Change Management and Defence Administration:

Models for Implementing Change

By

Tim Young

An Applied Research Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Business Administration

Athabasca University

August 2013

i

Abstract

The business environment is ever changing and in this global era, the pace of

change continues to increase with no apparent signs of it letting up. In response to this unprecedented rhythm, organizations are experiencing more and more difficulty not only with maintaining this chaotic pace, but also in achieving success with their change initiatives, for consensus in academic literature shows that 70% of all change programmes fail in one way or another.

The Ministry of National Defence (MND) is no stranger to change as history has

shown that there have been four strategic change initiatives starting with unification since the late 1960’s. The MND is a very unique organization unto itself, as it is a not-for –profit government service with its own distinct culture, very different from any other government organization.

As the MND prepares to initiate another chapter of change with the newly formed

Defence Renewal Team, this research project takes a close look at change management within this very unique and distinct organization. Specifically, the purpose of this research project is to analyze change management in the MND with a view to identifying which change models are most appropriate for this organization. This research project is limited to defence administration at the strategic institutional level and does not delve into changes to doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures at the operational level. At the heart of this project is an inductively designed key that evaluates three separate approaches to categorizing change against six different change management models. The strategic framework for change for defence administration was compared to the six models with respect to the three different approaches to categorizing change management, resulting in two of the models being congruent. Kotter’s 1995 Eight-Step Model matched all of the criteria, and can be used as a general, overarching model to implement change, while Uhl and Gollenia’s Meta Management Model proved to be a very detailed model, combining multiple cross-cutting disciplines together to affect change.

Several conclusions were made in three broad areas, all presenting new

opportunities for more detailed research in the future. First, given that 70% of all change management initiatives fail to one degree or another, and that change is continuing to evolve at an increasing rate, are both the makings of a wicked problem should the gap between change management theory and the business environment remain unchecked. As such the discipline of change management is in need of a paradigm shift to better align itself with its global surroundings. Secondly, as an organization, the MND’s; blended military and civil servant culture, the forces that create and effect uncertainty within it, and the notion of efficiency and effectiveness and the associated potential consequences for the members of the Canadian Forces, all make this organization characteristically different from not only for-profit organizations, but more importantly from other not-for-profit government services. Thirdly, with respect to change management models, there was evidence that synergies could be achieved by combining certain models together to potentially form a supermodel. Finally, the matrix method of aligning change management models to organization requirements for

ii

change could be applied at a larger scale to further aid an organization to plan for change.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... v

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Background .......................................................................................................... 2

Research Objectives ............................................................................................ 4

Literature Review .................................................................................................. 5

Organizational Change ..................................................................................... 5

Change Management ....................................................................................... 7

What is Change Management? ..................................................................... 7

Behavior ........................................................................................................ 7

Organizational Change .................................................................................. 8

Leading Change ............................................................................................ 9

The Change Cycle ......................................................................................... 9

Approaches to Change Management. ............................................................ 10

Classification of Organizational Change. ..................................................... 11

The Soft and Hard Approach to Change. .................................................... 13

Organizational Metaphor Approach. ............................................................ 14

Change Management - Summary ............................................................... 18

Organizational Change Theories and Models ................................................. 19

Kotter’s Eight Step Model ............................................................................ 19

Lewin’s Three Step Model (Ice Model) ........................................................ 22

Bullock and Batten’s Planned Change Model .............................................. 23

Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model ................................................. 25

Business Transformation Management Methodology (BTM2) ..................... 30

The MND Organization ................................................................................... 33

The MND and Change Management .............................................................. 35

Unification .................................................................................................... 36

Management Review Group (MRG) ............................................................ 36

Management Command and Control Re-Engineering Team (MCCRT) ...... 36

CF Transformation ...................................................................................... 36

Research Questions ........................................................................................... 38

Research Design ................................................................................................ 39

Results ............................................................................................................... 40

iv

Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42

Why So Many Change Management Initiatives Fail ........................................ 42

Rapidly Shifting Forces of Change .............................................................. 42

Ineffective Management .............................................................................. 42

Lack of Mature Information in Academic Circles ......................................... 43

Why there are so many Change Models ......................................................... 43

Why the CF as an Institution seems to be in a Perpetual State of Change ..... 44

Change Models that are Best Suited to the MND ........................................... 44

Change Management Challenges Unique to the MND ................................... 47

MND culture and managing change? .............................................................. 48

Recommendations .............................................................................................. 49

Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 51

References ......................................................................................................... 52

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Models of Change within Organizations and Industry ........................ 12

Figure 2: Comparing the Theories of Change .................................................... 14

Figure 3: Kotter's Eight Step Model ................................................................... 20

Figure 4: Cameron's Cycle of Change ............................................................... 22

Figure 5: Bullock & Batten's Four-Phase Model ................................................ 24

Figure 6: Nadler & Tushman's Congruence Model ............................................. 27

Figure 7: Nadler & Tushman's Generic Problem-Solving Process .................... 28

Figure 8: Waterman, Peters & Phillips, McKinsey Seven S Model .................... 29

Figure 9 - BTM2 Meta Management Framework ................................................. 30

Figure 10 - BTM2 Transformation Cycle ............................................................. 31

Figure 11 - BTM2 Governance Structure ............................................................ 32

Figure 12 - The MND Strategic Organization Chart ............................................ 33

Figure 13 - The MND Task Environment ............................................................ 34

Figure 14 - Methods of Cataloguing Change Models ......................................... 41

1

Introduction

In today’s global era, the vast and complex business environment has brought forward great opportunities for organizations to tap into new markets to generate new growth and prosperity; – but it has also brought great turmoil. Globalization has also ushered-in; global competition, free trade, mergers, outsourcing, and rapid technological growth, all resulting in a very different and volatile business environment from just a few short years ago. Managing change in this complex, uncertain and chaotic business environment has the appearance of a continuous cycle of change, where firms must simply change or die. Shockingly, academics such as John Kotter (1995) and many others have reported that most change initiatives put forward under various themes such as; transformation, restructuring, downsizing, business process reengineering, total quality management and others – fail. One commonly accepted argument for this shortfall is that managers and executives get tangled up in an intricate web of change initiatives, loose focus and never really understand the nature and process of corporate change (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Nevertheless, there are also numerous examples of successful change initiatives which provide some insight into managing change at the strategic level and below.

The Ministry of National Defence (MND) comprised of both the Department of

National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF) is no stranger to change1. In fact, one can argue that it is the military’s mandate to be at the cutting edge of change, always ready to support Canadian interests both domestically and abroad. If not, the results could be disastrous. Harold Winton wrote the following on the challenge of military change:

The process of military change, or reform, is extremely complex....To paraphrase

Clausewitz...Even if he gets everything else right, if he mis-appreciates the essential dynamics of the next major conflict, he may well find his army perfectly prepared for the wrong type of war (Winton, 2000, p. xi).

As such, on an operational level, the MND spends a great deal of its resources

ensuring that the CF, when committed on operations is fully prepared for the task at hand.

Notwithstanding the MNDs operational role, it is also a federal government

organization that has a mandate, just like any other federal institution, to be efficient with the resources it uses. As such, the purpose of defence administration is to produce and sustain military capabilities under the direction of the government as efficiently and effectively as possible (Bland, 2005). One unique and poignant way to describe the ebb and flow of administering military capabilities is US Navy Admiral Henry Eccles’ metaphor regarding the logistic snowball:

1 The phrase DND is used to describe the civilian component of the MND, while the term CF is

used to describe the men and women in uniform.

2

The principle [of the logistic snowball] states that all logistic [and administrative] activities naturally tend to grow to inordinate size, and unless positive control is maintained this growth continues until, like a ball of wet snow, a huge accumulation of slush obscures the hard core of essential combat support and the mass becomes unmanageable. This snowball effect then permeates the entire structure of the military organizational effort. (Eccles, 1965, p. 65)

Bland (2005) eloquently surmised this principle as follows: An essential guiding principle for defence administrators, and therefore for their

supervisors, is that the snowball must be kept small and every so often thrown roughly against the true purpose of the CF so as to break off and let melt the administrative slush that will otherwise surely defeat the development and sustainment of core operational capabilities. (p. 7)

The forces of change within the MND are many and wide ranging. Not only do

the senior officers and officials have to follow the rules, regulations and standard procedures applicable to all other departments of the federal government, but they must delicately balance the resources available to maintain the hard core of the snowball, knowing that if not conducted with due care, CF personnel could pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Notwithstanding the paradox between for profit and not-for-profit service

organizations, there are similarities that can be made about managing change in both types of organizations. This paper will take a close look at different types of change management in order to determine which ones are more applicable in the defence administrative environment.

Background

The MND is the largest Federal Government organization, employing some 131,647 military and civilian personnel (Leslie, 2011), with a budget of $21.2B (National Defence, 2013) in 2011. Its mandate is broad and complex, encompassing three roles; to defend Canada, to defend North America, and to contribute to international peace and security, while conducting simultaneous operations within any of its six corresponding missions (Canada First Defence Strategy, 2008) which include:

Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD (North American Air Defence Command);

Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics;

Respond to a major terrorist attack;

Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;

Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and

3

Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.

In order to achieve these wide ranging roles and missions, the MND has been in a constant state of change, and within recent history, this state of change has been most significant over the past decade. In 2003, the Minster of National Defence, John McCallum commissioned a report entitled Achieving Administrative Efficiency which concluded that DND and the CF:

... are not well positioned, from a management perspective, to meet the strategic

level challenges [they are] facing. The committee believes that without fundamental transformation of the national-level management framework and practices of the DND and CF, the CF will not be able to transform itself rapidly enough to adapt to Canada’s security environment. (Bland, 2005, p. vi)

This report set off a multi-year initiative supported by new federal funding to

radically transform the CF, while with the benefit of hindsight; the CF became engaged in war fighting operations in Afghanistan. In 2010, as Canada’s war fighting operations were coming to an end, a new, constrained fiscal environment emerged. Responding to further change, the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKey commissioned a report entitled Report on Transformation 2011 with the aim of developing ideas to increase efficiency, and to act as the driving force behind organizational changes needed to reposition the DND/CF for the future (Leslie, 2011). In his report, Lieutenant-General (retd) Leslie concluded:

We are going to have to reduce overhead and invest in output; we have to become slimmer, to trim the top and middle while protecting and investing in the various systems that result in the people in the ships, battalions and squadrons of aircraft doing the tough and often dangerous work that Canadians are so proud of. In short, we are going to have to reduce the tail of today while investing in the teeth of tomorrow. (Leslie, 2011, p. iv) This report became the foundation for the stand-up of the Defence Renewal

Team (DRT) in August of 2012. This team was given a three-year mandate to develop a charter and transformation plan that will set out clear goals and common objectives, priority areas for renewal, timelines, methods to measure progress and ensure accountability, and the governance process that will oversee Defence Renewal (Building Our Future Together, 2013).

It is becoming clear that with the stand-up of the DRT, the MND is gearing up for

another round of changes, either at the strategic level to the organization as a whole, or as a series of smaller operational level changes, or perhaps both.

4

Research Objectives

The objective of this research paper is to analyse change management in the MND with a view to identifying which change models are the most appropriate for managing change within one of the most highly complex, diverse, and rapidly changing environments within the Canadian public sector.

The emphasis of this research project will be limited to the MND as an institution,

looking specifically at the business of defence administration, and will not address change at an operational level, where the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Canadian Special Forces carry out their mandate on a daily basis. Extensive research has, and is continuously being conducted to maintain the CF at the cutting edge of effectiveness in all aspects of operations it conducts.

5

Literature Review

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the

one most responsive to change - Charles Darwin2 Change is all around us. It doesn’t take much reflection to note that everything

around us is in a constant state of flux, ever evolving. In the past century for example, there has been many evolutionary changes that has transformed the very fabric of our society: The transition from horse and buggy to the automobile and now to the hybrid electric car; the telegraph to the telephone and now the smart phone; or perhaps the balloon to the airplane and now to manned space flight. Society has changed from the industrial era to the information age and now globalization. From a business perspective, change has ushered in great opportunities but along with it great turmoil. Simply stated, for profit businesses must either change or die, and therefore the management of change becomes a key function to the very existence of the firm. In the not-for-profit sector, change is necessary for service businesses to remain effective and efficient in meeting the needs of society.

According to Beer and Nohria (2000), not since the industrial revolution has the

stakes of dealing with change ever been higher. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) reinforce this notion adding that the rapid rate of change in the world of management continues to escalate as; new government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and an ever evolving workforce compel organizations to undertake at least moderate change on a regular basis. Hudescu and Iles (2011) further contend that increased global competition, added to technological advances and downturns in national economies, have led many organizations to seek to re-invent, and change themselves in the hope of being able to survive and thrive. Todnem (2005) adds that against the backdrop of globalisation, deregulation, the rapid pace of technological innovation, a growing knowledge workforce, and shifting social and demographic trends, the primary task for management today is the leadership of organizational change. As such, in recent times managing change within organizations has become a more complex and a more important aspect of business today. Shockingly, it is surprising to note that most change initiatives that firms undertake fail to meet their objectives. Kotter (1995), Balogun and Hailey (2004), LaClair and Rao (2002), and Ahn, Adamson and Dornbusch (2004) all reported that approximately 70% of all change initiatives parceled under many banners such as total quality management, reengineering, right sizing, restructuring, cultural change, turnaround and transformation fail.

Research shows that there are a number of varying reasons why change initiatives fail. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) claimed that few initiatives are complete failures while few are also complete successes, identifying problems such as: taking

2 (Walz, (ND))

Organizational Change

6

more time than expected and desired; killing the morale of the company; and the investment of managerial time and emotional upheaval. LaClair and Rao (2002) studied some 40 change management programs and determined that 58% failed and another 20% only achieved less than one-third of the value expected. They characterized that the unsuccessful companies: lacked the commitment on the part of the senior management; poor project management skills; lack of training; and general confusion regarding the rational for change. Conversely, they also concluded that successful companies gained an average of 143% of their expected return on investment, attributing their success to: the engagement of employees at all levels; the delineation of clear responsibilities; and the communication of the reasons for change throughout the entire organization. Kotter (1998) identified four key mistakes that impede change initiatives: complacency; not communicating with words and actions; celebrating too soon; and assuming that all middle managers are against change.

Given these polarized statistics demonstrating astonishing failures and correspondingly small but impressive successes, a large body of research has been devoted to change management spurring a debate over its effectiveness (Hudescu & Ilies, 2011). Hudescu and Ilies (2011) further contended that the concept of change management is difficult to grasp and implement for the following five reasons:

Academic change literature often forms a barrier to broader appreciation to the

basic principles surrounding the change process. As such, professionals tend to

use whatever change theory or approach they are familiar with or that is popular

at the time.

Change management and its application require knowledge over a broad range

of disciplines from: psychology to finance and accounting; from individual and

group to organization and system behaviour; and from micro to macroeconomics.

Within the context of any organization, change management subjectively cuts

across and impacts the various traditional functional areas like management,

marketing, production, finance and most recently the strategic management

function, requiring a nonlinear and complex approach.

With the current pace of change, organizational leaders might find themselves

short on the time and resources necessary to fully assess the current state and

create readiness for change.

While there is an ever growing list of generic literature emphasising the

importance of change and suggesting ways to approach it, very little empirical

evidence has been provided in support of the different theories and approaches

suggested.

Bamford and Forrester (2003) further reinforced this contention through their research stating that within change management literature, there is considerable

7

disagreement regarding the most appropriate approach to changing organizations. Moreover, they add that this disagreement accounts for many managers having doubts on the validity and relevance of the literature, and confusion when considering which approach to use.

Given the broad and somewhat confusing background to change management, it

is perhaps best to describe and define it.

In order to reduce the amount of confusion regarding change management that exists in academic literature noted above, and to provide a common, consistent approach to understanding this subject matter, I find it both necessary and most useful to adopt a single frame of reference as a guideline to comprehend some of the basic principles of this discipline. Throughout this research, the works of Moran and Brightman (2001) have been cited in Todnem (2005), Hudescu and Ilies (2011), and Ahn et al. (2004), and will serve this purpose well.

As stated above, organizations are in a continuous state of change and unless they are continuously adapting, they will enter into a phase of ‘strategic drift’ which is characterized by lack of clarity, confusion and deteriorating performance (Hudescu & Ilies, 2011). Change management therefore is the process by which organizations can avoid or minimize the impact of ‘strategic drift’ and is defined as the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of the marketplace, customers and employees (Moran & Brightman, 2001).

According to Moran and Brightman (2001), managing change is all about managing the people who are facing change and that change strikes at the heart of three powerful drivers of work behavior: purpose; identity; and mastery. In particular, people are goal oriented and that they are driven by a sense of purpose, desire and value. If a change mechanism challenges a person’s sense of purpose then they will to a degree resist change. Conversely, if change is aligned with a person’s sense of purpose, then they will embrace change in a positive fashion. Moran and Brightman (2001) also identify the paradox that people affected by change want to engage in dialogue about the impact of change and how they are aligned with those changes, whereas management usually avoids this type of dialogue as they fear an initial hostile reaction. Furthermore, they also identify that management shuns this dialogue as they must publically state that they are the champion of this change, are committed to it, and are personally leading it. They avoid this dialogue as they are fearful of failure (Moran & Brightman, 2001).

The second powerful driver of work behavior that Moran and Brightman (2001) name is identity. Specifically, they state that people need a sense of personal integrity and consistency over time and that a change initiative that strikes at the core of a person’s sense of who they are will activate powerful motivations to return things to the

Change Management

What is Change Management?

Behavior

8

status quo. As such, this is another force that works against the implementation and stabilization of organizational change. To compete with the need for personal consistency, management must develop a very compelling reason for change that can be understood and accepted throughout the organization and they must strive to align to the greatest possible degree the need for personal consistency with the impact for change (Moran & Brightman, 2001).

The final driver of work behavior identified by Moran and Brightman (2001) is one’s ability to manage oneself and the environment effectively - mastery. In particular, the degree in which change threatens one’s sense of mastery will be perceived as a threat to one’s survival, as individuals will become aware that they do not have the skills, knowledge and ability to work in the new environment. In this case, management must analyze the gaps, create learning opportunities and provide the necessary resources for personnel to master the new environment.

Through research and experience, Moran and Brightman (2001) have noted the following five generalizations regarding organizational change:

Change is nonlinear, as there is often no clearly defined beginning or end. As a result people involved in change often feel confusing and endless as there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel.

Effective change interweaves multiple improvement areas as success or failure

in one area of change and often is the trigger for need for other changes to occur

in other areas.

Change is both top-down and bottom-up. In order to be successful change must

be top-down to provide the vision and structure and bottom-up to encourage

participation and generate support. Leading change is a shared responsibility in

which all personnel in the organization must be working in the same direction in

order the make the change initiative successful.

Organizational change has an important personal dimension. The more

profound the organizational change the more important it is to create

opportunities for personnel to adjust their own values and beliefs. People must

be able to adopt to change on a personal level in order to sustain it

organizationally.

Measurement is the key to successful and sustainable change. The more an

organization quantifies goals and links them to individual performance, the more

successful and long lasting change is likely to be.

Organizational Change

9

As alluded to above, Moran and Brightman (2001) noted there is a leadership paradox when dealing with change management. On one hand they are attempting to align their organization with the current environment, ensuring that employees have the feeling of security, while on the other hand they are promoting change to prepare the organization for tomorrow’s environment. In that sense, the role of the change leader in an organization is to challenge personnel to align their purpose, identity, and mastery with necessary organizational change. In order to accomplish this Moran and Brightman (2001) stress that it can only be done in a safe environment where people can collaborate, take risks and responsibility, and be accountable for the change process if the organization is to remain relevant in the future. Through their research Moran and Brightman (2001) have identified the following five common characteristics of effective change leaders:

They frame change in terms of both results for the organization as a whole and

as effects on the individual. They challenge others to align themselves with the

new organizational change and provide the necessary resources.

They foster and create an atmosphere that enables people to test the new

change, generate recommendations, experiment with new ways of operating,

and exhibit some dysfunctional behavior while the change effort is taking root in

the culture.

They lead the change effort and are the role models for the organization.

Change leaders have the responsibility to establish compelling and legitimate

business reasons for change, and at the same time to identify and overcome

potential sources of resistance.

They display a constant dedication to making change a reality. They focus on

results, on success, analyse failure to determine why it occurred, and constantly

encourage others to try again.

They interact with individuals and groups in the organization to explain; who,

what, where, when, why, and the how of change. Change leaders utilize every

opportunity to interact with others to legitimize necessary change. They realize

the there is a gap between their understanding of the change and the rest of the

organization and they use every communication vehicle possible to help close

that gap.

Moran and Brightman (2001) stated every change initiative in an organization sets in motion a cycle consisting of: resistance to change, recognizing the need for change, agreement as to the type of change required, and finally the development of

Leading Change

The Change Cycle

10

implementation strategies. Finally, they also mention that change is a cyclical process and that change management cycles typically go through the following four phases Moran and Brightman (2001):

Understanding the current situation.

Determining the desired state and develop the change plan.

Enlisting others and develop a critical mass.

Track and stabilize results.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, not more

doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

- Machiavelli’s The Prince3

Research has shown that change comes in various forms: sometimes small, incremental and occurs with little notice, or at other times, it is large scale and dramatic in its impact (Hudescu & Ilies, 2011). There is overwhelming agreement that since the need for change is often unpredictable, organizations’ natural reaction to change tends to be reactive, discontinuous, ad hoc and often triggered by a situation of organizational crisis (Burnes, 2004b; De Wit & Meyer, 2005; Hudescu & Ilies, 2011; Luecke, 2005; , Nelson, 2003; Todnem, 2005; Young, 2009). Beer and Nohria (2000) added that in the rush to change their organizations, managers end up becoming entangled in a web of initiatives, lose their focus, and become mesmerized by all the advice available both in print and on-line about why companies should change, what they should try to accomplish, and how they should do it. Burnes (2004b) and Todnem (2005) suggested that the poor success rate in change programmes indicates a fundamental lack of a valid framework of how to implement and manage organizational change, as what is available to academics and practitioners is a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories and approaches.

Given the wide range of information above, (Kezar, 2001) contended

organizational change can vary by which model selected. As such, recent literature has shown that there have been attempts to classify organizational change in order provide executives with more clarity and understanding to the nature and process of corporate change, thereby reducing the confusion and improving the success of change initiatives (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Cameron & Green, 2009; Hudescu & Ilies, 2011). Three of these methods are: a classification system (Kezar, 2001); a soft and hard approach (Beer & Nohria, 2000); and an organizational metaphor approach (Cameron & Green, 2009).

3 (Walz, (ND))

Approaches to Change Management.

11

Given a number of models and theories to organizational change Kezar (2001) was able to inductively construct a classification system based on certain criteria, some of which are listed below:

Degree of Change. Degree of change is differentiated between first and second

order. First order change is defined as a minor adjustment and improvement in

one or a few dimensions of the organization that doesn’t involve its core. Second

order change on the other hand is transformational change, seeking to alter

values, mission, culture, functional processes, and structure of the organization.

Second order organizational change occurs at the core of a firm, and is often

associated with a crisis that precipitates it. It is: multidimensional, touching many

aspects of the organization; multilevel, from individuals to groups to the core of

the organization; and discontinuous since the change is based on an unfamiliar

logic.

Timing of Change. With respect to the timing of a change initiative, academics classify change as revolutionary or evolutionary. Revolutionary change is sudden and drastic, whereas evolutionary change is viewed as gradual and incremental, adding small adjustments to strategy and structure to handle environmental changes. Kezar (2001) suggested that most revolutionary change tends to be second order, occurring rapidly. Evolutionary change on the contrary tends to follow a more natural course and is less likely to be adopted by change leaders as it is seen to be long-term change.

Scale of Change. Literature has shown that there have been a number of attempts to classify the scale of change. Meyer, Brooks and Goes (1990) developed a classification of the scale of change based on both the degree of change (first or second order) and either firm level or industry level change. As such, they classified four different scales of change as seen in figure one: adaptation, metamorphosis, evolution, and revolution. Todnem (2005) specified a different approach to classifying the scale of change as: fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation, and corporate transformation. Fine-tuning describes organizational change as an ongoing process to match the organizations strategy, processes, people, and structure, and is often implemented at the department or divisional level. The purpose of fine tuning according to Dunphy and Stace (1993) is to develop personnel suited to the present strategy, linking mechanisms and creating specialist units to increase; volume and attention to cost and quality, and refine policies, methods and procedures. In addition, fine-tuning should foster both individual and group commitment to the excellence of departments and the organization’s mission, clarify established roles and promote confidence in accepted beliefs, norms, and myths (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Incremental adjustment involves the distinct modifications to management processes and organizational strategies, but does not include radical change (Todnem, 2005). Modular transformation is change

Classification of Organizational Change.

12

identified by major shifts of one or several departments or divisions and is differentiated from incremental adjustment as it is radical, focusing on one part of the organization rather than the whole (Todnem, 2005). Finally, corporate transformation is as it states, corporate-wide change and is characterized by radical alterations in the organizations business strategy (Dunphy & Stace, 1993).

Figure 1: Models of Change within Organizations and Industry Source: Meyer, Brooks, & Goes, 1990, p. 96

Focus of Change. Kezar (2001) described three main foci for change: structure;

process; and attitude. Changes in structure are aimed at changing the

organizational chart, the reward system, or institutional policies and procedures.

Process changes refer to the way how people interact with existing structures,

13

and finally attitude focuses on how people feel about working within the existing

structures and processes of the organization. Hudescu and Ilies (2011), point

out that a change in attitude is reflected in culture and therefore change can be

reflected in any or all of these foci.

Intentionality: Planned vs Unplanned Change. According to Todnem (2005),

change can be characterized by how it came about, and as such can be

categorized into four types of change: planned; emergent; contingency; and

choice. Research has shown that there is much debate over the past 10 years

over the validity of planned change, but notwithstanding, there are three basic

premises regarding planned change (Todnem, 2005): Firstly, it emphasizes

small-scale and incremental change and is not applicable to situations that

require rapid and transformational change; Secondly, it is based on the

assumption that organizations operate under constant conditions, and that they

can move from in a pre-planned manner from one stable state to another;

Thirdly, planned change ignores situations where more directive approaches are

required; and finally, the planned approach presumes that stakeholders are

willing and interested in implementing it, and that a common agreement can be

reached. In response, the emergent approach to change has gained ground in

recent times whereby instead of a top-down approach, change is seen as

bottom-up, suggesting that it is so rapid that it is impossible for senior managers

to effectively identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational

responses (Todnem, 2005). The contingency approach to change is based on

the theory that the structure and performance of an organization are dependent

on the situational variables that it faces, and as such, no two organizations are

alike and therefore not be effected by the same variables (Todnem, 2005). The

choice approach to change suggests that there is evidence that organizations

wishing to maintain a particular managerial style can choose to influence certain

situational variables (Todnem, 2005).

Beer and Nohria (2000) studied a vast amount of change management literature and concluded that although every change initiative is unique, all change management approaches can be classified into two categories: theory E, change brought about by economic value; and theory O, change brought about by organizational capability. Theory E change strategies are the more common hard approach to change which usually involves the heavy use of economic incentives, drastic layoffs, down-sizing, and restructuring. Shareholder value is the only legitimate measure of corporate success. Theory O change strategies are follow the soft option to change where they are geared up toward building up the corporate culture through employee behaviors, attitudes, capabilities, and commitment. The organizations ability to learn from its experiences is a legitimate yardstick of corporate success. Throughout their research, Beer and

The Soft and Hard Approach to Change.

14

Nohria (2000) observed that most companies did not exclusively use either Theory E or Theory O, but to one degree or another, a combination of the two. They also noted that all corporate change initiatives can be compared to one another along six dimensions of change: goals, leadership, focus, process, reward system, and use of consultants. Figure 2 compares Theory E and Theory O but also illustrates what an integrated approach might look like. It is very interesting to point out that the integrated approach must be sequenced by Theory E strategies followed by Theory O. In particular, it would be absurd to take a soft approach to work at the grass roots level to change corporate culture only to subject those very personnel to layoffs and other hard measures. Jack Welch’s transformation of General Electric in the 1980s is a good example of the blended approach, where over the period of 20 years, he restructured GE using Theory E measures under one CEO, then rebuilt the company to its present form using Theory O techniques under another CEO.

Dimensions of Change Theory E Theory O Theories E and O Combined

Goals Maximize shareholder value

Develop organizational capabilities

Explicitly embrace the paradox between economic value and organizational capability

Leadership Manage change from the top down

Encourage participation from the bottom up

Set direction from the top and engage the people below

Focus Emphasize structure and systems

Build up corporate culture: employees’ behavior and attitudes

Focus simultaneously on the hard (structures and systems) and the soft (corporate culture)

Process Plan and establish financial incentives

Experience and evolve

Plan for spontaneity

Reward System Motivate through financial incentives

Motivate through commitment – use pay as fair exchange

Use incentives to reinforce change but not to drive it.

Use of Consultants Consultants analyze problems and shape solutions

Consultants support management in shaping their own solutions

Consultants are expert resources who empower employees.

Figure 2: Comparing the Theories of Change Source: Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 137

Cameron and Green (2009) take another approach to organizational change by looking through the lens of the internal workings of organizations. Through adopting some earlier work from Morgan (1986), Cameron and Green use four of his original eight metaphors as a starting point to develop certain assumptions on how organizations function, with a view to further understanding how change works within them. These four metaphors are organizations as: machines, political systems, organisms, and as flux and transformation. It is important to note that Cameron and

Organizational Metaphor Approach.

15

Green (2009) quickly point out that with respect to organizational change, most organizations use a combination of approaches to tackle change; however it is useful to study the metaphors isolated in a vacuum, to breakdown and remove external forces to reveal the basic fundamentals beneath them.

Organizations as Machines. According to Morgan (1986), “When we think of

organizations as machines, we begin to see them as rational enterprises designed and structured to achieve predetermined ends.” Cameron and Green (2009) further elaborated on this metaphor to express that it implies routine operations, well defined structure and job roles, and efficient working both within and between the different parts of the machine (organization). Procedures and standards are clearly defined and expectation to follow them. As a result, Cameron and Green (2009) made the following deductions regarding the fundamental beliefs of organizations as machines:

Each employee should have only one line manager.

Labour should be divided into specific roles.

Each individual should be managed with objectives.

Teams represent no more than the summation of individual efforts.

Management should control and there should be employee discipline.

Given these key beliefs, they make the following assumptions regarding organizational change (Cameron & Green, 2009):

The organization can be changed to an agreed end state by those in position of

authority.

There will be resistance, and this needs to be managed.

Change can be executed well if it is well planned and well controlled.

Organizations as Political Systems. With respect to this metaphor, Cameron and Green (2009) are comparing how organizations are run with respect to democratic, autocratic or even anarchy to illustrate what is happening within them. They add that this particular metaphor is useful in understanding the role of power and conflict within organizational life (Cameron & Green, 2009). Morgan (1986) noted, “Many people hold the belief that business and politics should be kept apart... But the person advocating the case of employee rights or industrial democracy is not introducing a political issue so much as arguing for a different approach to a situation that is already political.” The fundamental beliefs of this metaphor are (Cameron & Green, 2009):

You can’t stay out of organizational politics: you are already in it.

16

Building support for your approach is essential if you want to make anything

happen.

You need to know who is powerful, and who they are close to.

There is an important political map which overrides the published organizational

structure.

Coalitions between individuals are more important than work teams.

The most important decisions in an organization concern the allocation of scarce

resources, that is who gets what, and these are reached through bargaining,

negotiating and vying for position.

The following assumptions can be made about organizational change (Cameron & Green, 2009):

The change will not work unless it is supported by a powerful person.

The wider the support for this change, the better.

It is important to understand the political map, and to understand who will be the

winners and losers as a result of change.

Positive strategies include creating new coalitions and renegotiating issues.

Organizations as Organisms. This metaphor compares organizations to living, adaptive systems. Morgan (1986) expressed, “The metaphor suggests that different environments favour different species of organizations based on different method of organizing ... congruence with the environment is the key to success.” In other words, give a stable environment with little uncertainty; a rigid more bureaucratic organization would prosper. Conversely, if the environment was less stable with considerable uncertainty, a loose, less structured organization would likely be adept to flourish. Cameron and Green (2009) relate this metaphor to an open system, where organizations are seen as sets of interrelated subsystems that are designed to balance the requirements of the environment with the needs of individuals and groups. It is based on the assumption that if the social needs of individuals and groups within an organization are met, and that the organization is well designed to meet the needs of the environment, then there is more of a likelihood that the organization would be able to adapt and survive in the entire eco-system (Cameron & Green, 2009). The fundamental beliefs of this system are (Cameron & Green, 2009):

There is no one best way to design or manage an organization.

The flow of information between different parts of the systems and its

environment is key to the organization’s success.

17

It is important to maximize the fit between individual, team and organizational

needs.

The following assumptions can be made about organizational change (Cameron & Green, 2009):

Changes are made only in response to changes in the external environment.

Individuals and groups need to be psychologically aware of the need for change

in order to adapt.

The response to a change in the environment can be designed and worked

towards.

Participation and psychological support are necessary strategies for success.

Organizations as Flux and Transformation. This metaphor views the organization in the light of uncertainty, complexity and chaos. Cameron and Green (2009) contend that this metaphor views organizations as a part of the environment instead of separate from it. As such, organizations simply move with the environment and having the ability to reorganize, change and reorient itself. This metaphor is consistent with a turbulent environment where managers are never fully in control of change. Morgan (1986) asserts, “In complex systems no one is ever in a position to control or design system operations in a comprehensive way. Form emerges. It cannot be imposed.” The fundamental beliefs of this system are (Cameron & Green, 2009):

Order naturally emerges out of chaos.

Organizations have a natural capacity to self-renew.

Key tensions are important in the emergence of new ways of doing things.

The formal organizational structure (teams, hierarchies) only represents one of

many dimensions of organizational life.

The following assumptions can be made about organizational change (Cameron & Green, 2009):

Change cannot be managed. It emerges.

Managers are not outside the systems they manage. They are part of the whole

environment.

Tensions and conflicts are an important feature of emerging change.

Managers act as enablers. They enable people to exchange views and focus on

significant differences.

18

Business today in the global era has evolved into a many faceted, complex set of functions that are fueled by uncertainty. In order to continue to meet the needs of consumers and remain both competitive and relevant, organizations are finding themselves in a continued state of change in terms of direction, structure and capability. Literature is rife with books and articles on managing change in this turbulent environment, but most surprisingly, the results of change initiatives are both skewed and polarized. There is consensus amongst academia that the majority of change initiatives fail while those that succeed far surpass their original expectations.

While trying to come to terms with this phenomenon, it became quickly evident

that there are many dimensions to this issue. Notwithstanding the debate in academic circles regarding the effectiveness of change management, there are four key concepts which resonate from the literature review, and it is these concepts that form the foundation to understanding this discipline. Firstly, change management is all about leading people in terms of three very important elements of their work behavior: their sense of purpose; their sense of identity; and their sense of competency or mastery. These are the forces that drive either a resistance to change or an acceptance of it. Secondly, there are a number of change generalizations that stem from the literature review. They are: change is non-linear in that it is continuous with no real beginning or ending; change is cross-cutting, creating second and third order effects across other parts of an organization; change is both a top-down and bottom-up process within an organization; there is a personal dimension to change; and that change must be measured in order to sustain it. Thirdly, there is a leadership paradox that must be effectively managed throughout the change process. In particular, in one vein, leaders are managing their personnel in their current environment to meet the goals that they have been assigned, while in another, leaders are also preparing to change their organizations to meet the demands of the future. Finally, in general, all change initiatives in terms of planning and execution follow a particular cycle.

While the literature review provided some good insight into the foundation of

change management, it also revealed that there was overwhelming agreement that most organizations response to change was reactive and ad hoc, lacking structure. Superimpose a wide range of contradictory theories and approaches to change management upon this weak framework and the picture begins to become clear why history has shown that so many change initiatives have failed. In an attempt to bring more clarity and make more sense of the wide array of change programs, research has shown that there have been a number of attempts to classify these change programs to bring some order as to the tools available to executives to affect change in their organizations. Three different approaches to organizing change initiatives were introduced in the literature review providing yet another level of fidelity into understanding organizational change. The classification system, the hard and soft approach, and the metaphorical approach show a unique framework in which the vast number of change initiatives can be distilled, thereby bringing some order into the discipline of change management.

Change Management - Summary

19

With the underpinnings of change management in place, it is now possible to take a close look at a number of the models and theories to organizational change.

Kotter is arguably one of the foremost authorities on change management. He is the author of many books and scholarly articles on change, stemming back to 1995 where, in his article, Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail he disclosed for the first time that the majority of change initiatives organizations undergo - fail (Kotter, 1995). In this article, after observing over 100 companies change initiatives, he outlined his conclusions regarding eight reasons why transformation efforts fail. He subsequently turned these eight reasons into an eight step model to successfully transforming and organization. From the more successful cases he observed, he declared that in general terms change follows a series of phases that usually take a considerable amount of time, and that skipping any of the phases for the sake of speeding up the process does not produce the desired results (Kotter, 1995). He further added that a mistake in any of the phases can have severe results, slowing down the process and neutralizing any of the advances gained (Kotter, 1995). Kotter expanded on his views in his book, Leading Change published in 1996. Details of his model are in included in the figure below.

Eight Errors to Organizational Change Efforts and Their Consequences

Eight Steps to Transforming Your Organization

1. Allowing too much complacency 1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency 2. Failing to create a sufficiently powerful coalition Examining market and competitive realities 3. Underestimating the power of vision Identifying and discussing crises, potential

crises, or major opportunities 4. Under-communicating the vision by a factor of

10 (or 100 or even 1000) 2. Forming a Powerful Coalition

5. Permitting obstacles to block the new vision Assembling a group with enough power to lead the change effort

6. Failing to create short-term wins Encouraging the group to work together as a team

7. Declaring victory too soon 3. Creating a Vision 8. Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the

corporate culture Creating a vision to help direct the change

effort

Consequences Developing strategies for achieving that

vision 1. New strategies aren’t implemented well 4. Communicating that Vision 2. Acquisitions don't achieve expected synergies Using every vehicle possible communicate

the new vision and strategies 3. Reengineering takes too long and costs too

much Teaching new behaviors by the example of

the guiding coalition 4. Downsizing doesn't get costs under control 5. Empowering Others to Act on the Vision 6. Quality programs don't deliver hoped-for results Getting rid of the obstacles to change

Organizational Change Theories and Models

Kotter’s Eight Step Model

20

Eight Errors to Organizational Change Efforts and Their Consequences

Eight Steps to Transforming Your Organization

Changing systems or structures that seriously undermine the vision

Encouraging risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities, and actions

6. Planning for and Creating Short-Term Wins Planning for visible performance

improvements Creating those improvements Recognizing and rewarding employees

involved in the improvements 7. Consolidating Improvements and Producing

Still More Change Using increased credibility to change

systems, structures, and policies that don't fit the vision

Hiring, promoting, and developing employees who can implement the vision

Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents

8. Institutionalizing New Approaches Articulating the connections between the

new behaviors and corporate success Developing the means to ensure leadership

development and succession

Figure 3: Kotter's Eight Step Model Source: Kotter, 1995, p. 61

In the years that followed, Kotter continued to elaborate upon his model. In 2002, Kotter along with Dan Cohen wrote, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. In this work, they expanded upon the original model to include information from two sets of interviews with over 400 people and 130 organizations. In brief, they made the four following conclusions (Kotter & Cohen, 2002):

Highly successful organizations know how to seize opportunity and avoid the

pitfalls to change. To them, bigger leaps of change are associated with larger

success, as continuous gradual improvement is no longer sufficient to be

successful.

Successful large-scale change is a complex endeavour that occurs in eight

stages.

The central challenge in all of the stages is changing people’s behavior.

21

Changing behavior is about making people see a truth to influence their feelings,

as there is more power in having personnel see and feel change than analyse,

think and then change.

In 2008, Kotter followed-up with another book entitled, A Sense of Urgency. In this book he addressed the key question, What is the single biggest error that people make when they try to change? In reflecting upon the answer, Kotter decided that people don’t create a high enough sense of urgency amongst a large enough group of people to set the conditions for success (Kotter, 2008). Based on additional research with managers from a number of organizations, he made the following six conclusions (Kotter, 2008):

In order to make changes of any magnitude, a sense of urgency must be high,

and complacency low. Anything else and the chances of success will be much

more difficult.

Complacency is much more common than one suspects, as success in business

breeds complacency. Managers can be oblivious to complacency.

The opposite of a sense of urgency is not only complacency, but also a

misguided sense of urgency. A false sense of urgency will create anxiety, anger

and frustration, preventing people from exploiting key opportunities and

addressing other dilemmas.

Mistaking a false sense of urgency from real urgency is a significant problem

today.

There are strategies that one can use to transform a false sense of urgency and

complacency into a true sense of urgency.

Urgency is becoming a more important factor to successful change, as we are

approaching a paradigm shift from episodic change to continuous change. A

strong sense of urgency is becoming not only an essential element in large

change initiatives, but essential to all change programs.

Research has shown that Kotter’s model, although very popular, has come under criticism for lacking the empirical fundamentals of change management (Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo, & Shafiq, 2012; Todnem, 2005). In fact, none of Kotter’s books and only one of his journal articles (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008) cited in this research paper have any bibliographical references. This reinforces the notion that his work lacks linkages to empirical fundamentals, as throughout his work, Kotter himself is in fact validating his own work. Cameron & Green (2009) criticized Kotter’s model for being linear, emphasizing that they use a similar model incorporating a continuous change cycle as seen in the figure below.

22

Cameron’s Cycle of Change

Establishing the Need for Change

Building the Change Team

Creating Vision and Values

Communicating and Engaging

Empowering Others

Noticing Improvements and

Energizing

Consolidating

Figure 4: Cameron's Cycle of Change Source: Cameron & Green, 2009, p. 116

Appelbaum et al. (2012) conducted a modern day analysis of Kotter’s model with respect to published academic literature, and despite concluding that they found support for most of the steps in the model, they noted that it had several limitations. In particular they observed that: it is not applicable to all types of change; its rigid approach to change does not permit the inclusion of an organizations change culture; and not all of the steps are necessarily relevant for certain change initiatives. They also concluded that there is some debate regarding the importance of following all eight steps in order (Appelbaum et al. 2012). Finally they noted that although Kotter’s model is an excellent starting point for managers to implement change, it should not be accepted as something that guarantees success (Appelbaum et al., 2012).

One of the earliest models concerning change theory was Kurt Lewin’s Three Step Model which breaks change down into three distinct steps: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Burnes (2004a) claims that it is important to note that Lewin’s model was not intended to be used in isolation, but in conjunction with three other works: Field Theory, Group Dynamics, and Action Research. Together, these four concepts formed an integrated approach to analysing, understanding, and bringing about change at the group, organizational and societal levels (Burnes, 2004a). Of note, Cameron & Green (2009) and Brisson-Banks (2010) pointed out that Lewin’s work on Field Theory pioneered the way to studying resistance to change. In particular, when analyzing change, assessing and taking steps to increase the critical driving forces for change while decreasing the critical restraining forces against it, will have an effect on the future

Lewin’s Three Step Model (Ice Model)

23

state (Brisson-Banks, 2010). As such, in order for any change initiative to be successful, the driving forces for change must outweigh the resisting forces undermining it.

With respect to Lewin’s Three-Step Model, change is broken down into a three

step process (Burnes & Lewin, 2004c). The first step – unfreezing, involves upsetting the current equilibrium of human behavior within an organization to accept the need for change. This means that the conditions have to be created for personnel to believe that the driving forces for change are greater than the forces to resist change. Lewin believed that creating these conditions would not be easy as this would dependant on each situation (Burnes & Lewin, 2004c). The second step – moving, entails the development and verification through trial and error all available options for change. This process is an iterative approach using research, action, followed by more research that comprises Lewin’s work called Action Research expressed above (Burnes, 2004a). The final step – refreezing, seeks to stabilize the group at a new equilibrium to ensure that new behaviors are in place and the group is safe from regression. It is important to note that Lewin saw this action as a group activity because unless changes to group norms, policies and practices, and organizational culture are established, individual behaviors will not be sustained (Burnes & Lewin, 2004c).

Literature has shown that Lewin’s Three-Step Model continues to be used as a

popular tool for studying organizational change (Peterson, 2010; Ford & Greer, 2006; Elrod & Tippett, 2002). Cameron and Green (2009) added that it is a useful tool for those considering organizational change, noting that they have observed some managers using this model as a planning tool rather than an organizational process. Specifically: the unfreeze step becomes a planning session; the move translates to implementation; and the refreezing is a post-implementation review. Burnes (2004a) states that Lewin’s model has come under major criticism in four key areas as follows: it assumes that organizations operate in a stable state; it was only suitable for small-scale change projects; it ignored organizational power and politics; and was top-down and management driven. Notwithstanding, Burnes (2004a) was able to address each one of these criticisms in his article. Finally, Cameron & Green (2009) stated that Lewin’s model ignores the fundamental assumption that groups of people will only change if there is a felt need to do so.

In 1985, Bullock and Batten produced a ground breaking planned change model as a means to develop for the first time, consensus regarding the phase analysis to organizational development models (Bullock & Batten, 1985). They took a unique approach to developing their model by inductively developing seven criteria to evaluate phase model and cross referencing them against three approaches to analyze organizational development phases. The seven criteria that both Bullock & Batten (1985) determined was important to assess phase models were: to view change longitudinally; to view change continuously; to allow fluidity in phase designations; to view phases linearly; to be activity-based; to be generalizable across situations; and be relevant to individual case studies. The three approaches used to analyze the seven criteria against were: theoretical; historical; and interventional approaches (Bullock &

Bullock and Batten’s Planned Change Model

24

Batten, 1985). They were selected for the manner in which they each relate to the source information. In particular, the theoretical approach defined conceptual processes across time while the historical approach identified key events that had

occurred in the past. In contrast, the interventional approach defined what people do in a particular type of change initiative.

Before developing their model, Bullock & Batten (1985) took the time to evaluate

30 other models against their criteria concluding that none of those models adequately fit all of the model criteria. As such, the basis for their model was to inductively create a new model by synthesizing the strengths from the best approaches and correcting for weaknesses wherever possible (Bullock & Batten, 1985). The net result, satisfying all of the criteria was a four-phase model that also broke out the corresponding change processes as Table seen in the table above.

Literature has shown that Bullock & Batten’s Four-Phase Model has broad

applicability across most change situations given that it incorporates many aspects of other change models and that it eliminates confusion between change phases and their associated processes (Burnes, 1996). For example, Lewin’s Three-Step ice model is congruent with Bullock and Batten’s model as: Phase One - Exploration matches Lewin’s Unfreezing; Phase Three - Action matches Lewin’s Moving step; and Phase Four – Integration matches Lewin’s Refreezing step. The added benefit of the Four-

Bullock and Batten’s Four-Phase Model Change Phase Change Processes

1. Exploration a. Needs Awareness b. Search c. Contracting 2. Planning a. diagnosis b. Design c. Decision 3. Action a. Implementation b. Evaluation 4. Integration a. Stabilization b. Diffusion c. Renewal

Figure 5: Bullock & Batten's Four-Phase Model Source: Bullock & Batten, 1985, p. 402

25

Phase Model is that now adds clarity to the processes that should be incorporated with Lewin’s model, which help resolve some, but not all of the ambiguities of the model.

Cameron & Green (2009) made comparisons between this model and a project

management approach in the manner in which it simplifies the change process and isolates one part of the organization in order to make the necessary changes. It is precisely for these reasons that other academics criticize this model. Bamford and Forrester (2003) noted the following three criticisms of the model. Firstly, they argued that in the turbulent business environment that exists today, change cannot occur from one stable state to another. Secondly, they pointed out that since this approach focuses on isolated change, it would not be applicable for radical change scenarios. Finally, they revealed that Bullock and Batten’s model is based on a false assumption, as not everyone within an organization will be in agreement to work towards one common goal. Cameron and Green (2009) added that this approach will work well with a technical problem that can be solved with a definable technical solution, and will be less effective within an organization facing a complex and undefined change scenario.

In recent times, this and other models that use the planned approach to change

have been subject to increased criticism for they are becoming less and less relevant to the current business climate. A number of academic circles profess that in the tumultuous global business environment that exists today; change is more a continuous and open-ended process than a set of discrete and self contained events (Burnes, 1996). In response to this criticism, a new approach to organizational change called the emergent approach began to gain notoriety.

Another unique perspective to address change management within organizations is to view the entire organization as a complete system. Nadler and Tushman (1980) in their article, A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior developed a model based on the premise that for organizations to be effective, their sub-components must be consistently structured and managed to a point that they must approach a state of congruence. They argue that when viewing an organization through the lens of a typical pyramidal organization chart, it is a narrow, stable view that excludes behavioral factors amongst others such as; leadership behavior, the impact of the environment, and power distribution (Nadler & Tushman, 1980). Instead, they offered an alternate, open systems approach which provides a holistic view of organizational behavior by breaking it down into sets interrelating elements that all interact together within the environment of the organization. They were quick to point out that this model would provide a way of thinking about an organization in more complex and dynamic terms, but warn that the model has limited problem solving tool, as it is too abstract for day-to-day use (Nadler & Tushman, 1980).

In general terms, as seen in the figure below, this model consists of three

components (Nadler & Tushman, 1980); inputs, outputs, and a transformational process. Inputs are the materials that an organization has to work with, such as; environmental factors, resources, history of past behavior, and strategy. Outputs are

Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model

26

what the organization produces in terms of: goal attainment or how well the organizational meets its objectives, resource utilization or how well the organization makes use of its resources including its potential performance, and adaptability or whether the organization continues to position itself in a favourable position vis-à-vis its environment. The transformation process consists of the fundamental means that convert the inputs into outputs. In this model, Nadler & Tushman (1980) used the following four components to show how the components of an organization interact:

Tasks. This function looks at the specific work or functions that have to be done as opposed to the way the work is organized or structured in this particular instance. Task analysis consists of work flows and functions and the characteristics of those work flows.

Individuals. This function is comprised of the nature and characteristics of the organization’s employees. Consideration is made to individual skills and knowledge, needs or preferences, perceptions and expectancies, and other background factors that could influence individual behaviors.

Formal Organizational Arrangements. This component includes a range of structures, processes and procedures that have been formally developed within the organization to guide individuals to complete the tasks at hand. This includes the manner in which jobs are grouped together, how jobs are designed within the context of the organization, the work environment in which individuals function, and the method that the organization hires, places, develops and evaluates human resources.

Informal Organizations. This functional component consists of the informal, implicit and unwritten arrangements that emerge either to aid or hinder performance when the organization operates.

The basic hypothesis of the model builds on congruence.

Other things being equal, the greater the total degree of congruence or fit between the various components, the more effective will be the organization – effectiveness being defined as the degree to which actual organization outputs at individual, group, and organizational levels are similar to expected outputs, as specified by strategy (Nadler & Tushman, 1980, p. 45).

In other words, a key implication of this model is not finding the best way of

managing, but finding the most effective combination of the four components that will lead to congruence between them. As such, there are six possible combinations of congruence: individual – organization; individual – task; individual – informal organization; task – organization; task – informal organization; and organization – informal organization.

27

Finally, Nadler & Tushman (1980) go one step further to link an eight-step problem-solving process to the model. This process is outlined in the table below.

Basic Problem Analysis Steps Using the Congruence Model Step Explanation

1. Indentify Symptoms. List data indicating possible existence of problems.

2. Specify Inputs. Identify the system.

Determine the nature of the environment, resources, and history.

Identify critical aspects of strategy.

3. Identify Outputs. Identify the data that defines the nature of outputs at various levels (individual, group, organizational)

This includes the outputs from strategy.

4. Identify Problems. Identify areas where there are significant and meaningful differences between desired and actual outputs.

Identify the cost penalties for each problem.

5. Describe the Components of the Organization.

Describe basic nature of each of the four components with emphasis on their critical features.

6. Assess Congruence. Conduct the analysis to determine relative congruence

Nadler & Tushman’s Congruence Model for Organizational Analysis

Informal

Organization

Individual

TaskInformal

Organization

Environment

Resources

History

Inputs

Organization

Group

Individual

Outputs

Strategy

Feedback

Transformation Process

Figure 6: Nadler & Tushman's Congruence Model Source: Nadler & Tushman, 1980, p. 47

28

Basic Problem Analysis Steps Using the Congruence Model among components.

7. Generate and Identify Causes.

Analyse to associate fit with specific problems.

8. Identify Action Steps. Indicate the possible actions to deal with problem causes.

Figure 7: Nadler & Tushman's Generic Problem-Solving Process Source: Nadler & Tushman, 1980, p. 48

Research has shown that despite being a popular model that has been

successfully applied to a number of change management scenarios, the single most criticism regarding Nadler and Tushman’s congruence model was that it didn’t actually solve any problems (Bezboruah, 2008; Demoville, 1999; Sims, 2003). Sims (2003) successfully used the model to make a number of conclusions regarding the performance and the organizational components of four US military middle schools dispersed in Germany and Japan. Sims reported that this model was actually the starting point to solving the problem, as it inductively built the relationships between the components of the schools, providing a holistic point of view of their relationships rather than reducing them down to their grass roots as many other models do (Sims, 2003). Demoville (1999) in his doctoral dissertation, he compared the model to an executive flight simulator, which permits leaders to conduct test flights to study changes to variables in certain problems in their firms. He concluded that the tighter the relationship between the variables, the harder that it would be to breakdown the forces resisting change, making reference to Lewin’s Model and concept of unfreezing expressed earlier in this paper (Demoville, 1999). Moreover, he noted that in highly turbulent environments, it was clear through using this model that a shift was occurring from the planned approach to solving issues to the emergent approach. In particular, the command and control of organizations to force alignment between variables was shifting to adapt to dynamic change, as alignment was no longer linear but “flocking” in clusters (Demoville, 1999). Bezboruah (2008) used the congruence model not only to evaluate India’s change policy with respect to making their economic system more market oriented, but also as a means to validate the model itself. She was able to confirm the validity of the model concluding that; the changes were gradual, they were consistent with the government’s goals; and since they happened over a lengthy period of time, the model could be used as a feedback template to analyse change from the beginning and the end (Bezboruah, 2008). Bezboruah, recommended that the model be further developed to include an action plan to manage resistance to change (Bezboruah, 2008).

Cameron and Green (2009) also determined the model useful noting that it

provides a memorable checklist for those implementing change. Similar to Bezboruah, they also found that the model useful as a mechanism to analyse in retrospect why any change initiative did not work. As an alternate, Cameron and Green (2008) recommended McKinsey’s seven S model, outlined in the figure below, is a better starting point for those looking at organizational change. After further research, the

29

basis for this model was developed by Waterman, Peters and Phillips (1980) where they looked into organizational change also using a systems approach. They asserted that:

...productive organizational change is not simply a matter of structure,

although structure is important. It is not so simple as the interaction between strategy and structure, although strategy is critical too. Our claim is that effective organizational change is really the relationship between structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, staff, and something we call superordinate goals. (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980, p. 17)

Their model suggested three key ideas as follows (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips,

1980): There is a multiplicity of factors that influence an organization’s ability to change; It is difficult to progress in one area without making progress in the other areas of the model as well; and There is no starting point or implied hierarchy within the model itself. Waterman et al. (1980) concluded that:

At its most powerful and complex, the framework focuses us to concentrate on

interactions and fit. The real energy required to redirect an institution comes when all the variables in the model are aligned. One of our associates looks at our diagram as a set of compasses. When all seven needles are all pointed the same way ... you’re looking at an organized company. (Waterman et al., 1980, p. 26)

Structure

Systems

Staff

Skills Style

Super-Ordinate

Goals

Strategy

Waterman, Peters & Phillips, McKinsey Seven S Model

Figure 8: Waterman, Peters & Phillips, McKinsey Seven S Model Source: Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980, p. 18

30

In comparison to Nadler & Tushman’s congruency model, the seven S model is much less formalized as it does not take into account the external environment, or other inputs. Moreover, it implies congruency between the organizational elements as expressed in the quote above, but it does not go into more detail to explain how to find effective combinations of the organizational elements that lead to congruent fits between them. Nadler & Tushman in contrast go to great lengths to develop this point in their model.

Another unique perspective into the discipline of change management is that of BTM2. According to (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012) one of the key reasons why so many change initiatives fail is that these enterprises do not have the ability to accurately forecast the conditions in the future, and by the time the change initiative is implemented, it does not completely meet the conditions that currently exist in the organization at that point in time. The BTM2 model addresses this discontinuity by tackling both planned and emergent change at the same time. As such, Business Transformation Management is the holistic management of extensive, complex changes on which the organization’s future success strongly depends (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012). In order to accomplish this, the BTM2 model uses a combination of the same core activities expressed in step models such as Kotter and Lewin expressed above, while combining a set of meta-routines to coordinate between different management disciplines as the change initiative is being implemented.

Business Transformation Management Methodology –

Meta Management Framework

Strategy Loop

Value Management

Risk Management

Strategy Management

Programand Project

Management

BusinessProcess

Management

TransformationalIT

Management

Competenceand Training

Management

OrganizationalChange

Management

FeedbackLoop

Direction

Enablement

Figure 9 - BTM2 Meta Management Framework (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012)

Meta management provides the overall framework for the BTM2 model, as it

links together a number of planning management disciplines together with a number of

Business Transformation Management Methodology (BTM2)

31

enabling management disciplines. It is a holistic and integrative approach that consists of three pillars; management disciplines, a transformation life cycle, and leadership (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012). With respect to the first pillar – management disciplines, in the figure above, there are two circles that link together seven disciplines. In the upper circle, this strategy loop provides top-down direction with respect to a vision and action required for the future, along with any constraints such as; time, budget, and risk. The lower circle consists of enablement disciplines, which manage and synchronize change through a series of cycles as the initiative is being implemented. This important loop also serves as a feedback and lessons learned mechanism throughout the process.

The second pillar, the transformation lifecycle consists of iterative stages that

recur in cycles throughout the duration of a change initiative. This process is used primarily by the directional disciplines and may have to be revisited a number of times throughout the initiative as the business context continues to evolve.

The third and final pillar of meta management is leadership or governance. A

key factor of any change initiative is building a coalition and defeating the forces that resist change. The governance structure in the figure below outlines a structure to link together different level of the organization with different role models such as the champion, the sponsor and the project manager.

The Transformation Lifecycle

Envision Engage Transform Optimize

An iterative process going through different phases in recurring cycles

Envision Engage

Optimize Transform

Create case for change,Sense of urgency,Strategy/vision

Empower people to act on the vision

And plan the effort

Change behavior,Processes, technology,

Culture, and values

Internalize,Institutionalize, and optimize transformation;Create stability

Figure 10 - BTM2 Transformation Cycle (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012)

32

Uhl and Gollenia (2012) further expanded on these pillars to internalize and institutionalize the purpose and goals of a transformation through the following four principles: define clear and comprehensible goals to achieve the transformation

objective; communicate and live the vision; leadership and walking the talk; and define values and facilitate internalization into the culture of the organization.

Given that BTM2 is a relatively new model, a further review of literature was

unable to find any corresponding material critiquing this model. Nevertheless, Uhl and Gollenia (2012) summarized their own model, providing the following advantages:

It provides an iterative lifecycle model as a holistic process.

It provides a formal structure with both formal and informal roles.

It uses a performance measurement method based on balanced scorecard.

It delivers decision criteria.

It helps create culture and values.

Business Transformation Management Methodology - Governance Structure

Meta Management

as a Framework

Core

Questions

Formal Management

Roles

Informal Management

Roles

Strategy

Program

Project

Why?

What?

How?

Executive Steering

Committee

Steering

Committee

Business

Transformation

Manager

Program Manager

Project Manager

Power

Promoter

Relationship

Promoter

Functional

Promoter

Power

Promoter

Relationship

Promoter

Functional

Promoter

Power

Promoter

Relationship

Promoter

Functional

Promoter

Figure 11 - BTM2 Governance Structure (Uhl & Gollenia, 2012)

33

It provides communications and engagement principles and supports feedback loops.

It is clear from the literature review that change management is a broad and complex subject that encompasses many disciplines. At its centre is the concept of influencing behavior to defeat the forces of resistance to change or reinforce the forces to adapt to it. Every organization has its own genetic fingerprint and as a result will react differently to the forces of change. The MND is certainly no different, as there can only be one organization in Canada that can fulfill the mission to defend the interests of the nation. As an organization, there are two paradoxes that help describe the MND: first from a business perspective, there is a paradox between profit and not-for-profit organizations; and secondly, as a government organization, there is a paradox between the federal civil service and the CF. Therefore given the unique distinction of the MND as an organization, it is worthwhile to underscore some of the key components and concepts of it prior to applying some of the ideas of change management to the organization as a whole.

The MND is comprised of two principle organizations; the DND and the CF. The DND is the public side of the Ministry that interacts for the most part with other elements of the Federal Government. The CF on the other hand is the military, uniformed

The MND Organization

Figure 12 - The MND Strategic Organization Chart

34

component of the Ministry that conducts operations that are directed by the government, and its personnel are subject to special orders and regulations under the National Defence Act. It is very important to note that there is no clear-cut dichotomy between civilian and military personnel between the DND and the CF. On the contrary, uniformed and civilian personnel are cross pollinated between both organizations. Both the DND and the CF have their own distinct cultures with their own sets of rules.

Below is a rudimentary diagram of the task environment of the MND at the

strategic level, which reveals some of the complexities and interrelationships within the organization. Note that the four pillars, with the support of the institution, are the key components that enable both the DND and the CF to meet their mandate. There are very different human resource practices concerning the hiring, training, compensation, and discipline of military personnel in comparison to the Ministry’s civil servants. Moreover, there is an entire system of individual, collective, and professional development training for military personnel, as they must be ready to deploy as individuals or in groups wherever the government wishes to employ them. There are always units of soldiers, sailors, air, and Special Forces personnel supported by a logistical system ready at all times. The purchase of equipment, the development and maintaining of infrastructure, and exercising due diligence to environmental and other government laws are all interfaces that are conducted through the DND. All of these functions are under-pinned at the institutional level to ensure that defence administration is as efficient and effective as possible. Uncertainty in this complex

Figure 13 - The MND Task Environment

35

environment is a derivative of not knowing whether the next mission is within North America or abroad, and whether it is a domestic operation, peacekeeping, or perhaps war fighting.

Similar to all other organizations, the MND is no stranger to change, but it is important to note that there are two separate elements to change management within the Ministry. First, operational change is concerned with ensuring that the environmental forces4 of the CF are furnished with the right doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, equipment, and logistical support to dominate in any theatre of operations in which they deploy. In that vein, there are entire subordinate organizations within the CF that are dedicated to advancing the professional development of the four environmental forces to ensure that they maintain a decisive edge regardless of the operating environment or the theatre of operations in which they deploy. Secondly, institutional change concerns the process of ensuring that the MND, as an institution operates, as efficiently and effectively as possible. To paraphrase Eccles (1965) and Bland (2005) quoted above; it is about managing the process of maintaining the solid core of the administrative snowball, trimming off the excess slush, all the while ensuring that the environmental forces have the resources necessary to meet their mandate. It is important to note that if defence administrators do not balance this process with due diligence and the Ministry’s resources are not apportioned appropriately, the lives of CF personnel could be put in jeopardy. In this regard, there is yet another paradox between the CF and other federal government institutions, as military effectiveness implies economic inefficiency. In particular, an effective military will achieve its mission with the minimum loss of killed and wounded, and other resources; whereas to do so is economically inefficient since the costs of establishing and maintaining such a military force are significant.

Over the past fifty years, there have been four distinct epochs of change within MND; Unification, Management Review Group, Management Command and Control Re-engineering, and CF Transformation. According to Rostek (2009), three of the four initiatives attempted to use private sector change management techniques and principles, and fell well short of the anticipated outcome. 5 As for the fourth - Transformation, it was too early to assess its overall success at that point in time. It is also important to note another dichotomy, that the first three initiatives included a reduction in defence spending while conversely, the fourth included an expansion in defence expenditures (Rostek, 2009). Each of these change initiatives are briefly described in the following four sections.

4 The four environmental forces are; the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal

Canadian Air Force, and the Canadian Special Forces. 5 Rostek did not mention any change management methods or techniques used for Unification,

the MRT, and Transformation. MCCT was a re-engineering initiative.

The MND and Change Management

36

Unification of the CF was the change initiative conceived by the Minister of National Defence, Paul Hellyer over the period of 1963-1967. It primarily consisted of two bills; C-90, C-243. Bill C-90 sought to create the position of one single Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), create the Canadian Forces Headquarters, and the integration of the CF. Bill C-243 concerned the reorganization of the CF. Hellyer’s vision for change was to conserve the professional and technical services of the CF and thereby create flexible forces capable of meeting the demands for modern warfare much swifter than ever before in history (Rostek, 2009). Unification as a change initiative failed as it did not achieve consensus amongst all stakeholders in cabinet. According to Bland (1998), the cost of unification was too high as it changed the culture of the CF, destroying Canadian military traditions and morale amongst uniformed personnel.

The MRG was a change initiative instituted by the Defence Minister McDonald in the 1991 Defence White Paper. The general idea of this programme was to make up for shortfalls in resources for operational forces through finding efficiencies in the management of the Ministry (Rostek, 2009). To that end the Canadian Forces Headquarters and the Defence Headquarters were amalgamated together. It is interesting to note that no senior military officers were consulted in the development of the White Paper. As a result, the document failed to pass parliamentary scrutiny over two key components: the control of the CF being delegated to the Deputy Minister; and its focus for peacetime operations (Rostek, 2009). Bland (1998) noted that this change initiative resulted in the exact opposite effect, a decrease in operational efficiency instead of increasing it.

The end of the Cold War brought about a trend in western nations to decrease defence spending and the MCCRT was the MNDs team that was charged with meeting the target for defence budget cost-cutting. The general idea of this effort was to reorganize NDHQ by reducing uniformed personnel by one-third, returning them to the field force, and identify resource management and support services that could be re-engineered to reduce overhead (Rostek, 2009). The Headquarters was reorganized based on four core processes; strategic direction, force generation, force employment and service support. According to Rostek (2009), this change initiative failed due to institutional hesitation. Instead of developing a new organization, the four core processes were reworked into the old, existing structure of the headquarters. Moreover, he noted that there was considerable confusion whether this was a re-engineering effort or a down-sizing exercise (Rostek, 2009).

The final strategic level change effort that the MND has undertaken over the past half century was CF Transformation. In 2005, a new Defence Policy Statement expressed a new vision for the CF aimed at “fundamentally reorienting and restructuring the functions and the command and control of the CF to better meet the emerging security demands at home and abroad. (Gosselin & Stone, Winter 2005-2006)”

Unification

Management Review Group (MRG)

Management Command and Control Re-Engineering Team (MCCRT)

CF Transformation

37

Essentially, this was an operational level change programme that was geared to improving the effectiveness of the CF as opposed efficiency with all of the other change initiatives. This effort was also coupled with an increase to defence spending. In effect, the CDS, General (retd) Hillier increased the number of Headquarters in NDHQ, which was the exact opposite of the last two structural changes. From a change management perspective, it is interesting to note that the CDS started implementing the plan before it was complete, giving a whole new meaning to Kotter’s (2008) change management principle of acting with a sense of urgency.

In summary, the MND is a very unique organization that has had its share of

change effort shortfalls over the past 50 years. That said, the MND is a learning institution and has deemed the following 16 change elements essential to the success of any change programme in the future (Rostek, 2009).

Vision Standards and

Performance Measurement

Recognition and Incentives

Financial Resources

Leadership Risk Management Effective Communications

Personnel Management

Policy Evaluation and Audit Knowledge Management

Functional Direction

Priority Setting and Business Planning

Accountability and Reporting

Continuous Improvement

Project Management

38

Research Questions

Change management is a cross-cutting discipline that touches every component of an organization and literature has shown that behavior plays a key role in accepting or resisting change. The following research questions reinforce the objective of this paper:

Why do so many change initiatives fail?

Why are there so many different models that address change?

Why does the CF as an institution seem to be in a perpetual state of change?

Which change models are best suited to the MND?

What are the change management challenges that will be unique to the MND and not necessarily other public and private sector organizations?

What effects will the culture of the MND have on managing change?

39

Research Design

This research paper will consist of three stages to inductively develop the knowledge necessary to meet the objective expressed above. In the first stage, it will be necessary to take a grass roots approach to develop a firm knowledge base of the discipline of change management. It is my intent to outline three distinctly different approaches to this subject in order to outline some of the discriminating factors between them and highlight some of the key developments as this discipline has matured over time. In the second stage, I will analyse several models used to manage change. At the end of this stage, I will link these models to the approaches established earlier with a view to clearly understanding not only the strengths and weakness of each one, but also the differences between them. In the final stage, I will analyse the MND as a unique organization and link this environment to both the change management approaches and the models used in the earlier stages.

40

Results

This literature review was specifically designed in two stages; to identify three different approaches to studying change management in the first stage, and introducing six different models in the second. In order to continue with the analysis of the literature, it is useful to combine both the models and the approaches together to reveal a clear picture of the relationships between them. This will aid in the analysis and determination of which model is perhaps the best model for implementing strategic change within the MND. The figure below is the resulting matrix that will be used to conduct this analysis.

41

Degree of

Change

Timing of

Change

Scale of

Change

Focus of

Change Intentionality Theory E Theory O Theory E & O Machine

Political

System Organism

Flux and

Trans-

formation

Kotter, Eight Steps First/Second RevolutionaryModular/

Corporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned/

EmergentX X X X X X

Lewin, Three-Step

ModelFirst/Second Revolutionary

Modular/

Corporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned X X X

Bullock and Batten,

Planned ChangeFirst/Second Revolutionary

Incremental/

Modular/

Corporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned X X

Nadler and Tushman,

Congruence ModelSecond Order Revolutionary Corporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned X X X X X

McKensey's 7

FrameworkFirst/Second

Revolutionary/

Evolutionary

Incremental/

Modular/

Corporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned X X X X X

Uhl and Gollenia, BTM2 Second OrderRevolutionary/

EvolutionaryCorporate

Structure/

Process/

Attitude

Planned X X X X X X

Degree of Change -

First Order - Minor change. Theory E - Machine -

Second Order - Transformational, the entire organization.

Timing of Change -

Revolutionary - Sudden and drastic.

Evolutionary - Gradual and incremental. Theory O -

Scale of Change -

Fine Tuning -

Incremental - Modification to strategies and processes. Organism -

Modular - Department or Divisional level change.

Corporate - Radical change to business strategy. Theory E & O -

Focus of Change -

Structure -

Process - Altering the way people interact within structures. Flux and Transformation -

Attitude -

Intentionality -

Planned -

Emergent -

1. Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century. 28(4). Retrieved July 21, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457711.pdf

2. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.

3. Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2009). Making Sense of Change Management (2nd ed.) . Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Legend

Ongoing, matching strategy, processes,

people, and structure.

Altering the org chart, reward system, or

policies and procedures.

Classification Approach Hard and Soft Approach Metaphorical Approach

Methods of Cataloguing Change Models

Model

How people feel about working within existing

structures and processes.

Planned - Intentional change with a strategy

and expertise. It is linear.

Emergent - Change is seen as process,

driven from the bottom-up.

Classification Approach1

Hard and Soft Approach2

Change initiated by economic

value. Hard changes:

downsizing, restructure

Hard change first followed soft

changes later.

Change initiated by

organizational capability. Soft

changes: develop culture,

individual and org learning.

Change emerges, it is not managed. Managers are a part of

the whole environment. Tensions and conflict are a key feature

of emerging change. Managers act as enablers.

Metaphorical Approach3

Change by those in a position of authority. Resistance to

change must be managed. Change must be well planned and

Political -

System

Change must be supported by a powerful person. The wider

the support base the better. Understand who will be the

winners and losers. Creating new coalitions and renegotiating

Change is made in response to the external environment.

Individuals need to be aware of the need for change. The

response to change can be designed and worked towards.

Participation and psychological support needed to succeed.

Figure 14 - Methods of Cataloguing Change Models

42

Analysis

The literature review exposed some stark revelations about change management. Despite researching a number of academic references regarding the nature of change management, there was very little consensus between them. In fact, the only consistent observation that academics were in agreement upon was that most change programmes undertaken by organizations - fail. From that point forward opinions differed. Nevertheless, when synthesizing all of these observations together, there appears to be three trends why change management programmes fail. They are: rapidly shifting forces of change; ineffective management; and lack of mature information in academic circles.

One aspect that is clear from within the literature review is the fact that the environment within which organizations operate is rapidly changing and the rate of change is increasing as time passes. Forces such as; globalization, advances in technology, economic down-turns, global competition, a growing knowledge workforce, and rapidly shifting social and demographic change are all increasing the level of uncertainty within the business environment and are forcing change. Despite a lack of empirical information within the literature review, there is an appearance that change initiatives are failing to meet their intended goals because once the planned change programme is delivered the forces of change have already altered the operating environment to another level that make the programme virtually irrelevant. In other words, the rate of change is occurring quicker than the planned decision - action cycle of the organization. This has lead to the development of the emergent approach to change that states, “Organizational change is seen to be less dependent on plans and projections than on reaching an actual understanding of the complexity of the issues involves and identifying the range of possible options (Bamford & Forrester, 2003). In fact, the classification approach to cataloguing change models in figure 12 is capable of isolating this very approach to change.

With respect to the MND, the forces of change are very different to those in the

private, for profit sector. Notwithstanding that the operating environment for the MND has its own level of complexity and uncertainty, the emergent approach to change is not relevant to this operating environment.

The second trend to why so many change efforts fail is related internally to the management of the organization. In a nutshell, within the operating environment, if the behavioral forces driving people to accept change are unable to overcome the behavioral forces resisting change then the programme will fail. There are a plethora of reasons why, but essentially they all point to the leadership and management skills to be able to influence behavioral change.

Why So Many Change Management Initiatives Fail

Rapidly Shifting Forces of Change

Ineffective Management

43

This trend can be easily put to the test by evaluating the three less effective MND change programmes against Kotter’s Eight Errors to Organizational Change Efforts (Kotter J. P., 1995). For example, Rostek (2009) argued that unification failed because the Minister of National Defence, Hellyer failed to win-over stakeholders from Cabinet, which corresponds to Kotter’s error number two; failing to create a sufficiently powerful coalition. One of the key reasons why the MRG failed was that no senior officers from the CF were consulted in the development of the 1970 White Paper, which corresponds to Kotter’s rule number eight; neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture. Finally, the MCCRT fell well short of its objective as the change teams were not afforded the time necessary to complete their work (Rostek, 2009), which related to Kotter’s rule number 3; underestimating the power of vision.

Research has shown that there has been a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories and approaches to change management. Moreover, Kezar (2001) concluded that, “Organizational change varies by what model the reader uses to examine [it].” Furthermore, Hidescu and lies (2011) went one step further stating that professionals had a tendency to use whatever approach to change that they either knew or was popular at the time. Again, with the absence of empirical data, it appears like organizations may have been using change models that were not completely appropriate for their organization. Further work was conducted in academic circles to organize the literature and provide a framework to adopt to choose the most appropriate model for the organization and the type of change. In fact, the very basis of this research is to do exactly this with the MND.

One of the primary characteristics of the business environment is that it is in a continual state of unrest - ever evolving, and as such, this is the main reason why there are so many change models. The literature review revealed that there was a direct relationship over time between the development of change management models and change itself. As previously seen, Bullock and Batten’s work in the development of their model provided a good source of information to track the development of change management models over the 30 year period that they researched (Bullock & Batten, 1985). In fact, they were able to combine the criteria of 30 step models into a four phase problem solving model. As such, it can be argued that Bullock and Batten’s model could be an anchor point in time where the academic modeling was in equilibrium with the business environment. After the introduction of their model, the literature revealed a series of rapid, incremental changes in the business environment, which correspond with new paradigms in change management modeling. The classification approach to categorizing change models in figure 14 is useful to identifying two such epochs: the timing of change being revolutionary or evolutionary; and intentionality of change being planned or emergent.

Another approach to identifying different epochs in change management

modeling is to identify possible trends from the models in the literature review. Using

Lack of Mature Information in Academic Circles

Why there are so many Change Models

44

Bullock & Batten’s model as an anchor point as expressed above, three different epochs can be identified. First, Lewin’s model represents a previous epoch of a step model that was subsumed into Bullock and Batten’s (1985) model. The next epoch can be seen in both Nadler & Tushman’s and Waterman et al, as these two models both used a systems methodology to address change management. Finally, the third and most recent epoch is that of Uhl & Gollenia, where they used meta management as a basis to approach change. It must be noted that there could be other possible epochs that are not represented in this research project as it is purposely limited to only six models.

Regardless of the method used to establish different epochs of change

management modeling, research has shown that in this global era, the rate of change is continuing to increase. As such, the number of change models developed is directly proportional to the rate of change. Another possible reason linked to the lack of mature information in academic circles noted above is perhaps the rate of change is too rapid for academic literature to maintain the pace of change. Similar to the rate of change effecting the decision – action cycle of organizational leaders, the same phenomenon could be affecting academic circles, adding to the debate of the effectiveness of change management literature.

The CF appears to be in a perpetual state of change ever since the implementation of CF Transformation. Research revealed that this strategic change management initiative was implemented prior to the completion of the entire plan (Jeffery, 2009; Rostek, 2009). The latent phases of the plan, aligning defence administration with operational level changes were never completed due to Canada’s changing role in the Afghanistan war. In 2010, the completion of combat operations corresponded with an economic shift from a resource rich, war time posture, to a resource constrained, peacetime environment, signalling a new era for the MND. From a change management perspective, the case for CF Transformation could be argued from both a planned and emergent approach. From a planned perspective, the parts of the plan that were completed were for the most part successful (Jeffery, 2009), whereas, the fact that the entire plan was not finished reinforces the emergent argument to change. The counter argument from the planned perspective’s position is that change programmes take time to complete, and that these elements of the plan will be executed in the short run. Uniquely, this phased, cyclical approach is consistent with Uhl and Gollenia’s (2012) meta management model. Therefore in summary, the main reason why the CF appears to be in a perpetual state of change is dependent upon which approach to change management is adopted.

The main thrust of this research project is to identify which change models are the most appropriate for managing change within the MND. Figure 14 above, Methods of Cataloguing Organizational Change Models captures the key aspects of this research. This matrix brings to order what has been described within literature as, “... a barrier to [the] broader application of the basic principles of change management”

Why the CF as an Institution seems to be in a Perpetual State of Change

Change Models that are Best Suited to the MND

45

(Young, 2009). In particular this template compares three different frames of reference to understand change management against six corresponding models to change. The following three approaches to understanding change management were: First, Kezar (2001) devised a key to break down and classify change models by their intrinsic characteristics; The second method was developed by Beer and Nohria (2000) which polarized change models based on their effects on the organization; Finally, the third approach devised by Cameron and Green (2009) created metaphors to isolate the fundamentals of change management in a vacuum, which were then applied to further classify change models. While all three methods had their strengths and weaknesses, it became rapidly clear that the Kezar’s classification method had the best utility, as it was by far the most detailed and it could be directly applied in all instances. In contrast, the authors of the other two methods applied caveats to their approaches claiming that no one part of their approach would be effectively used in isolation.6 Cameron and Green’s approach was by far the most abstract, as it classified the models in a nonfigurative manner. In spite of, the differences between the three approaches, they did render some interesting observations when the models were applied against them.

Six different models were selected for this research project, all representing a

broad range of models that had been developed over the past 70 years. Moreover, they all had the appearance that they would fit the strategic environment of the MND. During the literature review however, it became apparent that both Total Quality Management (TQM) and Six Sigma did not fit into the strategic task environment of the MND. In particular, despite Richards’ (2012) contention that TQM was being used in 43 areas of the South Korean government, the paradox between the military and other government departments concerning efficiency and effectiveness which was discussed above in the literature review, was too great to apply at the strategic level for both of these models. However, it was noted that these models are very applicable at lower, operational levels such as in supply chain management as seen in Kalock and Williams (2004) and Sprague (2009).

The following observations were made when the six models were compared and

contrasted against the three approaches to change management:

Despite Lewin’s model being subsumed in Bullock and Batten’s, differences were noted in both the scale of change in the classification approach and also the in organism method in the metaphorical approach. These nuances differentiate the external forces that effect Lewin’s model that are not represented in Bullock and Batten’s.

The two models that used systems theory, Nadler & Tushman and Waterman et al, were set apart by both the degree and scale of change.

6 Beer & Nohria (2000) stated that the most effective method is to combine elements of both

Theory E followed by Theory O in that order. On the other hand, Cameron & Green (2009) noted that change in the real environment would be applied though a combination of their four approaches.

46

In particular, Nadler and Tushman’s model incorporates inputs and outputs in their model, whereas Waterman does not.

Kotter’s model appeared to be the most applicable across all three of the approaches. Nevertheless, the literature review revealed some criticism of his model for not having enough empirical support. That said, this could also be the models greatest strength, as a simple and straight forward model could cut straight through all of the chaos and uncertainty in the organization’s operating environment.

No two models were categorized exactly the same over all three approaches. No two models were categorized the same when using the classification approach, whereas the other two methods had multiple similarities between a number of the models. As a result, the classification method demonstrates the most utility, but the other two approaches are useful in further enhancing these differences.

With respect to the individual categories within each of the models, the four observations pertaining to possible limitations of the matrix are as follows: no model was categorized with the scale of fine tuning; all three categories representing focus of change were selected for each of the models; Theory E was selected for each of the models; and no model fit the metaphor flux and transformation. It must be stressed however, that all of these models were selected for their bias towards being used within the MND. In addition, only Kotter’s model was assessed as following the emergent theory (Todnem, 2005), and given the relative importance of this theory in the past ten years, at least one other similar model should have been included in this research.

Given all of the categories within all three approaches, and the knowledge of the MND as a very distinct and unique federal institution, it is my assessment that the optimal model for change management within the MND at the strategic level would consist of the following categories:

Approach Category Optimal Characteristic for the MND

Classification Approach

Degree of Change Second Order

Timing of Change Revolutionary

Scale of Change Corporate

Focus of Change Structure/Process/Attitude

Intentionality of Change Planned

Hard and Soft Approach Theory E and O Theory

Metaphorical Approach Symbol Machine/Political/Organism

Upon comparing the optimal characteristics from the table above with the features of the six models assess, two models meet all of the requirements; Kotter’s Eight-Step Model, and Uhl & Gollenia’s Meta Management Model. Both of these models are polar opposites in terms of

47

their theoretical detail whereby it could be possible to combine them together. Above all, there is potential to use the meta management model as the primary tool against a back drop of Kotter’s Eight-Step Model as a feedback mechanism. This is something that could be explored in greater detail with additional research.

It is also potentially possible to construct a hybrid model using key elements from many of the models. For example, the Meta Management model could be used as the primary baseline model. The Seven S Model could be combined with the input and output components from the Congruence Model and worked into the enablement loop of the Meta Management Framework. Kotter’s Eight-Step model could then be used as a general feedback and performance measurement check. The risk of creating this Frankenstein model is it become too complex and unusable. The combining of models does have potential for further study.

This literature review has provided a wide range of background knowledge pertaining to managing change. When applying this information to the administration of the MND at the strategic level, a number of challenges come to the forefront. They are as follows:

There are a large number of stakeholders both internal and external that must be engaged when pertaining to the behavioral aspects of managing change. Some of the key external stakeholders are: Federal, Provincial and Municipal politicians; other government departments; military alliances such as: NORAD, NATO, ABCA; Non-Government Organizations; industry; and most of all the Canadian Public.

The literature review identified 16 change elements essential to the success of any change programme in the MND. If considering a systems approach using either Nadler & Tushman’s congruence model or Washman et al’s seven S model, determining congruence between all of these elements for each strategic input amplifies the complexity of managing change within the MND, especially when having to assign weight factors against each of the outputs to place them in priority.

The research underscored the contradiction between the military and a government service context between effectiveness and efficiency. This context will continue to ebb and flow between the two organizations depending upon the nature of the CF operations in the spectrum of conflict.

The MND is subject to political uncertainty with regard to publishing new defence platforms, White Papers, Strategies, and policies.

Applying change uniformly across the culture of the MND.

Change Management Challenges Unique to the MND

48

Balancing the finite resources available with the necessity to maintain the technological edge in all theatres of operation.

The literature review indentified a key linkage between the behavioral aspects of managing change and culture. It also brought to the forefront a distinctive culture within the MND. One key challenge to managing change within the organization is administering cross-cutting change initiatives over the blend of the two distinct cultures. The research reported that there is a blurred line between uniformed and civilian personnel across the MND. As culture has evolved, groups of CF civilians and DND military personnel have cross-pollinated into each other’s organizations. As stated within the literature review, the MND culture has two different compensation, reward and discipline systems; one for uniformed personal under the National Defence Act, and the other under the Public Service Employment Act. The challenge is to implement change across both systems considering the implications of the three drivers of work behavior; purpose, identity, and mastery amongst them (Moran & Brightman, 2001).

A second unique aspect of MND culture concerns the operational basis of the

organization and managing the administrative snowball as described above by Eccles (1965) and Bland (2005). To Politicians and the Canadian Public, the MND is the force of last resort with a no fail mission. It is engrained within the culture that the CF become masters of all types of missions across the entire spectrum of operations. Given this very broad mandate, and to paraphrase Eccles, it is culturally very difficult to trim the administrative slush to maintain the hard, solid core of the organization. This phenomenon is common to most military forces, as Eccles had originally made this observation over the US armed forces, and in retrospect, it was evident in the first three MND change initiatives in the literature review. As such, any change initiatives implemented across the MND should focus on overcoming the behavioral aspect of a reluctance to let go of non-essential administration.

MND culture and managing change?

49

Recommendations

Given that the nature of this research project has been to inductively determine the most appropriate change management models to be applied within the MND at the strategic level, the recommendations from this project are as follows:

Further empirical research should be conducted to expand the matrix into a more holistic tool that could be used in the vast majority of business environments and change scenarios. Modifications should include but are not limited to:

- Increasing both the number of models and the approaches to

categorize them. - Supporting the models with empirical data from companies that

were able to successfully implement their change programme.

- Including a balanced score card approach to providing feedback on the success of a particular model for a particular scenario.

- Organizing supporting data into vignettes or case studies complete

with lessons learned as a ready reference to aid in change management planning.

This would enable companies to address the concept of planning for change from firm, proven ground, where they would be working with positive, time tested material from other similar organizations. The end result is a larger matrix matching a larger variety of models with broader application across a wider range of for profit and not-for-profit organizations.

Investigate another approach to classify the type of organization and the nature of change against the models and approaches in the matrix. It may be possible to use a cookie cutter approach to generally match a type of organization with a type of model as a start state to begin to build a framework to implement a change initiative.

Investigate change models by epoch and try to develop more clues from the matrix regarding the fundamentals of change management over a specific length of time or critical event, like isolating globalization for example.

Investigate the effects of combining elements of different change models together to make a supermodel. The hypothesis is to combine the best attributes from a number of models to strengthen the overall effectiveness to create one master model that would have a greater probability of successful implementation across a wide range of organizations. Caution

50

must be taken not to overcomplicate the resultant model, as the end result could by and large decrease its effectiveness.

More research should be conducted from an academic perspective into the effects of the rate of change due to globalization on change management. The literature review revealed common facts that cause concern for the future. They were: the business environment is changing at an increasing pace; and there is little empirical evidence to support change management theories and approaches. It has been suggested through the emergent approach, that change is occurring so rapidly that managers are having difficulty overseeing traditional change methods. Similarly, this evidence points to a parallel deduction that academics are having the same difficulty in keeping up with the pace of change and that they are falling behind in providing organizations with the data that they need to thrive in this volatile global business environment. As a result, additional academic research should be conducted to bridge this gap, to reduce the flash to bang time in publishing information in a more relevant, timely, and organized fashion.

51

Conclusions

This research project provides inferences in three main areas; change

management as a discipline, change within the MND, and the study of change management models. First, the literature review revealed that change management is not a mature discipline, as its foundations built from theory and empirical evidence, like bricks and mortar, are not congealed together as in other time tested disciplines. Despite all of the conjecture in academic circles, two common key pieces of information came to the forefront. They are; 70% of all change initiatives result in some varying degree of failure, and the forces that cause change are causing change to increase at an increasing rate. These facts are the makings of a wicked problem that if goes unchecked will only result in more, catastrophic failures of change initiatives in the time to come. It is clear from this research project and its corresponding literature review that this discipline is in desperate need of a paradigm shift to close the gap between theory and the realities put into practice in the business environment.

Secondly, this research project highlighted some unique aspects of the MND as

a unique organization which is characteristically different from not only for-profit organizations, but more importantly from other not-for-profit government services. Three such observations were: the MND has its own distinct strategic culture comprised of a blend of uniformed CF personnel and federal civil servants; the environmental forces that cause organizations to change influence the MND differently, as the derivatives that make up uncertainty in the MND are much different than other organizations; and the notion of efficiency and effectiveness has a different connotation in military terms, as outright failure is tantamount to the men and women of the CF making the ultimate sacrifice. As for change management in the MND, the literature review proved congruent with academic literature, as three of the past four strategic change initiatives were assessed to one degree or another as less than successful.

Finally, with respect to change management models, this research project sought

out to determine which models were best suited for the MND. A key was developed to provide a common frame of reference for six handpicked models and the strategic change characteristics that exist within the MND. Two models were congruent; Kotter’s Eight Step Model, and Uhl & Gollenia’s recent Meta Management Model. These two models are characteristically polarized as Kotter’s model is distinguished by its descriptive, linear approach to conducting a change management project, whereas Uhl & Gollenia’s model is a multi-disciplinary cyclical view on change management. Two key deductions leading to future research were made: the first pertaining to the appearance that these two models complement each other and can therefore be combined together; and the second that this methodology could be applied on a larger scale to further aid an organization’s plan for change.

In summary, this research project was able to isolate two change management

models that could be used in combination within the strategic confines of the MND. Only time, additional research, and the successful implementation of Uhl & Gollenia’s and Kotter’s combined supermodel, will determine if it is commensurable with a new paradigm shift in the discipline of change management.

52

References

Ahn, M. J., Adamson, J. S., & Dornbusch, D. (2004). From Leaders to Leadership:

Managing Change. The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 112-123.

Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.-L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the Future: Revisiting Kotter's 1996 Change Model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.

Balogun, J., & Hailey, H. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change. London: Prentice Hall.

Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. (2003). Managing Planned and Emergeant Change Within an Operations Management Environment. International Journal of Operations & Production management, 23(5), 546-564.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.

Bezboruah, K. C. (2008). Applying the Congruence Model of Organizational Change in Explaining the Change in the Indian Economic Policies. Journal of Organizational Transformation and social Change, 5(2), 129-140.

Bland, D. L. (Ed.). (1998). Canada's National Defence Volume 2: Defence Organization. Kingston: Queens University.

Bland, D. L. (Ed.). (2005). Transforming National Defence Administration. Kingston, Ontario: Queens University.

Brisson-Banks, C. V. (2010). Managing Change and Transitions: A Comparison of Different Models and their Commonalities. Library Management, 31(4/5), 241-252.

Bullock, R. J., & Batten, D. (1985). It's Just a Phase We're Going Through: A Review and Synthesis of OD [Organizational Development] Phase Analysis. Group & Organization Studies, 10(4), 383-416.

Burnes, B. (1996). No Such Thing as ... a "One Best Way" To Manage Organizational Change. Management Decision, 34.10, 11-18.

Burnes, B. (2004a). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-Appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1001.

Burnes, B. (2004b). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Burnes, B. (2004c). Kurt Lewin and Complexity Theories: Back to the Future. Journal of Change Management, 4(4), 309-325.

53

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2009). Making Sense of Change Management (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage (2nd ed.). London: Thomas Learning.

Demoville, D. B. (1999). The Dynamics of Organizational Alignment. Fielding Institute. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Department of National Defence. (2008). Canada First Defence Strategy. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from Canadian Forces: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/index-eng.asp?WT.svl=CFDLEFT

Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The Strategic Management of Corporate Change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905-918.

Eccles, H. E. (1965). Military Concepts and Philosophy. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Elrod, P. D., & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The "Death Valley" of Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273-291.

Ford, M. W., & Greer, B. M. (2006). Profiling Change: An Empirical Study of Change Process Patterns. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 420-446.

Gosselin, D., & Stone, C. (Winter 2005-2006). Canadian Forces Transformation. Canadian Military Journal, 6(4), 5-15.

Hudescu, L., & Ilies, L. (2011). Challenges in Choosing an Effective Change Management Approach. Managerial Changes of the Contemporary Society(2), 125-129.

Jeffery, M. J. (2009). Inside Canadian Forces Transformation: Institutional Leadership as a Catalyst for Change. Kingston: Canadian Defence Academy Press.

Kallock, W., & Williams, L. (2004). DoD's Supply Chain Mandate: From Factory to Foxhole. Supply Chain Management Review, 46-53.

Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century. 28(4). Retrieved July 21, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457711.pdf

Kotter, J. (1998). Winning at Change. Retrieved from Providersedge: http://www.providersedge.com/ehdocs/transformation_articles/WINNING_AT_CHANGE.pdf

Kotter, J. P. (1995, March - April). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 59-67.

54

Kotter, J. P. (2008). A Sense of Urgency. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008, July-August). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.

LaClair, J., & Rao, R. (2002). Helping Employees Embrace Change. The McKinsey Quarterly(4), 84-92.

Leslie, A. (2011). Report on Transformation 2011. Ottawa: National Defence.

Luecke, R. (2005). Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Meyer, A. D., Brooks, G. R., & Goes, J. B. (1990). Environmental Jolts and Industry Revolutions: organizational Responses to Discontinuous Change. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 93-110.

Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading Organizational Change. Career Development International, 6(2), 111-118.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A Model for Orgaizational Behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35-51.

National Defence. (2013, May). Building Our Future Together. The Maple Leaf, 15(5), p. 9. Retrieved from The Maple Leaf: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/_pdf/2013/05-eng.pdf

National Defence. (2013, February 1). Department of National Defence - Departmental Performance Report 2011-12. Retrieved May 25, 2013, from National Defence: http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/sites/internet-eng.aspx?page=14493

Nelson, L. (2003). A Case Study in Organizational Change: Implications for Theory. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 18-30.

Peterson, S. E. (2010). Profiling Change Process Patterns Associated with Successful Implementation. Capella University. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from ABI/INFORM Global Database

Richards, J. (2012). Total Quality Management. Fairmont WV: Macrothink Institute.

Rostek, M. (2009). Managing Change within DND. In C. Stone, The Public Management of Defence in Canada (pp. 219-236). Toronto: Breakout.

55

Sims, P. G. (2003). A Case Study of Organizational Alignment within the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Sprague, N. (2009, Spring). Transforming the Armed Forces Through Lean Six Sigma. Future State, pp. 1-3.

Todnem, R. (2005). Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

Uhl, A., & Gollenia, L. A. (Eds.). (2012). A handbook of Business Transformation Management Methodology. Burlington, Vermont, USA: Gower.

Walz, A. ((ND)). Leading Change: Insight, Wisdom, Perspective. Retrieved July 20, 2013, from SlideShare - Present Yourself: http://www.slideshare.net/AdamWalz/leading-change?from_search=6

Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure Is Not Organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14-26.

Winton, H. R. (2000). On Military Change. In H. R. Winton, & D. R. Mets (Eds.), The Challenge of Change: Military Institutions and New Realities, 1918 - 1941 (pp. xi-xix). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Young, M. (2009). A Meta Model of Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(5), 524-548.