Relevant Organisational Change Management Models and Theories - Coursework Example

Managing Personal and Organisational Changes Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 A Critical Analysis and Evaluation on the Nature ofthe Changes, Difficulties and Opportunities Facing the Higher Education Institutions Using Relevant Organisational Change Management Models and Theories 4 Identifying and Evaluating the Barriers to Change and Suggesting Ways for Dealing with Any Complex Situation 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 9 References 11 Introduction The notion of organisational change today has emerged as a major concern and commonly attributed challenge within organisations and institutions operating a wide ranging field of operations. In the past decade, such change applications were noted and theorised mainly within the context of business organisations that has recently expanded, taking into account the higher educational institutions into its periphery. To be noted in this context, with the changing demographics and political features in the world economy, the trend of receiving education and the demand for the same has also changed to a substantial extent. As a consequence, higher education institutions are today pressurised to follow an unconventional way of pedagogy approach and compete at the international level, as the desire and intention of the students to gain a global career opportunity increases in the 21st century societal context. This in turn has substantially increased the competition level faced by higher education institutions; whereby, political bodies have also been taking requisite measures in this particular sector to augment the level of competition (Coughlan, 2013). Therefore, adoption of change, under such circumstances, becomes quite crucial for higher education institutions around the world. In order to gain a better understanding of this context, emphasising the change needs in higher educational institutions, this essay will aim at applying relevant change management theories and models to evaluate and explain the nature of the required changes in the sector and its implications as opportunities and difficulties. Accordingly, the barriers to the adoption of required changes have been evaluated followed by suggestions to deal with similar complex situations in the change management process. Based on the findings, inferences have been drawn along with specific recommendations to the steps that university leaders can take while applying the change. A Critical Analysis and Evaluation on the Nature of the Changes, Difficulties and Opportunities Facing the Higher Education Institutions Using Relevant Organisational Change Management Models and Theories In the 21st century context, managing organisational change is accounted as a common challenge faced by industry leaders. As by Waddell & Sohal (1998), organisational change management is considered as a major challenge in 21st century organisational management, fundamentally owing to the functioning of two pivotal factors; one is the involvement of multiple change driving forces and the other is the influenced caused by retraining factors. In agreement to this notion of change management, By (2005) and McMurray & et. al. (2010) had argued that resistance to change is a common phenomenon that causes massive hindrances in applying change management strategies. This particular change management theory can be well assessed applying the Lewin’s Force Field Analysis model in the context of higher education sector. According to this model, change can be managed efficiently with the accurate identification of ‘driving forces’ and ‘restraining forces’. While the driving forces implies those factors that influence and causes change in the organisational context, restraining forces tend to work as an obstruction or barrier to change enforcement (Hunt & et. al., 2006). When applying the Lewin’s Force Field Analysis model in the higher education sector, the driving forces can be identified in terms of job market alterations, business context changes, political changes and other societal changes that have been triggering the need for change adoption in the education sector as well. As argued in Collis (n.d.), education sectors, traditionally were negligibly focused on the institutional profitability aspects and acted as a change drivers within the society. However, in the modern era, with the increasing number of higher education institutions, these organisations have grown a greater need to procure resources and differentiate themselves from other similar institutions to gain competitive advantages in terms of profitability that can further enrich their sustainability to a substantial extent. Changes in these sectoral elements have further acted as a major change driver in this industry (Collis, n.d.). Again, Willems & Willems (2011) affirmed that in the recent years, demands for skilled employees, who are able to compete in the global context have increased, simultaneously giving rise to educational tourism. As a consequence, higher education institutions today have to witness a wider variety of pupils registering themselves in the curriculum to obtain better job prospects in their future career. Such migration trends, mostly observed to be channelled from eastern hemisphere of the world to the western countries, also forced political parties (replicating the political strategies attempted to channelise change within the higher education sector) to apply policy measures focused on developing the quality features of the education system to suffice the growing demands and accordingly, obtain a distinctive positioning in the global realm with the virtues of the national education system. In this regard, the examples of Australian secondary schools (Willems & Willems, 2011) and the Universities in the UK (BBC, 2011) shall be noteworthy. In addition, the recent societal progress, based on globalisation trends and rapid technology advancements, have also acted as a major driving force in the higher education sector of the world (Eggins, n.d.). On the other hand, the restraining forces in this particular sector can be identified in terms of cultural diversity issues. To be noted, there are many cultures around the world that sets limit to education on the basis of gender or racial discriminations. In this context, the conventional idealism of traditional learning approaches and the significance of educational institutions as a non-profit and non-rivalry segment of the economy often overpower the change implementation needs in the organisational plethora (Collis, n.d.). Educating staff members, i.e. teachers and bringing a change in the managerial level of higher education sector can also be argued as a major change restraining factor currently persisting in the sector (Parchoma, 2006; Dill & Teixeira, 2000). These factors can also be evidently assessed with the help of the McKinsey’s 7S model, which elaborates that change drivers and change restrains can be classified into two segments, i.e. Hard Ss and Soft Ss. As per this model, the Hard Ss i.e. strategy, structure and systems are the major change restrains that any organisation needs to face when applying change. Accordingly, the Soft Ss constitute of shared values, staff, style and skills that can be changed comparatively effortlessly, with the imposition of policy measures and well-structures strategies (Hanafizadeh & Ravasan, 2011). As argued by Dill & Teixeira (2000), diversity needs currently observed in the higher education sector demands changes in the structure, strategy and systems implemented in this sector, which are often affirmed as a major challenging factor altogether in the change management process required to be focused in this industry. However, contrary to the 7S model, the higher education sector reveals that managing staff and training them to practice change is also a major challenge, which implies that 4Ss from the 7Ss framework contribute the hard Ss in this industry periphery, viz. strategy, structure, systems and staff (Dill & Teixeira, 2000). Identifying and Evaluating the Barriers to Change and Suggesting Ways for Dealing with Any Complex Situation In today’s undefined industrial structure, where change is considered to be unavoidable, application of a defined normative behaviour to manage change is disregarded as an effective mechanism. Hence, every new paradigm of change identified in the organisational context mandates an innovative approach to be taken in change management, considering the situations context and organisational strengths as well as weaknesses. According to the Modell (2003), it is due to this reason that many firms have attempted to anticipate or respond to the changes through unconventional strategies like radical redesigning, which involves the changing of the organisation culture. Arguably, it is this particular change implementation need that raises considerable challenges for organisational leaders in the current scenario of the higher education institutions, as these institutions tend to be based on conventional structure, systems and pedagogy strategies in majority instances (Alas, 2007; Dill & Teixeira, 2000). A major factor affecting or rather barricading changes to be implemented in the organisational culture in the higher education institutions relate to the personal skills, values and norms of these organisations. According to the Hultman (1995) the personal factors to change are revealed in two dimensions: active resistance and passive resistance. Active resistance factors involve behaviours are mostly influenced with selective use of facts, perceived interferences and igniting rumours, which make staff in the higher education sector resistant to change (Brown & Humphreys, 2006). Suggestively, understanding these variables with accuracy shall be helpful for the organisations to forecast complex situations and the change implementation needs, which will further aid to the better management of change in the organisation. On the contrary, passive resistance involves behaviours such as supporting a change but failing to instrument it and withholding information that can disrupt change implementation (Modell, 2003). According to Outram (2004), such resistant or non-resistant behaviour among staff members are difficult to recognise and solve as this type of behaviours often involve ego and other personal negotiating traits of the participants that may result in conflicts and therefore, may result in the overall failure of the change implementation plan. With reference to the research conducted by Gilley & et. al. (2009), resistance to change can occur because of the strong immune system armoured by the organisation as apparently observed in higher education institutions, especially those built in the traditional period and following the modern way of defined change management program (Modell, 2003). This implies that organisational history can also be a barrier to the change and raise complex situations in applying the same in the institutional strategic process on a continuous basis (Brunninge, 2009). One of the biggest threats that the higher education sector is facing currently is the threat of unpredictable global revolution, as apparent in the context of the UK universities (BBC, 2011). For instance, in the UK, the rise in the number of the online universities (following an unconventional way of operations) welcomed the increased competition between the private universities (following a traditional approach to education). As a consequence, although the post-modern higher education institutions are readily able to accept the change driving forces, the traditional institutions are facing the challenges of resistant forces (BBC, 2011). Under such circumstances, it is suggestible to these institutions that they should be focused on initially learning about the change demanded in the industrial context rather than opting for change implementation at the very first instance. It is worth mentioning in this context that change management in higher educational institutions need to be a systematic process where these organisations should initially focus on identifying the change drivers and the change restraints to be managed accordingly when implementing the change. Correspondingly, a continuous review of the change management process will be necessary in order to ensure effective implementation of the change process. These strategic measures will certainly help the organisations to forecast change implementation needs and keep a continuous check on the influencing factors, which will further prove to be of great assistance in foreseeing complex situations during the change management process (Hunt & et. al., 2006). Conclusions and Recommendations Higher education has made significant contribution towards economic development, social progress, political democracy and reducing the illiteracy rate to stabilise the overall economic prosperity in the long run. In the similar context, these variables have also been influencing the education system and the structure of higher education institutions, acting as driving forces of change in this particular sector. Apparently, change implementation becomes a necessary but challenging task for the higher education institutions. Correspondingly, two major elements should be taken into consideration while planning for implementing change in higher education institutions. In the foremost, due measures need to be taken to ignite change in the academic culture of these institutions in general and faculty culture in particular. Due attention must also be delivered in managing change within the governance structure of the higher education institutions aiming at implementing change. It is arguable in this context that in-depth understanding of the roles of the culture and government is crucial for implementing and executing successful change policies (Hunt & et. al., 2006). Additionally, universities and individual units should be created in higher educational institutions to facilitate a communication outline with an intention to improve their knowledge about change initiatives and their ultimate objective so as to eradicate the restraining factors associated with the change management process (Modell, 2003). Correspondingly, a centralised change management team or functional group should be created to coordinate and handle all the controlling resources and strategies being practiced in lieu to the change management process being implemented in the higher education sector. It is also essential to provide visibility to all the levels of the educational organisations. Similarly, change management thoughts and procedures should be introduced and a provision of training should be made available for departments and centre heads to manage change in the most systematic and controlled manner to accomplish the determined objectives with efficiency (Hunt & et. al., 2006). References Alas, R. 2007. Reactions to Organizational Change from the Institutional Perspective: The Case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 19-31. BBC, 2011. University Changes: Threat or Opportunity? Education. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13951020 [Accessed December 10, 2013]. Brown, A. D. & Humphreys, M., 2006. Organizational Identity and Place: A Discursive Exploration of Hegemony and Resistance. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 231-257. Brunninge, O., 2009. Using History in Organizations: How Managers Make Purposeful Reference to History in Strategy Processes. Journal of Organzational Change Management. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 8-26. By, T. R., 2005. Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 369–380. Collis, D., No Date. When Industries Change: Scenarios for Higher Education. Chapter Three, pp. 47-70. Coughlan, S., 2013. UK Universities Face Online Threat. BBC News Education Correspondent. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21670959 [Accessed December 10, 2013]. Dill, D. D. & Teixeira, P., 2000. Program Diversity in Higher Education: An Economic Perspective. Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13, pp. 99 - 117. Eggins, H., No Date. Globalization and Reform: Necessary Conjunctions in Higher Education. McGraw Hill, pp. 1-8. Gilley, A. & et. al. 2009. Change, Resistance, and the Organizational Immune System. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 4-10. Hanafizadeh, P. & Ravasan, A. Z., 2011. A McKinsey 7S Model-Based Framework for ERP Readiness Assessment. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 23-63, Hultman, K. E. & et. al. 1995. Scaling the Wall of Resistance. Training and Development, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 15-18. Hunt, L. & et. al., 2006. The Realities of Change in Higher Education: Interventions to Promote Learning and Teaching. Routledge. McMurray, A. & et. al., 2010. Implementing Bedside Handover: Strategies for Change Management. Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 19, pp. 2580-2589. Modell, S., 2003. Goals versus Institutions: The Development of Performance Measurement in the Swedish University Sector. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14, pp. 333–359. Outram, S., 2004. 53 Interesting Ways in Which Colleagues Resist Change. Staff and Educational Development Association Ltd, Iss. 5.2. Parchoma, G., 2006. A Proposed e-Learning Policy Field for the Academy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 230-240. Willems, E. & Willems, J., 2011. Interactive White (Board) Elephants: A Case of Change Mismanagement. Proceedings Ascilite 2011 Hobart: Concise Paper, pp. 1298-1304. Waddell, D. & Sohal, A. S., 1998. Resistance: A Constructive Tool for Change Management. Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 543–548. Read More