John Kotter’s Change Management Model
Discuss about the Change Management.
Nowadays, there are many organizations that wants to bring huge changes in organisational working process. In this context, it can be stated that, transformational change is necessary for increasing the productivity of business firms. It has been noticed that many organizations strive hard to bring transformation in the working processes of the business firms. It has been observed that many organizations seems to fail in bringing transformation in its workflow. In this context, it can be stated that there are certain reasons due to which several business organisations fails to bring changes in its working procedures. It has been noted that lack of cooperation from the members of the team or reluctance to transform are some of the important reasons that has caused failures in transformation efforts made by the management of the respective organization. In other words, lack of willingness among the employees is one of the key reasons that has caused failure bring changes in management. In this particular study, the key mistakes that people make a the time of implementing changes are explained here in the light of John Kotter’s change management model.
It has been observed that there are certain reasons due to which failure in efforts for transformation takes place within the workflow of the organizations. John. P. Kotter has identified eight biggest mistakes that are committed by the business firms when they are struggling hard to implement changes in the workflow of the companies. Kotter has identified that are eight stages of change management where these mistakes are usually committed by people including employees, managers and executives. These eight stages are creating a sense of urgency, establishing a guiding coalition, developing the vision, communicating a vision, empowering others to act on the vision, creating short-term wins, consolidating gains to produce more changes and institutionalizing new approaches (Blumberg ) It has been observed that in most of the cases, companies undertake a decision to initiate transformation programs in their workflow. For this purpose, they need cooperation of executives, managers and employees of all levels. Moreover, it is seen that almost 50% business firms fail in this phase. It has been noticed that sometimes management finds that it is impossible for them to drive employees out of its comfortable zones. In most of the cases, they do not have the patience to bring changes in the organization. It has been noticed that lack of good leadership makes it hard for the management to bring transformation in the workflow. Sometimes, it is seen that the managers are worrying about the fact that employee’s morale will become low; therefore, they are reluctant to bring changes in the workflow. Not only this, they are also concerned with the fact that jeopardization of short-term business outcomes will take place if they bring changes in the working procedures of the business firms.
Reasons for Failure in Implementing Transformational Change
In the second stage of change management, individuals at the hierarchy fails to realise the significance of coalition while they are incorporating changes within the workflow of the companies. In this regard, it can be stated that these top-level management often tends to realise the importance of teamwork in a collaborative as well as coordinated manner. As a result, they fails to transform the working procedures of the business organizations. It has been noticed that often the management do not go beyond the protocols of the company. They tend to function by following the protocols of the company (Blumberg). In this context, it can be stated that it is necessary for the hierarcgy to work outside the protocol if they want to bring transformation in the working procedures. However, their unwillingness to work outside the company’s protocols results in the failure of transformation efforts made by the management of the companies. In this context, it can be stated that major modifications are not possible unless head of company is found to be supportive of bring major changes in the respective company. In this context, it can be stated that in case of successful transformation, it is seen that a group of 5, 15 or 50 individuals including the chairman, president along with division manager works together as a unified team. However, it is seen that a strong coalition enables the companies to bring major changes in its working procedures. However, it has been noted that if current hierarchy is not functioning well, then it is required for the companies to include activities that are outside the company’s protocols. But it is seen, in most of the cases, the companies fail to do so. As a result, failures in the transformational efforts takes place within the workflow of the companies. It has been found that lack of leadership is creating difficulty for the managers to bring major changes within the working environment of the business organizations.
It is essential for the business firms to have a proper vision if they wants to implement huge changes within the premises of the company. Having a proper vision is necessary for the companies because it will give a clear direction to the company regarding how to implement changes in the working environment of companies (Blumberg). In this context, it can be stated that without a vision, restructuring of the company is not possible. In this context, it can be stated that the company sometimes possesses a direction but the complicacy of direction leads to failure in transformational efforts (Huy, Kevin G. Corley and Matthew S. Kraatz). It has been observed that if the company do not have a proper vision, then it is not possible for the business firm to incorporate changes in the working processes of the respective organizations (Mosadeghrad and Maryam Ansarian). It has been observed that if the leaders as well as managers cannot express the vision properly to the workforce, it might led to failure in transformation efforts made by the companies. In other words, leaders and the managers sometimes fails to interact the vision clearly to the workforce, then it is not possible for the business firms to bring transformation in the working procedures of the business organizations (Dionne et al). In addition to this, it has been lack of cooperation from employees is obstructing the management to incorporate modifications in the working procedures. On the other hand, it has been observed that organizational structure sometimes causes difficulty for the management to incorporate changes in the working procedures of business organizations. In other words, narrow job categories create an issue for the management working at business organizations to bring huge changes in the workflow of business organizations (Crystal ). It is seen that often top-level to bring changes that might cause failures in transformational efforts within the organizational environment. It has been found that a business firm had started its transformation procedure with publicity. It is seen that the progress of the business firm had stopped at the fourth phase (Madden and Brian McQuinn.). It has been noticed that officer-in-charge of organization’s biggest division did not encouraged new initiatives. He wanted to follow the old initiatives (Crystal). He did not realise the importance of undertaking new initiatives.
Lack of Cooperation from Team Members
He did not encouraged his subordinates for bringing changes in the working procedures of the respective organization. In other words, it has been observed that the officer-in-charge did not wanted to change any of the old ideas that was undertaken and implemented by the respective organization (Benedettini, Andy Neely and Morgan Swink). From this case study, it has been observed that the officer-in-charge was worried about the fact that if brings changes, them it might happen that he and his team could not meet up the targeted profit percent. On the other hand, it has been noticed that he thought that there is no need to bring change within the working procedure of the respective organization (Hornstein). In addition to this, the officer-in-charge was concerned about the fact that these unconventional ideas might create a negative impact on the organizational working procedure(Bell and Michael). In addition to this the rest managers and company’s CEO did nothing for bringing changes in their organizational procedure (Mohammad). It is seen that the CEO does not wanted to lose this valuable employee. On the other hand, there were certain skilled professionals who are afraid of officer-in-charge (Weled et al.). As a result, it is seen that both CEO and other employees did nothing to transform its work culture. These are some of the reasons that had prevented the officer-in-charge to bring huge modifications in the working procedures of the business firms. In this context, it can be stated all these reasons has resulted into the collapse of whole effort to bring huge changes in the organizational procedure (Stein and Gustavo Crespi ).
It has been observed that real transformation is a time-taking process. It is seen that to selt renewal attempt threats losing momentum if there is no short-term objectives to meet as well as celebrate. It has been observed that in case of successful implementation of changes, managers always seeks for acquiring performance improvements. It is required for the managers to set objectives in annual planning system and obtaining the goals. The managers also gives rewards to the employees. For instance, the guiding coalition at a US-based manufacturing organization manufactured a visible as well as successful new item launched about 20 months after the company has initiated the renewal effort (Longenecker and Paul).
It has been observed that it is required for the managers to declare victor after modifications sink deeply within the culture of the business firm. It has been noticed that the managers tend to declare victory after working hard for few years. For instance, it has been noticed that change attempts were made for reengineering the projects. However, it has been observed that managers had declared victory and they had given payments to consultants after the completion of first project. However, within two years, there was no trace of changes that were implemented in reengineering works. There are two factors which needs to be considered by companies while institutionalizing modifications in corporate culture. The first factor is related to showing individual how new approaches or behaviours have aided improve performance.
Reluctance to Transform
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be deduced that these are the biggest mistakes that individuals make at the time of bring major changes in the working procedures of the organization. It can be stated that a vision is required for implementing changes in the organization. It has been observed that lack of willingness among the top-level management often leads to failure in transformational efforts. In other words, having a proper vision aids the managers to achieve success in making changes in their working procedures. Having a vision enables the companies to reduce the extent of errors thereby achieving success in bringing changes within the workflow of the respective organisation. In this context, it can be stated that leaders should be supportive of bringing huge changes in the organizational workflow. It has been noticed that managers should be supportive of bring major changes in the working procedures of the respective organization.
References
Bell, Steven C., and Michael A. Orzen. Lean IT: Enabling and sustaining your lean transformation. Florida: CRC Press, 2016.
Benedettini, Ornella, Andy Neely, and Morgan Swink. “Why do servitized firms fail? A risk-based explanation.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35.6 (2015): 946-979.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser. “Introduction: engendering wealth and well-being in an era of economic transformation.” EnGENDERing wealth and well-being. Routledge, 2018. 1-14.
Crystal, Jill. Kuwait: The transformation of an oil state. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
Dionne, Kalen R., et al. “Potentially malignant disorders of the oral cavity: current practice and future directions in the clinic and laboratory.” International journal of cancer 136.3 (2015): 503-515.
Holt, Douglas. “Branding in the age of social media.” Harvard business review 94.3 (2016): 40-50.
Hornstein, Henry A. “The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity.” International Journal of Project Management 33.2 (2015): 291-298.
Huy, Quy Nguyen, Kevin G. Corley, and Matthew S. Kraatz. “From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change.” Academy of Management Journal 57.6 (2014): 1650-1680.
Longenecker, Clinton O., and Paul D. Longenecker. “Why hospital improvement efforts fail: A view from the front line.” Journal of Healthcare Management 59.2 (2014): 147-157.
Madden, Francine, and Brian McQuinn. “Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation.” Biological Conservation 178 (2014): 97-106.
Mohammad Mosadeghrad, Ali. “Why TQM programmes fail? A pathology approach.” The TQM Journal 26.2 (2014): 160-187.
Mosadeghrad, Ali Mohammad, and Maryam Ansarian. “Why do organisational change programmes fail?.” International Journal of Strategic Change Management 5.3 (2014): 189-218.
Stein, E., and Gustavo Crespi, eds. Rethinking productive development: sound policies and institutions for economic transformation. USA:Springer, 2014.
Weled, Barry J., et al. “Critical care delivery: the importance of process of care and ICU structure to improved outcomes: an update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on Models of Critical Care.” Critical care medicine43.7 (2015): 1520-1525.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
