Diagnostics of organizational changes
Diagnosis of existence organizational problems necessary for carrying out planned organizational changes. In almost any organization there are departments that have remained unchanged for a long time.
Organizational diagnostics is precisely what is needed to identify such cases; it provides the following actions:
- recognizing and explaining problems and assessing the need for change;
- determining the organization's readiness and ability to implement changes;
- identifying the required management and other resources for change;
- defining goals and developing a change strategy.
To make the need for organizational change more convincing, the information needed for an organizational diagnosis is collected through questionnaires, questionnaires, interviews, observations and organizational documents.
Change is part of organizational and managerial life. While the organization is “alive”, changes exist in it, and if the manager does not manage them, then changes will occur without him. Organizations are never static: something is always changing in them - culture, structure, procedures, etc.
However, it should be noted that changes in the organization meet resistance. Therefore, it is important for a manager to be able to manage changes, i.e. choose the moment to start changes, build a change program, make sure that the change is successful.
As P. Drucker notes, all organizations live and work in two time periods - the present and the future. The future is being formed today, and in many cases it is irreversible. A manager of a successful organization must be able to seize opportunities and mitigate threats when managing change. It is important for a manager not only to identify when change is desirable or inevitable, but also to help other people become co-creators of the change. If other people are not aware of the problem, they are more likely to be resistant to the solution and will become defensive about the change imposed on them.
To successfully implement the changes, the following must be established:
- the main reason for the changes
- approach to change
- level of changes made.
1. Determine the root cause of the change. Change should be seen as an opportunity to develop the organization. Considering change as a component of development, it is necessary to determine:
- objects of development - what is being developed
- objects of development - what property is being developed
- laws of development - how it develops.
Any organization exists and operates in a certain external environment which creates favorable or threatening conditions. An active positive environment must be skillfully used, and if there are counteracting factors, measures must be taken to compensate for them.
To successfully implement changes, it is also necessary to analyze all existing organizational, resource, and socio-psychological conditions. To do this, the internal environment is analyzed from the point of view of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, the external environment - from the point of view of opportunities and threats to the organization from the outside.
2. Choosing an approach to change. There are the following approaches to generating internal factors that cause changes in an organization:
- “top-down” (changes are carried out from positions of power)
- “bottom-up” (change occurs at the initiative of the collective of workers)
- expert (using specialists to assess proposed changes)
- total quality (emphasis on the quality of products or services and processes).
3. Selecting the level of changes to be made. Change can occur at various levels: individual, team, group and organizational.
Changes must be preceded by a thorough diagnosis of problems and possibilities for resolving them. Problems are complex theoretical questions or practical situations, characterized by a discrepancy between the actual and desired state of affairs. For further diagnosis and change management, it is necessary to identify the features of the actual work of the organization.
Analysis of external and internal environmental factors
Why is the change happening? Often people believe that change is caused by internal reasons and by someone else's personal initiative (usually management). However, most often the reasons for the change are external to the organization: increased competition, narrowing of the main market segment, higher quality requirements from consumers, etc.
Organizations rarely undertake any significant changes without strong impact from the environment. The external environment is the economic, technological and social forces that act as an accelerator for the process of change. Theorists and practitioners of organizational change recognize the need for external accelerators, but at the same time their insufficiency in order to begin the process of change. Transformations also need managers who are aware of the changes and who take action. The manager of a firm must always be concerned about changes in the market. In each case, a response is required if the manager does not want his profits and his market share to decrease.
Currently, the market is governed by a free enterprise system. The conditions of existence in this system are harsh and cruel. This system forces out of the economic sphere those firms that do not adapt to changed market conditions. Companies are sensitive to external changes, sometimes more than we think. Economic forces act with the help of different sources and resources. They hit in different places, but the wounds from these blows appear deep and severe.
In such conditions, the manager must monitor the slightest movement that occurs in the market, otherwise, he will soon face the discontent of the company's owners. However, by this time all the necessary transformations may be in vain. Changes and transformations in a company can be initiated by the number and qualifications of the workforce, suppliers providing the organization with resources, the introduction of automated processes, and changes in resource markets. No need to list everything possible options that drive organizational change. However, the opportunities for them are significant and should be recognized.
There is also a positive factor in the economic forces of transformation. This factor is competition, which encourages innovative behavior of companies. As Wayne Rosing, vice president of development at Sun Microsystems, Inc., said, “Nothing drives Sun more than fear of what a competitor might do.”
The second source of the transformative forces of the environment is technology. Scientific and technological progress leads to the introduction of new technologies in every area of business. Computers enabled high-speed data processing and solutions to complex manufacturing problems. New machines and new processes have revolutionized the way many types of products are produced and distributed. Computer technology and automation have influenced not only technical, but also social conditions work. Due to the emergence of new professions, some professions are disappearing. Slowness of acceptance new technology, reducing costs and improving product quality, will sooner or later be reflected in the financial statements. The technological process is a natural phenomenon in business. As a force for change, he will constantly demand attention.
The third source of transformative forces of the environment is changes in the social and political field. Business managers must be “adapted” to big changes that they have no control over, but that affect the fate of the company. Modern communications and international markets create great potential business opportunities, but also pose a threat to managers who are unable to understand the changes taking place. Finally, the relationship between government and business becomes closer as regulations are introduced and removed.
To understand the consequences of an action external forces organizational learning processes are required. These processes, which are now being studied in many organizations, involve the ability to assimilate new information, process it in light of past experience, and act in accordance with new information in a different and possibly risky way. However, only through such learning can an organization prepare to function successfully in the 21st century.
Inner forces for change within an organization are usually traced to process and behavioral issues. Process problems are breakdowns in decision making and breakdowns in communication. Decisions are either not made, or are made too late, or these decisions turn out to be weak in quality. The connection turns out to be either closed, excessive, or inadequate. Tasks are not set or not completed to the end, since the person in charge “did not receive instructions.” Due to inadequate or non-existent communication, the customer's order is not fulfilled, the complaint is not considered, the supplier is not invoiced or the shipment is not paid for. Conflict between individuals and individual departments reflects disruptions in the processes of transformation within organizations.
Low morale and high turnover rates are symptoms of behavior problems that should be identified. A certain level of dissatisfaction among employees is observed in most organizations - ignoring staff complaints and their suggestions is dangerous. The process of change involves “recognition.” During this phase, management must decide whether or not to take action.
In many organizations, the need for change is not noticed until something happens. major disaster. Workers go on strike or seek union recognition before management finally recognizes the need to act. However, the need for change must be recognized, and if it is recognized, its precise nature must be determined. If the problem is not well understood, the impact of change on staff can be extremely negative.
External environment analysis
Any organization exists and functions in a certain external environment, which creates favorable or threatening conditions. All external factors are divided into two main groups: direct influence (near environment) and indirect influence (far environment). The direct impact environment includes suppliers, consumers, competitors, and partners. They directly affect the organization, but the organization can also influence these factors. The indirect impact environment refers to factors that are beyond the control of the organization. This is the state of the economy, scientific and technological progress, sociocultural, political changes, etc.
One of the possible classifications is presented in the table.
Table. External reasons for changes
Factors causing change |
Examples |
Social |
Changing tastes and social values; employment structure, changes in demographics, changes in gender behavior, etc. |
Technological |
Increasing the availability of new production technologies, developing information systems and communication channels |
Economic |
General decline in production; changes in exchange rates and interest rates; changes in the financing system, inflation, unemployment, energy prices |
Environmental |
Environmental pollution; depletion of raw materials |
Political |
Change of leadership at local authorities, government and international level; changes in legislation, taxation policy |
Failure/increase in demand for certain types of products or services; retail merger |
|
Competitors |
Emergence of new competitors, decline of existing competitors |
Natural disasters |
Earthquake, fire, accident, hurricane |
The external environment can have both positive and negative impacts on the activities of an organization. An active positive environment must be skillfully used, and if there are counteracting factors, measures must be taken to compensate for them. Environmental factors are identified and assessed using STEEP analysis.
Rice. Scheme for identifying environmental factors
The distinction between certain factors is largely artificial. Many policy decisions have an economic basis, and almost all economic factors must be considered in a political context. For change social behavior The introduction of new technologies has a great influence, and in turn this affects political decision-making. Environmental protection is closely linked to social, political and economic factors, and the implementation of this protection often depends on the introduction of new technologies. Therefore, it is important not so much to correctly classify environmental factors as to determine how they affect the organization’s activities in order to choose the right control action.
The results of a detailed analysis of each factor are presented in table form.
Table. Fragment of STEEP analysis
Qualitative assessments are obtained through an expert survey of specialists in accordance with the scale:
1 – influence is very weak,
3 – weak,
5 – essential,
7 – significant,
9– strong
technological
Negative factors it is necessary to analyze in detail and develop a strategy for their compensation.
To successfully implement changes, it is also necessary to analyze all existing organizational, resource, and socio-psychological conditions. To do this, the internal environment is analyzed from the point of view of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, the external environment - from the point of view of opportunities and threats to the organization from the outside. Strengths are something that an organization is good at or something that gives it additional capabilities. Strength may lie in skills, significant experience, valuable organizational resources or competitive capabilities, achievements that provide an advantage in the market. Weaknesses are the absence of something important to the functioning of an organization or something that puts it at a disadvantage compared to others. Opportunities from the point of view of SWOT analysis are not all opportunities that exist in the market, but only those that can be exploited at the moment. Threats arising in the external environment can lead to the destruction of an organization. Each characteristic is recorded in the corresponding quadrant of the SWOT analysis matrix (Fig.).
Rice. SWOT Analysis Matrix
After fixing the characteristics, a comparison is made of weaknesses with compensating opportunities and threats with compensating strengths. Uncompensated weaknesses and threats can lead to the “destruction” of an organization. All uncompensated strengths and capabilities become development reserves. Where the characteristics intersect identify solutions that allow the organization to function successfully under these conditions. Based on SWOT analysis data, the organization chooses an action strategy. Strategies can be directed as follows:
- to eliminate problems (survival strategy - quadrant IV)
- to use existing solutions (optimization strategy – quadrant II and III)
- for the use of reserves (development strategy - quadrant I).
The following figure shows an example of a SWOT analysis matrix for a university’s life support system.
Rice. SWOT matrix – analysis of the university’s life support system
Usually change occurs under the influence of a combination of two types of factors, internal and external. Internal factors may include the need to increase productivity, the need to improve quality, increase sales volume, improve service, motivate staff and retain them, the need to strengthen their position in the market to confront competitors, etc.
The division into external and internal factors is purely conditional, and they differ in the ability of the organization to influence these factors.
Analysis of reasons for change
Changes must be preceded by a thorough diagnosis of problems and possibilities for resolving them. Problems are complex theoretical issues or practical situations characterized by a discrepancy between the actual and desired state of affairs. When analyzing the reasons for the change, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
- What? – determines the content of the problem;
- Where? – determines the specific location of the problem;
- When? – determines the time of occurrence and resolution, frequency of repetition;
- How many? – determines quantitative parameters characterizing the problem;
- Who? – determines the circle of persons involved in one way or another in the problem.
The effectiveness of the changes carried out will largely be determined by how correctly the problem was understood and formulated. Often, either its external signs or symptoms are mistakenly identified as a problem. For example, if an organization is suffering losses, the problem should not be formulated as follows: “How to reduce losses?” This is just a symptom. It is necessary to find out what exactly leads to losses (for example, low prices for products, excessively high costs).
One way to analyze the possible causes of a problem is to use an Ishikawa or fishbone diagram. This method allows you to separate one cause from another, and also shows their relationship.
The figure shows an example of such a diagram for solving the problem of quality of educational services.
Rice. Ishikawa Causal Diagram
Having identified the root causes of the problem, you need to determine what needs to be changed to solve it.
Diagnosis of changes
Planning and implementing change means for an organization to move from its current situation to some desired state in the future. The first step towards change is diagnosing the need for change. To do this, you need to answer the following questions:
- what changes are needed to improve operational efficiency;
- What types of changes need to be made to solve existing problems?
To diagnose changes, you can use the Nadler-Tushman model presented in the figure.
The model takes into account that the organization is in interaction with the environment, and within the organization itself there are four interrelated components: tasks, organizational structure, culture and people working in it.
Rice. Nadler–Tushman model
Tasks- the main part of the organizational system. These include the types of work that must be performed, the characteristics of the work itself, the quantity and quality of goods that the organization produces, and the services that it provides.
Organizational structures include reporting lines, information systems, control mechanisms, job descriptions, formal payment systems, meeting structures, etc. These characteristics of an organization are quite easy to describe, but often become outdated because they do not have time to respond to a changing environment.
Organizational culture- these are the values, rituals, sources of power, norms, informal procedures that influence how work is done in the organization.
People bring different skills, knowledge and experience, different personalities, values and behaviours.
Shared vision– this is an image of an improved future of the organization; it is the goal toward which the organization's energy and actions are directed.
Management– initiators who guide the organization on the path of change.
Environment– suppliers, consumers, clients who influence the organization through their needs, and the organization, in turn, influences them.
The four internal elements of an organization are in a state of dynamic equilibrium with each other and with the environment. It follows from the model that a change in one of these elements necessarily entails a change in the others.
The table shows an example of using the Nadler-Tushman model for a secondary vocational educational institution that wants to change its status.
Table. Analysis of change elements
Element |
Current state |
Desired state |
Secondary vocational education |
Higher professional education |
|
Teachers, industrial training masters |
Teachers who have academic degrees and rank |
|
Organizational culture |
Focused on the learning process |
Focused on the educational process and scientific activities |
Organizational structure |
Departments, specialties |
Rector's office, dean's office, departments, scientific sector |
Environment |
Market of secondary vocational educational institutions |
Market of higher professional educational institutions |
Changing the status of an educational institution |
Change can occur at various levels: individual, team, group and organizational. The figure shows the relationship between the complexity of the change, the time required to implement the change, and the number of people involved.
Rice. Levels of change
By defining the levels of change, you can estimate how long it will take to implement and how complex and difficult it may be.
Change usually means risk, uncertainty and movement. Some people tolerate change relatively easily and even enjoy participating in it. For them, change means a new opportunity. Others see change as an inconvenience, a threat. They tend to view change as something that distracts them from their main job. An organization needs both types of people, as enthusiasts stimulate and implement change, and skeptics resist incorrect proposals. The manager must be able to establish a balance between the first and second.
Approach to change
There are the following approaches to generating internal factors that cause changes in an organization:
- "top down"
- "down up"
- expert
- total quality (Total Quality Management, TQM).
The table provides a comparative assessment of approaches to change.
Table. Approaches to change
An approach |
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
Top down |
Changes are carried out from positions of power |
Clear planning. |
Success depends on the competence of management. |
Down up |
The change occurs at the initiative of the team of employees |
Promotes staff ownership. |
Requires a lot of preparation and planning. |
Expert |
Using specialists to assess proposed changes |
Suggests the best solution. |
Lack of understanding of the situation. |
Total quality |
Focus on quality of products/services and processes |
Ensures continuous improvement. |
The need to identify all processes. |
In reality, successfully planning and implementing any change requires using all approaches to varying degrees. The actual contribution of each approach will depend on the time and resources available, the rules and procedures adopted by the organization, its culture, etc.
Determining Readiness for Change
Any planned change program requires a thorough assessment of the readiness of the organization and its employees to change.
Two important aspects of employee readiness for change are:
- the degree of their satisfaction with the current state of affairs in the organization
- perceived personal risk of possible change
When employees are dissatisfied with the current situation and feel that they have little risk from proposed changes, the willingness to change in the organization will be quite high. Conversely, when employees are satisfied with the situation and fear change, the level of readiness for change decreases significantly.
In addition to those discussed, there is another aspect that influences employees’ readiness for change - their expectations regarding the measures by which changes are proposed to be carried out.
Expectations play an important role in people's perception and behavior. It is better if expectations for change are positive and realistic. Different kinds resistance to change represents another important aspect readiness for change and must be carefully diagnosed and assessed accordingly.
Principles for making changes
When managers and employees make organizational diagnoses, they must consider two critical factors.
The first factor is that behavior in an organization is the product of many interacting forces. Therefore, what can be observed and researched (the behavior of employees, problems and the state of affairs in the organization) has many reasons. The second factor is that most of the information collected about the organization during the diagnostic process usually represents symptoms rather than actual problems. By eliminating symptoms, it is impossible to cure the problem. The following principles for organizational change reinforce the importance of conducting an organizational diagnosis.
- To change something, you need to understand it.
- You can't change just one thing in the system.
- People resist anything for which they can be punished.
- People are ready to make concessions for the sake of future gains.
- Change doesn't come without stress.
- Involving participation in defining goals and change strategies reduces the level of resistance to them and increases the likelihood of employees making the necessary commitments. Change only happens when each participant decides to implement that change.
- Changes in behavior are made in small steps.
- The truth is more important in times of change.
- Thought processes and relationship dynamics become sustainable if change is successful.
Change Strategies
Implementing change is a complex set of processes and procedures aimed at introducing and implementing innovations in an organization. The changes have the following features:
- the process of change is lengthy, it takes a lot of time to prepare for the changes, introduce innovations and control after the changes are implemented;
- the process of change is associated with a choice from various alternatives, on which the future of the organization depends;
- this process can only be viewed as a systemic process that affects the entire organization;
- it is necessary to take into account the degree of uncertainty of the problem that arises in the process of change;
- the process of change affects the interests of many people, so it is necessary to pay special attention to the human factor.
A change strategy is a set of processes associated with the implementation of changes, a sequence of actions that characterizes the implementation of work. A change strategy is understood as one or another approach chosen depending on the circumstances, which takes into account the specifics of carrying out changes. There is no one-size-fits-all change strategy.
The main factors influencing the approach to making changes when implementing the strategy are:
- rate of change
- degree of control by managers
- use of external structures, for example, consulting
- central or local concentration of forces.
The goal of a change strategy is to achieve an effective organizational response to an existing problem.
Types of change strategies
Change strategies can be grouped into five groups. Depending on the chosen strategy, different approaches and the ways in which change strategies can be implemented.
Table. Types of strategies, approaches and methods of their implementation
Strategies |
An approach |
Implementation methods |
Directive strategy |
Imposition of changes by a manager who can “bargain” on minor issues |
Imposing payment agreements, changing work procedures (for example, norms, prices, work schedules) by order |
Negotiation-based strategy |
Recognition of the legitimacy of the interests of other parties involved in the changes, the possibility of concessions |
Performance agreements, quality agreements with suppliers |
Regulatory strategy |
Determining general attitudes towards change, frequent use of external change agents |
Responsibility for quality, new values program, teamwork, new culture, employee responsibility |
Analytical strategy |
An approach based on a clear definition of the problem; collection, study of information, use of experts |
Project work, For example: |
Action-oriented strategy |
A general definition of the problem, an attempt to find a solution that is modified in the light of the results obtained, greater involvement of interested people than with an analytical strategy |
Absenteeism Reduction Program and Some Approaches to Quality Issues |
1. Directive strategy. When using a directive strategy, a manager makes strategic changes with little involvement from other employees and little deviation from the original plan. The goal of directive strategies is often to implement changes that must be carried out in a short time: naturally, this reduces the efficiency of using some other resources.
This type of strategy for its implementation requires high authority of the manager, developed leadership skills, focus on the task, the availability of all the necessary information and the ability to overcome and suppress resistance to change. The use of directive strategies is most appropriate in conditions of crisis and the threat of bankruptcy. This situation often develops under the influence of both external and internal factors. The most typical external reasons that give rise to prescriptive strategies are undesirable events among competitive factors or a decrease in sales due to an unfavorable combination of macroeconomic indicators. Internal reasons include a very high degree of resistance to projected changes, regardless of what motives of behavior they were caused by. In a directive approach, people involved in change are forced to simply accept the fact of change.
Directive strategies can only be used when others are not suitable. To be effective, a manager who chooses this strategy must recognize the need to quickly implement changes in a short period of time as a fundamental or even inevitable condition of work. To effect these changes he must have considerable authority, strength and stamina.
2. Strategy based on negotiations. Using a strategy based on negotiations, the manager is the initiator of change, but at the same time shows a willingness to negotiate with other groups on all issues that arise and make the necessary concessions.
Negotiating strategies take a little longer to implement - in negotiations with other stakeholders, it is difficult to predict the results, since it is difficult to fully determine in advance what concessions will need to be made.
However, those affected by the change at least have the opportunity to express their opinions and feel understood. Changing the nature of work in exchange for increased wages and profit sharing, often called a production deal, is an example of this approach.
3. Regulatory strategy. When using a normative strategy, an attempt is made not only to gain the consent of employees to some changes, but also to achieve a sense of responsibility of interested people for achieving the overall goals of the organization. This is why this strategy is sometimes called “hearts and minds.” When creating a qualitatively new type of product or service, it is desirable to ensure that employees constantly strive to achieve this goal, constantly putting forward proposals for improvement, participating in the development of quality improvement projects, and in the work of quality circles. In this case, sometimes they resort to the help of consultants - specialists in the field of behavior of individuals and groups; it is they who contribute to the process of changing attitudes towards work. External consultants who are experts in the behavior and psychology of the group can also be involved. It is clear that this approach requires more time than directive strategies. However, the question of how to achieve the necessary sense of responsibility still remains open.
4. Analytical strategies. Analytical strategies use technical experts to study the problems at hand. Often management teams, including experts from leading departments or special consultants, work on a specific problem (for example, changing the distribution system, creating a new workshop). Typically this approach is implemented under the strict guidance of a manager. The result is obtaining optimal solutions from a technical point of view, while the problems of employees are not particularly taken into account.
5. Action-oriented strategies. Action-oriented strategies differ from analytical strategies in two respects: firstly, the problem is not so clearly defined, secondly, the manager often does not provide significant influence on employees involved in planning the change. As a rule, among these employees there are people who will be affected by the introduction of changes. The group tries a range of approaches to solve the problem and learns from its mistakes.
Choosing a change strategy
When analyzing a situation related to a change in the organizational structure, managers, when choosing one approach or another, explicitly or implicitly focus on the speed of implementation of the change, the amount of preliminary planning, and the need to involve other employees or specialists. Successful change occurs when the choice is consistent and consistent with the key characteristics of the situation. Under certain conditions, each strategy has certain advantages. But at the same time, it is possible to draw up a rationally based list of factors that may influence the choice of a manager.
These factors are:
- time required to implement changes
- degree and type of expected resistance
- authority of the change initiator
- amount of information required
- risk factors.
One of the most important parameters when implementing change is the speed of its implementation. This parameter is used as the main one when choosing a strategy. This approach to choosing a strategy is called the “strategic continuum.” Ideally, effective strategic change management should be implemented as part of the overall change strategy.
The options available to a manager are assumed to fall along a strategic continuum. At one end of the continuum, a change strategy requires rapid implementation, a clear action plan, and little involvement of other specialists. This type of strategy allows you to overcome any resistance and as a result should lead to the fulfillment of your plans. At the other end of the continuum, strategy requires a much slower process of change, a less clear plan of action, and the involvement of people other than specialists. This type of strategy is designed to keep resistance to a minimum.
Implementing organizational change based on inconsistent strategies usually results in unpredictable problems. For example, changes that were not clearly planned and yet implemented quickly are likely to fail due to unforeseen circumstances. Changes associated with attracting large quantity people and are carried out very quickly, usually either fail or do not provide adequate participation from others.
The position of a change strategy on the strategic continuum depends on four factors:
1. The degree and type of expected resistance. Assuming other factors are equal, the greater the resistance, the more difficult it will be to overcome and the more the manager will have to “move” to the right along the continuum to find ways to reduce it.
2. The position of the initiator of change in relation to those resisting, especially with regard to his power and authority. The less power the initiator has in relation to others, the more the change initiator manager will have to move to the right along the continuum. Conversely, the stronger the initiator's position, the more he can move to the left.
3. Availability of appropriate information to plan and implement the change. The more change initiators anticipate that they will need information and commitment from other employees to plan and implement the change, the more they should move to the right. Receipt useful information and commitment from others takes time.
4. Risk factor. The greater the real likelihood of risk to the survival of a particular organization (assuming that the given situation does not change), the more one should move to the left.
Since these factors leave the manager with some choice of position on the continuum, it is probably optimal to choose a point as close to the right as possible. This is determined by both economic and social considerations. Forcing change on people can have too many negative side effects, both short-term and long-term. Implementing change using strategies from the right side of the continuum is often very beneficial for the development of the organization and its people.
Metaphorical aspects of change management
In modern reality, any company, either for its survival or for development, periodically changes something in its activities. Companies do this in different ways: they are forced to start changes and then the changes manage them, or they consciously transfer the changes into a controlled process. And, in fact, the fate of companies largely depends on how much they accept changes and how successfully they cope with them. There are a variety of books, articles, concepts about change management and this is understandable: the relevance of this topic not only does not decrease, but also increases due to the constantly changing world of business. I would like to look at the side of change related to the political aspects within the company, which, wittingly or unwittingly, are present in the process of change and influence it.
All employees understand changes in organizations in their own way, and this understanding is often opposite and contradictory. These differences in understanding can be described in the concept of change metaphors, and it is through the use of the concept of metaphors that it is possible to take a fresh look at the situation of change in the company.
Metaphor (from the Greek metaphora - transfer) – transfer of the properties of one object (phenomenon) to another according to the principle of similarity; hidden comparison, likening to something. Metaphors regarding an organization make it possible to more vividly and concisely describe its features and processes of change; the metaphorical approach helps to convey the complex and paradoxical nature of companies, which gives rise to political aspects of change management.
The metaphorical concept in relation to organizations and employees allows the following:
1.metaphors lead to a faster understanding of the essence of the situation or task, because quickly evoke emotions and visual images in people.
2. metaphors allow you to highlight the main thing in the actions, phenomena, and processes of the company.
3. metaphors call for action rather than discussion: “we must move to a new standard in order to survive in the competition,” “will we swim with the flow or against the flow?”
4. metaphors play an important role in how various employees describe the company and the changes taking place in it: “we are like headless chickens in new conditions”, “they are like rats running away from a ship”, “this is not change, this is surgery!”, “ the changes have passed, but the sediment remains”, “this is not a change in the structure, but a rearrangement of chairs!”, “straightforward, “New Vasyuki” is some kind of thing, not a strategy.” Metaphors often capture the very essence of organizational changes; through metaphors one can easily understand the change management policy in the company (“we are easy-going!”) and the results of changes that have already taken place (“the sum does not change from changing the places of the terms”).
A metaphorical approach to organizational change was stated by G. Morgan in the 80s. After research and practical development, he proposed this lens for viewing organizational life and change. He believed that metaphors unite people’s beliefs, communities are formed around metaphors, metaphors can destroy the arguments of opponents and attract people to your side - all this is extremely important when managing change. At the same time, the “correct” metaphor also creates context, shapes emotions, creates drive and desire to work in the company.
Let's consider the model of metaphors of change according to G. Morgan. The model suggests four metaphorical approaches and three approaches to the organization as a whole.
1. Machine metaphor, structural approach to change. The company is viewed as a machine, it is created to fulfill goals, implement plans with the help of streamlined, rational technology. The structure of the company is designed to match the external environment of the company; the structure has clear rules and roles, standards. According to this metaphor, all mistakes and failures of a company arise from a mismatch between the structure and the external environment of the company. The company must operate as a predictable mechanism and all changes must be implemented only with such a clear, mechanistic approach, based on norms and standards, powers and roles of employees.
Key points of the machine metaphor:
- Each employee reports to only one manager.
- Work is divided among employees with specific roles.
- Each individual is subordinate to a common goal.
- A team is nothing more than the sum of individual efforts.
- Managers control the process, employees adhere to discipline.
- Changes must be introduced; management can change the organization to the agreed end state.
- There will be resistance, and it can be controlled, it’s not bad.
- Changes will be successful if there is effective planning and control.
- There are limitations to this metaphor:
- The mechanistic view forces managers to run the organization like a machine, without taking into account the human component.
- In a stable state, this approach works, but when the need for significant changes arises, employees perceive them as a major overhaul, usually destructive, and, accordingly, resist. In this situation it is difficult to change anything.
- It requires decisive management action, inspiring vision and control from the top.
2. Metaphor of the body, brain. A human resource approach to organization and change. The company is presented as a brain, an organism that has integrity and consistency, striving for self-development and self-improvement. The organization is forced to change and adapt to environmental changes; it transforms, “digests” resources to create value and produce goods and services. And here the staff – human resource – is the main resource for achieving the company’s goals, the intellectual capital that is developed and multiplied.
Key provisions of the metaphor of the body, brain:
- The company must give employees the opportunity to develop their potential.
- All processes in a company related to people are highly significant.
- The state of human resources directly affects the success of the company.
Principles of organizational change:
- Individuals and groups must recognize the need for change in order to adapt to it.
- Changes must develop the company's intellectual resources.
- Changes can only be introduced through a strategy of employee participation and psychological support for change.
Limitations of Metaphor:
- The danger of turning a metaphor into an ideology that individuals should merge completely with the company.
- “Shift of attention” from the results of the organization’s activities to processes and the level of work comfort for employees.
3. Metaphor of culture, symbolic approach to change. The organization is viewed as a collection of symbols, corporate culture and subcultures; management occurs, among other things, through corporate myths, unwritten rules and rituals (cultural artifacts).
Key points of the cultural metaphor:
- The company considers all the symbols of the events that took place in it important.
- Activities in the company are interpreted in relation to the symbols adopted in the company; the importance of rituals and ceremonies is exposed in the work.
- A company's values, norms and policies are the means of motivating and controlling employees.
Principles of organizational change:
- Changes in a company can only be implemented based on the company's culture and its cultural artifacts.
- The cultural metaphor refers to ways of changing an organization such as language, norms, formal procedures and other social actions associated with key ideology, values and beliefs.
- Changes in the company are introduced starting with corporate culture, and it is put at the forefront.
Limitations of Metaphor:
- Introducing change through culture and symbols is a difficult task because... culture is supported by a network of informal relationships, processes, and communications.
- A company's culture can be influenced, but it cannot be controlled, and it becomes difficult to measure the level of cultural change.
- There is a tendency to simplify the meaning and overestimate the malleability of culture, hence it is presented as a means of manipulation for managers in companies.
4. Metaphor of the political system, political approach. The entire company is viewed through the prism of political systems; The main focus of the company is power, communications occur through groups, and decisions are made through lobbying mechanisms. An organization is made up of coalitions of diverse interests that compete for the company's scarce resources.
Key points of the political metaphor:
- Employees will not be able to isolate themselves from the organization's policies. Everyone is already involved in it from the beginning.
- Any significant action in a company will require supporters.
- It is necessary to clearly know who has power and who favors whom.
- There are important political alignments within a company that take precedence over the formal structure of the organization.
- Coalitions matter more than work teams.
- The most important decisions involve the distribution of scarce resources on a “who gets what” basis, and this is where cake, negotiation, and competition come into play.
Principles of organizational change:
- Change will not succeed unless it is supported by an influential person.
- The more supporters there are for changes, the better.
- It is necessary to know the political map and understand who will benefit and who will lose as a result of changes.
- To implement changes, effectively use strategies: creating new coalitions and re-discussing issues.
Limitations of Metaphor:
- Exclusive application of this approach can lead to the development of complex Machiavelli-style strategies.
- Given that in any organization there are winners and losers, company life can turn into a political war.
- It is important to be aware of the political considerations and motivations, but the dangers of this metaphor are that it has the potential to promote confrontation.
Approaches to change such as the machine metaphor and the brain/organism metaphor are quite optimistic, because changes there can be managed by influencing the structure of the company or the human aspect. And in the symbolic approach (culture metaphor), change management is complicated by informal connections and “strong” subcultures; in the political metaphor, change management is complicated by the excessive politicization of each organizational action.
In the metaphorical approach, G. Morgan uses three additional metaphors to describe organizations and change management:
Organization as a tool of influence. The organization itself is an instrument of influence on employees, internal processes and the external environment.
Organization as constant movement and transformation. An organization is constantly moving, change is natural, and implementing change requires an understanding of the internal dynamics and logic of processes.
Organization as a psychological prison. An organization is a trap that is based on psychological factors, where people and employees “get caught” based on irrational components (feelings, unconscious motives). And here changes are the implementation of unconscious motives and needs of groups of people.
G. Morgan suggests that managers explicitly or unconsciously make decisions based on metaphors, and thereby rely on theoretical and sociocultural ideas that are associated with them. And changes are managed based on their metaphorical approaches in companies. When we are faced with changes in a company or department (for example, we need to organize a new project team or redistribute functions in departments), most of the managers will prefer to use their own approach, their “metaphor of change”, which “ time-tested” and is our favorite way to deal with change. This metaphor cannot be clearly “neither good nor bad”; it is different for everyone, which means that approaches to change management, even within the framework of the same strategy, will be different and the results will also be different.
A metaphorical approach to change management reveals the “political dynamics” in the company and the political aspects that are so important to change management. Let us outline these aspects in detail.
Politics – (Greek politika - state or public affairs, from polis - state), a field of activity related to relations between classes, nations, etc. social groups, the core of which is the problem of conquest, retention and use state power; participation in state affairs, determining the forms, tasks, and content of its activities. This definition can be applied to an organization: politics in an organization is the relationship between groups, teams, the core of which is the problem of gaining, retaining and using power in the company; participation in the affairs of the company, determining the forms and content of the company’s activities. In essence, organizational politics is a set of collective relations built around the presence (absence), strengthening (weakening) of power, status, influence. And these relationships have a direct impact on the implementation of change.
The progress and effectiveness of changes, the controllability of changes depend on many factors, including the political context. And even the choice of strategy and tactics for change management depends on the political situation in the company. W. Churchill’s famous phrase “if you are not involved in politics, then politics is involved in you” is also appropriate in organizations. Already at the very inception of the idea of carrying out any changes, organizational policy appears on the horizon and begins to influence owners, managers, and change agents through its tools. It is not obvious what comes first: the company's policy gives rise to a given context of change, or changes give rise to political overtones? But it is impossible to deny that both components influence each other. The following options are possible:
- The general policy of the company serves as the basis, the basis for the application of the change management strategy and the change implementation process.
- The very goals and objectives of future changes form or adjust the political background in the company.
The political background and climate of the company are created by the company itself and its direct employees. This background is formed due to the following factors:
- personal qualities of employees (thinking style, self-esteem, flexibility)
- decision-making ability (decision-making style)
- structural characteristics of the company
- subcultures
This political background is present in the process of change. The process of making changes in a company can be compared to a “lawn game”: each employee or group of employees has their own “territory”, which they try to protect from outside interference or expand it at the expense of others. This stems from the desire for power and influence in the company. And people do this either carefully or aggressively, using so-called “political behavior”, “political game” - achieving their goals using methods of influencing people. The main difference between such “games” is that competition within the company is carried out only for limited resources (not to create a pie, but to divide it). And various tactics are used: hiding information from colleagues, “sharing” responsibility, provocations, separate negotiations with management; mistakes made during the implementation of changes are not corrected, but are “taken into account” in order to later be presented publicly to the culprit. Key persons in the changes, playing in “political games,” can retain information on the process of change, take into the coalition those dissatisfied or offended by the changes, and get rid of professionals. As a result, an additional center of power is formed in the organization, which does not actually take responsibility for changes, and does all actions for the sake of its own goals and interests, and not for the sake of the interests of the company. As a result, it is necessary to notice the changes that begin to occur in the company when the changes are introduced. Here are some of them:
- dramatic consolidation of department(s) for the sake of carrying out changes - this increases the power of the department head.
- shifting responsibility for risky steps in changes to the performers - this allows managers to take credit for success and relieve themselves of responsibility for failures.
- the desire of key persons to implement changes not according to an approved plan and scheme, but simply “on their own.”
It must be remembered that all changes relate to the type of open-ended problems in which there is no ready-made solution, there is a long implementation period, there are controversial priorities, ambiguous possible consequences, the changes affect most people. This is where “political games” flourish: decision-making during changes is made dependent on the relationships of employees; the parameters of changes, their speed, correlates with the personal opinions and preferences of managers or executors.
What needs to be done to ensure that political aspects in the company have as positive an impact on change as possible? First of all, assess the scale and depth of the changes:
- incremental changes - improving the old way of organizing a process. These are “cosmetic” changes, short in duration.
- radical changes – changes of a completely new order, complete reorganization of processes and structures.
- Transformational changes are the deepest and most lasting changes, changes at several levels of the company. The results of the changes cannot be predicted. Such changes have the highest risk.
The influence of politics intensifies towards transformational changes and is doubly intensified towards transformational-revolutionary changes. In this place, a complete change in the company’s management paradigm is possible, the loss of key persons of the company, the towing of operational processes and a sharp deterioration in the socio-psychological climate in the team. This is like a “surgical” intervention, “surgical changes” in the organization.
It is also advisable to remember the following: at the initial stage of change, the company's political system may react neutrally, or the reaction will be minimal, so that the change agents will miss it, however, as the pace and depth of change increases, the political, “behind the scenes” games will intensify.
By what actions can one really identify political opposition to change? The list of actions is far from complete; it is added by each company specifically. Let's list them.
1.rejection of the idea of changes in general.
2.rejection of changes due to more important and priority goals for the company.
3.rejection of changes due to the company having “big” problems.
4.ignoring, avoiding, delaying discussions and actions for change.
5. Constant criticism of the steps of change, constant request for “super-additional” information on the steps of change.
6. reluctance to publicly discuss the progress and process of change.
7. “eternal misunderstanding” of the essence of changes.
8.unilateral change of rules, principles of implementation of changes adopted by the company.
9.negative assessment of the results of changes.
Such resistance to change is inevitable, since most changes lead to adjustments in power, functions, and roles of employees, especially key persons. And in this case, it is important to “be able to work” with the political resistance of employees in order to manage changes, and not “let them take their course.”
Let's take a closer look at the actions that can be taken to manage changes, reducing the influence of the political aspect, because it is not possible to remove this influence.
1. Do an analysis of all stakeholders affected by the change. Analyze all their benefits and losses from changes.
2. Start the change by discussing the idea of change with key employees. To begin with, such discussions can be kept behind the scenes.
3. Highlight complex and controversial issues in future changes and discuss them separately.
4. Clearly outline the results that change will bring to all stakeholders in the company.
5.Develop programs for the development and training of personnel in the changes that are taking place.
6. Implement changes with pauses; sometimes it is more effective to take a wait-and-see attitude for a while.
7.Form a coalition of change advocates and promote them to important change processes.
8. Promote the results of the changes at all levels of the company.
9. Discuss the process of change, difficulties and controversial issues collectively with key persons and active participants in the process.
One thing is clear: each stage of the change management process is inevitably accompanied by political influences, various, multiple influences. And the more radical the changes are, and the more they affect the very essence of the company, the greater the influence of politics, the more political aspects will interfere with the course of changes. And most changes will fail if political considerations are not taken into account when implementing them.
A metaphorical approach to the organization helps to reveal the essence of the political background of the company, and political influences on the change management process can be easily indicated by metaphors. Such an understanding of processes makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness and efficiency of company changes, and, therefore, helps the company develop in a “constantly changing world.”
Introduction
Chapter 1. Strategic changes in the company
1.1 The essence of strategic change
1.2 Areas of strategic change in the company
1.3 Types of strategies for implementing changes in an organization
Chapter 2. Managing strategic changes in the company
2.1 Managing the implementation of strategic changes
2.2 Challenges of implementing strategic change
2.3 Methods for overcoming resistance to change
Chapter 3. Implementation of strategic changes in the Rosbytkhim company
Conclusion
List of used literature
Annex 1
22. Markova V.D., Kuznetsova S.A. Strategic management: Course of lectures. – M.: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement, 1999. – P. 203-204.
23. Meskon M. Fundamentals of management. M.: Delo, 199224. Popov S. A. Strategic management: Vision is more important than knowledge. - Moscow: “Delo”, 2003
25. Popov S.A. Strategic management: 17-module program for managers “Managing Organizational Development”. Module 4. – M.: “INFRA-M”, 1999. – P. 202.
26. Radugin A.A. Fundamentals of management. M., 199727. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 200428. Samygin S.I., Stolyarenko L.D. etc. Personnel management. Rostov n/d., 200129. Stolyarenko L.D. Fundamentals of Psychology: Ed. 2nd, add. and processing – Rostov n/d: “Phoenix”, 200130. Sukhov A.N. Social Psychology– M.: Academy, 200231. Thompson A., Strickland J. “Strategic Management”. M.: "Banks and Exchanges", 2001.
Annex 1
Types of change strategies
| Strategies | An approach | Implementation methods |
| Directive strategy | Imposition of changes by a manager who can “bargain” on minor issues | Imposing payment agreements, changing work procedures (for example, norms, prices, work schedules) by order |
| Negotiation-based strategy | Recognition of the legitimacy of the interests of other parties involved in the changes, the possibility of concessions | Performance agreements, quality agreements with suppliers |
| Regulatory strategy | Determining general attitudes towards change, frequent use of external change agents | Responsibility for quality, new values program, teamwork, new culture, employee responsibility |
| Analytical strategy | An approach based on a clear definition of the problem; collection, study of information, use of experts | Project work, for example: According to new payment systems; On the use of machines; On new information systems |
| Action-oriented strategy | A general definition of the problem, an attempt to find a solution that is modified in the light of the results obtained, greater involvement of interested people than with an analytical strategy | Absenteeism Reduction Program and Some Approaches to Quality Issues |
Appendix 2
Methods for overcoming resistance to change
| An approach | This approach is usually used in situations | Advantages (advantages) | Flaws |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Information and communication | When there is insufficient information or inaccurate information in the analysis | If you manage to convince people, they will often help you make changes. | The approach can be very time-consuming if a large number of people are involved |
| Participation and Involvement | When change initiators do not have all the information needed to plan the change and when others have significant power to resist | People who participate will feel a sense of responsibility for implementing the change, and any relevant information they have will be included in the change plan | This approach can be time consuming |
| Help and support | When people resist change because they fear the challenges of adapting to new conditions | No other approach works as well for solving problems of adaptation to new conditions | The approach can be expensive and time consuming and still fail |
| Negotiations and agreements | When an individual or group clearly has something to lose by making a change | Sometimes this is a relatively simple (easy) way to avoid strong resistance | The approach may become too costly if it aims to achieve agreement only through negotiations |
| Manipulation and co-optation | When other tactics don't work or are too costly | This approach may be a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to resistance problems | This approach can create additional problems if people feel manipulated |
| Explicit and implicit coercion | When change is needed quickly and when change initiators have significant power | This approach is fast and allows you to overcome any type of resistance. | A risky way if people are unhappy with the initiators of change |
Table 1
Classification of problems arising in the process of managing organizational change
Each of these problems is both independent and at the same time closely related to the others.
Considering change management in a narrow sense, i.e. As the management of factors influencing the deviation of the system from a given course, the main attention should be paid to the phenomenon of resistance to change, considered by many researchers as the main one in a number of problems arising in the process of managing organizational change.
After the implementation of planned measures to implement changes, there is an inevitable gap in the company’s performance indicators; changes do not immediately lead to the desired results; a movement arises in the organization to return to the previous situation.
It is worth noting that conflict-free implementation of changes in conditions of cooperation of the entire team is the exception rather than the rule. This is due to the fact that changes are assessed differently by both the top management of the enterprise and employees. Resistance to change can be different strength and intensity.
The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. In principle, people are not afraid of change, they are afraid of being changed. People are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization, i.e. the existing status quo. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes so as not to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do many things differently from what they are already used to doing, and do something different from what they did before.
Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors:
1) acceptance or non-acceptance of the change;
2) open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change (Fig. 2).
Rice. 2. Matrix “change - resistance”
The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, must find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which employees will take the position of supporters of the changes, and who will find themselves in one of the three remaining positions. This type of forecast is especially relevant in large organizations and in those that have existed without changes for a fairly long period of time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.
The above issues can be summarized into the following guidelines for planning and implementing change management strategies1:
1. Achieving sustainable change requires a high degree of employee commitment and vision-based leadership from management.
2. It is necessary to understand the culture of the organization and the levers of change that will be effective in this culture. Managers at all levels must have the right temperament and leadership qualities appropriate to the specific organization's circumstances and its change strategies.
3. It is important to create a work environment that leads to change - this means developing the company as a learning organization.
4. Commitment to change increases if the people involved in the change have the opportunity to fully participate in the planning and implementation of plans.
5. The reward system should stimulate innovation and record success in achieving change.
6. Change strategies must be adaptive, as the ability to quickly respond to new situations and demands that will inevitably arise is vital.
7. Along with success, change will inevitably involve failure. It is necessary to expect possible failures and learn from mistakes.
8. Clear evidence and data about the need for change is a powerful tool to start the process, but identifying the need for change is still easier than making decisions to meet that need.
9. The focus should be on changing behavior rather than trying to impose corporate values.
10. It is easier to change behavior by changing processes, structures and systems than by changing attitudes.
11. It is necessary to predict problems in the implementation process.
12. Resistance to change is inevitable if employees feel that the changes will obviously or implicitly make them worse off. Poor change management can trigger this type of reaction. The change must result in the establishment of a new status quo in the organization. It is important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.
Summary
Traditionally, strategic change has been conceptualized as an infrequent, sometimes one-time, large-scale change. However, recently, the strategic development of an organization is viewed more as a continuous evolutionary process in which one strategic change creates the need for other changes.
In a complex dynamic world that is changing ever faster, in order to have time to react to changes, it is necessary to “run even faster.” To adapt to new market conditions better than your competitors, you should constantly modify. An organization's ability to change determines its success. Therefore, we can say that strategic changes lay the foundation for future success.
Strategic changes, if carried out correctly, are systemic in nature, affecting all aspects of the organization. However, we can distinguish two sections of the organization that are the main ones when carrying out strategic changes. The first slice is the organizational structure, the second is the organizational culture.
Carrying out strategic changes creates the conditions in the organization necessary to fulfill the tasks of the strategic plan. To do this, it is necessary to identify problems that should be solved as part of the changes being carried out.
Evans and Bjorn's law. No matter what trouble happens, there will always be someone who knew that it would happen.
The emergence of problems in the activities of an organization that impede the implementation of the strategic plan and require strategic changes can be due to various external and internal reasons. It is important to note here that some of these problems are obvious to managers. Any qualified manager can, without special analysis, formulate the problems that exist in his field of activity. Such problems lie on the surface.
Other problems are not so obvious (hidden problems), the existence of which is revealed as a result of special analysis. For example, there is a decrease in sales volume, the market share is decreasing, but these are only symptoms, and it is important to identify the reasons for their manifestation. Everything needs to be explored possible reasons emerging symptoms.
If there are several problems (and in practice this is a common occurrence), then after identifying and describing each problem, a comparative analysis of them is carried out, and the priority of their solution is determined.
Helrang Law. Wait - and the bad will disappear by itself. An addition to it proposed by Sheivelson: “...by causing due damage.”
A clear, concise statement of problems is key to successfully developing a strategic change plan.
To identify problems that arose during the development and implementation of the strategic plan, we will consider the method of logical-semantic modeling.
The procedure for identifying problems includes the formation of a catalog of problems and its structuring. The most difficult task is the formation of a catalog of problems (an edited, but unordered list of problems in the area of “cause-effect” relationships). There is even a strong belief that if a problem is correctly formulated, then it can be considered partially solved. Identifying and correctly formulating a problem is a creative process that can hardly be formalized. The basis of this process is the expert method used to compile a list of problems and their examination. Managers and specialists with sufficient knowledge in the field of the problems being studied are involved in the expert survey.
The initial list of problems obtained as a result of the expert survey is compiled by members of the working group. Completed and coded questionnaires are examined and processed.
An examination of the original list of problems involves excluding from the list identical problems that are similar in content but differ in formulation and replacing them with a problem with a generalized formulation.
As a result, the original list is “compressed” and turns into a catalog of problems.
The connection of problems most often obeys the dialectic of the “cause-effect” relationship. A variety of catalog problems use the binary "causality" relation. The ego attitude characterizes one problem as a cause, another as a consequence, or these problems may be incomparable. (When studying a problem situation in more depth, the precedence relation can also be used.)
Based on the above, we can formulate a sequence of procedures performed when compiling a catalog of problems and structuring it:
- 1. Identification of problems and formation of their complete list (catalog) based on an expert survey. Experts highlight the problems that have arisen in the field of strategic change. The problem must be formulated quite specifically. Generalizing formulations of problems that almost completely cover the content of the corresponding area of strategic change should not be allowed. For example, it is inappropriate to allow statements such as “Corporate culture impedes strategic change.” Such a formulation of the problem, covering the content of all the problems in a given area of change, obviously becomes a basic, cardinal problem. At the same time, it is too general.
- 2. Establishing and measuring causality relationships between catalog problems. This procedure can also be carried out on the basis of an expert survey in interactive mode with a computer. With a limited number of problems (approximately 10-20), this procedure can be carried out “manually” by filling out the table. 10.1, which provides an example of a possible set of problems in implementing strategic change and measuring it in a cause-effect relationship.
- 3. A pairwise comparison of all problems is made according to the “cause-effect” relationship. The problem “cause” is assigned 1 point - “1”, the problem “consequence” - “O”, problems not related to this relationship receive an “O”. These assessments are presented in the form of a tournament table (Table 10.1).
- 4. Basic problems are identified, i.e. problems with the most points.
Table 10.1
Results of assessing the problems of carrying out strategic changes based on the “cause-effect” relationship
|
Problem |
||||||||||
|
1. There is no thoughtful approach to determining the content of the changes being carried out |
||||||||||
|
2. There are no proven procedures for implementing strategic changes |
||||||||||
|
3. There is no clear system for monitoring changes. |
||||||||||
|
4. Insufficient information to staff about the changes being carried out |
||||||||||
|
5. Low quality of pre-plan strategic analysis |
||||||||||
|
6. An imbalance between set goals and resources is allowed. |
||||||||||
|
7. Resistance of some staff to the changes being carried out |
||||||||||
|
8. The expertise of qualified experts is underutilized when preparing a strategic change plan. |
||||||||||
|
9. Insufficient attention is paid to justifying the need for strategic changes |
In our example, the problem that must be addressed first is problem 1 (there is no thoughtful approach to determining the content of the changes being carried out), as well as problem 8 (the experience of qualified experts is not sufficiently used when preparing a plan for implementing strategic changes). After solving these problems, the prerequisites are created for the successful solution of other problems-consequences. It should also be noted that problem 9 (due attention is not paid to justifying the need for strategic changes) from the point of view of its basic level is also of high importance.
Based on table 10.1, you can construct a graph in which problems, taking into account their assessment, are separated into levels characterizing the degree of their basic level. Thus, at the first level of the graph, problems with a score of greatest number"one". The following levels consistently form problems with fewer “ones”. At the last level there are problems that, in relation to all those discussed above, are consequences (have only “zeros”). (Details of using the paired comparison method to construct a problem graph are discussed in |2|.)
If it is not possible to simultaneously solve all the basic problems, then it is possible to rank the problems by priority (determining their weight).
Incorrect citation of H. L. Mencken's law by Grossman. Complex problems always have simple, easy-to-understand wrong solutions.
The identification of problems carried out in this way and the determination of their mutual influence make it possible to create the necessary prerequisites for the development and analysis of ways (methods, means) for solving these problems.
TO merits this method should include:
- 1) the relative simplicity and speed of its implementation;
- 2) highlighting basic, cardinal problems makes it possible to concentrate efforts and resources on solving the truly most important problems;
- 3) structuring and ordering of problems make it possible to analyze the causes of problems, assess their relevance and urgency, and determine the relationship of this problem with other problems.
Among the main shortcomings of this method, and in general terms of all methods based on expert assessments, include the following:
- 1) it is difficult to assess the degree of completeness and reliability of the information provided by experts. There is no complete confidence that the experts have actually identified all the main problems and correctly identified the relationships between them. Analysis of identified problems sometimes suggests the absence of any problems. On the one hand, we can invite experts to add them additionally to the catalog of problems. On the other hand, our main task is to identify the most important, basic problems. The absence of some necessary problem in the initial catalog does not mean that the experts made a mistake. It is possible that for this object of study this problem is not of fundamental importance;
- 2) the absence of an explicit analytical substantiation of the identified problems, although qualified experts, when formulating and analyzing problems, can use such analytical information;
- 3) individual experts may not be willing to identify all problems. With a clear formulation of the problem, it is possible that the “culprits” for its occurrence, mistakes and insufficient competence of the person who made the corresponding decision will be revealed.
Taking into account the identified basic problems of carrying out strategic changes, the content of the strategic plan is clarified and a plan for carrying out changes is developed. The composition of the measures, the timing of the changes, as well as the resources necessary for their implementation are determined.