Samenvatting Exploring Strategic Change
Chapter 1: Exploring strategic change: an introduction.
Change has become a way of life, in part because organizations are experiencing
many different types of change.
Senior managers need to devise strategies that promise strategic fit with the external
environment and some form of competitive advantage, while also working internally
to bring the organization in line with that promise. One role component is externally
focused and to do with devising strategies that meet the external challenges. This is
an exercise primarily in strategic thinking. The other is internally focused and to do
with aligning the organization behind the intended strategy.
Strategic change = change that results from a shift in strategic direction for an
organization, requiring the implementation of change to processes, practices,
systems and potentially even culture to enable the development of new competences
and new ways of competing.
There is recognition that strategic change requires changes beyond structures and
systems to the patterns of behaviours and interactions within an organization.
There are two schools of thought about how change occurs in organizations. The first
sees change as continuous, with organizations transforming on an on-going basis to
keep pace with their changing environment. The second sees change as a process
of punctuated equilibrium.
Revolutionary change is likely to be reactive and forced by an impending crisis.
Models of continuous change often switch the focus from organizations as largely
stable, punctuated occasionally by change, to a focus to the on-going actions and
interactions that occur as part of everyday organizational life gradually altering what
an organization does over time.
It seems that both these models of change are suitable, but apply to different types of
organizations, and maybe different stages of an organization’s life-cycle.
Strategic drift = a gap between what the organization is doing and what it need to be
doing to be competitive in its market place.
Intentional, planned change = change circumstances in which the leaders of an
organization (or maybe even a division or a department) have examined their
strategic position and deliberately formulated a new strategy which requires the
organization, and the people within it, to operate differently in some way.
For an organization to change, the people within it must change.
Change needs to be context-specific. The design and management of any change
process should be dependent on the specific situation or context of each
organization.
It is commonly accepted that during change it is necessary to consider three states –
the current, the future and the transition.
Essential inputs to the diagnosis of the current organizational state are an
understanding of the organization’s competitive position and the need for change,
,and an understanding of the internal organizational context. It is also necessary to
develop some sort of vision of the desired future organizational state. The transition
state, the process of changing the organization from what it is now into the desired
future organization, can only be designed once the current organizational state Is
understood, and the desired future organizational state has been specified, at least in
outline.
Organizational strategic change context = the broader strategic analysis conducted to
determine why the organization should change and what it should change to. This
analysis is typically focus of texts on developing strategy.
Change contextual features = aspects of the organization to do with its culture,
competences and current situation, which change agents should consider before
selecting the change approach. These features can be extracted from the broader
organizational strategic context, and can be used by change agents to help
determine the appropriateness of any change approach for a particular context.
Design choices = range of options a change agent needs to choose from when
selecting an appropriate change approach.
Chapter 2: Understanding implementation choices: the change path.
The change kaleidoscope separates the array of choices that need to be made on
any implementation approach into six categories, within which there are a range of
alternatives. The six categories are:
Change path: the type of change to be undertaken in terms of the nature of
the change and the desired end result. This category is referred to as change
path as distinct from change type, as in some circumstances it is necessary to
undertake an enabling phase of change before it is possible to undertake the
actual changes required.
Change start-point: where the change is initiated and developed, which could
be summarized simplistically as top-down or bottom-up, but there are other
choices.
Change style: the management style of the implementation, such as highly
collaborative or more directive.
Change target: the target of the change interventions, in terms of people’s
attitudes and values, behaviours or outputs.
Change levers: the range of levers and interventions to be deployed across
four subsystems – technical, political, cultural and interpersonal.
Change roles: who is to take responsibility for leading and implementing the
changes.
Change path is the most fundamental of all the choices.
, There are four types of change – adaption, reconstruction, evolution and revolution.
The end result is about the extent of change desired and is more complicated to
assess. Change can involve a transformation of the organization or a re-alignment.
Transformation = has to do with a redefinition of mission and purpose, and a
substantial shift in goals, to reflect a new direction and therefore encompassing a
fundamental shift in the business model of the organization, touching all cultural,
structural and processual aspects.
Realignment = a change to the way of doing things that does not involve a
fundamental re-appraisal of the central assumptions and beliefs within the
organization, although it may still involve substantial change like a major
restructuring. It is a form of convergent change that does not offer significant
challenge to the existing way of operating within organizations since it involves
adjustments to systems, processes and structures that build on the current business
mode.
The nature of change is the way change is implemented, either in an all-at-once, big-
bang fashion over a period of a year to 18 months, or in a more step-by-step, stage-
by-stage incremental fashion.
The cultural web. Can be used
as an analytical device to understand
the relationship between strategy and
organizational culture.
Chapter 1: Exploring strategic change: an introduction.
Change has become a way of life, in part because organizations are experiencing
many different types of change.
Senior managers need to devise strategies that promise strategic fit with the external
environment and some form of competitive advantage, while also working internally
to bring the organization in line with that promise. One role component is externally
focused and to do with devising strategies that meet the external challenges. This is
an exercise primarily in strategic thinking. The other is internally focused and to do
with aligning the organization behind the intended strategy.
Strategic change = change that results from a shift in strategic direction for an
organization, requiring the implementation of change to processes, practices,
systems and potentially even culture to enable the development of new competences
and new ways of competing.
There is recognition that strategic change requires changes beyond structures and
systems to the patterns of behaviours and interactions within an organization.
There are two schools of thought about how change occurs in organizations. The first
sees change as continuous, with organizations transforming on an on-going basis to
keep pace with their changing environment. The second sees change as a process
of punctuated equilibrium.
Revolutionary change is likely to be reactive and forced by an impending crisis.
Models of continuous change often switch the focus from organizations as largely
stable, punctuated occasionally by change, to a focus to the on-going actions and
interactions that occur as part of everyday organizational life gradually altering what
an organization does over time.
It seems that both these models of change are suitable, but apply to different types of
organizations, and maybe different stages of an organization’s life-cycle.
Strategic drift = a gap between what the organization is doing and what it need to be
doing to be competitive in its market place.
Intentional, planned change = change circumstances in which the leaders of an
organization (or maybe even a division or a department) have examined their
strategic position and deliberately formulated a new strategy which requires the
organization, and the people within it, to operate differently in some way.
For an organization to change, the people within it must change.
Change needs to be context-specific. The design and management of any change
process should be dependent on the specific situation or context of each
organization.
It is commonly accepted that during change it is necessary to consider three states –
the current, the future and the transition.
Essential inputs to the diagnosis of the current organizational state are an
understanding of the organization’s competitive position and the need for change,
,and an understanding of the internal organizational context. It is also necessary to
develop some sort of vision of the desired future organizational state. The transition
state, the process of changing the organization from what it is now into the desired
future organization, can only be designed once the current organizational state Is
understood, and the desired future organizational state has been specified, at least in
outline.
Organizational strategic change context = the broader strategic analysis conducted to
determine why the organization should change and what it should change to. This
analysis is typically focus of texts on developing strategy.
Change contextual features = aspects of the organization to do with its culture,
competences and current situation, which change agents should consider before
selecting the change approach. These features can be extracted from the broader
organizational strategic context, and can be used by change agents to help
determine the appropriateness of any change approach for a particular context.
Design choices = range of options a change agent needs to choose from when
selecting an appropriate change approach.
Chapter 2: Understanding implementation choices: the change path.
The change kaleidoscope separates the array of choices that need to be made on
any implementation approach into six categories, within which there are a range of
alternatives. The six categories are:
Change path: the type of change to be undertaken in terms of the nature of
the change and the desired end result. This category is referred to as change
path as distinct from change type, as in some circumstances it is necessary to
undertake an enabling phase of change before it is possible to undertake the
actual changes required.
Change start-point: where the change is initiated and developed, which could
be summarized simplistically as top-down or bottom-up, but there are other
choices.
Change style: the management style of the implementation, such as highly
collaborative or more directive.
Change target: the target of the change interventions, in terms of people’s
attitudes and values, behaviours or outputs.
Change levers: the range of levers and interventions to be deployed across
four subsystems – technical, political, cultural and interpersonal.
Change roles: who is to take responsibility for leading and implementing the
changes.
Change path is the most fundamental of all the choices.
, There are four types of change – adaption, reconstruction, evolution and revolution.
The end result is about the extent of change desired and is more complicated to
assess. Change can involve a transformation of the organization or a re-alignment.
Transformation = has to do with a redefinition of mission and purpose, and a
substantial shift in goals, to reflect a new direction and therefore encompassing a
fundamental shift in the business model of the organization, touching all cultural,
structural and processual aspects.
Realignment = a change to the way of doing things that does not involve a
fundamental re-appraisal of the central assumptions and beliefs within the
organization, although it may still involve substantial change like a major
restructuring. It is a form of convergent change that does not offer significant
challenge to the existing way of operating within organizations since it involves
adjustments to systems, processes and structures that build on the current business
mode.
The nature of change is the way change is implemented, either in an all-at-once, big-
bang fashion over a period of a year to 18 months, or in a more step-by-step, stage-
by-stage incremental fashion.
The cultural web. Can be used
as an analytical device to understand
the relationship between strategy and
organizational culture.
