This section discusses the scientific and structural approach on which this case study is based.
1.1 Scientific Approach
Several researchers have noted that all social scientists approach their subject via explicit or
implicit assumptions about the nature of the social world and the way in which it may be
investigated. For example, Burrell et al. (1979: 1) argued that “all theories of organization are
based upon a philosophy of science and a theory of society”.
Burrel et al. (1979) developed a useful framework that can help to clarify these fundamental
assumptions. The authors identified two extreme positions that they termed “German
idealism” and “sociological positivism”. The framework explains the two extremes along four
dimensions (see Table 1). [...] The ontological assumptions concern the essence of the phenomena under investigation. The
nominalist position revolves around the assumption that the social world is made up of names
and labels that are used to structure reality. On the other hand, realism postulates that the
social world is made up of hard, tangible structures (Burrel et al. 1979: 1-4).
5
The epistemological assumptions concern the grounds of knowledge. The anti-positivist views
the social world as essentially relativistic. On the other hand, the positivist position seeks to
explain what happens in the social world by searching for regularities and causal relationships
between its constituent elements (Burrel et al. 1979: 1-5).
A third set of assumptions concern human nature. The voluntarism position maintains that
man is completely autonomous and free-willed. At the other extreme, the determinist position
views man as being completely determined by the environment (Burrel et al. 1979: 2-6). [...]
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction
1. Approach
1.1 Scientific Approach
1.2 Structural Approach
2. Definition and Description of Key Concepts
2.1 Strategic Change
2.2 Organizational Change
2.3 Business Process Reengineering
Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework
1. Phase Models of Organizational Change
1.1 “Linear” Models
1.2 “Circular” Models
2. Overview of the Three “Forces” for Change
2.1 Top-Down Direction Setting
2.2 Bottom-Up Performance Improvement
2.3 Horizontal Process Redesign
3. The Three Basic Phases of the Change Process
3.1. Phase One: Initiating Change
3.2. Phase Two: Managing the Transition
3.3. Phase Three: Sustaining Momentum
Chapter Three: Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
The primary objective of this work is to analyze the theoretical foundations of organizational change management and evaluate their practical application through a case study of the "RM" Division. It investigates how different change models and forces influence organizational success, particularly regarding employee commitment and the integration of new technologies.
- Comparison of linear and circular models of organizational change.
- Evaluation of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal process redesign as forces for change.
- Analysis of the three fundamental phases of the change process: initiation, transition, and momentum.
- Examination of the "RM" Division’s implementation strategy and its shortcomings.
- Assessment of the importance of employee involvement and training in reengineering success.
Excerpt from the Book
3.3. Phase Three: Sustaining Momentum
This section discusses how the momentum of the organizational change process can be sustained so that the system does not revert to its pre-change condition.
When the new processes have been successfully implemented, continuous process improvement is necessary to turn reengineering into a lasting advantage. Davenport (1993: 25) argues that a company that does not institute continuous improvement after implementing process innovation is likely to revert to its old ways of doing business.
New processes have not been successfully implemented at the “RM” Division. Instead, there was a constant day-to-day re-negotiation of working practices. It would have been necessary to review the established processes in order to improve them. But “RM” management concentrated on the new technology, neglecting the importance of properly defined processes.
In addition, continuous improvement and change requires ongoing training and education. The purpose of training is to increase skills and competence and teach employees how to do a job in a particular way (Hammer et al. 1993: 71). Likewise, the introduction of a redesigned process requires that all employees who will execute it receive proper training in the new skills (Davenport 1993: 107). Hammer et al. (1993: 71-72) have argued that reengineering shifts the focus from training to education: reengineered processes require that people exercise judgement in order to do right thing and this in turn requires sufficient education.
Summary of Chapters
Chapter One: Introduction: This chapter establishes the scientific and structural context for the study and defines key concepts such as strategic change, organizational change, and business process reengineering.
Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework: This section details various change models, including linear and circular perspectives, and examines the three primary forces for change and the three phases of the change process within the context of the "RM" Division.
Chapter Three: Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings of the case study, highlighting why the "RM" Division's implementation was only partially successful and advocating for Lewin's model as an effective framework for management.
Keywords
Change Management, Organizational Change, Strategic Change, Business Process Reengineering, Linear Models, Circular Models, Top-Down Approach, Bottom-Up Approach, Horizontal Process Redesign, RM Division, Employee Commitment, Training, Education, Process Innovation, Lewin’s Model.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this publication?
The work focuses on the principles of Change Management within organizations, specifically examining how different theoretical approaches to change are applied and where they often fail in practice.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The publication covers organizational theory, strategic change management, the distinction between top-down and bottom-up change, and the technical, political, and cultural dynamics of organizational redesign.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The primary goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of different change models, such as Lewin’s phase model, and to diagnose why specific change management strategies—exemplified by the "RM" Division case—often encounter resistance.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a structural and case-study approach, drawing on established literature from researchers like Burrell, Mintzberg, Tichy, and Davenport to build a theoretical framework for analyzing organizational behavior.
What content is addressed in the main chapters?
The main body examines definitions of key change concepts, analyzes linear versus circular models, discusses the "forces for change," and provides a detailed breakdown of the three phases: initiating, transitioning, and sustaining momentum.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Change Management, Business Process Reengineering, Organizational Change, Strategic Change, and Employee Involvement.
Why did the "RM" Division's approach to technology implementation struggle?
The implementation struggled largely because management followed a rigid top-down approach, failed to communicate a vision, and neglected to involve or provide adequate training to the machine operators, leading to resistance and sub-optimal performance.
How does the author view the utility of Lewin's change model?
The author considers Lewin’s model to be highly effective because its clear three-phase structure—Unfreezing, Moving, and Re-freezing—ensures that change is managed systematically, involving employees from the beginning and ensuring long-term behavioral stability.
- Citation du texte
- Antje Droese (Auteur), 2003, Change Management, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13323
