The paper "Impact of the Change Agency Notion on a Change Programme" is a great example of a literature review on management. Organisations are constantly undergoing the process of change. This is necessitated by instances when an organisation is required to make adjustments in order to match emergent changes in the environment in which it operates. Since organisations need to remain relevant and competitive in their business environments, there is a constant need to adopt changes in the form of re-engineering, downsizing and adoption of new technologies. The success of the change programme depends on many factors, top among them being the skills and dispositions of the persons implementing the process.
This paper examines how the traits and characteristics of change agents determine the outcome of a change programme in facilitating the right climate for the social construction of change within an organisation. How Change Agents Affect a Change Programme According to Jabri (2012, p. 56), the term change agency, within the context of organisational change, refers to the various activities that underscore the process of change within an organisation. According to Schein (1988, cited by Jabri, 2012, p.
58), a change agent is a person who plays the role of helping others within an organisation to perceive, understand and act upon the process of organisational change. Such a role is played within an environment that requires the input of different individuals at all levels of the organisation as opposed to the change agent working in isolation. Since both the internal and external change agents are tasked with the responsibility of managing change within organisations, their actions, motives and characteristics determine the overall outcome of a change process. One way in which change agents affect the outcome of a change programme lies in the way they carry out their primary responsibilities in the course of change within an organisation.
Change agents play different primary roles during the change process. As such, the way they deliver their primary responsibilities bears a direct impact on whether the change process within the organisation becomes successful or not. For instance, during the course of continuous change within an organisation, change agents are tasked with the responsibility of managing identity, language and dialogue (Jabri, 2012, p.
86). This is so because the process of continuous change within an organisation entails freezing and rebalancing specific attributes. According to Jabri (2004, p. 143), dialogue, language and identity play a key role in the process of continuous change within an organization. For instance, the general conversational process within an organisation provides a means by which a common sense of meaning and thinking process can be created and established. Because of this, the outcome of such a change process depends on how well the change agents will handle the overall process of discourse within an organization.
This means that the way change agents identify emergent trends, make them meaningful within an organisational context and reframe them determines the outcome of the process of change (Caldwell, 2003, p. 288). In order for the conversational process that is driven by change agents to be effective, it has to possess the characteristics of honesty, rationality, imagination as well as being issue-oriented (Anderson, 2012, p. 128). Also, by using expressions that communicate the current state, declarations to announce new beginnings and directives and requests, change agents can effectively ensure that dialogue within an organisation achieves its primary objectives in the course of continuous change (Jabri, 2004, p.
146). This means that the outcome of a process of continuous change within an organisation depends on how well the change agents responsible handle dialogue, conversation and identity.
Anderson, D. L. (2012). Organization Development: The Process of Leading. London: SAGE Publications.
Caldwell, R. (2003). Change leaders and change managers: Different or complementary? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 285-293.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 105-121.
Harigopal, K. (2006). Management of Organizational Change: Leveraging Transformation. New Delhi: Response Books.
Harrison, R. (1970). Choosing the depth of organizational intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 6(2), 182-202.
Jabri, M. (2012). Managing Organizational Change: Process, Social Construction and Dialogue. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jabri, M. (2004). Team feedback based on dialogue: Implications for change management. The Journal of Management Development, 23(2): 141-151.
Jabri, M. & Pounder, J. S. (2001). The management of change: A narrative perspective on management development. The Journal of Management Development, 20(7/8), 682 - 690.
Procter, S. & Randall, J. (2012). Changing attitudes to employee attitudes to change: From resistance to ambivalence and ambiguity. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. & Hassard, J. (eds). The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change. New York: Routledge.
Sharma, R. R. (2006). Change Management: Concepts and Applications. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Vakola, M. & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), 160-174. Retrieved 15 November 2013, from: http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww0.dmst.aueb.gr%2Fnikolaou%2Fpapers%2Fvakola_nikolaou_stress_change.pdf&ei=1iuGUr2jGMO50QX6jIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFVwPrlqVbZE35uI4xaCLmt8wh95A&bvm=bv.56643336,d.d2k