MBA

(Part-time)
Module Title:
Leadership and Change

Module Code:
BMG 899 11





Students:
Conor Keown
Niall Evans
Michael Deighan

To: Professor Stan Cromie
From: Michael Deighan
Conor Keown
Niall Evans

Date: 7
th
December 2003

Re: A report on the best practice of organisational change.

1able of Contents

1.Executive Summary.
2.Introduction.
3.A definition of change and its historical
context.
4.1he nature of organisations.
5.1he nature of organisational change.
.An example of change management in
Cypsum Industries.
7.Conclusions.
8.Appendices.
9.Bibliography

4
1. Executive Summary

According to Carnall (1992) 'We live in a period of accelerating change`. Fundamental
changes in society restructure our lives. Advances in new technology means that the
impossible becomes commonplace (computer generated animation, robotics, space
exploration). It is true to say that change has always been an integral part oI the manager`s
job. This has never been truer than it is in today`s environment. The recent bombings in
Istanbul in Turkey has only underlined what has occurred in the business environment since
the events oI September 11
th
2001 in New York i.e. that no matter how well you plan or
indeed plan Ior change it is impossible to predict the impact that the events in the external
environment will have on your organisation. There is no way that the airline industry, stock
markets or governments could have planned or prepared Ior the eIIects caused by the World
Trade Centre disaster, nor indeed the impact on HSBC banks across the globe aIter the
terrible events in Istanbul recently. These events, as well as the corporate scandals oI Enron
and WorldCom, have battered the global economy and have made it clear that we need to
look at the changed world oI management and explore how they impact on the manager`s job.
Change is all around us and the capacity to manage change eIIectively is a crucial attribute oI
the successIul manager in today`s organisation.(Clarke, 1994)

2. Introduction

The purpose oI this report is to depict what the theorists have claimed as 'best practice in the
management oI organisational change. To report this eIIectively it is essential that we use
actual examples oI how organisations manage change. Using these examples we will then
analyse this process in the context oI today`s literature on the subject, which will enable us to
compare iI the theoretical best practice, as purported by the many authorities on the subject,
matches with what actually happens in the 'real world.

For this report we will use our collective knowledge oI the management oI change and apply
it to Gypsum Industries. We will begin by deIining change and introducing the history
behind the management oI change, providing some background on the development oI the
theories. We will then introduce Gypsum Industries and the type oI change or changes they
have introduced. We will continue the report by providing the analysis between the
5
theoretical best practices, introducing concepts such as Kurt Lewins` 'three step process and
'Force Field Analysis, Johnson and Scholes` 'Cultural Web, Paton and McCalmans`
'TROPICS test, and the actual process used and the consequent results. The conclusion oI
the report will highlight whether the management oI change is a practical concept that is
applicable in today`s rapidly changing, global and extremely turbulent business environment.

3. A definition of change and its historical context.

Zaltman and Duncan (1977) have deIined change as 'an alteration in the status quo,`
however it is argued that 'real` change occurs when individuals deIine a situation as
diIIerent and Ieel that they must alter their behaviour to cope with the new situation. Change
thereIore implies some sort oI 'relearning on the part of the individual.`(Zaltman and
Duncan, 1977) Change can be studied in terms oI its eIIects at the individual, group,
organisational, society, national or international level.(Doyle, 2002) However because oI its
pervasive nature, change at any one level is interrelated with changes at other levels and it is
diIIicult to study change in isolation. (Mullins, 2002 :818) For this report however we are
concentrating on organisational change and thereIore it is necessary to Iirst provide some
inIormation on the historical context oI change Iollowed by an introduction on the nature oI
organisations.

For the past 300 years change has been taking place in the industrial world and there have
been key phases oI economic development during this time. In the mid 1700`s the industrial
revolution transIormed Britain Irom what Senior (2002) claimed was an 'agricultural
economv` to 'the workshop of the world` by 1880. It was an era oI mass production where
demand outstripped supply and bureaucracy was the dominant organisational structure. This
production prosperity lasted until the end oI the Second World War. The post -war era 1945 -
1965 was according to Goodman (1995) an extension oI the suppliers market. However there
was more oI an eIIort to become eIIicient on production in order to reduce costs based oI
F.W. Taylor`s scientiIic management ideas. Soon however customers became more
discerning and advances in technology increased production. Supply now outstripped
demand and organisations were Iorced to look to overseas markets and to Iocus more on
service, not only service in its own right, but also value added service. (Goodman, 1995)

6
As the world has moved Irom the agricultural to the post-industrial eras organisations and the
people in them have been Iorced to make major changes as old skills and managerial mindsets
have been replaced with new methods oI production and people management.(Nadler et al,
1997) These major changes have provided those managers who understand the Iorces Ior
change and can successIully exploit them, huge opportunities in a competitive world. This is
where the management oI change has become a key Iactor.

One oI the reasons that managing change can be uncomIortable and diIIicult is that, according
to Alvin ToIIler in his book 'Future Shock, there is now 'so much of it.` (ToIIler, 1990)
Indeed Peters et al (1982) have written 'everv change does not have time to change as there
is alwavs another change taking place before the first change has been confronted.` (Peters
et al 1982) Perhaps this is why Handy has called this turbulent time an 'age oI
unreason.(Handy, 1989)

Having explored the historical context oI change we will now investigate the nature oI
organisations.

4. The Nature of Organisations

Aldrich (1999) deIines organisations as 'goal directed, boundarv maintaining and sociallv
constructed svstems of human activitv.` Even though the nature oI organisational goals and
their pursuit can be problematic, people act as though they have goals and organisations exist
to obtain these goals. Organisations however can have one or many goals and it is argued by
many that these goals arise Irom a bartering process by various stakeholders with a vested
interest in the success oI the organisation. Not all these stakeholders hold the same amount oI
power but their support is vital iI organisational goals are to be achieved. (Burnes, 1992)
ThereIore when changes in goals are proposed these stakeholders need to be persuaded to
give support to the change. In addition as organisations are social activity systems where
people are involved in deciding how to achieve the goals, any proposed change in the way in
which goals are to be achieved will have a major impact on the behaviour oI the people in the
organisation. As Paton and McCalman (1992) have stated 'The implementation of strategic
change is likelv to be problematic. This is especiallv likelv to be the case in situations where
7
this tvpe of change involves people and in which personal relationships and emotional
responses are predominant.` (McCalman and Paton, 1992:18)

Furthermore, as social activity systems the means Ior achieving goals in organisations are
more times than not pre-planned. Tasks, resources, controls, co-ordination and timings are
only some oI the parts that are required Ior organisations to produce something oI use, and
these do not come together in a haphazard way. The structure oI the organisation plays a vital
role in the smooth running oI these activities as it strongly inIluences how people behave in
them. Indeed because structure has such a powerIul and important impact on behaviour
managers Irequently resort to structural changes as a means oI changing behaviour. New
work groups, teams, reporting structures, pay and reward systems normally result in new
behaviours and managers will thereIore plan their structural changes to align new behaviours
with the new direction Ior the organisation.

Goodstein and Burke (1989) view organisations as a 'nested set of open, living svstems and
subsvstems dependant upon the environment for survival.` This view oI organisations as
open systems is supported by many including Robbins et al (2003) and Senior (2002) who
argues that a system perspective provides a useIul insight into the management oI change.
Senior presents her argument in Figure 1. This perspective gives rise to the 'concept of an
organisation as a svstem of interacting subsvstems and components set within the wider
svstems and environments which provide inputs to the svstem and which receive its outputs.`
(Senior, 2002) According to Senior the Iormal systems depicts how things are done and the
inIormal systems determine how things are actually done.

Figure. 1. 1he organisational system in multidimensional environments.

External Environment

1emporal Environment


Source: Senior, B. (2002, P27) Organisational Change.
1he Organisation










Internal
environment



.4342.
1,.9478

Technological
factors





Informal subsystem

Culture politics
Leadership

Socio-
cultural
factors

Political -
Legal factors
Formal subsystem

Management
operations
technology
Strategy

structure
goals
9
According to Robbins et al (2003) as open systems, organisations are aIIected by the
environment as well as impacting upon it. From uncertainty over competitors and customers
to changes in economic conditions, laws and regulations and socio-cultural expectations,
managers have to be aware oI what is happening in the external environment. Furthermore he
argues, 'If it werent for organisational change, that is anv alterations in people, structure or
technologv, the managers fob would be relativelv easv.` (Robbins et al, 2003, p338) But
that`s not the way it is. Change is an organisational reality. External Iorces that create the
need Ior change come Irom various sources such as the marketplace, government and
regulations, technology, economy and the labour markets. In addition there are Iactors
internally to the organisation that create triggers Ior change, such as Strategies, employees,
equipment and culture.(Saka,2003)

Senior (2002) uses the PETS idea to consider some key environmental triggers Ior change
and their strength. These are the political, environmental, technological and socio-cultural
Iorces that impact upon the organisation that provides it with the main reasons Ior change.
Organisations tend to change primarily because oI external pressure rather than an internal
desire or need to change. However managers should be aware oI all the potential Iorces Ior
change and whether they come Irom the internal, external or temporal environment, which is
oIten very diIIicult to do. Furthermore it is essential that we do not overlook how managers
interpret their environments as Day (2001) points out; managers interpret these Iorces in ways
that reIlect the history and culture oI the organisation.


5. The Nature of organisational Change

What are the real issues that must be addressed iI managers are to implement change
eIIectively? On the broadest level there are two basic issues: - What the change should be
and how the change should be implemented. The process oI organisational change according
to Nadler and Tushman, (1997) is quite oIten a complex and dynamic process with many
conIlicting viewpoints on how to proceed. Paton and McCalman (2000) argue adapting to
change is not a simple process but that it can be managed. They interpret the management oI
change as a complex journey with many twists, challenges, turns and hold-ups. However
change can be successIully managed when there is, according to Paton and McCalman:

N Knowledge oI the circumstances surrounding a situation
N An awareness oI the key variables and their interaction
N An understanding oI the likely impact oI related variables.

As indicated there are many Iorces Ior change in environments and responses can be managed
in a variety oI ways. BeIore managers are able to develop responses to these changes and
develop strategies Ior implementing change they must Iirst examine careIully the nature oI
the change that is being addressed.

As we have shown organisations are open systems and many writers (Lewin, 1951; Genus,
1998; Lawson et al, 2003) argue that there exists a state oI equilibrium between the Iorces
Iorcing change and the Iorces resisting change. By conducting a force field analvsis we can
identiIy those Iorces Ior change and their strength and those Iorces against and their strength.
By conducting this analysis we can then implement strategies that can reduce the Iorces
against and increase the Iorces Ior, thereIore disturbing the equilibrium and allowing the
change to be introduced. (see appendix 1) Paton and McCalman (2000) state that it is
important to evaluate 'the nature of an impending chang e situation so as to facilitate the
marshalling of management expertise in readiness for the transition process.` They classiIy
change as lying on a continuum Irom Hard/Mechanistic change to soIt/complex change.
These are also reIerred to as difficulties and messes. (Paton and McCalman.2000, 17) They
developed a useIul model to steer the change agent or teams in the right direction, known as
the TROPICS TEST, (see appendix 2)

Along with the importance oI knowing the exact nature oI the change you are Iacing Paton
and McCalman advocate using Leavitt`s Change model to note that a trigger will have many
impacts on tasks, structures, relationships and cultures. (see appendix 3) In essence any
change on any oI these aspects will have a 'knock-on eIIect on the other parts, each one
acting as a lever Ior change.



In marshalling the resources necessary to implement the change it is essential to identiIy the
change agent. Changes within an organisation need a catalyst. People who act as catalysts
and assume responsibility Ior managing the change process are called the change agent. Any
11
manager could be a change agent; however it could also be a non-manager e.g. a change
specialist Irom the HR department or outside consulting house. Outside consultants carry
distinct advantages and disadvantages. They oIIer a subjective perspective that an internal
agent may lack, however outside agents have an extremely limited understanding oI the
organisations history, culture, operating procedures and people. As Paton and McCalman
stated (2000, p4) 'In change situations a little knowledge can be dangerous and limited
understanding catastrophic.` Outside consultants are also prone to initiate more dramatic
change (which can also be an advantage) as they are not leIt to deal with the subsequent
aItermath. In contrast internal managers who act as change agents may be more thoughtIul
and possibly overcautious because they must live with the consequences oI the decisions.

The change agent must recognise that diIIerent types oI change are required depending on the
situation Iacing the organisation. Grundy (1993) developed a model, which suggests that
organisations are Iaced with three types oI change: (see Figure 2.)


Figure 2.

8.4393:4:8


#,9041 smooth incremental
Change

Bumpy Incremental



Time

Adapted from Senior, B. (2002. p38) Source: Grundy , T. (1993), Implementing Strategic Change.


N Smooth incremental change is a response that continuously improves processes and
products in a systematic manner. Change may be quite extensive but it happens at a
constant rate.

N Bumpy incremental change occurs when the above is interrupted at intervals by a need
to make a transIormational change. This may be new technology, new entrants or
new Iacilities.

N Discontinuous change occurs when rapid changes are needed in organisational
strategy, structure, behaviour and culture. Other writers have called this type oI
change 97,381472,943, as it aIIects all aspects oI the organisation. These changes
occur when the industry reaches what Strebel (1996) describes as a 'divergent
breakpoint i.e. change which results Irom the discovery oI a new business
opportunity, such as Amazon.com and book selling.

This model is similar to one developed by Tushman et al (1988) who introduced two types oI
convergent change; Iine-tuning and incremental adjustment. Both these types have the
common aim oI maintaining the Iit between organisational strategy, structure and processes.
Generally, stable and incrementally changing environments such as shipbuilding elicit
incrementalism. Quinn (1980) argues that through a series oI inter-linked stages, senior
managers can guide the patterns that lead towards strategic change in organizations.

N Creating awareness and commitment- incrementally
N SolidiIying progress incrementally
N Integration oI processes and oI interests.

Beckhard and Harris saw the implementation oI a change as moving an organisation towards
a desired Iuture state. (See Iigure 3.) They saw changes in terms oI transitions. A current
state prior to the change and a movement towards a Iuture state and describes how
organizations should Iunction aIter the change. The period between current and Iuture states
is the transition state.



13
Figure 3.
Organisational Change as Transition.

Transition State





According to Nadler and Tushman(1997) the eIIective management oI change involves
developing and understanding oI the current state, developing an image oI the desired Iuture
state and moving the organization through a transition period.

The initial awareness oI a need to change may be either in response to external or internal
pressures Ior change (reactive), or through a belieI in the need Ior change to meet Iuture
competition demands (proactive) Dawson (2003) What is important is how the conception oI
a need to change can be inIluenced by Iactors within the organization such as operational
ineIIiciencies and employee disputes and by Iactors that emanate Irom outside the
organization e.g. through business press and media reports in the success or Iailures oI other
organizations. Once a need Ior change has been identiIied the complex non-linear and 'black
box process oI organisational change begins.

Change can aIIect all aspects oI the operation and Iunctions oI the organisation as shown in
Leavitt`s model. There is an understanding that regardless oI planned or incremental
approaches common to both is an understanding that the 'soIt Ieatures oI the organization
i.e. the people, need to be taken into account. Formal planning techniques have their place
but in themselves they are not enough. Recognition oI this Iact produced what has become
known as Organisational Development (OD). The OD approach to change is, above all, an
approach which cares about people and which believes that people at all levels throughout an
organisation are, individually and collectively, both the drivers and engines oI change. Up
until the late 1980`s managers Iaced brieI distractions in an otherwise calm and predictable
business environment. These brieI distractions or changes were best handled by using Kurt
Lewin`s three-step model oI the change process. (see Iigure 4)
Current
State
Future
State
14

Figure 4 LEWIN`S 3 PHASE MODEL







Adapted from Senior, B (2002) Organisational Change .

The Iirst oI these phases, unIreezing, consists oI creating disruption in the status quo, either
by introducing new staII or by more symbolic events. This heightens the awareness Ior the
need to change. The second phase, moving, is essentially the change process itselI i.e.
making the actual changes, whether they are changes to strategies, structure or culture. The
Iinal phase, reIreezing, involves cementing the changes in place making sure that the
organisation does not slip back into its old habits. This can be achieved by introducing new
management directly responsible Ior stabilising the change.

6. An example oI Change Management in Gypsum Industries

The organisation chosen is Gypsum Industries. (see Appendix 4) A number oI years ago
Gypsum Industries (G.I.) typiIied what Mintzberg (1991) described as a machine bureaucracy
with rules and regulations to maintain tight control oI the entire operation. There was high
Iormalisation and standardisation, centralised authority and Iunctional departments. Morgan
described this type oI structure as rigid bureaucracy suited to a more stable industry, which
indeed the building industry was in which G.I. operated in. G.I was a large, mature
organisation at the end oI Greiner`s model (1972) (see appendix 5) However, with increasing
competition Irom abroad, rising production costs due to overtime shiIts to meet the high
growth Irish construction market, benchmarking with other Iirms in the group and the diverse
needs oI customers it was imperative that changes were required. This matches with a
proactive organisation scanning its internal and external environments Ior potential triggers
Ior change as described by Senior (2002). The objective was to create a more Ilexible, or as
UAFREEZE MOJE

REFREEZE
15
Morgan describes 'a more organic` organisation, that would be able to cater Ior the diverse
needs oI customers and oI course exploit all cost advantages to remain competitive in the
marketplace.

There was no doubt that changes were being Iorced upon the organisation but G.I. were in
Iact taking proactive steps to ensure they maintained the position as market leader in their
chosen market. The principal change agent in the programme was the ChieI Executive (Mr
Kieran Millar), with assistance Irom an outside consultant to Iacilitate in the change process.
It was recognised as a messy problem characterised by its complexity. To implement
eIIective change in both the Iormal and inIormal aspects oI the organisation it was
Iundamental that the change agent identiIied with the status quo as most individuals had
satisIaction with it. Only by doing this would eIIective change be achieved. (Burnes, 1992)

Focusing on the Iormal aspects oI organisational liIe, such as structure, gives only part oI the
explanation oI why and how organisations choose to change and iI they do so what Iorm that
change might take. French and Bell (1990) used the Iceberg Metaphor to illustrate the
diIIerence between the overt and covert aspects oI organisational liIe. The more inIormal or
covert aspects oI organisational liIe must be addressed, that is the prevailing value, attributes
and belieIs about what should be done and how the culture which is part oI and surrounds
organisations, and the politics which are equally important in any examination oI
organisations and change. (Senior, 2002: Dawson, 2003 ) Morgan (1997) argues that the
culture and politics oI many organisations constrain the degree oI change and transIormation
in which they can successIully engage, even though such change may be highly desirable Ior
meeting the challenges and demands oI the wider environment. In other words regardless
how well change is planned in terms oI the Iormal aspects oI the organisation it will be the
inIormal aspects that will hinder it. Johnson and Scholes (1999) introduced the concept oI the
'Cultural Web to illustrate how the diIIerent aspects oI the organisation and its culture
impacts upon the organisation paradigm. (see appendix 6) It is thought that cultural risk
should be assessed in order to ascertain where management are likely to meet resistance in
terms oI strategy and culture. Remembering that changing a culture can create several
problems such as many people may not be as open to change and may display a degree oI
cynicism towards the new culture. ThereIore management should assess the cultural risk and
then decide whether they can ignore, change the culture or manage around it.

16
Beer et al (1990) advocate that trying to change attitudes and belieIs directly are Iutile. First
bring about behavioural change and this wil l bring about desired changes in attitudes and
values. Beer et al (1990) argue Ior changing organisational context (people`s roles,
responsibilities) Iirst will result in the desired changes in attitudes. Gypsum Industries were
at this time a power culture as described by Handy (1989) which were typical oI bureaucratic
structures. Rather than radically transIorm the culture the change agent believed the best way
was to take the best aspects and add to it. In other words he wanted to manage around the
current culture.

Mabey and Salaman (1995) consider a number oI perceptions about the management oI
change that will aIIect reactions to it. Amongst these Iactors is whether change is perceived
as 'deviant or normal and 'threatening or desirable. (Mabey and Salaman, 1995:73)
Change judged as deviant will be perceived as imposed and outside prevailing cultural norms.
This is likely to generate resistance at various levels. Change seen as threatening is also
likely to meet resistance and this will require careIul implementation to overcome the Iear
associated with the perception. (Thornhill et al, 2000) Perceptions about the nature oI change
and the need Ior it will thereIore aIIect reactions to it. The methods used to implement change
will have an important role in aIIecting the nature and strengths oI those reactions. By
methods we reIer to whether change is implemented as a top-down or bottom-up approach,
whether its intention is transIormational or incremental and whether it is a rapid or gradual
process. There are clearly links between these Iacets oI the implementation oI change.
Choice between these approaches will aIIect perceptions about the degree to which change is
accepted or resisted and whether it is seen as imposed or controlled or, to some extent,
participative. . Top-down change is associated with the strategic planning approach designed
and driven by the organisations senior management. Lupton (1971) argues that this approach
is best used to bring about a radical change in an organisation. Mabey and Salaman
(1995:105) suggest another advantage oI this approach linked to the provision oI a 'clear,
sustained direction that is well resourced and co -ordinated.` However where this approach
is associated with a transIormational approach to change its impact and eIIectiveness are
Irequently criticised.

Beer (1980) and Pettigrew and Whipp (1991:176) are amongst those who criticise this type oI
approach to change because they believe that its use is not eIIective. They do not believe that
17
simply changing organisational structures and imposing new systems will generate intended
change. The change that is realised will not be that which was intended.

The bottom-up approach is associated with the emergent or processual approach. (Dawson,
2003) It is bottom-up in the sense that, according to Beer et al (1990) the change process
commences in an operational part oI an organisation away Irom its corporate centre and is led
by the operating oI its general manger rather than the corporate management. This in turn
spreads out to other Iunctions creating a new learning organisation. This process is less likely
to create resistance to change as it is created and driven by the actual operators oI the new
systems as well as developing commitment through ownership and involvement. Quinn
(1993) reIers to incremental change as a continuous process, without any discernible
beginning or end. Quinn also states that there is likely to be inIluences Irom the top in what
is apparently a bottom-up and incremental approach to strategic change, in order to aIIect its
direction.

To implement change incrementally was viewed by the change agent as being too slow Ior
Gypsum Industries in relation to the Celtic Tiger pace oI activity. For this reason, a
transIormational approach was regarded as the only alternative to gain momentum

As we know individuals by their nature actively resist change, having a sense oI belonging
with what they are used to. There are many reasons why people resist major changes in
organisations according to Connor (1995). (see appendix 7) In Gypsum Industries case the
employees in the manuIacturing plant were reIusing to accept any change in their working
patterns being supported by the unions. To create dissatisIaction and unrest (Lewin`s unIreeze
phase), the change agent decided to stop supplying the Northern Ireland market with products
Irom Cavan and began to service it Irom one oI the plants in England. This oI course greatly
reduced the level oI demand Ior the Cavan plant that led to reduction in overtime and levels
oI staIIing. Although this was a dramatic event it created the necessary unrest among
employees that the organisation could in Iact still Iunction and service their markets. The Iear
Iactor caused by this action and the potential loss oI the Southern market (which was never in
mind) resulted in employees realising that they would have to accept some Iorm oI change.
OI course, Irom a top management perspective this was only the starting point on a
continuous journey to ultimately creating a learning organisation, which was Ilexible to adapt
to ongoing change.
18

There were various symbolic events that took place such as relocation oI the head oIIice. The
old oIIices were based in a large Victorian house in an upmarket area oI Dublin. This was
viewed as giving the wrong impression to customers and oIIices were moved to an Industrial
Park more representative oI an organisation in the building industry. In addition reserved
parking slots at the Iactory were removed and all levels oI staII, Irom top management to
Iloor operatives used the same canteen. The symbolic gestures spoke volumes, as individuals
would interpret them diIIerently without management actually stating anything Iormally.

The results oI the change process are continuing to surIace but can be measured in certain
aspects. Absenteeism in G.I has Iallen dramatically Irom 16 in 1980 to now only 7. The
structure has moved to a more organic, Iluid one with decentralised authority and
empowerment with new pay and reward systems in place to recognise perIormance.

7. CONCLUSIONS

We have illustrated through the literature and a real-liIe organisational example that the
management oI change is a complex and dynamic concept. It is debateable that it is a
practical tool given the extreme turbulence in today`s business environment. (Bennis et al,
1974) It could well be argued that organisational change is a constant, continuous process
that happens sub-consciously and deliberately trying to plan change is a Iutile exercise as
organisations are already changing just by existing in their environments.

Only iI people and organisations learn Irom the experience oI change, can eIIectiveness be
achieved and sustained. Only iI transitions are managed eIIectively can learning and change
occur. This also acts as a constructive constraint on the politics oI change which can so easily
run out oI control. (Carnall, 1990) Hamlin et al (2001) argue that all too oIten, organisational
change programmes Iail 'because management fails to rise to the challenge which change
brings.` From the weight oI evidence one must conclude that the process issues associated
with organisational change and development are Iar more complex and diIIicult to manage
successIully than is oIten supposed, and that managers are generally insuIIiciently skilled in
change agency. (Mento et al, 2002)

19
That such a high proportion oI organisational change programmes Iail is somewhat surprising
given the plethora oI 'best practice advice and guidance on the 'how to oI change
management available in the management literature. These range Irom straightIorward,
plainly written 'practical guides and handbooks written by consultants Irom their everyday
practical experiences as practitioners, through to textbooks written by academics mainly Ior
the education market. Bennis et al (1974) has contemplated that the reasons Ior this are
reIlected in the leadership oI the organisation. Managers are not trained to be leaders. Bennis
et al (1974) states "... most organisations are under led and over managed......` Due to the
very complex nature oI change, this is not enough. The ability to develop a new shared vision,
to get it accepted and implemented takes leadership, not management. To be eIIective at
planning organisational change, a leader must be able to draw others to them, not because
they have a vision but because they can eIIectively communicate it and hold peoples
attention.

8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. FORCE FIELD AAALYSIS

FORCES AGAINST FORCES FOR









Appendix 2. 1HE 1ROPICS 1ES1

Adapted from Professor Stan Cromie`s lecture notes

Factor Hard Solution Soft Solution

%ime Scale Short-medium Medium - long

#esources Precise Iixed Imprecise changeable

bjectives Clear quantiIiable Vague subjective

!erceptions Commonly agreed Divergent

nterest Well deIined, limited Poorly deIined, maniIold

ontrol Within change team Widespread

$ource Within change team Outside change team

Appendix 3 LEAJI11'S CHAACE MODEL


Task


People Technology



Structure


Appendix 4.

Gypsum Industries are Ireland`s leading supplier and Ioremost authority on gypsum-based
plasters and dry lining systems and products. They are part oI the BPB group who are the
world leader in the manuIacture oI gypsum based building materials, operating more than 90
plants and serving markets in over 50 countries. The company mines gypsum rock Irom a
deposit at Knocknacran, Co. Monaghan and Irom this raw material the company
manuIactures an extensive range oI building plasters and plasterboards in Kingscourt, Co.
Cavan. All products are speciIically designed and Iormulated Ior the Irish construction
industry; both north and south oI the border (www.british-gypsum.bpb.com/main1.htm).
Various groups in the building industry, namely builders, plasterers and dry lining
contractors, use the company`s products. Despite the user, products are used to achieve t he
same desired outcome, Ior example, Iire resistance, acoustic insulation and thermal
conductivity. The company is committed to delivering complete solutions Ior partitions,
walls, ceilings, steel encasements and Iloor requirements, not just a limited selection oI
unrelated products (www.gypsum.ie).






Appendix 5.
Creiner's organisational life-cycle model

Source: www.mardon-y2k.com
Written in 1972, Larry Greiner`s Harvard Business Review article, 'Evolution and revolution
as Organisations Grow, is as relevant today as it was originally. His article outlined the
stages, management crisis and general solutions that a company goes through Irom its
inception to maturity. In the 1972 timeIrame, most companies were growing Ior two or three
years and then decaying Ior one or two years. The transition times between each oI the
Greiner growth phases were lengthy and, in most cases, orderly. Being over thirty years old,
the Greiner model might seem irrelevant today. Technology, such as the Internet and E-
commerce, has completely transIormed the business world since 1972 and as a result oI these
companies will move through the phases in a much shorter time than they would have done
back then. What is still true though is that a company moves through the Iive phases
regardless oI time Irames. The problems and solutions still tend to change in-line with
Greiner`s model as the number oI employees, customers and sales volume increase. What is
needed today is the ability to move to the mature organization in the shortest time.


Appendix 6.
1he Cultural Web

Source: Adapted from 1ohnson, C. and Scholes, K. (1999) exploring Corporate Strategy, 1exts and Cases,
5
th
Edition).

Organisational
Structures

Symbols

Rituals and
Routines

Power
Structures

Stories

Control
Systems

The
Paradigm
24
This section suggests how the elements oI the cultural web might be analysed as a means oI
understanding the cultural context within which new strategies may be developed. This is an
important background against which an assessment oI Iuture choices can be made, both in
relation to options which might be possible within the current paradigm and Ior those which
require more signiIicant change. Where change is likely to be required, the analysis provides
a background against which to assess how change might be achieved. Each oI these various
Iacets oI the cultural web will be discussed separately in the sections that Iollow. However it
is essential to appreciate that it is oIten the interrelationships between these various issues,
which is oI most importance.

1he Paradigm.

Senior (2003) when writing about the organizational paradigms (i.e the belieIs and
assumptions oI the people making up the organization) highlighted the Iact that Johnson and
Scholes(1999) draw attention to the inIluence oI prevailing paradigms in any attempt to bring
about any signiIicant and eIIective change. Whereas it is easy to talk about culture in vague
and generalized terms, the need is to analyse and understand culture in much more precise
terms. It is thereIore useIul to conceive oI the paradigm as consisting oI three layers:
N ',:08 may be easy to identiIy in an organization, and are oIten written
down as statements about the organisation`s mission, objectives or strategies.
However, these tend to be vaguesuch as 'service to the community or
'equal employment opportunities.
N 0018 are more speciIic, but again they are issues which people in the
organization can surIace and talk about: Ior example, a belieI that the
company should not trade with Iraq, or proIessional staII should not have
their proIessional actions appraised by managers.
N 88:259438 are the real core oI the organizations culture. They are the
aspects oI organizational liIe that are taken Ior granted and which people Iind
hard to identiIy and explain. For example, in a regional newspaper company,
it was assumed that people were prepared to pay Ior local news and that the
newspaper was a key part oI the local community. Advertising revenue,
which accounted Ior a large part oI the newspaper`s income, was seen
necessary but not as the core oI the business.

25
This taken-Ior-grantedness can be very diIIicult to surIace. Nonetheless unless these belieIs
and assumptions are surIaced and challenged very little will change in the organization. The
assumptions are likely to override the logical, explicit statements oI the organisation`s
preIerred strategies.

Insights into the paradigm can be gained by analyzing the elements oI the cultural web.
Johnson and Scholes (1993, p61) have stated
'It would be a mistake to conceive of the paradigm as merelv a set of beliefs
and assumptions removed from organisational action. Thev lie within a cultural web which
bonds them to the dav-to-dav action of organi:ational life.`
The process by which this analysis might be undertaken can vary, Irom listening to people
talk about their organization to asking managers to undertake the analysis themselves using
the cultural web as a checklist. Observing the organisation`s day-to-day operation and
building a picture oI the web in that way can also do it

Stories.

The stories in organizations provide valuable insights into the core belieIs and assumptions oI
the organization. Stories arise and develop over time through the experiences oI individuals
and groups undertaking the day-to-day tasks oI the organisation, and typically deal with the
heroes and villains, successes, disasters and mavericks. They distill the essence oI the
company`s past and legitimize types oI behaviour oI those individuals and groups currently
within the organisation, and attitudes oI outsiders towards that company. They are the means
oI telling people what is important in the organization.

Routines and Rituals.

The routines oI an organization represent the way in which the value activities are carried out
in delivering the organisations strategies. Routines are the mundane aspects oI organizational
liIe which oIten become taken Ior granted as 'the way we do things around here. Indeed, the
outsider might be able to discern the elements oI the organisation`s paradigm by listening to
the way that managers describe the routines oI their organization.

26
Rituals are oI a higher order than routines. They are the special events or circumstances
through which the organization highlights or emphasizes something important. Examples oI
rituals are training, meeting, or union negotiations. Rituals reinIorce 'the way we do things
around here and signal what is important and valued. (Senior, 2002)

Symbols.

The importance oI symbols and symbolic behaviour is oIten underplayed both in
understanding organizational culture and also in assisting strategic change. They can be an
important means oI understanding the types oI behaviour which are expected and rewarded in
the organisation. For example, the symbols oI hierarchy such as oIIice size, carpets and car-
parking spaces are useIul clues to the extent to which the organization is rooted to its
established way oI doing things. Although symbols are shown separately in the cultural web,
it should be remembered that many elements oI the web are symbolic in the sense that they
convey messages beyond their Iunctional purpose. Routine, control and reward systems and
structures are symbolic in so Iar as they signal the type oI behaviour that is valued in the
organization.

Organisational Structure.

These preserve the core belieIs oI the organization and are legitimized by its power structure.
It is thereIore important to understand how the structure relates to the paradigm oI the
organization, and how easy or diIIicult it will be to change in support oI new strategies. The
way in which responsibility and authority are distributed within the organizational structure is
also an important part oI the culture. For example an organization, which is structured and
managed as a series oI separate and competitive units, is likely to have a cohesive culture at
the level oI these subunits, which makes collaborative ventures between units diIIicult.
Indeed in many organisations the systems oI control and reward are also likely to have
developed in a way, which encourages and supports competitive, rather than collaborative
behaviour. It is not surprising; thereIore that individuals and groups are likely to Iavour
strategies, which can be pursued in a devolved rather than integrated way. As devolution
sweeps through he large organizations there is considerable danger that one casualty will be
the ability to co-ordinate joint ventures between businesses, divisions or departments as the
culture at subunit level strengthens at the expense oI a cohesive corporate culture.
27
Control Systems.

Observing the types oI control system in the organization, and the issues that are the most
closely monitored or promoted can assist understanding oI an organisation`s paradigm.
Reward systems are important indicators oI what behaviours are encouraged within the
organization, and can prove to be a major barrier to the success oI any change. For example
an organization that has individual based bonus schemes will Iind it very diIIicult to introduce
team based reward systems based on quality rather than quantity.
In a more general sense it is useIul observing whether control systems are geared to reward or
punishment, since this will inIluence the dominant attitudes to risk taking.

Power Structures.

Power is a key Iorce that shapes organizational culture, and also a means whereby some
expectations inIluence change more strongly than others. Power oIten accrues to those
perceived most able to reduce uncertainty in organizations. Since the paradigm is the set oI
assumptions by which people reduce their personal uncertainty, change may require an attack
on the power structures that protect and legitimize the paradigm. ThereIore an important
issue to assess is the strength oI belieI among the most powerIul individuals and groups; in
other words, whether they are idealists or pragmatists.

Appendix 7.

Reasons Why People Resist Organisational Change

Lack oI Trust
2. BelieI that Change Is Unnecessary
3. BelieI that the Change Is Not Feasible
4. Economic Threats
5. Relative High cost
6. Fear oI Personal Failure
7. Loss oI Status and Power
8. Threat to Values and Ideals
9. Resentment oI InterIerence

$4:7.0: Yukl, G (2002). Leadership in Organisations. Prentice Hall.

28
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich, H. (1999) Organisations Evolving. London. Sage.

Beer, M. (1980) Organisation Change and Development, Scott Foresman and Company.

Beer, M., Eisenistrat, P. A. and Spector, B. (1990) Why Change Programs Don`t Produce
Change. Harvard Business Review. November/Decembe pp 158-166.

Bennis,W., Benne, K D. & Chin, R (1974) The Planning oI Change, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Burnes, B, (1992) Managing Change, London, Pitman Publishing.

Butcher, D and Atkinson, S. (2001) Stealth, Secrecy and Subversion: The Language oI
Change. Journal oI Organisations change Management Vol 14 Number 6 2001 pp 554-569

Carnall, C. (1992) Managing Change. London, Routledge.

Clarke, L. (1994) The Essence oI Change . Hemel Hempstead. Prentice-Hall.

Dawson, P. (2003) Reshaping change. London. Routledge.

Dawson, P. (2003) Understanding Organisation Change. Sage.

Day, J. (2001) Organising Ior Growth. The McKinsley Quarterly

Doyle, M (2002) From Change Novice to Change Expert. Personnel Review Vol 31 Number
4 pp 465-481.

French, W. H. and Bell, C. H. (1984) Organisational Development. Prentice Hall.

Genus, A. (1998) The Management oI Change Perspectives and Practice. Thompson Press.

Goodman, M. (1995) Creative Management. Hemel Hempstead. Prentice Hall.

Goodstein, L & Burke, W (1989) Creating SuccessIul Organizational Change, Organizational
Dynamics.

Greiner, L. (1972) Evolution and Revolution as Organisations Grow. Harvarb Business
Review.

Grundy, T (1993) Managing Strategic change. London. Kogan Page.

Handy, C. (1989) The Age oI Unreason. Arrow.
29
Hamlin, B., Keep, J., and Ash, K. (2001) Organisational Change and Development. Prentice
Hall

Johnson, G., and Scholes, K. (1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy. 5
th
Ed. London: Prentice
Hall.

Lawson, G and Price C. (2003) The Psychology oI Change Management. The McKinsley
Quarterly Number 2.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Row.

Lupton, T. (1971) Organisational Change 'Top-down or 'Bottom-up Management?.
Personnel Review, Autumn, pp 22-28.

Mabey, C. and Salaman, G. (1995) Strategic Human Resource Management. Blackwell.

McCalman, J., and Paton, (2000) Change Management. Sage.

McCalman, J. and Paton, R.A. (1992) Change Management: A Guide To EIIective
Implementation. Paul Chapman.

Mento, A, J, Jones, Rl M and DirndoIIer. W. (2002) A Change Management Process:
Grounded in Both Theory and Practice. Journal and Change Management, August Vol 3
Issue 1. pp 45-60

Mintzberg, H. (1991) The EIIective Organisation: Forces and Forms. Sloan Managerial Review,
Winter 1991, Vol 32 Part 2 p 55

Morgan, G. (1997) Images oI Organisations. Sage.

Mullins, L,J,. (2002) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 6
th
Edition. Prentice Hall.

Nadler, P, A. and Tushman, M, T. (1997) Competing By Design. A Blueprint For
Organisational Architecture. OxIord. OxIord University Press.

Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. (1982) In Search oI Excellence. Lessons From Americas
Best Run Companies. Harper and Row.

Quinn, J. B. (1980) Managing Strategic Change. Sloan Management Review, Summer pp3-
20.

Quinn, J. B. (1993) Managing Strategic Change in Mabey, C and Mayon-White, B (Eds)
Managing Change. London. Paul Chapman.

30
Robbins, S., and Coulter, M. (2003) Management. 7
th
Edition. Prentice Hall.

Saka, A (2003) Internal Change Agents` View oI the Management oI Change Problem.
Journal oI Organisational change Management. Vol 16 Number 5 pp 480-496.

Senior, B. (2002) Organisational Change, 2
nd
Edition. Financial Times/Pitman Publishing.

Strebel, P. (1996) Breakpoint, How to Stay in the Game, Mastering Management, Part 17.
Financial Times

Thornhill, A., Lewis, P., Millmore, M., and Saunders, M.(2000) Managing Change. A
Human Resource Strategy Approach. Prentice Hall.

ToIIler, A. (1990) Future Shock. Blackwell Press.

Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H. and Romanelli, E. (1988) 'Convergence and Upheaveal:
Managing the Unsteady Pace oI Organisational Evolution In M. L. Thushan and W. L.
Moore (Eds) Readings in the Management oI Innovation. New York. Ballinger.

Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1997) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change. OxIord
University Press.

Yukl, G, (2001) Leadership in Organizations, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc.

Zaltman, G & Duncan, R (1977) Strategies Ior Planned Change, London, Wiley.



ELECTRONIC SOURCES

www.british-gypsum.bpb.com/main1.htm
www.britishgypsum.bpb.com
www.gypsum.ie
www.managementIirst.com.change
www.mardon-y2k.com


OTHER REFERENCES
BPB Annual Reports 2001 and 2002.
BPB Western Europe News, Winter 2002.
BPB World.
Keynote Market Report, Building Materials Industry, 2001.