writings on alienation: Marcello Musto, ed. Socialism and Democracy, 35(2-3), 392-395. doi:10.1080/08854300.2021.2000827

Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (2020). Editors’ comments: The future of organizational theory. The Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 268-272. doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0030

Betta, M. (2019). Business, organization theory, and the current challenge of neocharisma. Business and Society Review (1974), 124(2), 261-281. doi:10.1111/basr.12171

Davis, G. F., & DeWitt, T. (2021). Organization theory and the resource-based view of the firm: The great divide. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1684-1697. doi:10.1177/0149206320982650

Davis, G. F., & DeWitt, T. (2022). Seeing business like a state: Firms and industries after the digital revolution. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 860-871. doi:10.1177/14761270221122404

Jæger, K., & Pedersen, A. M. L. (2020). Understanding organizational boundaries. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 9, 1–14. doi:10.5278/ojs.globe.v9i.4286

New International Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (Original work published 1978)

Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10(1), 245-258

Roth, S. (2021). The great reset of management and organization theory. A European perspective. European Management Journal, 39(5), 538-544. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2021.05.005

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. Routledge.

Stroud, D., & Weinel, M. (2020). A safer, faster, leaner workplace? Technical‐maintenance worker perspectives on digital drone technology ‘effects’ in the European steel industry. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 35(3), 297-313. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12174

Tenkasi, R. (2018). Re-visiting the past to re-imagine the future of organization development and change. Organization Development Journal, 36(4), 61-75.

Uygur, O. (2019). Income inequality in S&P 500 companies. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 72, 52-64. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2018.11.007

vom Brocke, J., Schmid, A. M., Simons, A., & Safrudin, N. (2021). IT-enabled organizational transformation: A structured literature review. Business Process Management Journal, 27(1), 204-229. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0423

Note: This paper was written as part of my requirements for a Doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Liberty University. I’m sharing this here for those who may be interested in some of the theories of leadership. Let me know if you have any questions.

—————————

If you want to become a better leader, order my latest book You Have the Watch: A Guided Journal to Become a Leader Worth Following.

This guided journal provides daily leadership guidance and reflection for an entire year. Each week, you will learn a new leadership skill. Each day, you will explore a new facet of that skill. As you do the work and put in the reps as a leader, this journal will be your constant companion. By the end of the year, you will master fifty of the most important leadership skills.

 

Abstract

This paper describes best practices in organizational change, including change models supported by academic and popular literature. We review the history of organizational change theory and the development of two unique styles of organizational change models, processual and descriptive. We look to see how these models are used in organizations today and what constitutes a best practice. We describe why the integration of existing models can provide better project success. We also analyze three unique case studies in light of these best practices. This analysis provides a deeper understanding of how each of these cases succeeded or failed based on the implementation plans employed by leaders in each organization.

Keywords: change management, change leadership, transition management, leading change

Introduction

Errida and Lotfi (2021) tell us that leaders in organizations are constantly working to change and adapt their business practices to increasingly complex and dynamic environments. However, many organizations struggle to implement successful change projects, and 60-70% of change efforts fail. Failure is often due to change managers ignoring best practices from change models and methodologies (Phillips & Klein, 2022). This paper will review the history and variety of organizational change theories, including those from popular literature. We will analyze what constitutes best practices based on analyzing the literature in this field of study.

60-70% of change efforts fail Click To Tweet

In the second half of this paper, we will review three separate case studies. We uncover what leaders did right and where they fell short of best practices. Through this analysis, we can better understand how these organizational change theories and models can work in the real world. For this analysis, we will look at the successful implementation of a project management methodology at a Moroccan construction company, the failed implementation of new surgical sutures at a Dutch hospital, and the successful reformation movement in ancient Judah by King Josiah.

Best Practices in Organizational Change

One of the undeniable facts about change is that it keeps on changing, as do change management methodologies. Studies in change management began in engineering management and industrial engineering more than 100 years ago with the work of Fredrick W. Taylor (Ratana et al., 2020). However, Kurt Lewin provided the first real contribution to change management. He popularized a three-step planned approach to change in 1951. This approach required top managers to plan and project change from the top of the organization. Lewin described the organizational change process as unfreezing, moving and acting, then refreezing in a new form (Ratana et al., 2020). This top-down, management-driven approach to change was considered the “theoretical foundation of planned change management” (Errida & Lotfi, 2021, p. 1).

Lewin’s planned approach to change management proved ineffective with the pace of environmental, technological, and organizational change in the 1990s. In 1991, strategic management consultant Arnold Judson expanded Lewin’s work into a five-phase step-by-step model, which included analysis, communication, gaining acceptance, changing from the status quo, and consolidating the new conditions (Ratana et al., 2020). This five-step model led to many other multi-step change management models, such as Kanter’s ten commandments, Hamel’s eight-step insurrection method, and Luecke’s seven steps of managing change (Ratana et al., 2020).

During this renaissance period of process-driven change management programs, John Kotter launched his eight-stage leading change method in 1996 (Ratana et al., 2020). This method became the best-known (Kang et al., 2022) and most influential approach in the change practitioner community (McLaren et al., 2022). Kotter created his approach based on his observations as a consultant and Kanter’s ten commandments (Ratana et al., 2020). Kotter was also heavily influenced by Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze methodology, as evidenced by penguin and iceberg metaphors in his writings (McLaren et al., 2022).

John Kotter's eight-stage leading change method became the best-known model Click To Tweet

Over the years, organizational change management models have evolved along two different lines of thought, processual and descriptive. Like Kotter’s eight-stage leading change method, processual models assume that a “change process can be successfully managed by following a series of pre-planned steps” (Errida & Lotfi, 2021, p. 7). On the other hand, descriptive models worked to identify and explain the causes and effects of change initiatives. Errida and Lotfi (2021) identified 18 different processual models and 19 different descriptive models being used globally.

On the processual model side, Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze methodology strongly influenced processual change model development. The concept is that unfreezing destabilizes the status quo and creates the need and buy-in for change. The transition involves moving to the new future state. Refreezing occurs after the change is complete to cement the new culture, processes, and behaviors. After Lewin’s methodology, the most notable processual model is Kotter’s eight-stage leading change method (Errida & Lotfi, 2021).

Kotter’s eight stages include establishing a sense of urgency, creating a powerful guiding coalition, developing a vision and strategy, communicating the change vision, empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, consolidating gains and producing more change, and anchoring new approaches in the culture (Kotter, 2012). The stages should be followed in rigid order, although Kotter later revised this idea in 2014, acknowledging that the steps can also be run concurrently (McLaren et al., 2022).

Kotter’s model is influential in the change leadership community but has faced criticism. Critics say it is practitioner-based, not robustly founded in theory, and has been referred to as “pop management.” Still, it is often cited in academic literature, is widely used in change management education, and is commonly deployed in change management efforts (McLaren et al., 2022). Kotter’s model was developed with consultancy-based observations but is generally considered a “recommendable reference” in academic literature. (McLaren et al., 2022).

Kotter’s change model has been deployed in various industries but has been especially successful in guiding change in higher education settings, specifically for dealing with administrative and technical changes (Kang et al., 2022). Kang et al. (2022) documented its use in a three-year change process in an engineering department at a university in the southwestern United States. They concluded that with some modifications, Kotter’s model worked well in an institutional setting. They found a non-linear approach to be more effective and integrated ideas from the design-based implementation research (DBIR) model (Kang et al., 2022).

Other modifications have been suggested to Kotter’s model as well. McLaren et al. (2022) suggest that “establishing a sense of urgency” can create anxiety and stress in employees, leading to increased resistance to change. Instead of vilifying the status quo, they recommend emphasizing the things from the status quo that will remain the same after the change initiative. In this manner, employees can have a firm anchor and reference point, reducing stress and increasing acceptance of the change (McLaren et al., 2022).

Fredberg and Pregmark (2022) share a similar concern. They say a sense of urgency can be a double-edged sword, supporting and preventing change. A sense of urgency and dissatisfaction with the current state created through negative management cues will create stress, anxiety, and fear. These undesirable emotions will block the needed change capabilities of the team. Pregmark (2022) agrees that a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction with the status quo alone are insufficient for a successful transformation in the current fast-paced business environment.

On the descriptive model side, Errida and Lotfi (2021) tell us that at least 19 different descriptive models are being used in business today. The 7-S Model was the first framework developed in this category. Former McKinsey consultants Tom Peters and Robert Waterman developed a model to assess the changes necessary to ensure operational effectiveness by looking at seven organizational elements: strategy, structure, systems, staff, style, skills, and shared values. Chmielewska et al. (2022) show where the 7-S Model was used to evaluate the organizational effectiveness of public hospitals in Warsaw, Poland. Their study showed that social factors play a significant role in the operation of these businesses, and change managers need to consider this when planning change initiatives.

Several notable works have shaped change management practices outside the processual and descriptive models of organizational change. One is the influencer model introduced by Grenny et al. (2013). It provides valuable insights into the art and science of influencing change in people and organizations. The authors emphasize the importance of identifying the vital behaviors that drive change and focusing on them. They provide four strategies to discover these vital behaviors: noticing the obvious, looking for crucial moments, learning from positive deviants, and spotting culture busters. They also describe six different sources of influence that can be used to create lasting change: personal motivation, social motivation, ability, structural motivation, structural ability, and cultural motivation.

Leaders have used the ideas in Grenny et al. (2013) in various industries to enact significant change. For example, Eng and Donnelly (2020) used these techniques and the success of the Delancey Street Foundation to model a reduction of crime and addiction in North America’s second-largest Chinatown in Vancouver, Canada. Holmes (2021) used these techniques to create beautiful, clean common spaces in Detroit. Saver (2022) used vital behaviors to reduce retained surgical items in hospital patients nationwide.

Another essential concept outside the processual and descriptive models of organizational change is the idea of the “human side” of change. Bridges and Bridges (2016) provide a distinct process for dealing with this critical aspect of organizational change by focusing on the transition management of employees. Their method has similarities to Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze concept. Bridges and Bridges (2016) tell us that people process change through a psychological and emotional transition which includes a three-phase process. Those phases include an ending, a neutral zone, and a new beginning. Their methodology focuses on managing the human aspects of change through these three phases. The human side of change management is often overlooked in favor of more technical, procedural, and logistical concerns.

With so many change management methods, programs, and philosophies available for change practitioners today, it is hard for practitioners to determine which ones should be used to lead change initiatives effectively. Errida and Lotfi (2021) tell us that leaders should not rely on just one or even a few models because “certain factors may be omitted or neglected, which could result in failure if the model is inappropriate to the change context” (p. 2). They tell us that 60-70% of organizational change efforts fail because of the increasingly complex and dynamic business environments in which organizations operate. In their literature review, they looked at 37 organizational change models and determined the top 12 factors for success that were common throughout the research.

The 12 factors that impact organizational change management success, according to Errida and Lotfi (2021), are the following: clear and shared vision and strategy of change, change readiness and capacity for change, change team performance, activities for managing change management, resistance management, effective communication, motivation of employees and change agents, stakeholder engagement, leadership and sponsorship, reinforcement and sustainment of change, approach and planning for change, and monitoring with measurement. They also point out that companies should integrate project management into their change process.

Phillips and Klein (2022) took a similar approach and found 15 common strategies in 16 different change management models. They interviewed change practitioners to see how many used strategies similar to those in the change models. They discovered that most change practitioners ignored the popular change literature but found five common strategies between the models and the practitioners. These strategies included the following: communicate the change, involve stakeholders at all levels of the organization, focus on organizational culture, consider the organization’s mission and vision, and provide encouragement and incentives to change.

The best practice in organizational change management is to integrate existing models Click To Tweet

Each of these models and methodologies gives change practitioners various ways to think about organizational change. While there is no preferred change management model in practice today, there is a way to think about best practices in change management. Phillips and Klein (2022) tell us that there is no “universal change management approach that works in all settings” (p. 189). They say that the best practice is to integrate the existing models. Errida and Lotfi (2021) agree and say that integrating existing models will “lead to an integrated understanding of how to ensure successful organizational change” (p. 2). The best way for leaders to beat the odds and lead successful change initiatives is to have a broad understanding of the change literature and employ the right tactics for the given situation.

Case Studies in Organizational Change

In order to gain a better understanding of what organizational change management looks like in the real world, we considered three case studies. These case studies demonstrate many of the practices highlighted in the first section of this paper. We first looked at a successful implementation of a project management methodology at a Moroccan construction company. We then reviewed a failed implementation of new surgical sutures at a Dutch hospital. Finally, we analyzed a successful reformation movement in ancient Judah by King Josiah.

The first case study we reviewed was the implementation of a project management methodology (PMM) at a Moroccan construction company. This company had around 300 employees and sales of $35 million. Errida and Lotfi (2021) conducted this study to validate the findings from their literature review. They reviewed two organizational change initiatives over two years. One of those initiatives failed, and the other was considered successful. We reviewed the successful change program, which involved the implementation of a PMM.

Errida and Lotfi (2021) report that company management knew the current way they were running projects was inadequate and resulted in financial losses. The leadership team agreed implementing a new PMM was necessary to improve company performance. Company executives sponsored the project and actively supported the implementation team by providing them with all the resources needed for a successful project. Those resources included a change leader and funding for training, consultants, certification, and project management software. From the start, there was a sense of urgency, dissatisfaction with the status quo, executive sponsorship, and a guiding coalition.

Errida and Lotfi (2021) also found that a strong change leader led the project. In post-project interviews, they discovered that the leadership skills of the project change leader had a visible positive impact on the project outcome. Interviewees stated that the project change leader established a “clear vision and roadmap on how to implement the PMM” (p. 9). They also said he provided effective communication, regular meetings, personal coaching, and team motivation. The project change leader provided a vision for change, and he communicated that vision successfully throughout the project.

The project change leader also generated broad-based support for the project by successfully convincing influential supervisors and project managers to become active in the change process. Errida and Lotfi (2021) say that he “helped them overcome their fears and misconceptions and made them aware of the advantage of the new methodology” (p. 9). By making key employees early adopters and supporters of the new process, he was able to get those still resisting the change on board. Getting the blockers on board helped remove many obstacles for the overall project.

Errida and Lotfi (2021) also said this project succeeded because management adopted a “no blame” philosophy and encouraged employees to participate actively in meetings and discussions throughout the implementation. They effectively used two-way communication to help employees deal with the emotional side of the change. Bridges and Bridges (2016) remind us that change often means a loss for employees, and leaders need to allow employees to talk about those feelings. Leaders must bring the losses out in the open and acknowledge them openly and empathetically. They did this well in this project.

Finally, Errida and Lotfi (2021) pointed out the effective use of learning, coaching, and empowerment throughout this project as a success factor. Employees received training covering the principles, processes, and tools of the new methodology. The project leader assisted employees into the new way of doing business by doing as Bridges and Bridges (2016) suggest. Bridges and Bridges (2016) tell us that we can help employees adopt a new beginning by explaining the purpose, giving them a picture of what the future will look like, telling them the plan for the implementation, and giving them a part to play in the new beginning. The management team did all of that in this project.

In this successful case study, we see effective use of the concepts of both Kotter and Bridges. We also see validation of the literature review of Errida and Lotfi (2021). The 12 factors they identified that impact change management success were all used in this project. This use of various change management tools and techniques also further supports the idea that the best practice for change management is often to integrate ideas from several existing models.

The next case study we considered was an organizational change effort in the Netherlands that Graamans et al. (2020) studied. At the end of 2014, management in a large university hospital in the Netherlands launched an effort to find cheaper surgical suture material. Hospital management was looking to reduce costs and standardize sutures throughout the hospital. The hospital purchasing manager invited vendors to bid their most economically advantageous suture. The tender was awarded to a new supplier who produced a high-quality, lower-cost alternative to what the hospital was currently using.

Top hospital managers and the purchasing manager then implemented a small-scale change initiative using Kotter’s eight-stage leading change method. This project was a test case for further cost-cutting projects. The suture project was considered by management to be relatively easy to implement in both scale and complexity. However, hospital management failed in the most basic way. They failed to establish a sense of urgency and articulate why the status quo was problematic (Kotter, 2012).

Next, they put together a small guiding coalition that included outside medical experts and some of the hospital’s department heads. They did not include any of the surgeons who would be the ones using the new sutures. Management assumed they could communicate the change to surgeons by other means. They failed to create a true guiding coalition that could work together like a team to implement the change (Kotter, 2012). They left out a key stakeholder in the formation of the coalition.

Kotter (2012) tells us that the next two stages of the change process are developing a vision for the change and communicating that vision. Hospital managers believed cost-cutting was necessary, and this suture cost reduction was a test case for further cost-cutting projects. However, they failed to develop a clear vision to communicate to all hospital stakeholders. They also made the mistake of communicating this change primarily by email to the hospital staff. Information about the tendering process, the vendor decision, the verification process, the introduction of the new sutures to the hospital, and training workshops were all sent to hospital employees via email. Kotter (2012) tells us that change managers should be “using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision” (p. 23). Hospital management failed here as well.

Kotter (2012) says the next step in creating major change is to empower broad-based action and eliminate obstacles. Unfortunately, this is the stage where this project died. Management failed to create a sense of urgency, build a true guiding coalition, develop a vision, and properly communicate that vision. Because they fell short in these stages, they ran straight into a brick wall of unexpected opposition (Graamans et al., 2020).

Graamans et al. (2020) tell us that hospital management “anticipated some resistance” (p. 321). However, the hospital’s cardiothoracic surgeons met them with fierce defiance. Graamans et al. (2020) say that the surgeons “adamantly refused to work with the new suture material” (p. 321). Surgeons expressed anger at management, stockpiled their own supplies, and refused to operate. They told managers they would hold them accountable for potential patient deaths that could arise from using the new suture. They also threatened to go to the press if that were to happen. Management was surprised by the emotional reaction of the surgeons in accepting this small change in sutures.

What hospital managers failed to grasp is the emotional and psychological side of change management. Changing sutures resulted in an ending for surgeons. Bridges and Bridges (2016) remind us that “when endings take place, people get angry, sad, frightened, depressed, and confused” (p. 32). These surgeons felt that they weren’t consulted, communication about the change was poor, and management didn’t understand the critical nature of sutures and their use. Cardiothoracic surgeons consider the surgical suture as the lifeline a surgeon relies on to keep the patient alive. A small cost reduction could never justify the potential loss of a surgery patient.

In the end, management canceled the contract for the new sutures and stopped the project but not without a lot of hurt feelings on both sides. Management failed to involve critical stakeholders in the change process, and they failed to anticipate the emotional reaction to the change. This failed change initiative created hurt and mistrust between the surgeons and management. It also jeopardized all future cost-reduction efforts. (Graamans et al., 2020).

The final case study we considered was the organizational change effort led by Josiah, the king of Judah, from around 640 to 609 B.C. Josiah was the son of king Amon and the grandson of Manasseh, both of whom were disobedient kings of Judah. 2 Kings 21:20 tells us that Amon “did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Manasseh had done” (New International Version, 1978/2011). Josiah was a young king who began his reign at eight years old after his father was assassinated. Josiah’s change leadership efforts in Judah were highly effective. To understand his impact on the nation, we considered his actions against the backdrop of Kotter’s eight-stage leading change method.

Josiah was 26 when a book was found in the temple that was likely Deuteronomy. The book had likely been hidden since the reign of Manasseh (Merida et al., 2015). When Josiah heard the words read from this book, he knew Judah had been disobedient. Josiah reacted immediately and he “tore his robes” (New International Version, 1978/2011, 2 Kings 22:11). Josiah also discovered God’s plan to destroy Judah because of the sins of Manasseh and all the kings who had come before him. Josiah then established a sense of urgency in an effort to delay God’s wrath. He began to lead a significant reformation movement in Judah (Merida et al., 2015).

Josiah created a guiding coalition by calling together “all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem” (New International Version, 1978/2011, 2 Kings 23:1). He then formed a new vision for Judah “to follow the Lord and keep his commands” (New International Version, 1978/2011, 2 Kings 23:3). He then communicated the new vision to all of Judah. 2 Kings 23:2 says “he went up to the temple of the Lord with the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets—all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the Lord” (New International Version, 1978/2011).

Josiah continued his change leadership efforts by empowering broad-based action throughout Judah. 2 Kings 23:4-20 provides a complete list of actions Josiah took to remove all priests, temples, symbols, and altars to all the foreign gods being worshipped in the country. Merida et al. (2015) call these actions “comprehensive and thorough” (p. 304). Josiah also generated a significant short-term win by fulfilling a prophecy that came from “a man of God” to Jeroboam I. Merida et al. (2015) tell us that Josiah “beats the altar at Bethel to dust and defiles it by burning bones on it” to ensure the word of the Lord in 1 Kings 13:2 comes to pass 300 years later (p. 304).

Josiah continued to consolidate his gains and produce more change by taking even more “anti-paganism” action in Judah (Merida et al., 2015, p. 305). 2 Kings 23:24 says that “Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem” (New International Version, 1978/2011). Josiah maintained his sense of urgency by cleaning up the past mistakes of his father, grandfather, and the kings who had come before them.

The most impressive action Josiah took, however, was anchoring the new approach into the culture. He did this when he announced the celebration of Passover in 2 Kings 23:21. He directed and supported his people in reinstating this sacred practice that had been abandoned for nearly 700 years. Merida et al. (2015) tell us, “in celebrating the festival, he outdoes Hezekiah and even David” (p. 304). Through Josiah’s faith, love of God, direct actions, and change leadership efforts, God delayed His wrath on Judah for the 31 years that Josiah remained king. With Josiah, we see a successful change leadership effort that includes all the elements of Kotter’s eight-stage leading change method.

Conclusion

The growth of organizational change theories in the 1990s was due to the decade’s rapid environmental, technological, and organizational changes. The pace of these changes has only increased since that time. Kotter (2012) tells us that “these trends demand more agility and change-friendly organizations; more leadership from more people” (p. ix). He says that leading change competently is the only answer for companies to keep up with the pace of change in today’s business environment.

We observed in this paper a wide variety of change management theories and methodologies, and there is not one universal change management approach that works in all companies and settings (Phillips & Klein, 2022). Instead, we find our best practices when we integrate the ideas from existing models (Errida and Lotfi, 2021). For example, we saw the successful implementation of a project management methodology using concepts from both Kotter and Bridges. Change leaders in that case study addressed both the procedural and emotional side of the change effort.

Today’s leaders need to be exposed to various tools and techniques in change management to increase the odds of successful change initiatives. We will see improved results and performance only by employing the best methods for the specific situation.

References

Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. M. (2016). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (4th ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books A Member of the Perseus Books Group.

Chmielewska, M., Stokwiszewski, J., Markowska, J., & Hermanowski, T. (2022). Evaluating organizational performance of public hospitals using the McKinsey 7-S framework. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 7. doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07402-3

Eng, P. A., & Donnelly, E. (2020). Hidden dragons: The revitalizing of Vancouver’s Chinatown from humanistic perspectives. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(2), 205-226. doi:10.1177/0022167817696840

Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13 doi:10.1177/18479790211016273

Fredberg, T., & Pregmark, J. E. (2022). Organizational transformation: Handling the double-edged sword of urgency. Long Range Planning, 55(2), 102091. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102091

Graamans, E., Aij, K., Vonk, A., & ten Have, W. (2020). Case study: Examining failure in change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 319-330. doi:10.1108/JOCM-06-2019-0204

Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change, Second Edition (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.

Holmes, M. R. (2021). The intersectionality of performance: A sweet spot. Performance Improvement, 60(9-10), 23-29. doi:10.1002/pfi.22005

Kang, S. P., Chen, Y., Svihla, V., Gallup, A., Ferris, K., & Datye, A. K. (2022). Guiding change in higher education: An emergent, iterative application of Kotter’s change model. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 47(2), 270-289. doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1741540

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

McLaren, T. A. S., van der Hoorn, B., & Fein, E. C. (2022). Why vilifying the status quo can derail a change effort: Kotter’s contradiction, and theory adaptation. Journal of Change Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1-19. doi:10.1080/14697017.2022.2137835

Merida, T., Platt, D., & Akin, D. L. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group.

New International Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (Original work published 1978)

Phillips, J., & Klein, J. D. (2022). Change management: From theory to practice. TechTrends, 67(1), 189-197. doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00775-0

Pregmark, J. E. (2022). Renewing models for change. The Learning Organization, 29(3), 255-274. doi:10.1108/TLO-05-2021-0056

Ratana, S., Raksmey, C., & Danut, D. (2020). Conceptualizing a framework: A critical review of the development of change management theories. Studies in Business and Economics (Romania), 15(2), 205-214. doi:10.2478/sbe-2020-0035

Saver, C. (2022). Addressing the role of human factors in the retention of surgical items. AORN Journal, 116(2), 118-125. doi:10.1002/aom.13748

 

Note: This paper was written as part of my requirements for a Doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Liberty University. I’m sharing this here for those who may be interested in some of the theories of leadership. Let me know if you have any questions.

—————————

If you want to become a better leader, order my latest book You Have the Watch: A Guided Journal to Become a Leader Worth Following.

This guided journal provides daily leadership guidance and reflection for an entire year. Each week, you will learn a new leadership skill. Each day, you will explore a new facet of that skill. As you do the work and put in the reps as a leader, this journal will be your constant companion. By the end of the year, you will master fifty of the most important leadership skills.