Organizational Change and Management

Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) describe different organizational change types, change enablers and change methods as a means of developing a roadmap for successful organizational change. They stress that there needs to be some flexibility -- a one-size-fits-all approach to change will often lead to failure, as there will typically be some misalignment between the method of change and either the organization's conditions or the objectives of the change program.

This paper will examine the prevailing models of organizational change, seeking to understand how the models fit within the study of change and its practical application. Kotter The Kotter model of organizational change is known as the leading change method. This method is an eight-step method, noting that organizational change works best when it is holistic. That is to say, change cannot be implemented only in one part of an organization, because the organization is a whole unit, each component effected by what happens with the other components.

Kotter advocates creating a sense of urgency, then building a trusted team, having a vision, and a coherent strategy for achieving that vision. In other words, a mix of pathos and logos. This approach also emphasizes creating short-term wins to help consolidate the change (al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015).

The Kotter approach is well-established as a paradigm for effective organizational change because it shakes the organization out of the inertia (complacency) of its day-to-day routine, but quickly replaces the old routine with a new vision, and a coherent strategy to get to that vision.

Lewin An older model for organizational change is that of Kurt Lewin, who proposed that organizational change works by "unfreezing" the organization, making the change with incentives and then "refreezing the organization." This approach sees unfreezing as akin to creating urgency, but for the fact that this is almost entirely logos-based; there is little attempt on the part of managers to create an emotional response among the workers and use that response to motivate them.

This is likely a reflection of the time difference -- when Lewin was writing in 1948 management was almost strictly command-and-control, but by the time Kotter was writing in 1996 the workplace environment had shifted away from that style of management, to one where motivation mattered more. Punctuated Change The punctuated change model holds that organizations go through stable periods with no change, then are forced to make a change in order to adjust to a new equilibrium.

Thus, the change is reflected over the long run as punctuated equilibrium, or occasional shifts to rebalance the organization. Sastry (1997) sought to extend this concept noting that it works best when organizations set the pace of change internally, rather than in response to external stimuli. Most change theories are rooted in external change factors, though Kotter argues that the motivation must be created internally, regardless of where the original impetus for change comes from.

Analysis The different models of change all take a basic formula (start-change-end) but they have varying degrees of sophistication. Lewin's model is the oldest but also the simplest, and it does not really describe how an organization is to get from start to finish. Later models are more focused on the process of change, accepting the basic premise of Lewin's model of what organizational change is. But something like punctuated change is not that much different from Lewin's model.

Where Kotter's model distinguishes itself is that it is a roadmap for managers seeking to affect organizational change. This is much more valuable than simply describing a paradigm for change -- it provides the actual steps that a manager should take. Impact As such, Kotter's model has the greatest impact on a manager. Where many change models seek to build on Lewin, Kotter uses Lewin as a backdrop for describing change in a granular way.

This makes Kotter's model more valuable, because instead of understanding the background it provides actionable steps. Managers can envision what those steps might look like in their organizations. That holds more power than perhaps would be the case with the other models. One area where Kotter's model is lacking is.