Failure and success of change

Even though change is common in many organizations, it is yet often arduous or fails to achieve the goal (Lewis, 2011, p. 25). Lewis points out the downside of change:

Failure of organizational changes may have minor or major consequences for stakeholders associated with an organization and on the ultimate survival of an organization. The energy and resources necessary to undergo moderate to major change are often high (Lewis, 2011, p. 25).

Despite the vast amount of literature on organizational change, many organizations cannot handle changes well and several change efforts fail (Kondakci & van den Broeck, 2009, p. 439). According to Higgs and Rowland (2005, p. 122), some authors explain that as much as 70% of change initiatives fail.

The reason for failure in change often is the issue that managers are used to solving complicated problems instead of complex ones (Higgs & Rowland, 2005, p. 123). The difficulty with solving complex problems is that they demand managers to deal with issues within the system and that there is no definite solution. Furthermore, top-down change and unexpected outcomes from interactions in the organization lead to failure of change efforts, as Harris and Ogbonna (2002) suggest. Moreover, some of the reasons of failure in organizational change are the issue of not acknowledging the human side of change and instead focusing too much on technicalities (Mohrman, Tenkasi, &

Mohrman, 2003, p. 320), as well as misjudging the influence of organizational culture on change processes (Kondakci & van den Broeck, 2009, p. 439). Another reason for failure of change efforts is the lack of understanding “the meanings embedded in organizational changes” (Mohrman et al., 2003, p. 303). Moreover, during the process, emerging situations might not be considered, which might lead to failure because they disrupt the plan (Mohrman et al., 2003, p. 303).

Lewis explains that change is only successful under certain circumstances:

Organizations cannot always benefit from a particular change unless all, or at least most, of the stakeholders are using/participating in the change in a coordinated manner (Lewis, 2011, p. 43).

For change to be successful, it also needs to be managed well, i.e. planned, organized, directed, and controlled appropriately. It is commonly believed that

an exact plan and detailed procedural steps are required by the leadership body to implement a successful change process (Kondakci & van den Broeck, 2009, p. 441). However, this is only supportive with effective leadership (Gill, 2002, p. 307), who influence their followers so that they are motivated to do what is needed (Gill, 2002, p. 316). As a result of his three-year study, Gill proposes a model for successful change:

The model proposes that the leadership of successful change requires vision, strategy, the development of a culture of sustainable shared values that support the vision and strategy for change, and empowering, motivating and inspiring those who are involved or affected (Gill, 2002, pp. 307–308).

Similarly, Hooper and Potter (2001, p. 5) define emotional alignment as the development of a vision, creation of strategies to reach this vision, and motivation of members of the organization to work towards this vision. It is important to create a shared vision through dialogue, which is “planned, non-adversarial, facilitated process that helps participants develop a shared understanding of an issue and its potential solutions” (Gudz, 2004, p. 166).

Gill (2002, p. 311) adds that vision, mission, shared values, and strategies are produced when the leadership is able to notice information and engage in a process of comprehending the information, considering it, envisioning possible activities, tackling problems, and making decisions based on it. For that, emotional intelligence is crucial, which is the ability to understand oneself and others, show self-control and self-confidence, and to react to others in a proper way. Gill claims that emotional intelligence is important to identify and advertise shared values in order to reach a common vision, mission, and strategies and to empower people. During change, empowering means the support for others to be capable of doing the necessary tasks for the change process (Gill, 2002, p. 315).

Furthermore, fast change is achieved by alignment of the organizational members’ personal values and the organization’s values (Sullivan, Sullivan, &

Buffton, 2001, p. 247).

Nevertheless, only having a vision will not automatically lead to a successful change. A vision needs to be effective, which means that it is imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible, and communicable (Kotter, 1997, pp. 15–16). Moreover, it needs to be shared by the people involved, because

it makes clear where the change leads to and makes sure that everything that is done is aligned to it. Similarly, Senge (2006, p. 192) describes vision as ambition which mobilizes people to a higher extent than without vision, and Covey (2003, p. 19) sees principles as the “true north” leading toward the vision like a compass.

To reach the vision and mission, strategies are required, which are served by the organizational structure (Gill, 2002, p. 314). Structures are defined as the

“rules and resources that create organizational practices” (Lewis, 2011, p. 43).

Resources here mean processes, beliefs, and other resources that can be used to change. Organizational structures include decision-making outlines, roles, communication methods, and the way how information is shared (Lewis, 2011, pp. 43–44). Since structures are strongly rooted in organizations, they are quite resistant to change. Hence, change that attempts to break the organizational structures often is opposed (Lewis, 2011, p. 44).

Another key component for starting successful change is communication (Lewis, 2011, p. 23-24). Moreover, communication is the center of change processes because stakeholders need to make sense of the processes. If this is not possible, stakeholders might have a difficult time during the change:

Anecdotal evidence in case studies suggest that stakeholders – primarily employees – often have a difficult time during change and that change takes a high toll on stress levels and feelings of commitment to the organization (Lewis, 2011, p. 25).

Every individual involved in it sees the change differently. Depending on how directly a person is affected by the change, the person perceives the change’s size and scope as bigger or smaller (Lewis, 2011, p. 39). Additionally, stakeholders’

reactions are connected to their evaluation of costs and benefits of the change for themselves. Nevertheless, it is

likely that reactions to changes will be rooted in complex social systems, organizational structures, power relations, and other ongoing organizational dynamics (Lewis, 2011, p. 48).

The reactions to change do not necessarily need to be supporting the change process. Individuals might repel the change.