Change management

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under Change Management [ -ˌmænɪdʒmənt ] (English change management , CM ) all tasks, measures and activities can be summarized that a comprehensive, cross-sector and content far-reaching change - new to implement strategies , structures, systems , processes or behaviors in a - Organization effect should. With the pursuit of changes to products, the addresses change management .

Temporal change in change management

The origin of change management goes back to organizational development in the USA in the 1930s. The scientists Fritz Roethlisberger and Mayo carried out experiments in the Western Electric factories as part of their research to improve performance . They discovered that the observed performance of employees was influenced more by paying attention to employees than by changes in working conditions.

By Kurt Lewin further investigations were carried out in the 1940s. Lewin's (1947, 1958) pioneering theory deals with the phases of change within the framework of organizational theory . While Lewin does not go into the content of individual management steps during a change in his phases, John P. Kotter has identified eight phases of change management. According to Kotter, these phases are a critical part of change management and must be adhered to by every change manager.

Phases of the change process according to Kurt Lewin

Defrosting phase ( unfreezing )

The starting point for the first phase is the insight that expectations no longer correspond to reality. The need for change is slowly emerging as a possibility and old behavior is being questioned. The general goal of this phase is to strengthen and support the forces striving for change and thus to induce an awareness of change. Unfreezing figuratively stands for the thawing of the existing (frozen) equilibrium or the previously reached state, which in turn can also have been caused by a previous change process.

Phase of movement ( moving )

In the second phase, the moving or change phase, solutions are generated, new behaviors are tried out and the problem is solved in sub-projects. The status quo is abandoned and a shifting movement towards a new equilibrium is made.

Freezing phase ( re freezing )

The aim of the third phase, the re-freezing, is the implementation of the solutions found and thus the at least provisional conclusion of the change process. According to Lewin's episode scheme, changes that have been made require stabilization and must be frozen again for permanent integration into the overall system. The new state of equilibrium is supposed to be protected and stabilized from the force of habit. Conclusion: From “new” to “old” in the positive sense of the known, familiar and functioning.

Extension of the phases of the change process

Extension of the phases of the change process

The three phases according to Lewin (unfreezing, moving and refreezing) can be expanded to include three learning and reflection levels: acting, observing and reflecting.

  • Action : A goal is a prerequisite for action (e.g. defining business processes or carrying out a project; merging departments or companies merging; coaching executives; developing teams). The concrete action then depends on the formulated sub-goals or tasks.
  • Observe : The optimization of action is the goal of observation. In order to improve action, this must be observed; this makes differences between target and actual situation clear. From this, not only the next action steps are derived, but in particular the change in the (possibly previously different) planned activities.
  • Reflect : The observation itself should be checked. Only when a person compares their own observation with the observation of others can the person determine to what extent the observations match or differ. However, there is a great risk of misinterpreting a match as "correct". The temptation is particularly evident when the person is (consciously or unconsciously) seeking approval or confirmation. In addition, a match between two observations does not yet confirm that the observed action made sense. The agreement must therefore be checked with regard to the achievement of the target: If the defined target is approached, there is a deviation from it, or there is no relevant effect that there is agreement with regard to the verification of the observations.

In addition, it should be checked continuously whether the originally formulated goal is still valid, or whether a change in the content of the goal is necessary due to the information generated.

The process of change thereby becomes the object of change itself. The contents of the change take a back seat. The control of the change is an iterative feedback process using the information generated from the above three learning and reflection levels.

Phases of the change process according to John P. Kotter

  • Convey a sense of urgency
  • Build a leadership coalition
  • Develop vision and strategy
  • Communicate vision
  • Remove obstacles from the way
  • Make short-term successes visible
  • Drive change further, don't let up
  • Anchoring changes in the (corporate) culture

Organizational framework

This change process was supported - more regularly than today - by so-called change agents in management. These so-called implementation managers were trained in areas relevant to (for change management) such as conflict management, project management, coaching or communication techniques and were exclusively responsible for change projects. In the further development, changes were then supported by so-called change teams .

The skills of change agents are now among the competencies expected of managers. Nevertheless, in practice, external consultants are always called in because they have more distance to the sensitivities of individual participants and superiors can thus be brought out of the "line of fire".

In companies that use the Kaizen principle, it can be observed that the management of change is increasingly diffusing into the daily tasks of managers and employees in everyday business and that change agents or teams are used less often. The transition to process organization since the 1990s has contributed to this , which allows permanent, limited adjustments to be carried out, which often take the place of major restructuring. As a result, the phases of change processes defined by Lewin can hardly be separated; in particular, the state of the freezing of the organization and thus the stabilization of newly learned routines is often no longer achievable.

But even in the case of strategic change (through mergers & acquisitions , development of new strategic business areas , etc.), it is evident that the time requirements for change processes are becoming ever tighter and the pauses between change processes becoming shorter and shorter.

Accompanying change processes

As a "creature of habit", humans are generally skeptical of changes. Changes are associated with uncertainty about the future and can be perceived as dangers and risks . The transformational leadership model is increasingly recommended to overcome these obstacles .

This attitude of people is taken into account in modern project management . Those affected ( stakeholders ) are not only prepared at an early stage for the upcoming changes through comprehensive and appropriate information (" change communication "), but are also increasingly involved in the design of the change ("Ikea principle"). Change management in this sense can include information and training measures. Representatives of change processes meant to be sustainable clearly advocate involving stakeholders as early as possible .

This gives the employees concerned the necessary security in the process. The stronger the security, the greater the willingness to change. If this willingness is not generated, resistance from the workforce can cause the project to fail.

Fast integration is a crucial factor. In the models for change management, depending on the author, several phases are run through: sometimes sequentially, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes iteratively . Sometimes there are three phases, sometimes four, up to twelve phases. These are logical steps and not chronological sequences.

The further development of the bottleneck theory ( theory of constraints ) enables companies to easily and efficiently accompany the seven steps of a change process / project through structured support. The methodical support gives the company the opportunity to make this discipline learnable for the company. This means that changes become improvements and can be reproduced again and again throughout the organization. A company's ability to change is one of the most important success factors today.

Comparison of important approaches

According to the different purposes of change, there are a variety of approaches to change management - the "one-size-fits-all" is a thing of the past. In practice, the main purposes and corresponding approaches are:

purpose approach
Alignment with a (new) strategy Business advice / expert advice
Involvement of those affected Organizational development
Self-stabilization of systems Systemic advice
Probing in complex situations Iterative advice

When these approaches are compared, their different assumptions, success criteria and strengths become clear:

Expert advice Organizational development Systemic advice Iterative advice
Image of the organization as ... ... a causal system ... needs-oriented system ... self-generating system ... complex system
focus (measurable) facts Participation Intrinsic logic negotiation
Typical
procedure		 Analyze structures and processes and optimize them in line with strategy Bringing the initiative and motivation of the employees into a coherent whole Let the organization find / determine the specifics of an organization Planned, flexible preliminary groping along linked purposes, interests and power constellations
Change is successful if ... ... decisions based on rational aspects lead to greater efficiency. ... structures are changed in such a way that they meet the needs of employees. ... the system has found or maintained its own stability. ... ambiguity eliminated, acceptance achieved, effect generated and routine established.
Strength of the approach in ... ... risks in a stable environment ... high employee involvement ... culturally independent units ... uncertainty in complex situations

The advisors (internal and external) entrusted with accompanying change processes rely in most cases on exactly one of these approaches and add instruments from other approaches depending on the advisory situation. The consulting approach of ego development provides an interesting link, which , transferred to an organizational level, grants the development stages of managers as impulse controllers and implementation supporters of change processes a decisive role for the results and the lasting success of organizational transformation.

Criticism of theory and practice

Change management research and practice, in spite of extensive research and experience in recent decades, are still faced with the challenge that many change management projects fail and sometimes lead to strong resistance within the workforce. This problem has been increasingly addressed in the specialist literature for some time: in addition to ontological and conceptual weaknesses, a main problem in practice and theory is the lack of effective concepts for how change managers constructively deal with different ideas about the change process. This not only concerns the question of the extent to which the actors affected by change have different ideas about the goals and means of change, but also whether they want organizational change at all.

See also

literature

  • Dietmar Vahs, Achim Weiand: Workbook Change Management . Stuttgart 2010.
  • Ulrike Baumöl : Change Management in Organizations - situational method construction for flexible change processes. Wiesbaden, 2008, ISBN 978-3-7910-2860-6 .
  • Uwe Böning, Brigitte Fritschle: Change management on the test bench - an interim balance sheet from corporate practice. Freiburg et al. 1997.
  • Michael Berger, Jutta Chalupsky, Frank Hartmann: Change Management - (Sur) life in organizations. 7th edition. Publishing house Dr. Götz Schmidt, Gießen 2013, ISBN 978-3-921313-88-6 .
  • Daryl R. Conner: Managing at the speed of change. Villard Books, New York, 1993, ISBN 0-679-40684-0 .
  • Klaus Doppler , Christoph Lauterburg: Change Management - Shaping corporate change. 13th edition. Campus Verlag, 2014, ISBN 978-3-593-50047-8 .
  • Siegfried Greif , Bernd Runde, Ilka Seeberg: Successes and failures in change management. Göttingen 2004.
  • Joachim Klewes , Ralf Langen (Ed.): Change 2.0 Beyond Organizational Transformation. Springer, 2008, ISBN 978-3-540-77495-2 .
  • John P. Kotter : Chaos, Change, Leadership. ( Leading Change ). Econ-Verlag, 1998, ISBN 3-430-15663-7 .
  • Axel Kaune: Modern organizational development - a concept for the employee-oriented design of change processes. In: Axel Kaune (Ed.): Change Management with Organizational Development - Successfully implementing changes. Berlin 2004, pp. 11–58.
  • Thomas Lauer: Change Management - Basics and Success Factors. Springer Gabler, 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-04339-0 .
  • Arnold Picot , Heino Freudenberg, Winfried Gaßner: Management of reorganizations. Gabler, 1999, ISBN 3-409-11525-0 .
  • Claus Steinle, Bernd Eggers, Friedel Ahlers: Change Management - planning and implementing change processes successfully. Rainer Hampp Verlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-86618-197-7 .

Footnotes

  1. ^ Kurt Lewin: Frontiers in group dynamics. In: Human Relations. 1, 1947, pp. 5-41.
  2. ↑ Michael Berger, Jutta Chalupsky, Frank Hartmann: Change Management - (Survival) Life in Organizations. 2013, pp. 26-27.
  3. ↑ S. Hehn, N. Cornelissen, C. Braun: Cultural change in organizations - A kit for applied psychology in change management. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2016, p. 48ff.
  4. ↑ Torsten Oltmanns , Daniel Nemeyer: Power question change: Why change projects mostly fail at management level and how you can do it better . Campus, Frankfurt am Main 2010, p. 35.
  5. ^ Frank Wippermann: Short Cuts. Walhalla, Regensburg 2012, p. 238.
  6. ^ Manfred Moldaschl: Reflexive organizational advice . In: Stefan Kühl, Manfred Moldaschl (Ed.): Organization and Intervention. Hampp, Mering 2010, pp. 271-301.
  7. ^ D. Rooke, WR Torbert: Organizational Transformation as a function of CEO's developmental stage. In: Organizational Development Journal. 1998, pp. 11-28. pacificintegral.com pdf
  8. ^ Bernard Burnes, Bill Cooke: The Past, Present and Future of Organization Development: Taking the Long View. In: Human Relations. Vol. 65, No. 11, 2012, pp. 1395-1429; Jeffrey D. Ford, Laurie W. Ford, Angelo D'Amelio: Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. In: Academy of Management Review. Vol. 33, No. 2, 2008, pp. 362-377; Cliff Oswick, David Grant, Grant Michelson, Nick Wailes: Looking Forwards: Discursive Directions in Organizational Change. In: Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 18, No. 4, 2005, pp. 383-390; Andrew Sturdy, Christopher Gray: Beneath and Beyond Organizational Change Management: Exploring Alternatives. In: Organization. Vol. 10, No. 4, 2003, pp. 651-662.