Table 1
When the magnitude of change is intended
to produce remarkable effects upon the business and the individuals concerned
the extent of change is habitually deemed radical; by contrast, whether change
is expected to not considerably impact the business it is regarded as
incremental. It can be hence argued that radical change seriously alters and impacts
the organization status quo at large and that it is thus feared and resisted the
most by the employees. In contrast, incremental change being perceived by
individuals as less pervasive, intrusive and invasive is likely to give raise
to weaker restraining forces, if any, to change. As suggested by Gallivan et al
(1994), incremental change can be broadly considered as having a limited impact
on businesses and people in that it just entails adjustments, partial
modifications or improvement to the current products, norms, procedures,
structures and knowledge; whereas radical change usually implies remarkable
modifications, if not a complete replacement, of these components and can be thus
definitely perceived as invasive by the individuals concerned.
This dimension of change, that
is to say the scale or size of change, is associated with the degree and
intensity of the effects change is expected to produce in terms of perceptions upon
the individuals concerned. The opposite sides of the scale of change have been
called in different ways over time: evolutionary and revolutionary (Greiner,
1972), first-order and second-order (Bartunek and Louis, 1988), incremental and
radical (Meyer et al., 1990), transitional
and transformational (Wilson, 1992), first-level and second-level (Jabri, 1997)
and continuous and discontinuous (Weick and Quinn, 1999).
Another important dimension of
change is represented by the pace, that is to say the speed change can be introduced
and executed in practice within an organization. With reference to this facet,
going from one extreme to the other, it is generally considered that change can
be introduced and executed within a business either gradually or rapidly.
In
order to make appropriate decisions about the most suitable approach to change,
managers have to carefully consider the two different main implications
associated with this aspect: the employer ability to contrast the restraining
forces likely to emerge and its capacity to eventually amend the intended plans
en route in order to attain the desired outcome and avert that the overall
process may end in failure.
The advocates
of the rapid approach (Van de Ven, 1993 and Peters, 1993) contend that implementing
change rapidly, leaving little or no room for hindrance, can effectually help
employers to better counterbalance and contrast employee resistance to change. According
to this viewpoint, the circumstance that the “probationary period” of change is
brief contributes to make it easier for change to successfully pass it. Yet, at
least supposedly, over a short period of time it is less likely that the restraining
forces eventually emerging may successfully associate and unite in order to fiercely
oppose and contrast change. Individuals would need a while before finding out
whereas the proposed change might actually threaten their personal interest and
have detrimental effects upon their status quo, ultimately pushing them beyond their
comfort zone.
In
the same fashion but taking a different, or rather, opposite viewpoint, the supporters
of the incremental approach aver that introducing change over a long period of
time ensures change a longer trial period during which managers can eventually
identify anomalies and miscalculations and manage these accordingly. In this way,
whether during the execution process managers should realise that plans are
inconsistent with the pre-identified objectives and that more in general these are
not going ahead as expected, to the detriment of the pursuance of the envisaged
original programme, these would still be in time to make the necessary
adjustments.
Relationship between the scale and pace
of change
During the last decades
researchers have tried to investigate whether a linkage or even a cause effect
relationship might be identified between the size and pace of change. Albeit
these different studies have led to different and sometimes even contrasting results,
a common view about the existence of a certain relationship between the two
dimensions seems to transpire.
Hammer
(1990) contended that radical change can effectively and successfully be achieved
only by means of a rapid implementation process; by contrast, Tyre and
Orlikowski (1994) suggested that a gradual, phased implementation of change is
necessary to attain the final desired objective. To this extent, it might
reveal to be sorely interesting comparing two different approaches to change
management, that is to say the culture-excellence approach with the Japanese methodology.
The advocates of the culture-excellence
approach, aiming at fostering innovation and stressing the significance of the
soft qualities of individuals, do not seem to have reached a common consent as for
what concerns the rhythm change has to be introduced and implemented. Peters
(1993), for instance, suggested that employers should adopt a “big bang”
approach to radical change management: “change radically and do it quickly”;
Handy (1986), in contrast, supported a more gradual approach to radical change:
“big changes over a long period”; whereas Kanter et al (1992) argued that a
blended approach, based on a mix of these two extremes, would have represented
the most appropriate methodology to the implementation of radical change. According
to the latter method invasive, remarkable changes, especially when these are affecting
behavioural aspects, can successfully be achieved over a longer period of time only.
Notwithstanding, the Authors also recognized that, albeit radical change can effectually
be attained only in the long run, employers should also preferably put in place
some initiatives aiming at yielding tangible, immediate results. This is
basically why this approach to change is defined as a combination of “bold
strokes and long marches.”
The Japanese approach, also called
organisational learning, is essentially based on a more focused and structured method
where the design phase of change is basically concerned with the identification
and creation of a vision and the execution phase with the implementation of the
activities considered necessary to move towards the desired position by means
of incremental steps (Burnes, 2009). This actually is a methodology typical of
the Kaizen philosophy to management, also known as lean production. This
approach is underpinned by the idea that businesses, to improve the quality of
their output or more in general to attain efficiency, have to introduce and
implement change gradually and continuously. Products and performance
enhancement are thus achieved by means of incremental rather than rapid change.
The
Japanese methodology is based on the idea that plans have to be ambitious and overarching
and have to be gradually, but relentlessly pursued till their successful attainment.
Notwithstanding, Burnes (2009) suggests that the effectiveness of this approach
is debatable in that it is unlikely to produce valuable results in western
countries, such as the US and the UK, where businesses can successfully
implement radical change over a short period of time and where a built-in
aversion to long-term thinking, especially within the financial service industry,
which plays a pivotal role in the life of many other organizations, seems to
dominate. According to Cawsey et al (2012), the Japanese entrepreneurs actually
learned this approach from US management researchers such as Duran and Deming.
Irrespective of this fact, it can be hardly averred that Japan is a country unaffected
by the pressure coming from the exogenous environment. Since the most recognised
Japanese employers operate in the automotive and electronics industries it is indeed
difficult to imagine that these might afford to be late of a single day vis-à-vis
their competitors in terms of innovation or that these are immune to the market
pressure. This approach may perhaps rather explain the reasons why the Japanese
economy has experienced so many hardships during the last years. Yet, the
circumstance that from time to time some Japanese automotive manufacturers have
to retire from the market large numbers of cars on account of the detection of some
technical problems might induce to think that this approach is lately showing some
signs of weakness, but this is a completely different topic.
Focusing back upon the pace and
scale of change subject, a definitely compelling question arises whether a direct
relationship between these two dimensions of change can be actually identified in
practice; and more in particular whether it could be assumed that both radical
and incremental change have to be implemented at a specific, universally
recognised and pre-identified pace.
Employers can actually decide,
and sometimes even be practically obliged, to introduce change for a wide variety
of reasons. Yet, change can relate to different aspects of the organisational
life; technology advancements, the need to change the organisation of work and
the way activities are performed within a business only represent a very few
examples of how change can remarkably impact an organisation. Change can indeed
affect deeper, more pervasive and intangible aspects of the organisational life
which may require in turn trickier, profounder and more thorough interventions
such as those aiming at transforming an organisation culture or structure in
order to more effectually sustain the business strategy. It can be hence agreed
with Newman (1998) that change, and not necessarily only radical change as she
contended, “is a process by which firms regain competitive advantage after it
has been lost”, or rather, since prevention is invariably better than cure,
before it might be lost.
As organisational wants can clearly
be different and the specific circumstances, which are subject to change over
time, clearly play a remarkable role in change decisions, to avert an
inevitable, dismal failure the one-size-fits-all approach has to be definitely excluded.
This clearly entails that it would be pointless and even counterproductive
trying to establish a universal, precise and predetermined link between the
size and pace of change. After having identified for each specific project the
size of change, one of the most important decisions managers have to make actually
concerns the speed change has to be practically introduced and implemented, but
this has to be set as suggested by the different circumstances and by no means according
to what the alleged best practice might suggest.
When in the mid-1990s Mr Jong-Yong Yun was appointed as the new
Samsung Group President and CEO, for instance, to identify the most appropriate
speed at which implementing change within the company he clearly had to take
into due consideration both the pressure coming from the external environment and
the internal conditions. Albeit the main key to success was in that case represented
by the type of strategy Mr. Yun decided to adopt, based on fostering and
instilling a generalised sense of crisis within the business, he would have not
clearly been able to attain the predetermined objectives whether the speed of change
implementation would have not supported the identified strategy.
Mr Yun had to face at the time particularly
exceptional circumstances; the external environment was marked by a severe recession
affecting the entire Asian region and the organisational context was sorely
unprepared to face the current adverse conditions. A restructuring process
leading to a workforce reduction of about a third of the existing staff, the
recruitment of 1,000 employees composed of American MBA graduates and PhD-level
engineers, the introduction of profound changes in the firm’s management
structure and a huge investment in technology are clearly self-explanatory of
the scale of change the company had to undergone. Albeit under such circumstances
Mr Yun had not really that many options available to him and had to necessarily
opt for a rapid pace of change, this example clearly bespeaks the relevance and
significance that the contextual factor has for employers decision about the speed
change has to be introduced (Instilling a sense of crisis – Crisis v Urgency in
change management (Instilling a sense of crisis – Crisis v Urgency in change management).
The exogenous context
The Samsung example helps to show that the pressure exerted by the
external context plays indeed a remarkable role in the decision-making process
aiming at identifying the right pace of change. Nonetheless, for ludicrous it
might seem to be, the grim exogenous circumstances can at times actually help employers
to accelerate the speed of change without giving rise to relevant, if any, restraining
forces. Whenever an employer initiative aiming at introducing change is dictated
and imposed by the exogenous environment in fact change is much more likely to
be accepted by individuals. In such circumstances the pace of change can be
accelerated with little or no risk that this might be severely opposed by employees,
who will certainly be much more incline to accept change despite this might require
them to leave their comfort zone. Under these circumstances, properly
communicating employees the reasons, scope and necessity for change and how
this can effectively and genuinely help the business to stay afloat and competitive
in the market is more crucial than usual.
The influence exerted by the external context may
not clearly take only the form of economic or financial hardships; technological
advances, new legislation and many other factors may indeed prompt employers to
introduce sensible changes within their business over time.
The endogenous context
Irrespective of the circumstance that change may be deemed as radical
or incremental, employers would invariably ideally prefer to introduce and
implement change as quickly as they can. The pace of the implementation of
change actually turns to be an issue for employers in that, whether
inappropriate, this might favour the emergence of restraining forces. Yet, the larger
the magnitude of change, the harsher the likely resistance opposed by
individuals to it. The pace of change has hence to be duly identified and
adapted to the circumstances by employers in order to prevent restraining
forces to emerge or the worse comes to the worst to eventually effectually enable
employers to contrast and curb these.
As properly claimed by Boddy (2008), albeit
employers aim at introducing change to alter the organisational state of play, the
organisational context can in turn, even remarkably, impact employers initiatives.
This is basically why, based on the businesses environmental characteristics, Pettigrew
et al (1992) made a distinction between receptive and non-receptive
organisational context to change, which may respectively naturally favour or oppose
change.
An organization receptiveness or unreceptiveness to change depends on a
number of factors, amongst these a particularly remarkable role is played by organisational
culture. Organizations whose culture is based on fostering and stimulating
continuous development and where individuals are encouraged to contribute new
ways of organising and performing their own job activities can clearly be
considered receptive organisations. These habitually are not only constantly
ready to change, but also prepared to its rapid implementation. Other examples
of receptive organisations can be considered those businesses whose culture
fosters the need and readiness to capitalize on the latest technological
advances.
In Samsung, which is nowadays one of the most, arguably the most, valued
and trusted global consumer electronics manufacturer, culture is still based on
fostering a sense of crisis and urgency. The tenet underpinning this idea is
that, even though the business is performing incredibly well at the moment, it might
take little for the positive trend suddenly and abruptly go into reverse.
It can be ultimately argued that the rate of change should be sorely associated
with the real need, awareness and perception the same employees develop about change.
It cannot and should not be overlooked that also the general and financial
conditions of an organisation may play a role. Whilst individuals could accept,
for instance, a rapid radical change whether the business is experiencing
severe financial hardships, these might oppose change or prefer a phased, incremental
approach in those cases in which the business is financially strong.
According to the type of change, the pace could also be influenced by its
magnitude. Taking as an example the introduction of a business-wide new technology,
a sudden and too fast implementation could very likely produce a series of downsides
and a knock-on effect on employers too. Whether people would not be properly and
appropriately trained and put in a position to comfortably deal with the new system
and procedures before definitively using these, the consequences might be detrimental
for both parties. Especially when change affects different levels and units of
the business a rapid, revolutionary approach, rather than a phased and
evolutionary one, can clearly risk paralysing a business’ operations.
All-in-all, it can be concluded that the pace with which change is introduced
by employers should be as faster as it could be reasonably sustained and justified.
Individuals are habitually much more willing to accept a faster pace of even
radical change whether this is perceived and considered as appropriate,
pertinent, functional, proportionate and reasonable to the circumstances and to
the attainment of the preset and communicated objectives. The identified and
communicated objectives need in turn to be supportable and objectively
significant. According to the different viewpoints this can be indeed
considered as somewhat of a virtuous or vicious circle.
Individual comprehension and understanding can
be ultimately considered equal to individual acceptance; whether there are genuine,
good reasons for introducing change just clearly explaining these to employees
will dramatically increase the employers’ chances to succeed.
Longo, R., (2013), The scale and pace of
change: radical or incremental – rapid or gradual?, Milan: HR Professionals, [online].
