Kotter’s Model Analysis.
In order to investigate the suitability of Kotter’s change management model, 10 hospitals’ CEOs have been interviewed and asked the following question: If you had the chance to lead the change, which change management model would you adopt? Below is the participants responses as to which model would they choose:
Lewin
|
ADKAR
|
Kotter
|
McKinsey
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
The following analysis of Kotter’s change management model demonstrates the model steps, applications, and implications of each step.
1- Creating a Sense of Urgency:
Kotter believed that the key for a successful change is the people within the business taking it upon themselves to assess the business competitiveness, finance, and technological advancements. Normally, creative, and great leaders are often associated with risky actions and decision making, which is a necessity in terms of achieving the first step which is creating a sense of urgency among the people within the business. The first step is the pilar of the model, therefore the necessity of the change needs to be understood and recognised by everyone, otherwise the change would lack the urgency and credibility to instigate the change. External independent consultants are also another tactic that could be used to ignite that spark within the business to ultimately initiate and create that urgency. In certain cases, there might be a need for an external eye-opener in the form of a consultant, to address what the business is lacking, whether the business lacks competitive advantage, technologically outdated, short in resources, consultants can provide the business with overall diagnoses of the matter in order for managements to exploit the opportunity. Several studies, including (Gist, 1989) also supports the notion that manifesting a certain message into existence by several parties, especially external parties to the business, gives more confidence, confirmation, and credibility to the initiative. (Armenakis et al., 1993) suggested that radio, news, and television broadcasters are also considered to be external parties to the business which can be influential in terms of creating that sense of urgency and willingness to change. (Armenakis et al., 1993) proposed different key change attitudes, they stated that the attitudes are crucial for willingness to change, adopting the initiative and initialisation. Discrepancy is a vital point that arises more often than not, and it is normally used to address people’s reactions to change, which the authors deemed significant in 38% of studies addressed by (Armenakis et al., 1993). The term discrepancy is used to describe the deflection from the desired performance and assert the necessity for the change. Moreover, (Kotter, 1995) referred to the term discrepancy as the strategic change motivation. There is an agreement among (Ginsberg & Venkatraman, 1995; Kotter, 1995) that the more change is talked about and included in conversations frequently, the more significant the implied urgency the change entails. Frequent, formal, and indeed informal discussions regarding change are indications that a progression is being made in that regards and people are starting to feel the necessity of the change. (Buchanan et al., 2005) drew a critical point when they stated that the timing of the change, the sequences of the event and the pace of the transformation are vitally important for the success of implementing the change. They also focused on the fact that delaying the change, regardless of its potential, might not deliver the promised and desired outcomes. Equally, when change is rushed, that would not allow for enough time for adaptation and adjustment.
2- Building The Leading Team:
(Kotter, 1996) believed that it is not possible for only one person to manage and lead the change process in business successfully on their own, hence the step of building a complete team that would integrate their efforts into successfully implementing the change. According to (Kotter, 1996), there are certain characteristics and attributes the people within the leading team should possess, as follows:
-
Strength in numbers: having enough key people within the team that would not allow for the excluded rest to interrupt the process.
-
Experience: vitally important for the team to have the required experience for a methodical and intelligent decision making.
-
Credibility: people within the team must be respected by others so the statements and announcements are taken seriously by the rest.
-
Leadership: there must be a number of proven, reliable, and effective leaders within the team who are able to take charge.
In change management, each one of those characteristics and attributes has its own support. (Lines, 2007) decided to investigate the relation between two of those attributes (strength in numbers and experience), the author later came an interesting conclusion that the change leading teams with high number of key people normally tend to be more successful in change implementation over change leading teams with low number of key people but with high level of experience, though it is vital to point out that both parties have positive relations in relation to a successful organisational change implementation. The notion of Kotter’s second step in the model in terms of having enough key people onboard in order for the rest not to have the power to interrupt the change process might provoke an autocratic leadership, which is possible consequence that was addressed by (Kotter, 1996), which he never advocated. In support of that, (Paper et al., 2001) asserted that if the leaders command and control attitude remain throughout the process of change implementation, the likelihoods of the project failing are higher than normal. In addition to that, (Kotter, 1996) believed that a change leading team with good managers but poor leaders, will most likely fail, as the author continued on stating that good managers have the ability to keep the change process intact and under control, whilst good leaders have the ability to create and develop the vision to direct the change. (Caldwell, 2003) further supported analysed and differentiated change managers and change leaders. The author, along with a well-known and respected panel of change leading experts, analysed the characteristics and attributes of each of the mentioned roles, and came to the conclusion that leaders are the executives who advocate strategic change, initiate, and indeed envision a high-scale wide transformation within the business. On the other hand, managers are the mid-level sustaining team who ensure that the transformation process is going according to schedule. In an independent study conducted by (Cunningham & Kempling, 2009), they concluded that the importance of the change leading teams lies in the form of assistance to the change process. The authors also alluded to the fact that progress in terms of change implementation could not be made without a change leading team. (Self et al., 2007) stated that change initiatives that are supported by all the leaders and managements, have an ever-higher potential to also be supported by the working staff, therefore facilitating the implementation, thus creating a higher likelihood of succeeding. Contrary to that, there are several literatures that question the significance of Kotter’s change leading team. In (Sidorko, 2008) analysis of organisational change process, he praised Kotter’s change management model regarding the success of the end results of implementing the model. Though the author argued that Kotter’s change management model is strict and lacks flexibility in terms of the steps must be taken and followed sequentially. The analysis concluded that it is necessary to build several change leading teams in order to negotiate the different aspects the change brings along, which is an element that Kotter did not acknowledge in his model. In (Penrod & Harbor, 1998) paper, the authors believed that while recognising the advantages of a change leading team, the change itself would not take place until the working staff are engaged and involved in the process in an adaptive manner. It is fundamental to keep in mind that in certain cases, the reason behind some change leading team’s failure and not achieving the objectives is that perhaps the more qualified people have not been chosen to take charge and lead the team, therefore analysing the overall picture of the failure is just as important to understand what needs to be fixed.
3- Creating the Vision:
According to (Kotter, 1996), the first order of business for the change leading team is to create what is known as SMART vision, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based. Therefore, with no such vision, the objectives and the direction of the change initiative could get broken down into a number of ambiguous and inconsistent and conflicted tasks that would not take the business anywhere, or even worse, into the wrong direction. In various literatures, the significance of a SMART vision for all change initiatives is widely recognised and documented. In (Wright & Thompsen, 1997) conducted study on HRS (Human Resource Systems) of the AEPA (American Environmental Protection Agency), they concluded that the pilar of every change initiative is a SMART vision. (Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010) also supported that as they believed a SMART vision is the success key. (Kotter, 1996) believed that a SMART vision is fundamental in terms of changing the current status and looking further down the road of what possible outcomes are available. A case study that was conducted by (Flamholtz & Kurland, 2006) concluded that SMART vision along with strategic planning is essential in order to stretch the vision of the management beyond the current position and acknowledge the long-term goals and performance improvements and what are the future implications of the change initiative. Additionally, (Kotter, 1996) believed that a SMART vision is not only important for the managements, but it is also essential to appeal to the working staff as well, in order for them to fully comprehend it and thus act accordingly on it. (Washington & Hacker, 2005) noted that managements who acknowledge the effort of the initiative, normally tend to be more excited about it and less likely to fear that the initiative would fail. Another author who supported the notion of the SMART vision is (Staniforth, 1996), when the author conducted a study in organisational change that concluded when working with a SMART vision, managements can rely on that approach in terms of resolving possible issues in a rational and calm manner. (Szabla, 2007) found a significant relation between the concept of well-defined organisational change and the reactions to change, therefore, the author suggested that in order to have everyone engaged in and involved, the change vision must be appealing to all and desired by all. Contrary to that, and even though various literatures cement the significance of a SMART vision as mentioned, different authors still argue that the implementation process and steps of the vision is perhaps even more significant, for the simple fact that you can create a SMART vision, however if the execution was poor, that would defeat the purpose of having that SMART vision, therefore all the efforts would be helpless. This fact is further supported by (Cole et al., 2006) when they concluded in their study that change implementation and execution is far more significant than having a SMART vision. Additionally, (Paper et al., 2001) also concluded that while people generally require a methodical approach to plan processes, implementation is the differentiating factor as to whether the change rises or collapses.
4- Spreading the Word:
According to (Bordia et al., 2004), communication is simply the key to a successful change transformation, as it plays a critical role in reducing uncertainties and obscurities, in addition to impacting the responses and reactions to the change initiative as (Nelissen & Van Slem, 2008) believed. (Salem & Williams, 1984) defined uncertainty as the inability of explaining, describing, or predicting. In one of their conducted studies, (Nelissen & Van Slem, 2008) explored the relation between the reactions and responses of staff members who went through an organisational restructuring and downsizing process and the management communication role. The study concluded that there is a significant relation between the management communication and staff satisfaction. Additionally, the results of the study determined that people who were more satisfied with the management communication approach had more growing opportunities and more positive attitude towards the change process, validating Kotter’s 4th step in the model. A similar study by (Frahm & Brown, 2007) that looked into whether the management communication role though the change process is due to people’s willingness to adopt the change. The authors concluded that frequent meetings on a weekly basis allowed people to trust and be more open. People had the opportunity during those meetings to express their feelings, communicate and get their feedback across. Furthermore, there was a subgroup of people who also had an optimistic point of view on the change, as they considered the change as a personal growing opportunity for them as well as the overall benefit of the change being implemented to resolve some of the issues that have been carried over through the years and have been holding the business back. The study also showed that those type of people were also the ones who contributed the most in the transformation process. As stated in (Smith et al., 1995) study, people who contributed more than others in the change process, have a more positive outlook at the change as a whole, and not only involved in the process to do a job, but to make impact as well. As suggested by (Klein, 1996), there are several effective strategies that can boost the communication approach listed in several literatures, which greatly help in applying them to different change scenarios, as follows:
-
(Bachrach & Aiken, 1977; Daft & Lengel, 1984; Dansereau & Markham, 1987) all supported the notion that in order to spread the word around and let it stick, management must constantly repeat the message via different platforms, which would ultimately sustain the message in people’s minds. This further supports and proves Kotter’s point in ensuring the vision is constantly repeated as ideas are only truly cemented after they have been frequently repeated.
-
(Kotter, 1996) emphasised that a reciprocatory communication is by far more effective than a one-direction communication. This was also supported by (D’Aprix, 1982; Jablin, 1982) who confirmed that communicating face to face has the greatest effect overall compared to other forms of communication. (Klein, 1996) also argued that communicating face to face warrant the opportunity to reduce and ideally eliminate any ambiguities and uncertainties, which consequently leads to a more adequate communication. Another author who also emphasised on the face-to-face communication is (O’Connor, 1990), who believed that this particular form of communication is the ideal way that the feedback can be utilised in order to rectify any flaws in the communication process. The author’s remarks further support Kotter’s notion that inconsistencies that have not been addressed, weaken the credibility of the communications.
-
(Klein, 1996) believed that people always look forward to hearing important information from their superiors, therefore, this is considered to be their most reliable and effective source of information, as these superiors have the ability to keep people up to date, aware and informed about the change.
During their several years of investigating 6 different strategic initiatives at the establishment of Apparelizm, (Roberto & Levesque, 2005) concluded that the most critical element that stood out in their study was clear communication. As the metaphor goes “a picture is worth a thousand words”, the authors stated that as the management started to engage in storytelling, they managed to create an appealing and inviting environment for people to be involved in the change initiative, in addition to illustrating what are the changes that are likely to take place. The approach the management adopted in terms of the frequent use of metaphors certainly paid dividends. The management decided to simulate and compare the store staff to a NASCAR race team, as well as providing a video of how those NASCAR team communicate and operate in order to cement the notion and metaphor. Therefore, implementing what Kotter stated regarding the many channels of communications that managements should always rely on and alternate between. The authors concluded that the use of the metaphor did pay dividends, as people understood the relation between being knowledgeable, fast, and responsive, just like a NASCAR race team. Additionally, people also understood the significance of how teamwork and communication and operations take place between a NASCAR crew, and then they were able to link those patterns within their roles in the change initiative.
5- Empowering the People:
People are always encouraged to take on new approaches and ideas, at times, this encouragement is simply the outcome of an efficient and effective communication. Though, communication is insufficient on its own, people usually need aid in overcoming burdens throughout the change initiative (Kotter, 1995). (Kotter, 1996) listed four key obstacles that needs to be addressed at all times when it comes to empowering people within the organisation: systems, structures, skills, and supervisors. A significant study conducted by (Klidas et al., 2007) that was concerned with analysing people’s empowerment in 16 hotels across 7 European countries, concluded that the four key obstacles addressed by Kotter played a vitally important role regarding people’s empowerment. The study also addressed a critical point, that certain obstacles, particularly those ones created by the supervisors, including the supervisors lack of trust, obsessive control, and inability to give that level of freedom to their employee to think independently, be responsive and creative, severely affected their productivity and job satisfaction. (Kotter, 1996) always emphasised on the importance of training prior to start empowering people, and that emphasis received a broad support. (Denton, 1994) addressed how Ford along with its union, the UAW “United Auto Workers”, managed to create a successful training initiative that addressed changing the organisational culture at Ford. The author believed that the initiative was a success for the fact that it served its purpose in terms of instigating empowerment in people and building that sense of responsibility within them. Similarly, (Ellinger et al., 2010) conducted a study on the impact of communication and training on people’s empowerment, when the authors concluded that businesses instigate empowerment in their employees by combining training, coaching and communication as the mechanism through which that can be implemented. Literatures on change management have always been supportive of people’s empowerment. (Paper et al, 2001) studied the organisational change in Honeywell, and concluded that the key for a successful, effective, and efficient change transformation, is to simply have empowered employees. Likewise, (Lines, 2007) study results on a telecommunication organisation showed significant correlation between clear communication that leads to encouragement, empowerment, and willingness to participate in the change and successfully implement the change. (Kappelman et al., 1993) believed that when providing people with the least amount of freedom and independent thinking and empowerment could have a significant impact on their satisfaction, productivity, and creativity, on top of giving them that sense of responsibility and control to have their own impact on the change.
6- Creating Short-Term Goals:
It is critical, according to (Kotter, 1995), to see those changes not only taking place, but also working and taking effect, as well as acknowledging all the work that has been done by the staff that is inching the business ever closer towards achieving the overall objective. (Pietersen, 2002) emphasised on how long and daunting certain change initiatives can be to implement, especially the business wide change initiatives which cover the most part of the business, therefore it is vitally important to create those short-term goals in order to keep the staff engaged, acknowledged, and motivated. The author also pointed out that the quantity and the magnitude of those short-term goals is irrelevant, because they do create confidence and make it more believable that bigger goals are possible to achieve, which in turn keeps on building up their spirit and motivation and momentum into the main goal and objective of the change. (Reichers et al., 1997; Marks, 2007) believed that celebrating short-term goals provide the staff and the managements as well with a sense of reassurance that the change implementation is going according to plan and all under control. (Kotter, 1996) argued that the short-term goals indicate that the efforts put into implementing the change are paying off, which ultimately is indeed a simulation that helps the change leading team to compare between what has been envisioned against real-life situation and carry out adjustments. Authors including (Ford et al., 2008) were also fond of this notion, as they stated that change leaders seeking to execute a certain change initiative must find a proof that the initiative has accomplished the intended results. (Drtina et al., 1996) also emphasised on the several advantages of creating short-term goals as they help in removing barriers and tackling obstacles by cementing the vision into the staff’s minds. The change leaders must always have a high level of expectations from the staff throughout the change process and acknowledge people’s contributions that are aimed towards accomplishing the vision.
7- Constant Evaluation:
Kotter believed the biggest and most common mistake managements normally unknowingly commit is to proclaim triumph when noticing the slightest indications of improvement. Though, with the possibility of regression in some of the new processes, it is vitally important for managers to take advantage of the short-term goals in order to overcome the barriers the change brought along, including the system and the structure which might not be perfectly aligned with the new change. (Pfeifer et al., 2005) claimed that in order to accomplish initial successes and get step 6 underway, strategy and vision credibility must be verified through measurable results. The authors further stated that these initial successes are required by the managements in order to setup future changes, in addition to justifying the costs in the short-term. Kotter strongly supported the statement when he claimed that managers must prove that the change is taking effect and yielding the desired results. Looking at different types of campaigns and sport events, they have a particular energy and pattern, often referred to as momentum. (Jansen, 2004) defined momentum as the energy pattern that is attributed to the participants. Momentum and organisational change are easily relatable to each other in terms of the importance of the energy necessary to implement the change (Coleman & White, 1998). There are several literatures that are dedicated to explaining momentum within the organisational change process, though, Jansen study was driven by two crucial goals. One of which was dedicated to examining the activity and event that create the initial momentum and cause fluctuation by using qualitative and quantitative analysis during the initial stages of the organisational change. The idea behind Jansen’s first goal was to predict the trajectory of either the success/fail of the change initiative through understanding the activity and event which contributed to the fluctuation of momentum in hopes of improving the change management approach. (Kotter, 1995) believed that the momentum that is based on change includes the understanding of transformation change, as momentum then is defined as the dynamic force that its presence/absence is the determining factor of the transformation success. Moreover, the authors (Elmes & Wynkoop, 1990) strongly suggested that a sufficient momentum based on change is a must, in order for the organisational change to take place. Additionally, momentum based on change can be initiated by gaining a significant level of support. Thus, a positive relation between people’s commitment to the change, and momentum based on change is a must. People who are fully committed to the change initiative are always less likely to resist the change and less likely to advocate keeping the current status. Although, as (Kotter, 1996) believed that proclaiming triumph too early at the first indications of improvements is a momentum killer. The author also believed that momentum could be lost when the level of urgency is not high enough, or the change leading team is not strong enough, or the change strategy and vision are not clear enough. (Kerber & Buono, 2005) stated that changes that are associated with constantly improved approaches can be initiated by urging people to experiment with change themselves. Consequently, empowering people to take the lead and this result is critical for additional and future changes.
8- Anchoring the Change:
(Kotter, 1995) believed that the newly adopted attitudes are at risk of regression if not firmly cemented as the norms when the tension/pressure/stress of change is lessened. The author addressed two factors that are crucial in order to root the change in the organisation’s culture:
-
Identify to the workers how the new attitudes and behaviours contributed into improving the performance.
-
Ensure the new generation of managements embrace the newly planted approaches and lead them for further developments.
Throughout the 1990s, (Reisner, 2002) conducted a comprehensive study on USPS “United States Postal Service”, as the corporation went through a transformation period that helped them move from the bottom of the rankings compared to their competitors, to being an efficient and profitable organisation. Though, the change was not maintained for much longer, as the organisation went through a financial crisis just few years later in the early 2000s, and the analysis showed that performance lacked massively, on top of the predicted financial losses. (Reisner, 2002) addressed three momentum killers in his study, as follows:
-
Apathy within the management: who inexplicably considered some elements of the strategy as a cause of distraction.
-
Injudicious allocation of funding: which gave the advantage to the traditional approaches over modern innovation.
-
Trade unions resistance.
It was stated by (Senge et al, 1999) that in order to maintain any newly implemented change, a fundamental change in thinking is a must. Though, the authors continued to state that obstacles and barriers that could obstruct the progression of change must also be understood in order to tackle them from the roots and eliminate their occurrence. In conclusion, since the change did not stick, it is clear that USPS did not have that willingness and mentality where a fundamental change in thinking was required. (Massey & Williams, 2006) believed that a fully supported structure for change must be in place to sustain the change. The mentioned structure must provide opportunities, training, and monitoring. With the use of different communication approaches for the change, including websites, formal and informal meetings, seminars, conferences in addition to the different types of visual aids as well.