Not Developing a Great Enough Sense of Urgency
Over the past decade, many companies have tried to remake themselves into significantly better competitors. Ford, General Motors, British Airways, Eastern Airlines … Their efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, right sizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnaround. But, in almost every case, the basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment.
A few of these corporate change efforts have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. The lessons that can be drawn are interesting and will probably be relevant to even more organizations in the increasingly competitive business environment of the coming decade. The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time. Skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. A second very general lesson is that critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains. Perhaps because we have relatively little experience in renewing organizations, even very capable people often make at least one big error.
Disucs why transformation efforts fail.
Leaders who successfully transform the business do different right things and also do it in the right order. There are several small and large organizations which try to remake themselves among the competitors. These efforts made by the organization due to different reason such as re-engineering, restructuring, cultural change, Total quality management, turnaround and rightsizing. However, the basic goal of the organization has been same in almost every case. The goal is to make basic changes in how organization deals to cope with new and more challenging market environment. Certain corporate change efforts have been successful however certain are fail (Hayes and John).
There is a large number of transformation fails due to the lower end of the scale. The lesson to be learned from the successful cases is that the change procedure goes through the series of phases but it usually requires a huge amount of time. Furthermore, skipping step generates the only illusion of speed and never creates a satisfying outcome. A second general lesson is a critical mistake in any of the phases can have an overwhelming impact, opposing enhancement in hard-won and slowing momentum. It is stated that renowned organization makes little fail experience because capable people often make at least one big error. This essay presents the causes of failing transformation efforts. It also demonstrates the Kotter's 8 step change model to identify the main reasons for failure (Doppelt and Bob).
Not Generating Powerful Adequate Guiding Coalition
The first reason for transformation efforts fail is not developing a great enough sense of urgency. The initial step of the change process is required as transformation program started with aggressive co-operation of different individuals. Without encouragement, people cannot support to make efforts in the transformation process. For example, senior management of General Motors may fail due to lack of leaders and a large number of managers. Hence, management should try to decline the risk and keep the current operating system. A change requires developing a new system as there is always demand for effective leadership. Phase one is a renewable procedure that typically goes where enough real leaders are endorsed and recruited into senior-level jobs (Cameron, Esther and Mike Green).
Another reason for transformation fail is not generating powerful adequate guiding coalition. Corporations can fail in this phase due to underestimating the complexities of making change and significance of powerful guiding coalition. Efforts that do not have effective guiding alliance cannot make visible progress. But, the opposition may gather itself together and stops the alteration (Kuipers et al. 1-20).
Lacking a vision is another cause of transformation fail. In every successful change, the guiding alliance builds an image of future that is relatively easy to interact and appeal with stakeholders, workforces, and customers. A vision defines something that aids to clarify the way by which a corporation needs to progress. Without rationale vision, transformation efforts could easily resolve into the list of confusing and unsuited projects. It can also move the corporation in the wrong direction. The company may fail in transformation due to no vision and abundance of plans, programs, and directives (Lewis et al.).
Lack of communication about vision is another cause of transformation fail. Without realistic communication, the company may not accomplish the goal and objectives. Ineffective transformation efforts, managers use all current communication channels in order to transmit the vision. They shift boring and unread newsletters of the company into lively articles regarding the vision. There are a large number of managers who consider the ‘walks the talk’ strategy at the workplace. The company should intentionally make efforts to develop the new corporate culture. Communication involves both deeds and words as it is effective to make alteration at the workplace. The company cannot change the behaviour of individuals without effective communication (Goetsch, David and Stanley).
The company that does not remove the obstacles to the new vision can fail to make the transformation. Effective transformation entails the high amount of individual in the progress of the procedure. The outcome of change relied on a number of people involved in the process. The only restraint is that the performance should be in extensive limit and overall vision. There is need to remove the obstacles from renewal procedure. The problem is the structure of the organization. There are different worst bosses who refuse to transformation and who make demands that are conflicting with the overall efforts. Effective action is required to empower others and keep the credibility of the transformation efforts as a whole (Lozano et al. 205-215).
Lacking a Vision
The other cause of transformation fail is unsystematic planning and generating short-term wins. The real transformation may take time and renewable efforts may risky to lose energy and creates risk to attain the short terms goals and objectives. There are large numbers of people who give up and energetically connect to those people who have been resisting the transformation. The commitment of attaining short-term objective aids to keep urgency level and force meticulous analytical thinking that can revise or clarify the vision (Voet and Joris 373-382).
It can be evaluated that declaring victory too soon is another cause of transformation fail. After performing hard work, top executives may be tempted to declare success with the first clear performance enhancement. New approaches cannot be developed until changes deeply incorporated into the culture of the company. Leaders make successful efforts to deal with short-term objectives but sometimes it creates the biggest issue because team members resist change in the workplace. For example, a company that has inconsistent system and structures, and vision cannot be succeeding in transformation (Verhulst, Elli and Wim 189-204).
It is also analyzed that company may fail in transformation due to not anchoring changes in the culture of the corporation. Under the final assessment, transformation involves in the corporate environment. Until new behaviour is fixed in shared values and social norms, there is pressure on the company for making a change. There is a large mistake that people make, but the above causes are biggest one. The simple vision of the company is to lead the people via major changes. Thus, the vision of change procedure can decline the error rate (Ceptureanu and Eduard 28-32).
The Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model supports to understand many stages that could be effective to deal with change and obtain a favourable outcome. The initial stage of Kotter’s 8 Step change model could be significant steps because of it aware to the workforces about the requirements and urgency for the change. It needs honest, convincing, and open dialogue. It could lead employees for taking action (Hajri et al.).
It could be attained by taking with them towards potential threats and by discussing possible alternatives. It could create the guiding coalition. It could be a good idea to determine project team as it can occupy the employee to deal with change that organization wants to implement at the working place. It could support to encourage the workforce to support to collaborate with each other (Kansal, Sugandh and Chandani 208-217).
Lack of Communication about Vision
In addition, it is also analyzed that this link is made up of workforces that are working in the diverse position. Moreover, each workforce could be dependent on team and introduce themselves as a team member. Due to the open character, groups could operate as the sounding board that facilitates an open communication. Through the third steps, the organization could create a vision for change (Simoes et al. 324-341).
In this, the company could make a clear vision that helps each employee to comprehend what the company is trying to accomplish within the specified time frame. In the step forth, the organization could communicate the vision to their employees for the attainment of an organizational goal and deal with change. It could also support to create acceptance among workforces (Kansal, Sugandh and Chandani 208-217).
It could be accomplished by talking about vision with workforces at each opportunity that gets by talking their concern, anxieties, and opinion. In step fifth, the organization could remove the obstacles. Before implementing the changes in the working place, it is mediatory for the company to remove obstacles which could weaken the vision.
To increase acceptance of the employee's vision, it supports when their views are entailed and executed in the change procedure. In addition, it is also analyzed that organization should create short-term wins. Moreover, it is also analyzed that nothing can be inspired the employees more than success. It could create short-term goals as it could support to develop clear idea among employees for accomplishing the goal (Muthalagu and Ilayaraja).
Once the employee met their goal they are highly motivated and expand the change. The organization could reward those employees who accept o the change process as it could be effective to inspire other employees. In step seventh, the organization could consolidate improvement. In this, it is analyzed that change is a slow process as it might be determined by the overall corporate culture. Through this step, the organization requires to focus on the improvement (Simoes et al. 324-341).
The last steps depict to change the anchor. A modification will only be part of the company culture if it has become a core part of the company. It is also analyzed that change cannot come from themselves. Employees accepting the change and continue with the new policies of the organization to effectively operate the business. Regularly examination and discussion towards the organization progression could lead to consolidate the change (Muthalagu and Ilayaraja). Conclusion
Not Removing the Obstacles to the New Vision
From the above discussion, it can be summarized that there are different causes of transformation fail. These are not developing a great enough sense of urgency, not generating powerful adequate guiding coalition, lacking a vision, lack of communication about vision, remove the obstacles to the new vision, unsystematic planning and generating short-term wins, declaring victory too soon, and not anchoring changes in the culture of the corporation. It can be summarized that Kotter's change management model should be practiced by an organization to make a transformation in a systematic way and using eight processes. These processes are creating a sense of urgency, create a guiding coalition, create a vision for change, communicate the vision, remove obstacles, create short-term wins, consolidate improvements, and anchor the changes
Cameron, Esther, and Mike Green. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools, and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers, (2015).
Ceptureanu, Eduard Gabriel. "Research regarding change management tools on EU SMEs." Business Excellence and Management Review 5.2 (2015): 28-32.
Doppelt, Bob. Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government, and civil society. Routledge, (2017).
Goetsch, David L., and Stanley B. Davis. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, (2014).
Hajri, Ines, Arda Göknil, and Lionel Briand. "A change management approach in product lines for use-case-driven development and testing." 23rd International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2017). 2017.
Hayes, John. The theory and practice of change management. (2018).
Kansal, Sugandh, and Arti Chandani. "Effective management of change during merger and acquisition." Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014): 208-217.
Kuipers, Ben S., Malcolm Higgs, Walter Kickert, Lars Tummers, Jolien Grandia, and Joris Van der Voet. "The management of change in public organizations: A literature review." Public Administration 92.1 (2014): 1-20.
Lewis, Sarah, Jonathan Passmore, and Stefan Cantore. Appreciative inquiry for change management: Using AI to facilitate organizational development. Kogan Page Publishers, (2016).
Lozano, Rodrigo, Kim Ceulemans, and Carol Scarff Seatter. "Teaching organizational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents." Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015): 205-215.
Matos Marques Simoes, Paula, and Mark Esposito. "Improving change management: How communication nature influences resistance to change." Journal of Management Development 33.4 (2014): 324-341.
Muthalagu, Ilayaraja. "Data Modeling for Engineering Change Management Processes in Engineering Industries." International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology 8.1 (2017).
Van der Voet, Joris. "The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure." European Management Journal 32.3 (2014): 373-382.
Verhulst, Elli, and Wim Lambrechts. "Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective." Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015): 189-204.