Change Management - the Super Star University - Case Study Example

Change Management Name: Institute: Change Management Introduction To continue existing, in the current global competition epoch, the businesses and organizations have realized the significance of innovations as well as innovative approach in their business strategies and model. Evidently, as sourced from a number of publications and reports, companies from various countries and geographical regions are spending lots of money for innovation, and the amount allocated for innovation is constantly increasing (Jones & Harris, 2014). For Super Star University (SSU), which under new vice chancellor desires sustainability and excellence in the university, had to reflect on the leadership with innovative approach so as to develop a strategy by changing their concepts of innovation into realism (Waddell et al., 2011). So as to improve the external and internal performance the university had to change and it was time demand. As mentioned by Crawford (2010), an organization that cannot espouse changes can hardly continue existing in market. Undoubtedly, the process of change is exceedingly tough and essential for organizations and may drive the organization towards the success path (Kempster et al., 2014). It may as well make them able to meet upcoming demands as well as to compete with other players in the market effectively. The argumentative essay seeks to analyse the Super Star University case study relating to organisational leadership during change management, the change process, and resistance to change management. Discussion The change processes in the Arts faculty and the faculty of Engineering, Architecture, and Environmental sciences at SSU were undoubtedly different. For instance, in the faculty of Arts, the changes recommended included greater internship opportunities for under-represented groups. As a part of the succession plan, the administrative working party suggested voluntary staff renewal, strengthening transparency and accountability in processes of making decisions, and merger of two faculty research institutes in addition to a new structure of academic that would result in setting up of just four schools. Other changes recommended in the faculty of Arts included introduction of face-to-face and online classes, and participation with the wider community (Waddell et al., 2011). On the other hand, in the faculty of Engineering, Architecture, and Environmental sciences, some of the recommended changes included processes of research training in addition to increases in quantity and quality of the research output per capital. Differently from Arts faculty, this faculty called for new recruitment strategy, engaging with the future students, government, industries, and philanthropists (Waddell et al., 2011). Changes in an organisation as noted in SSU offer different considerable advantages like it improves financial functionality, competitiveness, customer and workers satisfaction and importantly is drives the organization towards incessant sustainability as well as improvement. Such are organizational advantages and not all persons in any organization may achieve benefits individually from such changes, but all people working in that organization normally have same objectives and such changes make the organization stronger as one (Becker et al., 2005). The majority of organizations will concur that effective leadership these days is one of the most crucial contributors to the general organizational change as well as performance. Leaders with intellectual capability are those who possess a pile up of knowledge and skills achieved from experience that enables them to manage tasks efficiently and effectively. As evidenced by SSU’s new VC, effective leadership is at all times needed to handle organizational change issues, Thomas and Hardy (2011) cite a number of blockades which may have an effect on the efforts change management, and they include the silence culture, individualism culture and secrecy culture. Professor Block’s competent leadership can manage and handle these problems given that he has exhibited competence able to manage knowledge in addition to other capabilities and skills. As evidence by SSU, managing a change process in an organization may be exceedingly multifaceted task and is frequently necessary for successful organizational development (OD). The espousal of novel techniques and ideas does not take place naturally but are brought about by trial and error and hard work, It is imperative to note this reality and to work hard in developing information that is summarizing, understandable and succinct and to ensure the information serves individuals who can make use of it (Shpak, 2013). For SSU, a wide range of skills is required to result in effective management of change as well as innovation. As noted by Smith (2005), there is no magical modus operandi for success, and so numerous communication channels must be utilised to support the espousal of innovation. SSU should never anticipate that one telephone call, presentation, report, or conference can achieve all, since successful programs must be cautiously visualized and performed. Besides that, change agents may pass innovation for the carried out. Workers must be ready to change themselves, they must have the ability to weigh up novel ideas independently and make out their users as they could be, and not as they have been (Kempster et al., 2014). Changes particularly in the faculty of Engineering, Architecture, and Environmental sciences were received with resistance in what they termed as lack of consultation in making the changes. Most workers feared about job security, most of them reacted by expressing displeasure and disappointment in the process of change. According to Becker et al. (2005), changes in an organization begin with main decision makers, so it is up to them to convey the information to members of the team and make sure all complaints as well as questions are dealt with prior to espousing the changes. Regrettably, as information of a change disseminates through the chain of command, facts are from time to time distorted and team members end up getting imprecise, cast-off details. Therefore, lack of communication as evidenced in SSU may for that reason result in resistance to change. Aside from that, ego repeatedly obstructs the capability to become accustomed to change. A number of employees would desire to maintain the state of affairs to better progress their individual agendas while others have diverse drives (Shpak, 2013). Eventually, workers who act for their own self-centeredness, rather than the greater good of organization, will oppose change. Most organizations often ask for advance input to make sure that all and sundry have a chance to share their opinions and ideas (Oreg et al., 2008). In case, however, workers hear of an unexpected change, and they were not consulted, as noted in the faculty of Engineering, Architecture, and Environmental sciences, they will feel left out from the process of decision making and possibly insulted. Furthermore, trust plays a crucial part in running a flourishing organization, but when employees fail to trust the organisation’s key decision makers, it turns out to be hard for them to agree to organizational changes. They can attribute the changes to a number of negative fundamental reasons or even presume that they will ultimately lose their jobs Based on a Kurt Lewin’s classical model of organistaion develpment, usually acknowledged as the 'force field' model, he defines organizations as systems that are consantly held in an equilibrium state by equal as well as opposing forces. This model points out that diverse forces that put forth a pressure for change, are leveraged by numerous 'resisting forces' that are opposing (Head & Sorensen, 2006). Change driving forces can comprise the accessibility of innovative technology, competitors economic pressure or even changes in national or local legislation. On the other hand, resisting forces can comprise a resolutely well-known organizational climate as well as culture or certain customs with the industry. In this case SSU should have use Kurt Lewin’s Three-stage Process of Change, which according to Cooke and Burnes (2013) is vital for successful change within any organization. The first stage is unfreeze, that is generating motivation for change: Any orgnaistaion, including SSU have to be ready for any upcoming. Therfore, 'unfreezing' entails the study of resisting forces. Based on Lewin model, any premature authoritarian or unilateral rise in change driving forces will be met by both equal as well as opposite rise in resisting forces (Cooke & Burnes, 2013). For that reason, no change can take place except if there is organistaional moptiviation to do so. Change as posited by Head and Sorensen (2006) doers not just involves gainig knowldge, but also losing something that is already existing and well incorporated into the individuality as well as people social relationships. That is the why organizational culture that is not steered by motivation can time and again double up as a resisting force to change. For that reason, the following techniques should have been used to unfreeze the SSU system: disconfirmation of existing attitudes or behaviours; generation of anxiety, uneasiness or guilt to motivate change; generation of psychological wellbeing by decreasing roadblocks to change or lessening threat brought about by previous failures; and information provision to workers by offering details of the first stage of change process. The second stage is change that is altering the equilibrium: Involves creation of new values, beliefs, attitudes, as well as behaviours anchored in new information. Immediately the resisting forces has been analysed, comprehended and reduced, the change may be put into practice. At this stage, the driving forces are increased and resisting forces lessened, in so doing, the equilibrium position is adjusted towards the preferred balance position. In this case, the methods that could have been used SSU to drive change: developing a sense of necessity; creating an authoritative leading partnership; developing as well as communicating the university vision; empowering the staff to work towards the vision; strategizing for and developing temporary wins; and institutionalizing innovative approaches (Head & Sorensen, 2006). The third stage is refreezing, that is making routine: According to Cooke and Burnes (2013), for a change to turn into a routine and acknowledged into the daily organizational practices, the organization have to experience the last stage of refreezing the system of the organization. Diverse strategies could be espoused to realize this, which includes new reward schemes, rules and regulations to strengthen the process of change as well as capitalize on the desired behaviours of workers. Aside from Lewin’s Three-stage Process of Change, SSU could espouse the Seven-stage Model of Change. Even as Lewin's model offers a straightforward and comprehensible demonstration of the process of organizational change, recently developed models have extended Lewin's concept into more profoundness. In this regard, the seven-stage organization development model proposed by Edgar Huse (1980), offer more advanced solutions. Scouting is where organization representatives convene with the organization development consultant to discuss and identify the need for change. In this case, the change client and agent together investigate issues to draw out the setbacks that need attention (King & Anderson, 1995). Entry stage involves mutual agreement upon, as well as development of both psychological and business contracts. Expectations of the change process are also established. Diagnosis stage is where the consultant underlines problems based within the organization, so this stage entails the recognition of certain development goals as well as an intended strategy of intervention. Planning stage is an in depth series of intervention actions as well as techniques assembled into a project plan or resistance areas from workers and possible means of managing it. Action stage is the intervention performed in line with the approved plans, and so the action steps established beforehand are put into practice. Stabilization and Evaluation stage involves 'refreezing' the organization system, whereby newly implemented systems, practices as well as codes of action are absorbed into daily routines. Besides that, evaluation is carried out to establish the change process success (King & Anderson, 1995). Finally, in termination stage the change agent or organization development consultant departs the organisation and shifts to a different client or starts a completely distinct project in the similar organization. At SSU, the seven-stage model could have been helpful heuristic in illustrating the multifaceted nature of change with the institution. The speed of organizational change in modern swiftly developing economic environment can lead to the 'refreezing' stage never being completed or reached, and this connotes that systems within organization frequently experience an incessant series of change interventions and hardly ever go back to a stabilized equilibrium state (Laframboise et al., 2003). That is to say, change is time and again so fast and recurring that the organizational system becomes unsuccessful in restabilizing itself prior to conducting the subsequent change plan. In order to manage resistance to change, the executive faculty dean should have carried out communication and education, considering that education workers concerning the change effort earlier is the best way to overcome change resistance (Fiedler, 2010). In this regard, open education and communication assists workers notice the sense in the change effort, and this lessens baseless and erroneous rumours about the change effects in the organization. The faculty dean should have as well involve workers in the process of change, since when workers are involved in the effort of change effort they are more probably accept the change instead of resist it. Therefore, this approach could have lowered resistance more at SSU than just being hopeful that staff will agree to change. Support and facilitation is another approach that should have been used by the executive faculty dean, since they could have obstructed any potential resistance to change by supporting staff during hard times. As mentioned by Thomas et al. (2011), managerial support assists workers manage anxiety and fear during the transition period. Besides that, the faculty dean should have pursued the negotiation and agreement approach by offering incentives to workers so as to accept change. This may be carried out by letting resistors of change to bar change elements that are intimidating, or resistors to change should have been provided with incentives to move somewhere else in the institution so as to shun having to endure the effort of change (Crawford, 2010). The final approach that could have been used by faculty dean is explicit and implicit coercion, whereby workers are compelled into accepting change by letting them know that change resistors can lose jobs, get fired, or fail to be promoted. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that effectively managing change needs shifting the organization from its present state to a future preferred state. The key steps in the change process involves comprehending the present organization state by identifying setbacks the organisation is facing as well as examining the types of changes required to solve the setbacks. Notably, when a manager attempts to put a change into practice, regardless of how small it is, must be ready to experience some resistance from workers. As mentioned in the paper, change resistance is normal, but must be reduced so that the organisation realise its goals and objectives. Leaders within the organisation must try to create motivation for the change by sharing their vision as well as goals and being role models to their staff. In a number of instances, it could be helpful to first make an effort for small victories so as to herald future successes. Proactive change management to optimize future adaptableness is always a more innovative way of handling the industrial transformation dynamisms as compared to allowing them come about anyhow. Importantly, change process will become successful better with the assistance of the company's employees as compared without. References Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and corporate change, 14(5), 775 - 791. Cooke, B., & Burnes, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin's field theory: a review and re-evaluation. International journal of management reviews, 15(4), 408 - 425 . Crawford, L. a. (2010). Competencies for managing change. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 405 - 412 . Fiedler, S. (2010). Managing resistance in an organizational transformation: a case study from a mobile operator company. International journal of project management, 28(4), 370 - 383 . Head, T. C., & Sorensen, P. F. (2006). Global Organization Development: Managing Unprecedented Change. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Jones, M., & Harris, A. (2014). Principals leading successful organisational change: building social capital through disciplined professional collaboration. Journal of organizational change management, 27(3), 473 - 485 . Kempster, S., Higgs, M., & Wuerz, T. (2014). Pilots for change: exploring organisational change through distributed leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(2), 152 - 167 . King, N., & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and change in organizatio. New York: Routledge. Laframboise, D., Nelson, R. L., & Schmaltz, J. (2003). Managing resistance to change in workplace accommodation projects. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(4), 306 - 321. Oreg, S., Schyns, B., & Dam, K. v. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader? member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313 - 334 . Shpak, Y. (2013). Prerequisites for organisational changes at manufacturing enterprises. Vestnik Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 3, 94 - 99. Smith, I. (2005). Achieving readiness for organisational change. Library Management, 26(6/7), 408 - 412 . Thomas, R., & Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(3), 322 - 331. Thomas, R., Sargent, L. D., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating Meaning and Power-Resistance Relations. Organization Science, 22(1), 22 - 41 . Waddell, D., Cummings, ‎. G., & Worley, ‎. G. (2011). Super Star University. In Organisational Change Development and Transformation (5th ed., pp. 504-508). New York: Cengage Learning. Read More