Process for change - scl 5 SMART Leadership Consulting By: Daryl Horney

1. ©
SMART Leadership Consulting
a SMART way of doing business
May 28, 2014
Daryl Horney
SMART Leadership Consulting
Use Van de Van and Poole (1995) to separate the content,
context, and process of your change. What problems did
you encounter when attempting to do this?
Creating my process for change was the simplest of matters. However, I did
have issues formalizing the context. I presumed the context describes the
setting or environment in which the changes will be made and I presumed the
content is the change itself.
Upon further reading of Van de Van and Poole (1995), I have rethought my
approach to the process I will undertake. At first, I felt that I had to choose
one of the four basic theories. I was leaning towards the teleological theory as
it best represented my actions of strategic planning and vision, but the fact
that as the motor of change I am limited and bound by environmental
constraints. The constraints in the environment are the issues of insecurity in
the amount of work available. If the workload drops, then I will have to
return and make additional changes. However, if I follow the life-cycle theory
it can offer a more secure process by assuming the change I implement will
come to an end therefore multiple plans will have to be developed to deal
with this issue. I can make 3 or 4 variations of changes that could be
implemented to the, what if scenario’s. For example, what if incoming work
availability drops below the 80% threshold? Then, implement plan A. What if
incoming work availability drops below the 60% threshold? Then, implement
plan B and so forth.
Dooley (1995) pointedly admits, “the selection process in the evolutionary
model can be used to account for termination in the life cycle; the

2. implementation step in the teleological cycle can trigger the start-up event in
the life cycle and the antithesis in the dialectic.” With this in mind, I can be the
motor in the life cycle design of the change.
Which conceptualization of change is most relevant to your situation (Van
de Ven and Poole (1995), Weick and Quinn (1999), or Gioia and Chittipeddi
(1991) )? Why is this conceptualization ideal?
The conceptualization of change from Weick and Quinn (1999) best suits my
situation. I have been asked as a consultant to reshape, redefine, and
restructure a market research company’s marketplaces in order to get
maximum output with lower costs and the better quality. The consultancy
model best represents episodic change. As Weick and Quinn, state episodic
change is “relevant when it is necessary to create change.” One of the five
assumptions (Marchak, 1993 cited in Weick and Quinn 1999) is the
separateness assumption. The separateness assumption is understood by
providing an outside influence. Consultant change agents accomplish this
outside influence in organizations.
Revisit the rich picture of your organization that you created in module 1
and use the information provided to select a model of change from the
above articles that you can use as a baseline to create a tentative
diagram/map of your planned change process.
As I mentioned above I will use the life cycle and the teleological process to
represent my planned changes. Below is a diagram I am using to map my
process of change. I am at the center directing the changes.
Project
Manager
(Me)
Implement
Observe
Configure
and Adjust
Record
Outcome
and
Sustain

3. Use Caldwell (2003) to figure out which form of agency you have in this
change. How does this impact the approach that you will take towards the
change?
The form of agency that I have chosen is the consultant model. As Caldwell
(2003) mentions the job of the consultant as a change agent is to provide
expertise and solutions. By providing these tools, the consultant takes on the
role of project manager. My role is to not only offer my expertise and provide
solutions, but to make sure that my recommendations are implemented and
carried out to the decree in which they were created. I have to make sure
managers are receiving their training, change is enacted simultaneously in 22
markets and I have to be there in case of any fallout.
My role is very laborious and complex. I have to be fully dedicated to my role
and responsibilities and ready to make changes in the road map. As I was the
former director of the company and I began my career there as a manger I
would often put myself in a managers shoes, so to speak while making
decisions that would impact an employees career. However, I will not use the
same approach. I have decided to remain unbiased in my recommendations
and only provide what has been requested. I chose to do this, as I believe the
outcome of my recommendations would favor the supervisors and managers
and not the company as a whole.
Use Dooley (1997) to relate the organizational change to complex adaptive
systems. As a complex adaptive system, how can you influence the
organizational outcome of the change?
Dooley (1997) describes system theory as a mechanism that can help an
organization attain its goals. He further illustrates that an outside force is able
to impact an organization. In my view, as a consultant I am the outside
influencer that will have an impact on the organization through my planned
changes.
Dooley also recognizes that contingency theory an organization is shaped
from its surrounding environment. The market research company that I am
representing is also influenced and shaped by it surrounding environment.
The primary reason I am involved is because of the fluctuation of incoming
work. The company is reliant on their clients and if their clients do not have
enough work for the company then the company has to change its structure
in order to adapt.

4. Reference
Caldwell, R. (2003) ‘Models of change agency: A fourfold classification’, British Journal of
Management, 14 (2), pp.131–142. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=British+Journal+of+M
anagement&volume=14&issue=2&spage=131&date=2003
Dooley K.J. (1997) ‘A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change’, Nonlinear
Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Science, 1 (1), pp.69–97. Available
from:http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&AN=0
582857&site=eds-live
Van de Ven, A.H. & M.S. Poole (1995) ‘Explaining development and change in
organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), pp.510–540. Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Academy+of+Management+
Review&volume=20&issue=3&spage=510&date=1995
Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999) ‘Organizational change and development’, Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, pp.361–386. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Annual+Review+of+P
sychology&volume=50&issue=&spage=361&date=1999