Change Models

In the last publication, I wrote that Change is the fundamental responsibility of the leader. I described the three different types of change and noted that while change can be disorderly, it need not be. I described six worker concerns (information, personal, operational, impact, collaboration, transforming) that when addressed can increase the probability that a change implementation will be accepted and possibly championed by the workers; the recommended handling of change begins with an effective response to these six concerns.⁶ A component of this preparedness is for the leader to also continually attend to the primary human resource measures working to maintain a positive trajectory (i.e. maintenance or increase in satisfaction, productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and maintenance or decrease in turnover, absences and deviant workplace behavior).¹

The next step is to discuss some additional issues of dealing with workers before, during and after the concerns are addressed. A key question is how does the leader increase the workers’ commitment and motivation in a change process? The answer lies in two models developed by Kurt Lewin. The first is Lewin's Change Model and second is his Force Field Analysis Model.¹

Lewin's Change Model

This model suggests that change moves through a process starting from a current stable condition or a "frozen state." As workers learn why a change is necessary, the hardened ideas, beliefs and reasons for staying the same begin to “thaw” or unfreeze, allowing for a transition.  This is an awareness stage: awareness that (1) change is needed, (2) some different future is on the horizon and (3) the key to the future rests with the collective efforts of those involved. The leader plays an integral part in articulating the reasons and vision for a new future.

In the next stage, the change is executed against a carefully considered plan. The leader assures the success of the change by making sure workers learn the knowledge, skills and abilities to not only execute the change but also sustain the change after it is in place.

After the change is accomplished, the leader moves to imbed the change as a custom of the organization or refreezes in a new stable frozen state.

Frozen -- Unfreeze -- Change -- Refreeze -- Frozen

The leader's job (with the followers) is to identify the needs and then effectively and efficiently execute the change. Careful attention must be paid to all stages of a change process, particularly if it is categorized as transitional or transformational (see previous publication). If a leader does not pay attention to the steps in the process, there can be a negative impact on worker satisfaction and turnover,³ possibly affecting the other human resource measures. Leaders who do not understand this can mistakenly implement changes without following proper communication protocols on the assumption that workers will just follow along. Unfortunately, this attitude can lead to negative business results, such as diminished profits.

Force Field Analysis

Kurt Lewin's second model is called Force Field analysis.⁴ It is commonly pictured as a “T” diagram with the right side labeled “Forces for Staying the Same” or "Restraining Forces" and the left side labeled “Forces for Change.” The vertical stem depicts the current "frozen" position of the organization. The model offers an important message to leaders. That is, the exerted forces for change must exceed the forces for staying the same; the compelling reasons for change must overtake the reasons for remaining with the status quo. When this happens, the organization is repositioned.

 

Given that people naturally refuse to go along with change for a set of valid reasons (e.g. fears: (1) Feeling “stupid” when confronted with doing things differently, (2) financial ruin, (3) loss of position, authority, etc.), to bring individuals on board and shift from a state of resistance toward a state of commitment, persuasive reasons must be provided. The Force Field model provides a conceptual way to understand the work the leader has in effectuating a good change process.

Leaders need to build a case. Much of this can be completed through successful communication. Communication of this kind is best accomplished through multiple channels such as verbal (individually and to groups) and written. The messaging must also be consistent and persistent, given that one of the things that arises when workers resist is they may “self-correct” the information received so that it does not contradict what they want the future to be.¹ Leaders are advised to "paint a visual picture" much like a salesperson would do;³ developing and conceptualizing a portrait of the future is essential in the unfreezing, changing and refreezing process. It also enables movement away from the abstract toward something more concrete.

As the scale of a change increases (i.e. more transformational), the more the future is unknown.² Nevertheless, the leader needs to figure out what the future looks like to the best of his or her ability. The more the future can be crystallized, the more effective the ultimate change processes can be.

Change is ubiquitous in organizations. Organizations naturally atrophy and eventually die unless change occurs. It is the leader’s job to move the organization forward and make change happen. Change must be executed properly to avoid the reported pitfalls such as lower morale (i.e. human resource measures) and profits. As with all issues of leadership, change must be well thought out and handled with deliberateness.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

²  Costello, S.J. (1994). Managing Change in the Workplace. Burr Ridge: Ill.: Irwin: Mirror Press.

³ Martins, L.L. (2011). Organizational Change and Development. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 691 - 728). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

⁴ Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (2001). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

⁵  Found at: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&biw=1352&bih=634&tbm=isch&tbnid=CVlG9SmfDNVr5M:&imgrefurl=http://seapointcenter.com/what-if-you-changed/&docid=AOacUo2lTX5dbM&imgurl=http://seapointcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kurt-Lewin-Push-Against-250x240.jpg&w=250&h=240&ei=jEncUKasIo-x0QGszYBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=287&sig=109403903151462237428&page=3&tbnh=138&tbnw=143&start=48&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:51,s:0,i:247&tx=47&ty=80.  Retrieved 12-27-12.

⁶ Hall, G.E. and Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing Change. Patterns, Principles and Potholes. Allyn and Bacon.: Massachusetts. Change Abilitator TM by LHE, Inc, 1994, published by HRD Press, 22 Amherst Road, Amherst, Mass. 01002.