Consulting and change

Figure 4.1 Time span and level of difficulty involved for various levels of change

Source: R. Hersey and K. H. Blanchard: Management of organizational behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 100.

Box 4.1 Which change comes first?

The relationship between the various change levels shown in figure 4.1 is an open issue. Some behavioural scientists suggest that the best results will be obtained if the sequence of changing knowledge – attitudes – individual behaviour – group behaviour is fully respected. Others, for either conceptual or practical reasons, do not subscribe to this sequence. Fonviella points out that “trying to change behaviour by changing values and attitudes is unnecessarily indirect ... while attitudes influence behaviour, behaviour influences attitudes”.1 Following a study of several organizational change programmes, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector observe that “most change programmes do not work because they are guided by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed... The theory that changes in attitudes lead to changes in individual behaviour, and that changes in individual behaviour, repeated by many people, result in organizational change ... puts the change process exactly backward”.2 They conclude that the most effective way to change behaviour is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them.

1W. Fonviella: “Behaviour vs. attitude: Which comes first in organizational change?”, in Management Review (New York, American Management Association), Aug. 1984, p. 14.

2M. Beer, R. A. Eisenstat and B. Spector: “Why change programmes don’t produce change”, in Harvard Business Review (Boston, MA), Nov.–Dec. 1990, p. 159.

able to cope and so break down. On the other hand, many environmental changes, such as an increased penetration of new information and communication technologies into all areas of human life, greatly facilitate the changes that have to be made within particular organizations.

89

Management consulting

Resistance to change

People are remarkably adaptable, can cope with change and generally accept it as a natural fact of life. Why, then, is change in people so often the bottleneck of organizational change? Why is “change” such a frightening word for many people?

People resist and try to avoid changes that will leave them worse off in terms of job content, conditions of work, workload, income, relationships, personal power-base, lifestyle and the like. This is understandable. But a great deal of resistance may be met even if the proposed change is neutral, or beneficial to the persons concerned. While there are many reasons for this, psychological and other, the reasons listed in box 4.2 appear to be the most common.

Some of these causes of resistance to change stem from human nature. However, often they are reinforced by life experience, e.g. by negative consequences of past changes. People who have experienced a great deal of unnecessary and frustrating change, such as frequent but useless reorganizations or hectic changes in marketing strategies, or who have been adversely affected by changes presented to them as beneficial, tend to become suspicious about any further changes. This is very important. Causes of trouble are often sought in inherent resistance to change, although they lie elsewhere – for example, in wrong choice of new technology, in failure to explain why change is necessary or in poor coordination of various change interventions. In such cases, resistance to change is only a symptom and the real problem is change management, which is hectic, messy and insensitive to people’s concerns and feelings.2

There are differences in the character of individuals so far as attitude to change and the ability to cope with change are concerned. In section 4.3 we shall see that some people are natural allies of managers and consultants in preparing and introducing changes in organizations. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, those who are in greatest need of change often resist it more than anybody else, and require special attention and support. These may be individuals (both workers and managers), groups, organizations, or even whole communities.

Change is not an end in itself

Organizational change is not an end in itself. It is only a means of adjusting to new conditions and sustaining or increasing competitiveness, performance and effectiveness. If an organization can achieve its objectives without disturbing the established product and service lines, practices and relationships, there may be no need for major changes, at least in the short term. Certain changes can be very costly (e.g. if a successful product is phased out and replaced by a new product at the wrong moment). Some managers suffer from chronic “reorganization disease”: they feel that to be seen as dynamic, they must periodically reorganize their enterprise or department. Consultants sometimes lack the courage to tell the client that the best solution is to leave things as they are, especially if the work is being done for a client who is obviously eager to make some spectacular changes.

90