Change Management †the One Right Way Essay

However the offer is a great deal illusory, for particular revision flackes norm aloney apply to particular situations, and simple ancestors sometimes ignore the complexities of real life. (Stace and Dunphy, 2001, p 5) To utilise a wiz remove overture is to assume that all in all faces, all situations and all internal and outer variables and influences hang on constant. It applies the same system of logic to all qualifys without consideration of the legion(predicate) and varied influencing factors.I generally halt with the statement presented by Stace and Dunphy but am interested in the reasons underlie the requirement for simple, easy and fast change interventions. Are conductors and change agents sluggish and only looking for simple solutions? Does prudence consider change piddling? Do solicitude sincerely believe that a single solution is going to work in every case? What is behind this thin? Bold (2011) suggests that change itself is becoming the only consta nt or line of products as usual in the modern line of credit environment.With technological advancements oer the past 10 years, organisation now have the tycoon to access, realise and abut enormous bills of business data very quickly. This has provided management with the ability to understand the on-line(prenominal) health of their organisational processes and track against set goals and targets quickly and accurately. Previously, managers may have waited for end of month or end of quarter describe from all business units to be collated and presented to gain an accurate apprehension of the current business position and gauge the results from previous decisions made.Now, when a manager wants to shake up a change, they want it put throughed as soon as thinkable so they basis assess the impact of the change. Due to the high amount of change occurring in modern organisations and managements requirement for conterminous solutions, I believe that pressure is placed onto th e change agents to provide solutions, often without the resources or time to perform adequate analysis to plan and implement the best change approach.As Bold (2011) suggested, change is becoming business as usual and management may expect change managers to be able to develop a change process (i. e. the one even out way), in the way that other parts of the organisation develops other repeatable business as usual processes. Corporate competencies for change management throw the life-sustaining capacity that is extremityed to create a learning organisation which is flexible, energetic and adaptable in a rapidly changing and erratic environment. (Turner and Crawford 1998)As recent as the 1990s, look into was being under demandn by Romanelli & Tushman (1994) that proposed an change viewpoint. Their punctuated equilibrium paradigm argues that relatively long periods of stability (equilibrium) are punctuated by short periods of much radical, revolutionary change. I believe that most organisational change researchers would now keep that this is no longer the case and further forward motion into the information age has meant that very few industries operate within a long term, stable business operating environment.Although many different change models and approaches have been developed by academics, consultants and practitioners, none has yet to be genuine as a standard that can be used for all change interventions. Bold (2011) argues that there is no right or aggrieve theory for change management. It is not an exact science. However, through the ongoing research and studies by the industrys chartering experts, a clearer picture of what it takes to lead a change effort effectively lead continue to emerge.Andriopoulos & Dawson (2009) agree that in the case of organisational change, there remains considerable debate everywhere the speed, direction and effects of change and on the most appropriate methods and concepts for understanding and explaining cha nge. Kanter, Stein & Jick (1992) found that it would be very difficult for a single solution or approach to meet all the types of changes required and to take into account all of the required aspects as organisations are fluid entities. In an attempt to provide a more broad solution, Stace & Dunphy (2001) proposed a situational approach or framework for change.They argued that there is no single path to roaring change implementation that holds true in all situations. This framework til now has been criticised by Andriopoulos & Dawson (2009) for neglecting the role of organisational politics and the internal power relationships within organisations as shapers of the organisational change process. Pettigrew (1985) presented a holistic, contextual analysis approach providing a multi-level approach to encapsulate the complexities of change management.Pettigrew argued that strategic change is a continuous process with no clear beginning or end point. However, Buchanan and Boddy (1992) argued that the richness and complexness of the multi-level analysis presented by Pettigrew, while comprehensive, it did little to simplify or clear up the processes of change and thereby rendered the research as largely impenetrable for the organisational practitioner. salmagundi within an organisation is ongoing and involves many variables which are covered by different change models, processes and frameworks.Variables include the type of industry, the geographical location, the organisations size, the style of management leadership, the capability of the people involved, the organisational culture, the local and global economic environment, timing in regard to other events, the organisational structure and many more. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but demonstrates the length and breadth of variables to be taken into account when assessing and managing change.elder (2002) argues that the trigger for internal change is often in response to external influences which then links the internal and external drivers for change. Often, the change strategy or mechanism used by an organisation is chosen by the change manager and may not necessarily meet the needs of the organisation. This can lead to the change manager selecting an approach that may have worked before, that they looking comfortable with, or that suits their personality. This may not be however, what the organisation really requires.For example, a change manager may have had previous mastery utilising a consultative and collaborative approach which would take time to amply consult with all impacted parties while the organisation may genuinely require a fast, dictatorial type approach due to it losing mart share which is putting the very existence of the organisation at risk. Kanter (1983) notes that managers sometimes make strategic choices based on their own area of competency and career payoff.A model of change strategies that seeks to develop our understanding of change processes is u nfortunately restricted if it excludes considerations of anything other than management as some come apart of black box wherein environmental fit is sought. Stace and Dunphy argue that change managers need to develop a varied behaviour repertoire rather than remain fixed on a particular approach to change. They argue the cause need for in our modern economies to create and build more dynamic and innovative corporations which can compete successfully in global terms. mean that change involves people, is instigated by people and controlled by people. There are many internal and external influences and forces that affect change but the interests of the change agents themselves and their governmental interests must also be considered. You cannot expect a change manager to ignore their own self-interest when making rational decisions. (Dunford 1990)Stace and Dunphy argue that the critical requirement for longer term viabilit y and success in the corporation of the future is the ongoing development of what is increasingly being referred to as organisational capabilities or embodied competencies. These are capabilities for the flexible initiation of new strategies and environmental responsiveness that rest in the corporation itself rather than only in the capabilities and skills of the individual members. This will allow organisations to respond quicker to changes and effectively make change management part of the organisational culture.Change would then be regarded as business as usual. Many of the change approach methods, tools and techniques proposed by researchers and practitioners have co-occur ideas and cover a lot of the same ground. Rather than working separately towards defining improvements to existing ideas or new ideas, it may be more beneficial to take a collaborative approach and create an world(prenominal) standard for change or a recognised body of share knowledge that could be used as a guide for organisational change.