Organization Development: Leadership and Change Strategies

Introduction: Adapting to Organizational Dynamism

Organizations continue to experience dynamism in terms of change and complexity. Leader development strategies have been championed by scholars and practitioners alike. Opinion shapers have increasingly focused their attention on flexibility, resilience, and adaptability as the requisite skills for success in today's business world. Although numerous leadership training initiatives focus on elements of adaptability, most of them emphasize competence and overlook the need to understand how to manage one's mind within a dynamic environment. The need to manage the mind amidst the dynamic nature of the immediate working environment cannot be overemphasized, because outside forces continually transform static conditions into complex surroundings. This paper explores these conditions by focusing on real-time strategies for adapting in dynamic decision-making circumstances (Larry Kroh, 2012).

There is a common view that companies tend to assume more than they should. Indeed, the word "assume" has been labeled one of the most dangerous words in management jargon. The transition from manager to director is a good example of how this word has been erroneously applied. The transition is often viewed as a mere change of title with little difference in the skills required — essentially an office change accompanied by a bigger salary, more space, and an air of higher dominance. This means the transition is regarded as more of the same. The unspoken assumption is that the director should figure out their new portfolio and that the managerial skills acquired earlier are sufficient to guide them in their present position and beyond.

The new era of smaller matrix organizations has rendered this assumption ineffective. Directors are under pressure to deliver faster and on the fly, facing tight deadlines alongside a leaner organizational support structure in terms of staff and material resources. The fortunate directors will be assisted by their line managers, who update them, provide direction, and offer requisite coaching. These directors are likely to address performance and skill gaps before they become serious concerns. On the other hand, where a non-cooperative culture prevails within a company, directors are left to struggle in their ignorance (Larry Kroh, 2012).

Change as a Function of Three Steps

The unfreeze-change-refreeze model is one of the most commonly discussed and applied frameworks among OD scholars. It is the brainchild of Lewin and Schein. Lewin applied his force field conceptualization principle to prescribe what organizations should do to enhance group performance and sustain such performance levels. The model is descriptive in nature and does not deal with naturally occurring patterns. Although Lewin predominantly used the term "freeze," "refreeze" has also been consistently used, and it is adopted here (Jean M. Bartunek & Richard W. Woodman, 2015).

Transforming toward better group performance is normally a short-lived affair. After an initial boost, group performance often reclines back to its original state. Consequently, it is not appropriate to define the aims of a group performance change plan solely as attaining a higher level; any long-term permanence should be incorporated into the primary objectives. Any successful transformation must include three elements: unfreezing (if necessary) the current level, labeled L1; shifting to another level, L2; and refreezing the new group life at that level. Because all levels are determined by a force field, permanence means that the new force field is secured against change, at least relatively.

Unfreezing the current level may expose organizations to various problems depending on the circumstances. There is a need for a catharsis before all prejudices can be completely eliminated. An emotional stir is often necessary to break through the complacency that is frequently difficult to overcome. The same principle holds true when endeavoring to refreeze the new level. It is often possible to build an organizational setup that resembles a stable, circular process (Jean M. Bartunek & Richard W. Woodman, 2015).

References

Antonie van Nistelrooij, & Harry Sminia. (2010). Organization development: What's actually happening? Journal of Change Management, 407–420.

Battling bureaucratic behavior to transform a financial services provider. (2016). McKinsey Leadership Development.

Bradt, G. (2016, January 17). The keys to strengthening the organization in your first 100 days in a new job. Forbes.

Jean M. Bartunek, & Richard W. Woodman. (2015). Beyond Lewin: Toward a temporal approximation of organization development and change. Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior.

John Hagel III, John Seely Brown, Christopher Gong, Stacey Wang, & Travis Lehman. (2013). Pragmatic pathways: New approaches to organizational change. Deloitte University Press.

Larry Kroh. (2012). Crossing the great (management) divide. OD Practitioner, Volume 44, 18–22.

Mary Lloyd Moore, Joseph P. Cangemi, & Jay Ingram. (2013). Appreciative leadership and opportunity-centric approaches to organization success. Organization Development Journal, 48–53.

Scott Cooper. (2016). Case study: The Boston Consulting Group. Go1.

Shani Kuna, & Ronit Nadiv. (2013). Organizational development dilemmas in nonprofit organizations in difficult economic times. Organization Development Journal, 62–71.

Venkat R. Krishnan. (2012). Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: Empowerment as mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 550–563.