There are multiple change models and multiple leadership models (Naudé et al, 2004). The leadership style for managing change is dependent on the change model used. The leadership style applied to a change process based on Lewin (Medley & Akan, 2008), Kotter (2007) or appreciative inquiry (Johnson & Leavitt, 2001) will be quite different. (p. 59)

The change model most appropriate for this size of organisational change undertaken is Kotter’s (2007) for an Australian cultural framework. Kotter’s (2007) model includes elements of Lewin’s work (Burnes, 2007), Schein’s adaptive coping cycle (Coghlan 1999), and Senge’s (2006) learning organisation. Lewin’s three-step model (Burnes, 2007) is basic compared to Kotter’s (2007). Schein’s (Coghlan, 1999) and Lewin’s action research model (Dickens & Watkins, 1999) are more focused on continuous improvement than a change initiative. Senge (2006) is more focused on entire organisational change rather than change initiatives. Kotter’s (2007) model is well defined and in my opinion ideal for change initiatives in the asset management realm. (p. 59)

Identifying the exact nature of the required change is critical to successful change, though this is not discussed in this paper. Data analysis, diagnosis and defining solutions is a suffi ciently large body of work in itself that deserves separate analysis. The starting point of Kotter’s (2007) model assumes that the change approach, is the appropriate change to implement. Kotter’s (2007) model is defi ned in the next section together with how the leader manages change (a leadership model for change) in an Australian cultural context. (p. 60)

Kotter’s (2007) model is an eight-stage model as listed below, details of each stage are discussed in more detail later in this section.

1. establish a sense of urgency 2. create a guiding coalition 3. have a clear vision 4. communicate the vision 5. remove obstacles to change (align systems and structures) 6. plan and create short term wins 7. consolidate improvements 8. institutionalise new approaches. (p. 60)

Kotter’s (2007) model is strongly influenced by Lewin’s (Medley & Akan, 2008) three-stage model of unfreezing, moving/changing, and refreezing. Stages 1 to 3 in Kotter’s (2007) model are essentially unfreezing, stages 5 to 7 are moving and changing and stage 8 is refreezing. Stage 4, communication, is critical to all stages of change and therefore it has not been included it in any individual stage of Lewin’s model. (p. 60)

Kotter’s (2007) eight-stage model is described below, explaining how each stage contributes to driving change, and explaining the leader’s role in each stage. (p. 60)

Stage One: Establish a Sense of Urgency: The purpose of establishing the sense of urgency is to kick start the change (Kotter, 2007), there may be powerful forces against change, the sense of urgency is the initial part of the unfreezing process (Medley & Akan, 2008). One way a leader can grab attention is with a “burning platform” (Pors, 2010). (p. 60)

Why should the organisation change? It is the leader’s role is to identify the why (Sinek, 2009), providing a why can provide a compelling reason to change. The leader needs to provide a sense

of purpose (Moran & Brightman, 2000). A positive sense of purpose may be more compelling, a carrot rather than a stick, to pull the organisation into a more positive future. People who are not the formal leaders in their organisation, they need to supply this business case to their leader to convince them to lead the change. (p. 60)

Denning (2008) uses a model that combines the above approaches; use the burning platform to get attention, provide a positive purpose that “pulls” people into the future, and provides the rationale for change. The leader’s role is to identify the compelling reason to change and communicate it (Denning, 2008). Constant continual communication is key to achieving change, communication is an integral part of all change models. (p. 60)

A leadership style that would be appropriate in this phase is the visionary (also called authoritative) leadership style (Goleman, 2000). This style has a very strong positive correlation with organisational engagement (+0.54). Another leadership style appropriate to this stage is the “evangelist” who “uses influence to sell ideas” (Lawrence et al, 2006). The leader’s role here is also aligned with “personal mastery” (Senge, 2006). (p. 60)

Stage 2: Create a guiding coalition: In this stage the leader needs to build a guiding coalition (Kotter, 2007). The leader needs to communicate the sense of urgency to the guiding coalition, so that they can become change champions (Chrusciel, 2008) and communicate the sense of urgency to the rest of the organisation. The change will proceed like a wave through levels in the organisation, at each level of the organisation the key stakeholders need to be the “innovators and early adopters” (Sinek, 2009) who are the champions of (p. 60) change and communicate the sense of urgency to the “early majority and late majority” (Sinek, 2009). (p. 61)

The leader needs to be able to identify the key stakeholders to create the guiding coalition (Aberle, 2011; McTeirnen, 2011). One tool a leader can use here is to identify the sources of power and types of power in the organisation. The guiding coalition is not necessarily just the executive committee (Kotter, 2007). There are multiple types of power (Hersey et al, 1979), the leader needs to identify who has the power to lead the change and engage these as the guiding coalition. The leader can use stakeholder analysis (Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005) to assist in identifying the key stakeholders to include in the guiding coalition. (p. 61)

A leadership style that would be appropriate in this phase is the coaching leadership style (Goleman, 2000). This leadership style has a very strong positive correlation with organisational engagement (+0.42). The leader needs to develop and align the guiding coalition as a functioning team. Another leadership style appropriate to this stage is the “evangelist” who “uses influence to sell ideas” (Lawrence et al, 2006). The leader’s role here is also aligned with “team learning” (Senge, 2006). (p. 61)

Stage 3: Have a clear vision: Having a clear vision is one of the keys to successful change, the “burning platform” identifies what’s wrong, it does not identify what is right. There may be multiple solutions and if the guiding coalition goes off in several directions this will lead to failure. The vision needs to be 100% clear, with everyone aligned to the vision. (p. 61)

The vision needs to be clear, simple, and communicated “in less than five minutes” (Kotter, 2007). Vision statements that are long or verbose can cloud the issue. The leader’s role is to define the clear vision. (p. 61)

There is extensive literature on vision statements. According to Lucas (1998) a good vision statement should:

- provide a point to aim for, a guide to set priorities, and to stop us going off track - identify why we do things - provide a purpose to what we do - provide a unique identifier, or differentiator from others.- be aspirational, something that pulls us into the future

Visions in the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time bound) format provide real clarity. Manasse (1985) discussed how visions give organisations purpose. Individuals need to be aligned to the organisational vision to provide a common purpose. An organisation without a common purpose will not be successful. (p. 61)

Visionary leadership demands a clear sense of personal and organizational values, used as decision criteria in judging the merit of alternative actions (Manasse, 1985). (p. 61)

A leadership style that would be appropriate in this phase is the visionary (also called authoritative) leadership style (Goleman, 2000) . This style has a very strong positive correlation with organisational engagement (+0.54). Another leadership style appropriate to this stage is the “evangelist” who “uses infl uence to sell ideas” (Lawrence et al, 2006). The leader’s role here is also aligned with “shared vision” (Senge, 2006). (p. 61)

Stage 4: Communicate the vision: While communication is nominated as an individual stage, stage 4, communication is an integral part of any change model and integral to every stage. Communication is the lifeblood of any healthy organisation. The leader must communicate the vision to all levels of the organisation via all communication mediums. At the personal level the leader must be authentic (Goffee & Jones, 2006) and demonstrate the vision by their actions. (p. 61)

Stage 5: Remove obstacles to change (align systems and structures): This stage is the hardest to achieve, it is the engine room of change, changing the organisations culture. In the authors opinion this stage is also the most misunderstood, possibly because the name of the stage has negative, rather than positive connotations. Perhaps stage 4 in Schein’s adaptive coping cycle is a better description of this stage – “make the necessary internal changes without undesirable side effects“(Coghlan, 1999) – though it is a little wordy. A common misinterpretation of this stage is to promote sideways, retrench, or sack people. Not only is this a misinterpretation, it is also the wrong thing to do, as it alienates those left behind, managing downsizing is a subject in itself (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). The terminology “align systems and structures” is a better title for this stage, as in most cases the systems and structures are aligned to the old way of doing things, and create a force against change. The old systems and structures need removing and be replaced with (p. 61) systems and structures that are aligned with the new way of doing things. (p. 62)

This stage is actually classic force field analysis (Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008), identify the forces against change, and manage them. As Aberle (2011) said, transformation is “conversion of matter from one form to another”, and that achieving transformational change is achieved via using the same material, ie. keep as many people as possible, but transform their organisational culture. Organisational cultural change is a huge and hard task (deserving of its own paper),

there are multiple models of organisational culture and multiple models of cultural change. (p. 62)

The organisation has a plan of what should be done around here, organisational culture is what actually gets done around here. Riches (2009) offered one organisational culture model, as shown below:

1. rules and policies

2. goals and measurement

3. customs and norms

4. training

5. ceremonies and events

6. management behaviours

7. rewards and recognition

8. communications

9. physical environment

10. organisational structure. (p. 62)

Price & Chahal (2006) also provided a similar organisational culture model. (p. 62)

The leader needs to look at all of these areas of organisational culture, identify what elements are maintaining the status quo, and identify how those elements need to be changed. The leader needs to use “systems thinking” (Senge, 2006) as culture is an interaction of all these elements. The leader needs to understand the drivers at the individual, group, and organisational level (Pettapiece, 2011). If one element drives a behaviour in one direction, and another element drives it in another way, which ever element applies the greatest force (Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008), will drive the behaviour. The leader needs to understand what the existing “mental models” (Senge, 2006) are within the organisation and needs to defi ne what the new “mental models” need to be. There are multiple methods for dealing with organisational resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008): (p. 62)

• education and communication

• participation and involvement

• facilitation and support

• negotiation and agreement

• manipulation and co-option

• explicit and implicit coercion. (p. 62)

The leader needs to identify which of these methodologies to use, dependent on what element of culture is effected, the stakeholders involved, and what change is required. It must be emphasised that the last two methods, manipulation and coercion are methods of last resort and often have very negative side effects, as well as being quite ineffective in achieving long term change. (p. 62)

Stage 6: Plan and create short term wins: In this stage the leader’s role is to identify a small project that has a high probability of success, and that can be implemented fairly quickly. All the characteristics of good change management should be embedded in this change, the clear vision, participation, etc. The purpose of this stage is to clearly demonstrate that the change strategy works, and that this strategy leads to a performance improvement. The leader needs the emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2000) and competing values competency (Quinn et al, 2007) to identify which of the Goleman (2000) leadership styles visionary, coaching, affi liative or democratic, or the Lawrence et al (2006) styles architect, educator or evangelist required to lead the change. The leader needs to widely publicise the win. (p. 63)

Stage 7: Consolidate improvements: In this stage the leader needs to identify more projects, bigger projects that build on the success of the pilot project. The role of the leader and the styles are exactly the same as for stage 6. The leader needs to continually fi nd new projects to promote, and more successes to communicate. Progressively getting deeper and deeper into the organisation and spreading the change through the organisation. (p. 63)

Stage 8: Institutionalise new approaches: Institutionalising change requires the leader to have rolled out so many change programs that the new way of doing things has become “the way we do things around here” (Kotter, 2007). The leader needs to engage the organisation in double loop learning (Blackman et al, 2004). The leader needs to make the connection between the pilot projects success (single loop) and the interconnection to systems improvement (double loop), ie. the change at the lower level is leading to systems improvement. The leader should be at the “systems thinking” level and have changed the “mental models” in the organisation (Senge, 2006). (p. 63)

O'Malley, A 2014, ‘Theory and example of embedding organisational change: Rolling out overall equipment effectiveness in a large mining company.,” Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, vol. 11, no.1, p59-69.

Kurt Lewin (1951) introduced the three-step change model. This social scientist views behavior as a dynamic balance of forces working in opposing directions. Driving forces facilitate change because they push employees in the desired direction. Restraining forces hinder change because they push employees in the opposite direction. Therefore, these forces must be analyzed and Lewin’s three-step model can help shift the balance in the direction of the planned change (p. 1).

According to Lewin, the first step in the process of changing behavior is to unfreeze the existing situation or status quo. The status quo is considered the equilibrium state. Unfreezing is necessary to overcome the strains of individual resistance and group conformity. Unfreezing can be achieved by the use of three methods. First, increase the driving forces that direct behavior away from the existing situation or status quo. Second, decrease the restraining forces that negatively affect the movement from the existing equilibrium. Third, find a combination of the two methods listed above. Some activities that can assist in the unfreezing step include: motivate participants by preparing them for change, build trust and recognition for the need to change,

and actively participate in recognizing problems and brainstorming solutions within a group (Robbins 564-65). (p. 2)

Lewin’s second step in the process of changing behavior is movement. In this step, it is necessary to move the target system to a new level of equilibrium. Three actions that can assist in the movement step include: persuading employees to agree that the status quo is not beneficial to them and encouraging them to view the problem from a fresh perspective, work together on a quest for new, relevant information, and connect the views of the group to well-respected, powerful leaders that also support the change. (p. 2)

The third step of Lewin’s three-step change model is refreezing. This step needs to take place after the change has been implemented in order for it to be sustained or “stick” over time. It is high likely that the change will be short lived and the employees will revert to their old equilibrium (behaviors) if this step is not taken. It is the actual integration of the new values into the community values and traditions. The purpose of refreezing is to stabilize the new equilibrium resulting from the change by balancing both the driving and restraining forces. One action that can be used to implement Lewin’s third step is to reinforce new patterns and institutionalize them through formal and informal mechanisms including policies and procedures (Robbins 564-65). Therefore, Lewin’s model illustrates the effects of forces that either promote or inhibit change. Specifically, driving forces promote change while restraining forces oppose change. Hence, change will occur when the combined strength of one force is greater than the combined strength of the opposing set of forces (Robbins 564-65). (p. 2)

Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958) extend Lewin’s Three-Step Change Theory. Lippitt, Watson, and Westley created a seven-step theory that focuses more on the role and responsibility of the change agent than on the evolution of the change itself. Information is continuously exchanged throughout the process. The seven steps are: (p. 2)

1. Diagnose the problem. 2. Assess the motivation and capacity for change. 3. Assess the resources and motivation of the change agent. This includes the change agent’s commitment to change, power, and stamina. 4. Choose progressive change objects. In this step, action plans are developed and strategies are established. 5. The role of the change agents should be selected and clearly understood by all parties so that expectations are clear. Examples of roles are: cheerleader, facilitator, and expert. 6. Maintain the change. Communication, feedback, and group coordination are essential elements in this step of the change process. 7. Gradually terminate from the helping relationship. The change agent should gradually withdraw from their role over time. This will occur when the change becomes part of the organizational culture (Lippitt, Watson and Westley 58-59)(p. 3)

Lippitt, Watson, and Westley point out that changes are more likely to be stable if they spread to neighboring systems or to subparts of the system immediately affected. Changes are better rooted. Two examples are: the individual meets other problems in a similar way, several businesses adopt the same innovation, or the problem spreads to other departments of the same business. The more widespread imitation becomes, the more the behavior is regarded as normal (Lippitt, Watson and Westley 58-59). (p. 3)

Lewin's model is very rational, goal and plan oriented. It doesn’t take into account personal factors that can affect change. Conversely, social cognitive theory proposes that behavioural change is affected by environmental influences, personal factors, and attributes of the behavior itself. Lewin’s model makes rational sense, but the Social Cognitive Theory because it takes into account both external and internal environmental conditions. (p. 6)

Lippitt’s Phases of Change is an extension of Lewin’s Three-Step Theory. The focus on Lippitt’s change theory is on the change agent rather than the change itself. Lewin’s change model attempts to analyze the forces (driving or restraining) that impacts change. (p. 6)

There is no right or wrong theory to change management. It is not an exact science. However through the ongoing research and studies by the industry’s leading experts, a clearer picture of what it takes to lead a change effort effectively will continue to emerge. It is important that we must continually review and consider how our changing society and culture will require fresh insight on the appropriate change process. (p. 6)

Kritsonis, A 2005, “Comparison of change theories,” International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, vol. 8, pp. 1-7.

Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating a major change has been recognised as one of the most well-known approaches to organisational transformation (Mento et al. 2002, p .45), as the mainstream wisdom for leading change (Nitta et al. 2009, p .467), and the most compelling formula for success in change management (Phelan 2005, p .47). Kotter’s work became highly sought after by leaders of organizations who were planning on implementing organizational change initiatives (Brisson-Banks 2010, p. 248) (p. 52)

The eight stage process is ‘‘…as a vision for the change process’’ (Mento et al. 2002, p .45) describing a series of steps to be taken to achieve mandated organisational changes. A wide variety of models for managing organisational change exist in the literature (Sikorko 2008, p. 307; Stewart and Kringas 2003, p .676; Buchanan 1993, p. 684; Smith 2011, p. 115; Pillay et al. 2012, p .59), and is not the place of this research to analyse Kotter’s process in relation to other models. Readers are instead referred to authors who have already done this (e.g. Brisson-Banks 2010; Stewart and Kringas 2003). However, it is worthwhile to note some ways in which the Process has been characterized: as placing a strong emphasis on leadership (Pillay et al. 2012, p .61; Raineri 2011; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12) and viewing change as top-led (Abraham et al. 2002, p. 36; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12; Day and Atkinson 2004, p. 258). Kotter’s approach has also been described as focusing on organisational culture (Casey et al. 2012, p. 112), and of being typical of private sector change models (Stewart and Kringas 2003). Disagreement also exists, with some (Pillay et al. 2012, p. 60) describing the process as centrally planned change, while By (2005) has described it as emphasising an emergent, rather than a planned, approach to change management. (p. 53)

Kotter’s eight stage process of creating a major change as detailed in Leading Change (1996) and later works can be summarised as follows:

1. Establishing a sense of urgency 2. Creating the guiding coalition 3. Develop a vision and strategy 4. Communicating the change vision

5. Empowering broad-based change 6. Generating short-term wins 7. Consolidating gains and producing more change 8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture.

The efficacy of Kotter’s process has been broadly supported in the literature (e.g. Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 160; Cegielski et al. 2006, p. 311). Despite its popularity, the process has also been criticised. It has been claimed that this, and other, change management processes describe what has to be done but provide little detail in how it should be achieved (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 297), and that it is not sufficiently detailed to guide change management in all situations (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 775). Conversely, the Process has also been criticised as not general enough for some kinds of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157), and of being overly planned, and therefore not representation of the realities of organisational life (Hay et al. 2001, p. 243). However, these criticisms need to be tempered by Sikorko (2008) observation that ‘‘…no single model can provide a one-size-fits-all solution to organisational change.’ (p. 53)

The first stage in Kotter’s eight stage process is to create a sense of urgency; an awareness of the need for the organisation to change. Kotter notes the failure to create a sense of urgency to be the single biggest error made when trying to change organisations (Kotter 2008, p. viii), and has written a whole book, A Sense of Urgency, exclusively focusing on this stage. (p. 55) “Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. With complacency high, transformations usually go nowhere because few people are even interested in working on the change problem. With urgency low, it’s difficult to put (p. 55) together a group with enough power and credibility to guide the effort (Kotter 1996, p. 36).” (p. 56)

Complacency, rather than a desire for change, has been identified as more likely to be the norm in established organisations (Kotter 2008, p. 15). Considerable effort may be required to motivate organisational personnel to invest their time and effort and to put up with the inconveniences of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157). (p. 56)

The fourth Stage in Kotter’s Process is to communicate the vision for change. However, Kotter notes that managers underestimate the amount of communication required to develop a consistent understanding, an effort which may be hampered by inconsistent messages, and lead to a stalled change implementation (1996, p. 85). Other research has observed that ‘‘…in any company there is twice as much discussion about the weather than about new strategies’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 302). Ansari and Bell (2009, p. 159) have identified the need to communicate the change as one of the two most important stages in Kotter’s process. Kotter identifies the error of ‘‘…under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000)…’’ (1996, p. 9). (p. 57)

The fifth stage in Kotter’s process involves removing obstacles to change, changing structures or systems that undermine the vision, and encouraging innovative ideas (Kotter 1996, p. 21). (p. 58)

Short-term wins help to demonstrate the viability of change and to build momentum. Kotter (1996, p. 123) identifies that short-term wins need to be visible; unambiguously successful; and clearly related to the direction of change. (p. 59)

. It has been noted that large scale change can take a long time to complete, and that this is particularly true in larger organisations (Kotter 1996, p. 132). ‘‘Whenever you let up before the job is done, critical momentum can be lost and regression may follow. Until changed practices attain a new equilibrium and have been driven into the culture, they can be very fragile’’ (Kotter 1996, p. 133). (p. 60)

Kotter’s Process has been described as ‘‘…structured linear steps’’ (Day and Atkinson 2004, p. 257), an ‘‘… ‘n’ step change…’’ process (p. 265), ‘‘…a linear progression…’’ (Nitta et al. 2009, p. 483) or ‘‘…a sequential procedure…’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 297). Indeed, Kotter (1996) identifies the ‘‘…importance of sequence…’’ (p. 23) and that ‘‘…skipping even a single step or getting too far ahead without a solid base almost always creates problems’’ (p. 23). Other writers have criticised linear approaches as they ‘‘…they lack flexibility to deal with the vast assortment of problems and issues that may be experienced during change’’ (Sikorko 2008, p. 308), and that a traditional reading of Kotter’s work does not account for how democratic organisational change can be (Reissner et al. 2011, p. 426). (p. 61)

It is clear from the number of authors that have interpreted Kotter’s work in this way, that his writing gives the impression that organisational change involves one sequence of movement through the eight Stages. However, Kotter does acknowledge that earlier stages may have to be revisited, suggesting the possibility of some break to the sequence. (p. 61)

Pollack, J & Pollack, R 2015, “Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organisational change program: presentation and practice,” Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 51-66.

Reissner, S C., Pagan, V, Smith, C 2011, “‘Our iceberg is melting’: Story, metaphor and the management of organisational change,” Culture & Organization, vol. 17, no.5, pp. 417-433.

Although models of organizational change abound, most rely on Lewin’s (1947) classic framework which posits three phases of change: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing (Osland, Kolb, Rubin & Turner, 2007). In the initial phase, unfreezing, the focus is on creating a strong need for change – in other words, convincing potential participants (in this case, faculty) that change is crucial. The second phase, moving, involves relinquishing old behaviors and creating new ones. Finally, refreezing centers on making the new behaviors habitual or institutionalizing the change. Despite the popularity and intuitive appeal of this formulation, it has been criticized for somewhat vague recommendations regarding specific actions needed to produce change. One model that may address these criticisms is Kotter’s (1996) eight-step model of organizational change, depicted in Figure 1. The steps are: 1) create a sense of urgency; 2) build a guiding team; 3) get the vision right; 4) communicate the vision for buy-in; 5) empower action; 6) create short-term wins; 7) don’t let up; and 8) make change stick. An advantage of this model is that it incorporates more specific procedural recommendations and clearly identifies the new behaviors desired. Additionally, it explicitly focuses on behavioral, cognitive, and especially affective responses to change. Thus, change agents are provided with practical guidance on issues that have been identified as crucial to the success of change efforts (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). (p. 34)

Traditionally, this first step of the model centers on articulating a compelling rationale for change and recognizing the importance of speed in implementing the change – in other words, addressing Lewin’s (1947) unfreezing process. Often inherent in this stage is identifying and discussing potential crises or major opportunities. Change agents should focus on reducing complacency by providing dramatic, vivid rationales for the need for change, ideally including evidence from credible, external sources. It is important that the external source of urgency be both credible and valid for the change targets. For example, a top-down approach of ―the Dean, the Provost, and the President are committed to re-accreditation‖ may motivate some faculty but fail to appeal to others. Thus, to be persuasive and effective, any strategies must be carefully crafted to meet the goals and needs of the faculty under consideration. (p. 36)

Successful change efforts require the backing and on-going support of powerful and influential organizational decision-makers and stakeholders (e.g., Kanter, 2003). Thus, the task in this stage is to assemble a team with enough power and influence in the organization to lead the change effort and, importantly, to encourage and persuade others to support and implement the changes. Often, this also involves identifying the appropriate incentives (both monetary and/or non-monetary) to encourage that participation. (p. 36)

Kotter’s (1996) goal in this stage is to create a vision that clearly and concisely communicates the purpose of the change effort. Kotter notes that visions must appeal to both the head and the heart. Thus, an approach that engages faculty both cognitively and affectively is the most likely approach to engender faculty buy-in. The vision is critical as it is used to guide decisions and activities that support the change effort. Typically, a first draft is created by a team composed of influential participants and decision-makers (often the guiding team for the change effort). Input from key stakeholders is then obtained and the vision revised to reflect that input. This process continues until a version that is acceptable to the participants is obtained. A large body of research shows that, when appropriately implemented, participating in decision-making tends to increase comprehension of and support for those decisions, which in turn helps smooth and speed implementation (Leana, Locke, &

Schweiger, 1990). Consequently, ensuring sufficient participation in the development of the vision is crucial. (p. 37)

After establishing an inclusive, recursive system for generating the vision so that it is driven to some degree by faculty input (as was done in the previous step), it is important to communicate the vision—and to emphasize the importance of faculty input and shared institutional values in the vision. This will help faculty see that their desires and concerns have been heard and helps them take ownership of the vision, as they now have an investment in the vision. Communication should be simple and especially should be trustworthy. It must also be ―heard‖ – in other words, communication must be both attended to and understood. Methods for accomplishing those objectives vary greatly and must be adapted to the needs, desires, and concerns of the change recipients (Kanter, 2003; Pratkanis, 2007). (p. 38)

Kotter (1996) suggests that the main job in this step is to make it easier for change action to occur, generally by removing obstacles to the change and by rewarding behaviors that support and reinforce the change. This process involves two key activities: developing reward and recognition systems that reinforce efforts and outcomes consistent with the change and, concomitantly, highlighting actions of influential participants that support the change. Research suggests these practices can be particularly effective in persuading people to support a course of action both through reinforcement via direct monetary and/or nonmonetary incentives and by providing ―social proof‖ that others are enthusiastic about the change, thus inducing some peer pressure (Cialdini, 2006). (p. 38)

This step centers on consolidating the change and continuing to move forward by not allowing complacency to set in. Indeed, change efforts often fail because participants revert back to their prior habits, failing to continue to implement the change (Kanter, 2003; Kotter, 1996). Consequently, it is especially important that change continue to be reinforced and activities directed at the change effort continue to be supported and encouraged. (p. 39)

In this stage, the goal is to institutionalize the change and anchor it in the organizational culture. Research on the long-term effectiveness of organizational change efforts paints a dismal picture of the sustainability of those efforts (Kanter, 2003). Therefore, this stage is perhaps one of the most important in the model. Accomplishing this stage requires that change become the status quo – in other words, it becomes the way ―we do things around here.‖ Accomplishing this can be particularly challenging, as culture change is extraordinarily difficult (Kant, Kutcher, Mahdavian, & Sprague, 2015; Kanter, 2003). Kotter (1996) suggests a number of methods for institutionalizing change including: demonstrating tangible performance improvements; using orientations, training, and other communication methods to instill the new behavior; aligning reward systems to support the change; and ensuring that resource allocation systems support the new behavior. A major selling point for faculty in institutionalizing the change was to avoid the ―having to start over from scratch‖ issues identified in the previous step. (p. 40)

Calegari, M F., Sibley, R E. & Turner, M E. 2015, “A roadmap for using Kotter’s organisational change model to build faculty engagement in accreditation,” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 31-43.

Businesses are constantly required to adapt to a changing environment in order to maintain their position in the market and even more so if they are to truly grow (Biedenbacha and Soumlderholma, 2008). Changes are an inevitable part of the current market. The current rate of technological advancement and growing global competition lets us foresee a continuing need for change in the future (Armenakis and Harris, 2009). Many authors argue that change never starts because it never stops (Weick and Quinn, 1999). Many organizations, in an attempt to adapt to the constant (p. 764) evolutions of their environment, are adopting cultures of a learning or agile organization. Whether or not an organization tries to constantly evolve, successfully implementing changes can be a major determinant of its short- and long-term success. Considering that “research suggests that failed organizational change initiatives range from one-third to as high as 80% of attempted change efforts” (Fisher, 1994; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hirschhorn, 2002; Knodel, 2004; Sirkin et al., 2005; Kotter, 2008; Meaney and Pung, 2008; Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010), considerable research efforts have been deployed to fill that knowledge gap and support managers in the field of change management. (p. 765)

Although Kotter’s model of change management lacks rigorous fundaments, it became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a key reference in the field of change management. In 1997, Leading Change (Kotter, 1996) became a business bestseller. It subsequently became the best-selling book ever of its kind. Hundreds of researchers refer to one or other of Kotter’s publications on change management. This book has been cited over 4,000 times in Google Scholar. The model is also presented to this day in academic textbooks such as Langton et al. (2010). The general lack of empirical fundaments to most change management theory (Todnem, 2005) probably is not alien to this success. “Theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational change management” (Todnem, 2005). The success of the theory and at the same time the lack of research and rigorous investigation are quite counterintuitive in the world of empirical research that has been the underpinning of accepted OB and OD references and classics. However, the model has several limitations that are identified impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity. (p. 765)

Step 1: establish a sense of urgency: According to Kotter (1995), successful change efforts must begin with individuals and groups evaluating a company’s “competitive situation, market position, technological trends and financial performance”. Bold or risky actions normally associated with good leadership are generally required for creating a strong sense of urgency (Kotter, 1995, p. 43). Kotter (1995) further states that leaders must find ways to communicate this information “broadly and dramatically”. He claims that the first step is essential as the start of organizational changes require aggressive cooperation of many individuals. This need for change must be understood; otherwise, the change agents will not have enough “power and credibility to initiate the required change program” (Kotter, 1997). Kotter (1996, p. 44) also recommends the use of consultants as a tactic for creating a sense of urgency and challenge the status quo. Armenakis et al. (1993) strengthen Kotter’s statement by suggesting the recruitment of sources outside the organization, as they can reinforce the change agent’s message. (p. 766)

Buchanan et al. (2005) state that “the timing, sequencing and pacing of events can also be fateful for sustainability”, thus supporting Kotter’s first step. They also claim that delayed change may not deliver benefits, whereas change that is rushed “may not allow time to adapt, and create initiative fatigue, encouraging decay”. Finally, Kobi (1996) presented a few aspects in order to support the need for urgency of change: showing the attractiveness of the change, confronting employees with clear expectations, showing that it can be done and creating a positive attitude to the change. In order for these aspects to be adequately supported, a “guiding coalition” will be created to lead the changes. In essence, Step 1 still appears to be significant in 2011 as it was in 1996. (p. 767)

Step 2: create a guiding coalition: According to Kotter (1996, p. 52), no one person is capable of single-handedly leading and managing the change process in an organization and putting together the right “guiding coalition” of people to lead a change initiative is critical to its success. This guiding coalition should be made up of people with the following characteristics (Kotter, 1996, p. 53):

position power: enough key players on board so that those left out cannot block progress; (p. 767)

expertise: all relevant points of view should be represented so that informed intelligent decisions can be made;

credibility: the group should be seen and respected by those in the firm so that the group’s pronouncements will be taken seriously by other employees; and

leadership: the group should have enough proven leaders to be able to drive the change process. (p. 768)

Lines (2007) concluded that change agents with a high amount of position power are more successful at implementing change than change agents with low amounts of position power but high expertise; however, both have positive relationships to implementation success of organizational change. Kotter’s change leading coalition requires people with position power so that the change initiatives cannot be blocked; however, Kotter does not advocate a monarchical attitude in the change leader (Kotter, 1996, p. 53). In fact, as the case study on organizational change at Honeywell Inc concludes, if the managerial attitude remains that of “command and control” and this behaviour does not change, transformation will most likely fail (Paper et al., 2001). Success of the change initiative depends on facilitative management and visible and continuous support from the top. (p. 768)

Step 3: develop a vision and strategy: The first task of the guiding coalition from Kotter’s Step 2 is to formulate a “clear and sensible vision” for the transformation effort (Kotter, 1996, p. 70). Without such a vision, the change objectives can easily dissolve into a list of confusing and incompatible projects that can take the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at all (Kotter, 1996, p. 70). (p. 769)

Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) agree and define the change vision as a key part of change process. According to Kotter (1996, pp. 68-9), an effective vision is essential in

breaking the status quo and looking beyond the immediate goals of the organization. A study at Countrywide Financial Corporation (Flamholtz and Kurland, 2006) revealed that vision and strategic planning was necessary to extend management’s thinking beyond incremental performance improvement goals and to address longer-term issues and changing competitive dynamics. (p. 769)

A clearly defined vision is easier for employees to understand and to act on, even if the first steps required are painful (Kotter, 1996, pp. 67-84). Washington and Hacker (2005) found that managers who understand the change effort are more likely to be excited about the change and less likely to think that the change effort would fail. Staniforth’s (1996) study of organizational change at AB Ltd further reinforced the need for the vision to be “clear, consistent and well articulated” so that managers can reflect on the issues at stake in a “calm, rational and thoughtful way”. A significant relationship exists between the perception of planned organizational change and the response to change along cognitive, emotional, and intentional dimensions (Szabla, 2007). The change vision should therefore be desirable, as Kotter (1996, pp. 67-84) suggests, so that it appeals to the long-term interest of employees, customers, shareholders, and others who have a stake in the enterprise. (p. 769)

Step 4: communicate the change vision: Communication is a critical element of the organizational change process as it can reduce uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004), decrease ambiguity and can even affect the type of positive or negative responses to organizational change (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Uncertainty is defined by Salem and Williams (1984), as an inability to describe, predict, or explain. Complaints of inadequate information are common in organizations (Daniels and Spiker, 1983). (p. 770)

. A study conducted by Nelissen and van Selm, (2008) served to explore the correlation between responses of survivors of an organizational restructuring and downsizing and the role of management communication. Their studies found that the most significant correlations were between employee satisfaction and management communication. It was determined that employees who are satisfied with the management communication saw more personal opportunities and had a positive state of mind on the organizational change, lending support to Kotter’s fourth step (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Furthermore, these employees felt confident in the successful enrolment of the change (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Employees who felt the survival of the company depends on the organizational change showed positive responses regarding the high quality of management communication (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). (p. 770)

Klein (1996) suggests a number of effective communication strategies based on empirical principles found in the literature in order to apply them to various stages of organizational change. These strategies, as listed, strongly support Kotter’s overall communication requirement: (p. 770)

People’s memory can be increased by diffusion and repetition of the message through several media, leading to message retention (Bachrach and Aiken, 1977; Daft and Lengel, 1984; Dansereau and Markham, 1987). This point supports Kotter’s suggestion to ensure that the change message and vision is repeatable as “ideas sink in deeply only after they have been heard many times” (Kotter, 1996, p. 90). .

Kotter maintains that “two-way communication is always more powerful than one-way communication” (Kotter, 1996, p. 90). This is confirmed by D’Aprix (p. 770) (1982) and Jablin (1979, 1982), who demonstrated that face-to-face communication taken by itself is the medium with the greatest impact. The interactive potential of face-to-face communications is in fact what works, concluded Gioia and Sims (1986). The two-way process allows involvement, irons out ambiguities, and increases the chances of the communicators connecting adequately (Klein, 1996). According to O’Connor, 1990, face-to-face communication is “the best way that feedback can be used to correct deficiencies immediately in the communication process”. O’Connor’s finding supports Kotter’s following statement: “unaddressed inconsistencies undermine the credibility of all communication”. Additionally, face-to-face communication in a group context can be key for carrying out successful change. Weick (1987) states that it allows for opportunities to be seen from different perspectives and interpretations, which can, in turn, be generated from explanations and clarifications related to variations of understanding. (p. 771)

Employees expect to hear important, officially sanctioned information from their immediate supervisor or boss, and therefore, this is the most effective source as they are also presumed to be well informed (Klein, 1996). These supervisors can subsequently keep supervisees aware of the changes (Higginson and Waxler, 1989; Smeltzer and Fann, 1989). (p. 771)

Step 5: empower broad-based action: Employees are emboldened to try new ideas and approaches, often just simply by the successful communication of the vision across the organization (Kotter, 1995). However, communication is never sufficient by itself and employees often need help in getting rid of obstacles to the change vision (Kotter, 1995). Typically, empowering employees involves addressing four major obstacles: structures, skills, systems, and supervisors (Kotter, 1996, p. 102). An analysis of empowerment in frontline employees at 16 luxury hotels in seven European countries revealed that structure, supervisor attitudes, and training all play a role in employee empowerment (Klidas et al., 2007). (p. 771)

Kotter (1996, pp. 107-9) stresses the pivotal role of training in the empowerment process and he has broad empirical support for this assertion. Denton (1994) has described how Ford and its union, the United Auto Workers, jointly created an effective training programme that emphasized changing Ford’s corporate culture. He suggested that training was successful because it helped build a sense of responsibility and empowerment in the employees (Denton, 1994). Likewise, a study on the influences of communication and training on third-party logistics providers found communication, training, and coaching to be the mechanisms through which companies develop empowered employees (Ellinger et al., 2010). Similar results have also been reported by Kappelman and Richards (1996). (p. 772)

There is wide support for employee empowerment in change literature. A case study on organizational change at Honeywell Inc found that creating team ownership and a bottom-up or empowered employee base is important to help an organization transform successfully (Paper et al., 2001). Similarly, results from research at a large telecommunication company have provided support for a positive relationship between participation and the successful implementation of strategic change (Lines, 2007). In his PhD dissertation on understanding the approach of bringing the Toyota Production System’s lean concepts to a traditional operational model, Pinheiro (2010) concluded that “organizational

change cannot occur without a paradigm shift in the culture of the organization and the empowerment of workers at the functional frontline level”. Often, however, even giving employees a small empowering opportunity can have a profound effect on employee attitudes as this can provide them with some sense of control over the change process and help move the change effort along (Kappelman et al., 1993). In essence, Step 5 still appears to be significant in 2011 as it was in 1996. (p. 772)

Step 8: anchor new approaches in the corporate culture Kotter (1995) believes that new behaviours are subject to degradation if they are not rooted in social norms and shared values once the pressure for change is alleviated. He cites two factors that are critical to the institutionalization of change in corporate culture: (1) showing employees “how the new approaches, behaviours and attitudes have helped improve performance” (Kotter, 1996, p. 67); and (2) ensuring that “the next generation of management personifies the new approach” (Kotter, 1996, p. 67). (p. 774)

According to Massey and Williams (2006) a support structure for change agents is required in order for change to be sustained. This structure should offer mentoring, training, and shadowing opportunities. Different forms of communication and recognition of change initiatives should be used: newsletters, seminars, informal meetings, web sites, conferences/seminars, and visual display/storyboards of projects and progress (Massey and Williams, 2006). Buchanan et al. (2005) mention that institutionalization processes include training to establish competence and commitment, meeting reward expectations, the further spread of new ideas and monitoring, and control processes. These steps and aforementioned studies allow the solidification of the change in the corporate culture of a company, lending support to Kotter’s final step. Therefore, Step 8 still appears to be significant in 2011 as it was in 1996. The eight-step model has significant contributions to organizational behaviour and development but there are issues that impact upon its universal acceptance that will be covered next. (p. 775)

Kotter argues that the eight steps should be followed in sequence and that extended overlapping of the steps will compromise success, implying that steps are requisite of one another. Therefore, not implementing the first step will make it difficult or impossible to implement the subsequent steps. Burnes (1996) argues that such a prescriptive approach does not correlate well with studies that suggest that organizations prefer to use approaches to change that stems from their culture and thus cannot easily be amended or replaced (Cummings and Huse, 1989; Schein, 1985; Burnes and James, 1995). “Indeed, this may well give a clue as to why so many change projects are said to fail owing to the apparent inability of managers to follow the prescriptions for successful change laid down in the literature (Schein, 1985; Juran, 1988; Kearney, 1989; Kotter, 1995; Zairi et al., 1994)” (Burnes, 1996). A plausible explanation is that, where such prescriptions run counter to the organization’s culture, they will be either ignored or be ineffective (Burnes, 1996).(p. 775)

Companies implementing changes face many difficulties. Planning changes according to Kotter’s framework should limit those obstacles, but the model is not detailed enough to provide help in all scenarios. For example, resistance to change and commitment to change are major aspects of change management and complementary (p 775) components outside Kotter’s model, such Stephen Jaros’s (2010) predictors to determine commitment to change, might be needed to address these. (p. 776)

Studying major change management projects is inherently difficult, due to their sheer complexity. This is probably why we found only a few case studies that tried to formally document a change process using Kotter’s model. Major obstacles to those studies included: (p. 776)

The difficulties of implementing all of the eight steps (Sidorko, 2008; Penrod and Harbor, 1998).

The need for a long follow-up of the change project, to cover all the steps. Changes usually require many years to take form, making the study time consuming. Validation of Steps 7 and 8 are therefore more complicated to evaluate (Penrod and Harbor, 1998; Betters-reed et al., 2008).

Difficulties encountered in evaluating the level of implementation of the steps, and the challenge of corroborating implementation level with implementation success level (Sidorko, 2008; Penrod and Harbor, 1998; Dianis et al., 1997). (p. 776)

Appelbaum, S H., Habashy, S, Malo, J & Shafiq, H 2012, “Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model,” Journal of Management Development, vol. 31, no. 8, p764-782.

Managers would also benefit from the review of broad-scale organization approaches, rather than primarily focusing on process models at the individual level, where the emphasis is on employee reaction rather than practical execution of specific steps. One comprehensive implementation model, developed by John Kotter, offers clear guidance for large-scale change management efforts. While the Kotter framework is more closely related to organizational behavior, in that it targets macro-level organizational theory, it is also appropriate as an organizational development tool, providing a three-dimensional linkage between individuals, groups, and the organization. (p. 31)

A significant number of transformation models have been introduced and analyzed within the field of organizational development. In corporations, however, three change models are most commonly reviewed in leadership development programs. Two, by William Bridges and Edgar Schein, are process models that can be applied at an organizational level, but are typically discussed at the individual or team level. The third, by Kotter, is more appropriately classified as a change implementation model. Certain elements are common in all three approaches. (p. 31)

Kotter identifies specific conditions essential for successful transformations. It is important to review the salient factors he identified, as the other later research results expand and inform Kotter’s analysis. For example, in stage 1, “Create urgency,” at least “75% of managers must believe the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown” (Kotter, 2007, p. 4). This observation links back to Schein’s process theory: “there must be sufficient disconfirming data to create discomfort/ imbalance” (2004, p. 320). Managers must also be positive, visible role models, offering proactive explanations to illustrate the connection between new approaches and improved organizational performance (stages 2 and 4)

(Kotter, 2007). Attention should be paid to providing employees (p. 33) more latitude in their job tasks, encouraging risk-taking and innovative thinking (Kotter). The reward and performance appraisal systems must be realigned to directly support the vision and actions associated with the changes (stages 6 and 7) (Kotter). (p. 35)

In analyzing Kotter’s model from an organizational practitioner’s perspective, the stages and action steps are clear, but broad. A business seeking to implement a strategic change initiative based on this original information could become frustrated with the gaps in explanation; the model is designed to provide a framework and starting points, rather than offer a step-by-step action plan. A meaningful consultation would need to incorporate further research and guidance based on those findings. To begin developing an updated and synthesized construct, it is beneficial to select studies offering cross-functional perspectives. Accordingly, the research review included two articles by corporate organizational development practitioners, three articles examining change management from the employee (follower) perspective, including one theoretical model, another two studies from the leader perspective, and finally, the presentation of a general theoretical model. (p. 35)

While the linking of enhanced action steps with Kotter’s stages offers practical value in change management implementation design (as reviewed in Table 2), it can be difficult to gain perspective on over-arching themes represented in the literature. In relation to the organizational development professional’s role, while the change process may move through progressive stages, the actual action steps must be managed in groups, with subprocesses addressed simultaneously. For example, leadership skills, behaviors, and actions are important in stage 1, but equally significant in the other seven stages. An organizational development professional would recommend projects that address leadership characteristics across all stages, developing training or coaching interventions that (a) improve language choice (Brower, 2007), (b) bring awareness to employee antecedents impacting receptiveness to change (Van Dam et al., 2008), and (c) provide practical action steps for communicating expected change results and measurements from the beginning (Cowley, 2007). Essential enhancements to the Kotter framework, as drawn from the research review, will thus be discussed through the lens of stakeholder groups. The three identified stakeholders are leadership (senior, middle, and front-line managers); employees (followers); and the organization (system). (p. 35)

An important insight for leadership (see Figure 1, next page, for summary) is the acknowledgment managers have the most impact in generating change management success. From communicating the vision, modeling new behaviors, and signaling support for change, to rewarding employees for innovation and improvisation, to building employee engagement—managers carry the keys to unlock the benefits of transformational change. Organizational development professionals should devote considerable energy to the design of corporate-wide development tools and measures that proactively develop core change management competencies. (p. 35)

These skill sets and behaviours include:

1. Communicating specifics regarding expected change process results, including how performance will be measured, what resources will be committed, and projected employee changes (Cowley, 2007). (p. 35)

2. Using “building up” and “breaking down” language (Brower et al., 2007, p. 69) to generate understanding and commitment, where establishing understanding is the fi rst priority. Breaking down language means negating information no longer relevant or functional, then promoting disengagement from outdated commitments (Brower et al.). Building up language includes emphasizing information directly relevant to the new vision, then “affi rm[ing] the [company’s] mission and inspir[ing] commitment to it” (2007, p. 69). (p. 36)

3. 3. Developing high-quality “leadermember exchange relationships” (Van Dam et al., 2008, p. 315) to increase employee receptivity to change. High quality relationships exist when the leader communicates relevant information frequently, follows through on actions to build trust, and empowers employees to participate in decisions, especially those relating to the change process (Van dam et al.). (p. 36)

4. Supporting innovation and improvisation. Improvisation can lead to positive results, where team responses are faster, processes are improved experientially during the change process, and employees feel empowered in the change implementation (Leybourne, 2006). Managers must signal support for creative approaches and sanction activities that do not necessarily fall within normal formal channels and processes (Leybourne). (p. 36)

The proposed action steps for employees substantively mirror the action steps for leadership. Many of the leader recommendations were based on the evaluation of motivating followers. Charismatic leaders affect organizational outcomes through envisioning, empathy, and empowerment (Choi, 2006). They meet followers’ needs for achievement, affi liation, and referential power through such actions as demonstrating innovative strategies to reach goals, setting high standards for employee and organizational performance, establishing trust and emotional bonds, and modelling behaviours others wish to imitate (Choi). Cowley’s research at Eli Lilly supports Choi’s components, indicating employees (p. 36) look to senior management for signals the change process is accepted. These signals include visible support for the initiative, action in coordination with a senior management coalition, and the use of informal and formal organization channels to initiate the allocation of resources for the change initiative (Cowley, 2007). When employees register these signals, they will commit to the process and take accountability (assuming the envisioning, empathy, and empowerment activities have been successful). (p. 37)

These recommendations are all linked to employee engagement. Employee engagement is the level of employee commitment to the work and to the organization, which is linked to motivation, satisfaction, and direction of energy. One specific employee engagement model, Gallup Q12, identifies twelve elements, or questions, that identify and measure levels of employee engagement (actively engaged, somewhat engaged, actively disengaged) (Asplund, 2007). Organizations pursuing change implementation success can take action to increase organizational levels of employee engagement, using the Gallup Q12 action process or another design. Many of the factors identified in Kotter’s model and through the research review, collectively viewed as antecedents to effective change management for leadership and employees, can be positively influenced through proactive employee engagement design and implementation. (p. 37)

The organizational development professional, in examining the action steps related to Leadership and Employee stakeholder groups, can build a comprehensive list of targets for organizational development; these goals, if successfully achieved, set up the company for success in many change implementation processes, not simply for a specific strategic change initiative. This point is significant when considering the current business environment, where change processes are occurring continuously and simultaneously. (p. 37)

The systemic intervention goals on the organizational development professional’s agenda might include: (1) Employee engagement program with corresponding management action planning; (2) Re-tooled reward and recognition programs matching change management priorities, expected goals, and associated measures: and (3) Management training and coaching targeting communication messages, communication language, high-quality leadermember exchange relationships, job design and worker autonomy, appropriate application of new reward/recognition systems, and team activities designed to promote innovation and improvisation. (p. 37)

It is important for organizations to recognize that managers across the organization are at different levels of development. Successful change management, particularly in continuous changing organizations, hinges on systemic improvements in management and leadership execution. Since some change initiatives are taking place at business unit or departmental levels, it is difficult to target management skills and behavior on a “case by case” basis—this strategy is inefficient and generally ineffective. Concerted management development programs, focused on key change implementation skill sets, will help ensure that change efforts are successful and organizational performance in projects unrelated to change will also be enhanced. (p. 37)

Dynamic business conditions lead to rapid corporate change on several levels. Typically, organizations have trained managers in change process models rather than change implementation frameworks. Given the track record for failed change interventions, there is an opportunity for organizational development professionals to provide effective guidance through the application of a comprehensive change implementation model, Kotter’s eightstage process. Recent research supports Kotter’s design and provides insights into more detailed action steps that can ensure appropriate and relevant application of the outlined process. Organizational development professionals can use this information to design concurrent development interventions for leadership, employee, and organization (system) stakeholders. A proactive approach to change management can potentially improve implementation and increase the percentage of successful change initiatives—saving organizations money, sustaining employee engagement and retention, and ensuring business competitive advantage. (p. 37)

Stragalas, N 2010, “Improving change implementation,” OD Practitioner, vol. 42, no.1, p31-38.

Authors like Kalimo, Taris and Schaufeli (2003), Rafferty and Griffin (2006) and Maes and Van Hootegem (2011) state that interventions to organizational change are part of a context that

brings some dimensions and attributes which can be considered in phenomenon description. Maes and Van Hootegem (2011) listed eight attributes that dynamically describe organizational change: Control - refers to the emerging or planned change; Scope - the continuum from adaptation to transformation; Frequency - the amount of organizational change that is happening; Progress - the number of stages to implement change; Time – the time to implement change; Speed - the rhythm of actions; Goals - the stated end intended by the changes; Leadership style - the leadership style and decision-making is particularly defined by the degree of employee participation and may vary according to cooperation and participation levels. (p. 326)

he great landmarks of the international literature conceive of learning as a process that generates new individual behaviors and changes at the organizational level (Santa & Nurcan, 2015). However the relationship between learning and organizational change still requires some investigation, especially regarding the relationship between the levels of these phenomena. (p. 326)

This study starts from the premise that the context of organizational change can generate learning that is expressed by work competences. Work competences express the behavioral changes necessary for organizational changes to occur. Individual engagement in a learning action takes place when the need arises for acquiring knowledge and skills to fill existing gaps or deficits in competences and, also, to enrich existing repertoire (Ausubel, 2003). The organizational change process provides the background required to develop such competences in the working environment (Abbad & BorgesAndrade, 2014; Santa & Nurcan, 2015). (p. 326)

Brandão, Borges-Andrade and Guimarães (2012) and Moraes and Borges-Andrade (2010) emphasize that the manifestations of competence through proper behaviors in work are conditioned by the learning context where these were developed, while Pandey and Guha (2014) show that the learning process in changing contexts is anchored in informal on-the-job learning, and change management takes place through strategies to foster the required competences. Rafferty and Griffin (2006), in turn, highlight the need for studies to systematically identify changing aspects important to individuals that also influence their behaviors. (p. 326)

To perform systematic analysis of organizational change, some authors emphasize the need for specifying the characteristics of organizational change context, and evaluating the results (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015; Maes & Van Hootegem, 2011; Neiva & Paz, 2012; Nery & Neiva, 2015). Organizational change can be considered in a specific context where transformation takes place in the organization within a broader institutional context (Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993). Maes and Van Hootegem (2011) listed eight attributes that dynamically describe organizational change: Control - refers to the emerging or planned change; Scope - the continuum from adaptation to transformation; Frequency - the amount of organizational change that is happening; Progress - the number of stages to implement change; Time – the time to implement change; Speed - the rhythm of actions; Goals - the stated end intended by the changes, Leadership style - the leadership style and decision-making is particularly defined by the degree of employee participation and may vary according to cooperation and participation levels. (p. 327)

Moreover, literature in this field has attempted to track this context based on the core features that could characterize it. Some studies (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015; Maes & Van Hootegem, 2011; Neiva & Paz, 2012; Nery & Neiva, 2015), like that by Rafferty and Griffin (2006), have identified four different traits of change: frequency, scope, planning of change, and degree of psychological uncertainty. (p. 327)

Another factor typical to change processes explored by researchers concerns previous experiences with change processes and future perspectives with new change processes (Cunningham, 2006; Devos, Buelens, & Bouckencooghe, 2007; Kalimo et al., 2003; Nery & Neiva, 2015). Cunningham (2006) relates the intensity of changes and previous experiences with employee commitment during interventions for change. Devos, Buelens and Bouckencooghe (2007), in turn, have associated the degree of risk of change context with individuals’ openness to accept change processes and show the intended behaviors, while Kalimo et al. (2003) have associated the frequency of occurrence of interventions for change and the perspectives of future interventions with the perception of fairness in organizations and individuals’ well-being. (p. 327)

Moreover, Self, Armenakis and Schraeder (2007) believe that factors such as the degree of risk of changes, degree of impact generated by changes on employees and the intensity of communication affect employees’ affective reactions to the interventions for changes, while Gravenhorst, Werkman and Boonstra (2003) emphasize the importance of the support perceived during the change process. (p. 327)

Still focusing on aspects that influence the context of organizational change, Nery and Neiva (2015) identified two sets of core characteristics that have repercussions on employees’ behaviors: planning and readiness to changes to be made and degree of risk and intensity of changes experienced by individuals. However, context and process change characteristics have not been linked to the learning (p. 327) process and how that context generates new behaviors desired by organizational change still remains unexplained (Nery & Neiva, 2015). (p. 328)

Beviláqua-Chaves (2007) identified that organizational contexts of change with different characteristics are associated with different learning strategies in the work environment. According to the author, episodic changes generate more reflexive learning strategies, while continued changes enable behavioral strategies that seek interpersonal help. (p. 328)

Learning is the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol & Lyles, 1985), and despite an amount of research on the main learning topics such as learning support, informal learning at work and individual attributes that promote learning, several important gaps remain in the understanding of why some people go through the learning process faster than others and in understanding how learning experiences promote organization change. In trying to understand how learning fosters organizational change, several authors have created concepts such as organizational learning and learning organizations whose definitions include the metaphorical use of this concept. (p. 328)

Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) affirm that change implementation necessarily demands encouraging individuals to adopt new behaviors to allow the accomplishment of the intended changes. In this focus, the phenomenon is related to learning in the working

environment because, according to Abbad and Borges-Andrade (2014) and the cognitive and behavioral approaches, learning has to do with changes occurring in individuals’ behaviors (repertoire of knowledge, skills and attitudes) due to their interactions with other persons and the external environment. In the light of cognitive approaches, these changes involve individual processes of purchase (attention, perception, and codification), retention or memorization, generalization and learning transfer (Abbad & Borges-Andrade, 2014).(p. 328)

This cognitive research tradition has been developing apart from many other tendencies, such as organization learning, learning organizations, change management, etc. These concepts have been largely criticized for lack of conceptual clarity and operational imprecision (Santa & Nurcan, 2015). In a learning organization, learning takes place at the individual, team and organizational levels (Karp, 2006). These three levels work together and influence one another (Kofman & Senge, 1993). Organizational learning in turn refers to the idea that the organization entity learns as a whole (Karp, 2006). However, according to these tendencies, there is an individual actor bias in the literature, and theories still emphasize the role of individuals as active agents (Huysman, 1999). This might be the result of seeing the individual as the primary learning entity in the organization (Dodgson, 1993). On the other hand, although individual learning is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for organizational learning (Gould, 2000). The latter is a collective process (James, 2003; Watkins & Marsick, 1993) and groups or teams are the main bridge through which this process is carried out. Teams are the place where the rubber meets the road; if teams cannot learn, the organization cannot learn (Senge, 1990). The literature also does not both foster the relationship between the levels and support it with empirical data (Santa & Nurcan, 2015). (p. 328)

That prior theoretical trend that supports learning as an individual phenomenon has shown significant empirical support for its inferences and concepts. According to Abbad and Borges-Andrade (2014) several factors affect the organizational learning process. Some factors are related to organizational functioning, the working environment and tasks performed by individuals. These can determine if a learning action is successful or not. Here, factors inserted in the work context should support learning actions (Coelho & Borges-Andrade, 2008). (p. 328)

Learning support actions happen at the group or team level and are promoted by leaders according to Coelho and Borges-Andrade (2008). The lessons learned, influenced by an organizational context and by the characteristics of relationships among employee groups, generate results for individuals, groups and organizations. Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache and Alexander (2010) have proposed that leadership fosters the competences learned during organization change processes through learning support provided to employees. The organizational context can support effective changes (Gravenhorst, Werkman, & Boonstra, 2003) and also generate support for the learning of behaviors demanded by interventions (Coelho & BorgesAndrade, 2011). The support to informal learning on the job has been understood as the individual’s analysis of the psychosocial support they perceive when performing informal learning actions on the job (Coelho & Borges-Andrade, 2011). According to Gubbins and MacCurtain (2008), in turn, support to learning bears the purpose of showing individuals standards of social participation in the organizational context, determining the kinds of behavior required during social interactions related to the performance of their everyday work and expected performance. Freitas and Brandão (2006)

suggest that learning is the process whereby individuals acquire competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes). (p. 329)

Neiva, E R, Odelius, C C, Ramos, L D 2015, “The organisational change process: its influence on competences learned on the job,” BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 324-347.