A Business Case for Change Management: How Not to Implement Change
The procedure for initiating organizational change necessitates huge quantities of patience, energy, time, and money (Aremakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999). Organizational cycles have the potential to create powerful feedback loops, which when activated can result in vicious cycles of creative destruction that thwart the effects of change efforts and generate a moving target of equilibrium (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Empirical investigations of corporate downsizing reveal the often-found discrepancy between the anticipated cost savings and actual lack thereof (Goodman & Rousseau, 2004). Even with the abounding wisdom offered in the change management literature, there are still corporate cultures that insist on using angry confrontation to elicit change, as opposed to gently provoking adaptation through moderate challenges to the status quo (Meyerson, 2001).
Organizations are implored to seek out firm-wide endorsement of change efforts, beyond that of the C-Suite and CEO, in order to successfully focus and institutionalize the change process.
The Sync Corporation, as it will be referred to, is a technology and R&D company specializing in software development, engineering, and mobile application design. The company was founded and primarily run by its CEO, who remained deeply involved with all aspects of running the firm, including making all final decisions and approvals for budgets, timelines, new products and services, and the overall structure and culture of the organization.
After implementation of a huge restructuring and downsizing effort, a new team was put into place for the purpose of bridging the gap between product development and product launch in an effort to speed up production, increase cross-functional efforts, and boost bottom line.
The following will explore the reality of implementing the Ideation Team at Sync Corporation by analyzing how a lack of effective communication and awareness of employee response backfired to form a deleterious cycle which bled the company of money and resources that generated further monetary setbacks and a significant decrease in employee morale. The case study proceeds with an evaluation using empirical guidance for possible explanatory hindsight, and concludes with future recommendations for avoiding a similar business catastrophe.
Communicating the Change Effort
Understanding the fundamental mechanisms that unfold to create organizational change efforts helps to offer a more comprehensive analysis of life at a given firm (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), which can include its methods for communicating change.
Arguably, the Sync Corporation can be said to have adopted a mesh of two ideal-type theories for social change in the organization, namely an evolutionary, dialectical pattern of change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). The dialectical motor reflects the collective materialism set forth by decision-makers in the company who promoted an unbalanced focus on bottom line efforts through the use of conflict and confrontation (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Additionally, scarce resources ensured department heads to competitively approach the CEO for approval, thus advancing rhetoric of evolutionary change that became the oppositional force for contradicting and stifling creative ideas set forth by the general work force.
These motors of change fulfilled a continuous, negative feedback cycle deeply affecting the communication efforts for diffusion, rites and ceremonies, and formalization activities (Armenakis, Harris, & Fieild, 1999). In attempting to diffuse the adoption of the new change effort via the Ideation Team, cross-functional attempts were made that resulted in department heads ignoring the new procedures, thereby halting the change process.
Rites and ceremonies were also attempted, in a half-hearted way, which only ended up reinforcing norms and entrenching existing beliefs. Formalization activities changed almost daily based on the whims of the C-Suite, as dictated by the CEO, indicating how asymmetrical information exchange contributes to an atmosphere of ambiguity and static equilibrium (Goodman & Rousseau, 2004).
Besides contributing to an overall stifling atmosphere, the change process at Sync Corporation also infiltrated into individual commitment efforts, creating angst and resentment, particularly toward the CEO.
Employee Response to Change
An overwhelming employee response of resistance to the Ideation Team ensued, which was executed mostly under the radar, reflecting the possible role of compliance commitment (Armenakis et al., 1999). In meetings that involved executives and/or the CEO, department heads eagerly provided their verbal support for the Team, which quickly fizzled out when meetings were concluded.
Organizational members, both inside and outside of the Ideation Team, lacked a basic identification commitment, since no effort was made to establish or allow a social system to unfold where self-defining relationships could thrive (Armenakis et al., 1999). Most importantly, the evolutionary dialectical process (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995) adopted by Sync Corporation encouraged the majority to focus on their paychecks and completing the workday with minimal effort, instead of cultivating an intrinsic dedication that appealed to the value systems and behaviors of employees to garner a true commitment of internalization (Armenakis et al., 1999).
These negative change management and implementation tactics have the ability to assist other organizations in a positive way when taken as a vicarious learning opportunity (Armenakis et al., 1999).
Post Hoc Evaluation and Future Recommendations
Before Sync Corporation implemented any new team effort; it may have behooved organizational leaders to understand and appreciate the importance of time lags and employee learning curves that become pertinent to any attempt with transforming a negative feedback loop process (Goodman & Rousseau, 2004).
By taking a step back to understand the firm’s deeply set dynamics, vantage points from all levels of the organization could have been identified through tools such as linkage analysis, where pathways of change are mapped out to devise the most appropriate way to engage in a change effort (Goodman & Rousseau, 2004).
Additionally, five key questions should be addressed that offer guidance on building commitment through an effective communication strategy of change, namely:
(1) Was the implementation of an Ideation Team really necessary?
(2) Was the formulation of the Team an appropriate response for an effort to increase cross-functionality and firm-wide efficiency?
(3) Can this Team be successfully implemented?
(4) Will we be able to offer principle support to ensure this change, or will it be viewed as just another “change fad” at the firm? and
(5) Are we clarifying both the external and internal benefits for supporting this Team at all levels of the organization? (Armenakis et al., 1999).
Change is no easy feat, and it may come easier to evaluate and criticize an organization’s efforts in hindsight. Still, past inconsistencies and mishaps can be the impetus for vicarious learning initiatives that help to steer organizations away from following a similar path.
This analysis can possibly offer the change agent some fodder for understanding how a firm’s underlying motors of change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995) can be the impetus for driving a resilient feedback loop that insists on keeping the status quo intact (Goodman & Rousseau, 2004).
Also, enabling behaviors that contribute to an atmosphere ripe with confrontation and angst way not be as efficient and profitable as a tempered, incremental change effort (Meyerson, 2001).
Realizing the firm’s specific methods for implementing change can contribute to executing the most suitable strategy for communicating the change effort and addressing employee response to corporate adjustments, thus offering a hopeful opportunity to avoid hampering novel change efforts, and fostering true transformative betterment through the process of institutionalization (Armenakis et al., 1999).
References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999) Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1297-128.
Goodman, P. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Organizational change that produces results: The linkage approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 7-19.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001, Oct.). Radical change the quiet way. Harvard Business Review [Online journal]. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2001/10/radical-change-the-quiet-way/ar/1
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.
