Change Management

First and foremost the paper aims at understanding the organizational structure and culture with specific focus on a few theories. The theories, in particular, include Weber’s, Fayol’s, and Mintzberg’s theories that are instrumental in understanding the organization’s structure. Understanding the structure of the organization applies the use of Hofstede's theory, Handy’s theory and Schein’s theory. The application of McKinsey’s model and Kotter’s model are also influential in analyzing the change process during the research paper. Secondly, the paper will look into the rationale for change within the organization, with a particular focus to the Royal Saudi Air Force. In particular, it looks at the drivers for change and the potential effects that the change model possesses. Thirdly, it will be crucial in understanding strategic changes. An analysis of change model will also be discussed within the paper. The further aims at analyzing the role of change agent and provide the possible impact of the same. The scope of the research is, however, limited to the change process and with focus to the Royal Saudi Air Force.

The Royal Saudi Air Force has its headquarters in Riyadh with five main branches. It has a military academy with training schools. It was established in 1950 under the Abd al-Aziz reign. It began its operations under the watch and control of the army. The British army was widely considered as the supporter and financer of the Royal Saudi Air Force in its early days. In particular, the British provided the advisory role, the training, as well as aircraft. The training was done in the United States and the United Kingdom. The air force has developed tremendously since it was founded, mainly offering its services to the Royal Saudi (Aviation Information Network, 2017).

Organization’s Structure

Taylor’s scientific management advocated for four principles, namely application of science in management. He agitated for scientific selection of employees in the organization. The workers too should be trained using scientific methods as well as labor relation (Burke, 2011). Weber's bureaucratic theory outlined a number of principles that he thought should be adopted by the organization in its structure. He proposed that there should be a hierarchy of positions in the organizations. Further, jobs should be specialized. The organization is seen as consisting of a set rules and regulation. The recruitment of employees should be impartial, and last democracy should be practiced in the organization (Aiken and Keller, 2009). Fayol’s administrative theory, on the other hand, was concerned with establishing management principles that up to date are applicable to all organizations. Fayol, in particular, is credited for the fourteen principles of management that are still crucial to the daily operations of business (Avolio, 2007).

Weber's bureaucratic theory looks at the structure of the organization as one with positions arranged in a hierarchical manner, where individuals have responsibility and authority assigned too. The organization is seen as a formal institution. Mintzberg believed that organization could be categorized into different structures. In his view, elements of the bureaucratic structure of the organization are evidenced, just like in Weber’s theory. From Mintzbergs theory, organization structure is considerably categorized into five generic structures. Aaccording to Weber and Mintzberg the organization structure must encourage the division of labor or specialization thus increasing productivity (Clegg, 1994).

Fayol also advocated for a similar organization structure that allows the division of labor as a way of increasing efficiency in the workplace. Fayol believed in both centralization and decentralization of structures. Responsibility and authority within the organization also form part of the structure depicted by Fayol, just like by Weber and Mintzbergs. Taylor was more concerned about issues affecting shop floor while Fayol was focused on the functions of managers at the topmost level. In particular, Taylor’s work was concerned with the performance from the bottom of industry’s hierarchy to the top level while Fayol concentrated on the chief executives as he moved downwards (Cole, 2004).

Organization Culture

The definition of organization culture coins around the way things are done in a business set up. Researchers have offered several definitions to help understand the business culture. According to International Journal of Business and Management, organization culture is defined as, “the way things are done in an organization.” Bro Uttal (1983) views an organizational culture as a system made up of common values and beliefs that interact with workers, structure among other sub-systems. Andrew Brown (1995, 1998) defined the concept as consisting of patterns of value, beliefs. Schein (1985), on the other hand, looked at organization culture as shared assumptions people learn in a bid to offer solutions to an issue (Altman and Baruch, 1998).

Hofstede's believed that an organization has five dimensions, namely, individualism versus collectivism, power, uncertainty and avoidance; masculinity versus femininity, and lastly, is long-term orientation. According to Edgar Schein's theory, he thought of culture as a set of artifacts, consisting of symbols, assumptions, seen as philosophies, and espoused values, evidenced in behavior. Charles Handy views propose that an organization can be classified into four cultures, namely, power, role, task, and person culture (Hendry, 1999). Both Hofstede and Handy looks at power as the one main component of organizational culture. The organization thus according to them, consist of individuals responsible for decision making and this creates a culture of authority and responsibility. Organization’s culture thus outlines the ease with which authority is enforced and how easy one can question it.

Hofstede and Handy further recognize that an organization culture consists of tasks or roles, assigned to individuals, and that is why Hofstede talks of the organization as consisting of femininity and masculinity culture. In Hendy’s person culture theorem, an organization may experience the strongest resistance, because it assumes that people possess more power than the organization. An organization that possesses a counter-culture too offers strong resistance to change due to its constant opposition to the prevalent culture. The culture instills different values and norms that change the way things are done in an organization. The role culture seems to be most appropriate, since the organization has a functional level with a structure representing power and control. This type of culture assumes that everyone has a job description (Altaf, 2011).

Organizational Structure Types

Functional Structure

Under this structure, the organization is organized according to the purpose it performs. In this connection, it would be structured according to sales, marketing, and production among others. This structure, however, is difficult to coordinate, though it is appealing to small businesses (Carnall, 2008).

Divisional Structur

The structure is applicable to large organizations, and in this case, it is based on products or projects within an organization. It also possesses communication barrier, as each division may concentrate on their own affairs. It is also costly to implement (Aiken and Keller, 2009).

Matrix

This type of structure is a hybrid of functional structure and divisional structure. It is mostly applicable to large multinational companies. Because of the existence of two different structures, it creates divisions among the management, who may opt to pursue their own interests (Parker et al., 2013).

Within the Royal Saudi, there exists a bureaucratic form of organization structure which only conforms to the functional structure of an organization. This is necessary to induce a level of control among the employees in the form of authority and responsibility (Military Wiki, 2017).

Difference between Flat Structure and Hierarchical Structure

Under Flat Structure, an organization has fewer or no levels of management between staff and management. Less supervision is witnessed while more employees’ involvement in the decision-making is encouraged. The structure elevates employee’s responsibility in an enterprise. Further, eliminates too much management, hence easier decision making. It is touted as cost-effective. It, however, generates power struggle and confusion in an organization (Dawson, 2010).
Hierarchical structure, on the other hand, provides for a layout and subordinations practice. There are well-established levels of management. It has a well-defined leadership with responsibility and authority structure. Employees can specialize in given fields. It, however, experience poor communication across the departments and may promote rivalries (Dauber, Fink and Yolles, 2012).

Rationale for Change Management

Change is inevitable in any business environment. There are reasons why a business may opt to execute change within the organization. The fact that the business environment is not static keeps on pushing businesses to make adjustments. Globalization is one such factor that has made firms to implement change strategies to remain relevant to the business environment. Technology keeps on changing, and this brings forth different methods and techniques of production that can only be adopted using change strategy. The need to remain competitive within the business world has seen numerous firms adopt new strategies that can only be implemented using change strategy. With globalization, the products have been subjected to same quality under ISO standards. These changes within the global business practices can only be practiced when new strategies are adopted by firms to remain relevant (Besson and Mahieu, 2011).
The fact is that customers are educated; they are able to make informed choices based on quality, prices and brand. These changes in customer’s needs require new strategies that may call for an entire overhaul of the existing strategy thus calling for change management. Firms are also concerned about cost and revenue management. This may call for changes in strategy, especially where an existing one does not seem to work towards maximization of revenue as well as cost minimization (Gill, 2002). The call for change, therefore, becomes important in order for a business to accommodate any growth, survive against the diverse environment; improve performance, as well as meet downsizes strategy. Failure to embrace a change strategy can see a firm out of business due to constant competition.

Change Model

The paper makes use of two applications of change models to help in the understanding of the change process. In particular, Kotter and McKinsey will be instrumental in this case.

McKinsey 7 S Model

The model features seven stages necessary in managing change with any organization. The stages outlined under the model include: strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff, and skills. The strategies are plans that assist the organizations to remain competitive in achieving their goals. The structure indicates the way an organization is divided. It refers to the real structure adopted by the organization. The system displays how the business activities are done necessary to achieve a task within the business. Shared values reflect the core values that guide the firm as it carries its operations. Style refers to the way leadership and changes are implemented within the organization. The staffs include employees within an organization and their capabilities. Skills reflect competencies possessed by workforce within an enterprise (Gupta, 2011).

Benefits of the Model

The model helps in understanding any organization in terms of how it operates. The seven stages help any business to outline how it works. Since the model integrates practical component of change as well as emotional change, it makes it easier for employees to cope up with the transition. The model puts equal weight on its components and outlines the importance of each to the organization. Lastly, the model offers direct way the organizational change should be done (Lamond, 2005).

Disadvantages of the Model

The interdependence among the factors within the model implies that if one fails, the rest too, and this is one of the disadvantages. The differences among the sub-systems are usually ignored thus futile to the change process. It is considered complex as compared to other forms of change model therefore difficult to apply and understand. It’s been touted as a failed model in all the occasions where organizations have adopted it (Sikdar and Payyazhi, 2014).

Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model

Kotter outlined eight steps necessary in effecting a change. The first step is to increase urgency within the organization as motivating factor in achieving objectives. Secondly, is to come up with a team dedicated to change. Thirdly is the creation of vision necessary for change. Next is the need to communication change. Empowering staff to effect change and creation of short-term goals, in addition, is crucial. Employees need to stay persistent to change and lastly, to ensure the change is permanent (Lewis, 2002).

Significance of the Model

The process advocated by the model is easy to adopt, unlike other methods. The transition is easy using the model thus would be preferable by the majority. It further assists organizations in preparing for change and accepting the change itself (Nickerson and Zenger, 2002).

Disadvantages of the Model

The model is time-consuming and may not seem likable by most organizations. Other than that it does not allow for the organization to skip any step as it is deemed as step by step (Parry, Kirsch, Carey, and Shaw, 2014).

Usefulness of Change Model

The models help in understanding the organization in terms of culture, the structure thus being able to effect change without any resistance. The use of models assists in coming up with proper resources that are necessary for achieving the needed change. It also helps in identifying the various roles each person plays in the change management. It assists the change agent in understanding the needed characteristics to help in effecting change within an organization (Lynch, 2008). The models clearly outline a step by step process that makes it easier for the change implementers to follow easily. The models also assist the organization to accept the change and be ready for the change when it strikes. Another importance of models is to offer directions to the organization in an attempt to ensure successful change process. McKinsey’s model is instrumental in offering emotional and practical component of change (Mansfield, 2011).

Issues Associated With the Change Model

Using McKinsey and Kotter models to understand change model within the Royal Saudi Air Force. The McKinsey model is important in guiding the organization to formulate strategies that are needed to achieve the goals (Leithwood and Poplin, 1992). Using the ‘structure’ concept, the Royal Saudi will be able to understand its structure and how the model affects the change process. The Royal Saudi Air Force can use the model to understand the importance of organizational values during the change process. It is important for the organization to understand the staff diversity and the skills each possess that may be crucial in establishing change. It is also necessary to apply the necessary leadership style to achieve effective change. The Kotter’s model is instrumental in advocating for team building as an important component of change management. It also recognizes the importance of employee motivation as a precursor to change (Mankin, 2001). Royal Saudi can employ the Kotter’s model by ensuring that communication is made and vision created to allow organization implement change.

Differences between the Two Models

McKinsey’s model is more complex as compared to Kotter’s model; this gives a great challenge, as understanding and application of the model requires thorough scrutiny to apply it effectively. The study of those organizations that have tried to apply the concept offers negative insight, as most of such organizations have ended up in as total failure (Sushil and Jain, 2011). This, therefore, indicates that it is not the best tool to apply, while establishing the change process needed within any organization. The interdependence among the factors within the McKinsey’s 7-S model implies that if one subsystem fails then, the entire model has failed. This disadvantage is not evidenced in the Kotter’s model. Kotter’s model is seen as more time consuming to analyze, understand, and apply within the business set up as opposed to McKinsey’s model, thus this could deter its application to initiate a change management strategy. The use of Kotter’s model in change management is seen as too much rigid in comparison with McKinsey’s model because it advocates for a step by step basis, indicating, that if one is skipped, then the application does not achieve the desired outcome (Strati, 2000).

Theoretical Responses to Change

John Fisher’s curve implies that change process creates a lot of response ranging from anxiety, fear, happiness, depression, disillusionment and denial. It is thus important for employees and managers to understand reasons for change and the potential effect (Schriner et al., 2010).

How to Overcome Resistance to Change

It is no doubt that change will affect the employees and the organization as a whole. Overcoming the resistance requires understanding of the employees’ perception of past, current and future experience on change with regards to effects on the employees. Change agent should take the necessary step to provide education, information, and support for the employees (Besson and Mahieu, 2011).

Implications of Responses to Change

Managers or the change agents must be able to create a smooth transition. It is the duty to ensure they understand and respond to employees’ concern. Providing necessary support in the form of advice during the period is important. Reassuring employees on the benefits of change is crucial. If the change agents do not handle the responses, the change may not occur at all due to resistance (Saka, 2003).

Analysis of the Role of Change Agents

The role of change agent is important in ensuring that the change is implemented. These roles include consulting, training, and research.

Diagnose problems

The change agent should be able to identify problems and provide the information relevant to solving the problems.

Consulting

Consulting role of a manager ensures that employees access the data. The data helps the employees in finding solutions by analyzing relevant data to assist the organization to overcome any problem (Vecchio, 2007).

Training

The training role of a manager assists in training the employees. This role assists the workforce in making sure that they learn how to use relevant data to effect change. The change agent provides employees with needed skills to assist in retrieving, translating and use of relevant data in solving impending challenges (Woodd, 1999).

Research

The researching role assists the manager in training the organization members to ensure they possess the needed skills for evaluating the effectiveness of any course of the plan implemented works towards the desired direction. This role also assists in designing evaluation component necessary in solving future problems (Shafritz, Ott, and Jang, 2015).

Leadership Style

Change requires leadership skill that is more encouraging, and one that recognizes the role of the employees. In this connection two leadership styles would be the most appropriate namely leader-members exchange and transformational leadership style for transformational leadership. A leader is more focused on changing follower’s emotions, values and ethics to achieve goals. This leadership style is seen as charismatic and vision based. It values the followers hence can easily achieve successful change needed. For the transformational leadership, the relationship between the employees and the leader is given priority. Leaders are not encouraged to judge their followers using emotions.

Characteristics of Successful Change Agentry

Hemophily

The change agent and the organization itself should be alike. Organization’s members, as well as a change agent, are encouraged to be uniform to ensure that change is affected.

Empathy

The characteristic allows the individuals to understand each other. Empathy encourages communication and understanding among members of organization as well as change agent (Stephen, 2010).

Linkage

This characteristic shows the closeness between the organization and change agent. It looks into collaborative activities between the members of the organization and a change agent. Where the relationship is tight; change is likely to succeed (Parker and Ritson, 2005).

Proximity

It refers to the psychological and physical closeness of organization members and the change agent. Close proximity between the two actors encourages the success of the change, and in addition, it promotes collaborative linkage (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2015).

Openness

The characteristic indicates the extent by which the organization members and change agent show willingness to respond, hear, and being influenced by each other. The more the openness between the two actors the more successful change is expected (Schaubroeck, Lam and Cha, 2007).

Role of Employee in Change Process

The role of the employee during change process becomes crucial just like the lead change agents. The employees offer necessary feedback to the managers on the project implementations thus help in ensuring that the change process is in the right direction. The employees perform specific tasks as may be assigned to them during the change process and this ensures that the process is achieved smoothly. Without employees, the tasks cannot be achieved (Hailey and Balogun, 2002). Thus, it is important to credit them in the quest to achieve the process. Employees, however, can act as a stumbling block to the change process. In many organizations, employees have resisted the process itself. Employees often view change as a process that is likely to bring uncertainty into their roles or jobs, and that is why many organizations oppose it (Schaubroeck, Lam and Cha, 2007).

My role as an employee during the change process is to ensure performance on the activities assigned to ensure the success of the change process. Seeking for clarification from the assigned team leader to ensure that process is successful.

Strategic Change

Strategic change involves a voluntary initiative by the business or organization to make necessary change that aims at positioning itself above the key players within the industry. The strategic change thus involves a restructure of marketing or business plan that aims at achieving fundamental objectives. It may involve changes in mission, organizational structure, and target market or corporation policy. It thus aims at describing the specific ways through which an entity will specify factors (Lunenburg, 2010). The strategy thus helps in minimizing any negative effect while undertaking change process. Within the Royal Saudi, the strategic change would be called by the top leadership with the aim of formulating new vision and mission statement that aims at changing the overall commitment of the organization towards the desired outcome. In this case, new strategies are explored to help make it more focused towards certain objectives.

Operational Change

Operational change is departmental initiatives meant to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of a process. It may be applied to one level or all the levels within the organization. They include proactive measures that are necessary to assist the organization in adapting to the changes within the industry. It may also be conducted to improve the processes to ensuring competitive advantage (McIlduff and Coghlan, 2000). Operational change within the Royal Saudi would be more focused on the new changes in the operations of the process and divisions with regards to the fleet mix, aircraft types, employees’ mix among others that is meant to strengthen a particular department or division.

Difference between Strategic Change and Operational Change

The strategic change is wider in scope and involves the entire organization. This type of change begins from the top and is implemented across the functions under the supervision of the tactical managers. The operational change, however, has a small scope as it involves specific departments. It does not begin from the top level management. The main aim of the strategic change is to make an overhaul to the prevailing mission or vision, and this, therefore, implies that the top leadership becomes the influencers (Northouse, 2016). Within the Royal Saudi Air Force, change often create a mixed of reaction depending on the potential effect of such changes. Based on the speculations, before the change is initiated, it produces such reactions as anxiety, depression, happiness, denial as well as disillusionment. My role within the change is to perform tasks as provided within my job description to ensure the desired objectives are achieved. It is, crucial, important to realize that change is inevitable and even as it receives opposition, it is soothing that must occur for the betterment of employee and the organization at large.

Conclusion

Because change management process, it is important for the Royal Saudi Air Force to understand its organizational structure. Using past studies, like the scientific management, administrative the organization can assess itself before initiating any change. The culture of the organization too becomes necessary when evaluating possible threats to change, and how change is likely to affect the employees. It is imperative, therefore, to adopt the cultural theories put forward by the Chris Handy, Edgar Schein, and Hofstede to identify the possible way of managing culture resistance during the change process. The type of structures that an organization adopts be it the matrix, division or functional also is important while performing change management. These structures are important in determining the relationship between the employees and management in the form of responsibility, power and specialty there are several reasons why an organization like Royal Saudi Air Force may need change. Because of constant changes in the environment such technology, customer knowledge, and globalization, it is important for change to occur at some point in an organization. Understanding change requires the use of models, such as Kotter’s model and McKinsey’s, which offer insight on how change process should be implemented and what to consider. John Fisher’s curve is also instrumental in understanding how employees react to change through denial, depression, and in addition, provides the mechanisms for handling such reactions. Transformation and leader-member exchange becomes the crucial leadership practices that are important during the change process. The role of the employee during the change process such as undertaking assigned activities is crucial to ensure the process is effective. The change being implemented may either be operational based or strategic based. Where the strategic based involves the top most level of management coming up with new visions or missions to achieve set objectives, unlike operation that only focuses on divisions or departments.

References

Aiken, C., and Keller, S. (2009). The irrational side of change management. McKinsey Quarterly , 2 (10), 100-109.
Altaf, A. (2011). The Impact of Organizational Culture on Organizational Effectiveness: Implication of Hofstede Cultural Model as Organizational Effectiveness Model. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences , 6 (1).
Altman, Y., and Baruch, Y. (1998). Cultural theory and organizations: analytical method and cases. Organization Studies , 19 (5), 769-785.
Aviation Information Network . (2017). Royal Saudi Air Force. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from Arab Aviation: http://www.arabaviation.com/en-us/airpower/royalsaudiairforce.aspx
Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist , 62 (1), 25.
Besson, P., and Mahieu, C. (2011). Strategizing from the middle in radical change situations Transforming roles to enable strategic creativity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 19 (3), 176-201.
Burke, W. (2011). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carnall, C. (2008). Managing change in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clegg, S. (1994). Weber and Foucault: Social theory for the study of organizations. Organization, 1 (1), 149-178.
Cole, G. (2004). Management theory and practice. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Dauber, D., Fink, G., and Yolles, M. (2012). A configuration model of organizational culture. Sage Open , 2 (1).
Dawson, P. (2010). Managing change, creativity and innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gill, R. (2002). Change management--or change leadership? Journal of change management , 3 (4), 307-318.
Gupta, P. (2011). Leading innovation change-The Kotter way. International Journal of Innovation Science , 3 (3), 141-150.
Hailey, V., and Balogun, J. (2002). Devising Context Sensitive Approaches to Change: The Example of GlaxoWellcome. Long Range Planning, , 35 (2), 153–178.
Hendry, J. (1999). Cultural theory and contemporary management organization. Human Relations , 52 (5), 557-577.
Lamond, D. (2005). On the value of management history: absorbing the past to understand the present and inform the future. Management Decision , 43 (10), 1273-1281.
Leithwood, K., and Poplin, M. (1992). Transformational leadership. Educational leadership , 49 (5), 8-12.
Lewis, D. (2002). Organization and Management in the Third Sector: Toward a Cross‐Cultural Research Agenda. Nonprofit Management and Leadership , 13 (1), 67-83.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). Managing Change: The Role of the Change Agent. International Journal Of Management, Business, And Administration , 3 (1), 1-5.
Lynch, R. (2008). Strategic Management (5th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Mankin, D. (2001). A model for human resource development. Human Resource Development International , 4 (1), 65-85.
Mansfield, J. (2011). The nature of change: An introductory text to designing complex systems and managing change. London: Imperial College Press.
McIlduff, E., and Coghlan, D. (2000). Understanding and contending with passiveaggressive behaviour in teams and organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 15, 716-736.
Military Wiki . (2017). Royal Saudi Air Force. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from Military: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force
Nickerson, J., and Zenger, T. (2002). Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science , 13 (5), 547-566.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership (7th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Parker et al. (2013). Critical evaluation of project-based performance management: change intervention integration. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 62 (4), 407-419.
Parker, L., and Ritson, P. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: anticipating contemporary management. British Journal of Management , 16 (3), 175-194.
Parry, W., Kirsch, C., Carey, P., and Shaw, D. (2014). Empirical development of a model of performance drivers in organizational change projects. Journal of Change Management, 14 (1), 99-125.
Saka, A. (2003). Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 16 (5), 480-496.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., and Cha, S. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of applied psychology , 92 (4), 1020.
Schriner et al. (2010). Collaboration of nursing faculty and college administration in creating organizational change. Nursing education perspectives , 31 (6), 381-386.
Shafritz, J., Ott, J., & Jang, Y. (2015). Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning.
Sikdar, A., and Payyazhi, J. (2014). A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign. Business Process Management Journal , 20 (6), 971-998.
Stephen, T. (2010). Successfully managing change in organizations. New York: Industrial Press.
Strati, A. (2000). Theory and method in organization studies: Paradigms and choices. Sage.
Sushil, J. and Jain, P. (2011). Innovation by harmonizing continuity and change. Journal of Business Strategy , 32 (2), 38-49.
Vecchio, R. (2007). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. University of Notre Dame Pess.
Woodd, M. (1999). The psychology of career theory–a new perspective? Journal of European Industrial Training , 23 (4), 218-223.