Change Management

Change is constant in the world. Very little stays as it is for long. This is true in the workplace as well. Any manager who becomes too comfortable with the way things are stands the risk of being left behind. The Bible even notes in I Corinthians 10:12 “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Sometimes change can come gradually but others times it can become necessary quickly.

Not surprisingly, a lot has been written on this topic in scholarly literature. A search of the database WilsonSelect in October 2006 returns 400 hits on the search phrase “change management and leadership.” While not all deal directly with the idea of change management in the workforce, most do.

There are a variety of issues evident in this literature. Three themes in particular stand out. These include the importance of change, risk taking, and change management models. All three of these issues will be examined through the theoretical framework of contingency (middle range) theory. This theory holds that management is relative to the situation at hand and is not fixed. It also postulates that the manager must be reactive and come to correct decisions based on environmental scanning.

Importance of Change

Many people are resistant to change. Sometimes, this resistance is justified. Why change just for the sake of changing? However, in many cases change is a necessity. Many authors have written on this topic helping leaders and their subordinates understand how important change is for any organization.

Black and Gregersen (2003) wrote that leaders fail to initiate change because they fail to see the need, they feel to act when they do see the need, or they fail to finish the change. They further wrote that leaders who fail to implement needed change would bring disaster to their organizations. Hence, leaders need to recognize the need for change, find a way to change, and then carry the change process through to completion.

Inertia is one reason why change is necessary. Harari (1995) noted that managers often recognize that change is imperative to the organization’s future yet the status quo remains. Two impediments to change are managers who tolerate mediocrity. Mediocrity can work its way through every part of the organization leading to a state of inertia. The result can mean no change within the organization or instead a burst of activity that satisfies managers' need to do something, but fails to actually change anything.

Harari (1995) wrote, “Breakthroughs begin when we as leaders accept the fact that good intentions are not enough. Let's also accept that simply pouring money into this quarter's reorganization or business fad will not yield the results we seek, either. The primary challenge before us is to confront the basic impediments to real change, which means ousting both cultures of mediocrity and obsessions with the quick fix. This demands a new type of leadership role, a new set of decision rules, and a new perspective on dealing with employees” (p. 32).

Both Black and Gregersen (2003) and Harari (1995) can be understood from the concept of contingency theory. Being able to identify the need to change and do something about and being able to combat inertia require a skilled manager who changes his approach based on ever changing circumstances. Environmental scanning is probably going to be the only way many managers have to sense an urgency for change.

Risk Taking

Successful managers usually have to take risks in the course of their careers. Almost all organizations have to take chances in order to survive at some point. As risk taking is a form of change management, it is not surprising that risk taking also is feared by many in organizations.

Ramsey (2004) wrote that managers must decide whether to choose and define their own risks or simply be victims of the random risks that that the business world presents at every turn. He argued that good managers favor being proactive by deciding for themselves when to risk, where to risk, and what to risk. Responsible risk-taking implies taking carefully calculated chances and being willing to get out of the comfort zone to accomplish worthwhile goals. Since change is inevitable, the manager must decide when the right moment is to take chances.

The role of the manager is deciding when to take risks is also evident in Tracy (2003). He wrote that managers must take the right risks for the right reasons in pursuit of the right goals. Managers who are successful in business carefully calculate every possible risk, think about what they would do should a particular situation happen, and they also have a backup plan. In addition, they minimize risk by continually questioning assumptions and asking themselves what they would do in the event of unanticipated developments. Tracy also identified five types of risk that people face and advice on how to assess risk levels.

Tracy (2003) wrote, “So why would any sensible supervisor risk risk-taking? The easy answer is they have no choice. We all know change is the unchanging condition of business leadership. And every change involves some risk. The question for managers and supervisors is whether to choose and define their own risks or simply be a passive victim of the random risks life in the business world presents at every turn” (p. 41).

People have different ways of approaching risk taking according to Hyatt (2001). Tolerance for risk appears to be a stable personality aspect that impacts everyone and their daily decision making in various ways. Low risk tolerance in a person tends to go along with worrying and pessimism. People like this tend to live very carefully. People with high risk tolerance though feel open and act freely. They seek change and novelty and like to live on the edge. Hyatt argued that since life is unpredictable everyone has to take risks anyway. No one group can be classified as risk-takers but some may be better at handling it than others.

Hyatt (2001) is a good reminder that a manager needs to be flexible when assessing situations. As people have different preferences towards risk-taking, the manager will need to keep the potential of different responses to risk-taking in mind. The contingency approach would defiantly be useful here.

Change Management Models

Once a manager accepts change, the question then becomes how to initiate the change process. How is this done? There are a variety of models that have been written that can be applied to this. As every organization is different, it is important for managers to pick the one model (or aspects of different models) which would best work for their organizations.

One of the most recent change models being advocated recently is Kotter and Cohen (2002). In their book The Heart of Change, the authors argue for an eight step approach to change. Steps include increasing urgency, building the guiding team, getting the vision right, communicating for buy-in, empowering action, creating short-term wins, not letting up, and making the changes stick.

Schafer (2004) wrote that some managers should consider creating their own change model based on their own organizations. He argued that although managers can adopt change ideas that have worked elsewhere, change is most successful when managers create their own change model through experimentation. He gave an example of this with a change model that was designed and implemented by Eagle Star Insurance. Schafer’s approach is very contingency theory based putting the impetus for designing the change model with the manager based on the manager’s judgment of the organization.

Wrote Schafer (2004), “For decades, CEOs have been looking for the holy grail of corporate transformation. Management consultants and academics have been working overtime to supply the answer. They haven't succeeded, however, because the search is a futile one. Every organization is unique. Leaders can adopt ideas that have worked elsewhere, but they need to create their own one-of-a-kind change model through experimentation, learning, blueprint creation, and, most of all, a strong focus on results” (p. 33)

Huggett (1999) wrote about the strategic management of organizational change in the face of organizational resistance. He argued that the key to achieving meaningful change in an organization is to align every thought, action, and behavior with the clearly defined and communicated vision. While not a cure-all for change resistance, it can help to ease many resisters through the process.

All three of the change model approaches require flexibility from the manager. He must have a good grasp of his organization and use this knowledge to pick the best path. Blindly following any model could get the manager in trouble but using what will work can often help lead to successful change management.

Conclusion

Change management is a large issue that will impact most organizations. It is a multi-faceted issue with many important sub aspects which include the importance of change, risk taking, and adopting change models. As contingency theory would predict, these issues require a manager to be flexible and engage in extensive environmental scanning to pick the best course of action.

References

Black, J and Gregersen, H. (2003). Leading strategic change: Breaking through the brain barrier. New York: Prentice Hall.

Harari, O. (1995). Why don't things change? Management review 84, 30-2.

Huggett, J. (1999). When culture resists change. Quality progress 32(3), 35-9

Hyatt, R. (2001). The art of healthy risk-taking. USA today 130(2676), 52-4.

Kotter, J. P. & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Ramsey, R. (2004). Responsible risk-taking for supervisors. Supervision 65(1), 3-4.

Schafer, R. (2004). Build your own change model. Business horizons 47(3), 33-8

Tracy, B. (2003) Taking smart risks. National public accountant (September), 41-2.

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome. My latest paper I had to write for the doctoral program is done. I have placed it online. It deals with Marcus Aurelius and his leadership skills. It is written a bit awkwardly due to requirements for the class as this assignment required us to incorporate elements from eight different courses to help prepare for the comp exams. However, from past experience, I know the Google spiders will find it and people will actually read this so here it is.

In the abstract I write, "Marcus Aurelius was the Emperor of the Roman Empire from 161 AD to 180 AD. He was also a noted philosopher. Historians generally consider him to have been one of the greatest Roman Emperors. It is easy to see why. There are many aspects of his leadership which demonstrate his management skills. These include his ability to navigate ethics, his understanding of the culture of the Roman Empire, his ability to manage the organization of the Roman bureaucracies, his success in introducing change, his capability to set policy, and his cleverness in problem solving. This paper will look at examples from all of these areas as well as provide an overview of his life and his philosophical beliefs. The book Marcus Aurelius: A Biography (2000) by Anthony R. Birley will be used to illustrate some points."

I think Roman history is definetly a good places to look for models of good leadership (and bad)! I hope to emmulate Marcus Aurelius more and hope to never approach leadership from the point of view of Commodus (or Nero).

Change in Schools

I read yet another K-12 article which challenged my thinking skills. It is: Sparks, D. (2001). Why change is so challenging for schools. Interview with P.M. Senge. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 42-7.

It is a rambling and all over the place interview with Peter M. Senge. It was written after the publication of Schools That Learn.

This article needed some good editing. There are just too many tangents and new areas of emphasis to allow the reader to absorb most of the material. I would have recommended a five part series which would have emphasized different aspects of the interview in easier to chunk and absorb segments.

A couple of reactions:

1. Senge lists five assumptions about learning which are wrong. One that caught my eye is, "Everyone learns, or should learn, in the same way" (p. 44).

I know from my teaching in the library that this is not true. Some students learn best by lecture. Some learn best by active learning. Some only learn when they have an assignment in hand and are forced to ask for help at the Reference Desk. I try to mix my teaching style up. (Although I am biased towards active learning. See http://www.libraryinstruction.com/active.html for details.)

2. Senge lists four assumptions about schools. One is that "Schools communicate the truth" (p. 45).

Dear God, how I rage against this. I am always (in class and the Reference Desk) challenging students about what they think is true. I do this in a way that makes them think harder about an issue in ways they haven't before. I can and do play the devil's advocate for both right and left wing view points. (Which confuses students when they see me take differing views on the same topic in the same class. Although I will never take an anti-American point of view on anything. I have my limits.)

Teachers and librarians are not just fountains of knowledge who open up the heads of students and transfer what we know. This is just one aspect of what we do. The main goal is to make the student compentent thinkers who can speak and write coherently because they are knowledgable, they know how to rationally think about an issue, and they know how to look up reliable information.

Drucker, Change Leaders, Inc. v. 21 no8 (June 1999) p. 64-6+

Drucker, Change Leaders, Inc. v. 21 no8 (June 1999) p. 64-6+. This is an article by the great Peter Drucker. I must say that I am less than impressed.

What he writes sounds good. But I think it is muddied. It is hard to grasp points clearly other than that change will happen and that change is good.

OK, I agree with those ideas. But how do I do it? He gives somes suggestions but they are less than clear. I think this is due to the fact that is an abridgment of the Third Chapter of Management Challenges of the 21st Century. I should go and read the unabridged version when I actually have free time...)

I do adamantly disagree with one of his central points. Drucker writes, "You can't manage change. You can only try to stay ahead of it. To embrace tomorrow one must first abandon today" (p. 78).No, and as wrong as one can be. Change can be managed in some circumstances. I have done it. Further, one must not forget and ignore the past when moving forward. The past matters...

Shiyali Ramamrita is an Indian librarian who is also one of the biggest philosophers in library science. His five laws of library science are considered sacred by the majority of the library profession. These are 1. Books are for use. 2. Every reader, his book. 3. Every book, its reader. 4. Save the time of the reader. and 5. A library is a growing organism.

He wrote this in 1963. Even though technological changes have meant that books should be translated more liberally to mean information (Web, books, microformats, etc.), I think these rules still apply. I will not abandon the traditions of the library profesion. I will only find new and novel ways to make these rules more applicable today.

The Heart of Change: Julius Caesar and the End of the Roman Republic

The Heart of Change: Julius Caesar and the End of the Roman Republic. I have put up another paper at michaellorenzen.com. This is yet another product of the doctoral program I am currently in. I normally write about library issues but I felt I needed a change of pace. This paper was written for a class on organizational change.

I am not a historian. As such, my historical analysis may be weak. Despite that, I hope some may find this of interest when they come upon it surfing the Web. I have applied the change model of Kotter and Cohen as they present in the book Heart of Change used it to explain the actions of Julius Caesar in the last days of the Roman Republic.

From the site:

Before examining the historical events that occurred to the Roman Republic, it is important to understand the mindset of the Roman people. They did not like change. In fact, they were quite resistant to the idea. Wrote Holland (2003), “Novelty, to the Citizen’s of the Republic, had sinister connotations. Pragmatics as they were, they might accept innovation if it was dressed up as the will of the gods or an ancient costume, but never for its own sake” (p. 4).

That is not to say the Romans rejected all change. However, they were very conservative about it. Holland (2003) further wrote, “Conservative and flexible in equal measures, the Romans kept what worked, adapted what had failed, and preserved as sacred lumber what had become redundant. The Republic was both a building site and a junkyard” (p. 4). This is a key concept when contemplating the actions of Julius Caesar as he brought about the end of the Republic. The government of the Roman Republic had lasted almost five hundred years (half a millennium!) despite wars, constitutional crisis, and territorial expansion. This is twice the length of time of the history of the United States of America today. During this time, the government of the Roman Republic changed very little. As such, the change process initiated by Caesar has to rank amongst some of the most significant of all change sequences in history.

Some Thoughts on Black and Gregersen

Some Thoughts on Black and Gregersen - As I read Black and Gregersen in Leading Strategic Change: Breaking through the Brain Barrier, I can't help but think of another book. The underlying philosophy of Conceive, Believe and Achieve is very similar to that of Napoleon Hill in his work Think and Grow Rich.

Hill wrote, "Truly 'thoughts are things', and powerful things at that, when they are mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence, and a burning desire for their translation into riches, and other material objects."

While Hill was talking about making the changes necessary to get rich, Black and Gregersen are discussing the same approach to building better schools.

I have used Hill's philosophy to make life easier for my family. It is nice to see the same philosophy applied to education. Clearly, this can be applied there. Perhaps I have been applying this strategy in the library without realizing it? It really is hard to separate different aspects of life and I am sure I take some of the same approaches I use for my personal life and apply it at work.

Leading in a Culture of Change

Leading in a Culture of Change. I just finished reading this book by Michael Fullan. To begin, let me note that I don't like the writing style. His writing was fine but it just wasn't readable to me. I had to work hard at the text.

For example, the first chapter deals with moral purpose. He throws in a lot of quotes and stories and explains why moral purpose is important. However, at no point could I find a simple summary of what moral purpose is and how exactly a change leader would use it. Fullan wrote on page 28, "The most fundamental conclusion of this chapter is that moral purpose and sustained performance of organizations are mutually dependent. " Great! Now, how do I as a leader grab moral purpose and use it?

Fullan describes moral purpose as both ends and means (p. 13), a human evolutionary strategy (p. 14, 15), and as a moral principle (p. 15). He lists a five step process for using moral purpose but it is less than satisfying. For example, third step is "Pluralistic motives abound. The government wants to be reelected, and leaders may get a lot of personal gratification if it is successful, and their careers may be enhanced, and their is an explicit measurable purpose." Say again? How would I use this point in my organization?

I don't mean to be cranky but I spent more time on reading (and digesting) this book than I wanted. Fullan is a good idea guy but don't expect a blueprint that will help you change your library or school.

Heart of Change

Heart of Change. I just read Heart of Change by Kotter and Cohen. The book details a plan plan for how to successfully implement change in an organization. I found it to be easy and informative reading. The writing style is approachable and the authors have done a good job of varying examples to illustrate the concepts they are explaining.

The book gives some general directions on how to use the material presented. It also shows the 8 stages of the change model that the authors are advocating for with a detailed explanation of each.

My initial thoughts about the change model are positive. I can clearly see how this can work. Further, I can use this model as I think back to change I have been involved with or have read about. I think a process like this was used very successfully at my first "real" library job where the small campus library was completely reorganized with the supervisory chain of command being altererd and staff being shifted into new roles. I can also see how a model like this can help to explain historical events. For example, I am sure that this model could be used to explain changes in the British Army after their defeat by the Zulus at Isandlwana to the ability later in the same year to inflict a crushing defeat on the Zulus.

While the book is positive, I can also see a "dark" side to this model. Change can be bad. Not all change is good. All 8 of the steps advocated by Kotter and Cohen can be seen in the successful takeover of the Weimar Republic of Germany to that of the Nazi state. I could use the same steps to introduce "evil" in the library too. :]

All in all, this is a good book that anyone contemplating introducing change should read. I think most librarians are in this situation on a regular basis and this might be a good addition to your office book shelf.

Library Support Staff in an Age of Change: Utilization, Role Definition and Status. ERIC Digest. I recently worked on an unsuccessful proposal for a presentation for the LOEX Conference this year. It was titled, "The Use of Support Staff in Library Instruction." While I am not surprised the proposal was not selected (many of my library instruction colleagues resist using support staff for library instruction roles), I was disappointed. The roles of support staff in libraries are continuing to evolve and instruction is just one area that papaprofessionals are actively assisting librarians in.

From the article:

THE EMERGENCE OF THE PARAPROFESSIONAL

Over the past twenty or more years, automation of library processes, declining budgets, contraction of higher education generally, and entry into the electronic information age have changed libraries. New library tasks have been created and others realigned. This redistribution of the library workload has given rise to a new category of employee, the paraprofessional. Driven largely by forces from outside the profession, the emergence of a paraprofessional category of library employment has been largely uninhibited by associational policy or guidelines.

THE ROLE OF THE PARAPROFESSIONAL

In a recent survey of their role, status, and working conditions, Oberg (1992) found that paraprofessionals constitute a vital, growing force within our libraries. Few traditional or newly created tasks are off-limits, and paraprofessionals are assigned complex duties that a generation ago characterized the work of librarians. Today, paraprofessionals administer major functional areas of our libraries, are assigned reference and information desk duties, perform a variety of systems work, and catalog most of the books that are added to our collections.

Paraprofessionals have had a dramatic impact upon technical services. In the brief period since the advent of the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), they have come to dominate this workforce. A similar increase in the utilization of support staff may be occurring in public services as well. A movement toward tiered (or differentiated) reference service, and a past record of successful performance at reference and information desks is ensuring paraprofessionals a larger role in the direct provision of information. In a number of libraries, they have already assumed primary responsibility for basic reference. Full article at http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-1/support.htm.