Change Management 101 - A Primer
 By Fred Nickols

Purpose and Audience
The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad overview of the concept of “change management.” It was written primarily for people who are coming to grips with change management problems for the first time and for more experienced people who wish to reflect upon their experience in a structured way.

Three Basic Definitions
In thinking about what is meant by “change management,” at least three basic definitions come to mind:

1. The task of managing change
2. An area of professional practice
3. A body of knowledge

The Task of Managing Change
The first and most obvious definition of “change management” is that the term refers to the task of managing change. The obvious is not necessarily unambiguous. Managing change is itself a term that has at least two meanings.

One meaning of managing change refers to the making of changes in a planned and managed or systematic fashion. The aim is to more effectively implement new methods and systems in an ongoing organization. The changes to be managed lie within and are controlled by the organization. However, these internal changes might have been triggered by events originating outside the organization, in what is usually termed “the environment.” Hence, the second meaning of managing change, namely, the response to changes over which the organization exercises little or no control (e.g., legislation, social and political upheaval, the actions of competitors, shifting economic tides and currents, and so on). Researchers and practitioners alike typically distinguish between a knee-jerk or reactive response and an anticipative or proactive response.

An Area of Professional Practice
The second definition of change management is "an area of professional practice."

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of independent consultants who will quickly and proudly acknowledge that they are engaged in planned change, that they are change agents, that they manage change for their clients, and that their practices are change management practices. There are numerous small consulting firms whose principals would acknowledge these same statements about their firms. And most of the major management consulting firms claim to have a change management practice area.

Some of these change management experts claim to help clients manage the changes they face, the changes happening to them. Others claim to help clients make changes. Still others offer to help by taking on the task of managing changes that must be made. In almost all cases, the process of change is treated separately from the specifics of the situation. It is the task of managing this general process of change that is laid claim to by professional change agents.

A Body of Knowledge
Stemming from the view of change management as an area of professional practice there arises yet a third definition of change management: the content or subject matter of change management. This consists chiefly of the models, methods and techniques, tools, skills, and other forms of knowledge that go into making up any practice.

The content or subject matter of change management is drawn from psychology, sociology, business administration, economics, industrial engineering, systems engineering, and the study of human and organizational behaviour. For many practitioners, these component bodies of knowledge are linked and integrated by a set of concepts and principles known as General Systems Theory (GST). It is not clear whether this area of professional practice should be termed a profession, a discipline, an art, a set of techniques, or a technology. For now, suffice it to say that there is a large, reasonably cohesive albeit somewhat eclectic body of knowledge underlying the practice and on which most practitioners would agree — even if their application of it does exhibit a high degree of variance.

To recapitulate, there are at least three basic definitions of change management:

The Change Process as Problem Solving and Problem Finding
A very useful framework for thinking about the change process is problem solving. Managing change is seen as a matter of moving from one state to another, specifically, from the problem state to the solved state. Diagnosis or problem analysis is generally acknowledged as essential. Goals are set and achieved at various levels and in various areas or functions. Ends and means are discussed and related to one another. Careful planning is accompanied by efforts to obtain buy-in, support, and commitment. The net effect is a transition from one state to another, in a planned, orderly fashion. This is the planned change model.

The word “problem” carries with it connotations that some people prefer to avoid. They choose instead to use the word “opportunity.” For such people, a problem is seen as a bad situation, one that shouldn't’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, and for which someone is likely to be punished — if the guilty party (or a suitable scapegoat) can be identified. For the purposes of this paper, we will set aside any cultural or personal preferences regarding the use of “problem” or “opportunity.” From a rational, analytical perspective, a problem is nothing more than a situation requiring action but in which the required action is not known. Hence, there is a requirement to search for a solution, a course of action that will lead to the solved state. This search activity is known as “problem solving.”

From the preceding, it follows that “problem finding” is the search for situations requiring action. Whether we choose to call these situations “problems” (because they are troublesome or spell bad news), or whether we choose to call them “opportunities” (either for reasons of political sensitivity or because the time is ripe to exploit a situation) is immaterial. In both cases, the practical matter is one of identifying and settling on a course of action that will bring about some desired and predetermined change in the situation.

The Change Problem
At the heart of change management lies the change problem, that is, some future state to be realized, some current state to be left behind, and some structured, organized process for getting from the one to the other. The change problem might be large or small in scope and scale, and it might focus on individuals or groups, on one or more divisions or departments, the entire organization, or one or on more aspects of the organization’s environment.

At a conceptual level, the change problem is a matter of moving from one state (A) to another state (A’). Moving from A to A’ is typically accomplished as a result of setting up and achieving three types of goals: transform, reduce, and apply. Transform goals are concerned with identifying differences between the two states. Reduce goals are concerned with determining ways of eliminating these differences. Apply goals are concerned with putting into play operators that actually effect the elimination of these differences (see Newell & Simon).

As the preceding goal types suggest, the analysis of a change problem will at various times focus on defining the outcomes of the change effort, on identifying the changes necessary to produce these outcomes, and on finding and implementing ways and means of making the required changes. In simpler terms, the change problem can be treated as smaller problems having to do with the how, what, and why of change.

Change as a “How” Problem
The change problem is often expressed, at least initially, in the form of a “how” question. How do we get people to be more open, to assume more responsibility, to be more creative? How do we introduce self-managed teams in Department W? How do we change over from System X to System Y in Division Z? How do we move from a mainframe-centred computing environment to one that accommodates and integrates PCs? How do we get this organization to be more innovative, competitive, or productive? How do we raise more effective barriers to market entry by our competitors? How might we more tightly bind our suppliers to us? How do we reduce cycle times? In short, the initial formulation of a change problem is means-centred, with the goal state more or less implied. There is a reason why the initial statement of a problem is so often means-centred and we will touch on it later. For now, let’s examine the other two ways in which the problem might be formulated — as “what” or as “why” questions.

Change as a “What” Problem
As was pointed out in the preceding section, to frame the change effort in the form of “how” questions is to focus the effort on means. Diagnosis is assumed or not performed at all. Consequently, the ends sought are not discussed. This might or might not be problematic. To focus on ends requires the posing of “what” questions. What are we trying to accomplish? What changes are necessary? What indicators will signal success? What standards apply? What measures of performance are we trying to affect?

Change as a “Why” Problem
Ends and means are relative notions, not absolutes; that is, something is an end or a means only in relation to something else. Thus, chains and networks of ends-means relationships often have to be traced out before one finds the “true” ends of a change effort. In this regard, “why” questions prove extremely useful. Consider the following hypothetical dialogue with yourself as an illustration of tracing out ends-means relationships.

To ask “why” questions is to get at the ultimate purposes of functions and to open the door to finding new and better ways of performing them. Why do we do what we do? Why do we do it the way we do it? Asking “why” questions also gets at the ultimate purposes of people, but that’s a different matter altogether, a “political” matter, and one we’ll not go into in this paper.

The Approach to Change Management Mirrors Management's Mindset
The emphasis placed on the three types of questions just mentioned reflects the management mindset, that is, the tendency to think along certain lines depending on where one is situated in the organization. A person’s placement in the organization typically defines the scope and scale of the kinds of changes with which he or she will become involved, and the nature of the changes with which he or she will be concerned. Thus, the systems people tend to be concerned with technology and technological developments, the marketing people with customer needs and competitive activity, the legal people with legislative and other regulatory actions, and so on. Also, the higher up a person is in the hierarchy, the longer the time perspective and the wider-ranging the issues with which he or she must be concerned.

For the most part, changes and the change problems they present are problems of adaptation, that is, they require of the organization only that it adjust to an ever-changing set of circumstances. But, either as a result of continued, cumulative compounding of adaptive manoeuvres that were nothing more than band-aids, or as the result of sudden changes so significant as to call for a redefinition of the organization, there are times when the changes that must be made are deep and far-reaching. At such times, the design of the organization itself is called into question.

Organizations frequently survive the people who establish them. AT&T and IBM are two ready examples. At some point it becomes the case that such organizations have been designed by one group of people but are being operated or run by another. (It has been said of the United States Navy, for instance, that “It was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots.”) Successful organizations resolve early on the issue of structure, that is, the definition, placement and coordination of functions and people. Other people then have to live with this design and these other people are chiefly concerned with means.

Some organizations are designed to buffer their core operations from turbulence in the environment. In such organizations all units fit into one of three categories: core, buffer, and perimeter. In core units (e.g., systems and operations), coordination is achieved through standardization, that is, adherence to routine. In buffer units (e.g., upper management and staff or support functions), coordination is achieved through planning. In perimeter units (e.g., sales, marketing, and customer service), coordination is achieved through mutual adjustment (see Thompson). People in core units, buffered as they are from environmental turbulence and with a history of relying on adherence to standardized procedures, typically focus on “how” questions. People in buffer units, responsible for performance through planning, often ask “what” questions. People in the perimeter units are as accountable for performance as anyone else and frequently for performance of a financial nature. They can be heard asking “what” and “how” questions. “Why” questions are generally asked by people with no direct responsibility for day-to-day operations or results. The group most able to take this long-term or strategic view is that cadre of senior executives responsible for the continued well-being of the firm: top management. If the design of the firm is to be called into question or, more significantly, if it is actually to be altered, these are the people who must make the decision to do so.

Finally, when organizational redefinition and redesign prove necessary, all people in all units must concern themselves with all three sets of questions or the changes made will not stand the test of time.

To summarize: Problems may be formulated in terms of “how,” “what” and “why” questions. · Which formulation is used depends on where in the organization the person posing the question or formulating the problem is situated, and where the organization is situated in its own life cycle.

Content and Process
Organizations are highly specialized systems and there are many different schemes for grouping and classifying them. Some are said to be in the retail business, others are in manufacturing, and still others confine their activities to distribution. Some are profit-oriented and some are not for profit. Some are in the public sector and some are in the private sector. Some are members of the financial services industry, which encompasses banking, insurance, and brokerage houses. Others belong to the automobile industry, where they can be classified as original equipment manufacturers (OEM) or after-market providers. Some belong to the health care industry, as providers, as insureds, or as insurers. Many are regulated, some are not. Some face stiff competition, some do not. Some are foreign-owned and some are foreign-based. Some are corporations, some are partnerships, and some are sole proprietorships. Some are publicly held and some are privately held. Some have been around a long time and some are newcomers. Some have been built up over the years while others have been pieced together through mergers and acquisitions. No two are exactly alike.

The preceding paragraph points out that the problems found in organizations, especially the change problems, have both a content and a process dimension. It is one thing, for instance, to introduce a new claims processing system in a functionally organized health insurer. It is quite another to introduce a similar system in a health insurer that is organized along product lines and market segments. It is yet a different thing altogether to introduce a system of equal size and significance in an educational establishment that relies on a matrix structure. The languages spoken differ. The values differ. The cultures differ. And, at a detailed level, the problems differ. However, the overall processes of change and change management remain pretty much the same, and it is this fundamental similarity of the change processes across organizations, industries, and structures that makes change management a task, a process, and a practice.

The Change Process as “Unfreezing, Changing and Refreezing”
The process of change has been characterized as having three basic stages: unfreezing, changing, and re-freezing. This view draws heavily on Kurt Lewin’s adoption of the systems concept of homeostasis or dynamic stability.

What is useful about this framework is that it gives rise to thinking about a staged approach to changing things. Looking before you leap is usually sound practice.

What is not useful about this framework is that it does not allow for change efforts that begin with the organization in extremis (i.e., already “unfrozen”), nor does it allow for organizations faced with the prospect of having to “hang loose” for extended periods of time (i.e., staying “unfrozen”).

In other words, the beginning and ending point of the unfreeze-change-refreeze model is stability — which, for some people and some organizations, is a luxury. For others, internal stability spells disaster. Even the fastest of hares, if standing still, can be overtaken by a tortoise on the move.

Change Management: The Skill Requirements
Managing the kinds of changes encountered by and instituted within organizations requires an unusually broad and finely-honed set of skills, chief among which are the following.

Change Management: Four Basic Strategies
(see the Bennis, Benne and Chin reference)

Note: The fourth and last strategy above is not one of those presented by Bennis, Benne and Chin. It is instead the product of the author’s own experiences during some 30 years of making and adapting to changes in, to, and on behalf of organizations. An excellent example of this strategy in action, albeit on an accelerated basis, is provided by the way in which Rupert Murdoch handled the printers of Fleet Street. He quietly set about building an entirely new operation in Wapping, some distance away. When it was ready to be occupied and made operational, he informed the employees in the old operation that he had some bad news and some good news. The bad news was that the existing operation was being shut down. Everyone was being fired. The good news was that the new operation had jobs for all of them—but on very different terms That there are also elements of the rational-empirical and power-coercive strategies at play here serves to make the point that successful change efforts inevitably involve some mix of these basic change strategies, a point that is elaborated on below.

Factors in Selecting A Change Strategy
Generally speaking, there is no single change strategy. You can adopt a general or what is called a "grand strategy" but, for any given initiative, you are best served by some mix of strategies.

Which of the preceding strategies to use in your mix of strategies is a decision affected by a number of factors. Some of the more important ones follow.

One More Time: How do you manage change?
The honest answer is that you manage it pretty much the same way you’d manage anything else of a turbulent, messy, chaotic nature, that is, you don’t really manage it, you grapple with it. It’s more a matter of leadership ability than management skill.

Selected Sources
The Planning of Change (2nd Edition). Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (Eds). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York: 1969.
Human Problem Solving. Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1972.
Organizations in Action. James D. Thompson. McGraw-Hill, New York: 1967.

top of page