Article critique and analytical evaluation

¶ … Structure of Continuous Change

By Thomas Lawrence, Bruno Dyck, Sally Maitlis and Michael Mauws

Lawrence, Dyck, Maitlis and Mauws present the change in a new and innovative manner and try to implement it into the daily operations. They state that managers should not be afraid of change but find ways to integrate it within the routine corporate activity. Furthermore, they state that change is not a new element, but a materialization of a continuous cycle in four stages: "using influence to sell ideas; using authority to change practices; embedding change in technology and managing culture to fuel the cycle of change."

The first phase states that change comes from an idea, but those coming up with the idea, the evangelists, must have extensive access to all resources and information required; must be able to convince the audience and must have the support of the audience. The second phase introduces the autocratic ruler, who is able to implement the change. He must have credibility, good skills in managing time and practical imagination. Then, in making sure the change retrieves the desired outcomes, the third stage introduces the architect, who through technological applications will support the implementation of change. He must be visionary and technically skilled. Finally, the fourth phase introduces the educator, who must be able to identify the effects of change upon customers and employees and become a model of behavior for the staff.

On a first reading of the article, it is quite difficult for the reader to make a decision on agreeing or disagreeing with the statements of the authors, moreover since they basically only state known facts on organizational change. However, on the closer look, one can identify that the element of novelty brought in by the four authors is the organization of change into four phases. Also, they state the compulsory need for at least four types of leaders for a successful implementation of change. In order to make the best decision in agreeing or disagreeing with the statements of Lawrence, Dyck, Maitlis and Mauws, one should further analyze the article, break it down into several parts and decide on each and every one of the parts individually.

The first phase states that change requires an evangelist to come up with a new idea. He has to be a visionary man with unlimited access to information and great skills of convincing people. This is true beyond any doubt. Take for instance the case of an organization activating in the it industry. The one coming up with the idea must have unlimited access to the information on market trends, customers' demands and competitive products and services. Once he has analyzed all the available information, he must look at it from the company's perspective in order to identify new strategies that will help the organization become more competitive and satisfy a wider array of customers. Then, he must be able to convince the management that the change is in the best interest of the company. He has to come up with the strongest arguments in order to support his statement. Ergo, I strongly agree with the role of the evangelist and the first phase of the change process.

The second phase points out the role of the autocratic leader. He must be respected and, to a limited extent, even feared by the employees. This is also extremely true since a friendly and permissive manager, whereas cherished by the employees, is not always respected and often encounters difficulties in implementing new strategies. Hence, I once again strongly agree with the opinions forwarded by Lawrence, Dyck, Maitlis and Mauws.

The third stage of the implementation of change states that regardless of the qualities of the leader, he will need the support and assistance of technological applications. And in the contemporaneous environment, where new technological advancements are being made every day, it is impossible to disagree. Among the numerous benefits of technological applications, which make them vital to the process of organizational change, one could easily point out the support and improvements of the communication system and network along side with the possibility to virtually present the effects of change. But these are just a few applications and the list is endless. And this particular phase requires an architect, who will integrate the change into the technologies, making it as such easier to implement and cope with.