Change Management + PMP - Changing the Organization.

For those looking to pass the PMP, and others interested in Change Management concepts, I have broken things down into 3 levels. Individual, Team, and Organizational change. Below is the Organizational change info.

A PMP Perspective on Change: Part 3, The Organization.

The final chapter in my three part series is changing the organization. Similar to changing teams as discussed in part two, the key to organizational change is identifying the type of organization you have initially and styling your change model around this organizational type. As my experience only reaches into organizational change at a project level, I will rely heavily on my education as well as referencing the book, Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change, Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2009). 

This week I will cover briefly, common types of organizations and several change models that are more applicable toward each type. Understanding the type of organization to be transformed is distinctive in allowing one to select a change model during the planning process. The authors have selected Gareth Morgan’s metaphors for identifying four key organizations as follows:

Organizations as Machine - This is the most common type of organization. The machine organization operates on routine processes to accomplish preset results. An employee often answers to one manager and everyone has defined roles and responsibilities. The machine organization functions under normalcy when standards and procedures are followed correctly. Nearly every company I have worked for falls under this type; rules, standards, and hierarchy were the same regardless of team composition or department size. When someone breaks the rules, we hear about how “the machine will break down”. Though change resistance is inherent in this type of organization due to routine, the key to change is in the managers because the machine is guided by authority. Solid planning, good managers, and strong leadership are generally the ingredients to transformation in this type of organization.

Organizations as Political Systems - This type is dubbed by Morgan to describe how this organization is run more as a political system. Based on how operations are occurring in the political system organization one can describe it as anarchy, an autocracy, or a democracy. In this system it is common that “who you know” or “who you are close to” may favor benefits such as promotions and rewards over the standard business structure of a direct supervisor or immediate manager. Essentially, the politics of this company will overrule organizational structure. To initiate change in this organization, one must understand the political relationships and the root of influence. Only by creating new alliances among those that exist and establishing the vision of change with the influential groups can the goals of transformation become accepted by the mass.

Organizations as Organisms -This type of organization is a dynamic and adaptive system that can modify to meet the competing business environment. In short, when business is stable the organizational structure remains fixed, yet if business needs require it, the structure can diversify into more fluid and less structured teams to fill more roles. Though this sounds like the perfect business model, the approach is not practical for most industries. In my industry, six teams of seven bomb technicians would have little to do if my organization decided to anything else besides explosive work. However, a graphic arts firm comprised of three teams with seven people on each team may consolidate and expand team composition for various IT projects due to market demands. Though this type of organization would appear to be flexible to transformation, the change it is customary to is external or outside of its walls. Organizational change will be just as challenging and will require coaching as well as a psychological approach.

Organization as Flux and Transformation -Slightly ambiguous, the authors describe this type as having “organization life that is part of the environment, rather than as distinct from it”. They point out that as most companies adapt to changing business environments, the Flux and Transformation Organization moves along with the ebb and flow of the environment. This organization maintains the ability to self-organize or rejuvenate, more or less an “order out of chaos” analogy. Distinctive about this type is that managers can manipulate progress, but never truly control change within this organization. The authors also illustrate that this type is multi-dimensional with both organizational life and structure. Managing change within this organization type is challenging as those in it view change as a result after an event and await results rather than embrace it. 

Though many more examples and types of organizations exist, these four will be the foundation for this week’s topic. I will now list various change models and theories that target each type in hopes to align the reader with a better and faster reference based on organization type. 

Organizations as Machine-

1.     Kotter’s Eight-Step Model

2.     Lewin’s Three-Step Model

3.     Bullock and Batten’s (1985) Phases of Planned Change

4.     William Bridges Managing Transition

Organizations as Political Systems-

1.     Kotter’s Eight-Step Model

2.     Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model

3.     Colin Carnall Change Management Model

4.     Senge et al: systemic model

5.     Stacey and Shaw the Complex Responsive Processes

Organizations as Organism-

                       1.  Kotter’s Eight-Step Model

2.     Lewin’s Three-Step Model

3.     Beckhard and Harris’ Change Formula

4.     Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model

5.     William Bridges Managing Transition

6.     Colin Carnall Change Management Model

7.     Senge et al: systemic model

Organization as Flux and Transformation-

1.     William Bridges Managing Transition

2.     Senge et al: Systemic Model

3.     Stacey and Shaw the Complex Responsive Processes

The above list is not meant to be comprehensive but instead a quick reference to assist in your research. The most significant change model on the list I have employed in both my education and work experience is Kotter’s Eight-Step Model. I want to point out as the authors do that one significant aspect of failure within this model is the reduction of upper management support over the life cycle of the change. I have witnessed that during the initiation of long processes, everyone above is proactive and supportive. By the end of the long process the support has transformed into delegation to lesser managers. I believe that during a significant event such as organizational change, delegation is not a proper tool. When I have executed change across the project level, I remained vigilant with my managers as we transformed each department. Had any of the managers delegated that change to those below them, I know we would not have been successful.