Desired outcomes of change management

¶ … Change Management

In Designing the Innovative Organization (Galbraith, 1982) explores how organizational structures need to be modified over time to ensure more creative and innovative strategies, processes and programs can be created and maintained. The author is adamant than an organization must be designed from a systemic standpoint to support innovation, from its basic structural components to the development of enterprise information and knowledge management systems. The author also implies that innovation must begin at the value chain level of a business, unifying those areas that create sustainable, unique differentiation over the long-term (Galbraith, 1982). The greater the level of synchronization and innovation process performance an organization achieves the greater the potential for innovation over the long-term. The authors also contend that two critical elements must be present for any innovation strategy to succeed (Galbraith, 1982). These include the stage of development and strategy of the firm and how well these two factors orchestrate people, tasks, structure, processes and reward systems over time to form a foundation of strategic change and innovation.

The authors also contend that the orchestration of people, processes, rewards and roles taken together in the context of an innovation strategy is crucial for its long-term success. They also make the point that innovation by its nature is highly disruptive, forcing a business into a series of decisions and a redefinition of a company's culture over time. The focus on how to create long-term value transformation from the innovation strategies is defined as well.

In What holds the modern corporation together? (Goffee, Jones,1996) the authors discuss how the traditional management reliance on control systems and chain-of-command based approaches to mitigating conflict in organizations has failed to stay relevant over time. Instead, the authors mention how critically important the concepts of sociability and solidarity are from the standpoint of galvanizing a culture to attain greater levels of shared task and goal attainment motivation (Goffee, Jones,1996). The authors also contend that cultures are not completely predictable and homogenous in their composition. Rather they argue that cultures are comprised of a series of perceptions, most often differentiated by group and department, that define in aggregate the entire corporate culture of an organization (Goffee, Jones,1996). Using these paradigms the researchers devise a questionnaire for defining the cultural boundaries of an organization, also capturing the dominant attributes or "personality" of the organization as well

(Goffee, Jones,1996). The authors make a convincing argument for an analytical grid that defines an organization based on its position in a sociability vs. solidarity grid, illustrating the benefits and costs associated with each position on the grid or quadrant (Goffee, Jones,1996). Juxtapositioning the mercenary to the more compassionate forms of organizations is well defined at the end of the analysis, yet the authors struggle with quantifying the value of each (Goffee, Jones,1996). While a kinder, gentler culture can generate goodwill and high levels of trust within any organization, the hard reality of economic turbulence makes these descriptions seem out of touch with today's realities. This analysis needs to be read more by senior executives today to remind them.

Analysis of Comparable Ideas

Both studies indicate that change management must be iterative, consider the multifaceted cultural constraints and characteristics companies have, and also define the best possible strategies for attaining lasting change in their organizations. The focus of each study is how to navigate the complexities of organizational change while keeping the company in balance and moving forward towards its objectives (Galbraith, 1982). One analysis concentrates on the structural components of an effective culture that is agile enough to change yet solid enough to be stable enough to grow on (Designing the Innovative Organization) (Galbraith, 1982). The other concentrates on how best to define the cultural foundation of a company from a sociability and solidarity standpoint (Goffee, Jones,1996). Both of these approaches are highly effective in creating a navigational focus on change management and cultural strategy decisions. As both analyses illustrate just how potent the potential is for modifying a culture based on its ability to take into account the myriad of factors that resist change, their insights would be invaluable for managers looking to side-step the major stumbling blocks evident in resistance to change. Both have elements of pragmatism associated with them as they attempt to be prescriptive to senior management about how to structure change management strategies that take into account how diverse and unique an organization is. Of the two however, the one that succeeds is the discussion of how to create a more innovative organization over time through better management of the heterogeneity and unique needs of its members, the employees and stakeholders (Galbraith, 1982).

Desired Outcomes of a Change Initiative

Ultimately the single greatest accomplishment of a change management initiative is ensuring an organization stays agile enough to respond to market conditions while also being stable enough to provide a foundation for future growth. There is also the potential for completely redefining the organization's strengths and core competencies if over time it can embrace and shift its focus away from being myopic and inward-focused to becoming more market-drive. The shift in mindset also has to take into account the innate personality or attributes of an organization, and these articles highlight differences in how they can be defined and used (Goffee, Jones,1996).