Assignment Unique Number: 870328

Student Number: 50300105

Subject: IOP 4862

Assigned mark = 70

Number of words = 4100

Preparing for Change

Organizations face a lot of uncertainty brought about by factors such as competition,

technological innovation, political and economic factors. These factors are forcing organizations
to adapt the way they conduct their business internally and externally. Sound change
management principles must be practiced in order to increase the chances of an organization
quickly adapting to external and internal environmental demands.

Preparing an organization for change is an important pre-condition for successful change

adoption within an organization.

1. Force Field Analysis

Kurt Lewin proposed that any level of performance or state is maintained by certain opposing
forces that keep the system at equilibrium (Burnes, 2004). These forces consists of those forces
that seek to change the status-quo, and those forces that resist any change in the status-quo.
Applied to the case study, the need to cut costs and offer better customer service are the driving
forces for change whereas resistance by supervisors and key managers, organizational norms,
current policies and procedures are restraining forces.

When these forces are in balance, the situation is said to be in a quasi-stationery equilibrium
(Cummings & Worley, 2009). Quasi-stationery equilibrium denotes that the equilibrium state is
impermanent and can be shifted to a new state of equilibrium. In order to shift from this
equilibrium, one can increase the forces driving for change or alternatively decrease the
restraining forces, however research has shown that increasing the driving forces produces less
tension than decreasing the restraining forces (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

Figure 1.1 depicts the force field analysis.

Figure 1. Force field diagram. Adapted from Robbins & judge (2009)

The current structure of the organizations isolated customer contact centres represents a quasi-
equilibrium state that needs to shift to a new desired state. Management has decided to change
the current business structure of the customer contact centres into a consolidated unit with the
hope that doing so will cut the costs of doing business and lead to better customer service.
Movement from the old customer contact centres structure to a new envisioned consolidated one
requires that an organization undertake a process of planned change.

2. Kurt Lewin three step model

Kurt Lewin further proposed a three-step model of managing planned change, which is
composed of (1)Unfreezing (2) Moving and (3) Refreezing. (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Figure 2. Lewin's 3 step Model of Change. Adapted from Cummings & Worley (2009)
2.1 Unfreezing the Status-quo

The goal of Unfreezing is to create awareness and urgency about the need to change. It is
important for employees of the organization to see and feel a need to change before they can be
motivated to change their behaviors. Unfreezing can be achieved through a number of processes
including; motivating the change, creating a vision around the change and developing political
support (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

2.1.1 Motivating Change

Motivation of the change include creating readiness for the change and managing the
resistance. Readiness is achieved when there is enough dissatisfaction in members of the
organization so that they see that changing is necessary in order to survive. Dissatisfaction is
Usually generated by a process called psychological disconfirmation (Cummings & Worley,
2009).

Psychological Disconfirmation stems from Festingers theory of cognitive dissonance which

found that people when faced with information that contradicts their beliefs, will seek to
reduce the contradiction (dissonance) by either changing their behaviors or changing their
beliefs towards the information.
Dissonance can be introduced to members of the organization by revealing to such members
contradictory information about the current situation in relation to desired situation. Aspects
such as results of customer satisfaction surveys, operating budgets vs. actual costs of doing
business, and competitors information can be used to sensitize members about the
discrepancies that exists between the current state and the ideal state.

People generally want to know what in for me before they can be motivated to change. It is
important in that regard to create positive expectation for the change so that members can see
some of the individual benefits that will be created by the change. Positive expectation
around the change should include amongst other things new enriched jobs, better cohesion
through centralization among customer service agents, faster processing of customer issues
and possible enhanced customer loyalty, hence more job security for staff going forward.
2.1.2 Creating a vision for the Change

Creating a vision for the Change involves the creation of a compelling change story that is
communicated to employees and following it up with ongoing communications and
involvement. A vision describes the core values and purpose that guide the organization as
well as an envisioned future towards which change is directed( Cummings & Worley,
2009).

The role of organizational leadership is especially emphasized during this stage of vision
creation because creating a vision is considered a key element in most leadership frameworks
(Daft, 2015). Daft (2015) defines leadership as an influence relationship between leaders
and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purpose.
The CEO and key managers in the affected departments need to assume active roles in the
entire change process if the change is to succeed.

The CEOs reluctance to become personally involved is a stumbling block towards

energizing other organizational members towards making the desired changes. Subordinates
look up to their superiors as role models. This is especially true during times of uncertainty
where leadership is expected to give direction.

Creating a vision for the change include describing the core ideology of the organization and
constructing the envisioned future (Cummings & Worley, 2009). The core ideology
represents what the organization stands for, in terms of core values and core purpose. The
core values represents values that are currently being used in the organization. Core values
are not determined or designed; they are discovered and described through a process of
inquiry (Cummings & Worley).
 The organizations core values can be discovered through the administration of a survey
instrument that seeks to discover organizational members cultural orientations and through
interactions with members of the organization. The organizations core purpose represents
what the organization stands for, and members perceptions of the organizations image and
reputation.

2.1.3 Developing Political Support.

Organizational Politics refer to activities that are not required as part of ones formal role in the
organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and
disadvantages within the organization( Robbins & Judge, 2009). Political behavior is a
consequence of the scarcity of resource in the organization. People use their different sources of
power to sway organizational decisions and resources towards themselves.

Any attempt to change the organizational system threatens the balance of power among groups
of employees, thus resulting in political conflict and struggles (Cummings & Worley, 2009). It is
thus important that during times of change, influential people buy in into the change process.
When such influential people support the change, other members of the organization who
identify with them will more readily accept the change as necessary.

Cummings & Worley (2009) identified three activities that helps in managing the political
dynamics of change: (1) Assessing change agent power (2) Identify key Stakeholders and (3)
Influencing Stakeholders.
2.1.3.1 Assessing change Agent Power

A Change agent is any person from inside or outside the organization, whose role is to
help members of the organization to adapt to organizational changes. Political influence
requires the use of power to influence other people. In an organizational context, power
can either be formal or informal. Formal power is power derived from occupying a
specific position in the organization. Sources of formal power are the ability to coerce
and reward subordinates (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

The organization has sought the help of an external change agent to help drive the
change. As an external consultant, one does not possess any coercive or reward power.
An assessment of my own sources of power as an external change agent, is important in
that it determines what strategies I can employ to facilitate the change.

The CEO can use his formal power to drive change by rewarding employees who support
the change and by coercing those who resist change into accepting the change. It is
important to note that the CEO by virtue of being a leader, inherently assumes the role of
a change agent. This is emphasized by Dafts definition of what a leader is (see section
2.1.2). The ability to drive change is a key leadership competency hence the CEO must
get actively involved with the change effort.

Informal power is based on the individuals characteristics and one need not be in a
specific position in order to possess it. Sources of informal power include expert power,
referent power, information power and connection power (Robbins & Judge, 2009). As
an external change agent my sources of power reside within my expertise and my
proximity to those high up in the organizational hierarchy, hence I have expert,
information and connection powers.
 I can use my expert power to convince the CEO to assume an active role in the change
process. This I can do by referring him (CEO) to research that indicates how important
his active role is to the change process. My being closer to top leaders within the
organization affords me an opportunity to access vital often classified information about
decision making within the organization.

2.1.3.2 Identify Key Stakeholders

Key stakeholders in an organizational context, refers to powerful individuals and groups

who have a vested interest in the changes. Key stakeholders include employees in the
existing customer contact centres, managers and supervisors. These peoples support of
the change is crucial for the change effort to succeed.

It is clear from the case study, that key stakeholders are actively resisting the change.
This might stem from the fact that they have not being properly consulted about the
change. As a consultant, I can initiate a process consultation through which every
stakeholder can be identified and sensitized to the need for this change to happen.

2.1.3.3 Influencing Key Stakeholders

Influencing key stakeholders involves actively soliciting their buy in towards the change
effort. Soliciting stakeholder buy in can be effected through employing three tactics
namely; straight talk, social networks and manipulating the formal system (Cummings &
Worley, 2009).

Straight talk involves determining the needs of particular stakeholders and presenting
information about how the change will benefit them. The influential supervisors and
managers should be able to articulate as to what benefits are going to accrue to them
owing to change effort succeeding.

Social Networks involves the change agent forming alliance relationships with other
powerful individuals and groups and using both formal and informal contacts to gain
information. Relationships with groups such as labour union representatives can provide
an impetus for positive participation by other union members in the change effort. These
relationships might also help a change agent to uncover hidden factors that might play a
role in members resisting change.

Manipulating the formal system involves purposefully circumventing organizational

policies and procedures to get the change done (Cummings & Worley, 2009). The
rationale behind using this strategy is that, in certain instances, organizational rules and
procedures may act as a barrier to implementing change.
2.1.4 Resistance to Change

Despite efforts to thoroughly prepare for change, organizational systems and individual
members resist change, thus making it difficult to implement changes in the organization.
Resistance to change is not necessarily all dysfunctional, as it can provide some degree of
stability and predictability to employee and organizational behaviors (Robbins & Judge,
2009). Stability and predictability affords the change agent an opportunity to anticipate
certain behaviors during change, thus making it possible to prepare for resistance
behaviors.

Resistance to change can also be a source of functional conflict when those resisting the
change do so on the basis of valid reasons. Some of this valid reasons may be used to
adapt the change process thereby smoothing the transition. It is important to note that not
all resistance to change is overtly displayed. Resistance to change can be covert,
immediate or delayed (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

The supervisors and key managers are overtly resisting the change effort by not showing
up for meetings, threatening to quit the organization and by withholding vital information
needed by the consultant. Covert resistance might manifest as loss of morale among
affected employees and managers.

2.1.4.1 Why Individual Resist Change

Resistance to change on an individual level occur as a result of employee habits,

economic factors, fear of the unknown and selective information processing (Robbins &
Judge, 2009).

Habits are programmed responses to everyday dynamics of organizational life. When

employees face change, they might resort to their everyday habits which might be a
barrier to change. As seen on the case study, employees, supervisors and affected
managers are used to working in a decentralized customer contact centre environment.
They have well developed reporting structures and ways of conducting themselves within
the existing system.

The anticipated change is threatening their usual routines (habits) hence they are resisting
the change. This leads us to another source of individual resistance to change; fear of the
unknown.

Fear of the unknown happens because change substitutes the known for ambiguity
(Robbins & Judge, 2009). Those affected by the change may think that the new system
will render their skills obsolete or that it may increase their workload. Change might also
mean that they have to forgo some of the social relationships they have formed with
others within the present system as some people may have to change departments.

The rumours that this change was not good for the organization, highlight fear of the
unknown because people are already anticipating negative consequences to themselves
owing to this change effort succeeding.

Economic factors as a source of individual resistance to change, has to do with people

fearing that the change will lower their income. Economic factors also have to do with
the labour environment. The scarcity of jobs may cause people to resist changes that they
view as threatening to their employability.

Selective information processing has to do with human perception. People can choose to
pay attention only to information that keeps their initial perceptions intact, thereby
ignoring any information that challenges their perceptions. Employees, supervisors and
key managers can choose to ignore the rationale for the change by emphasizing that the
present situation is adequate for the organization to continue functioning effectively.
2.1.4.2 Organizational Resistance to Change

Source of resistance at an organizational level can be categorized into technical

resistance, political resistance and cultural resistance (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Technical resistance amounts to organizational habits that are embedded in formal

procedures of the organization. Employees of the organization are used to adhering to
certain procedures in conducting their day to day work. The consolidation of customer
contact centres means that some of these established mechanisms will have to change.

Political resistance happens when organizational change threaten powerful stakeholders

such as Key managers, supervisors and employees in the case study. Key managers may
be concerned that the consolidation will limit some of their decision making powers and
also threaten their jobs.

The manager identified as actively resisting the change in the customer contact centre, is
viewing the change as threatening to his job, hence the resistance. He is using his
political power by threatening to quit. He also happens to hold expert power because of
his experience and tenure in the organization.

Cultural resistance emanates from systems and procedures that reinforce conformity to
existing organizational norms, values and assumptions about how things should operate
(Cummings & Worley, 2009). The existing structure of the customer contact centres
consists of norms with regard to how contact centre staff interact to solve customer
issues. This norms might have to change to reflect the new consolidated structure.

When employees norms and values continue to operate as if they were still working
under the old structure, cultural resistance is happening.
2.1.4.3 Strategies to Overcome Resistance to change

Cumming and Worley (2011) identified three major strategies for positively dealing with
resistance to change; empathy & support, communication and participation &
involvement.

Empathy and support suggest that change agents must learn to put themselves in other
peoples shoes to properly understand how those people experience change. This
involves active listening to other peoples perspective of the change. People are more
likely to be less defensive when they feel that change agents are genuinely interested in
their feeling and perceptions.

Communication is used to provide adequate information about the change process to

those affected by change. When communication is inadequate, rumours will start to
emerge as people attempt to make sense of the change. Effective communication about
the change will help organizational members to prepare for the change as well as to
anticipate their new roles within the changed structure.

Employees in the case study are being subjected to a lot of rumours concerning the
change because there is inadequate communication regarding the change. They dont
know how the change will affect their present roles, whether their present skills will be
adequate to perform on their new roles, or whether they even risk losing their jobs.
Effective communication should address these aspects so that employee can be motivated
enough to partake in the change effort.

Participation and involvement is based on the premise that it is difficult for individuals
to resist a decision to change in which they participated (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
Organizational members are more likely to support change if they have had a hand in the
decisions taken regarding the change. Key managers, supervisors and influential line staff
in the affected organizational units should participate in the planning of organizational
change activities pertaining to the consolidation of customer contact centres.
In addition to the strategies mentioned above, Robbins & Judge (2009) further discuss
manipulation & co-optation and coercion as other alternative strategies that one can use
to overcome resistance to change.

Manipulation refers to hidden attempts to influence people. It involves the change agent
intentionally distorting facts to make them more acceptable for others to accept to
change. Manipulation can also be used to resist change, as referred to in the case study,
key managers and other supervisors were threatening to quit if the change continued. This
is a form of manipulation as their threats to quit may only be just that, threats.

Co-optation seeks to manipulate people by making them active participants in the

decision to change. This is done by giving leaders of resisting groups a key role in the
change program. Their presence is only needed to endorse the change effort in the eyes of
their followers. The identified manager who was actively resistance the change could be
co-opted into participating in the change effort by assuming a role within the change
activities.

It is hoped that the managers participation in the program will help validate the change
effort in the eyes of the supervisors who are also resisting the change.

Coercion involves the use of threats to force people to accept the change. The CEO can
utilize his coercive power to give all resisting managers and employees an ultimatum.
Accept the change or you are fired! Coercion as a strategy is in contrast with ODs
humanity values, hence there has been limited focus on the construct in OD studies.

Studies by Furst and Cable (2008) examined resistance management strategies

relationship with manager-subordinate relationships. They examined, to what extent the
quality of leader-subordinate relationship determines the effectiveness of various
influence tactics used by leaders, in managing resistance to change. The study evaluates
the acceptance or non-acceptance of influence tactics by employees as a function of
employees perceptions of the leader employing the tactics.
 The general conclusion of the study is that the success of any influence tactic depends on
how employees perceive the leader. It is important in that regard to carefully examine the
quality of leader-subordinate relationships before leaders can choose which strategy to
employ. The quality of the relationship will determine which strategy is more likely to
succeed.

2.2 Movement ( Changing)

This step involves actively shifting from doing things in the old way, to doing them the new
way. Managing the transition includes activity planning, commitment planning and change-
management structures (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Activity planning entails making detailed plans as to how different activities must take place
to effect the change. Employees and supervisors should know when they should start
reporting to the new head office and to whom do they report to. There should be logical
metrics set, against which progress can be measured.

Change management structures are specially created structures for managing the change
process (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Powerful individuals should be selected to spearhead
the mobilizing of resources to promote the change. The Key Managers in customer contact
centres should be included in this structures to solicit their influence towards their
subordinates, and their ready-access to organizational resources.

2.3 Refreezing
Refreezing change is about making changes to stick and sustain momentum towards
attaining full scale changes. Behaviors that support the change should be rewarded in order
to reinforce the change. Achieving full scale change requires developing new competencies
and skills among organizational members (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Employees, supervisors and managers need to develop these new competencies and skills
for them to function effectively within the new operating structures. Employees might have
to deal with more bureaucracy due to centralization. This may mean more rules to consider
and less decision-making powers than in the past.
A Mckinsey survey of 3,199 executives around the world found that, in agreement with
many other studies, only one in three transformation efforts succeed (Aiken & Keller,
2009). This suggests that much still needs to be learned with regards to how to successfully
implement change in a variety of business contexts.

Kurt Lewins 3-step model presents a general framework through which the implementation
of organizational/ social change can be conceived and approached. Many other models have
gone on to extrapolate on the three steps mentioned by Lewin i.e. action research and the
general model of planned change as conceived by Cummings & Worley (2009).
Answers to self-evaluation questions.

1. I deserve the assigned mark because I covered the required content extensively. I
managed to extrapolate on Kurt Lewin model of change thoroughly. I concentrated on the
main theme of the question, UNFREEZING, which I think addresses the question asked
how could one go about preparing the organization for change. Preparation is about
unfreezing.

I think I should have integrated the theory on resistance to change as a function of LMX
exchange relationship thoroughly when discussing the role of the CEO in the change
process.

2. I found the articles by Cumming T.G & Worley, C.G (2009) to be more helpful. I also
used Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T.A extensively to study organizational change theory and
sources of individual resistance.

3. Additional sources I used include Mckinsey Insights, Harvard business Review and the
Prosci website. These were used for background information on the current thinking in
change management.

4. I believe the sources provide realistic knowledge that can be readily applied in the South
African context.
5. I spent approximately 15 hours on the assignment.

6. I needed Research skills, internet search skills, mind mapping skills, analytical skills and
the ability to compare theory with application.

7. The case study presents a familiar scenario to what is actually happening in practice. The
dynamics mentioned in the case study are witnessed on a daily basis in various work
environments. This will surely help me in the future to apply my knowledge of
organizational theory when I encounter such scenarios as a change agent.
I need to develop my interpersonal skills further as they are important for an HR
practitioner.

8. The assessment criteria is an adequate framework for evaluating this assignment.

9. I think subject tutors must use websites like YouTube to present mini-lectures to answer
questions that are frequently asked in discussion forums.
References

Cumming, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2009). Chapter 2: The Nature of Planned Change
Cumming, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2009). Chapter 10: Leading and Managing Change
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Chapter 20: Organizational Change and Stress
Management
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee Resistance to Organizational Change:
Managerial Influence Tactics and Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 453 462
Aiken, C., & Keller, S. (2009). The Irrational side of Change Management: Mckinsey
Quarterly
Burnes, B. (2009). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal:
journal of management studies,41, 0022-2380
Daft, R.L. (2015). The Leadership Experience (6th Edition), Cengage Learning