The Meaning of Change

On Organizational Change

Reza Shirmarz

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change.
CHARLES DARWIN

Natural life constantly reshapes and deliberately reorganizes itself in certain time intervals because of precise biological reasons or the passage of time. All biological organisms embrace natural change and endeavor to partially or largely adapt to it, except we humans who prefer to take our instinctive tendency towards natural change under control and convert the phenomenon of change into something as conscious as possible. Therefore, the shift from unconscious, instinctive change to conscious change happens only in human agents at individual or social level. Obviously, we have, in the meantime, learnt from mother nature about the complicated multi-faceted notion of change, changeability and their benefits.

We, as the offspring of wildlife evolution, have also striven to utilize such a flexible, fluid concept in our personal and social lives to ameliorate our so-called lifestyle to certain degrees. For example, we know that “a butterfly is not anymore a caterpillar or a better or improved caterpillar; a butterfly is a different creature” (Goss et al, p. 85), which has very distinct capabilities. We look like a sluggish caterpillar transforming into a fast flying butterfly. Almost every scholar, worthy of the name, today doubts that change plays a prominent conflicting role in humans' evolutionary journey as well as their survival. Reinhold Niebuhr, an American scholar, once mentioned that “change is the essence of life; be willing to surrender what you are for what you could become.”

Change is an old discussion in philosophy. Philosophically speaking, the idea of change, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, comes from the concepts of time, cause and motion, which means that change is caused by the passage of time  an therefore motion. But in this piece of writing, we are not going to look at it from the philosophical aspect. I will focus shortly upon the organizational concept of change. According to J. C. Collins and J. J. Porras (1998), change is “an alteration of the way something is done or of the way work is carried out.” Collin's definition brings important concepts like “alteration" (i.e. a minor change) and “work” or the method of getting something done, it appears to be too general. Furthermore, more than two decades ago, scholars described change as a “far-reaching workplace transformation” (Cappelli, Bassi, Katz, Knoke, Osterman, Unseem, 1997, p. 1), which connects the concept of change directly to workplace and unveils its organizational aspects. Cappelli and his colleagues cited that organizational change in contemporary workplace seeks to "restructure" everything within an organization for more effective organizational performance, even if there are external factors like competitors putting it under pressure (Cappelli, et al., 1997, p. 5). It is also worth noting that J. P. Kotter gives a more comprehensive and handy interpretation of change. He said that organizational change represents the ways through which we restructure, re-engineer, re-strategize our organization (Kotter, 1996, p. 3) to transform traditional organizations into new working environments.

Other scholars focus upon the strategic role of Human Resources (HR) in change process (Thornhill, Lewis, Millmore and Saunders, 2000), while other thinkers (Collins & Porras, 2000) lay strong emphasis on the significance of “exceptionally durable visions” as well as “core ideology” which assist organizations to survive for an “envisioned future”. J. D. Duck (1998) thinks that change is profoundly personal. She says that organizational change occurs if only every member of the organization begins “to think, feel, or do something different” (Duck, p. 56). She suggests eight steps towards change (pp. 78-81) (Figure 1): 

J. Hiatt and T. Creasey (2012) also highlighted the remarkable role of the transformation of the members of an organization in the process of change. They wrote in their book called Change Management: The People Side of Change that the plural behavioral shift of organizational members is the cornerstone of any true change occurrence (Hiatt and Creasey, 2012, p. 9), while D. Buchanan and P. Dawson (2007) argued that organizational change seems to be a “multi-authored” transformation process. Other scholars like Gross, Pascale and Athos believe that change conveys the concept of "reinvention" which, in their viewpoint, does not refer to the transformation of what already exists but the creation of what does not exist, i.e. change means creation in a new context, not the transformation of our old assets, for the invention of a strong future (Gross et al, p. 85-96). Goss, Pascale and Athos suggest a five-step process of organizational change (pp. 102-110) (Figure 2): 

Figure 2

Organizations sometimes experience hard times because of what is called “a syndrome with four stages” (Martin, 1998). Martin believes that organizations need to put aside the blame for the syndrome and concentrate instead on what the organization did right to experience the crisis it now struggles with (Martin, 1998, p. 114). In the meantime, he classifies the causes of organization-related crisis into three categories: the vision of its founder, managing mechanisms, anxious irregular feedback and the routines which are defensive (Martin, pp. 117-125). He also claims that the organization managers are the most important cause of the cynical and dysfunctional organizational performance, those who say one thing and think another (Martin, p. 129). For competition purposes, organizations must, every few years, be burnt down as well as their roles and activities rebuilt. Courage which takes root from the members of the organization, not just from above, is also paramount in the implementation of change in his view. (Martin, p. 136). Organizations should not delay in implementing change. Change must be on time, otherwise, the patient will die while the doctors consult.

N. R. Augustine (1998) maintains a negative stance on delayed change initiation. He insists upon the fat that the organizational members must not wait until their organization is about to come apart to make essential changes and make an expeditious movement. He also says that coercive restructurings might result in thorny insurmountable problems. Furthermore, in order not to be stuck in irreversibly tough conditions it is logical for change agents to come up with a road map "even when there are no roads” (Augustine, 1998, p. 168). Change is an endless process which has no boundaries and does not result in clear and absolute transformation. Augustine bring up the concept of “mega-changes,” which might be implemented through goals that may appear unattainable (Augustine, 1998, p. 172) but will definitely assist the organization members to be frank about the existing problematic issues, step out of their safety zones, forge a new organizational culture and build up the future of their organization in a collective long-term effort.

Other change scholars like R. H. Shaffer and H. A. Thomson (1998) threw doubt upon the change process which is activity-centered since it is short-term and time-consuming, and  suggest results-centered change process which can result in long-term organizational prosperity and success (Shaffer & Thomson, p. 194). 

                                                                                                 

References

Augustine, N. R., (1998), Reshaping an Industry: Lochheed Martin’s Survival Story, Harvard Business Review On Change, pp. 159-188.

Buchanan, D. and Dawson, P., Discourse and Audience: Organizational Change as Multi-story Process. Journal of Management Studies. Organ. Sci. 13 (4), pp. 442-455. 

Cappelli, P., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman, P., and Unseem, M., (1997), Change at Work, NY & Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Collins, J. C., and J. J. Porras, (2000), Building Your Company’s Vision, Harvard Business Review On Change, pp. 21-53.

Gross, T., Pascale, R., and Athos, A., (Nov, 1993), The Reinvention Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a Powerful Future, Harvard Business Review.

Hiatt, J. & T. Creasey, Change Management: The People Side of Change, Prosci Learning Center Publications, 2012.

Kotter, J. P., (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business Review Press.

Martin, R., (1998), Changing the Mind of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review On Change, pp. 113-138.

Schaffer, R. H., and Thomson H. A., (1998), Successful Change Programs Begin With Results, Harvard Business Review On Change, pp. 189-213.