Consulting and change

Box 4.2 Reasons for resistance to change

Lack of conviction that change is needed. If people are not properly informed and the purpose of change is not explained to them, they are likely to view the present situation as satisfactory and an effort to change as useless and upsetting.

Dislike of imposed change. In general, people do not like to be treated as passive objects. They resent changes that are imposed on them and about which they cannot express any views.

Dislike of surprises. People do not want to be kept in the dark about any change that is being prepared; organizational changes tend to be resented if they come as a surprise.

Fear of the unknown. Basically, people do not like to live in uncertainty and may prefer an imperfect present to an unknown and uncertain future.

Reluctance to deal with unpopular issues. Managers and other people often try to avoid unpleasant reality and unpopular actions, even if they realize that they will not be able to avoid them for ever.

Fear of inadequacy and failure. Many people worry about their ability to adjust to change, and maintain and improve their performance in a new work situation. Some of them may feel insecure, and doubt their ability to make a special effort to learn new skills and attain new performance levels.

Disturbed practices, habits and relations. Following organizational change, well-established and fully mastered practices and work habits may become obsolete, and familiar relationships may be altered or totally destroyed. This can lead to considerable frustration and unhappiness.

Lack of respect for and trust in the person promoting change. People are suspicious about change proposed by a manager whom they do not trust and respect, or by an external person whose competence and motives are not known or understood.

In a world where technological, social and other changes are occurring at an unprecedented pace and frequency, people and organizations are in need not only of change, but also of relative stability and continuity. Striking the right balance between change and stability, and helping the client to maintain this balance throughout the organization, is one of the vital tasks of the consultant.3

4.2How organizations approach change

Unplanned or planned change?

It is common knowledge that in every organization a great deal of evolutionary, natural change occurs. A typical example is the ageing of equipment and people, which has both problematic aspects (e.g. the need to repair and replace equipment, or to replace managers who have lost their dynamism and drive),

91

Management consulting

Box 4.3 What is addressed in planning change?

Some typical questions addressed in planning change and choosing strategies of organizational change are:

●What changes are occurring in the environment? What will be their implications for our organization?

●What changes should we foresee in order to achieve our development objectives, improve our performance, increase our share of the market, etc.?

●What undesirable changes will occur in the organization if we do not take timely steps to prevent them?

●What sort of and how much change are we able to manage?

●What sort of and how much change will our people be able to absorb and support? How should we help them to cope with change?

●Should we implement change in stages?

●What will be the relations between various changes that we intend to make? How will they be coordinated?

●Where and how should the change process be initiated?

●How should we manage change? Do we need a consultant? What would be this consultant’s role?

●What should be our time horizon and timetable for implementing change?

and positive aspects (technical and managerial competence acquired by years of experience). While most of these changes cannot be kept under full control, it is possible to take preventive measures for avoiding and/or mitigating the negative consequences of evolutionary change.

A great deal of unplanned change is not of an evolutionary nature, but is a fast reaction to a new situation. A manufacturing firm may be compelled by competition to cut its prices, or a strike may force an organization to increase wages. Such changes are adaptive or reactive. The organization has not planned the change and, quite often, has not foreseen its necessity until very late. The organization makes the change to avoid a crisis, or in order not to lose an unexpected new opportunity that has just emerged.

It is a sign of poor management if the only changes that occur in an organization are inevitable and unplanned changes. Where this happens, it is a demonstration of reluctance or inability to look ahead and prepare the organization to react to future opportunities and constraints. While planning cannot completely eliminate the need for unplanned changes, it helps the organization to prepare itself for changes that can be anticipated, and minimizes the number of situations where hasty (and costly) changes have to be made in an atmosphere of panic.

More than that, the planning of change enables the organization to be proactive and “create the future”, e.g. to shape its environment and its own profile and outperform competition by creating new products and services,

92

Consulting and change

influencing consumer taste and demand, restructuring the key organizational processes before competition does so, and pushing for changes in the regulatory environment.

The last question in box 4.3 is crucial. Both organizations and individuals can absorb only a limited amount of change over a certain period of time, and this absorptive capacity is different in different countries, organizations and individuals. Conversely, delaying urgent changes can lead to crises and hopeless situations. The pacing of change is therefore one of the main skills needed in planning and implementing change.

Imposed or participative change?

In business practice, a great deal of change is decided and imposed on the organization by management. After all, by acting in this way management assumes its basic responsibility. However, change imposed from a position of authority may cause unhappiness and resentment, in particular if the people affected by such changes believe that they should have been consulted, or at least informed well in advance and in a proper way.

If change is initiated from a position of power and imposed upon people, it could be inherently volatile; it could disappear with removal of the power source, or in the absence of appropriate punishments and sanctions. Yet we cannot say that every imposed change is bad. There are emergency situations where discussion is impossible and delaying a decision would be detrimental. There are regulatory and administrative measures that will affect many people, but that are of minor importance and do not justify long discussion and consultation. Imposed change is considered to be more effective when dealing with dependent rather than independent people. In general, the attitude to imposed change is very much influenced by culture, education, access to information, and the existence of alternatives.

A manager should think twice before deciding to impose a change. He or she should do it only if firmly convinced that there is no alternative – if, for example, he or she has been unable to gain the support of the group, yet feels that change is inevitable. Still the manager should always take the trouble to explain the reasons for choosing to impose a change.

People in different national and organizational cultures do not feel the same way about change that is presented to them as an accomplished fact, and imposed on them without prior discussion or consultation. However, the trend towards participative change is ever more pronounced in most parts of the world. People want to know what changes are being prepared, and to be able to influence changes that concern them. Managers and administrators are increasingly aware of this fundamental demand and react to it by adopting a more participative approach to change.

A participative change process may be slower and more time-consuming and costly than imposed change, but it is considered to be long lasting. It helps to prevent resistance and generates commitment to change. In addition,

93

Management consulting

participative change helps management to draw on people’s experience and creativity, which is difficult to do if change is imposed.

There are different levels and forms of participation in the change process, depending on the nature and complexity of the change itself, on the maturity, coherence and motivation of the group, and on the relationship between management and employees (see box 4.4). At the first level, the manager or the consultant informs the staff concerned about the need for change and explains the specific measures that are being prepared. At the second level, consultation and discussion about change take place in the course of the change process – in identifying the need for change, proposing the specific changes to be made and checking whether people would react negatively to the measures proposed. Suggestions and criticism are solicited and management may reconsider its plan for change on the basis of these. At the third level, management seeks the active involvement of the staff in planning and implementing change by inviting them to participate in defining what to change and how to do it, and in putting the agreed changes into effect. This is normally done through workshops, task forces, special committees and projects, staff meetings and other methods reviewed in section 4.5.

In many situations change requires negotiation. This takes place when two or more individuals or groups discuss together the changes to be made and the benefits and costs to the parties involved. This may lead to a compromise that neither party considers to be an ideal solution by its own standards. However, the probability of support by those concerned, and hence the probability of implementing the agreement reached, will be much higher.

There are changes that require negotiation between management and the representatives of employees, who may be trade union or other representatives. Issues requiring nogotiation may be determined by law, through collective bargaining, or by any other joint agreement, formal or informal. Managers and consultants should be particularly alert to the desirability of a dialogue with employees’ representatives, not only in cases explicitly stipulated by laws or formal agreements, but also in preparing any changes that may affect the interests of people in the organization and where employee support may be essential.

Frequent and sincere dialogue with employees and their representatives is the best means for preventing organized large-scale resistance to change, expressed through strikes and similar forms of protest against decisions taken or planned by management. Clearly, resistance to change is not the only reason for strikes. It is, however, a frequent reason, and it can often be traced back to management’s failure to consult and inform people, explain why change cannot be avoided, seek alternative solutions, and implement change in ways that minimize hardship to the people concerned.

Finally, in thinking of participative approaches, the perspective is often limited to employee participation, direct or through their representatives. This perspective may prove to be narrow and may miss important inputs. It is useful to think of a wider circle of “stakeholders”, i.e. organizations and people having various stakes in the organization in question. Customers are important stakeholders, and learning from them in preparing important changes is essential. Other

94