Chapter 4 – Building and Energizing the Need for Change
Introduction
It is not the strongest of the species that will survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most
responsive to change (Charles Darwin).
The only person who likes change is a wet baby (Price Pritchett).
So your organization wants to/needs to change. What type of momentum is needed to drive the vision
you have of organizational change (OC)? How do you even begin to understand the need for change
and the factors that may be driving it? How do you ready your organization for change and what will
you do if it does not embrace the idea of change? What might your vision for OC look like and how will
you present it?
Let us watch the following brief video: https://youtu.be/3EnqLxKzpac
Things may be much easier in a crisis state. The need for change is rather obvious in a crisis; something
“clear and dramatic” is required (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 95). Outside of a crisis, things are muddy.
Is the need for change “real” as in the sense of being supported by data or is the need for change
“perceived” as in the sense that I have a feeling that we need to do something?
Let’s watch the following silly video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntswPN4Ed4A
How might organizational leaders drive the need for change when they have “cried wolf” in the past?
How do organizational leaders get people to commit to the idea that change is real and necessary?
How should organizational leaders respond when they forewarned of the need for change or that they
should have done something earlier?
Some central takeaways as we begin this chapter:
•
“Change agents need to demonstrate that the need for change is real and important. Only then
will people unfreeze from past patterns”.
•
“It is sometimes tough to know when and how to get through to people” that change is
necessary.
•
On the cusp of change, different voices speak different words. There may be “sustained
confusion…over (a) why there is the need for change and (b) what needs changing” (Cawsey et
al., 2016, p. 96).
•
People/stakeholders will often present ideas that likely minimize the extent they may have to
change and maximize their current positions/roles.
Chapter 4 Notes - 1
•
People/stakeholders will often present differing ideas regarding the causes of the change.
“Differences in perspective affect what is seen and experienced. As the attributions of causation
shift, so too do the beliefs about who or what is the cause of the problems and what should be
done” (i.e. responsibility diffusion – The tendency for us to not help someone in need when
there are other people present because we think someone else will offer assistance. The
responsibility to act responsibly is diffused or spread out among the group making an individual
less responsible) (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 97).
Using the Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols’ Change Path Model, the authors in this chapter want to draw our
attention to awakening (the awakening stage) the need for change which involves:
Understanding the Need for Change
The following point represents a very important starting point: “The change process won’t energize
people until they begin to understand the need for change. People may have a general sense that things
are amiss or that opportunities are being missed, but they will not mobilize their energies until the need
is framed, understood, and believed” (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 99).
Stakeholders will understand and respond to the need for change when presented with data but data is
insensitive, cold, perhaps too rational, and potentially alienating. Someone must take the information
and craft it into a “compelling argument concerning the need for change” (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 99).
The tribe/organization must come together!
Chapter 4 Notes - 2
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_mediu
m=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
How do we create change. Nudging people toward change.
Stage 1: life sucks (so get people into a new tribe).
Stage 2: If you reinforce the life sucks attitude, nothing gets done.
Stage 3: I am great but you really are not (moving from stage 3 to 4 is the most important thing). Most
people are here.
Stage 4: When individuals come together and are united beyond their individual skills, they come
together—a tribe that is aware of its own existence.
Stage 5: involve people and bring them together (most people are not here—only about 2% are here).
Leaders have to talk at all stages. Tribes can only hear one level below or one level above where they
are.
See p. 99 of your text.
Seek Out and Make Sense of External Data
I have emphasized several times in the course how important data are and having in place systems and
processes that allow one to effectively scan the internal/external environments that may necessitate
change. One must be open to data from many different sources. Focusing on particular or favorite
types of data creates “blind-spots” that will undermine each of the above four bulleted points.
As an example, think about how you might, as a unit leader be conditioned to think only about data
affecting your unit or data showing how your units affects other units.
What do you know about the other units and what is affecting their processes/structures/outputs?
Chapter 4 Notes - 3
Does the larger organization even have a mechanism or process that allows units to learn about other
units?
How might the organization respond to external data versus internal data and the need to change?
How do you even know what data are important? What internal and external data are important given
where the organization is and what we are facing?
If you see your organization as a closed or open system, how does this affect your data collection?
Seek Out and Make Sense of the Perspectives of Stakeholders
Clearly, what is being emphasized here is that OC initiators/implementers must be able to identify and
listen to their central internal and external stakeholders. The perspectives of internal (they may be HR
personnel, union representatives, employees responsible for production, accountants, marketing, and IT
people) and external stakeholders (they may be important figures such a government officials,
customers, partners in your production processes, investors, etc.) represent points of view—their way of
seeing the world. OC agents must understand—not necessarily validate—stakeholders’ points of view.
“Understanding this perspective” and building an OC change strategy that acknowledges it, “is critical”
to the OC effort (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 134) because by looking out you look beyond “blind spots”.
Chapter 4 Notes - 4
I thought the following quote was very valuable: “Some sources for data will be concrete (trade papers,
published research, and news reports), while others will be less tangible (comments collected informally
from suppliers, customers, or vendors at trade shows). Data collection can take a variety of forms:
setting aside time for reading, participating in trade shows and professional conferences, visiting
vendors’ facilities, and /or attending executive education programs” (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 100).
How valuable might grounded theory or an inductive process to solving problems might be here versus
a deductive model driven by your personal values or theory of how the organization works or should
respond to the change impetus?
I think it so valuable to reinforce to you that as a OC change agent, the values you express and the
direction you wish to take the organization will be at variance with stakeholders. Recognize that they
may not be aware of the need for OC, see the organization as doing just fine, and oblivious to the data
suggesting that change is needed or a crisis is coming.
Seek Out and Make Sense of Internal Data
What do you really know?
If you exist in a system that regularly feeds you information, do you become conditioned by that
information? Does this create a “blind spot”?
How open should OC agents be to new information and does the organization have in place processes to
acquire and feed you new information?
Cawsey et al. (2016, p. 103) state that “change leaders need to pay careful attention to internal
organizational data…” Internal data can have become so regularized that is no longer reflects accurately
what is happening or what must be responded to.
Hard data (empirical, quantitative data) should not replace soft data (subjective, qualitative). Build a
balance in seeking out data to emphasize both perspectives on data collection and analysis.
Seek Out and Assess Your Personal Concerns and Perspectives
I think the most central idea being expressed here is OC leaders expanding their self-awareness
(Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 103). When one’s self-awareness increases, one becomes increasingly capable
of asking new types of questions, seeking out new types of data and feedback, and plotting out new
response strategies.
Being over-committed to a course of action or outcome can create blind spots where you see only what
you want to see and you are not being open to alternative views. “Many change leaders have difficulty
publically owing the fact that they do not have all the answers and demonstrating a real interest in
listening and learning” (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 103).
Assessing the Readiness for Change
Do you know where your organization currently is in the big scheme of things? Are you ready for
change? Do you know “why” you should change?
Chapter 4 Notes - 5
Cawsey et al. (2016, p. 105) discuss that “the creation of dissatisfaction among others is needed”. This
means that people must come to see that, in some way, the current organizational state puts the
organization at some type of competitive disadvantage. This of course can and should be demonstrated
with data.
Let us look at a terrorist event in India. A few years prior to the 2008 Mumbai attack, India experienced
an act of terrorism at Mumbai’s rail station.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-south-asia-14662732/2008-mumbai-attacks
The prior acts of terrorism did not prompt the necessary types of changes needed within India’s security
services.
There are many examples of organizations not responding to or recognizing the need for change and the
necessity of action.
Organizational readiness for change (akin to unfreezing) has to be cultivated. Indeed, perhaps half of
all OC initiatives fail because leaders did not prepare the organization for change.
Organizational readiness for change is both a multi-level construct in the sense that involves different
levels of the organization (individual, group/team, cost-center/department, or organizational level) and
a multi-faceted one in the sense that it involves change commitment and change efficacy among the
organization’s members.
Specifically, organizational readiness refers to organizational members' change commitment and
change efficacy to implement organizational change. That is, they are resolved, willing, and able to
take behavioral change steps together (i.e., as a team) and psychologically committed to that change.
Chapter 4 Notes - 6
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) observe that organizational members can commit to implementing an
organizational change because they want to (they value the change), because they have to (they have
little choice), or because they ought to (they feel obliged). Commitment based on 'want to' motives
reflects the highest level of commitment to implement organizational change (in Weiner, 2006, para. 8).
Change efficacy refers to organizational members' shared beliefs in their collective capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action involved in change implementation
Change valence reflects that idea that organizational members see and believe the change to be
important needed and worthwhile. This may stem for their own observations, their own values, the
pronouncements of management, or perhaps the discussion coming from the informal organization.
Organizational readiness for change “is determined by the previous change experiences of its members;
the flexibility and adaptability of the organizational culture; the openness, commitment, and
involvement of leadership in preparing the organization for change; and member confidence in the
leadership. It is also influenced by the organizational structure, the information members have access
to, reward and measurement systems, resource availability, and the organization’s flexibility and
alignment with the proposed change” (Cawsey et al., 2019, p. 106).
Individual readiness for change is often conditioned positively and negatively by past experiences
where change worked and where change did not work. Individuals may also see change as unnecessary
when the last change produced great results (i.e., if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it) or they may not embrace
the need for change because the last change was a failure (i.e., let’s not repeat failure).
To bring about individual readiness for change, our authors present work by Judge and Douglas (2009)
who identified eight dimensions related to readiness.
1) Trustworthy Leaders. No successful OC happens without trust between leaders and those being led.
Having trustworthy leaders is essential to any OC intiative.
A trustworthy leader is perceived as competent in their leadership skills but who is also seen as knowing
what the organizations best interests truly are. Leader servants that express their passion for the
organization are often the best leaders of OC. Do the leaders have an established track record of
successful change?
Chapter 4 Notes - 7
2) Trusting Followers. An easy formula to conceptualize OC change is ½ leaders and ½ followers.
“People may have a natural inclination to want to trust others. When an organization is filled with a
critical mass of individuals who are hopeful, optimistic, and trusting, it will be well positioned to
experiment with new ways of operating. When an organization is dominated with a critical mass of
individuals who are cynical, pessimistic, and not trusting, it will not be well positioned to engage with
organizational change initiatives” (www.saylor.org). In sum, a second key dimension of organizational
capacity for change is the overall level of trust held by the employees of the organization.
3) Capable Champions. Change requires energy from dynamic individuals to shake up the sense that we
can conduct business as usual. Organizations must recruit, cultivate and retain the champions of
change. Champions are often the same as the head of the organization in small organizations or middle
managers within larger organizations. They know the formal and informal organizational networks!
Rosabeth Moss Kanter first identified this new breed of managers whom she labeled “change masters”
(i.e., people “adept at the art of anticipating the need for, and of leading, productive change” (Kanter,
1983, p. 13).
If you want true change, recruit, keep, and empower your talent!
4) Involved Middle Management. Middle managers or Department Heads are those who link top
executives to frontline workers. Today’s organizations are flatter hierarchies with fewer middle
managers than in the past, but the role of the middle manager remains essential to OC as they may
passively or actively block change initiatives due to their unique position within an organization
(https://www.saylor.org/).
Middle managers are essential as they:
•
•
•
•
bridge the top with the bottom levels of the organization.
have knowledge of operations at multiple levels.
can be a driving force to promote change and learning.
likely know how the change will affect many people.
5) Innovative culture. Tom Peters and Bob Waterman (1982) wrote powerfully as to the importance of
an organizational culture “in search of excellence”. They and others emphasize the importance of the
correlation between corporate culture changes and organizational improvements across time.
The organizational culture will define appropriate behavior and motivate individuals where ambiguity in
the face of OC might exist. It governs the way a company processes information, its internal relations,
and its values (Hampden-Turner, 1992, p. 11). Some organizational cultures value innovation and
change, while many others value stability and equilibrium. In sum, an organizational culture that
emphasizes the importance of organizational change and innovation is an important dimension critical
to organizational change capacity.
Chapter 4 Notes - 8
6) Accountable culture. This is yet another infrastructure element tied to the degree to which an
organization holds its members accountable for results (i.e., a results based culture…one that
emphasizes outcomes perhaps more than processes).
During periods of OC, change, and the accountability for it, may not be properly assessed. Results
matter!!
While individuals need autonomy to pursue innovative new ideas, they also need to be held accountable
for delivering results on time and within budget. They must explain their successes as well as their
failures (remember that failure is not always bad. Failure may show that OC happened but not as
planned).
7) Communication systems. Another infrastructure element, and one that complements the systems
thinking dimension, is what is called “communication systems.” This dimension involves such things as
e-mail networks, face-to-face meetings, telephone calls, and corporate announcements all being
focused on the conveyance of the value for and the means for implementing the OC.
In short, OC has to be thought about (i.e., reflection) and communicated to others (i.e., there is no
action without communication). Communication “converts knowledge into action”.
Malcolm Gladwell (2002) argues that in order for organizations to “tip” in a new direction, convincing
and persuasive communication is essential. Further, Lawler and Worley (2006) argue that effective
formal and informal communication systems are essential to the creation of organizations that are “built
for change.
8) Systems thinking. OC involves more than just the keeping good people and getting rid of bad people.
It also depends on a proper organization infrastructure. One of the key infrastructure issues that affect
OC is “systems thinking” (i.e., the rules, structural arrangements, and budgetary procedures that
facilitate or hinder an organization-wide—as opposed to a ‘segmentalist’—approach to organizational
change (Kanter, 1983, pp. 28–35).
Systems thinking can enhance an organization’s ability to experiment, adapt, and learn new ways of
operating (Senge, 1990). According to Peter Senge, systems thinking focuses on how the individual
being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system. Rather than focusing on the
individual’s or organizational units within an organization, it prefers to look at a larger number of
interactions within the organization and in between organizations as a whole. In sum, an organizational
infrastructure that promotes systems thinking is another key dimension of organizational change
capacity.
After reflecting on these eight dimensions of organizational readiness to change, please view Table 4.1
on page 108 of your textbook. This is a general survey that might help one assess the overall state or
readiness of the organization for change.
Heightening Awareness of the Need for Change
What might your response be to individuals or units that are not responding to the evidence that OC is
necessary?
Chapter 4 Notes - 9
“Individuals may recognize the need for change in some department and functions but be resistant to
recognizing the need for change as it gets closer to home. If they see only the unraveling of what
they’ve worked to accomplish and/or unpleasant alternatives ahead for them, they will be very reluctant
to embrace change proposals” (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 111).
Read the example on p. 111 (From Bad to Worse: Garbage Services in Naples, Italy).
Thinking now about your potential vision for OC, how might you ready the organization for change?
•
•
•
•
•
let your organization know that a crisis is coming
convey a vision for the future that reflects higher-level organizational values (you are serious
about the needed change)
find a transformational but not necessarily and charismatic leader
identify shared goals or common ground and how to reach them
communicate valid data for others to use
The above points are central to getting people on-board with the need for OC.
Factors that Block People From Recognizing the Need for Change
Developing a Powerful Vision for Change
Vision for change “refers to the idealized (or aspirational) view of the short-term future after a specific
change has been enacted. Change visions are more specific than organizational visions and have some
element of a time constraint” (Cawsey, 2016, p. 134). By “more specific” I mean that it can be
developed to target very specific parts of the organization that need change. John Kotter (2011, para.
Chapter 4 Notes - 10
11) defines the vision for change as follows: “a picture for people of what the organization will look like
after they have made significant changes, and it also shows them the opportunities they can take
advantage of once they do that. It serves to motivate people, and it’s essential to any successful change
you’re trying to make”.
There are six core principles that organizational leaders should reflect upon when creating and
expressing the vision for change/future change:
1. Simplicity - The change vision must come in many forms, and you must be able to communicate it in
both short and long form. If you cannot articulate a powerful vision in five minutes or less, in which the
listener understands and can envision the outcome, you need to go back to the drawing board.
2. Authenticity - Authenticity starts with a leadership team having a good record of accomplishment and
a culture based on trust and accountability. Without these foundational elements, there will be a longer
road ahead. No leadership team or company is perfect. A muddled past record of accomplishment is
okay.
A powerful vision followed by immediate action, behaviors consistent with the new vision, and followthrough are a great way to rebuild trust. Authenticity is also established when the vision aligns with the
company culture and values, even if part of that vision is to improve the culture.
3. Multichannels - The communication of the change vision must be done early, often, and through
every means possible. The vision must be clear and concise though. Over-communicating a poor or
misaligned vision through many channels would be detrimental. Again, spend time getting the vision
right, and collect feedback so you have as many considerations as possible.
Great channels to use are the company newsletter, an intranet, company-wide meetings, posters in the
break room, one-on-one meetings, and just good old-fashioned casual conversation. Senior leaders and
task force managers should find three or four opportunities a day during conversations and meetings to
weave stories and examples of how the vision is being implemented.
4. Repetition - Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Use the channels and every opportunity to distill and
communicate important information on progress throughout the process, especially if adjustments are
being made along the way. Repetition can be perceived as annoying but it makes the vision sink in.
Repetition also affords one the opportunity to show others who or what is being successful with
implementation.
5. Consistent behavior - There is little need to belabor this point but if your vision as an organizational
leader involved cutting costs but you gave yourself a raise and you still fly the corporate jet home each
night you are not reinforcing the objectives. Who will believe the vision if it is not being practiced at the
very top?
6. Feedback - Feedback must be acquired while developing the new change vision but it also must be
collected throughout the process and from those on the front-line of OC. Communication must be
encouraged, top down and bottom up.
Chapter 4 Notes - 11
"How do you think we are doing with the implementation of the new vision?"
"Do the quick wins we have established resonate with you?"
"From your perspective, are we still on the right path? If not, what adjustments should be made?"
(Gleeson, 2007).
The Difference Between an Organizational Vision and a Change Vision
The organizational or corporate vision presents a much longer-term and broader future direction
compared to the vision for change.
Such can be developed in different ways. The leader can develop it. The leader and a team can develop
it. It can be developed from the bottom-up (see p. 135).
According to Cawsey et al. (2016, p. 135), it reflects the idealized and aspirational view of the mid to
long-term future. The vision needs to be:
• Clear, concise, easily understood
• Challenging
• Implementable and tangible
• Memorable
• Excellence centered
• Exciting and inspiring
• Stable but flexible
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Mission_Statement_vs_Vision_Statement#Video_Explaining_the_Di
fferences
https://www.health.state.mn.us/about/mission.html
Summation
In this chapter and set of notes, the topic of organizational change has been presented as well as how to
develop momentum around OC initiatives. Why should we change? This is an important question that
OC leaders must address and answer in their change vision and organizational vision. An effective vision
statement is essential and this chapter has helped you all in conceptualizing and expressing what that
looks like. The chapter also discussed developing a longer-term organizational vision of change.
Regardless of short, midterm, or long-term goals, organizational communication is essential for both
internal and external stakeholders.
Chapter 4 Notes - 12
138
TOOLKIT EXERCISE 4.2
Developing the Background to Understand the Need for Change
As suggested earlier in this book, a careful diagnosis is essential for successful organizational
change. Much of this diagnosis is needed to understand the need for change that the organiza-
tion faces and then to engage and persuade organizational members concerning the need for
change
1. Consider an example of an organizational change that you are familiar with or are con-
sidering undertaking. What data could help you understand the need for change?
2. Have you:
a. Understood and made sense of external data? What else would you like to know?
od ovo
b. Understood and made sense of the perspectives of other stakeholders? What else
would you like to know?
c. Understood and assessed your personal concerns and perspectives and how they may
be affecting your perspective on the situation?
d. Understood and made sense of internal data? What else would you like to know?
3. What does your analysis suggest to you about the need for change?
Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey3e for a downloadable template of this exercise
139
Chapter 4 Building and Energizing the Need for Change
TOOLKIT EXERCISE 4.3
-120
Writing a Vision Statement
Think of an organization you are familiar with that is in need of change. If you were the change
leader, what would be your vision statement for change?
1. Write your vision statement for the change you are striving for.
2. Evaluate your vision. Is it:
• Clear, concise, and easily understood?
• Memorable?
• Exciting and inspiring?
• Challenging?
• Excellence centered?
Stable and yet flexible?
• Implementable and tangible?
3. Does the vision promote change and a sense of direction?
4. Does the vision provide the basis from which you can develop the implementation strat-
egy and plan?
5. Does the vision provide focus and direction to those who must make ongoing decisions?
6. Does the vision embrace the critical performance factors that organizational members
should be concerned about?
7. Does the vision engage and energize as well as clarify? What is the emotional impact of
the vision?
8. Does the vision promote commitment? Are individuals likely to be opposed to the vision,
passive (let it happen), moderately supportive (help it happen), or actively supportive
(make it happen)?
9. Now assess your vision on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest) relative to the factors set
out below.
a. Actions of senior managers are congruent with the vision. They walk the talk.
1
2
3
5
4
b. It pays attention to the needs of those who will be putting it into practice.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Realistic expectations develop around it that are challenging but can be met.
1
2
3
4
5
d. It communicates a broader sense of what is possible.
1
2
3
4
5
e. It is grounded in the reality of the present and can be reconciled with it.
1
2
3
4
5
f. It is neither too abstract nor too concrete. It has the potential to stimulate and inspire,
but it also communicates the sense that it is achievable.
1
2
3
4
5
g. It has been forged through an appropriately messy, iterative, creative process requiring
a combination of "synthesis and imagination."
1
2
3
4
5
h. It has sufficient participation and involvement of others to build a consensus concern-
ing its appropriateness.
1
2
3
4
5
i. Its implementation contains "a sense of urgency ... and measurable milestones."121
1
2
3
4
5
10. Given your assessment of the above items, what would you recommend be done in orde
to strengthen the value of the change vision?
Chapter 4 Building and Energizing the Need for Change
137
END-OF-CHAPTER EXERCISES
sequence
e of these
TOOLKIT EXERCISE 4.1
y feel the
Critical Thinking Questions
ed?
nen they
a change
Please find the URL for the video listed below on the website at study.sagepub.com/cawsey3e.
Consider the questions that follow.
1. David Logan: Tribal Leadership-16:36 minutes
lieve the
ding the
This video focuses on five kinds of tribes that people naturally form and how they influence
behavior.
e costs
• Describe Logan's theory on tribes.
rnatives
babu
• Compare Logan's ideas with tribes you've been a part of in the past.
• Reflect on how Logan's idea of Tribal Leadership may affect how to approach change.
2. There are lots of great examples of leaders communicating their vision for change, such as
Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, Steve Jobs, Howard Schultz, Indra
Nooyi, Hilary Clinton, and Melinda Gates.
• Go to the Web and find a powerful vision for change speech that resonates with you.
What is it about the one you selected that resonates with you?
• Does it share the characteristics of an effective vision statement outlined in the text?
Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey3e for a downloadable template of this exercise.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment