Sunday, 4 July 2021

Lewin’s Change Theory vs Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model with examples

Change is constant but tough. However, how do we manage or embrace the change? Because of technological advances, covid 19, globalization, changes are easy to feel and observe. In our everyday life, we will feel it. If you are a student then you have to attend online classes and take online exams. Work from home, online shopping, cyberbullying, online payment, and new normal are extremely normal these days.        

 


As a human being, you can fear change and it is normal. Generally, people fear uncertainty, unknown situations. Since we don’t like any disruption, we feel hesitation and confusion whenever we need to shift our flats, office, or jobs. we also need to adjust whenever we change our mobile phone or even windows.  At first, you have to recognise that change is the reality.

 

Any organization must deal with change regularly. Changes such as the acceptance of new business methods or the development of promising new technologies are instances of constant organizational changes. Those interested in organizational development (OD) know how difficult it may be to persuade people to adopt attractive new technologies or decision-making methods. Some models can assist in clarifying the steps that can be performed to reduce the job of change management. Lewin's 3-step model and Kotter's 8-step model, both of which will be detailed below, are two of the most popular. So what are the similarities and differences between Lewin’s Change Theory vs Kotter’s Change Management Model? 


“How does successful change happen?”


Lewin's Change Management Model

Lewin's model appears to be easy at first glance, as it just has three steps. These are referred to as 'unfreeze,' 'transition/ change,' and 'freeze.'

The first step is to try to reduce the pressures that keep the status quo in place and change the prevailing institutional mentality.

The equilibrium position, which naturally wishes to retain things as they are, is known as the status quo.

 

Unfreezing can be accomplished by increasing influences that push people's behaviour and attitudes away from the status quo. This can be accomplished by convincing people of the necessity for change and establishing confidence.

 

The second step entails the formation of new habits, values, and attitudes. Changes in organizational structure or development strategies can be used to accomplish this. One strategy is to persuade both individuals and groups that the status quo is unsustainable and that they need to reconsider their approach to the problem.

 

After the change has been completed, the final step involves the crystallization of the new state of affairs. Unless the improvements are reinforced through freezing, the organization may revert to old methods of doing things.


John Kotter’s 8-step Change Management Model

 

1: Establishing a sense of urgency

It helps if everyone in the company wants to change by creating a sense of urgency about the need for change and igniting the initial motivation to get things moving. By doing so, we give the change program weight and send a message that what's about to happen is significant. To make this work, we'll need a clear explanation of why change is critical to the organization's diverse stakeholders.

 

To create a sense of urgency:

üIdentifying and emphasizing potential dangers and consequences that may arise in the future.

üInvestigating the possibilities that can be realized through effective interventions.

üInitiate open and honest talks and discussions to encourage individuals to consider the issues at hand and to provide convincing arguments for doing so.

ü On the problem of change, request the participation and assistance of industry professionals, important stakeholders, and customers.


2: Forming a powerful coalition

A strong team is essential to convince people that change is necessary. We need credibility as change leaders to lead the change within the organization. A coalition should be built on the same mentality of people and HR with skills and experience.  The group should work continuously to check throughout every stage of the change and make sure that all key internal and external stakeholders are properly engaged in the process. To supervise, coordinate, and communicate its activities, a powerful group requires a coalition of capable individuals from among its ranks.

 

3: Creating a vision for change

Describe how the future will vary from the past, and how you can make the future a reality by launching projects that are directly related to the vision. A vision expresses the necessity for an organization to move in a specific path.

 

Change-related ideas and solutions must be linked to a larger vision that is easy to comprehend and remember. A good compelling vision sells what's going to make a difference, and how it'll make the company a better place to work for everyone.

 

The difficulty arises when the adjustment involves downsizing or significant cost reductions. Simply because it's terrible news, it's difficult to establish a powerful, compelling vision, and organizations must be very talented communicators to get a compelling vision across, regardless of the message.

 

4 Enlist an Army of Volunteers

Large-scale change can only happen when a large group of people bands together to pursue a similar goal. To drive change – moving in the same direction – they must be bought in urgently.

 

5 Enable Action by Removing Barriers

Inefficient processes and hierarchies can be barriers and should be removed to create the real outcome. By removing barriers, action can be generated.


Is there, however, anyone who is opposed to the change? Are there any procedures or structures that are obstructing it?

 

Set up a structure for change and keep an eye out for potential roadblocks. Removing roadblocks might help you empower the individuals you need to carry out your vision and bring the change forward.


What you can do to help:

ü Identify or hire change leaders whose primary responsibility is to implement the change.

ü Recognize and recognize those who have helped to bring about change.

ü Identify those who are fighting change and assist them in understanding what is required.

 

6 Generate Short-Term Success

To track progress and encourage volunteers to persevere, wins must be recognized, gathered, and conveyed — early and often.

 

7 Sustain Acceleration

After the initial results, increase your efforts. Systems, organizations, and policies can all benefit from your growing credibility. Continue to implement change after change until the goal becomes a reality.

 

Consolidating gains and continuously develop by analyzing success stories one by one and learning from each one. Many reform initiatives fail because success is declared too soon.  

 

8 Institute Change 

Make explicit the links between new behaviours and organizational success, and ensure that they are maintained until they are strong enough to replace old habits.


Changes in corporate culture should be anchored.

 

Relationship between Kurt Lewin's Change Theory and Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

 

Lewin Change Model

Kotter's Change Model

Unfreeze

Steps 1 to 4

Change

Steps 5 – 7

Refreeze

Step 8

 

References:  

https://www.kotterinc.com/8-steps-process-for-leading-change/

https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2

 

 

Organizational Culture or Corporate Culture in Govt and Private Corporations

You feel different when you go to various offices for your purposes and tasks. It can be government offices or private banks you visit. Why do you feel differently?


What is Organizational Culture?

The most basic definition of an organization's culture is “the way things are done around here” By Deal and Kennedy.


The workplace is governed by a number of formal and unwritten norms. Every business, like most people, has its own distinct personality.


Organizational culture is a potent factor that influences the behavior of group members despite being invisible. The expectations, experiences, philosophy, and values that hold an organization together are reflected in its self-image, inner workings, interactions with the outside world, and future expectations. It is built on common attitudes, beliefs, conventions, and written and unwritten regulations that have evolved over time and are regarded as valid.


Organizational culture (corporate or office culture) refers to how employees interact with the world both inside and outside their workplace. It is inferred and deduced from its employees' characteristics and qualities. Dress codes and office layouts are simply the tips of the iceberg when it comes to workplace culture.


Culture in Public and Private Corporations  

Bangladesh has two distinct forms of office culture: a/ the relaxed government workplace and b/ the fast-paced private sector one. However, in recent years, we've seen the growth of an employee-friendly corporate culture, primarily in Silicon Valley-inspired start-ups. Individualistic and hierarchical organizational structures, seen in major private firms are being replaced by these tendencies.


Companies like Apple, Google, and Netflix have proved that strong growth rates and employee-friendly company culture can coexist since the digital boom.


To know more about organizational culture – click here.

Tuesday, 29 June 2021

The classic model of bureaucracy by Max Weber - The Ideal Weberian Model

Bureaucracy, in its ideal form, is rational and impersonal and based on rules, regulation rather than ties of kinship, friendship, or charismatic authority.

Bureaucratic organization can be found in government, non-governmental organizations and business companies.

A state's administrative system is referred to as "the bureaucracy" and its officials as "bureaucrats".

 

What is Bureaucracy?

Bureaucracy is a specific form of organization defined by legal authority, division of work (specialization), permanence, complexity, professionalism, chain of command, and hierarchy. (Source: Bert Rockman Professor of Purdue University in Britannica).

 

Bureaucracy is a system for managing a country or company or institution that is run by a vast number of (non-elected) officials employed to follow and implements the rules, and functions of their organization.

 

The term bureaucracy was coined as bureaucratie by the French philosophe Vincent de Gournay in the mid-eighteenth century. It is derived from the French bureau (writing station), and -cratie, (government).

 

Characteristics of Bureaucracy

Max Weber (1864–1920), a German sociologist, is the prime and leading theorist of bureaucracy and he discussed the ideal characteristics of bureaucracies. He also explained how bureaucratic organizations emerged historically. The distinguishing characteristics of bureaucracy, according to Weber (political economist), set it apart from other sorts of organizations based on non-legal forms of power.

 

It was the most technically advanced type of organization, with specialized knowledge, assurance, consistency, and unity. Weber's theory of bureaucracy, on the other hand, highlights not just it's comparative technical and competency advantages, but also the decline of caste systems and other forms of inequitable social connections based on a person's standing.

 

In its purest form, the bureaucratic organization would be dominated by universalized rules and processes, making personal rank and ties meaningless. Bureaucracy is the acme of universalized standards in this form, in which identical instances are treated similarly as codified by law and rules, and in which the administrator's tastes and discretion are restrained by due process rules.

 

Thus, the emphasis on a hierarchical system, specialization, procedural regularity, continuity, a legal-rational basis and fundamental conservatism are the basic features of pure bureaucratic organization.  

 

Criticisms and Paradoxes of Bureaucracy

Historical Perspective: Jean Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay (French) coined the term bureaucratie (Translation: “government by desks”) to describe a government ruled by insensitive rule makers and enforcer who neither understood nor cared about the impacts of their actions.

 

Bureaucracy is often conceived as unresponsive, sluggish, inexpert and undemocratic. Bureaucracy and bureaucrats convey images of red tape, excessive rules, a lack of creativity, central decision making, and limited accountability.

 

Far from being portrayed as competent, popular depictions of bureaucracies frequently portray them as inefficient and unadaptable. Since the features that constitute bureaucracy's organizational advantages also include the potential for organizational failure (dysfunction), both flattering and unflattering portrayals of bureaucracy can be valid. As a result, the features that make bureaucracies effective may also cause organizational (pathologies) disorders.

 

In developing nations, the country's administrative apparatus has rarely come close to obtaining Weber's impersonal, rule-based position. Moreover, it hasn't been able to deliver the level of competence that Weber depicted or claimed was typical of bureaucracy.

 

Conclusion

The rise of a money-based economy (eventually leading to the development of capitalism) and the concomitant necessity for impersonal, rational-legal transactions ushered/ kindled in the rise of bureaucracy as a favoured form of organization. Instrumental organizations (public-stock commercial corporations) emerged quickly as a result of their bureaucratic structure, which equipped/ allowed them to handle/ manage the various demands of capitalist production more efficiently than small-sized producers.

In both the corporate and public sectors, the emergence of capitalism, the reliance on standard monetary transactions, expansion of govt works, urbanization, globalization and technological advancement have necessitated bureaucratic forms of organization.

The critical parts of the bureaucratic type of organization, on the other hand, can conflict with one another and are frequently at the root of accusations of bureaucracies as dysfunctional. To summarize, the same factors that make bureaucracy function can also operate against it.

The bureaucratic form has only recently (within the past few centuries) become more prevalent although Weber witnessed bureaucratic forms of government in ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire's final stages, and imperial China.

Different governments around the world have reformed their administrative operations in response to failures and the necessity to develop universal programs of benefit, both of which necessitate tax collection by a reliable institution.

All kinds of governments need administration. Despite widespread negative opinion about bureaucracy, a bureaucracy is mandatory to function.

 

 


Sunday, 27 June 2021

Differences Between Unity of Command and Unity of Direction

Similarities and Differences Between Unity of Command and Unity of Direction


Unity of Command

An employee should get commands from and report to one boss only at a time. Unless and until it is absolutely necessary, dual subordination should be avoided. The management has a disciplined, stable, and ordered existence thanks to the unity of command. It allows supervisors and subordinates to have a harmonious relationship. They shouldn't take orders from more than one individual.

To put it differently, a subordinate should not get orders or instructions from and be answerable to more than one superior or it will create delays & chaos, conflicts, confusion, work duplication, overlapping efforts. Moreover, it weakens discipline, authority, and loyalty. Employees will have more options to escape duties.


Unity of Direction

The principle, one head, and one plan refers to the idea of having a single plan for a set or group of functions with the same goals. Activities that are similar should be categorized together. There should be a single plan of action for them, and they should be assigned to certain management. All members of the team's efforts should be oriented toward a single purpose under the charge of a particular supervisor.

 

Unity of command

Unity of direction

Employees need to receive orders, command & instructions from and answerable to only 1 boss.

It refers to 1 head, 1 plan for a group of tasks having the same goals.

It is about the functioning of kinds of stuff.

It is related to the activities of departments, or the entire organization.

It prevents confusion, conflicts, chaos.

It stops duplication of functions, efforts, and wastage of resources.

It leads to a sound relationship between superiors and subordinates.

It leads to the smooth functioning of an organization.

 

Unity of command is required in order to assign responsibility to each subordinate and unity of direction is essential for proper organization.

Therefore, they are obviously distinct from one another, yet they are interdependent. unity of direction is a precondition for the unity of command. However, it does not always result from the unity of direction.

Similarities and Differences Between Fayol & Taylor Principles of Management

What are the similarities between Taylor's and Fayol's theories?

Both Frederick Winslow Taylor and Henri Fayol have contributed to the advancement of management science. They both acknowledged that HR issues and management at different levels are critical to individual success. Both principles of management have the same purpose in mind: to improve the efficiency of organizations. Furthermore, they share fundamental ideas like division of labour and specialization, manager roles, group unity, and so on. Mutual co-operation between employers and employees is given emphasis by the two management gurus.

Both used scientific methods to solve this challenge, with Taylor focusing on the operative level and working from bottom to upwards, whereas Fayol focused on the managing director and working downwards.

 

The key difference between Fayol and Taylor principles of management

F.W. Taylor management principles are about evaluating employee performance and getting work done as efficiently as possible, whereas Fayol management principles are about handling problems from a top management perspective. Fayol management principles put an emphasis on tasks like planning and controlling, whereas Taylor management principles place a premium on worker work-study and study time. Furthermore, Fayol principles place a greater emphasis on top management's perspective on problem solutions, whereas Taylor principles place a greater emphasis on low-level management in an organization. Fayol principles, on the other hand, can be applied to any organization with a variety of situations because they are universally applicable, whereas Taylor principles are only applied to specialized companies such as manufacturing and engineering.

 

Frederick Winslow Taylor

Henri Fayol

American mechanical engineer, one of the first management consultants

French mining engineer, mining executive, author and director of mines

Approach: Scientific Management

Theory: A general theory of administration

4 Principles

14 Principles

Father of scientific management

Father of management principles/ modern management

Taylorism

Fayolism

Improves industrial efficiency

Focuses on universal functions of management.

This micro-approach is restricted to production activities and the factory only.

This macro-approach discus general principles of management applicable in every field of management in all kinds of organization.

Low-level management

All levels management

 Production and engineering

Managerial activities

to improve productivity & eliminate wastages through standardization of work & tools.

the function of managers and on general principles of management applied to all.

Taylor disregards human elements.

Fayol pays due regards to human element (Principle of initiative, Espirit De Corps and Equity)

Book: The Principles of Scientific Management

Book: General and Industrial Management

 

Fayol's theory is more universally applicable than that of Taylor. Despite the effect of modern progress, Fayol's management ideas have endured the test of time and are still considered the foundation of management philosophy. 


Sunday, 18 April 2021

Transactional Leadership vs Transformational Leadership: Differences between Transactional Leadership and Transformational Leadership Styles

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership focuses on results (outputs and outcome) by concentrating on the system and structure of an organization. Transactional leaders organize, lead, guide and control followers to work toward established goals and targets by exchanging rewards-penalty for their productivity. According to the leadership model (sometimes referred to as managerial leadership), managers provide followers with something they want in exchange for getting something they want. Transactional leadership theory is likely to succeed in a crisis or in projects requiring linear and specific processes.

 

In most cases, leaders in large institutions, public corporations, international projects and military operations are transactional leaders.  This style is useful for big organizations (public or private), such as Hewlett-Packard (HP company). Bill Gates is a transactional leader. Magneto from X-Men movies has the same leadership. These leaders try to keep order, rules and regulations to reach goals on time. This widely used style is often applied by all level managers.

 

The famous style of leadership was first explained by Max Weber in 1947 and then by Bernard Bass in 1981. The German sociologist divided leadership styles (authority) into 3 categories: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal, or bureaucratic.

 

Like theory X of Motivation by McGregor, the leaders take a pessimistic view of their followers. The subordinates have to be monitored to control to get the job done. Transactional leaders may not be a good fit for places where innovative ideas and creativity are requited and valued.

 

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders want to think out of the box and go beyond the system and boundary to change existing thoughts, techniques for extraordinary outcomes which bring better results and the greater good for the management and workers. Transformational leadership seeks to motivate and inspire (transforms) employees to attain remarkable results. Under the transformational leadership style, workers are given autonomy over specific tasks. Conflict is welcome and regarded as a normal phenomenon in their authority because it can encourage innovation and new ideas.  

The key features of transformational leaders are:

1. They are creative and looking for new things.

2. Hard worker and Empower its followers and delegate the tasks

3. They are communicative and keep followers engaged.

4. Visionary

5. Chiasmatic

6. Passionate and enthusiastic

 

Different researches confirm that transformational leaders are more effective, higher performers, more promotable. They can ensure higher levels of productivity, employee satisfaction, creativity, and corporate entrepreneurship. The term "transformational leadership" was coined by James V. Downton (sociologist) in 1973.

 

Examples: Richard Branson (Virgin), Steve Jobs (Apple), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., MS Dhoni (former Indian cricket team captain), Mashrafe (former Bangladesh cricket team captain) 


Differences between Transactional Leadership Style and Transformational Leadership Style

Transactional and transformational leaders are different but they are related and essential in an institution.  Transformational leadership theory develops from the transactional leadership model. Both are Modern and Contemporary Theories. 


Transactional Leadership Style

Transformational Leadership Style

Favour rigid system and structured policies, procedures

Favour followers and innovation

Thrive on following rules and doing things correctly

Go beyond boundary

Focused on short-term goals

Look into long term goals

Inflexible

Flexible

Change and conflicts are not welcome

Change and conflicts are considered normal.

Social exchange (give and take relationship)

Advice and guidance to the employees.

Reward and punishments (carrot-stick model)

Personal attention to the followers

Bill Gates

Richard Branson