Theoretically, there are different strategies that explain how change can be initiated and implemented successfully. However, let's first take a look at some of the common things to consider before embarking on organizational change:
What I want to change? Usually that refers to the region "problem" specific.
Is this is the basic thing that needs to be changed or there is "reason" deeper underlying "problem" that needs to be addressed? This question is particularly important for many times, after the process of change has been run in the middle of the road, and realized that there is a problem in the basic level. Then the focus of the new areas of change that are discovered, and the energy of change efforts get wasted moves.
Why do I want this change?
How can I achieve change? This will involve risks and incentives, weight, and balance them and address any gaps between the process aims to achieve change and issues related to these operations.
What about funding for the implementation of this change?
Will the business may continue as usual during the phase change, or whether they are affected negatively?
what kind of resources (external or internal consultants) should be used, given the size of my organization and knowledge base?
How, if at all, the effect of changing the culture of work, or vice versa?
How important is the situation and how much time do I respond to that?
Am my team driver fundamental change I have contextual and operational knowledge, ability and influence in order to stay in the change process, or do I need to enable them one way or another?
once you have accurate answers to these elementary questions, you can decide based on the strategy that you want to adopt. Provide theory at least four different change strategies. In practice, we usually use a combination of some or all of these cases to handle the change. These four strategies are: the rational experimental method, and approach Almaaara- Reeducative, coercive approach between power and environmental-adaptive approach.
every four provide you with different visions of the kind of environmental change that may exist in the organization. Change the type of environment differs widely with the thought of a formal organization or cultural consensus that they may be involved and the type of change is being introduced. The importance of different strategies for change lies in the fact that they explore different assumptions about the motivations and human behavior in order to understand or anticipate the response to change. Thus, it takes into account the psychological is not a formal organization, thus effectively help in managing the human side of change.
beauty, however, is that they are not mutually exclusive, and can use different strategies in different stages of the process of change. Thus, depending on the environment of change, you must decide on the right mix of strategies, which will be used to pay for the change.
applied rational strategy
approach a "classic" change management, developed by Robert Chin and Kenneth d. BENNE, this strategy is built on the basis that, in general, and human beings are rational, and can be reasoned with.
Thus, although the change instinctively resisted, people can be won, headed by real logic behind the change, and what it is there for them.
If people are convinced the two sides of the change, and the process becomes easily navigable. Thus, using this strategy of persuasion to make people join for change, through planning, it managed to disseminate information, which makes the incentives for change and clear them. Thus, this strategy requires skillful use of contacts to sell the benefits of change. The focus is on the provision of correct information. Education and training that inspires people to change their own volition. Also, it is important to identify potential carriers of change - people who willingly accept the change, and are influential enough to propagate itself.
the role of the CEO is important here. Being the leader of the organization, not only because he is an influential figure, but he also has a relatively more credible than anyone else in the organization. And therefore, it can play a key role in securing the purchase of his people and encourage them to embrace change.
However, by virtue of logic again, and people look to be generally resistant to change, if it has a downside imbedded unbalanced or offset upside down on an equal footing. Hence, a guaranteed plan to start successfully change, or at least the humanitarian side of this administration, it should work as follows:
a strong foundation to initiate the change
link in the actual benefits or incentives that could pounds of change
pros and cons, including the exercise on possible measures to negate the "cons"
this strategy works well only if you can achieve a balance between incentives against the risk profitable manner, unless I was able to show that the value added of the change is relatively much higher than the risk involved.
This strategy is difficult to become the implementation, if your risk outweigh your incentive, especially, if the public perception is that the company is in a relatively comfortable position, even without a change. There is then a good idea might be to show people some of the real reasons why comfort is seen is just a passing phase and will not last long.
In such a situation, some people may buy your logic, some may not. If you find buyers to be able to influence the rest and work on forming a group that can act as translators between you and the mass of people, and thus serve as drivers of change.
experimental approach to the rational of success in the later stages of change, you also need to build your case is strong on analysis of the current situation, and to proceed with appropriate training and development programs, and the initiation of appropriate education, and implementation of research and development relevant to support the change. Rent a field expert services and organizational design and change specialists if necessary. Once these backups in place, people will inevitably become much more confident and assume the responsibilities change. Also, while you may determine at first class representative to lead the change, eventually you must go out to the stage where they are encouraging each team to come up with innovative solutions in line towards the situation "better than everyone."
However, the approach of good experimental ignores the fact that workers have understood the need for change or the rationale behind the change, they still do not like to undergo a change, because of the emotional disorders, and adaptation issues etc. that come with the transition.
standard - RE educational strategy
Another "classic" approach to change management, this strategy takes wings from the fact that human beings are social beings. Thus, they always have the inherent desire to conform to social norms and standards.
he does not deny that human beings are rational and intelligent creatures, but their behavior is also seen to be guided by social and cultural norms and loyalty to these standards. Restructuring normative beliefs and urged them to adhere to new standards change.
often, and cultural transformation in the organization becomes necessary to adapt to market conditions and to survive competition. For example, a competitor may produce twice the output of your own because of technological advances, while you're lagging behind because you still rely on manual processes. This requires you to change the work culture of the guide to technology-oriented set of people, which in turn requires you to train properly and prepare people for change. Reeducative strategy are defined as a strategy to believe that the rules of the Organization can be deliberately shifted to achieve higher productivity, through the collective efforts of the people - the standard.
Given that the culture and standards quickly become a part of you, and the highly anticipated initial resistance to uncommitted to anything or independently. Ironically, rules and standards are not very constant over time. If it were, the evolution of society would not be possible. Just like a stream of water that changes its course, when he meets a strong culture and customs obstruction can also re-create and re-definition.
This approach is believed to change the attitudes, values and culture lead to an automatic change in behavior. It is used the same logic that makes the initial resistance to such change is inevitable to explain how, over a period of time, and this kind of change tends to commitment. Thus, although it may be irony, is in fact can be observed in practice that once a new culture sets in, people feel an instinctive need to comply, simply in order to survive.
is an important tool in the start of this change is the presence of a magnetic and dynamic personality, which could affect greatly the people and perspectives. This character can be a leader, change agent, or more effectively, and Chief Executive Officer of the company. Given his vision, and the importance of the credibility and authority of the organization, all that is needed to bring about change possesses.
while the culture change is possible, it is never immediately. Because it involves major changes to the existing patterns of thinking and attitudes so far. As a result, it can only appear as a result of a gradual process. Thus, this strategy is only applicable if you have a longer time frame at your disposal to enable the change.
and normative - Reeducative approach perhaps the most widely used on a large scale strategy at the present time. When using this strategy, it is important to remember that it is better to try to work through the existing culture, and cooperation with people, helping them to see the possibility of a new and better, than to wake up in the morning, one of the beautiful days and replaced it with a new culture. After all, you can not change the culture, the way in which a change of clothes, it connects to the deepest part of you and how it works. Therefore, this approach calls for a sincere effort to work in sync with the people, and to identify problems and facilitate solutions. It should be directed towards improving problem-solving capabilities, and the development of processes within the system, and promote new attitudes and skills and standards of the people. While the bright side is that when you engage your people too much, reduce the chances of resistance. But on the other side of the coin, this approach also depends on employee cooperation. For example, have been found on the new program has been developed to a certain insurance company to be left so that even after months, because the staff did not want to get out of the comfort of "the old way of doing things." Often, such a change involves the renunciation of re-learning, although the change may ultimately result in the simplest solutions to the problems of their work, the transitional period comes as a real challenge, and often lead to resistance.
This strategy can be used in conjunction with a change in the employee performance management systems that reward people who facilitate change and punish those who oppose it. This may help to overcome the resistance and to create a more cooperative climate. Moreover, since the work is as much a culture within the areas of formal organization as the informal organization. Therefore, changing the work culture can only succeed if there is amiable relationship between these two counterparts, or at least if the leaders of the Organization of informal purchase of the proposed change.
another perspective on this strategy tells us that while most of the time, people prefer to stick with the treaties; the story is different when people are inside the system were not satisfied with the status quo. This is a situation where people are really looking for a change. In this scenario, the initial step that management needs to take to bring about a change in the assessment and clarify standards and organizational culture. It can be done through interaction and discussions and on a personal level, meditation by those working in the organization. Therefore, in many cases, this strategy mainly people in the "process" of change rather than a face-only "effect" change.
Thus, the curriculum aims Almaaara- reeducative attitudes and values. It tends to bring about long-term changes because it usually involves the goals of the group, the rules of a group or shared values. The reason is that once a new standard in groups, having started either side of the official or non-official organization, eventually become part of the system - "things as they are" - and thus settle over time.
electricity - coercive strategy
This is the "classic" strategic bases itself in power, "power." According to Hans Morgenthau:
energy can include anything to prove and maintain men's control over the man. Thus power covers all social relations, which this end service, from the subtlest psychological relations of physical violence, which is one mind controls another.
applied to our context, this strategy calls for "power" in the form of the threat of sanctions, and believe that people, in general compatible, and will bow down in the end to those who have the greatest strength.
Sometimes, when a change is not radical but moderate, and can also use subtle forms of energy company or a dominant force to achieve its goal. In fact, the standard approach Reeducative or rational approach used in the field ultimately dominant force very subtly, to navigate through the process of change. Domination is internalized, such as the form of social control, which makes us feel that we choose when really we have no choice. In the 20th century the French Marxist Louis Althusser this is called a 'trick' as interrogation.
In both cases, when you decide to change it, people have no choice but to accept it. And it can resist for some time, but it should eventually go with the flow. However, instead of the use of force, the use of these strategies "mind" and "cooperation" to make the situation "change" seems like an option that will lead to better than the status quo mode. So, while the idea that the change will lead to the best possible situation is true, it is ultimately never open for selection. Thus, indirectly, even these strategies use some kind of subtle dominant force. However, the difference is that while securing these approaches support people through logic or cooperation, thus ensuring that the change that endures and stabilizes over time, the direct use of the imposition of power, as advocated by the power - coercive strategy, runs the risk that once the removal of power , people could go back to the original behavior.
but many times, and the exercise of power, subtly or otherwise, in the form of political and economic sanctions, legislation and policies and "moral" and other energy may seem the only way to bring about change. This happens when the people in the organization collectively failed to recognize the threat that is, in fact, Tomb must be resolved within a restricted period of time in response. The use of force may also be necessary when people became stubborn and intractable in the face of change, which has a lot at stake. Therefore, people may become even in times of urgent need. The trick here is to apply to be on your way and leave no other choice for your people, but to accept the change. While political sanctions usually reward non-conformists with the prison and economic sanctions to reduce the financial incentives for those who resist change. Thus, the use of coercive force is trying to make people bow to change by inducing fear or actual use of force.
However, the use of force may not always be negative. For example, one force - used coercive strategy concept of behavioral psychology "carrot and stick". In this approach, the use of force for both the staff who support change through financial incentives reward and punish those who do not with political or financial consequences, through sanctions. Thus, power can work in both directions.
The success of this strategy, however, depends on the overall temperament of the organization.
Some organizations, as part of their culture, and believed in the power of seniority, and appreciate the role of the hierarchy to issue guidelines or directives for organizational development. If your people and in line with the tyranny health system, and this may come easy. But in an organization where he has long been practiced tolerance, tactics Hitler's face resistance. However, with coercive strategies Bauer, people have a choice but to accept the change, because most of these strategies use strict policies, as ruled by impunity. However, to ensure that the foundations of the change based on consensus rather than fear repressed or dissatisfaction, it is important to assess the nature of your organization, and the problem at hand, and the time frame in hand, before embarking on such a strategy, in the last resort.
Robert L. Khan noted that:
to say that he has the ability to necessarily mean changing behavior pandemic that some of the forces in opposition practiced for some or all of the previously existing forces [including B's own needs and values] B. on this conflict .... practice [coercive] power and, therefore, not necessarily creates conflict ...
thus, while the use of the structures of power and the threat of sanctions can accomplish change , they may generate hatred and contempt for the organization or senior management, and that hurt the organization in the long term.
environmental - ADAPTIVE strategy
, and strategic environmental, proposed by Fred Nickols, is an adaptation based on the premise that while people resist innately change, as they adjust to ultimately themselves therefore, when left with no choice.
also known as the "death - on the - in the - the vine" strategy, it takes its cue from the common observation that the fast individuals to oppose the change they find threatening, they also have an innate ability to adapt quickly to a new set of circumstances. Our application context of organizational change, and this translates into human psychology business strategy first creating a new environment and then gradually move people from the old system to the new system. Thus, instead of trying to proactive for "change" organized by the creation of "change" in behavior, processes, culture and standards of the people, and recommends this strategy is that, you are creating a new set of circumstances, nature innate for humans to eventually adapt exploited to allow for change "sink in." Therefore, in this strategy, ball court shifts from the management of the people, and the responsibility of rationing change now lies on people, and how to adapt to change. They have virtually no acceptance or rejection of the change option, unless of course one prefers to leave the organization altogether. Here, the change is made, individuals simply adapt themselves.
This strategy is best suited to the changes that are radical in nature, rather than those that are gradual. For example, I wanted to introduce to the SAP-HR system to increase the efficiency and speed of the work related to human resources. This is a gradual change that will occur with the passage of time, and human resources personnel business is gradually learning how to run the new system and the transition from the old to the new practice manual systematic process. If you were to use the environment to adapt a strategy here, creating an environment and leave them to adapt to it in his own way, the transition phase, it is very likely that extends a long time. This is because the private managers already working within the framework that they are comfortable with, and so they may be willing to switch to the new system.
0 Komentar