Change Management †the One Right Way Essay

However the offer is often illusory, for picky mixed bag begines usu completelyy apply to particular situations, and simple solutions sometimes ignore the complexities of real life. (Stace and Dunphy, 2001, p 5) To utilise a single reassign barbel is to assume that all organisations, all situations and all inseparable and immaterial variables and influences go along constant. It applies the same logic to all spays without consideration of the many and varied influencing factors.I generally agree with the statement presented by Stace and Dunphy but am interested in the reasons underlying the indispensableness for simple, easy and fast change interventions. Are managers and change agents inactive and only looking for simple solutions? Does management consider change unimportant? Do management in reality take that a single solution is going to work in every case? What is place this trend? Bold (2011) suggests that change itself is becoming the only constant or melodic ph rase as general in the newfangled business environment.With technological advancements over the past 10 years, organisation now create the ability to access, collect and process enormous amounts of business data very quickly. This has provided management with the ability to catch the veritable health of their organisational processes and track against set goals and targets quickly and accurately. Previously, managers whitethorn have waited for end of month or end of quarter reporting from all business units to be collated and presented to gain an accurate understanding of the current business position and gauge the results from previous decisions made.Now, when a manager wants to make a change, they want it utilize as soon as possible so they can assess the impact of the change. Due to the higher(prenominal) amount of change occurring in modern organisations and managements requirement for immediate solutions, I intrust that pressure is placed onto the change agents to pro vide solutions, often without the resources or time to perform adequate compend 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 right way), in the way that other parts of the organisation develops other repeatable business as usual processes. Corporate competencies for change management constitute the critical capacity that is necessary to create a learning organisation which is flexible, dynamic and adaptable in a rapidly ever-changing and volatile environment. (Turner and Crawford 1998)As recent as the 1990s, research was world undertaken by Romanelli & Tushman (1994) that proposed an alternate viewpoint. Their punctuated equilibrium prototype argues that relatively long periods of stability (equilibrium) are punctuated by short periods of more radical, revolutionary change. I believe that most organisational change rese archers would now agree that this is no longer the case and further progression into the cultivation age has meant that very few industries operate within a long term, stable business direct environment.Although many different change models and approaches have been developed by academics, consultants and practitioners, none has yet to be accepted as a received that can be used for all change interventions. Bold (2011) argues that in that respect is no right or wrong theory for change management. It is non an exact science. However, through the ongoing research and studies by the industrys leading experts, a clearer picture of what it takes to lead a change effort effectively will continue to emerge.Andriopoulos & Dawson (2009) agree that in the case of organisational change, on that point remains goodly debate over the speed, direction and effects of change and on the most appropriate methods and concepts for understanding and explaining change. Kanter, beer mug & Jick (1992) found that it would be very difficult for a single solution or approach to watch 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 material for change.They argued that there is no single path to successful change implementation that holds true in all situations. This framework however 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 epitome 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 complexity of the multi-level analysis presented by Pettigrew, while comprehensive, it did little to simplify or clarify the processes of change and thereby rendered the research as largely impenetrable for the organisational practitioner. Change 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 anesthetic and ball-shaped 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.Senior (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 feel comfortable with, or that suits their personality. This may not be however, what the organisation very requires.For example, a change manager may have had previous success utilising a consultative and cooperative approach which would take time to fully consult with all impacted parties while the organisation may actually require a fast, dictatorial type approach due to it losing market share which is put the very existence of the organisation at risk. Kanter (1983) notes that managers sometimes make strategic choices based on their feature area of competence and career payoff.A model of change strategies that seeks to develop our understanding of change processes is unluckily restricted if i t excludes considerations of anything other than management as some sort of black box wherein environmental pit 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 compelling need for in our modern economies to create and build more dynamic and innovative corporations which can compete successfully in global terms. Remember 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 political 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 viability and success in the corporatio n of the future is the ongoing development of what is increasingly being referred to as organisational capabilities or corporate competencies. These are capabilities for the flexible initiation of new strategies and environmental responsiveness that bear 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 overlapping ideas and cover a lot of the same ground. Rather than working independently towards defining improvements to existing ideas or new ideas, it may be more beneficial to take a collaborative approach and create an international standard for change or a recognised body of shared knowledge that could be used as a guide for organisational ch ange.