1. business and industrial

CHANGE MANAGEMENT: TERM CONFUSION
AND NEW CLASSIFICATIONS
Sung “Pil” Kang, PhD
This article addresses two key aspects of change management and the notional confusion
that occurs resulting from two different uses of the term change management. The author
proposes new terms—macro change management and micro change management—for the
two uses of the term change management. He then compares these two terms based on their
attributes, comprising definition, target, focus, and roles of change agents including required
competencies. The article concludes with explanations as to why change management notional
clarification and term elaboration are important for the human performance technology field.
MARS CLIMATE ORBITER (MCO), launched, operated,
and managed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), arrived at Mars and began main
fuel combustion for 16 minutes and 13 seconds in order
for orbital insertion to Mars. The orbiter was supposed to
restart radio contact with NASA after successful orbital
insertion and orbital motion within 10 minutes; however,
the contact with MCO never resumed. The spacecraft
failed, and this MCO project cost $327.6 million.
After a thorough inquiry, the MCO Mishap Investigation Board identified the cause of the failure. According
to the 1991 Board report, one ground software program
generated data using imperial units such as pounds,
yards, and miles instead of metric units, whereas the
software application for trajectory calculation accepted
the ground software-produced data as metric unit–based
data. This unit usage difference inserted MCO at an altitude of 57 km rather than its optimal altitude, 140–150
km, and MCO was destroyed by atmospheric pressure
and friction. This unit confusion ruined a several-year
project with a cost of $327 million.
Could such an absurd unit error causing fatal failure
occur in a human performance technology (HPT) project? In an HPT framework, would there be a mishap
where one software program calculates the distance and
produces the result of 10 miles and another software
26
Performance Improvement, vol. 54, no. 3, March 2015
©2015 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21466
application accepts it as 10 km? I believe that such issues,
although not so dramatic, occur in HPT projects frequently. People use the same terms and concepts and
unconsciously think that other people’s understanding of
the term or concept is the same as theirs. For example,
when a client and a consultant sign a contract to develop
five training modules, do they have the same understanding of the term module? The client may think of developing five courses whereas the consultant agrees to develop
five instructional units in one training course. Terms such
as course, module, component, chapter, lesson, and so
on are frequently used with different understandings by
individuals in different situations and organizations. Such
term and unit confusion causes various miscommunications in the field, and sometimes the confusion can contribute to the misapplication or failure of HPT projects.
One of the confusing terms not discussed widely
in the field of HPT is change management. It is difficult to define change management because the term
is an umbrella notion embracing a wide range of uses
(Jansson, 2008). Actually, there is no universally accepted
definition of change management, and there are some
significant disagreements among change management
researchers and practitioners about key approaches to
change management (Bamford & Daniel, 2005). This
in part has resulted in there being many definitions of
People use the same
terms and concepts and
unconsciously think that
other people’s understanding
of the term or concept is the
same as theirs.
and approaches to change management that have been
devised and introduced into the field of HPT.
Several authors of change management books define
change management in a self-referential manner devoid
of a sophisticated definition. Their perspectives regarding
change management are that it is just managing change
(e.g., Green, 2007; Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). These
definitions are not useful for practitioners or researchers
because they do not provide clarification, elaboration,
or explanation about the term change management and
its use. Sometimes, change management or managing
change is regarded as an activity or effort to support any
change that seeks positive results. This simplistic view
may result in some practitioners using the term change
management without thought as to its meaning for their
clients and colleagues.
Other researchers and practitioners provide specific
and sophisticated definitions that emphasize different
aspects of change management, such as its process,
techniques, and methods for change and the roles of
change agents. These definitions produce different
understandings about change management among different people.
Because of these different understandings, definitions,
and areas of focus in change management, people use
the same term with different connotations and mental
frameworks. This can easily cause confusion, such as
with unit differences in imperial units versus metric units
as demonstrated in the Mars Climate Orbiter failure.
Interestingly, this miscommunication in HPT consultation or research is often not easily observed. Therefore,
in research as well as HPT consultation, individuals as a
remedy try to identify at the beginning of a project their
specific definitions of key terms. However, over time the
confusion recurs during further discussions or with other
stakeholders in a project unless time and effort are taken
to continuously clarify terminology usage.
Due to indistinct and varying definitions, the term
change management is used with multiple meanings.
In order to diminish the term confusion of change
management, this article proposes two categories of
change management: (1) process or intervention for
change and (2) tactics or guidelines to implement
interventions.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT AS
PROCESS OR INTERVENTION FOR
TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE: MACRO
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
In HPT, the notion of change management is often used to
mean transformative change as in the definition “Change
management is the process of continually renewing an
organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to
serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal
customers” (Moran & Brightman, 2001, 111). For successful change management based on this definition, processes and interventions for change should be prudently
planned, and change agents must be involved in planning,
analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and
evaluating change proactively or reactively (Malopinsky
& Osman, 2006). Under this notion, the term change
management is synonymous with the intended process
for systemic, transformational, and fundamental change.
This perspective of change management appears in several models or processes in HPT and related fields, such
as total quality management (TQM), Six Sigma, reengineering, and restructuring.
This macro change management is usually required
when vast changes occur around an organization internally, externally, or both. For example, when companies
or business units are merged, transformative change
comes into play in many ways (e.g., work functions,
structure, process, flow, and even goals and visions).
In such cases, macro change management will help the
organization as it transforms. Similarly, environmental
changes around an organization often demand macro
change management. A home appliance retail company
may need to re-strategize its sales plans and business
structure resulting from a business environment change
that is more favorable to online retailers than to local
face-to-face sales. In this case, the transformative changes
are related to business survival.
Quite a number of change management definitions
are apropos in this macro use of the term change management (By, 2005; Hayes, 2006; Kotter & Cohen, 2002;
Lewin, 1951). Recently in the HPT field, Van Tiem,
Moseley, and Dessinger (2012) employed a macro definition of change management as a key component of their
ISPI HPT model. In their previous books published in
2000 and 2004, change management was defined more
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 3
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
27
While change agents
involved in macro change
management functions
play leadership roles,
micro change agents are
managers for detailed change
associated with intervention
implementation and people’s
adoption of an intervention.
narrowly, simply as guidelines to implement changes
(Kang, 2012). However, in their new edition published
in 2012, they defined change management as “a process whereby organizations and individuals proactively
plan for and adapt to change” rather than guidelines to
implement changes (Reynolds, 1993, cited in Van Tiem,
Moseley, & Dessinger, 2012, p. 61).
CHARACTERISTICS OF MACRO CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
There are some key characteristics of macro change management. In macro change management, the target of
change is organizational directions, structures, processes,
and capabilities. Macro change management can be
applied to changes in a small organization or a sub-organization such as a department or team. Regardless of the
size or level within an organization, when the main focus
of change is on structures, capacities, or overall processes,
change management should be viewed as macro.
Change agents for macro change management should
play the role of a change leader. Caldwell (2003) proposed
four models of change agents based on an extensive
review of previous change management studies: leader
model, management model, consultancy model, and
team model. The change agent role in macro change management is equivalent to the leader model. The change
agent functions as a leader for change in an organization
and needs to envision, initiate, or sponsor organizational
change of a transformational nature (Caldwell, 2003).
Consequently, one of the required competencies for the
macro change management consultant relates to the
need to guide the overall change processes using a systematic and systemic perspective of change initiatives.
28
www.ispi.org
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MARCH 2015
For large-scope change initiatives, the changes will not
yield positive outcomes without consideration of the
systemic and systematic aspects of the change. In addition, assuring strategic alignment of change components
for the target organization is a required competency for
the macro-level change agent in order to maximize the
effectiveness of change efforts. Competencies of planning
and organizing change processes and leadership skills are
required as well.
Frequently, macro change management is introduced
as a model and process since it is used to cope with an
overall change process. Macro change management is
often concretized as processes or models in practice and
in research. In the HPT field many researchers and practitioners have developed and used numerous processes
or models for macro change management. Interestingly,
although there are many models and processes for macro
change management, Lewin’s three-step change model
(1951) is arguably the archetype for macro change management. Furthermore, most other major models and
processes can be linked back to Lewin’s three-step model.
Seo (2000) collected and analyzed major models and processes of change management and displayed them based
on the categories of Lewin’s three steps (see Table 1). As
noted in Table 1, the major models and processes are
elaborations and accommodations of Lewin’s three steps.
Generally speaking, while macro change management is useful for envisioning large-scale change initiatives, including their purposeful orientation, the detailed
guidelines and tactics for each step are insufficient.
Therefore, sometimes a change agent who drives the
macro change management process suffers from the lack
of detailed tactics and guidelines for actual change management situations.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT AS TACTICS
OR GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT
INTERVENTIONS: MICRO CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
In the HPT field, the term change management is often
used as the means of managing the change associated
with the implementation of an intervention resulting
from applying the HPT process. Studies show that in
general about 70% of change efforts in business end up
in failure (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Hammer &
Champy, 2003; Smith, 2002). Further, one of the key reasons for these failures is the lack of guidance for intended
changes; therefore, the importance of effective guidance
for interventions implementation and people’s adoption
of changes cannot be overemphasized (Kang, 2012).
TABLE 1
CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS
AUTHORS
LEWIN
(1951)
Phases
Unfreeze
LIPPITT, WATSON,
WESTLEY, AND
KOLB AND
SPALDING (1958) FROHMAN (1970)
Need development
Scouting
BULLOCK
AND BATTEN
(1985)
KOTTER (1996)
Exploration
Establishing a sense
of urgency
Establishing a
climate of
positivity
Planning
Creating a guiding
coalition
Creating readiness
for change
Entry
Change
Change relationship
WHETTEN AND
CAMERON
(2005)
Clarification or
diagnosis
Diagnosis
Developing a vision
and strategy
Alternative routes
Planning
Communicating the
change vision
Empowering
employees for
broad-based
action
Transformation
Refreeze
Action
Generalization
Evaluation
Terminal relationship
Termination
Action
Integration
Generating shortterm wins
Articulating
a vision of
abundance
Consolidating gains
and producing
more change
Generating
commitment
Anchoring new
approaches in
the culture
Institutionalizing
the positive
change
Source. Seo (2000), translated and revised.
Compared with change management as an intervening process, this is more a micro-level understanding
of change management. As the HPT process evolves,
intended interventions must be managed and implemented in order to succeed, and often the change
required to implement a given intervention may require
a very delicate process (Roy, Falardeau, & Pelletier,
2001). Managing the change elements associated with
implementing an intervention is twofold, involving both
managing the implementation process and addressing human factors. These two aspects of change management are found in Rothwell’s definition of change
management. Rothwell (1999) described change management as a process that “ensures (1) that interventions
are implemented in ways consistent with desired results
and (2) that they help individuals and groups achieve
results” (p. 26).
CHARACTERISTICS OF MICRO CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
What are the key characteristics of micro change management? Change management used as tactics or guidelines
for intervention implementation focuses on a component
of managing the implementation process found in the
first half of Rothwell’s definition, ensuring intervention implementation in ways consistent with desired
outcomes. When an intended intervention is actually
implemented, each component of the intervention and
its processes should be managed and guided. When and
how planned interventions are implemented is critical
for success; therefore, the implementation process must
be not only well planned but also actively and carefully
guided. In the HPT field, the term change management is
often used as a means of managing the implementation
process.
As noted in the second part of Rothwell’s definition—
helping individuals and groups achieve results—the focus
of change management in this instance involves the
human aspect. In other words, micro change management should use tactics to prepare people for the changes
associated with an HPT intervention and provide assistance in personal transitions (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). It
includes people’s adoption of change, reducing resistance
to change, taking care of people’s concerns regarding a
specific change, and communicating with all affected
people. In the HPT field, many researchers and practitioners employ the term change management in this
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 3
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
29
way. For instance, Galloway (2007) stated that change
management involves communication strategies that
diminish or hopefully eliminate people’s concerns caused
by interventions so as to increase their acceptance of
interventions. Rogers (2003) also emphasizes the human
factors for change management in his notable book
Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers (2003) not only emphasizes simply taking care of people’s concerns and having
open communication; he also argues that change agents
should be able to empathize with their clients in order
to lead in the dissemination effort and to implement the
intended changes successfully. Furthermore, communication with people is more effective when people perceive
that the change agent is similar to their’s, such as values,
education, and beliefs.
While change agents involved in macro change management functions play leadership roles, micro change
agents are managers for detailed change associated with
intervention implementation and people’s adoption of
an intervention. They usually aim to take care of people’s
concerns about changes associated with a performance
improvement intervention, manage individuals’ resistance,
assure the details of change implementation, and disseminate and follow up on the purposed intervention. They
need to translate strategic visions of change associated
with interventions into specific action items and coaching
(Caldwell, 2003). Therefore, the competencies required
by the change agent in this change management scenario are abilities to use detailed tactics and guidelines to
manage people’s concerns about a performance improvement intervention, maintain motivation for change, and
facilitate and coordinate various activities for change
(Paton & McCalman, 2008). Because micro change agents
are supposed to manage the “people side” in change, psychological knowledge is useful for their work, including
such elements as group dynamics theories, attitude change
theories, organizational behavior theories, and social and
organizational psychology.
A possible threat to micro change management and
change agents is suboptimization. Suboptimization, a
synonym for subsystem maximization, is defined as
“maximizing or fine-tuning of a part of a system, often
to the detriment of the entire system” (Dettmer, 1998,
p. 7). When micro change agents focus primarily on
the changes associated with a performance intervention
devoid of contextualization and without a systemic view
of the organization, their small victory in change efforts
and maximization of only a part of the system can detract
from the total effectiveness of the changes and the overall
value of the performance improvement initiative to the
organization. Optimized changes in one change implementation may cause disharmony in the organization,
and the use of resources for optimization of that part may
possibly bring resource deficiency to other parts.
COMPARISON OF MACRO CHANGE MANAGEMENT WITH MICRO CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
TABLE 2
MACRO CHANGE MANAGEMENT
MICRO CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Definition
Process or initiative for changes of organizational
directions, strategies, structures, processes, or
capabilities
Tactics or guidelines for managing intervention
implementation process and human factors
Change level (target of change)
Strategic and process levels
Task and individual levels
Focus of change management
Overall change process and steps
Specific guidelines for change implementation
Personal transition and adoption of change
Managing people’s resistance
Roles of change agent
Leader: change leader, planner, change process
facilitator, visionary
Manager: resistant manager, change
dissemination/adoption manager
Competencies
Systematic/systemic understanding about change and
change initiatives
Strategic alignment of change components
Planning and organizing change processes
Leadership skills
Detailed tactics and techniques to manage
people’s resistance
Maintaining motivation
Ability to facilitate and coordinate various
activities for change
When to use
When organization-level change initiatives are
needed
When change performance improvement
interventions are actually implemented
Possible threat
30
www.ispi.org
•
Detail tactics, guidelines, and information are not enough
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MARCH 2015
Suboptimization
CONCLUSION: TERM CLARIFICATION
I have proposed two terms for change management:
macro change management and micro change management.
Existing books and articles explain both the macro and
the micro aspects of change management; however, the
notion and use of the terms is often confused because two
significantly different aspects of change management are
referenced as one term. As described previously, macro
change management and micro change management
have different characteristics in terms of targets, focus,
change agents’ roles, required competencies, and so forth
(see Table 2). In a given situation, obfuscation of the
notion recurs, and in the worst scenario, it can catalyze
failure of performance improvement initiatives such as
the Mars Climate Orbiter mishap due to unit confusion.
The proposal of the new terms for change management
and their characteristics will facilitate more effective
communication for change management, practically and
academically.
Hayes, J. (2006). The theory and practice of change
management. Asian Business & Management, 5(1), 153–155.
Hiatt, J., & Creasey, T.J. (2003). Change management: The
people side of change. Loveland, CO: Prosci Research.
Jansson, J. (2008). The importance of change management in
reforming customs. World Customs Journal, 2(2), 41–52.
Kang, S.P. (2012). Validation of key stages of the International
Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) Human
Performance Technology (HPT) model (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Kolb, D.A., & Frohman, A.L. (1970). Organization
development approach to consulting. Sloan Management
Review, 12(1), 51–65.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P., & Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life
stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
References
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.
Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic
change (2nd ed.). London, England: Prentice Hall.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., Westley, B., & Spalding, W.B. (1958). The
dynamics of planned change: A comparative study of principles
and techniques. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Bamford, D., & Daniel, S. (2005). A case study of change
management effectiveness within the NHS. Journal of Change
Management, 5(4), 391–406.
Bullock, R.J., & Batten, D. (1985). It’s just a phase we’re going
through: A review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group
& Organization Management, 10(4), 383–412.
By, R.T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical
review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
Caldwell, R. (2003). Models of change agency: A fourfold
classification. British Journal of Management, 14, 131–142.
Dettmer, H.W. (1998). Breaking the constraints to world-class
performance. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Galloway, D.L. (2007). A change management, systems
thinking, or organizational development approach to the
No Child Left Behind Act. Performance Improvement, 46(5),
10–16.
Green, M. (2007). Change management master class: A step by
step guide to successful change management. London, England:
Kogan Page.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (2003). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York, NY:
Harper Business Essentials.
Malopinsky, L.V., & Osman, G. (2006). Dimensions of organizational change. In J.A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human
performance technology: Principles, practices, and potential (3rd
ed., pp. 5–34). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Moran, J.W., & Brightman, B.K. (2001). Leading organizational
change. Career Development International, 6(2), 111–118.
Nilakant, V., & Ramnarayan, S. (2006). Change management: Altering mindsets in a global context. New Delhi, India:
Response Books.
Paton, R., & McCalman, J. (2008). Change management: A guide
to effective implementation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rothwell, W.J. (1999). Roles, competencies, and outputs of
human performance improvement. In W.J. Rothwell (Ed.),
ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles,
competencies, and outputs (2nd ed., pp. 17–32). Alexandria,
VA: The American Society for Training and Development.
Roy, M.C., Falardeau, J., & Pelletier, C. (2001). Support
systems for knowledge workers: The need for new
development approaches. Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice. Retrieved from http://www.tlainc.com/articl24.htm
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 3
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
31
Seo, D.H. (2000). A study on the change management for the
innovation of information system organization: A case of C
Hospital (Unpublished thesis). Seogang University, Seoul,
Korea (in Korean).
Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., & Dessinger, J.C. (2012).
Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results
through people, process, and organizations (3rd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Smith, M.E. (2002). Success rates for different types of organizational change. Performance Improvement, 41(1), 26–33.
Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2005). Developing management
skills (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
SUNG “PIL” KANG, PhD, is an instructional designer for GP Strategies Global Learning Solutions. He
has worked with global companies and Fortune 500 organizations, including Bank of America; McDonalds; Samsung, LG; and others. He earned his PhD and MS degrees in instructional systems technology
at Indiana University, with a focus on human performance technology (HPT) processes and models.
His interests include workplace learning and performance improvement, the foundations of HPT, the
validation of HPT models and processes, HPT standards structure, HPT consulting, mobile learning, and
instructional design. He may be reached at [email protected]
32
www.ispi.org
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MARCH 2015