Change Process and Stakeholders

Soft Systems Model for Change

The soft systems model offers not only an oriented but also action-focused means of addressing problematical instances, to give rise to action to enhance. It purposes to generate learning as well as chance in such circumstances. As pointed out by Senior and Fleming (2006), the soft systems model to change lays emphasis not only on the content and control of change, but also focus on the procedure and practice by which change emanates. They necessitate taking into account both the political and cultural aspects of organization in the same manner as systems and structure. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain in what circumstances it is deemed suitable or unsuitable to carry out soft systems models. It will give detailed information regarding the factors that ought to be taken into consideration when deliberating on the soft systems models for change.

Appropriateness and Non-Appropriateness of Soft Systems Model of Change

Different circumstances necessitate employing different models of change. There are two approaches of managing change processes. On one hand, change models that are centered on rational-logical models of change necessitate hard models of change. This encompasses situations of hard intricacy and complexity where there are minimal people issues. On the other hand, in change approaches where aspects of power, politics, and leadership have a noticeable and key role, then the soft model of change is deemed appropriate. The soft systems model of change takes into account and purposes to resolve disorganized and disordered situations. As a result, it depends more on practical and pragmatic common sense of what may function and not function and in some extent on trial and error (Rapansek, 2015). Soft systems model try to cultivate and nurture learning and appreciation of the problem circumstance between a set of stakeholders instead of setting out to resolve a pre-defined issue. The intricacy of several organizational issue circumstances beats efforts to outlining a problem. In turn soft systems models offer a structure and context for embarking upon such circumstances. From the outset, it is imperative to acknowledge that a number of change situations, be it issues or opportunities, by nature of their intricacy and certain features, necessitate soft system model rather than hard systems model to change (Senior and Fleming, 2006).

Factors for Considering in Soft Systems Model for Change

There are factors that have to be taken into account when considering soft systems models for change. The classification factors can be placed into four wide-ranging themes that consist of starting conditions, allocation of time, prompts and grouping of participants. To begin with, in the facilitation of the soft system model of change, it is necessary to take into consideration the influence of starting conditions on the change process. These consist of the arrival time of the participants, the prevailing number of participants, the time of arrival of participants, how many participants are present, the implementer and participants having to institute relationship and also with other partakers and comprehending the notion of the research, the ruling aspects of the day and conceivably overriding the process. In addition, there is the purpose of the research and the magnitude to which the change facilitator goes into detail regarding soft systems model of change. Other key factors in this regard include a readiness and preparedness to take part and engage with the various tools of soft systems models, the nature of the industry and its capacity for change, whether there is a supportive setting and the time and resources necessitated (Gerwel and Bodhanya, 2014).

The second extensive theme takes into account the allocation of time for the different exercises included in the soft system model, which encompasses having poise between the need to make the most of time with the stakeholders' necessity to get to know each other. The facilitator of change might take into consideration instigating stimuluses if the participants are facing difficulty to begin, but this may impact results. A specifically significant consideration includes the grouping of participants and therefore an aspect to consider is whether stakeholders can organize themselves or grouping diverse or akin stakeholders. This factor is imperative because conflict could arise amongst stakeholders. Another important factor to take into consideration is the readiness of the prospect of stakeholders being defensive of their positions and perhaps having an adverse impact on the change process. This includes considering any inhibiting factors that may influence the soft system model of change (Gerwel and Bodhanya, 2014).

One of the numerous variants of analyzing change in soft systems is organizational development. With respect to organizational development, it lays emphasis largely to individuals within the organization and handles them as not only the drivers but also the engines of change. The key factor of this soft system model of change is that organization development perceives individuals as social beings that are ready a prepared to form clusters and organizations as systems, which are comprised of sub-systems. Moreover, the various portions of the organization are interrelated and intersected with one another (Harstinen and Peikola, 2000). Another key factor is that the organizational development approach makes the supposition that no single individual or group can function in seclusion from any other and as a result, change in some areas of the organization will inexorably have influence on operations in another area. Practically, a pertinent and viable model is Lewin's Model, which is split into three stages including unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. To begin with, unfreezing encompasses the stirring up of individuals' habitual ways of thinking and behavior to intensify their cognizance of need for change. Secondly, moving is basically the practice of making the definite changes that will move the organization to the new state or form. Lastly, reforming takes into account the stabilization or institutionalization of the changes in order for the organization not to go back to the circumstance that prevailed prior to the process of change (Harstinen and Peikola, 2000).