Fluent Essays

Identify a positive change that would improve an organization or community with which you are familiar.Briefly describe the organization.Discuss why you feel this change is necessary and how the organization would benefit from this change.Be sure and build a firm case on why this change is crucial.Establishing a Sense of UrgencyIdentify any areas of complacency within the organization.From Figure 1 in Schweiger, et al. (2016), which organizational change capability would you describe as a strength of your organization? Which would you describe as a weakness? What steps will you take to address the weakness as you create a sense of urgency?Outline a plan for creating urgency for the positive change you have identified.Use the Exercise on pp. 34–35 of the course text, The Heart of Change, as a guideline in the process.Creating a Guiding CoalitionOutline the individuals that would be important to include in your guiding coalition. You do not need to use names, but describe the role each plays in the organization.Identify the criteria you used for selecting your coalition.Discuss the contributions each role would play in guiding the change process.Defend why this group is ideal for this coalition over other possibilities. a_concept_for_diagnosing_and_developing_organizational_change_capabilities.pdf cracking_the_code_of_change.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump and Lorena Hoormann Abstract Key Words In modern industries, organizations are facing the need to continuously change and adapt to dynamic environmental conditions. To address this change, organizations require several specific capabilities, which will be referred to as organizational change capabilities. As the paper will outline, organizational change capabilities are a type of dynamic capability grounded in an organization’s change logic. The model of organizational change capabilities presented in this paper distinguishes search, reflection, seizing, planning, implementation, and strategy making capabilities. Based on this model, (a) concepts for diagnosing and improving change capabilities, and (b) an innovative intervention design for organizational development are developed, which are generic and can be tailored to the needs of a specific firm. The theoretical analysis sketched in this paper may further stimulate theory development at the interface of dynamic capabilities and dominant logic. At the same time, the innovative intervention design is expected to be of high practical value for managers and practitioners in the field of organizational development. Change capabilities, dynamic capabilities, organizational change logic, organizational development, organizational diagnosis Christina Schweiger is Senior Researcher and Lecturer in the Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She has worked in international applied R&D projects for many years. Currently she works as a team leader in research and consultant projects in the field of the development of small and medium sized enterprises, strategic management, organizational development and change management. She holds a doctoral degree in Business Management and Business Education from the University of Graz. E-mail: ous international and interdisciplinary R&D and consulting projects in the field of change, organizational learning and knowledge management. She has co-authored more than 30 peer reviewed scientific articles. Her current research interests include organizational knowledge creation, leadership and organizational development. Barbara Kump is Endowed Professor of Organizational Development and Organizational Learning at the department of Human Resources and Organization at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She holds both a diploma (MA) and a doctoral degree in cognitive psychology from the University of Graz. She has worked as a team leader in vari- 12 Introduction Due to increasing turbulence in the markets and intense competition, organizations need to continuously change and adapt to their environments to survive. Dynamically changing operating environments require a proactive approach, where change occurs in a strategic way in anticipation of prospective alterations (Judge & Douglas, 2009; Worley & Lawler, 2006). Proactive organizational change requires the identification and development of strategic options and the implementation of the planned strategic changes. To achieve these changes, organizations need certain capabilities, which have been referred to as organizational change capabilities (Soparnot, 2011). A lack of change capabilities may lead to structural inertia; that is, the inability to address Lorena Hoormann is Research Associate and Lecturer in the Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). During her studies she worked in different projects in Germany, Spain, Chile and Austria. She has been working for more than four years as a Junior Consultant at the Viennese Institute for Systemic Organizational research (I.S.O.). Her current research interests include organizational development, applied research in evaluation and participation as well as systemic organizational research and interventions. Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann changing conditions. Negative development paths and corporate crises are possible consequences (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Trispas & Gavetti, 2000; Vergne & Durand, 2011). Organizational change capabilities can intercept structural inertia and path dependencies, thereby sustaining competitive advantage over time, and increase the likelihood of long-term survival. Change capabilities may thus safeguard organizations from being “stuck in the middle” – from being without targeted strategic positioning in relevant markets (Borch & Madsen, 2007). The aim of this article is to introduce concepts and methods that support the improvement of organizational change capabilities. More concretely, the developed methods will enable (a) organizational diagnosis and (b) the initiation of capability development. The concept of organizational change capabilities, which will be outlined in this paper, builds on the dynamic capabilities framework (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, 1997; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), but has a stronger focus on the implementation of strategic change. Moreover, it integrates the concept of organizational change capabilities with that of organizational dominant logic (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) by introducing the concept of organizational change logic. As an initial theoretical contribution, a model of change capabilities will be developed. The model builds on the concept of dynamic capabilities but takes into account the actual implementation of strategic changes. Moreover, the link between organizational change capabilities and an organization’s change logic will be elaborated. As a second contribution, implications and requirements for diagnosing change capabilities and the organization’s change logic will be derived, and an intervention design for developing change capabilities will be developed. The design is standardized but can still be adapted to the demands of a specific firm. This paper is organized as follows. First, the theoretical concept of change capabilities JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 will be outlined by extending the concept of dynamic capabilities and linking this with the concept of organizational dominant logic. Then, a multi-method approach to diagnosing change capabilities and organizational change logic and an intervention design for developing change capabilities within organizations will be described. Finally, implications for future research and practice will be discussed. Change Capabilities and Change Logic This section provides the theoretical rationale for developing and diagnosing organizational change capabilities. Because change capabilities can be seen as specific types of dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, 1997; Teece et al., 1997), the section starts with a brief review of dynamic capability research, before the concepts of organizational change capabilities and organizational change logic are introduced. Dynamic Capabilities The concept of dynamic capabilities emerged from contributions by Teece et al. (1997), Helfat (1997), and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). It is grounded in the resource-based view of the firm, which assumes that competitive advantage is generated by a firm’s individual combination of internal resources such as knowledge, rules, routines and capabilities and by its capability to reconfigure existing resources into specific resource configurations (e.g. Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Nelson & Winter, 1982). These resource configurations enable firms to generate new valuable market strategies and innovations that are difficult to copy. Dynamic capabilities are usually defined as those capabilities that enable an organization to recognize the need for changes, to understand the likely consequences of the change, and to reconfigure its firm-specific resource base to match the requirements of changing environments. 13 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities Since its introduction, the dynamic capabilities framework has been the subject of numerous theoretical debates (for overviews see, e.g. Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Barreto, 2010; Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2014; Vogel & Güttel, 2013). Dynamic capabilities are deemed responsible for seizing the opportunities that a dynamic operating environment opens up and for presenting the innovations required to continuously maintain competitive advantage. Such capabilities include the balance of the present and future activities of the firm; for example, the management of the creation of product and process innovations, the operational management of the present business, and the improvement and advancement of present routines and competencies (Borch & Madsen, 2007; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Winter, 2003; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson 2006). Thereby, dynamic capabilities prepare the firm for prospective challenges. Teece (2007, see also Teece, 2014) presents a model of dynamic capabilities that distinguishes sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities. Sensing refers to various activities related to identifying new business opportunities, or innovations (e.g. searching, scanning). Seizing includes designing various new business opportunities and selecting among various strategies and business models, and it is closely related to investment decisions that primarily take place under uncertainty (e.g. changing markets). Transforming refers to conducting activities that aim to recombine and to reconfigure assets within an organization such that path dependencies and inertia are avoided (Vergne & Durand, 2011). Teece (2014) highlights the importance of strategic decision-making with regard to sustainable change. In line with previous approaches (e.g. Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Mintzberg, 1994), Teece emphasizes that strategy should build the basis for investment decisions and should be aligned with changing environmental conditions. Research into dynamic capabilities provides insights into how firms can strive to gain or 14 to sustain a competitive advantage by strategically altering their resource base. However, this stream of research is largely disconnected from the question of how well firms can actually implement strategic change (Soparnot, 2011). Therefore, the concept of change capabilities has been introduced. Change Capabilities Soparnot (2011: 642) defines a firm’s change capability as ‘the ability of the company to produce matching outcomes (content) for environmental (external context) and/or organizational (internal context) evolution, either by reacting to the changes (adaptation) or by instituting them (pro-action) and implementing the transition brought about by these changes (process) in the heart of the company’. This definition, however, remains vague with regard to the concrete capabilities firms need for successful strategic change. To actually diagnose and improve change capabilities, the concept must be further refined. Teece’s (2007, 2014) distinction of dynamic capabilities into sensing, seizing, and transforming provides a useful starting point for further refining the concept of change capabilities, and Teece’s components can partly be transferred to change capabilities: First, organizations need to sense ideas for change, from both outside and within the firm. Teece’s category of sensing is primarily oriented towards the organization’s environment, for example, towards identifying changing customer needs or new competitors. However, ideas for changes may also arise from within the organization, for example, because the current processes do not lead to the expected outcomes. Second, ideas for change both from outside and within the organization must be seized, that is, formed into concrete opportunities for change that fit the firm’s strengths and weaknesses and are in line with the firm’s strategy. Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann As described above, Teece (2014) highlights that dynamic capabilities can unfold their full potential only in conjunction with a strong organizational strategy. This also holds true for organizational change, which should take place in a strategic, planned manner. Therefore, decisions for implementing a change opportunity should be in line with an organization’s strategy. Third, transformation must occur in the sense that the decided changes must be implemented. This aspect of implementation goes beyond Teece’s concept of transformation: As Soparnot (2011: 645) puts it, even if the concept of dynamic capability ‘identifies the routines at the origin of the strategic and organizational reconfigurations, it does not explain how these renewals may be carried out; this is what the change capacity is trying to identify’. By combining Soparnot’s (2011) concept with Teece’s (2007, 2014) components, the definition of change capabilities can be refined by regarding them as those capabilities that enable an organization to recognize the need for change, both from inside the organization and its environment, develop and seize ideas for change opportunities which fit the firm’s strengths and weaknesses, make decisions for change, taking into account the firm’s strategy, and successfully plan and implement changes. From this definition, the following change capabilities can be derived: search, reflection, seizing, planning, implementation and strategy making (see Figure 1; a similar model is presented by Güttel, 2006, in the context of strategic entrepreneurship). Search refers to a firm’s ability to effectively recognize, sense and explore the external environment for prospective innovative products, services and processes (e.g. Danneels, 2008). That is, they are all routines that support organizations in observing their environment to find new relevant external information about, for example, the market, customer needs, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 competition and new technologies. Reflection focuses on processes and developments within the organization. It constitutes the firm’s ability to continuously challenge internal organizational routines, behaviour and the general “status quo” (strategy, goals, vision, etc.; e.g. West, 2000). Reflection is related to the questions of what is working well within the organization, what is not working and what has to be changed. Seizing, in the sense of Teece (2007, 2014), refers to all organizational processes that enable organizations to assimilate relevant information and to transform it into suitable change opportunities. With regard to organizational change, this means that ideas for change, which the organization has developed based on (external) search and (internal) reflection processes, are adapted to a firm’s current characteristics. Concerning the implementation of the change, planning and implementation can be distinguished. Planning becomes visible in the ability to bring change visions “down to earth” by operationalizing strategic change goals (e.g. Kapsali, 2011; McElroy, 1996; Noble, 1999). This includes the planning of change and innovation projects and the identification of existing resources, potentials and barriers. Implementation refers to the firm’s ability to bring intended change activities into action and to transform change ideas consistently into new products, structures and systems (e.g. Davis, Kee, & Newcomer, 2010; Meyer & Stensaker, 2006; Vacar, 2013). Only through consequential action can change take place. Finally, the capability of strategy making is required for successful strategic change, which is closely related to all other capabilities. Strategy making is seen as the firm’s ability to define long-term change goals, to take into account the existing means and resources, and to orient entrepreneurial decisions towards these goals. Strategy making includes processes for defining the vision, mission, value 15 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities Figure 1: Organizational Change Capabilities (search, reflection, seizing, planning, implementation, strategy making) that Operate on the Organizational Change Logic statements and strategies for competition (e.g. Ackermann & Eden, 2011). Organizational Change Logic An organization’s change capabilities do not operate in a vacuum; they are deeply embedded in the organization’s basic assumptions, beliefs and emergent decision rules regarding change and learning. One framework, which elaborates on the emergence and effects of organizational beliefs and rules within organizations, is the concept of a dominant logic introduced by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) (see also Bettis & Prahalad, 1995). The dominant logic constitutes the firm’s collective mind set or “view of the world”, which configures and arranges the business model, the management, and the firm’s structure to make decisions, to allocate resources, and to realize goals (Bettis & Wong, 2003; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 2004; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko, 2013). 16 Expressed as the firm’s typical learning and problem solving behaviour, the dominant logic is “an emergent property of organizations as complex adaptive systems” (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995: 10) and part of the organization’s deep structure or subconscious (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995; Bettis & Wong, 2003; Gersick, 1991; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), which underlies a firm’s visible strategy, structure and systems (Drazin et al., 2004; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko, 2013; von Krogh & Roos, 1996). The organization’s dominant logic comprises, among others, values (e.g. trust, reliability), beliefs (e.g. “leaders must be strong”), mental models (e.g. what does “conflict” mean) or norms (e.g. dress code, addressing extra hours). An organization’s dominant logic affects all aspects of organizing, including how the organization addresses change. This facet of the dominant logic, which addresses organizational change, is defined here as organizational change logic. More specifically, an Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 organization’s change logic is seen as that part of the dominant logic that conceptualizes its change and learning processes through basic assumptions, beliefs and emergent decision rules, structures and systems. Therefore, the organizational change logic is the organization’s collective mind set, which shapes and steers all types of change and learning processes within an organization. Because each organization has its unique dominant logic, it also has a specific way of addressing change; that is, a particular, idiosyncratic, organizational change logic. Diagnosing Change Capabilities and Change Logic In more practical terms, the organizational change logic is the organization’s typical way of addressing change (e.g. avoiding risk, involving many people in decisions). The organization’s change logic may affect questions such as “How important is change in general for the organization?”, “Who usually makes suggestions for change?”, “Who decides whether an idea is actually being implemented?”, or “To what extent are changes being planned?” An Outcome-oriented Approach to Diagnosing Change Capabilities As a set of invisible, cognitive rules, assumptions and beliefs, the organizational (change) logic is responsible for prospective changes and for maintaining present routines and behaviour (Bartunek & Moch, 1994). The organizational change logic therefore can be seen as the framework on which change capabilities may bring out the intended ... Purchase answer to see full attachment