1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues

Chapter 8
Implementing Change:
Change Management,
Contingency,
& Processual Approaches
Change Management Approach
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach
Focuses on strategic, intentional
and usually large-scale change
 Entails following a variety of
steps; the exact steps vary
depending upon the model used
 Belief that achieving
organizational change is possible
through a coordinated and
planned approach
 Claims to be appropriate for all
types of change

8-2
Kotter’s Eight-Step Model
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach

Kotter’s eight-step model is one of
the best known:
1. Establish the need for urgency
2. Ensure there is a powerful change
group to guide the change
3. Develop a vision
4. Communicate the vision
5. Empower the staff
6. Ensure there are short-term wins
7. Consolidate gains
8. Embed the change in the culture
8-3
Other N-Step Models
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues

Change
Management vs
Organization
Development


Contingency
Approaches






Ten commandements (Kanter, Stein and Jick
1992)
Ten Keys (Pendlebury, Grouard, and Meston
1998)
12 Action Steps (Nadler 1998)
Transformation Trajectory (Taffinfer 1998)
Nine-Phase Change Process Model (Anderson &
Anderson 2001)
Step-by-Step Change Model (Kirkpatrick 2001)
12 Step Framework (Mento, Jones and
Dirndorfer 2002)
RAND’s Six Steps (Light 2005)
Integrated Model (Leppitt 2006)
Processual
Approach
8-4
N-Step Model Issues
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach
The sequences of steps
The number of steps
The timing of steps
The resourcing of steps
The involvement in each step
Managing multiple steps
Revisiting different steps
“Are all steps needed for
particular changes?”
 Cyclical or linear








8-5
Change Management vs. OD
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach
There is a debate between
proponents of OD and proponents
of change management:
◦ OD is criticized for giving attention
only to human development, and not
to technology, operations, and
strategy
◦ Change management is criticized for
 having a focus on the concerns of
management rather than on those
of the organization as a whole
 being the product of management
consultancy firms
8-6
Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach


Contingency approaches challenge the
view that there is “one best way”
The style of change or the path of
change will vary, depending upon the
circumstances, including:
 the scale of the change
 the receptivity to change of organizational
members
 the style of change management
 the time period
 the performance of the organization
8-7
Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues

Huy’s Contingency Approach categorizes
change into 4 ideal types:
1.
2.
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
3.
Contingency
Approaches
4.
Processual
Approach
The commanding intervention
•
•
•
•
•
•






Short-term and rapid
senior executives
Downsizing, outsourcing, divesting
The engineering intervention
Medium-term and relatively fast
Analysts
Changing work design and operational systems
The teaching intervention
Long-term and gradual
Consultants
Work practices and behaviours
The socializing intervention
Long-term and gradual
Participative experiential learning, self-monitoring
Democratic organizational practices
8-8
Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach
Contingency approaches remain less common
than change management approaches.
Suggested reasons include:
•
•
•
•
•
Achieving “fit” may be difficult due to differing
perceptions of the conditions in which the fit is
sought
Contingency approaches require greater analysis
and decisions by managers; the prescriptiveness
of change management models may be attractive
to managers
Contingency approaches focus on leadership style
rather than a specific set of actions
The use of different change styles at different
times may raises questions in the minds of staff
as to the credibility of senior management.
There is a question about “what” is contingent to
managing change
8-9
Processual Approach
Change
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s EightStep Model
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
issues
Change
Management vs
Organization
Development
Contingency
Approaches
Processual
Approach
It sees change as a continuous process
rather than a series of linear events
within a given period of time
 It sees the outcome of change as
occurring through a complex interplay
of different interest groups, goals, and
politics.
 This approach alerts the change
manager to the range of influences
which they will confront and the way in
which these will lead to only certain
change outcomes being achieved
 This approach is often used to provide
a detailed analysis and understanding
of change retrospectively.

8-10
Learning more about one
chagne management model:
the Kotter’s model
Kotter has worked more any other theorist on the definition of leadership and how it
actually differs from management.
Management is more a set of tools while leadership is an art which can not be
precisely codified.
Comes to a definition of leadership that privileges its dimension of being an agent of
change.
Believes that institutionalizing a leadership culture is the ultimate act of leadership.
John Kotter on Leadership & Management
Norfolk Southern: Case Study
When Katie Frazier first joined Norfolk Southern’s Atlanta terminal, she felt it was
running well but still felt more could be done to improve operations. She was also
concerned about safety issues. As she got comfortable in her new job, she was
wracking her brain, struggling with how to help the company take its safety and
operations standards from just “good enough” to a higher level. One day, while in a
local bookstore’s business section, she noticed a book with penguins on the cover.
Penguins had always been her favorite animal, but she wondered what such a book
was doing surrounded by books on management! The book, needless to say, was
“Our Iceberg Is Melting.” Once she started reading it, she thought to herself, “wow,
this is really helpful.” She noticed that behaviors in her company sometimes
mirrored the penguins’ behaviors, for example, people would see a complex
problem, and then either ignore it or wait for someone else to fix it. Katie thought
that if she could get other people in the company to read the book, it might be a big
help in giving people perspective on the bigger picture.Katie, being one of the few
relatively young workers around, faced an enormous challenge in getting her older
co-workers to buy in to the notion that penguins could help the organization. There
were many skeptics. She showed the book to her manager, a former Marine. He told
her that the book was something his granddaughter might read, not something he
would value as a business leader. Katie persevered and insisted that he read it. After
her manager actually did, he quickly began to realize the same lessons could apply
at Norfolk Southern. He gave Katie approval to start applying the learnings.
Step 1) Katie started by trying to create a sense of urgency
around a willingness to raise safety and operational
standards. Through evaluation of these problems, not only
by Katie but also by the broader leadership team, people
began to feel that urgency was more than just the latest fad.
That process of raising the urgency level inside the Atlanta
terminal of Norfolk Southern took about 2 months from start
to finish.
Step 2) After sufficient urgency was raised, a guiding coalition
formed made up of a few conductors, engineers & supervisors.
Katie’s fear was that the group was too homogenous – she
actually wanted to include a few of the company’s more
skeptical employees to get their feedback and help strengthen
the group’s decision making. The Guiding Coalition began
meeting regularly and called themselves “The Iceberg Group.”
This group started out small, but eventually grew to have about
9 people, changing over time, from different parts of the
organization, meeting regularly to see how to implement the rest
of the 8 Steps.
Step 3) The vision that the group created was designed to change
everyone’s mentality and attitude about safety. Injuries could not be
treated as an acceptable risk at a railroad – they had to be reduced
in order to get the railroad’s efficiency up and costs down.
Step 4) Communicating this vision was a constant battle, since most of a
railroad’s employees are on the move at any given time. Furthermore, most
of the crew members did not have access to modern communications like
e-mail.
As a result, the vision was communicated through a vehicle called “job
briefings,” where the days weather & track conditions were discussed for
crews about to go out on to the tracks. These briefings happen 3 times a
day, at the beginning of every shift. The Iceberg Group started
communicating the change vision at job briefings, around the clock, for two
weeks straight. Over time, every crew member was touched by the vision
multiple times, right at their point of highest awareness – before going out
to work on the trains.
Step 5)The largest barrier Katie felt she needed to overcome were related
to the concept of raising the bar on safety standards – how can you make
people really care about the highest possible safety standards, when
current standards are already high? The way to do it, she said, was to
make it personal – get to the heart and not just the mind. They
forced people to think about their families and how they would feel about
an injury to their loved ones. Over time, the message began to sink in and
people started to change their behavior. This created a high level of
engagement with the crew.
Step 6) The Iceberg Group set a goal for a short term win – six months
injury free and communicated it broadly. Since the inception of the Iceberg
Group’s work, with the exception of a small muscle pull, the Atlanta terminal
has gone almost 9 months injury free.
Other outcomes resulted as well, for example, because the terminal
became so proficient, they’ve never had to reduce the number of shifts
running, even as other companies have cut back. With injuries down about
97% over last year, the Atlanta terminal has had fewer missed days of work,
fewer injury-related costs and more productive workers, enabling it to gain a
critical advantage over the competition.
Step 7&8) Even with this success, the Atlanta terminal isn’t content
to let up. As they continue to move through the 8 Step process,
they hope to make the change permanent by anchoring these new
changes into the culture. The Iceberg Group continues to meet,
looking for other ways in which they can help the company improve
its operations, and hopefully, spread the Iceberg philosophy to other
divisions of the company