Organizational Change Models

Abstract

This paper will discuss Connie Hritz’s Change Model and briefly describe the stages of it. I will explain a recent change that I underwent at my employment. I will explain the process and steps we went through to adapt to the change. I will compare and contrast Hritz change model with a British change model. Lastly I will explain which model is best for my organization to follow when implementing change.

Accepting change can be a difficult task. We often feel comfortable with our daily routine and rather not change it. Change can be just as hard in an organization. Instead of one individual adapting to a new process, many employees are affected therefore you most likely have more resistance. It takes more convincing and steps to get everyone to adjust or even accept the altercations.

Connie Hritz developed a three stage change model which can be suggested to implement organizational change. In the first stage, she suggests determining the readiness for a change. She identifies six states of readiness that most employees will fall into. They range from not wanting change at all to complete willingness of change. The second stage consists of personalizing your plan to implement your transformation. The last stage is sustaining or maintaining the change effectively (Hritz 14).

Hritz mode is very ideal and can be a starting point for organizations. It gives you the major factors in which you must address in order to make the modifications be victorious. I agree with her about coming to the realization that some employees will rebel to change while others will give you fully cooperation (Hritz 14). However, although she tells you what to expect from employees, she doesn’t give any suggestions on how to deal with each person’s readiness. It would have been helpful to give details on how to get everyone on board without the resistance. This is why I consider it to be a starting point and not a detailed model. Stages 2 and 3 are important and will be easier if no one is still refusing the ideal of changing. If they are, it might be difficult getting those employees to commit. However, the cooperators will put forth an effort to making the change successful.

Every organization is different and need to adjust some in order for the model to work effectively for them. Another issue is Hritz did not mention is giving the company enough time to deal with the change. It takes time to get each individual on track; one meeting is simply not enough. It will take continuous reassurance and coaching. Although she discusses the steps, she does not stress that time will be a considerable factor. Hritz points out that change happen at an individual level, and if the change involves several employees, it could be timely to implement the modification (Hritz 14).

My company recently went through a change in the way we processed ACH forms. Our newly hired internal auditor found current procedures were a high risk for fraud. The same individual who processed ACH forms had access to change bank account numbers at any given time, giving them opportunity to enter in their own information and change it back. There were also two individuals entering information into the two databases that we had. In order to track changes in the system efficiently and create less risk for fraud, the internal auditor came up with another policy. So she notified each of us individually and made us aware of the changes that will be taking place. Next, we had training to introduce us to the new software we will be using. The training was sectioned off to train only the individuals associated with the necessary parts. In the end, some of was unsure of how the process worked as whole, which lead to uncertainty of the new policy.

The change we went through followed Hritz three stages in some ways. However, I do not think the auditor was prepared to deal with the few employees who did not want the change to take place. I believe she assumed since it was the best for the company that no one would reject because it helped the organization. The auditor did communicate the benefits and a few of the challenges. The accountability was addressed because it involved several individuals to get the information entered. Therefore, if you resisted the new policy you were not doing your job which would lead to a negative review. The auditor did give everyone equal opportunity to give their opinions on the process and suggest different things if they deemed it necessary. Lastly, she did not and is not working on sustaining the new policy. I think a few of us are aware of it and are becoming discouraged by it. Even though we can try to skip steps, the new policy will make it impossible to do so. The new policy makes the change sustainable but not through coaching or retraining, only because there is no other way it can be done.

The other change model I found is used in British organizations and described as the Accelerated Change Process change model (Atkinson, Mackenzie, and Thomson 35-39). This model has 6 steps versus Hritz’s model of 3 steps. The six steps start with driving for change. This includes building a strong change team and envisioning the project needs. Next is to generate a shared need which indentifies the employees who will benefit or be affected by the change. Create a vision and align commitment is listed as being the next thing (Atkinson et al 2010). Similar to Hritz’s model is discusses staining and implementing a plan that focused on accuracy (Hritz 14).The last step is continuous improvement which assesses the best practice and reviews to guarantee the changes are executed. Overall the models are very similar and the only difference is the number of steps or stages. Hritz has stages which groups a few of Atkinson’s steps into each one.

Even though both processes are similar, I think the Accelerated Change Process is closer to the steps that took place at my company for the last organizational change. I believe this because it is very close to the way I described our process of change. One major difference in the models is Hritz tries to assess who will resist the change while Atkinson does not acknowledge this until step 4. This was why I think it was closely related to the Atkinson model. This model proved to be successful for my company therefore can be an effective model for change in the future.

Developing a change model can be continuous as every change details different things. By having a guide to follow can be helpful but remaining to be flexible and incorporate unexpected barriers is the best method. I agree with Hritz when she says ‘Cultivate your change resilience and you’ll be ready for anything’ (Hritz 14). You have to manage the resistance because it has the potential to bring down everything else you worked to change. It easy part is coming up with the plan of changing; the hardest part is everyone agreeing and actually completing the plan.

References

Atkinson, Philip, Robert Mackenzie, and James Thomson. "From recession to recovery: tangible

transformation in organizational performance." Management Services. 54.3 (2010): 35-

39. Print.

Hritz, Connie. "Change Model." Leadership Excellence. 25.5 (2008): 14. Print.