Mergers are organizational change
One of the most fundamental reasons for starting change initiatives in an organization is a merger.
Amazing but true: 50% of mergers fail – just ask Daimler about their adventures with Chrysler if you want to get confirmation.
In a merger, one set of staff has to change the way they work to match that of the other organization. It’s not enough to simply send out a few Powerpoint slides – people want an answer to the questions ‘What does this mean for me?’
And this needs to take place not only in the ‘losing’ firm, because the kind of change that a merger involves also affects staff in the ‘winning’ firm.
So this means that the management of the relevant change processes has
to take account of the fact that when a merger takes place, there are
always (perceived and actual) winners and losers. It means that the
change has to be managed and the level of the individual and the group,
as well as at the the level of the whole organization.
Organizational change outcomes
It is useful for people involved in organizational change to pay attention to the nature of the change outcomes that they wil be dealing with. It’s a bit less straightforward than it might appear to be at first sight. My research and experience have shown that there are three aspects to the concept change outcome.
First, there is the issue of intentionality. Any planned change has objectives – these are shown in Powerpoint presentations. So managers undertake planned change initiatives with certain outcomes in mind – these are intended outcomes. However, the unpredictable nature of change processes means that there will be unexpected outcomes which were not predicted. These develop as the change initiative progresses.
Next, when a change outcome is classified as intended, there is the issue of how well it meets its goals, i.e. whether its intended results have been achieved fully, or not achieved at all – or something in between. In fact, there can be different views within the same organization about the extent to which an intended change outcome has been achieved. Read more
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-02-14
- change at the top of SAP, a new manager needed to repair morale. http://tinyurl.com/yklzsrm #
Negotiation and Organizational Change
When things are changing at work, everyone involved in the change needs to be able to deal with a new situation.
During a change process, it’s important that employees do not simply accept what they are told, but question the change. A good change manager should always be open for suggestions.
Then when the change manager and staff deal with each other and discuss these suggestions, they need to be able to come to an agreement. By doing this, they increase the chances of a successful organizational change.
And this is where negotiation is important. There is no space here for me to go into detail, but here is a link to a test from Edinburgh University Business School that will help you determine your negotiation style.
Good change managers are good negotiators – fact!
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-02-07
- golden welcoming handshake at m&s – poor timing http://tinyurl.com/y9lua64 #
- let's hope #toyota have got a good PR team to deal with this disaster…. http://is.gd/7tRl3 #
Business English Resource
These days, a lot of the world talks in English when they are doing business.Are you involved with companies outside Germany? Or do you deal with parts of your own company where they speak English?
Change management programmes often have international components where the change manager needs to speak English. How good is your business English?
FT Deutschland has a good page with material here.
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-31
- will the ipad change how we read newspapers? not sure… http://is.gd/7mjvX #
- a book that says "Change is hard" – quite right too. Change definitely is hard!! http://is.gd/79n83 #
- change takes time and work, in business and in politics http://is.gd/79kuQ #
- #FT LBO of Kabel Deutschland – what good comes of these in the long run? http://tinyurl.com/yhkn4ma #
- change at the top of #Novartis – expect organizational changes from the new people http://tinyurl.com/yd96ry8 #
Theory and Organizational Change II
It is possible to identify two general conceptualisations of ‘organizational change’ that arise from the vast literature on the subject. First, there is a conceptualisation that emphasises that change is:
“an empirical observation of difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity. The entity may be an individual’s job, a work group, an organizational strategy, a program, a product, or the overall organization” (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995: 512).
On the other hand, there is a view like that of Francis and Sinclair (2003: 689), who describe organizational change as
“ongoing process of social construction that comprises spiral patterns of discursive change and restructuring of collective meanings”.
There are, then, two different conceptualisations of ‘organizational change’. First, change is viewed in organization theory from two perspectives – as a difference in state, and as a process. Second, organizations are also viewed from two perspectives – as empirical objects, and as sets of relationships. Accordingly, one approach in the change literature emphasises that organizational change is a difference in state of empirical objects and mainly tackles the questions “Why should an organization change?” and “How should an organization change?” The literature that takes this approach may be termed prescriptive in that it provides guidelines for change. A second approach assumes that change is a process inside a set of relationships and is most interested in the questions “Why does an organization change?” and “How does an organization change?” This body of literature may be termed descriptive because it is interested in showing how change happens.
As is so often the case, one needs to be able to combine both views to be able to understand change. To try to manage change, we need to know both why an organization should change and how it should change.
References
Francis, H. & Sinclair, J. 2003. A Processual Analysis of HRM-Based Change. Organization, 10(4): 685-706.
Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510-540.
-
Handelsblatt- Wie klingen die Gemälde alter Meister? 6 September
- Zwei Auftaktsiege für deutsche Ringer 6 September
- Kartellamtspräsident: Von Atomeinigung enttäuscht – „Wettbewerb hat keine Lobby“ 6 September
- Bogenschützen enttäuschen in Shanghai 6 September
- Financial Times UK
- September stock surge extends into fourth session 6 September
- BA-Iberia has 12 on takeover target list 6 September
- Pre-Budget report to be ditched 5 September
- Oracle looks to give Hurd leading role 5 September
