Contents

What is change Examples of organizational change Why do ppl resist to change Organizational barriers to change Individual barriers to change

How to overcome Case stude conclusion

Examples of organizational change

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mission changes, Strategic changes, Operational changes (including Structural changes), Technological changes, Changing the attitudes and behaviors of personnel,[citation needed]

Growth

Organizational growth, while considered a positive change, can have a negative effect on the environment and employee attitude. The companys culture, current leadership styles, and business systems may no longer accommodate the organization in its new form.
Growth needs to be managed on multiple levels: having the right leaders leading the right people to do the right things at the right time.

Unplanned Change

Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization. This causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion.

At times, organizational change happens when it becomes necessary to react to a sudden development. All kinds of emergency can force organizations to introduce new ways of doing things, or of structuring themselves.

Planned Change

Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful

implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude.

Radical Change

We view radical organizational change as a process by which firms regain competitive advantage after it has been lost or threatened significantly. We find that the type and extent of change undertaken depends upon the firms resources and capabilities; its competitive environment; and its leadership. Radical change is divergent, meant to fundamentally change the firms processes, systems, structures, strategies, and core values.

Radically Innovative Change

Radically innovative change, the most intimidating type of change, consists of replacing an existing process, product, or technology with one that is new to the industry. Radically innovative change may produce a high degree of uncertainty. There is also a high potential for resistance to the change within the organization.
Developmental

Developmental change concentrates on improving an already successful environment. Development occurs through improving aspects of an organization such as increasing customer base or introducing a product expansion.
Transformational Change

Transformational change occurs when organizations incur drastic changes and must essentially transform themselves. This can occur when an organization faces different technologies, significant changes in supply and demand, unexpected competition, lack of revenue or other major shifts in how they do business.

Transformational change involves implementation of an evolutionary new state. This requires major and often ongoing shifts in organizational strategy. Examples of this include reengineering, major restructuring, downsizing, consolidation, and major shifts in business focus.

Transformational change is where the organization is fundamentally and substantially altered. Organizational culture is part of transformational change and is harder to change versus organizational climate because of its deep-seated beliefs, and values. Included in transformational change are mission and strategy, leadership, and organizational culture.

Transitional

Transitional change involves the replacement of a current process with a process that new to the company. Mergers, acquisitions, new product creation, and the implementation of new technologies are examples of transitional change.
Tucker, Jan. Suite101.com. 29 09 2008 <http://businessmanagement.suite101.com/article.cfm/types_of_change>.

Transitional change requires the introduction of new processes that modify the way the company operates in the event that current methods of operation are no longer applicable. Examples of transitional change include reorganization, minor restructuring, utilization of new operational techniques/methods/procedures, or the introduction of new services or products.

Strategy Deployment

These projects were defined as building or changing the capabilities of the organization. Some efforts involve trying to improve what the organization already does; other efforts involve creating radically new strengths.

Restructuring/Downsizing

These projects involve rearranging organizational units and/or the workforce. Downsizing primarily refers to reducing the number of employees but also includes divestiture of company assets, that is, selling off a piece of the business. Restructuring /downsizing has been widely studied. Quantitative measure of operational and financial performance is typically used.

Remedial Change

Remedial change addresses a particular situation, which needs immediate attention. Some examples may include a deficiency in a product line or employee burnout. The determination of success is whether there is a solution to the problem. Evolutionary Change
Evolutionary change involves setting direction, allocating responsibilities, and establishing reasonable timelines for achieving objectives. It is rarely fast enough or comprehensive enough to move ahead of the curve in an evolving world where stakes are high, and the response time is short.

>.

Revolutionary Change

When faced with market-driven urgency, abrupt and sometimes disruptive change, such as dramatic downsizing or reengineering, may be required to keep the company competitive. In situations when timing is critical to success, and companies must get more efficient and productive rapidly, revolutionary change is demanded.

Proactive change

Proactive change involves actively attempting to make alterations to the work place and its practices. Companies that take a proactive approach to change are often trying to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity.

Reactive change

Reactive change occurs when an organization makes changes in its practices after some threat or opportunity has already occurred.

As a multidisciplinary practice that has evolved as a result of scholarly research, Organizational Change Management should begin with a systematic diagnosis of the current situation in order to determine both the need for change and the capability to change. The objectives, content, and process of change should all be specified as part of a Change Management plan.

Change Management processes may include creative marketing to enable communication between change audiences, but also deep social understanding about leaderships styles and group dynamics. As a visible track on transformation projects, Organizational Change Management aligns groups expectations, communicates, integrates teams and manages people training. It makes use of performance metrics, such as financial results, operational efficiency, leadership commitment, communication effectiveness, and the perceived need for change to design appropriate strategies, in order to avoid change failures or solve troubled change projects. What is organization change? First of all, what is organizational change? With most of corporate America restructuring, downsizing or "rightsizing", the mere mention of the word 'change' can bring negative connotations. However, if any organization is going to position itself to be a viable, credible force in the 21st Century, it must recognize the need to change. Organizational change can be defined as developing systematic approaches to improve the way an organization conducts its mission. Although we sometimes don't want to admit it, there are always better ways of doing our job. Think of change as an opportunity for improvement. Why change? Why change? What if someone told you that your product would go out 80 percent correct? Would that be good enough for you? How about 90 percent? What level of quality are you willing to accept? The point is we have to be striving to be the best. Since the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is made up of such a diverse group of people with great ideas, there is no reason to accept the status quo. Accepting change is essential for you to be able to maximize your opportunities within CAP. Fundamental concepts of implementing change In order to implement change, you have to start with some basics. Change requires more than just time. You've got to be willing to increase training, document new processes and procedures, and allow teams to learn, grow, and make mistakes. We must constantly work and apply new techniques, methods, and ideas. If we don't, we risk reverting back to past behaviors. There are two kinds of change: Change as a result of external influences (like reductions in our budget, which affects the resources of our organization). We cannot control this type of change, but it does influence internal change. Change as a result of internal influences (like our own restructuring initiatives, which may redistribute resources). This type of change we can control. Before we discuss the Performance Management Process model for implementing change, it is worth noting a few of the quality principles that provide a road map to help us reach our goals. They are leadership involvement, dedication to the mission, respect for the individual, decentralized organization, management by fact, and empowerment. These principles are not just a haphazard collection of good ideas; they are essential to your understanding of operationalizing quality and where you impact the Performance Management process.

In todays environment, changes are compulsory for an organization in order to survive and stay competitive. Although, planned change is intended to make the organization more effective and efficient, resistance from members of the organization are expected as they foresee

potential threats that can affect their future. Therefore, readiness for change from the members of the organization is a critical factor in successful change implementation. This paper discusses the aspects of organizational readiness for change which consist of perception toward change efforts, vision for change, mutual trust and respect, change initiatives, management support, acceptance, and how the organization manage the change process.

It is in human nature to resist change. "We resist change. We choose to keep our habits, rather the comfort of our habits" (Dr. Claude Brodeur PhD, http://members.tripod.com/zenol/humanism.html). Change and the phenomenon of it, is fundamental to evolution; and yet it implies some sort of resistance. Resistance to change can take various forms and the task of filtering out the cause of resistance can often be difficult. Examples include change in work processes where the needs, expectations, and concerns of individuals are ignored. Change and resistance to it forms a knock-on-effect to both the construction and destruction of any organisation. Fear is one of the major forms of resistance to change and I shall discuss this in depth at a later stage. Alas resistance to change can be categorised to the organisational level and the individual level. It is these two separate levels which I shall discuss further exploring what steps may be taken to overcome resistance at both the organisational and individual level.

INTRODUCTION Because of increasingly dynamic environments, organizations are continually confronted with the need to implement changes in strategy, structure, process, and culture. Many factors contribute to the effectiveness with which such organizational changes are implemented. One such factor is readiness for change. Readiness is reflected in the organizational members beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organizations capacity to successfully make those changes. It is the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort

Factors behind change management resistance Several factors behind the resistance have been discussed. It is now time to examine a wider range of factors that give rise to resistance to change.

Fear of change is contagious. People around you are afraid of change and transfer this to you. This is most frequently done by relating the worse case impacts of change. A cause of this is often that management did not clearly and convincingly spell out what would happen after the change. Management emphasizes cost savings over productivity and satisfaction of employees. The employees begin to look around and see that cost savings can only really come about in staff cuts. Junior employees become worried since they may feel that the last hired are the first terminated. Senior employees feel that their positions will be diminished. In some situations people were not properly trained in their current jobs so that they have more resistance to change. In many business units if, during the interview, it is found that they have done the same or similar work for another firm, they are hired and placed in a department. It is assumed that they do not need training since they know how of doing the work. However, this creates problems since there could be several different ways to do the work. This lack of standardization then leads to more problems when change is attempted. Previous attempts at change in their business unit failed. Employees may then think that this will be another failed attempt. They see no reason to support the change. Change in another department resulted in job cutbacks. The writing is on the wall. No matter what the management or the change team says, the real approach is perceived to be aimed at job cutback. In carrying out the change, the change team does not value the knowledge and experience of the employees. Their sense of worth is diminished so that they are more likely to resist change. Employees often sense this

when they are asked what they do, but are not asked about how they do the work. They perceive that the change team does not care. Fear of demotion or loss of position. This has been discussed. It is interesting to note that the more management says that there will be no layoffs, the more the employees feel that there will be. There has been a history of problems with management so that there is a lack of trust and faith. Some managers in the past have gone hot and cold on change. They may have tried in a half-hearted way some exotic change method or something related to change. These initiatives then disrupted the work. People are unwilling to participate in change because management views the additional work as part of the job and does not value it. Management priorities are not clear. Moreover, the employees think that management feels that they must not do much work since they are insisting that the change can be carried out on top of existing work. Employees receive different signals and messages from management and various members of the change team. This leads not only to confusion, but also resistance. Different signals can be characterized by giving different directions, various and conflicting goals of change, and contradictory procedures or policies. Employees participate and volunteer information at the start of the change effort, but they see that other people take credit for their work. Some employees have embraced change and have come up with ideas of their own to the change team. Often, the employees had to really think about the change for a long time since they were not trained or have experience in change. Now they see members of the change team taking credit for their ideas. They rightly feel ripped off. The employees are not told what is expected of them. There is a lack of planning with them. They are just told how to change their work. There is no discussion of impact or what the benefits are to be. This fuzziness leads to confusion and then to resistance. Resistance worked before in the past, it might work again. This is human nature. What worked in the past is often what is perceived to work well in the current situation. There is substantial management change and turnover. Current management has directed that change be carried out. Yet, similar things have occurred in the past. Then the managers moved on to other jobs. The employees feel that if they can hold out longer, these managers will disappear. The change is not addressing major needs. The changes that are defined by the change team are good and perceived as such by the employees. However, there is no effort to address the major problems that the employees perceive to exist. People are being pulled away from their work, but are still held accountable for the same performance. The employees are involved in the change effort during working hours. However, their normal work is not done by anyone else. So they have to work over their breaks and lunch time to make up for the time lost in the change effort. What does this tell them about how management values their work? The change leaders and team do not address issues raised by the employees. The employees may raise legitimate issues and questions. The change team or leaders acknowledge the concerns, but nothing is done. The employees almost have no alternative, but to feel that (1) the change team does not care or value their opinions; (2) the change team is following their own agenda without regard to the employees. There are major work pressures, such as year-end closing, right at the time when change is being attempted. This is obviously poor timing and planning. However, you can still undertake change if you carefully work with these additional pressures. After the change has been defined, middle managers and the change team tinker with the details of the change. Specific directions have been given on how the work is to be done. A short time later a manager or supervisor arrives and sees what is going on and starts to insist on changes in details. The employees become confused and complain that they don't know what to do. The change team does not make clear in detail how the new procedures are to work. There are gaps between what directions they are given and what they must do. This is like being given a recipe for a food dish that is incomplete. You have to invent steps to fill the gaps, or you revert back to what you know works.

Why Employees Resist Change

Changes in the economy and the business environment have forced some organizations to change the way they do business. Whether we like it or not, managers and supervisors are the ones who have to implement the changes. In

addition to the more traditional skills we possess as supervisors, it is critical that we understand our role as leaders, or change agents, in these rapidly changing times. Unfortunately, all employees do not respond to change with the attitude, Fantastic: another organizational change, and Im excited to be a part of it! Given that change is here to stay, why do some people seem to dig in their heels and resist it at all costs? The following 10 reasons best describe why some people have a tough time changing their mindsets and behavior: 1. Fear of failure Resistance to change may be rooted in fear. During periods of change, some employees may feel the need to cling to the past because it was a more secure, predictable time. If what they did in the past worked well for them, they may resist changing their behavior out of fear that they will not achieve as much in the future. 2. Creatures of habit Doing things in the same routine, predictable manner is comfortable. Asking people to change the way they operate or think is asking them to move outside their comfort zone. 3. No obvious need Some employees may see a change only from the perspective of the impact it has on them and their particular jobs. Not seeing the big picture, they may fail to recognize the positive impact of the change on the organization as a whole. Thus, they may find the change disruptive and totally unnecessary. 4. Loss of control Familiar routines help employees develop a sense of control over their work environment. Being asked to change the way they operate may make employees feel powerless and confused. 5. Concern about support system Employees operating within predictable routines know their support system will back them up during challenging times. Changing the organizational structures may shake their confidence in their support system. They may worry about working for a new supervisor, with new employees or on unfamiliar projects because they fear that if they try and fail, there will be no one there to support them. 6. Closed minded Some employees seem to have the attitude, Please dont confuse me with any facts or supporting documentation about this changeIve already made up my mind! Employees with this attitude approach the change process with their minds firmly made up, muttering, No way! during discussions and explanations of the future. 7. Unwillingness to learn Some employees, hesitant to try new routines, express an unwillingness to learn anything new. They may say, I already know all that I need to know. Like resistant employees who have already made up their minds that the change wont be productive, employees reluctant to learn something new impede the organizations growth and adaptation to change. They also hinder their own personal growth and development. 8. Fear that the new way may not be better If things have been going well, some employees may resist change because they fear that the change will not result in improvement. Focusing only on their part of the operation, they fail to realize that change is needed in order for the organization to stay competitive. They may resist forward movement because they are satisfied with the way things are going. Their current status is quite sufficient, and they wish to maintain business as usual. 9. Fear of the unknown Employees may resist change simply because it is something unfamiliar. Based on data from our employee opinion surveys, only 66.5% of employees surveyed feel they are kept-well informed about changes going on in their organization. Not knowing much about the specifics of the change, they may imagine a worst case scenario, which can be very scary. They let fear of the unknown become their rationale for not giving the change a chance. These employees may acknowledge that a problem exists and agree that a change might improve it. However, they worry that the proposed change might actually make things worse! Their fear causes them to place roadblocks in the movement toward change. 10. Fear of personal impact Viewing change from a personal standpoint, some employees may respond by asking how the change will benefit them directly. Will it make their job easier? Will they have to work harder? Will the change put their job security in jeopardy? Will the change force them to work with different people or learn a new job?

These are all initial responses you may experience when you announce an organizational change to employees. Once you understand why some employees resist change and realize that their reactions are perfectly normal, you will be better able to change their attitudes and turn their resistance into cooperation.

You see that the common sources of the problems were:

Lack of coordination and training in carrying out change for the change team. Poor leadership by the change managers. Lack of coordination among managers and between managers and the change team

The Organisational Barriers to Change

There are a number of barriers to change at the organisational level that, need to be addressed to allow change to be implemented with the least amount of resistance. These include: Undefined Goals and Objectives An organisation should clarify continually the goals and objectives, outlining roles and specifying performance standards. Financial and Environmental Lack of working capital in an organisation can prevent it from introducing change that is necessary to stay ahead of competitors or merely survive as a business. In these circumstances redundancies are almost inevitable. The lack of finance could be due to a variety of factors. These include: a fall in market demand, rise in competition or the degree of turbulence in the market place such as the September 11 th World Trade Disaster; which caused a significant effect on businesses and investment world wide. Lack of Resources and Bad Resource Allocation Lack of resources is an onset of financial and/or environmental issues as discussed in the above paragraph. Bad resource allocation, occur when managers make bad decisions in allocating resources such as money, time, machinery and staff. Managers should use their imagination to avoid causing conflict situations. Structural An organisation that follows the traditional hierarchical structure tends to resist change more than that which has a more flat structure. Communication between head of departments and employees in traditional hierarchical structures are usually poor which causes a rift between Management and Employees. Insufficient Communication There are two branches of communication, which are communication internally, within the organisation between Employees and Management and externally between the organisation and suppliers and customers. In organisations where management keep employees in the dark with respect to change potentially face fierce resistance. Employees may interpret this as a conspiracy against them inevitably leading to an unfriendly atmosphere to work in. Organisations that fail to communicate with their Customers and Suppliers, changes that are in effect can face disastrous consequences. Example the Tiptree Company that had implemented a 1.5 million

warehousing system to handle a larger number of books failed to notify, its customers that it had undergone a radical change without informing its customers. Unfortunate for Tiptree, which encountered problems with their new systems for about six months; had tarnished its 1992 British Book Awards Distributor of the Year. (Judy Collins, CRASH 28 th October 2000) Lack of or Bad Leadership Strong leadership is required in order to direct the change management process in any organisation. Bad leaders who merely provide are not doing enough to inspire the employees to march ahead. People want to be shown the way. Lack of Preparation for New Roles Organisations may lack in their planning phase. Failing to prepare and define the new roles that will need to be satisfied when change is implemented; shall give rise to resistance. Cultural Issues The culture of an organisation is a set of unwritten rules. Management may have a set of protocols for employees to adhere to perform business processes. The way a task is actually carried out depends namely on the culture. The culture of the organisation can strongly resist to change as employees become too familiar with the current way of doing things. "Culture is the integrated pattern of human behaviour that includes thought, speech, action, and artefacts and depends on man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations."(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Individuals Resisting Change

There are a number of barriers to change at the individual level that, need to be addressed to allow change to be implemented with the least amount of resistance. These include: Fear News of change can invoke fear among employees. Employees may feel afraid of not being able to fulfil the new proposed changes to work practices that are being imposed. Employees may begin to question the future of their job, which shall cause much discomfort. People resist change due to anxiety, pessimism and different personal ambitions. Lack of Input into the change Individuals tend to resist change where they play not part in change. The idea of not knowing the change can cause a rift between the employees and management.

Overcoming Resistance at Organisational and Individual Level

Organisational Level

Overcoming Undefined Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives should be frequently redefined and relayed to all employees. This shall aid towards clearing up any misunderstanding and possible conflicts.

Overcoming Financial and Environmental Issues Organisations should have a contingency fund to cater for changes in demand or develop a very good relationship with their bank manager in case you need to borrow money at hard times. At the other end of the scale if demand sores suppliers must be able to satisfy demand. Benchmarking suppliers shall help determine your best suppliers. A good supplier may be one that allows you to have a 30 day or more credit account, which leave you with more working capital. Essentially corporate business strategies should have a degree of flexibility to act as a defence to sudden changes. Overcoming Structural Problems and Insufficient Communication In a large organisation employees may wish to elect a spokes person who can act as a collective voice to air potential barriers directly to management. Surveys can be conducted and results analysed. In a small organisation employees should be encouraged to speak up if they feel that change is causing a conflict. Overcoming Lack of or Bad Leadership It is a natural human instinct to follow leadership as children we look up to our parents and as adults we look up towards our superiors. Leaders must lead the way and be an example for others to follow. In leading and setting an example to others leaders must take an active role a hands on approach side by side with the employees in order to motivate and encourage. As in the words of the great, Mahatma Gandhi; We must become the change we want to see( Overcoming Lack of Preparation for New Roles The importance of planning must be emphasised and reflected. The new roles should be concisely explained to the respective employees prior to implementing change, to stifle out any doubts, fears or resistance. Overcoming Cultural Issues The cultural characteristics once identified need to be overcome and evolved into a non-blame culture. By doing so the employees shall have the freedom to evolve and try innovative ways of doing their jobs without the fear of being penalised for mistakes. Individual Level Employees should be directly involved in the change process, which shall motivate and reduce resistance. Extra incentives should be made available to further encourage and reward compliance. Support networks should be established as a means to reinforce the change theory. Change Agent Change within an organisation can be achieved by a change agent (an outsider) someone who is not affected by the cultural drawback of the organisation. However there are pros and cons: Pros:

Change Agent is unaffected by the organisations cultural drawbacks Employees might listen to someone who is an outsider simply because he or she is not management.

Cons

On the other hand employees may reject the new comer as they are not familiar with that particular person. So they may become suspicious as to what his or hers real agenda is.

Change is a common thread that runs through all businesses regardless of size, industry and age. Our world is changing fast and, as such, organizations must change quickly too. Organizations that handle change well thrive, whilst those that do not may struggle to survive. The concept of change management is a familiar one in most businesses today. But, how businesses manage change (and how successful they are at it) varies enormously depending on the nature of the business, the change and the people involved. And a key part of this depends on how far people within it understand the change process. One of the cornerstone models for understanding organizational change was developed by Kurt Lewin back in the 1950s, and still holds true today. His model is known as Unfreeze Change Refreeze, refers to the three-stage process of change he describes. Lewin, a physicist as well as social scientist, explained organizational change using the analogy of changing the shape of a block of ice. Understanding Lewins Model If you have a large cube of ice, but realize that what you want is a cone of ice, what do you do? First you must melt the ice to make it amenable to change (unfreeze). Then you must mold the iced water into the shape you want (change). Finally, you must solidify the new shape (refreeze).

By looking at change as process with distinct stages, you can prepare yourself for what is coming and make a plan to manage the transition looking before you leap, so to speak. All too often, people go into change blindly, causing much unnecessary turmoil and chaos. To begin any successful change process, you must first start by understanding why the change must take place. As Lewin put it, Motivation for change must be generated before change can occur. One must be helped to re-examine many cherished assumptions about oneself and ones relations to others. This is the unfreezing stage from which change begins. Unfreeze

This first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is necessary, which involves break down the existing status quo before you can build up a new way of operating. Key to this is developing a compelling message showing why the existing way of doing things cannot continue. This is easiest to frame when you can point to declining sales figures, poor financial results, worrying customer satisfaction surveys, or suchlike: These show that things have to change in a way that everyone can understand. To prepare the organization successfully, you need to start at its core you need to challenge the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that currently define it. Using the analogy of a building, you must examine and be prepared to change the existing foundations as they might not support add-on storeys; unless this is done, the whole building may risk collapse. This first part of the change process is usually the most difficult and stressful. When you start cutting down the way things are done, you put everyone and everything off balance. You may evoke strong reactions in people, and thats exactly what needs to done. By forcing the organization to re-examine its core, you effectively create a (controlled) crisis, which in turn can build a strong motivation to seek out a new equilibrium. Without this motivation, you wont get the buy-in and participation necessary to effect any meaningful change. Change After the uncertainty created in the unfreeze stage, the change stage is where people begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things. People start to believe and act in ways that support the new direction. The transition from unfreeze to change does not happen overnight: People take time to embrace the new direction and participate proactively in the change. A related change model, the Change Curve, focuses on the specific issue of personal transitions in a changing environment and is useful for understanding this specific aspect in more detail. In order to accept the change and contribute to making the change successful, people need to understand how the changes will benefit them. Not everyone will fall in line just because the change is necessary and will benefit the company. This is a common assumption and pitfall that should be avoided. Tip: Unfortunately, some people will genuinely be harmed by change, particularly those who benefit strongly from the status quo. Others may take a long time to recognize the benefits that change brings. You need to foresee and manage these situations. Time and communication are the two keys to success for the changes to occur. People need time to understand the changes and they also need to feel highly connected to the organization throughout the transition period. When you are managing change, this can require a great deal of time and effort and hands-on management is usually the best approach. Refreeze When the changes are taking shape and people have embraced the new ways of working, the organization is ready to refreeze. The outward signs of the refreeze are a stable organization chart, consistent job descriptions, and so on. The refreeze stage also needs to help people and the organization internalize or institutionalize the changes. This means making sure that the changes are used all the time; and that they are incorporated into everyday business. With a new sense of stability, employees feel confident and comfortable with the new ways of working. The rationale for creating a new sense of stability in our every changing world is often questioned. Even though change is a constant in many organizations, this refreezing stage is still important. Without it, employees get caught in a transition trap where they arent sure how things should be done, so nothing ever gets done to full capacity. In the absence of a new frozen state, it is very difficult to tackle the next change initiative effectively. How do you go about convincing people that something needs changing if you havent allowed the most recent changes to sink in? Change will be perceived as change for changes sake, and the motivation required to implement new changes simply wont be there. As part of the Refreezing process, make sure that you celebrate the success of the change this helps people to find closure, thanks them for enduring a painful time, and helps them believe that future change will be successful. Practical Steps for Using the Framework: Unfreeze 1. Determine what needs to change Survey the organization to understand the current state Understand why change has to take place.

2. Ensure there is strong support from upper management Use Stakeholder Analysis and Stakeholder Management to identify and win the support of key people within the organization Frame the issue as one of organization-wide importance.

3. Create the need for change Create a compelling message as to why change has to occur Use your vision and strategy as supporting evidence Communicate the vision in terms of the change required Emphasize the why.

4. Manage and understand the doubts and concerns Remain open to employee concerns and address in terms of the need to change.

Change 1. Communicate often Do so throughout the planning and implementation of the changes Describe the benefits Explain exactly the how the changes will effect everyone Prepare everyone for what is coming.

2. Dispel rumoUrs Answer questions openly and honestly Deal with problems immediately Relate the need for change back to operational necessities.

3. Empower action Provide plenty of options for employee involvement Have line managers provide daytoday direction.

4. Involve people in the process Generate short-term successes to reinforce the change Negotiate with external stakeholders as necessary (such as employee organizations).

Refreeze 1. Anchor the changes into the culture Identity what supports the change Identify barriers to sustaining change.

2. Develop ways to sustain the change

Ensure leadership support Create a reward system Establish feedback systems Adapt the organizational structure as necessary.

3. Provide support and training Keep everyone informed and supported.

4. Celebrate success!

Organizational Culture Doesnt Change

An organizations culture develops over many years and is rooted in deeply held values to which employees are strongly committed. In addition, there are a number of forces continually operating to maintain a given culture. These would include written statements about the organi- zations mission and philosophy, the design of physical spaces and buildings, the dominant leadership style, hiring criteria, past promotion practices, entrenched rituals, popu- lar stories about key people and events, the organizations historical performance evaluation criteria; and the organi- zations formal structure. Selection and promotion policies are particularly impor- tant devices that work against cultural change. Employees chose the organization because they perceived their values as a good fit with those of the organization. They become comfortable with that fit and will strongly resist efforts to disturb the equilibrium. Those in control in organizations will also select senior managers who will continue the current culture. Even attempts to change a culture by going outside the organi- zation to hire a new chief executive are unlikely to be effec- tive. The evidence indicates that the culture is more likely to change the executive than the other way around. Why? Its too entrenched, and change becomes a potential threat to member self-interest. In fact, a more pragmatic view of the relationship between an organizations culture and its chief executive would be to note that the practice of filling senior- level management positions from the ranks of current man- agerial employees ensures that those who run the organization have been fully indoctrinated in the organiza- tions culture. Promoting from within provides stability and lessens uncertainty. When a companys board of directors selects as a new chief executive officer an individual who has spent 30 years in the company, it virtually guarantees that the culture will continue unchanged. Our argument, however, should not be viewed as saying that culture can never be changed. In the unusual case when an organization confronts a survival-threatening cri- sisa crisis that is universally acknowledged as a true life- or-death situationmembers of the organization will be responsive to efforts at cultural change. However, anything less than a crisis is unlikely to be effective in bringing about cultural change.

How to Change an Organizations Culture

Changing an organizations culture is extremely difficult, but cultures can be changed. The evidence suggests that cultural change is most likely to occur when most or all of the following conditions exist:

A dramatic crisis. This is the shock that undermines the status quo and calls into question the relevance of the current culture. Examples of these
crises might be a surprising financial setback, the loss of a major cus- tomer, or a dramatic technological breakthrough by a competitor. The Columbia space-shuttle disaster was a dramatic crisis for NASA. A $7-million deficit was a dramatic crisis for the Royal Canadian Mint.

Turnover in leadership. New top leadership, which can provide an alternative set of key values, may be per- ceived as more capable of responding to
the crisis. This would definitely be the organizations chief executive, but also might need to include all senior management positions. The recent rush to hire outside CEOs after the Enron and WorldCom scandals illustrates attempts to create more ethical climates through the introduction of new leadership. At NASA, some of the top leadership was moved to other positions after the Columbia disas- ter. A new CEO at the Royal Canadian Mint, who was determined to turn around a deficit situation, brought about many changes to that organization.

Young and small organization. The younger the organ- ization is, the less entrenched its culture will be. Similarly, its easier for management to
communicate its new values when the organization is small. This point helps explain the difficulty that multibillion-dollar corporations have in changing their cultures.

Weak culture. The more widely held a culture is and the higher the agreement among members on its values, the more difficult it will be to change. A
strong culture has been one of the problems facing NASA. Conversely, weak cultures are more open to change than strong ones. Efforts directed at changing organizational culture do not usually yield immediate or dramatic results. For, in the final analysis, cultural change is a lengthy processmea- sured in years, not months. But we can ask the question Can culture be changed? and the answer is Yes!

Unfreezing the Status Quo

Desired state

Restraining Force
Status quo

Driving Force

Time

Abstract The restaurant industry as a part of the hospitality industry is sensitive to external environmental changes. In order to remain competitive, each restaurant should quickly react to external environment challenges. Since in the restaurant industry there is not much physical distance among employees and managers, relationship between them directly influences on restaurants performance when change occurs. The project conducted in Melbourne, known as a place of famous cuisine and restaurants, researched the restaurant industry managers role when initiating and implementing organisational changes in order to minimise possible employees resistance to change. The findings point to the importance of communication, employees attitude and perception of managers undertaken actions.

MANAGERS ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE: CASE OF THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE

INTRODUCTION Hospitality industry increases employment to the nation [25] [15]. The restaurant industry as a constituent of the hospitality industry, dominated by small to medium businesses, provides 52 per cent of the hospitality industry income and more than 55 per cent of the hospitality industry employment in Australia [2]. The Australian restaurant industry is vulnerable to external environment incidents such as Bali bombing in 2002, SARS disease in 2003 and tsunami disaster in 2005. Its vulnerability is manifested through intensified rivalry among competitors and a need for implementing changes in restaurants. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria State has 25 percent of the Australian total population with 72 percent belonging to Melbourne residency [3]. It signifies that whenever restaurant industry volatility takes effect, it can profoundly influence Melbourne due to its high density of population. Change a term that indicates reactions such as excitement, apprehension or even fear to those who are affected is inevitable and might create chaos or new dimension in the working environment [17][6]. Once change occurs, the operations of an organisation may be affected causing a need to evolve to a new phase of organisational life cycle in order to maintain competitive advantage[11][4]. In the restaurant industry change affects customers, managers and employees [15]. Customers make part of the restaurant external environment, while managers and employees are part of the restaurant internal environment. Managers as initiators of change are motivated to increase organisational effectiveness. Employees do not necessarily welcome changes [24]. Hathaway [14] argues that the greatest enemy of an organisation to sustain its competitive advantage is in its internal environment. When there is resistance to change from employees it can negatively influence the organisational performance. For Lewin [19] change has three steps: unfreezing, moving and refreezing. Minimizing obstacles to changes and maximizing the opportunities of a change effort are accentuated in the unfreezing process. In the moving stage, recognition of need for change and the acceptance of change have to take place in the workforce. Accordingly, managers as change agents have to restore or reinforce the new system actively with all employees in the refreezing step. This simple three-step model explains the importance of implementing successful change by unfreezing the existing situation followed by change movement and making the new behaviours and norms stick. Throughout the course of action, managers need to ensure that all communication channels contribute to information sharing and accurate absorption of relevant information by all employees [8]. LeBlanc and Mills [18] state that the efficiency in the restaurant industry is dependent only on employees. According to Enz [10] since in restaurants there is not much physical distance among staff and managers, relationship between managers and employees directly influences on restaurants performance. Namely, when a change takes place employees may display resistance to change emotionally, for example anger as defence mechanism, fear as anxiety, or sadness as low in spirits [16]. They may also blame management for not acting in their interests and perform work with bad working attitudes towards customers to express their dissatisfaction and frustration [13]. Walkup [26] states that a motivated employee will perform more efficiently in serving customers better. In the labour-intensive foodservice industry, getting a group of motivated workforce is not an easy task as each employee is a different individual with dissimilar personalities and attitudes [5]. According to Catlette and Hadden [7], the biggest challenge restaurant manager faces today is having qualified and motivated workforce for as long as possible. Hence, creating a good place to work for employees in order to motivate them to perform

better is very much in the interest of manager. That is why the role of manager in imposing change in restaurants is of vital importance to succeed in improved organisational performance [23] [12] [1]. The aim of this paper is to point to the restaurant industry managers to what they should pay specific attention when initiating and implementing changes in order to minimise possible employees resistance to change and achieve better organisational performance. In this respect, the paper is divided into four sections. After this introduction with theoretical references, the research methodology is explained. Section three discusses research findings. In the last section implications to managers are presented and recommendations are made for future research. METHODOLOGY We have chosen Melbourne - with its famous cuisine and restaurants and as one of Australias major cities marketed for people who focus on food and the dining out experience [25] - to find out what managers should pay attention to when initiating and implementing changes in order to achieve organisational sustained competitive advantage. The study is a qualitative research. This research is a multiple descriptive and explanatory case study. A sample of four managers (one from each restaurant) and 12 employees (three from each restaurant) was chosen. In accordance with the ethical considerations, there was no coercion in recruiting participants. All respondents took part in this study voluntarily. For interviews Palmerinos approach has been adopted [21]. We conducted semi-structured and audio-taped interviews with an average duration of 60 minutes within two months period of time, June-August 2004. Two different interview questionnaires were used - one interview questionnaire for managers, the other for employees. Topics covered in both interview questionnaires were the same with few different questions for each group of interviewees. The research questions consisted of three parts: perspectives of organisational change, impacts of organisational change and implications of implementation of organisational change. The first part aimed to enquire to what extent the perspectives of managers on applied change differ from employees perspectives if they do at all. In the second part, employees true feelings and opinions on impact of organisational change were obtained. Issues covered in the third part of questionnaire intended to generate effective and efficient implications for managers actions in imposing and conducting strategic changes. Open-ended questions were carefully worded to be as neutral as possible without creating awkward situation or offending interviewees [22]. Interview questionnaires for both manager and employee were pilot tested to check whether there is any ambiguity or confusion of questions. Data collected from questions in all interviews were transcribed. Post-defined coding was used by identifying emergent themes and patterns [20]. We have also used, NUD*IST Vivo software because of its user-friendliness and its design to perform complicated analyses of text data contextually [9]. There are some limitations which hindered this study from proceeding efficiently. Firstly, due to time constraint, this research project only involved four restaurants to conduct interviews with both manager and employees from each restaurant. In addition, due to the issue of participation with no coercion, there was a combination of both full-time staff and casual staff as participants in this study. Also, there was difficulty at the stage of data collection in the research process. Since this research project only involved voluntary participations, it was challenging at approaching managers of restaurants in seeking for approval for conducting interviews. Most of the managers expressed 3

no enthusiasm or interest. As an alternative solution, a network of friends was used to search for potential participants who were willing to take part in this study.

RESEARCH FINDINGS The results of the qualitative analysis are depicted in Figure 1 showing positions of both manager and employee during implementation of change in the restaurant industry. Figure 1: Main actors in a restaurant industry organisational change Motivation Improvement Motivation

Effective communication

Managers Implementation of change in the restaurant industry Employees

Right attitudes of employees

Employees perception of managers actions

Motivation Working environment

Motivation

According to the diagram main players in implementation of change in the restaurant industry are two parties with different positions involved managers and employees. Manager is the one who carries out change and employee has to accept and adopt it. Effective communication, employees attitude and perception of managers actions, and working environment are important to achieve better organisational performance. Effective Communication From the interviews conducted we have found that effective communication plays a significant role in ensuring smooth restaurants operations and increasing employees productivity. Communication is important among managers and employees, and also among employees. Most of the interviewed employees agreed that listening skills, as part of effective communication, are one of the competencies that manager should possess at all times. Before, during and after the implementation of change, managers should listen to employees opinion and understand their perception and feelings of imposed change. That would help them lead to an improvement on the organisational change applied.

Employees Attitude and Perception of Managers Actions The research findings indicate that in order to make change successful in the restaurant industry managers should be alert at all times of employees reaction to change. If employees do not cooperate with managers and do not collaborate with workmates, customer service delivery will be negatively affected. Further, when employees resist a change, conflict among them and between them and managers might appear. As a result, employees may provide customer service of low performance affecting good restaurant reputation. They may also quit their job. To prevent both bad customer service and loosing employees, it seems it is important for managers to understand that without employees willingness and agreement to apply change, the restaurants competency might be jeopardised. Most of the interviewees among employees suggested that managers should in fact provide encouragement and stimulation for their staff to maintain and enhance good customer service performances. Continuous Improvement, Working Environment and Motivation This research has found that managers and most employees agree there is always room for improvement in restaurant businesses. This is presented in the Figure 1 with a frame of Improvement. The frame indicates that both managers and employees should look for a better way of getting things done. To managers, very often, ongoing change in the restaurant industry is inevitable and change has to be applied for survival. The concept of there is always room for improvement goes along with application of change. If there is no improvement, the restaurant business most likely will become stagnant, in particular when exceptional events occur from external environment, and find it difficult to keep pace with other competitors. Referring to the Figure 1 again, the element as the outer core is a Working Environment. According to interviewees in this research project, it is of common understanding that a pleasant workplace would keep employees happy. Cheerful staff will contribute to higher motivation level and greater restaurant performance. High-spirited employees would be able to establish and maintain harmonious working relationship with workmates and contribute keeping high morale. Managers should always maintain a pleasant workplace for employees to keep them motivated as a stressful environment will bring harm to a restaurant. Motivation being placed between the frame of Improvement and the Working Environment frame in Figure 1, points to relevance of employees performance to sustain restaurants competitiveness. Knowing that organisational change is conditio sine qua non, without support from managers, employees might become de-motivated and thus be in low spirits. If having good communication with managers and as a consequence proper information of strategic relevance of imposed organisational change, employees may easier accept and apply change to improve restaurant performance. Therefore, employees motivation is accentuated on importance in achieving sustained competitive advantage in the restaurant industry.

IMPLICATIONS TO MANAGERS This research has revealed suggestions for managers in the restaurant industry - recognised as volatile and vulnerable businesses to external environment - to what actions to take in order to smoothly implement organisational change. When a decision to apply organisational change occurs in the restaurant industry, managers as being responsible for a success of organisational change should pay attention to communication with their employees, employees attitude, perception of managers actions, employees motivation and continuous improvement of working environment. Before implementing a change in a restaurant, managers should understand that different individuals hold dissimilar opinions about change. Also, not all employees are outspoken and

willing to be honest with their managers. Therefore, managers should have the initiative to interact with employees and keep them informed about any organisational change. During the implementation of organisational change, it seems vital to have employees involvement to contribute change to succeed. Without their involvement, change effort may be in vain. Leadership is required from managers at this stage because the managers role is to guide and direct employees along the way. Throughout the process, motivation is essential to support and encourage employees from being de-motivated and having low morale that could affect other workmates. As soon as the change is implemented, managers should be aware of employees reactions. By being attentive, they can discover to what extent change affects employees. Organisational change impacts that bring positive results into the restaurant industry do not necessary bring positive outcome to employees. For example, managers should be aware that change of working system may increase employees income with extra workload creating fatigue and low spirits. Consequently, it is important for managers to have thorough analysis of the implementation of organisational change in determining to what extent the change is beneficial to both better restaurant performance and employees. Since the restaurant industry requires a high labour input, managers should pay attention to different kinds of impacts imposed on employees. They should, in particular, keep in mind employees motivation and create an environment that encourages employees to accept change and sustain restaurants competitive advantage. Further research interests will consider the longitudinal importance of the size of a restaurant to the relationship between managers and employees when organisational change occurs and an analysis of attitude and behaviour of employees.

Conclusion Change is inevitable, the market changes, customer demands change and the t e c h n o l o g y t o support the business change, however change is not always within the control of the organization(Vroom, 1993). Research shows that it is important to proactively manage and control and seek out change in order to succeed and gain a competitive edge. Management need to communicatethe need for change and highlight the crisis situation that may develop by avoiding the change.Effective communication should be used to promote or market the new proposed changes whileat the same time, demonstrate the inadequacies of the older system. Users resist change becausethey fear the unknown but effective communication from the start of the change project can helpreduce this fear. It was noted that communication efforts must be both verbal and active (Kotter,1995). Management must be seen to give active support to the change process for it to gain thefull support of the workforce. In reality the change not only has to be managed but also has to bem a r k e t e d . O n c e t h e c h a n g e h a s b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d , t h e c h a n g e m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e s s m u s t constantly review the change and reinforce it.Lewin's three-phase theory for managing change, organization development, and macro changetheories are useful for managers to understand the dynamics of change. It is also important for m a n a g e r s t o k n o w h o w t o o v e r c o m e r e s i s t a n c e t o c h a n g e , i n c l u d i n g e d u c a t i o n a n d communication, participation and involvement, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and the use of coercion

REFERENCES [1] Anonymous, (2003), Making change work for real, HR Focus, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. S1-S2. [2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000), Cafes and Restaurants Industry 1998/99, Canberra. [3] Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2004), Population by Age and Sex, Victoria Electronic Delivery, Canberra. [4] Bayless, M. (2003), Staff training: Maintaining and strengthening culture as your organisation grows, Gourmet Retailer, 1 Aug. [5] Bowers, D. K. (1995), Confidentiality challenges, Marketing Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 3435. [6] Burns, R. (1993), Managing People in Changing Times, Allen & Unwin, New South Wales. [7] Catlette, B. & Hadden, R. (2000), Prepared to go, but eager to stay, Workforce, Vol. 79, No. 8, pp.32-33. [8] Dale, H. (1989), The elements of successful organisational change, Industrial Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 4-5. [9] Durian, D. (2002), Corpus-based text analysis from a qualitative perspective: A closer look at NVivo, Style, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 738-743. [10] Enz, C. A. (2002), From the Executive Director: Promoting the human spirit: Key to business success, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 4, p. 2. [11] Graetz, F., Rimmer, M. Lawrence, A. & Smith, A. (2002), Managing Organisational Change, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Singapore. [12] Haddadj, S. (2003), Organisation change and the complexity of succession: A longitudinal case study from France, Journal of Organisation Change Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 135-153. [13] Harper, S. C. (1998), Leading organisational change in the 21st century, Industrial Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 25-30. [14] Hathaway, P. (2003), Change for the better, Credit Union Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 8. [15] IBISWorld, (2004), Cafes and Restaurants in Australia, 17 Aug, Sydney. [16] Johnson, S. (2001), Meeting the Challenge of Change, Eastern House, NSW. [17] Kotter, J. P. (1995), Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 59-67. [18] LeBlanc, C. L. & Mills, K. E. (1994), Retaining employees: Make them feel indispensable, Nations Restaurant News, Vol. 28, No. 16, pp. 30-31. [19] Levasseur, R. E. (2001), People Skills: Change Management Tools Lewins Change Model, Interfaces, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 71-73. [20] Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, California. [21] Palmerino, M. B. (1999), Take a quality approach to qualitative research, Marketing News, Vol. 33, No. 12, pp. 35-36. [22] Patricia, D. & Gillian, M. (1997), Asking why questions in the reference interview: theoretical justification, Library Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 50-71. A

[23] Seel, R. (2001), Anxiety and incompetence in the large group: A psychodynamic perspective, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 493-503.

[24] Seijts, G. H. & Farrell, G. (2003), Engage the heart: Appealing to the emotions facilitates change, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2, p. n/a. [25] Sparks, B. A., Wildman, K. L. & Bowen, J. T. (2001), Restaurants as a contributor to tourist destination attractiveness, Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 17-30. [26] Walkup, C. (1997), Build a positive culture by including personal values, Nations Restaurant News, Vol. 31, No. 23, p. 70.