Change management

According to Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011), in the current society, talking about change has become a norm. Change is often characterized as ongoing process with dramatic influence. According to Van de Ven and Sun (2011), change can be defined as the temporal difference in the shape, quality or space of the organization.

Another view by Van de Ven and Poole (2005) suggest that change is a sequence of events related to development and occurrence of change in organizations. Van de Ven and Sun (2911) continue that change can occur among different types of units in the organizations, including in the work of individuals, teams, units, entire organization or in the relationship of the organization to surrounding others. Furthermore, they note that change can be observed by measuring some factors of the same entity at two or more different time periods and by observing the differences that may occur in the measured factors.

According to Burke (2008), change is a complex process that should be examined from various perspectives and from different levels in the organization. These differ-ent levels include individual, team and differ-entire system. However, it must be remem-bered, that all different organizational levels are connected to the other levels.

Changes have also been categorized in various different ways. Usually division is made on whether changes are planned or unplanned (e.g. Van de Ven and Sun, 2011;

Saboohi and Sushil, 2011; Burke, 2008). According to van de Ven and Sun (2011), the latter ones are consciously guided. Changes can also be accelerated form either internal or external reasons. As a comparison, unplanned changes usually are about

12

adapting to changes in the environment or other external changes. Planned changes are often regarded as reforms. Reforms are regarded as positive changes that are con-sciously planned or executed. Burke (2008) makes a categorization between planned changes, continuous development and radical foundational changes. Changes are usu-ally divided into incremental and radical changes. Unplanned changes are seen as evo-lution or revoevo-lution, while planned changes can be divided in development and radical foundational changes. Additionally, Saboohi and Sushil (2011) divide changes to un-planned, un-planned, gradual and revolutional changes, and to static and dynamic chang-es. Furthermore, they divide changes into comprehensive and gradual as well as mac-ro and micmac-ro level changes. However, it is further noted that recently a balance be-tween these extreme divisions is attempted. Finally, a continuous perspective in man-agement has gradually evolved in the literature. Van de Ven and Sun (2011) note that changes can also be characterized by their width and depth. These characteristics af-fect the meaningfulness of the changes. Deep changes alter also the cultural aspects of the organizations.

Various scholars have presented their views on change and change processes (e.g.

Burke, 2008; Mintzberg et al., 2005). Scholars have created models to illustrate the processes. Usually these models view change as rational and linear process that is seen to proceed in clear steps (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011; Brown, 2007).

Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) note that some authors have recently suggested opposing views seeing organizational changes as complex and having multiple layers.

These opposing authors note that changes are not always linear - instead they might be cyclical and surprising. This makes accurate planning and scheduling challenging.

Change models usually show a sequential process of stages that organizations need to complete for achieving a successful change. One of the first models explaining and describing the process of change is the change model by Lewin. According to Saboohi and Sushil (2011), Lewin’s model presents a three-step model for change, which in-clude the stages of defreezing, change and refreezing. Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) continue that the first step includes preparing for the actual change by which the organizational state of balance is shattered. The second step is the actual change where new organizational structure, process or situation is created. Finally, last stage of the process considers institutionalizing the new norms, structures or practices. This

13

model has acted as the basis and inspiration for various other models (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011; Saboohi and Sushil, 2011).

Burke (2008) presents change as a process that proceeds in 4 stages: planning, initia-tion, implementation and sustaining. This view sees contents separate from the change process. The contents of the change are seen to bring vision and direction to the change. The change process is suggested to require leadership and participation of employees. In comparison, Mintzberg et al. (2005) views change as a cube that in-cludes two dimensions: 1) the strategy of the organization and 2) the state of the or-ganization. Both dimensions can be either conceptual or concrete. The model sug-gests that if one factor in the organization is changed, everything beneath that factor need to be changed as well. The model also represents formal and informal dimen-sions, which refer to e.g. designed and arisen strategies. The change in this study rep-resents a change in the information system of the organization. The systems and pro-grams are seen as the lowest levels in the model, which suggests that the change does not require changes for example in the vision or culture of the organization.

Arikoski and Sallinen (2007) present a change model from the perspective of individ-uals. They present a model for reaching commitment to change, which is based on the assumption that change is based on learning, and is seen to lead to change in attitudes and behavior. In their model they suggest that individuals need to accept the change also at the emotional level. To reach acceptance, they go through a variety of emo-tions – fear, anger, sorrow and joy. In this model, change is seen to proceed in three stages: initiating the change, learning away from the old habits and learning new prac-tices. In the initiation stage, individuals tend to have strong reactions. It is seen that employees should be involved in the preparation and execution of change, and time should be given to employees to go through all of the stages in the process. Only the last stage is usually where individuals notice the need for change.

Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) suggest in their review and synthesis on change processes that literature usually presents change as a process consisting of the follow-ing stages: buildfollow-ing a clear vision, brfollow-ingfollow-ing the vision to the group level, adoptfollow-ing the change, continuing the adopted models and institutionalizing the change. They also note that change processes need adequate resources in order for the changes to be adopted. Adequate resources are also needed in the stage of initiation. The authors

14

suggest that there are various important factors affecting the adoption of employees - education, participation and reward systems. In addition, they suggest that actions of leaders, communications and aligned structures and processes affect most stages of the process after formulating a vision.

According to Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011), these change models have been criticized for simplifying the reality. Furthermore, these models usually present a top-down approach to changes, and are seen suitable for step-by-step linear and restricted changes. Rather it could be stated, that these models seem too often neglect the role of the individuals in the organization. Instead they show ready-made models that leaders put in place in the organizations, while employees have a passive role. Thus, Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) do not see these models suitable for deep and radical changes. Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) also support this by stating that suc-cessful change requires also actions from the individuals - individuals need to change their values, attitudes and behaviors. However, it must be noted, that these models still facilitate understanding, analyzing and planning changes in organizations (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011).

As a response to this functional view on change, a new view that follows social con-structionism is created to examine organizational changes and their management. This view emphasizes the discourse among multiple parties in the organization. According to this theory base, the change is built in the interaction between the members of the organization. The interaction comprises of maintaining, interpreting, transferring and understanding discourse in multiple meanings. (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011).

It has been noted by various authors that leaders have a great role in making changes successful. It is further noted that the discourse in the change situation is important in initiating and guiding changes and in influencing the thinking and actions of the members of the organization. Informing employees and communicating with employ-ees has been noted to be one of the most important roles of the leaders. Furthermore, it is important to note, that this should be a two-way interaction. Two-way interaction provides an opportunity for the employees to participate and influence. Making em-ployees feel valued by allowing them to participate is seen to build trust among the employees. Two-way interaction also gives the initiator a chance to gain valuable in-put from the employees in planning and executing the changes. These issues can also

15

relieve the anxiety and change resistance that may occur in employees. (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011).

It has been noted that leaders have also a role in enhancing employees’ commitment to the change. Commitment is seen to be increased along with increased sense of so-cial cohesion, justice, safety and mutual trust (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011).