Comparison Of Kotter Lewin And Positive Models Management Essay
Change is good, changes in the market, change requests and client technology for supporting activities changer, but change is not always in control of the organization (Vroom, 1993). Research shows that it is important to manage proactively monitor and seek changes to succeed and to gain a competitive advantage. Management must communicate the need for change and to highlight the crisis situation that may develop while avoiding the change. Effective communication should be used to promote or market the new proposed changes while at the same time, demonstrate the shortcomings of old system. Users resist change because they fear the unknown, but effective communication at the beginning of the project can contribute to reduce this fear. It was noted that communication efforts must be verbal and active (Kotter, 1995). Management must be seen to actively support the process of change so that it can get the full support of the active population. Actually change not only to be managed, but must also be marketed. Once the change has been implemented, the change management process must constantly reviewer change and it strengthen.
In this paper we will see how the three models play important role in change process for any organization.
Kotters Eight Steps Model
John Kotter who teaches in Harvard Business School has made it his business to study both success and failure in change initiatives in business. “The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time. Skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces satisfactory results” and “making critical mistakes in any on the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains”. Kotter summarizes the eight phases as follows. (Kotter, 1997)
1) Establish a Sense of Urgency
Talking about change usually begins with some people noticing vulnerability in the organization. The threat of losing ground in some sort of spark these people to action, and in turn, they try to communicate this sense of urgency to others. Congregations, it generally is loss of financial struggles or turnover in key volunteer members and leaders. Kotter noted that more than half business that he observed were never able to create enough emergency measures. “Without motivation, helping people and effort goes nowhereâ€¦.” “Frameworks underestimate hard how there may be people to drive their comfort zones”. In most of the successfully cases, the leadership group facilitate a frank discussion of potentially unpleasant facts: topic of the new competition, flat earnings, decrease in market share or other relevant indicators. It is useful to use outside people (by example, to get consultants, unchurched, people of other faiths, regional or national staff people) who can share the “wholesale” image from a different angle and help to expand awareness of your members. When relatively high levels of emergency? Kotter suggests that it is when 75% of your leadership believes honestly that business as usual is no longer an acceptable plan. (Kotter, 1997)
2) Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition
Often change efforts start with only one or two people should continually grow to include more who believe that the changes are necessary. The necessity of this phase is to gather a relatively large initial core of believers. This initial group must be powerful enough in terms of the roles they hold in the Church, the reputation they have skills that they bring and the relationships they have. Regardless of the size of your organization, the “Director coalition” for the purposes of change to have 3-5 people leading the effort. This group, in turn, can lead others on board with new ideas. The construction of this coalition – their sense of urgency – sense of what is happening and what is needed is crucial. Involving respected leaders key areas of your church this coalition pay dividends much later. (Kotter, 1997)
3) Create a Vision
Successful transformation is based on “a picture of the future that is relatively easy to communicate and appealed to clients, shareholders and employees.” “Vision help clarify the direction in which an organization must pass. The functions of vision in several ways: it helps spark motivation, it helps to keep all projects and changes aligned, it provides a filter to assess how the Organization and provides a rationale that changes in the Organization should weather. “A useful general rule: If you cannot communicate the vision to someone in five minutes or less and get a response which means understanding and interest, you have not yet finished with this phase of the transformation process.” (Kotter, 1997)
4) Communicate that Vision
Kotter suggests that leadership to estimate how many communications vision is needed and then multiply this effort by a factor of ten. Do not restrict it to a congregation meeting, a sermon by the Minister or by a couple of mailings to members. Leaders must be considered “walk the talk” – another form of communication – if people are going to collect important effort. “Actions” with “words” are powerful communicator’s new ways. The bottom line is that a transformation effort will fail unless that most members understand, appreciate, engage, and try to make the effort to occur. The principle is simple: use each existing communication channel and an opportunity. (Kotter, 1997)
5) Empower Others to Act on the Vision
This involves several different actions. To allow people to the Church to start living on new ways and to changes in their fields of intervention. Allocate budget money for the new initiative. Carve out time on the agenda of the session to talk about. Change how your church is organized for the people where the effort must be. Free people key existing responsibilities so that they can concentrate on the new effort. In short, remove any obstacle, there may be to obtain a change. Nothing is more frustrating that believing in change, but then do not have the time, money, help or support needed to affect it. You cannot get rid of all obstacles, but those great needs to be dealt with. (Kotter, 1997)
6) Plan for and Create Short-Term Wins
Given that the actual processing takes time, the loss of momentum and the appearance of disappointment are real factors. Most people won’t on a long walk to change unless they begin to see requiring evidence that their efforts are paying off. Successful transformation leaders actively plan and short-term gains that will be able to see and celebrate. It proves the Church that their efforts are working and adds to the motivation to keep efforts. “When it becomes clear that major changes would take some time, emergency levels can drop.” “Commitments to produce short-term wins help keep emergency level up and detailed analytical thinking who can clarify or revise the visions of the force”. (Kotter, 1997)
7) Consolidate Improvements and Keep the Momentum for Change Moving
As Kotter warns, “do not declare victory too early.” Until changes sink deep into culture Church, a process that could take five to ten years – new approaches are fragile and subject to regression. Yet once a premature victory declaration kills momentum, which allows powerful forces to return to tradition. Leaders of successful efforts use sense of victory as motivation to delve more deeply into their organization: to explore changes in the culture database, to expose relationships of body systems that need adjustment, move people is committed to new ways in the leading roles. The leaders of change must go in the process of belief that their efforts will take years. (Kotter, 1997)
8) Institutionalize the New Approaches
Ultimately, change sticks when it becomes “the ways do us things here,” when it infiltrates into the bloodstream of the organization. “Until the new behaviors are rooted in shared values and social standards, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is deleted”. Two factors are especially important for this. People first of all, a conscious attempt to show how new approaches, behaviours and attitudes have contributed in improving the lives of the Church. People must be helped to establish links between effort and result. The second is to ensure that the next generation of leaders congregations believe in new ways. (Kotter, 1997)
Kurt lewin proposed a three-stage theory of change commonly referred to as unfreeze, change, freeze (or refreeze). (Mind Tools, 2007; Syque, 2007).
Stage 1 Unfreeze
This step is prepared for change. It consists in a point to understand that change is necessary and prepare to move away from our current comfort zone. Free and reasoned that the change is all about weighing “pro” and “con” and decide if the more ‘pro’ that the ‘ con ‘ to take any action.” This is the basis of what Kurt Lewin calls the force field analysis database.
Analysis of the field strength is a fantasy to say that there are many different factors (force) for and against change we need to know (analysis). If the drivers of change outweigh the factors change, we change. If not, then there is low motivation change – and if we pushed to change, we are likely to get Crabby and dig in our heels. This first step “Thaw” is to move ourselves, a Department or entire company to the motivation for the change. (Mind Tools, 2007; Syque, 2007)
Step 2 Change
Kurt Lewin, that change is not an event, but rather a process. This process is called the transition. Transition is the internal movement or the trip that we do in response to a change. As with role models and allowing people to develop their own solutions also help to make the changes. It also really helps keep communicating a clear desired changes and benefits to persons picture where they lead so that they lose. (Mind Tools, 2007; Syque, 2007).
Step 3 Freezing (or Refreezing)
As the name suggests this stage is about establishing stability once, the changes have been made. The changes are accepted and become the new norm. People form new relationships and become comfortable with their routines.
As its name implies this stage is to establish stability once, the changes have been made. The changes are accepted and become the new standard. People in the form of new relationships and becoming comfortable with their routines. (Mind Tools, 2007; Syque, 2007).
This model consists of five stages – Initiate the Inquiry, Inquire into the Best Practices, Discover Themes, Envision a Preferred Future, and, Design and Deliver Ways to Create the Future. This model is quite similar the above two models in many ways. It talks about initiating an inquisitive enquiry as to why, what, when and how things have to be reshuffled or changed which is central for every change effort to effect positively.
At the second stage, the model proposes to enquire only the best practices and eliminate the redundant ones to narrow down the scope of the change towards a particular area. Through subsequent stages, this model encourages to devise the vision for what is expected from a change which can then be used to formulate operational strategies accordingly. However, it does not talk about anchoring the new change into a company’s culture. By doing so, it keeps the door open for continuous improvements and change. Also, accountability and continuous communication are missing in this model. (Cummings and Worley, 2008)
Advantages and Disadvantage of Three Models
As the above two edit templates, Kotter eight step change model has many drawbacks and benefits. The advantages are that it is the step by step, which is easy to follow model. Another is that it does not focus on change itself, but rather the acceptance and the preparation of this change, which makes it an easy transition. Focuses on the buy-in of employees as the focus for success. May be communicated among all steps and adapts well in traditional hierarchies. Downside is that you cannot ignore the steps or change process fails completely. As with the other two models change still takes time with it too. (Kotter, 1996)
â€¢The linearity of the model can lead to wrong assumptions.
â€¢Once process has begun, it is difficult to change the direction.
â€¢The model is clearly downward; it gives no margin of co-creation or other forms of real participation.
â€¢Can lead to deep employee frustration if the stages of grief and individual needs are not taken into account. (Kotter, 1996)
Although the theory of the Lewin has proved useful to understand changes in relatively stable conditions, the nature continues and the dynamics of change in today’s business world, it makes more sense to implement a process for “freezing” modified behaviour, part of the procession takes the view that the change is a complex process and dynamics, which should not be solidified or treated as a series of linear events, in the heart of the development of an approach to the procession is the need to integrate analysis of change management policy. (Cummings, 1997)
Have many pointed out that the planned approach Lewin is too simplistic and mechanistic for a world where the organizational changes is a continuous process open to all (Dawson, 1994; Garvin, 1993; Kanter et al., 1992). The Lewin work is relevant to progressive and isolated projects and is not able to integrate the radical change, transformation (Dawson, 1994; Dunphy and Stace, 1992). Lewin is accused of ignoring the role of power and politics in organizations and wildlife continues to a large part of organizational life. Lewin is seen as advocating a top-down approach on change management and do not take into account situations requiring changes from bottom to top (Dawson, 1994).. He clearly recognized that pressure for change has many neighbourhoods, managers and leaders, and seeking to provide an approach that could accommodate this. Therefore, rather than supporting Lewin has seen change of behaviour as a process from top to bottom, it would be more accurate to say that recognized that might be initiated the high, low or medium, but it could not be successful without the active participation, willing Lewin and equal for all.
The main advantage is that this is a simple and easily understood model for change; the model is done through steps; this is an efficient model that is used today (Mind Tools, 2007; Syque, 2007).
The main disadvantage of this model is that it is timely, but you must consider that it is timely for any change to take place. Another disadvantage is that at the envision the preferred future, many people are worried that another change is coming, so they are in change shock (Syque, 2007). This change shock causes employees to not be as efficient or effective in their jobs (Syque, 2007).
Similarities between the Three Models
All three models – Kotters change model, model change of Lewin and positive role model – describe the phases through which the change occurs in organizations. All three approaches focus on the application of the knowledge of behavioural science, involve the members of the organization in the process of change, to varying degrees and acknowledge that any interaction between the consultant and an organization is an intervention that might affect the organization. However, model change of Lewin differs from the other two in that it focuses on the overall process of planned change, rather than on specific organizational development activities.
In Kotters and Lewin both discusses about how difficult it is to get the people from the comfort zone for the change to happen. In both of the models they use different set of calculation to know whether there is any need of change to take place in the organization. In all three models it starts to identify the problem at the beginning and starts to rectify and implement the change. In Positive and Kotters model the vision for change is declared and works accordingly towards it and it can be done by allotting work to each employees.
With the recent crises many organizations are willing for change to cope up with market. So surviving in the market is the key for the organizations so they are wiling for change but its the employee or the people who are working in are against it because of fear that what this change might ask them to do. But it’s the people only who are willing for change like the senior managers. So with different people opinion some with positive and some with negative changes are happening. Important change has increased substantially in the organizations for the past two decades as a result of strong macroeconomic forces. Whenever human communities are forced to adapt to the changing conditions, the pain is always present. Some errors during the processing of a common organization are: (1) leave too complacent, (2) do not create a sufficiently powerful Director coalition, (3) underestimate the power of the vision (4) to communicate the vision of a factor of 10 x-100 x, (5) permits obstacles to block the new vision of failing (6) to create some victories in the short term (7) giving victory too soon, (8) neglect anchored firmly in the corporate culture change. These errors amplify a globally competitive rapid movement. These errors can be mitigated and perhaps avoid. The key is to understand why organizations resist changes and the process in several steps to achieve, and how leadership is critical for driving the process in a socially healthy way.
You have to work hard to change an organization successfully. When you plan carefully and build the proper foundation, implementing change can be much easier, and you’ll improve the chances of success. If you’re too impatient, and if you expect too many results too soon, your plans for change are more likely to fail.
Time for the change to happen depends from organization to organization and the approach they take. They take different steps or models for the change to prosper. So many models available for the organization to play with like the ones discussed above Kotters, Lewins, and Positivist Models. So with these many models changed many organization futures some models worked some didn’t.
The three phases of Lewin for the management of change, organizational development theory and macro change theories are useful for managers to understand the dynamics of change. It is also important for managers to know how to overcome resistance to change, including education and communication, involvement and participation, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-option and use of stress.
Lewin’s model is very rational, goal and plan oriented. It doesn’t take into account personal factors that can affect change. Conversely, social cognitive theory proposes that behavioral change is affected by environmental influences, personal factors, and attributes of the behavior itself. Lewin’s model makes rational sense, but the Social Cognitive Theory because it takes into account both external and internal environmental conditions.
The positive role model is a simple model that can be used to guide the principles that underlie effective interventions for change, the individual levels and groups. Should redraft fundamental issues (e.g., how can determine what level of involvement is appropriate for this person?), accept that change is likely to be a phenomenon of development instead of a single decision point (for example, it may take several iterations of the cycle, according to the great how change is for the persons involved) and recognizing that the emotional elements (hope and trust) are inextricably interrelated with the behaviour (qualified practice) and cognitive elements (information, beliefs, attitudes and new objectives). Positive change cycle also suggests that we need to rethink what really are the components of “effective” career interventions and take concrete steps which testify of change of these critical components. Ultimately, our goal is to help people develop self-managed adaptability to change. We must find ways to better measure each of the components of positive change, hope and courage; changes in attitudes and relevant skills and confidence to apply skills; and ability to generate new goals for a self) and also show the cumulative impact of positive change cycle. If we can, we are much more on the road to help create interventions that promote long-term changes and to demonstrate our role in the promotion of this change.
I think that Kotters Model is the best choice because it is a simple model. I also feel this way because it fully prepares the employees of the company before the vision is even created, which means that the actual transition will be much easier in the long run. There are fewer disadvantages to this model than others. Overall it is the best fit for most companies because substantial change is needed for the divisions because it’s history. This will also help ease the transition because the division has quite a history compared to the rest of the company, so people are not as set in the ways, as they would be if the division had been around longer. Create a sense of urgency, recruit powerful change leaders, build a vision and effectively communicate it, remove obstacles, create quick wins, and build on your momentum. If you do these things, you can help make the change part of your organizational culture. That’s when you can declare a true victory, then sit back and enjoy the change that you envisioned so long ago.
There are further errors that make people, but these eight are greatest. In fact, even successful change efforts are messy, and full of surprises. But just as a relatively simple vision is necessary in order to guide people through a major change, therefore a vision of the change process can reduce the error rate. And fewer errors can make the difference between success and failure. I have observed many attempts of the metric system conversion in many organizations for many years and I think that John P. Kotters first change provides a reference for the leaders of the conversion to metric to consider as they plan upgrade conversion to metric.