Change is inevitable and bound to happen in all aspects of life including business. Although change is important in an organization, it can also be seen as a strength and weakness. Effective leadership is about mastering change. One must be willing to change in order to grow and be successful. This paper will compare and contrast Kotter and Kurt Lewin step in their change management models. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the concepts and explain whether these methods can be used at the same time. In addition, this paper will include a Christian worldview of the information discussed and how it relates to the change management models.
Kotter’s Management Model John Kotter studied success and change. During this process, he learned that change has to go through several phases. According to Clawson (2012) “Kotter’s research outlined eight reasons that corporate change fails and eight corresponding ways of managing them. Kotter’s counsel was that change leaders should (1) establish a sense of urgency, (2) create a guiding, powerful coalition, (3)
…show more content…
Their change management models were easy and in step by step form. The models provided a clear understanding and guidance in the process. Lewin was more focused on data, goals, and plans, but Kotter was focused on the leader getting the employees to buy into change with a sense of urgency that would contribute to the success of the organization. The steps should be followed in both methods; however both methods should be used separately to eliminate confusion and understand the steps are different. Kotter’s method seems to be better because it is easier to follow. His methods don’t just focus on change, but it prepares people for the changes before they occur. Both methods can be useful depending on the leaders and the organization. Leaders have to do what’s best for the people overall and the next paragraph put emphases on how Christians view these
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
John Kotter, an expert on organizational change, conducted thirty years of research, coming to the conclusion that because companies do not completely investigate the whole picture when it comes to change, seventy percent of businesses crash by not finishing the change through to the end. For the reason that many businesses fail because of this reason, he created an eight-step process to help businesses succeed and move forward with their change (The 8 Step Process). This paper’s objective is to explain Kotter’s change process and link it to Target Canada’s decision to open in Canada, discussing what decisions fared well and the decisions that produced failure.
To make a change initiative organic, employees must be engaged within the process. The Kotter change model emphasizes the use of teambuilding, which is a key element in making change organic. Step one of establishing a sense of urgency requires leadership to engage the employees in a way that creates
John P. Kotter, a worldwide famous expert on leadership at Harvard Business School, was a graduate of MIT and Harvard. He joined the Harvard Business School faculty in 1972 and who was voted tenure and a full professorship at the age of thirty-three in 1980. Kotter's honors include an Exxon Award for Innovation in Graduate Business School Curriculum Design and a Johnson, Smith and Knisely Award for New Perspectives in Business Leadership. He again gained the title as the #1 ¡§Leadership Guru¡¨ from a survey for 504 enterprises that was conducted by Business Week magazine. Outline of this book
Kotter and Cohen states that the direction of change is widely communicated, and communicated for both understanding and gut-level buy-in. (Kotter and Cohen 83) If information is communicated clear to the audience then the vision can be fulfilled. In order to make sure the vision is understood the message must be clear and to the point. There are many obstacles that may come against change because most people do not like change. A lot of times people get confused with communication and good communication, just because information is given it doesn’t mean that the information that was put out was affective. Kotter and Cohen, good communication shows people something that addresses their anxieties, that accepts their anger, that is credible in a very gut-level sense, and that evokes faith in the vision. (Kotter and Cohen 84) This step will help leaders to communicate the change in a way that will be accepted and welcomed. The text states that, groups usually take more time to reach a decision than individuals do. (Invancevich 417) To me that is more of the reason to make sure the message and the intend of the change is well communicated. Good communication by leaders helps develop a certain behavior that will ensure
Change is a double-edged sword (Fullan, 2001). Change is a word that might inspire or put fear into people. Leadership is challenging when it comes to dealing with change and how individuals react within the organization to the change. Marzano, McNulty, and Waters (2005) discuss two orders of change in their book School Leadership that Works; first and second. Fullan (2001) also adds to the discussion in his book Leading in a Culture of Change, with regard to understanding change. In Change Leadership, Keagan and Wagner (2006) discuss many factors of change and the systematic approach to change. Change affects people in different ways. Leaders need to be able to respond to the individuals throughout the change process.
In his book, Leading Change, Dr. John P. Kotter communicates why organizations fail or succeed based on ten years of conducting research on more than 100 companies to see what contributed to their successful transformations and what hindered those transformations. “In October 2001 Business Week magazine reported a survey they conducted of 504 enterprises that rated Professor Kotter the number one “leading guru” in America.” The two significant aspects I took from this book were the reasons why change initiatives fail and an eight-stage process to lead the organization through a successful transformation.
Change is an inevitable function of any organization and is something that employees and leaders alike are bound to face during their careers. According to Ivancevich et al (2011), how leaders are able to handle the task of change can determine the success or failure of an organization. As organizational leadership students, it is important for us to begin to develop and sharpen the necessary skills to innovate and adapt to change effectively. Leaders should be familiar with a variety of elements within the organization including an assessment of employee and leadership strengths, relationships, skill level and capability, level of support, and the types of resources readily available. Assessing these elements prior and during change, as well as evaluating the process after the fact, helps prepare organizations and leaders for future success. The Harvard School of Business’ interactive change management simulation, Change Management Simulation: Power and Influence V2 (2013), was a valuable assignment to help teach us about change from the standpoint of a mid-level management position at Spectrum, a sunglasses company, looking to adopt a new sustainability initiative.
Change is the only constant in life. And therefore it should be understood as part of a continuing work in progress that calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing voices, and works with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of messy reality (Graetz, F. & Smith, A., 2010). In this submission I try to show that organizational change is majorly based on the environment surrounding it much more than the desire of the members or change agents working in that organization. This view diverts from that of Lippitt, (1958) who suggests that implementing planned organizational changes successfully depends on premeditated interventions intended to modify the functioning of an organization. It also diverts from the traditional approaches to organizational change that generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition (Collis, 1998). In this discussion therefore, comparison made between the different philosophies of change and I try to show that successful change implantation largely depends on an organizations appreciation of what goes on around it rather than what they have planned as a strategic direction.
One of the change models of Organizational Development was created by Kurt Lewin. It includes three phases: unfreeze, move or change, and refreeze (Lewin, 1951, 1958). Lewin’s model recognizes the impormance of changing the people in organization and the role of top management involvement to overcome the resistance of change.
...ges with general statements that I recognize from my own experiences with leadership. It is very frustrating to be told about a new idea without any type of explanation for the change. I recognize that leading change is incredibly difficult and Kotter seems to understand the structure of organizational change. If leaders will follow his guidelines and recommendations for their organizations, they can improve business and become significantly better companies.
Kotter, JP 1995, Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review on Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). ‘Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail’. Harvard Business Review, January: 96-103.
Discussed earlier was the fact that there are factors in place that should have identified the need for change. This organization has a yearly health and wellness survey that is completed anonymously to gauge technical growth and morale. This survey has been flagged for four years in a row as being “red” which indicates that there is a leadership issue. The other factor is a program that logs the organizations ability to do their job which has also been flagged for five years. These flags should have initiated a “Tiger Team” who would have been tasked to analyze the problem and generate courses of action to resolve the issue. However, this did not occur and business continued as is until recently when several outside agency inquisitions
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used