John P. Kotter and Cohen’s book, The Heart of Change can act as a map for companies
that are looking for a way to make a change within their company. Organizational Behavior and
Management provides insights into how effective Kotter and Cohen’s stages are in bringing
about a positive change that will eventually become a part of the company’s behavior.
Organizational change is something that can put fear into the hearts of management and
employees alike, but when broken down in these common sense stages, change can be within the
reach of any company. The eight stages used by Kotter and Cohen throughout the book describe
the most effective way to bring about change, and are backed up by examples of change that
Kotter has come across during his career. These examples can show the right and wrong way
that a company is able to go about changing due to internal and external issues that have been
determined as requiring something to be done to make improvements.
Kotter and Cohen’s stage one is “Increasing Urgency”. Companies that do not have a
sense of urgency regarding change will not move forward. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske
and Matteson (2011), “Effective managers must view managing change as an integral
responsibility rather than as a peripheral one. In additional to managing change, contemporary
and future managers will have to develop approaches for adopting and implementing innovation”
(p. 579). Companies that become complacent with their position in the marketplace and do not
see the need for change can be left behind as their competitors continue to make strides forward.
Feeling overly comfortable with what has occurred in the past without looking towards the future
and any changes that could be made to make the organization run more smoothly can be very
ineffective way to run a company that needs to compete with others, especially in an unstable
economy where consumer confidence is not very high yet. Being able to embrace change is a
positive way for a company to stay relevant, and even streamline the way that they operate on a
daily basis. Change can be instigated by outside pressures of the marketplace and consumers
along with inside pressures that come from any level of the company.
Stage two is “Build the Guiding Team”. Kotter and Cohen’s view is that change is best
initiated by creating a team that will take the urgency that had been created for change in the
previous stage and funneling that urgency into innovations that move the company forward.
Having a set team in place from the different levels of the company can provide feedback that
will help in implementation of the change. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson
(2011), “Signs of progress include breaking down barriers between departments, sharing
resources, and developing attitudes that encourage teamwork and idea sharing” (p. 584). Most
companies work in a way where each department handles their own responsibilities without
understanding exactly how other departments handle their own. During the planning process for
a change, it can be helpful to have a team that can work together in giving insight into how each
department works while trying to find the best change to make to deal with the issue at hand.
This team should be made up of individuals that are responsive in regards to change and can act
as a cheerleader for the whole company to get excited and start to feel the same urgency for
change that started the process.
“Get the Vision Right” is the third stage. According to Kotter and Cohen (2002), “Far
too often, guiding teams either set no clear direction or embrace visions that are not sensible.
The consequences can be catastrophic for organizations and painful for employees...” (p. 62).
Change just for change sake will not be beneficial for the company, but must be focused on
providing a solution to a problem or addressing an issue that the company is dealing with
currently. It can be frustrating to spend a great deal of time and money on something that does
not have the change that is anticipated in the beginning stages because of this lack of focus on
what needs to really be changed. One of the best methods of understanding if change is a
positive for a company is an evaluation of the change taking place. “Accordingly, some
provision must be made to evaluate the program in terms of expenditures and results”
(Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson, 2011, p. 603). When the guiding team is planning for the
change that is being put into place it would be important to keep the original idea in mind as to
what the change was meant to accomplish. This can be used to make sure that the change
process is not going outside of the scope of the project while making strides in accomplishing the
initial goal.
Stage four is “Communicate for Buy-In”. Speaking to the whole company about the
changes that are coming can be beneficial to the change and the company itself. Employees that
are threatened by change will be even more resistant to change if everything is kept as a big
secret within the company. Opening up about what will be occurring will help employees
outside of the change team become more accepting of the change, and potentially, get excited
about the proposed change. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson (2011), “...
[T]he more involved people at all levels of the hierarchy are in the planning, implementation,
and monitoring of the change, the higher the likelihood of success. Changes that are imposed on
employees with little warning are likely to be resisted” (p. 587). Employee resistance can be
very detrimental to any potential changes that are trying to be implemented into the organization.
Staying open and optimistic about the change that is coming by communicating to employees
can certainly help to reduce this resistance along with the potential for feedback that every
employee can offer once they are aware of what is taking place in the organization. All the
openness in the world may not completely eradicate employee resistance, but it can certainly
help to bring most of the company around.
Kotter and Cohen’s stage five is “Empower Action”. Ignoring the potential influx of
information that could come from lower levels of the company can be harmful for any change.
Allowing managers to block these employees from contributing can cause a change to not be as
effective as possible. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson (2011),
“Unfortunately, some managers use coercion, threats, and manipulation to implement changes.
The drawbacks to these hands-on, top-down approaches include resentment, withdrawal, slowing
down, anger, covert sabotage, and unethical behaviors” (p. 586). Understanding that
management can block employees from being a part of change can help to better empower
employees to help in any organizational change. Employees can be a powerful force for change
that should be harnessed rather than pushed down. Underestimating the value that even lower
level employees can offer is bad for a company. In many situations, it is the lower level
employees that will be utilizing the changes on a daily basis and will be able to provide more
insight in what can work and what will not work. Upper levels of management may be too far
removed from the situation to truly understand what would be the best change effort, and by
empowering the employees to take stock of the change, they are able to provide their unique
insight.
“Create Short-Term Wins” is the sixth stage in Kotter and Cohen’s book. Over time,
team members may start to lose sight of the reason for the change and no longer support the
change because they have not seen any positive results without these short-term wins. Finding
ways to continue creating excitement for the change, such as having smaller milestones that are
reached throughout the change process, can help to keep the change relevant to the company’s
employees. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson (2011), “Without short term
wins, too many people give up or actively join the ranks of those people who have been resisting
change” (p. 611). These short-term wins will prove that the change has had a positive impact
and is making the company better for everyone involved. It can help those that have been
resisting the change in seeing the benefits that can be had from not letting the company stagnate.
Each win is one step closer to the final change that will be put into place based on the initial
problem that was identified. They can be seen by the employees as mile markers towards the
overall benefit that is coming to the organization through the change without having to wait
throughout the whole process to see how this is going to affect them.
Stage seven according to Kotter and Cohen is “Don’t Let Up”. Once those short-term
wins are in the rear-view window it can be easy to say that the change has been implemented
effectively, but the urgency that initiated the change should be kept in place until the complete
change has been put into place. It would be ineffective to stop based on the past positive
changes without seeing the job through. According to Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson
(2011), “Management must remain committed to the effort throughout all its steps, from
diagnosis through implementation and evaluation” (p. 604). Declaring a victory before the
change has been fully implemented will potentially negate all the time and effort that has been
spent trying to change the organization in the first place. Keeping the push going forward can be
difficult if that feeling of urgency has gone away because employees feel that they have gotten
enough positive results from what has been implemented so far. It makes sense that a company
will be even better once the full change has been able to put into place, but employees may be
feeling burnt out by the whole process. The team that is guiding the change should work hard
towards keeping the change urgent and positive.
The final stage is stage eight, which is “Make Change Stick”. It is important that once
the change has been successfully implemented into the company that it remains important to
follow the changes. Reverting to old behaviors will make the change process that the company
has gone through ineffective as a waste of time and money for the company. According to
Ivancevich, Konopaske and Matteson (2011), “Until new behaviors are rooted in social norms
and shared values, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is removed”
(p. 612). Even once the change has been completely implemented it cannot be pushed to the
backburner. It can be very easy to backslide once management and the guide team is no longer
pushing for employees to follow the new changes that have been implemented during this
process. Sticking with it long enough to ensure that it has become a part of the corporate culture
rather than a new behavior that remains relevant for a brief period of time before employees go
back to the old less effective way of handling their duties will make sure that this process was
not a complete waste for the company.
In conclusion, a company is able to follow the blueprints that Kotter and Cohen has
mapped out in each stage of his book, which is based on sound principles that work. The
examples that he provides can help act as a pattern of the right and wrong ways for an
organization to go forward with making changes that need to be done for the company to stay
relevant. Organizational changes may be required because of competition stepping up what they
are offering to customers to lure them away or because the company is not running as efficiently
as it could run. Creating an environment that is excited by potential changes led by a selected
team of individuals are the first steps to a beneficial change. This needs to be followed by proper
planning for the right goals, getting the whole company involved; removing barriers to
employees that want to share input are the next stages. When implementing the change it is
important to bring in smaller milestones that keep employees interested, sticking with the plan
and not letting the company revert back to the old way of doing things once the change has been
fully implemented. These stages will combine to help a company achieve the changes that they
desire to remain on top of their game.
.
References
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2011). Organizational behavior and
management (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.