Page 249 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh13v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:31 PM Page 232

Chapter 13 ■ Managing major changes
Implementation
The important thing about the implementation of the above change is that it was
carried out in two phases. Full consultation was undertaken over the issue of
assigning people to regional teams. No one was given any guarantees, but all
were asked to indicate preferences. For most people relocation was involved.
Various factors had to be considered in creating teams: the correct mix of skills
and people, regional team managers designate, as well as people’s preferences for
particular teams (and, therefore, particular parts of the country) were all relevant.
What this consultation phase allowed was a careful explanation of the proposed
changes such that people understood what was involved. The second phase was
actually to form the regional teams. Originally, this was to be done gradually
when office space was available in the various regions.
In the event the teams were formed at head office, overnight. Doing it quickly
had the advantage of creating a clear break with the past. Also, it meant that the
teams could form and settle down in the secure head office environment.
Relocation could then be more effectively handled by the regional team. The
process took three to five weeks to settle down. Over the year the regional teams
were all well established in the regions. Regional directors who originally had
said that no space would be available for two years now seemed to jump at the
chance of getting the new cohesive and more effective regional property man-
agement teams in their regions. The management of change is often a matter of
the management of image. Create the image of success and it is surprising how
quickly stereotyped attitudes can be changed.

The politics of organizational change

To understand how organizations are managed, experienced and changed we
need to understand the politics of organization. This has become a widely
accepted view. (Pettigrew, 1973, 1985; Pfeffer, 1981; Lawler and Bachrach, 1986 –
all develop this view.) Moreover, the work of Child (1984) and Hickson et al.
(1986) elaborates the importance of politics within a contingency theory frame-
work. Organizational structures, technologies, decisions and outcomes are not

given but rather are contingent on factors such as the environment (whether or
not it is complex and changing, for example). Strategic choice is available. The
contingencies limit or constrain; they do not determine. Thus it is that managers
may choose how to operate, and choice creates the conditions for politics because
people will support different views regarding these choices.
One fairly straightforward approach is to focus on the so-called ‘dominant
coalition’. Senior executives of an organization within such a group may have
considerable influence over decisions, the use of resources and other changes.
They create rules, policies, standards of performance and procedures which
‘channel’ employee behaviour. Major decisions on growth products, redundancy
and restructuring are made at this level. But we must beware the assumption that
‘dominant coalitions’ provide a structure to an organization’s political process.
Coalitions are shifting. Membership varies over time. The concerns which people
deem important also vary. To suggest that ‘dominant coalitions’ are formed and

232