Transcript Change Management slides.ppt

Change Management #2 of 3
Nature of change
Who and What can Change?
See also organisational cultural analysis and change
How can we make change happen?
Securing individual and group level change
See also Managing the human dimensions of change








How Can we understand the complexity, interdependence and fragmentation
PESTELI/STEP*
6 Box Organisational Model (Weisbord, 1976)
* External,
Organisational Model (Burke-Litwin, 1992)
(Environmental)
7S Organisational Model (Peters & Waterman, 1980)
analysis
Content context & Process Model (Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991)
Soft Systems Methodology
Other models both
Process Mapping and Redesign
external and

internal analysis
See also cultural analysis (below)
Why do we need to
change
 SWOT Analysis
 Self Assessment
against quality
frameworks eg
Clinical Gov’,
ISO9000, EFQM,
Baldridge, NSF
Requires Effective
Leadership!!
Who and What can
change
 Force Field Analysis
 Stakeholder
analysis
 Readiness and
capability – also
(WIFM)
 Cultural analysis

 See also models of
organisation (above)
How can we make the
change happen?
 Organisational
Development (OD)
 Organisational
Learning
 Action Research
 Project management –
service improvement
teams
 TQM, EFQM, CG
 Parallel Learning
Structures – group
level change
 Individual Change
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.23
2
Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis
Who and What Can Change
 Force field analysis (Lewin, 1951) is a diagnostic technique
which has been applied to ways of looking at the variables
involved in determining whether organisational change will
occur.
 It is based on the concept of ‘forces’, a term which refers
to the perceptions of people in the organisation about a
particular factor and its influence.
 Driving forces are those forces affecting a situation and
which are attempting to push it in particular direction. These
forces tend to initiate change or keep it going.
 Restraining forces are forces acting to restrain or decrease
the driving forces. A state of equilibrium is reached when the
sum of the driving forces equals the
As long as the driving forces equal the restraining forces, the status quo is
maintained. If disequilibrium is created with one of the forces gaining
strength over the other, a change may occur. To facilitate a change,
strategies need to be developed to reduce the restraining forces and
strengthen the driving forces
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44
3
Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis
Who and What Can Change
 Lewin formulated three fundamental assertions
about force fields and change.
 Increasing the driving forces results in an increase in
the resisting forces; the current equilibrium does not
change but is maintained under increased tension.
 Reducing resisting forces is preferable because it
allows movement towards the desired state, without
increasing tension.
 Group norms are an important force in resisting and
shaping organisational change.
USE: Once change priorities have been agreed, using methods from the last two
clusters, a force field analysis can be used to identify actions that would
enhance their successful implementation.
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44
4
Who and What Can Change
Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44
5
Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis
Who and What Can Change
 For the model to be of use, the
forces need to be identified
perceptively, rigorously and
objectively, and the means
identified of addressing the
resisting forces need to be
creative.
 Many practising managers will be
able to reflect on occasions in
their own experience when they
have aimed to increase the
driving forces, rather than
reduce the resisting ones, and
have increased the resistance
and the tension as a result.
 Other change management
authors have developed models
and tools which analyse forces.
(Kanter, 1983; Beckhard and
Harris, 1987; Nadler)
6
Stakeholder Analysis and WIFM
In pairs undertake a
a Force Field Analysis
in relation to your
proposed service
improvement.
One person play the
role of the consultant
for 10 mins and then
swap roles
7
Sources and Potency of Forces
(Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
Who and What Can Change
 In their book Organisational Transitions: Managing Complex
Change (1987) Beckhard and Harris describe and illustrate two
techniques for analysing relevant sources of energy.
 They analyse respectively the ‘sources and potency of forces for
change’, and the ‘readiness and capability’ of individuals and
groups to enact change.
 First, the nature of the change demanded must be specified,
using tools and techniques associated with environmental and
organisational analysis.
 Then all the forces for change, both inside the organisation and
external to it, are listed along one axis of a grid.
 On the other axis the potency of the forces is indicated, as high,
medium or low.
Special Note: Probably not as easy to use as WIFM stakeholder
analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to the
performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45
8
Sources and Potency of Forces
(Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
Who and What Can Change
Nature of the change Demanded:
Owners
Legislature
Employees
Trade Unions
Social Values
High
Potency of Forces
Medium
Low
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45
9
Readiness and Capability
(Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
Who and What Can Change
 Early on in the change process, managers need to identify which
specific groups and individuals will be required to support the change
if the change is to be successful. (See Stakeholder Analysis)
 When they have done so they can determine the readiness and
capability of these individuals and groups to enact the roles required
of them in the change process.
 Understanding the readiness involves analysing attitudes:
willingness, motives and aims.
 Capability is determined by whether they have the power, the
influence and the authority to allocate resources, and the
appropriate information and skills.
 Beckhard and Harris (1987, p.63) have developed a Readiness–
Capability Assessment Chart which enables the user to list individuals
or groups who are critical to the change effort, and to rank them
(high, medium, or low) each according to their readiness and
capability with respect to change.
Special Note: Again probably not as easy to use as WIFM
stakeholder analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to
the performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45
10
Readiness and Capability
(Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
Who and What Can Change
Stakeholder
(Key individuals
or groups)
Readiness
Capability
Actions required
to increase
capability and/or
Readiness
 __________
 __________
 __________
etc
Psychological
commitment to
change,
willingness,
confidence,
security etc.
Technical
capacity for
change –
knowledge,
skills etc.,
Need to rate as low, medium or
high
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 46
11
Commitment, enrolment and Compliance
(Senge, 1990)
Who and What Can Change
 Where a change must be implemented from the outside, ie when it has
not been defined as necessary by the people involved, then it is unlikely
to succeed (yield the full results of which people have ambitions) unless
some of those involved are in favour of it.
 Several observers (Rogers, 1983) have suggested however that not
everyone needs to support a change, and that not everybody needs to
support it to the same extent.
 Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990) talks of the difference between
 commitment,
 enrolment
 and compliance,
 suggesting that while it is more pleasant (and reassuring) to have
considerable commitment, it is not necessary for everyone to be as fully
signed-up as this.
 There exist a number of positions along a continuum, along which players
may position themselves in response to proposed action and change
Special Note: Again probably not as easy to use as WIFM
stakeholder analysis!! – also; need to be very clear in relation to
the performance gap – ie the ‘nature of change demanded’
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45
12
Commitment, enrolment and Compliance (Senge, 1990)
DISPOSITION
Players Response to Change
Commitment


Want change to happen and will work to make it happen.
Willing to create whatever structures, systems and frameworks are necessary
for it to work.
Enrolment

Want change to happen and will devote time and energy to making it happen
within given frameworks.
Act within the spirit of the frameworks.

Genuine
Compliance


See the virtue in what is proposed, do what is asked of them and think
proactively about what is needed.
Act within the letter of the frameworks.
Formal
Compliance



Can describe the benefits of what is proposed and are not hostile to them.
They do what they are asked but no more.
Stick to the letter of the framework.
Grudging
Compliance

Do not accept that there are benefits to what is proposed and do not go along
with it.
They do enough of what is asked of them not to jeopardise position.
They voice opposition and hopes for failure.
Interpret the letter of the framework.



Non-Compliance
Apathy



Do not accept that there are benefits and have nothing to lose by opposing the
proposition.
Will not do what is asked of them.
Work outside framework.


Neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposal, just serving time.
Don’t care about framework.
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 46
13
Commitment, enrolment and Compliance
(Senge, 1990)
Who and What Can Change
Stakeholder (Key
individuals or
groups)
Disposition
Actions required to
increase commitment
and/or minimise the
effects of apathy
 __________
 __________
 __________
etc
Need to assess on
a continuum of:
Commitment –
Apathy (See
previous slide)
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 45
14
Sources of Potency or Levels of
Commitment!
OPTIONAL
Activity
In pairs undertake an
additionally stakeholder
analysis which includes
an analysis of sources
of potency or levels of
commitment!
One person play the
role of the consultant
for 10 mins and then
swap roles
15
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Innovation research refers to a body of
literature that contains many models and
approaches.
 Some of the specific areas within it
provide insights that are particularly
relevant to managers.
 Originating in the marketing literature of
the 1960s, innovation research has
developed into a significant area in its
own right (Rogers, 1983; Stocking, 1992).
 Research into the diffusion of
innovations suggests that the propensity
of individuals to change and implement
new ideas, products or processes differs.
 The adoption process, from an individual
perspective,
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
16
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 The adoption process, from an
individual perspective, has been
depicted as a five-stage process,
starting with:
 establishing an awareness of the
innovation in potential adopters and
proceeding through:
 persuasion, or arousal of interest
 mental evaluation of the innovation
 trial
 to implementation (Rogers, 1983;
Van de Ven, 1993).
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
17
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Innovation research (Rogers, 1983) provides insights for
change management in three ways.
 First, it identifies properties of innovations (in this case
organisational changes) that are likely to meet with success.
These are:
 relative advantage, the degree to which it is perceived to be
better than existing technology
 compatibility, the perceived ‘fit’ of the innovation with
existing structures, procedures and values
 complexity, the degree of difficulty involved in learning about
and implementing the innovation
 trialability, the extent to which an innovation can be tried by
potential adopters without major investment of time or
resources
 observability, the degree to which outcomes resulting from
the adoption of an innovation are visible.
 Armed with this knowledge, managers can optimise and
tailor their change programmes in order to maximise
chances of success.
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
18
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 In health, Stocking (1985) provides
a more specific list about the key
factors in the adoption of
innovations or change. It includes:
 the presence of identifiable
enthusiasts for innovation or change
 conducive power relationships (i.e.
lack of conflict with national policies
or professional opinion)
 adaptability to local conditions a
general perception that the innovation
meets current needs
 minimal requirements for extra
resources.
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
19
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 In health, Stocking (1985) provides
a more specific list about the key
factors in the adoption of
innovations or change. It includes:
 the presence of identifiable
enthusiasts for innovation or change
 conducive power relationships (i.e.
lack of conflict with national policies
or professional opinion)
 adaptability to local conditions a
general perception that the innovation
meets current needs
 minimal requirements for extra
resources.
More recent work in this field has been concerned to explore the social and
cultural factors in promoting or hindering change (Pettigrew et al., 1992;
Dawson et al., 1999).
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
20
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 The second insight concerns the
important role that organisational
context plays in the adoption of
innovation and change.
 Three environmental features have
been linked with the propensity to
innovate:
 rapid change and heterogeneity in an
organisation’s operating environment
 effective external communication
networks
 presence of boundary-spanning
individuals (Slappendel, 1996).
These environmental/organisational features are key contributing
process to organisation organisational learning (Dixon, 1999; Pedler et
al, 191; Senge 1990)
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
21
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 The third insight that
innovation research provides
for change managers is that
individuals have different
attitudes to change per se.
 It categorises people in terms
of their propensity to change,
ranging from:
 innovators (venturesome)
to
 early adopters
(respectable) to
 early majority
(deliberate) to
 late majority (sceptical)
to
 laggards (traditional).
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
22
Reactions to change
Rogers (1983, 1995)
23
Rogers (1983, 1995) Reactions to change
Innovators
Those who will leap with enthusiasm at your proposals
they will strongly support it and will expect others to be
active in pursuing them.
Early Adopters
These are people who will be rapidly persuaded,
especially by early success. They are likely to want to
adapt your proposals to their own circumstances.
Early Majority
Are those who will want to see tangible outcomes to
your proposals – they will not be convinced merely by
the idea or principle.
Late Majority
Those who will follow the lead of a powerful person if
they show signs of agreement and support for your
ideas.
The commitment is centred on political
calculation.
Resistors
(Laggards)
Predictable, these people’s interest will need
considerable evidence – the more vivid and directly
observable the better – before they can be mobilised
away from present methods and preferences. As a
group, this category may be relatively risk adverse.
24
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 In addition to these attitudes, an
individual’s reactions are greatly
influenced by contextual factors
involved.
 The extent to which people are
more or less resistant,
indifferent, or likely to lend
support to change is affected by
how they perceive the change
affecting them. Reasons for
resisting change include:
Managers need to
take affirmative action
to minimise these
effects!











loss of control
too much uncertainty
surprise
confusion
loss of face
concerns about competence in a
new context
increased workload
change fatigue
the view that costs outweigh
benefits
past resentments
real threats. (Kanter et al.,
1992; Dawson, 1996)
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p.56-57
25
Innovation Research (Rogers, 1983, 1995)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Uptake of new idea
The pattern observed in 3,500 successful
innovations
5.’Laggards’
How to influence each group?
5
4.Late majority
4 Prove it
3
3.Early majority
2.Early adopters 25% usually
ensure adoption
of and
innovation!
1.Innovators
Time
Change the rules!
Show them a working example
2 Mention it
1
No need
Everett Rogers 1983
7
26
Rogers (1983) Reactions to change
Advocates
Floaters
Resistors
No of
People
Time
Early
Adopters
Early
Majority
No of
People
Innovators
Late
Majority
Resitors
Time
27
Rogers (1983, 1995) Reactions to change
Advocates
Floaters
Resistors
68%
No of
People
16%
16%
Time
Early
Adopters
Early
Majority
No of
People
Innovators
Late
Majority
Resitors
Time
28
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Driving Forces (Positive/Supportive)
10
8
6
4
2
Length of the arrow indicates
the strength of the force!
Restraining Forces (Negative/Opposing)
0
Current
State
2
4
6
8
10
Future
State
29
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Lewin (1947, 1951) – Force Field Analysis
Iles & Southerland, 2001, p. 43-44
30
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Lewin (1951) formulated three fundamental
assertions about force fields and change:
1. Increasing the driving forces results in an
increase in the resisting forces; the
current equilibrium does not change but is
maintained under increased tension.
2. Reducing resisting forces is preferable
because it allows movement towards the
desired state, without increasing tension.
3. Group norms are an important force in
resisting and shaping organizational
change.
31
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Once change priorities
have been agreed, a
Force Field Analysis can
be used to identify
actions that would
enhance their successful
implementation.
 Lewin (1951) suggests
that there are three
phases in the change
process.
Unfreezing
Moving
Re-freezing
32
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Unfreezing
Moving
Re-freezing
Strong exciting Vision, Providing
Information on a Better Way of doing things
– creating dissatisfaction with the current
state, Identify the need for a solution – sell
the benefits, model a positive outlook!
Develop an incremental plan, with
contingencies, design easy wins, create a
safe first set, recognise the importance of
education, listen to concerns empathetically,
reward/reinforce small steps in the right
direction!
Continually reinforce new behaviours, ensure
these are embedded in the artefacts of
culture eg guidelines, policies, job
descriptions etc., ensure clear responsibility
for monitoring key processes using SPC!
33
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Unfreezing (Vision, Support, Positive Outlook &
Modelling)
 This can be done by providing information or examples
of new ways of doing things or getting the job done or
by raising everyone's awareness that the goal or goals
of the organisation are not being met in some way and
that a change is necessary to get back on track.
 It is necessary to make those involved in the process
feel secure and at ease with the proposed change or
changes to reduce threats to the safety and security of
those involved and reduce resistance to the proposed
change.
 During unfreezing, the process of developing an
awareness to a need or problem is started and change is
seen as the only solution.
34
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Unfreezing (Vision, Support, Positive Outlook
& Modelling)


The change agent needs to increase pressures toward
the change and reduce threats associated with
changing. According to Lewin, this is done through
three mechanisms.
•
Towards Safe
Uncertainty!!
•
•
Disconfirmation: occurs when the change agent
introduces evidence that a need is not being met. This
can be done through meeting with the staff in small
groups to discuss inadequacies or problems.
Inducing guilt or anxiety: can be accomplished by
introducing a period of uncomfortableness about the way
things are and how they are not meeting an important
goal or value.
Creation of psychological safety: the third mechanism
is important to provide sufficient security to minimise
risk involved with the change. The change agent can
provide time for discussion, involvement, education,
supervision and approval to small advances toward the
intended change.
35
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Moving or Changing (Planning, Overcoming
Resistance, Implementation, Open
Communication & Support)
 This is the actual change or implementation phase of
the change process. During the moving stage, the driving
forces have overcome the restraining forces and the
change moves ahead
 A new way of behaving or working is established as
information and feedback is used to encourage group
involvement and allow the participants to discuss and
assimilate the change into their practice.
 The change is planned in detail and then implementation
begins. Time must be allowed for support, group
discussion, evaluation, and feedback to deal with
resistance as it occurs. Open communication is
important.
36
(Lewin, 1951) Change Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Refreezing (Embedding the change into the artefacts values,
beliefs and behaviours of the client system as the basis of
cultural regeneration/reinvention)
 During Refreezing, the change has been implemented and needs to
be stabilised.
 The organisation (client system) must return to its normal level of
functioning and the change consolidated into the regular
operations of the organisation.
 The change becomes integrated into the whole organisation as
part of its routine functioning.
 The change agent must provide guidance and support to ensure
that the change will be maintained.
 The change agent needs to reduce participation in the functioning
of the change and delegate responsibility for the continuance of
the change.
 The integration of the change allows the change process to end
and the participants (client system) to take on the responsibility
for the continuance of operations.
 Refreezing takes place as the group has moved to a new
equilibrium of the driving and restraining forces with the change
functioning in place.
37
Model of Change (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Describe a five stage model of change:
Determine the need for change.
Define the desired future state
Describe the present state.
Assess the present in terms of the future to determine the work
to be done.
 Manage the transition.




 Enabling Conditions and the Change Equation:
 D x V x C x F > Resistance
•
•
•
•
D dissatisfaction: with the present situation
V vision: an understanding of what the change(s) would look like
C capacity: sufficient resources to make the change happen
F first steps: an appreciation of how the change is to be
implemented (Adapted from Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
 If any of the elements on the left-hand side of the equation are zero,
there will be insufficient impetus to overcome the resistance to
change!!
38
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 D x V x C x F > Resistance
 D dissatisfaction: with the present situation
 V vision: an understanding of what the
change(s) would look like
 C capacity: sufficient resources to make the
change happen
 F first steps: an appreciation of how the
change is to be implemented (Adapted from Beckhard
& Harris, 1987)
 If any of the elements on the left-hand side of
the equation are zero, there will be insufficient
impetus to overcome the resistance to change!!
39
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Dissatisfaction – Key Questions….
 How satisfied is the person/group with the current
state of things?
 Is any dissatisfaction shared with their colleagues?
 How is the dissatisfaction understood and
experienced?
 How can we utilise information eg control charts, from
the Analyse phase to increase dissatisfaction with the
current state without de-motivating key
stakeholders?
“The
knew
hour
mess
… thing … that was astounding was mapping. We all thought we
how the system worked but none of us had a clue. Many times an
my mouth was just falling open because I didn’t realise what a
it was.” Lead Clinician Cancer Services Collaborative
40
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Creating shared Dissatisfaction with the status-quo: Rea
(1993) provides some practical advice on leading change in
relation to Beckhard & Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your
stakeholder scan:






This is achieved partly through the strength of the vision
Create opportunities for learning about what other
organisations in your health sector do – by visiting these.
Ensure that stakeholders are encouraged to access relevant
contemporaneous research in order to inform best practice.
Create opportunities for patient/client involvement in
developing services eg through patient stories etc.
Ensure evidence of poor performance from surveys and
audits is disseminated to all stakeholders within the client
system.
Provide immediate direct evidence of the cost benefits of
existing process.
41
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Vision – Key Questions….
 what do the key stakeholders want want for their patients,
themselves and their colleagues?
 what are their values and beliefs, goals and desires?
 what could the new system look like – can you provide examples
of where your proposed solution has provided positive benefits
– how can you create an exciting future – is your plan sound can you answer the question How?
“One of the reasons we got involved was because we care about the
way that we deliver the service to patients … we were interested in
ways of trying to improve … you think, there must be a better way of
doing things.” Lead Clinician Cancer Services Collaborative
42
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Creating shared Visions of a better state: Rea (1993) provides
some practical advice on leading change in relation to Beckhard &
Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your stakeholder scan:






How precisely might you create dialogue with the different
interests?
Which interests might prefer closer direction? Which might prefer
virtually autonomous decision-making? (Remember that history is
important)
What factors might damage the efforts to achieve shared
discussion?
What would the vision need to look like; Detailed? Flexible? Highly
Measured?
Would your change issue be more effectively achieved by one vision
or many, as formulated by various interests?
What do we do about potentially contradictory visions between
stakeholders?
43
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Yukl (1998) argues that and effective visioning must:





Provide a simple but exciting picture of a desirable but attainable
future, which is highly discrepant from the present state.
Involve and/or attend to the needs of as many stakeholders as
possible.
Be based on core ideologies and values of the organisation.
Include a plan for implementation.
Be flexible enough for regular review.
"A vision should be simple and idealistic, a picture of a desirable future, not a
complex plan with quantitative objectives and detailed action steps. The vision should
appeal to the values, hopes and ideals of organisation members and other
stakeholders whose support is needed. The vision should emphasis distant ideological
objectives rather than immediate tangible benefits. The vision should be challenging
but realistic. To be meaningful and credible, it should not be a wishful fantasy, but
rather an attainable future about what is important for the organisation, how it
should related to the environment, and how people should be treated."
(Yukl G, 1998, pp.443)
44
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Capacity – Key Questions….

 What resources are needed to achieve the change? don’t forget
resources such as energy and capability
 How can the resources be generated or shared?
 How can we use existing resources in a different way?
 What are the consequences of not changing?
First Step – Key Questions….
 What first steps could people undertake which everyone agrees
would be moving in the right direction?
 How can you create a safe first step – safe uncertainty?
(Consider, training, vision, levels of supervision, incremental
steps, building on what already works – ie do not through the
baby out with the bath water).
45
Change Equation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987)
D x V x C x F > Resistance
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Creating Safe Fist Step with appropriate Support Rea (1993)
provides some practical advice on leading change in relation to Beckhard
& Harris’s (1987) model. Look at your stakeholder scan in order to:
 Involve stakeholders in developing a plan for implementation:
• try to include as many contingencies as possible
• create short term wins!
 Determine appropriate levels of supervision during the change
process for all stakeholders within the client system.
 Provide access to education and learning opportunities according
to individual need.
 Recognise that individuals within the client system will internalise
and commit to the change within very different time scales.
 Role model appropriate behaviours yourself - recognise and
reward these behaviours in others.
 Match mature/competent individuals with those who are less so.
 Be accessible and encourage discussion.
 Celebrate each and every success
46
Lippitt White & Westley (1958), Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 This model expands Lewin's (1951) theory to a seven-step change
process and concentrates on the role of the leader or change agent in
the change process.
 It emphasises the role of planning and problem solving in the process
and adds the dimension of the interpersonal aspects of the helping
relationship by the change agent in the change process.
 The Seven Steps are:
 The development of a need for change, including problem awareness and
a desire for change.
 Establishment of a change relationship between the change agent and the
client system and their mutual decision to work together on the change.
 Clarification or diagnosis of a client system's problem; a collaborative
effort to diagnose the difficulties.
 Examination of alternative means of action and goals, and the
establishment of goals and intentions of action.
 Transformation of intentions into actual change efforts, in which the
active work of changing takes place and success, is measured by how well
plans are transformed into achievements.
 Generalisation and stabilisation of the change. The process of
institutionalisation occurs.
 Achieving a terminal relationship to prevent the client system from
becoming too dependent on the change agent.
47
Rogers (1983) Infusion of Innovations Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 This model explains change as a result of the introduction of an
innovation(s).
 Innovation(s) are an idea, practice, or material artefact perceived to be
new.
 Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system; it is a
type of communication concerned with new ideas.
 The five steps in this model are as follows:





Knowledge-Awareness or Knowledge is presented to the group, showing
that the innovation is available.
Persuasion-Interest arousal, excitement with the innovation its utility to
the client system is explained.
Decision - the decision to use and evaluate the innovation is made.
Implementation - the innovation is trialled occurs.
Confirmation decision to adopt or reject the innovation is made by the
group.
“Roger’s also considers the role of the change agent as important and delineates the
responsibilities of the change agent role: to develop a need for change, establish an
information -exchange relationship, diagnose the problem, create an intent to change in the
client, translate the intent into action, stabilise the adoption and prevent discontinuance, and
achieve a terminal relationship.” (White K, 1998, p.185)
48
Havelock’s (1973) Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Havelock (1973) expanded the work of Rogers and Lewin and described
a six-step process that discusses how successful innovation takes place
and how change agents can organise their work so a successful
innovation will take place.
 Havelock's work focused on innovation in the educational process and
emphasised planning and the use of a participatory approach for the
group involved.
 Havelock's theory suggests four ways that a change agent can
facilitate the change:




as a catalyst,
solution giver,
process helper,
and resource linker.
 Summary of the 6 Stages:
 Build a relationship
 Diagnose a problem
 Acquire resources
 Choose a solution
 Gain Acceptance
 Stabilisation and Termination
These are key
Leadership Roles
49
Havelock’s (1973) Model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 The need to build a good relationship between the change agent and the client
(or client system).


The relationship between the people involved in the change must be carefully
developed for success to be achieved.
An assessment of the client, his or her norms, the leaders, the gatekeepers, and the
larger environment should be completed.
 The change agent needs to diagnose the problem and make a systematic
attempt to understand it.


The diagnosis should include details about the symptoms, history, and causes.
The change agent should help the client to articulate his or her needs as problem
statements.
 Identify and acquire relevant resources that will help in reaching the solution to
the defined problem.

Resources are needed for diagnosis, awareness, and evaluation before trial, for
trial, evaluation after trial, installation and maintenance.
 Choose a solution to accomplish the change after generating a range of
possibilities that follow looking at the implications, testing the feasibility of the
alternative solutions, and adapting the preferred one to the needs and
circumstances of the client system.
 Move the solution toward acceptance and adoption.
 Finally, there is the need to stabilise the innovation so that the client system
can maintain the change on its own. Thus, a gradual termination of the change
agent relationship is accomplished.
50
Comparison of Major Theories of Planned Change
Nursing
Process
Lewin (1951)
Lippitt et al
(1958)
Rogers (1983)
Havelock (1973)
Identification of
problem
Unfreezing
Developing need
for change
Knowledge
Assessment
Unfreezing
Establish
change
relationship
Diagnosis
Unfreezing
Clarify diagnosis
Persuasion
Diagnose a
problem
Goal Setting
Moving/
Changing
Establish goals
and intentions
for action
Decision
Acquire
resources
Planning and
Implementation
Moving
/Changing
Examine
alternatives
Implementation
Moving
/Changing
/Refreezing
Transform
intentions into
actual change
Implementation
Gain acceptance
Evaluation
Refreezing
Generalise and
stabilise change;
achieve terminal
relationship
Confirmation
Stabilisation
Build a
relationship
Choose a
solution
51
Kotter J P, 1980, 1995 n-stage model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Establish a sense of urgency
 Examine the organisation's operating environment for change
factors and competitive realities
 Identify and discuss crises, or major opportunities
 Form a powerful enough guiding coalition
 Assemble a group with enough power to lead the change effort
 Encourage the group to work better as a team
 Create a vision
 Use every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and
strategies
 Teach new behaviours by the example of the guiding coalition
 Empower others to act on vision
 Get rid of obstacles to change
 Change system structures that seriously undermine the vision
 Encourage risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities and
actions
52
Kotter J P, 1980, 1995 n-stage model
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
 Plan for and create short-term wins
 Plan for visible performance improvements
 Create those improvements
 Recognise and reward employees involved in the improvements
 Consolidate improvements and produce still more changes
 Use increased credibility to change systems, structures, and
policies that don't fit the vision
 Hire, promote and develop employees, who can implement the
vision
 Reinvigorate the process with new projects, themes, and
change agents
 Institutionalise new approaches ie stabilise the change
 Articulate the connections between the new behaviours and
corporate success
 Develop the means to ensure leadership development and
succession
53
Kotter & Schlesinger (1985) Methods
for dealing with resistance to change?
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Approach
Commonly used in
situations
Advantages
Drawbacks
Education +
Communication
Where there is a
lack of information
or inaccurate
information and
analysis
Once persuaded,
people will often
help with the
implementation of
the change
Can be very timeconsuming if lots of
people are
involved
Participation +
Involvement
Where the
initiators do not
have all the
information they
need to design the
change and where
others have
considerable
power to resist
People who
participate will be
committed to
implementing
change, and any
relevant
information they
have will be
integrated into the
change plan
Can be very time
consuming if
participators
design and
inappropriate
change
…/CTD
54
Kotter & Schlesinger (1985) Methods
for dealing with resistance to change?
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Approach
Commonly used in
situations
Advantages
Drawbacks
Facilitation +
Support
Where people are
resisting because
of adjustment
problems
No other approach
works as well with
adjustment
problems
Can be time
consuming,
expensive and still
fail
Negotiation +
Agreement
Where someone or
some group will
clearly lose out in a
change, and where
that group has
considerable
power to resist
Sometimes it is a
relatively easy way
to avoid major
resistance
Can be too
expensive in many
cases if it alerts
others to negotiate
for compliance
…/CTD
55
Kotter & Schlesinger (1985) Methods
for dealing with resistance to change?
Securing Individual & Group Level Change
Approach
Commonly used in
situations
Advantages
Drawbacks
Manipulation +
Cooptation
Where other
tactics will not
work, or are too
expensive
It can be a
Can lead to future
relatively quick and problems if people
inexpensive
feel manipulated
solution to
resistance
problems
Explicit +
Implicit Coercion
Where speed is
essential, and the
change initiators
posses
considerable
power
It is speedy, and
can overcome any
kind of resistance.
Can be risky if it
leaves people mad
at the initiators
56
References










Ackerman L, 1997, Development, transition or transformation: the question of change
in organisations, in Organisational Development Classics Ed D Van Eynde, J Hoy and D
Van Eynde, San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Argyris, C. 1992. On Organisational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1978. Organisational Learning: a Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1996. Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method and
Practice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley
Beckhard, R. and Harris, R. 1987. Organisational Transitions: Managing Complex
Change. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley
Bennis W, Beene K & Chin R, 1985, The Planning of Change (4Ed) cited in White K M,
1998, Chapter 13 – Planned Change in Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S, 1998, Clinical
Leadership in Nursing, W B Saunders, London
Broome A, Managing Change (2Ed), 1998, Macmillan, London
Bushy A & Kamphuis J, 1993, Response to innovation: Behavioural Patterns, Nursing
Management, 24(3), 62-64
Costello S, 1994, Managing Change in the workplace, New York: Irwin
Duck J D, 1993, Managing Change: The Art of Balancing, Harvard Business review,
Nov/Dec, pp.109-118
57
References










Goodman M, 1995, Creative management, Prentice-Hall, London
Havelock R, 1973, The Change Agent’s Guide to innovation in Education, New Jersey,
Educational Technology Publications in Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S, 1998, Clinical
Leadership in Nursing, W B Saunders, London
Iles V & Sutherland K, 2001, Managing Change in the NHS: Organisational Change – a
review for health care managers, professionals and researchers, London: National
Coordinating Centre fro NHS Service Delivery and Organisational R & D (NCC/SDO)
Johnson G & Scholes K, 1993, Exploring Corporate Strategy, Text & Cases (3rd Ed),
Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 37-8
Kotter J P & Schlesinger L A, 1979, Choosing Strategies for change, Harvard Business
Review, March-April, pp. 106-113
Kotter J P, 1995, Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, pp. 59-68
Lamb M C & Cox M A, 1999, Implementing Change in the National Health Service,
Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol 13, No 5, pp. 288-297
Lewin K, 1951, Field Theory in Social Sciences, Harper Row, New York in Marquis B L &
Huston C J, 2000, Leadership Roles and Management Functions in Nursing, Lippincott,
New York
Lippitt T, Watson J, Westley B, 1958, The Dynamics of Planned Change, New York,
Harcourte-Brace in Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S, 1998, Clinical Leadership in
Nursing, W B Saunders, London
Mabey C & Mayon-White B (Eds), 1993, Managing Change, Open University Press
58
References










Marquis B L & Huston C J, 2000, Leadership Roles and Management Functions in
Nursing, Lippincott, New York
Mullins L, 2000 (5th Ed), Management and Organisational Behaviour, London: Financial
Time Publishing
Nadler D & Tushman M , 1995, Types of organisational change: from incremental
improvement to discontinuous transformation, in D Nadler, R Shaw & A Walton (Eds),
Discontinuous change: leading organisational transformations (p.14-34), San Francisco:
Jossey Bass
National Assembly for Wales, 2001, A Plan for the NHS and its partners
Paperback English Dictionary, 1986, Collins, London
Peters T & Waterman R, 1982, In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper and Row
Pettigrew. A. 1987. The Management of Strategic Change. Oxford: Blackwell
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. 1991. Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford:
Blackwell
Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E. and McKee, L. 1992. Shaping Strategic Change. London: Sage
Perlman D & Takacs G J, 1990, The ten stages of change, Nursing Management, 21(4),
pp.33-38
59
References











Proehl R A, 2001, Organisational Change in the Human Services, London: Sage
Publications
Rea C, 1993, Managing Clinical Directorates, Churchill- Livingstone, London
Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S, 1998, Clinical Leadership in Nursing, W B Saunders,
London
Rogers E, 1983, Diffusions of Innovations (3rd Edition), New York, Free Press in
Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S, 1998, Clinical Leadership in Nursing, W B Saunders,
London
Senior B, Organisational Change, 1997, Pearson Educational, Harlow, England
Upton T & Brooks B, 1999, Managing Change in the NHS, Open University Press
Weisbord, M. 1976. Organisational diagnosis: six places to look with or without a
theory. Group and Organisational Studies 1: 430-47
White K M, 1998, Chapter 13 – Planned Change in Rocchicciolo J T & Tilbury M S,
1998, Clinical Leadership in Nursing, W B Saunders, London
Yoder-Wise P, 1999, Leading and Managing in Nursing, Mosby, St Louis, Missouri
Yukl G, 1998, Leadership in Organisations (4Ed), Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Ywe L & McClenahan T, 2000, Getting better with evidence, experience of putting
evidence into practice, London: Kings Fund
60