IntroductionUpon reading the statement, it is clearto understand that whether the changes within a business are ‘planned’ or’emergent’, they are different from one another. Depending on what the changesare i.e. structural change or an internal culture change they will requiredifferent actions as there is no blanket method for change that suits all. Thisreport shall therefore critically evaluate the statement through breaking downthe themes and issues raised into sections which shall then be backed up withevidence through the use of case studies and change theories. Firstly, definingand understanding the difference between planned and emergent change will takeplace. Followed by delving into the potential different ‘forms’ that these changesmay come in.
Finally, these change ‘forms’ shall be proven to need differenttypes of action. An overall conclusion at the end shall round up the evidenceformed to complete the critical evaluation in support of the statement given. Defining Planned and Emergent changeSenior & Fleming (2006: pg. 54)stated that ‘change could be viewed as neither wholly emergent nor planned’.Mullins (2007: pg. 736) defined planned change as ‘an intentional attempt to improve, in some important way, theoperational effectiveness of the organisation’. However, Emergent changeis defined as ‘an approach to organisational change in a complex organisationoperating in a volatile, unstable or uncertain environment’, Kurian (2013: pg.
109). Diagnosing a change situationWhen it comes to managingorganisational change, it is key for organisations to be able to diagnose the situationto be able to manage it successfully. Organisational change takes manydifferent forms and it is therefore key for organisations to realise it can beboth beneficial and negative. Beerel (2009: pg.
32) stated that change is goodwhen it ‘responds directly to new realities and reinforces the organisations potencyand relevance to customers, employees and shareholders’. However, change is negativewhen it ‘removes potency and relevance and affects employee morale andwillingness to future change’, Beerel (2009: pg. 32). Therefore, reviewing change models can helpaid the diagnosis of the change situation. “Those who pretend that the same kindof change medicine can be applied no matter what the context are either naïveor charlatans” (Strebel, 1996a, P.5). Grundy (1993) as cited by Senior &Fleming (2005: pg.
45) stated there are “three varieties to change” including Smooth incremental change which evolvesslowly and is predictable, bumpyincremental change which has periods of harsh changes in the pace of changeand other times no change, the final change is discontinuous change in which change is marked by rapid shifts instrategy, structure, culture or all three’, (Senior & Fleming, 2005: pg.311). All three of these varieties of change will need different actions asthere are different timings, different problems that will need to be addressedand no straight action will be able to cover all three varieties. Diagnosing the change situation inrelevance to the statement helps to understand whether the change does needdifferent actions depending on what type of change it is. Through the knowledgeof Grundy (1993) it is clear to see that change does take different forms thussupporting the themes within the statement given. A Hard or Soft Problem?The change spectrum allowsorganisational change to be located in terms of complexity and variability toman/system interface increasing (McCalman et al (2016: pg.
89). This means thechange can be placed on the spectrum under a hard or soft approach. Senior& Fleming (2005: pg. 310) stated that “change in situations that arecharacterised by ‘hard’ are more likely to be enacted easily than change in’soft situations”. ‘Soft’ change is known to have subjective and interrelatedobjectives available of which have no specific time scale and problemcharacteristics are hard to define, (McCalman et al (2016: pg. 91). The hardapproach assumes that clear change objectives can be identified to figure outthe best way to achieve them (Senior & Fleming, 2005: pg. 311).
Hard problemsare considered to have known time scales, the change has a concise definitionand solutions may be limited but knowledge of them is attainable, (McCalman etal (2016: pg. 91). This is in support of the statement as the ‘hard’ changescannot have the same actions taken as a ‘soft’ problem due to varied or unknowntime scales, different objectives and different goals to be reached won’t bereached through the same actions. The Lewin 3 step model (1958) can aidthe planned change process. This model includes ‘unfreezing, changing andrefreezing the organisation into its new state’ (McCalman et al, 2016: pg.229). Through the first stage, the behaviour is made explicit and the changeneeded is identified, through the second stage, the change slowly becomesimplemented into the business. In the final, stage, the business is refreezingin the new state where the change has been learned and will be maintained inthe future, (Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo 2010).
This planned form of change requiresactions which will enhance the process and relate to the problem. This includesa strong organisational development intervention in which there is a strongconnection to the consultant as ‘the implementation stage of the change is mostlikely to fail due to unanticipated consequences’ which could be viewed asemerging issues, (McCalman et al, 2016: pg. 229). Within the case of Serp Enterprises(Tymon and Gilmore, 2015), it is clear that they are facing a ‘hard’ plannedchange problem. Overall there is a considerably hostile environment within Serpwith negative comments and employees leaving. Currently there are high amountsof uncertainty within the business at a time of change and employees are saidto ‘not like change’.
The new MD made a plan to create a new organisationalstructure. He could therefore benefit from using the Lewin 3 step model and fromcompleting a TROPICS test. This is key to figuring out early warnings to theimpact and magnitude of the impending change (McCalman et al, 2016: pg.
91).TROPICS stands for Time Scale, Resources, Objectives, Perceptions,Interest, Control, Source,identifying these in consideration to the impending change, managers canunderstand more and figure out the most beneficial route forward, (McCalman etal (2016: pg. 92). This system allows for the change to be placed on the changespectrum of hard and soft, allowing a deeper understanding of the change todesign the guide, planning and implementation of the change (Senior &Fleming, 2005: pg.
63). Within the statement, planned change isusually linked to hard problems. The three step lewin model is key to this,Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo (2010) described Lewin (1951) as ‘the father ofplanned change in organisation studies’. The model is used once managersidentify the need to change something within the organisation and thereforecreate a ‘planned’ change movement. This model however, allows room foremerging issues to take place in the implementation stage as it is ‘hard toforce an organization to change’ and it can therefore encounter some changeissues that are unexpected and if not handled with the correct action couldcause the change process to fail (McCalman et al, 2016: pg. 232). Taking intoaccount the TROPICS test, the change that is coming can be timed and objectivesset, this therefore plans the change that will take place. Emergent changecould also benefit from the use of TROPICS as creating time scales, checkingresources, creating objectives and controlling the change would allow for thenew emergent organisational change action to be implemented correctly.
This thereforeagrees with the section of the statement that different actions are required whetherthe change is planned or emergent. Actions in terms of a ‘soft’ change wouldtake a different approach to a ‘hard’ change due to different change characteristicsand objectives. Cultural change, Power & Politics When it comes to understanding changeunder culture, power and politics reviewing the ‘organizational iceberg’ model byFrench and Bell (1990, 1999) as cited by Senior & Fleming (2006: pg. 139)will aid this.
This model shows the top of the iceberg to be easy to visualiseaspects of the business in which are clear organisational goals and strategy,the procedures and the products and services, Senior & Fleming (2006: pg.139). However, underneath the water is the hidden aspects that need to beconsidered within change management.
These underwater parts may be the mostdangerous and unknown until the organisation comes across them unwillingly. Power within organisations has asignificant influence on the extent to which an individual can exert influenceon their staff members, this can be referred to as a power structure, (Beech& Macintosh, 2012: pg. 71). It is seen that the wider distribution of powerwithin an organisation, the greater the opportunity for politics, (McCalman etal, 2016: pg. 259).
Buchanan and Badham (2010: 16) as cited by McCalman et al(2016: pg. 261) identify eight ‘turf game tactics’ that managers use. A few ofthese tactics include ‘Building imagethrough support for the ‘right cause’ and adherence to group norms; creating alliances with key people,creating a strong coalition to enforce will; Networking with people in influential positions; scapegoating and making sure someoneelse is blamed but taking credit for successes; issue selling and promoting plans in ways that seem more appealingto the audience’ (McCalman et al 2016: pg. 261). Cultural change can come in differentforms, this can include rebranding the organisation, aligning the organisationand creating an employer brand (Cameron and Green 2012: pg. 337). Schein (1999)as cited by Cameron and Green (2012: pg.
336) stated that ‘organizations willnot successfully change culture if they begin with it specifically in mind’ andshould start with ‘issues the business faces’. In the case study of DEI airlines, (Weeks,2007) it is clear to see that there are significant cultural issues. Trying tointegrate the two entities has been a struggle and has resulted in the twodifferent bodies having completely different cultures. DEI are planning tochange from a “transportation culture” to a “service culture”.
The change withinthis organisation is planned however, there may be some emerging issues alongthe change process. This type of change would benefit from reviewing the 7-Sframework of Mckinsey which ‘allows the organization to analyse theireffectiveness and align with any issues that need to be corrected’ (Singh,2013). This would allow the business to evaluate the shared values and createcentral beliefs and attitudes. It will also produce a sound structure to followin turn creating a strategy to produce the wanted outcome and reach identifiedgoals. As shown by this case study, theinternal culture, politics and power within an organisation when it comes tochange has to be positive.
The change has to be introduced by someone in apowerful situation as introducing a new culture will be a very complex job.Politics and power also need to be considered highly as they could hinderchange within an organisation and will slow the process down and potentiallyturn it negative. Upon completion of the Harvard Simulation Game it was clearto see that power and influence can easily help and hinder the process ofchange, once it seems credibility is lost, the hope of successfulorganisational change decreases significantly. The culture in which anorganisation operates can be severely defensive against change and therefore,this is why it is stated that ‘in order to bring around any significantorganisational change, the organisations culture must be managed accordingly'(Senior & Fleming 2006: pg.
178). Upon reviewing culture, politics andpower it is clear to see that whether planned or emergent, the cultural form ofchange does require different types of action. Not implementing changecorrectly in the culture means that the efforts will fail. Kotter (1995) statedthat there are two important factors in implementing the different forms ofchange including ‘making a conscious attempt to show people the new approachesand behaviours’ and/ ‘taking sufficient time to make sure the next generationof management really takes on the new approach’. It is stated that ‘in an emergingchange process people need to be convinced, told and reminded of changes’,(Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo 2010).
Although planned change can have specifictargets and goals with time scales, change is not always predictable and aculture and environment in which employees can respond to change constructivelyand in a positive way is key, (Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo 2010). Finally,although there may be plans set in place for a cultural change, due to thelength of time that it takes it can be seen as emergent as things progress andcircumstances change (Weick, 2000) as cited by Beech and Macintosh (2012: pg.19).
Structural ChangeEmergent change is said to come fromthe ongoing activity within organisations as problems and opportunities areresponded to (Livine-Tarandach and Bartunek, 2009). Many cases of emergentchange are produced through problems occurring or through opportunities forimprovement. Structural change is known to have a rapid speed of change with abroad approach (Beech and Macintosh, 2012: pg. 94). This therefore means thatonce begun, it is virtually impossible to identify everything that will changeand in turn plan and implement actions for these changes (Livine-Tarandach andBartunek, 2009). Through use of Kotter’s 8 step modeland sufficient planning, there can be limitations placed on these emergentchanges.
Communication of the reason for change is key to keep ambiguitylimited (Beech and Macintosh, 2012: pg. 20). Step 4 of Kotter’s model iscommunication and would aid in spreading the change vision, (McCalman et al,2016: pg. 69).
Not only this but in creating a sense of urgency to change theorganisational structure and giving an overall guide of a vision and strategy,it could potentially limit the different forms of emerging change arising. Within the case study of Pirelli realestate (Salvemini and Sommuaruga, 2007), it is clear to see that there aresignificant structural problems. There are said to be inefficiencies within theorganisational structure due to ‘acquisitions made in the past year’. Within thiscase study, the HR office have stated several issues with the organisationalstructure including ‘little communication, vague corporate strategies and vaguegoals’.
They currently operate in a matrix structure in which there are 7different staff functions and 6 companies offering real estate services. Matrixstructures are complex and the emphasis on group decision making can lengthenthe response to overall organisational change, however they can be beneficial becausethere is increased flexibility and individual teams can monitor their ownenvironments and potentially adapt to change quicker individually (Senior andFleming, 2006: pg. 97). Structural change can potentiallyhappen overnight however there would be a longer period after in whichemployees adapt to the change, (Beech and Macintosh, 2012: pg. 20).Communication for the reason upon which the change is taking place is necessaryas employees could potentially be ambiguous.
Structural change could thereforecreate a VUCA environment in which the business environment becomes Volatile,Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (Casey, no date). Here is where the changeleader would benefit from the previously mentioned model as the different formsof emerging and planned change that could potentially take place within structuralchange are communicated and a plan is created to control them. When reviewing structural change interms of planned and emergent, it is clear to understand that this form ofchange can be a mixture of both. The structural change could be planned butconsidering the fast speed of change, there is a large uncertainty thateverything will run smoothly.
This therefore means that emerging change willinevitably arise throughout the change form. This form of change willdefinitely require different actions than a change which is small scale and relativelyslow such as behavioural change within an organisation. Within this, therewould be a chance to create plans and address the situation with goals andtargets of creating a stimulating environment for employees to develop newskills and ways of behaving whereas structural change would need to completelychange the business and would therefore need completely different actions.
Conclusion: Having reviewed both of the planned andemergent aspects within the statement it is clear to see that change does takedifferent forms and does require different types of action. A counterbalancingpoint to this is that although change does take different forms, it doesn’t alwaysrequire different types of actions. This could be argued through the use ofmodels. As some models can be used for multiple cases that have been describedpreviously. For example, the case of Pirelli real estate could benefit fromusing the lewins 3 step model yet it has different internal changes to Serpenterprises.
Another model that could benefit all three cases is TROPICS althoughnot stated in each. This could therefore suggest the actions taken towards thechange could be similar if not the same. The overall conclusion that thestatement is correct is supported by Senior & Fleming (2005: pg. 65) in thatthey stated, “not only are there different types of change, which manifestthemselves in different organisations, change also appears at different levelsof an organisation and in its functions”. The aspects of change that have beenreviewed allow an in-depth review of the statement as the forms of changeprovide different models and different outcomes. Organisational structuralchange will not be introduced when using actions that would be put in place fora small change situation such as a small internal technological change as theform of change is completely different.
Strebel (1996) as cited by Senior (2006: pg. 57) stated that ‘change leaders cannot afford the risk ofblindly applying a standard change recipe and hope it will work. Successfulchange happens on a path that is appropriate for the situation’. Some may beplanned to begin with and face emerging problems along the course of thechange. Change is present in all organisations due to cultural change, peoplechange, technological change and many more forms. Having a comprehensiveunderstanding of the different forms of change whether planned or emergent, allowsthe statement to come to life and the issues raised within are understood thatalthough change does come in planned and emergent forms, sometimes these twotypes will inevitably have to co-exist in some organisational changesituations.
Although some models and forms may have similar actions andresponses, generally there are different types of action for each.
