Leadership and Organizational Change by Stewart L. Tubbs, Darrell H. Cooper Professor of Leadership, College of Business, Eastern Michigan University

Due to the rapidly increasing rate of change, we have all been put under increasing pressure to adapt or go under. For example, most universities today offer web-based, catalogs, application, and registration. Attempts to create planned organizational change must begin with leaders at all levels. Ideally, the changes should begin at the top and be in alignment at all levels. However, I believe that each unit leader has the potential to initiate and create change at any level.

All of us have attempted to improve our respective campuses and have probably experienced some successes and some failures. Fifty years ago, Kurt Lewin wrote about the challenge of trying to get people to change. He called this force field analysis. This theory states that any situation occurs as a result of the combination of various competing forces. If you have ever tried to live up to your New Year's resolutions, you have experienced this. Your motivation to live up to your new year's resolutions represents the driving forces for change. If you are thinking of exercising more, or losing weight, several arguments can add to your motivation toward change (better fitting clothes, better appearance, better health). The restraining forces are all the reasons why you don't live up to your resolutions (it's fun to eat, it's too cold (or hot) to exercise, or it takes more effort to lose weight as you get older (and your metabolism slows). By the way, research has shown that the average diet lasts about 72 hours. This shows just how powerful those restraining forces can be.

Force field analysis is often applied to organizations as well. As a leader, you are interested in creating a better future and have the responsibility to create changes that you think will improve your university. However, others in your organization may be much more interested in maintaining the status quo. You may have heard the expression attributed to Henry Kissinger that, "The reason university politics are so vicious, is that the stakes are so small." Or that university policies and practices usually change at "glacial speed." The status quo in any organization is called the "dynamic equilibrium" that is created between the driving forces and the restraining forces. Change can occur by either increasing the driving forces or decreasing the restraining forces or some combination of the two.

If you want to try this analysis to help you implement change, you may want to try analyzing some of these questions.

What are some of the arguments that resisters might raise? What are your counter-arguments? When you encounter resistance, are there ways that you might modify your plan to accommodate their opposition? Are there any ways that you can channel into constructive forces for change? Can you create an inventory of resources and supporters who can be called upon to assist? Have you fully developed your case for change?

People not only resist change, but they also may resist the way in which the changes occur. This is the good news for leaders. We can often control the way or the process in which we go about making the changes. John Kotter (1996, 1999) at Harvard Business School has developed one of the most highly respected models for creating planned organizational change. His model consists of the following eight stages.

1. Establishing a sense of urgency. Employees (and all of us) settle into a comfort zone and become complacent. This can result from too much success, too much positive talk from top leaders, low overall performance standards and a host of other factors. A constant orientation to the competitive market is required to overcome this complacency. Andy Grove's (1996) book Only The Paranoid Survive is one of the best sources I have found that demonstrates how to create a sense of urgency.

2. Creating the guiding coalition. In order to establish the necessary critical mass to accomplish the change, leaders must enlist the support of opinion leaders from across the organization to help diffuse the innovation. Rogers (1995) work in this regard is the best I have seen.

3. Developing a vision and strategy. The vision must capture a desired state that the organization would not achieve unless you adopt changes. It must also be feasible, focused flexible, and communicable.

4. Communicating the vision. Keep it simple. Try using a metaphor or example to make it memorable. It must be repeated in multiple forums, and it must be repeated many times. It should also be communicated in two-way forums to address the important issues that comprise some of the restraining forces.

5. Empowering broad-based action. Change may involve streamlining normal organizational structures. Our beloved academy is notorious for its processes and red tape. Training programs must also be used to help build new knowledge, attitudes and behaviors.

6. Generating short-term wins. We all need to see proof that the effort is worth it. Short-term wins must be visible, unambiguous, and clearly related to the change effort. These serve to reward the change agents and to renew people's commitment to the change effort. These also serve to undermine critics and major resisters.

7. Consolidating gains and producing more changes. One mistake is to declare victory too soon. Keep in mind that this is often a multi-year phenomenon and that you must keep the pressure for change on and keep recruiting new supporters as old ones reduce their efforts.

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture. Organizational culture is one of the most enduring aspects of organizational behavior. Unless the change effort is continuously supported, there is tremendous pressure to return to the status quo. (Remember the data on the length of the average diet!).

Although these eight stages appear to be intuitively obvious, if you have ever tried to implement these ideas you will immediately appreciate their complexity.

In addition, Peter Drucker (1999) has offered the following useful advice for leaders on managing change:

1. Introduce change on a small scale. James Watt patented the steam engine in 1769 and it was only used for running steam engines to pump water out of coal mines. It was several years later that the engines were used for widespread purposes.

2. Budget for change. Have one budget for maintaining your operation (85-90% of your total budget), and another budget to finance the changes for the future 10-15%of the total budget). Most organizations cut their budgets in bad times and don't protect their investment in the future.

3. Balance change and continuity. Change requires constant information to help people understand what is going on. Also, innovators need to be promoted and rewarded with pay raises and bonuses. At the same time, those who keep the organization's routine operations running smoothly also need to be recognized and rewarded appropriately. This is a delicate balancing act. (p. 70-72).

Keep in mind that the alternative to change is extinction. Charles Darwin taught us that those most likely to survive are not the biggest, nor the strongest, but those most able to adapt to the demands of their environment.

References

Peter Drucker. 1999. Change Leaders. Inc. June: 65-72.

Andy Grove. 1996. Only The Paranoid Survive. Currency/Doubleday.

John P. Kotter. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.

John P. Kotter. 1999. On What Leaders Really Do. A Harvard Business Review Book.

Everett M. Rogers. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (4^th ed.). The Free Press.