Page 25 - Managing Change in Organizations

Carnch01v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:08 PM Page 8

Chapter 1 ■ The challenge of change
Pfeffer (1998) argues the case that you can ‘build profits by putting people
first’, as does Gratton (2000). In each case these authors cite evidence which
appears to show that strategic change is regularly achieved. The literature on lean
manufacturing does much the same. However, from my own experience working
with organizations engaged in making major change, it is clear that many exec-
utives see the process of change as problematic. It is difficult to engage stake-
holders. The human-centred approach is of value but not often used. Very little
attempt is made to learn from experience and so on.

Change architecture

Only recently have observers begun to examine how change programmes are
constructed. This may be called change architecture. And yet the principal con-
cern of the work published so far is that of participation and involvement. This
is an important but only partial approach. Nevertheless some interesting work
has been published.
Thus Emery and Purser (1996) discuss the role of ‘search conferences’ and
Bunker and Alban (1996) look at processes for engaging the ‘whole system’ for
rapid change. Jacobs (1994) identifies three sequential processes as being required
to achieve strategic change:

■ Building a common database.
■ Discovering the future in diverse perspectives.
■ Creating commitment to action plans.

The first is particularly interesting. What does it mean? Is it what many often refer
to as the process of building acceptance of the need for change? No it is not.
Rather it is a process of building credible and valid measures of performance
focused on understanding how well we are doing, how we compare to competi-
tors (benchmarking) and what else is changing in the environment. Thus the key
element of the first process is about measurement. Here balanced scorecards
(Kaplan and Norton, 1996), benchmarking (Watson, 1993) and ideas such as 360°

appraisal all play into this element. Not least the concern is about measurement,
accountability, transparency and access to outcome measures. Value-added is a key
metaphor for this process. Increasingly we see a need to balance between focus on
issues such as cost and scale on the one hand with those of product/service devel-
opment, customer service enhancement and growth on the other.
The second and third issues require dialogue, reflection and sharing and there-
fore processes are needed to engage key stakeholders. Bruch and Sattelberger
(2001), reporting work at Lufthansa, show how processes such as strategy forums,
open-space events and learning maps utilizing data from the above but assessed
and discussed from various perspectives (of internal and external stakeholders)
can be utilized to build new ‘mental models’ for the business. Learning is a key
issue here and this requires ‘valid knowledge’ and processes for reflection and dia-
logue. Interestingly enough there is evidence emerging about the need to combine
dialogue with a focus on action and follow-through. Thus Norlton (1998) noted
that workshop evaluations very early on show how those involved seek closure,

8