Images of Managing and of Change Outcomes - Coursework Example

Images of Managing and of Change Outcomes [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Abstract: Change management process requires some level of technical competence in transforming an organization to a desired state from a former state. Managing organizational change is an essential part of any transformational process within an organization. The nature of the change management is related to six images of managing change. The six include director, interpreter, caretaker, nurturer, coach and navigator. This essay explores the images. Further, it critically compares and discusses the “director” and coach “image” in relation to change management theories. The director and the interpreter images are suggested as the most suitable images of managing change in an organization. Key Concepts: change management, change management images, director, interpreter, caretaker, nurturer, coach and navigator, organizational change Introduction Managing organizational change is an essential part of any transformational process within an organization (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2008). The nature of the change management is related to six images of managing change, including navigator, director, caretaker, coach, nurturer and interpreter. Generally, these six images have three key roles. First, they underscore several assumptions made by change managers and promote awareness of the range of interpretation of change. Next, the images draw attention to the predominant images of change in any organization and lastly, they also draw attention to different perspectives that are available for change managers (Al Ukaby 2012). The images of managing change comprise a set of six points that provide various means of managing change in an organization. Apart from director, the remaining five include navigator, coach, interpreter, nurturer and caretaker. Navigator is concerned with navigating changes within the organization while caretaker is concerned with factors why people resist change in an organization (Palmer & Dunford 2008). Coach is related with interpretation of activities and creation of new ways of making changes in an organization. The other two include nurturer, which nurtures changes in the organization since changes are not predictable, and interpreter, which is concerned with interpreting the changes in an organization (Al Ukaby 2012). The images for managing change offer managers an insight into their roles in managing organizational change. In comparing images of implementing change, such as director and coach, several issues are indicated with regard to how they serve as conceptual tool for helping managers to identify their relationship with the organization. In addition, issues on how they define how the managers should react to changes to enable them to have desirable effects to the organization are also indicated (Al Ukaby 2012). The director image refers to a change implementing image that is concerned with how changes in an organization can be conducted or directed. On the other hand, the coach image refers to a change image that is concerned with interpreting activities of processes necessary for transforming an organization (Voigt 2012). It is also related to creation of new ways or methods for transforming the organization. These two definitions imply that while the director image is basically charged with responsibilities of leading or commanding the organization towards change, the coach image is essentially concerned with making sense out of the entire change processes, or assigning the change a meaning in a way that the agents of change can understand (Palmer Dunford & Akin 2008). With regard to the director image, it is critical that the change managers should have certain skills that can ensure that they deal with possible elements that resist the process of change. This relates with the coach image as it always requires that the change manager has some basic skills of interpreting the change processes in a way that resistance to change is avoided (Kane-Urrbazo 2006). With regard to necessitating change outcomes, basically, there are two broad images of managing that the director image and coach image as well as the other four images of change management fall under. These two broad images include “Shaping” capabilities and “controlling” activities (Voigt 2012). While the director image is categorized under “controlling”, the coach image is categorized under the “shaping”. Under the “controlling” category, director image enables the change manager to control the change process although some outcomes are emergent (Palmer & Dunford 2008). In addition, the manager can control the change and directs the organization in a certain way. Therefore, change managers who adopt the director image should also consider the need to provide directions about stability (Voigt 2012). This means that they should inform the stakeholders of what should change and what should remain the same. On the other hand, the coach image is intended to enable the change manager to create a meaning as well as make sense out of events, actions and outcomes. Additionally, the change manager intentionally shapes the capabilities of the organization (Voigt 2012). With regard to the director image, the control of the change manager is however constrained by a range of external and internal forces. With respect to the coach image, the change manager also faces some level of difficulty. For instance, the change manager has no capacity to control the possible outcomes of the change processes because of chaotic forces (Dean & Oakley 2006). Although in considering the change situation from the perspective of the role of management, the change agent or manager can be selected as a “director” and as a “coach,” the two differ in their specific roles (Voigt 2012). The director image is anchored in an image of management as process that should be controlled. From this perspective, it is certain that the reason underlying why the change manager should be a director is because he needs to keep the organization focused in a way that can deliver positive outcomes. This also means that the manager as a director takes charge of the organization and understands that the change outcomes must be attained using some means. In this respect, change is considered to be a preceding intent and hence it is not expected to have some form of obstacles (Palmer Dunford & Akin 2008). This further means that change has to be viewed as capable of being beneficial to the organization. Towards this end, its objectives should align with stakeholder interests. On the other hand, the coach is anchored in an image of management as a process whose capacity should be continuously improved. From this point of view, it is discernible that the reasons underlying why a manager has to be a coach is because he has to continuously become actively involved in improving the capacities of change agents in a way that ensure desirable change outcomes are realized by the organization (Voigt 2012). Concerning perspectives on resistance to change, the director image represents resistance as a sign that not every change agent, or employees, should be viewed in terms of enabling the desired change. Therefore, since resistance will and must be overcome in order to direct the organization towards a desirable change, the managers need to acquire particular skills that ensure effective management of resistance. In contrast, coach image represents resistance as an issue or something that should be recognized and expected. This is because change alters status quo as it takes individuals out of their comfort-zones (Palmer & Dunford 2008). This means that change managers have to work with resistance in a way that indicates to the resistor that such actions are not in accordance with teamwork within the organization. With this regard, pressures for change are continuous and lead to the need to develop and shape the capabilities of the organization to promote desirable organizational outcomes (Voigt 2012). The manager as a coach is likely to suppose that, provided that individuals are well coached to acquire a range of organizational skills, they can take the initiative to make proper adaptive changes that alter organizational routines or practices. Concerning theoretical underpinnings, the director image and the coach image are supported by different theoretical perspectives. The director image is supported by two main theories, mainly the n-step models and the contingency theory. Contingency theory contends that “there is no best way to manage, control or lead an organization.” It further hypothesizes that leadership styles that are effective in some situations might not be effective in other situations (Woodworth Meyer & Smallwood, 1980). In brief, an optimal leadership style is contingent on a range of internal and external constraints. With regard to the director image, management is situational and hence the change managers should coordinate their organizations, design the management systems, define organizational objectives and formulate policies consistent with the prevailing environmental or organizational situation. Conversely, the coach image is supported by the Traditional Organization development (OD) theory. According to the theory, the process of organizational development involves deliberately planned efforts towards increasing an organization’s effectiveness or efficiency (Woodworth Meyer & Smallwood 1980). The theory postulates that organizational development is an ongoing and a systematic process of implementing change within an organization (Woodworth, Meyer & Smallwood 1980). Further, the process of change requires interventions that must involve people in addition to developing systems, processes and frameworks. Organizational development therefore facilitates the readiness of an organization towards accommodating the change. Unlike the Contingency theory which supports the director image, the Traditional Organizational Development theory has various humanistic and democratic values aimed at developing individuals towards change. Despite the contrasts, the director outcome and the coach outcome are both images of implanting change that serve to identify problems within an organization and make some necessary changes. Indeed, they are both related to the negative deviance for eliminating or changing. This paper recommends the interpreter and the director image as the most appropriate images for managing change in an organization. Indeed, I believe that the two images can work jointly to provide a manager with the technical competence and mental preparedness to direct and conduct the organization towards attaining a desirable outcome. While the director image makes use of the diagnostic skills to inform the change manager or build up his knowledge base about areas that need to be changed, the interpreter image enables the manager to anticipate the possible problems or outcome of the change and act accordingly (Bushe & Marshak 2009). Indeed, when the change manager in the form of a director is attracted to diagnostic tools that call attention to images or framing, he needs to be able to interpret the images (Al Ukaby 2012). This means that the change manager must as well be an interpreter. Of the two images however, I would recommend the interpreter image in the stead of director image. In my view, interpreting organizational change efforts, projects or initiatives can determine whether an organization achieves a negative or a positive outcome from a change. Within the perspective of an organization, although the executives (or the change managers in the form of director image) design the projects, it is the role of the middle managers (or change managers in the form of interpreter image) to serve as critical change agents. Hence the middle manager (interpreter image) operationalizes the change initiatives as a result transforming their departments or units of operation to align with the desire of the executives (director image). Here the middle managers act as the backbone of organizational change since they act as the intermediaries between the executives and the employees. In my view, since middle managers are entitled to implement change while at the same time managing the emotions of the employees, since change will often triggers some form of resistance. They therefore interpret the commitment of the organization to change to an expected outcome. In this respect, the middle managers are involved in making sense of the change and the processes of change. Indeed, Luscher and Lewis (2008) define the role of an “interpreter” of organizational change as crucial for creating an order for occurrence. On the other hand, the executives must also communicate their understanding (interpret) of the organizational change to their subordinates. Conclusion The change management images are categorized into six, namely director, interpreter, navigator, coach, caretaker and nurturer. On comparative analysis, each has its unique way of managing organizational change. Further, each is supported by different underpinning theories. For instance, while the Director image refers to a change implementing image that is concerned with how changes in an organization can be conducted or directed, the coach image refers to change image that is concerned with interpreting activities of processes necessary for transforming an organization. Additionally, while the director image is supported by the Contingency theory, the Coach image is supported by Traditional Organizational Development (OD) theory. The paper concludes that the most suitable images for an organization are the interpreter image and the director image. References Alvesson, M & Sveningsson, M 2008, Changing Organizational Culture: Cultural Change Work In Progress, New York, Routledge Al Ukaby, A 2012. Images of Change, NCEGR. (Online) Retrieved from: Accessed 23 July 2013 Bushe, G & Marshak, R 2009, "Revisioning Organization Development: Diagnostic and Dialogic Premises and Patterns of Practice," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp348-368 Dean, F & Oakley, L 2006, Coaching and Mentoring for Leadership Development in Civil Society. (Online) Retrieved from: Accessed 23 July 2013 Kane-Urrbazo, C 2006, "Management's role in shaping organizational culture," Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 14, pp.188–194 Luscher, L & Lewis, M 2008, "Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.221–240 Palmer, I & Dunford, R 2008, “Organizational Change and the Importance of Embedded Assumptions,” British Journal of Management, vol. 19, p. S20. Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2008, Managing organizational change: a multiple perspectives approach, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York. Voigt, B 2012, Managing Change. (Online) Retrieved from: Accessed 23 July 2013 Woodworth, W & Meyer, G & Smallwood, N 1980, A Critical Assessment of Organization Development Theory and Practice. (Online) Retrieved from: Accessed 23 July 2013, pp.209-213 Read More