Planning for Organizational Change

According to the Kurt Lewin Model of change, there are two types of change : first is the planned change which is anticipated where the organization is ready for it whilst the second change is impulsive or accidental. Both the changes are indeed inevitable hence it is essential for the organization to be willing to handle them at all costs. He pointed out that organizations are in a state of antagonism between planned and spontaneous change which require modification to attain a state of quasi-stationary equilibrium or a stable operation (Burke, 2013, pp. 172-3). The ability of an organization to maintain a stable operation depends on their capacity to integrate the planned and spontaneous changes more so hasty change as they are not anticipated thus contingencies, and flexible adaptation is indispensable. Forces for are constant and affects the performance, viability and competitiveness of the organization, hence whether technological, operation, employment relations or whatsoever change, planned or accidental mitigation is paramount for efficient business functionality.  When planning for change, Lewin notes that it is prudent to unfreeze the unbalances or the conventional organizational paradigm to create a new view point for observation. After that, inculcate new strategies and behaviors in the workforce by creating changes as per the current and forecasted projections. One the changes are accepted, the changes must be refrozen again by stabilizing the news changes into the workforce and organizational culture (Burke, 2013, pp. 174-5). Lewin’s theory and model is invaluable and still dominative in driving organizational change as the captures both the anticipated and uncertain changes.

Burke (2013) and lecture by General (Ret.) Stanley McChrystal (Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2014) draws a vivid description of both planned and impulsive change both individuals and organizational level. As explained in the paradox of planned change, the planning process is often linear, but once the uncertain changes emerge, it distorts the laid down strategies inducing flexibility to respond to the modification. (Burke, 2013, pp. 13-5)  McChrystal provided numerous personal testimonies about how unexpected variations distorts the planned ground rules and adaptability to the change. It is amazing, change in never absolute linear and precise at all times hence contingency planned must always be laid, and the flexible adaptation is essential for competitive advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Burke, W. W., 2013. Conceptual Models for Understanding Organisational Change. In: Organization change: Theory and practice. S.l.: Sage Publications.

Burke, W. W., 2013. Rethinking Organization Change. In: Organization change: Theory and practice. S.l.: Sage Publications.

Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2014. View From The Top: General (Ret.) Stanley McChrystal. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgrQYS-q5f4&feature=youtu.be&list=PL5C14B375A7F2FEA8 [Accessed 2 March 2017].

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: