Chapter 8

Implementing Change:
Change Management,
Contingency,
& Processual Approaches
 Change Management Approach
Change
Management Focuses on strategic, intentional
Approach
-Kotter’s Eight- and usually large-scale change
Step Model
-Other n-step
Entails following a variety of
models
-N-step model steps; the exact steps vary
issues depending upon the model used
Change Belief that achieving
Management vs
Organization organizational change is possible
Development
through a coordinated and
Contingency
Approaches planned approach
Claims to be appropriate for all
Processual
Approach types of change

8-2
 Kotter’s Eight-Step Model
Change  Kotter’s eight-step model is one of
Management
Approach
-Kotter’s Eight-
the best known:
Step Model 1. Establish the need for urgency
-Other n-step
models 2. Ensure there is a powerful change
-N-step model
issues group to guide the change
Change
3. Develop a vision
Management vs
Organization
4. Communicate the vision
Development 5. Empower the staff
Contingency 6. Ensure there are short-term wins
Approaches
7. Consolidate gains
Processual
Approach 8. Embed the change in the culture

8-3
 Other N-Step Models
Change 
Management
Ten commandements (Kanter, Stein and Jick
Approach 1992)
-Kotter’s Eight-  Ten Keys (Pendlebury, Grouard, and Meston
Step Model 1998)
-Other n-step  12 Action Steps (Nadler 1998)
models
 Transformation Trajectory (Taffinfer 1998)
-N-step model
issues  Nine-Phase Change Process Model (Anderson &
Anderson 2001)
Change  Step-by-Step Change Model (Kirkpatrick 2001)
Management vs
 12 Step Framework (Mento, Jones and
Organization
Development Dirndorfer 2002)
 RAND’s Six Steps (Light 2005)
Contingency  Integrated Model (Leppitt 2006)
Approaches

Processual
Approach

8-4
 N-Step Model Issues
Change
Management The sequences of steps
Approach
-Kotter’s Eight- The number of steps
Step Model
-Other n-step The timing of steps
models
-N-step model
The resourcing of steps
issues
The involvement in each step
Change
Management vs
Managing multiple steps
Organization
Development
Revisiting different steps
“Are all steps needed for
Contingency
Approaches
particular changes?”
Processual Cyclical or linear
Approach

8-5
 Change Management vs. OD
Change
Management There is a debate between
Approach
-Kotter’s Eight-
proponents of OD and proponents
Step Model of change management:
-Other n-step
models
◦ OD is criticized for giving attention
-N-step model only to human development, and not
issues to technology, operations, and
Change strategy
Management vs ◦ Change management is criticized for
Organization
Development
 having a focus on the concerns of
management rather than on those
Contingency
Approaches
of the organization as a whole
 being the product of management
Processual
Approach
consultancy firms

8-6
 Contingency Approaches
Change
Management  Contingency approaches challenge the
Approach
-Kotter’s Eight- view that there is “one best way”
Step Model  The style of change or the path of
-Other n-step
models
-N-step model
change will vary, depending upon the
issues circumstances, including:
Change
 the scale of the change
Management vs  the receptivity to change of organizational
Organization
Development members
 the style of change management
Contingency
Approaches  the time period
 the performance of the organization
Processual
Approach

8-7
 Contingency Approaches
Change 
Management
Huy’s Contingency Approach categorizes
Approach change into 4 ideal types:
-Kotter’s Eight- 1. The commanding intervention
Step Model • Short-term and rapid
-Other n-step • senior executives
models • Downsizing, outsourcing, divesting
-N-step model 2. The engineering intervention
issues • Medium-term and relatively fast
• Analysts
Change • Changing work design and operational systems
Management vs 3. The teaching intervention
Organization  Long-term and gradual
Development  Consultants
 Work practices and behaviours
Contingency 4. The socializing intervention
Approaches  Long-term and gradual
 Participative experiential learning, self-monitoring
Processual  Democratic organizational practices
Approach

8-8
 Contingency Approaches
Change
Management
Contingency approaches remain less common
Approach than change management approaches.
-Kotter’s Eight- Suggested reasons include:
Step Model • Achieving “fit” may be difficult due to differing
-Other n-step perceptions of the conditions in which the fit is
models sought
-N-step model • Contingency approaches require greater analysis
issues and decisions by managers; the prescriptiveness
of change management models may be attractive
Change to managers
Management vs • Contingency approaches focus on leadership style
Organization rather than a specific set of actions
Development • The use of different change styles at different
times may raises questions in the minds of staff
Contingency as to the credibility of senior management.
Approaches • There is a question about “what” is contingent to
managing change
Processual
Approach

8-9
 Processual Approach
Change  It sees change as a continuous process
Management
Approach rather than a series of linear events
-Kotter’s Eight- within a given period of time
Step Model  It sees the outcome of change as
-Other n-step
models
occurring through a complex interplay
-N-step model of different interest groups, goals, and
issues politics.
 This approach alerts the change
Change
Management vs
manager to the range of influences
Organization which they will confront and the way in
Development which these will lead to only certain
change outcomes being achieved
Contingency  This approach is often used to provide
Approaches
a detailed analysis and understanding
Processual of change retrospectively.
Approach

8-10
Kotter has worked more any other theorist on the definition of leadership and how it
actually differs from management.
Management is more a set of tools while leadership is an art which can not be
precisely codified.
Comes to a definition of leadership that privileges its dimension of being an agent of
change.
Believes that institutionalizing a leadership culture is the ultimate act of leadership.
John Kotter on Leadership & Management
 Norfolk Southern: Case Study
When Katie Frazier first joined Norfolk Southern’s Atlanta terminal, she felt it was
running well but still felt more could be done to improve operations. She was also
concerned about safety issues. As she got comfortable in her new job, she was
wracking her brain, struggling with how to help the company take its safety and
operations standards from just “good enough” to a higher level. One day, while in a
local bookstore’s business section, she noticed a book with penguins on the cover.
Penguins had always been her favorite animal, but she wondered what such a book
was doing surrounded by books on management! The book, needless to say, was
“Our Iceberg Is Melting.” Once she started reading it, she thought to herself, “wow,
this is really helpful.” She noticed that behaviors in her company sometimes
mirrored the penguins’ behaviors, for example, people would see a complex
problem, and then either ignore it or wait for someone else to fix it. Katie thought that
if she could get other people in the company to read the book, it might be a big help
in giving people perspective on the bigger picture.Katie, being one of the few
relatively young workers around, faced an enormous challenge in getting her older
co-workers to buy in to the notion that penguins could help the organization. There
were many skeptics. She showed the book to her manager, a former Marine. He told
her that the book was something his granddaughter might read, not something he
would value as a business leader. Katie persevered and insisted that he read it. After
her manager actually did, he quickly began to realize the same lessons could apply at
Norfolk Southern. He gave Katie approval to start applying the learnings.
Step 1) Katie started by trying to create a sense of urgency
around a willingness to raise safety and operational
standards. Through evaluation of these problems, not only
by Katie but also by the broader leadership team, people
began to feel that urgency was more than just the latest fad.
That process of raising the urgency level inside the Atlanta
terminal of Norfolk Southern took about 2 months from start
to finish.
Step 2) After sufficient urgency was raised, a guiding coalition
formed made up of a few conductors, engineers & supervisors.
Katie’s fear was that the group was too homogenous – she
actually wanted to include a few of the company’s more
skeptical employees to get their feedback and help strengthen
the group’s decision making. The Guiding Coalition began
meeting regularly and called themselves “The Iceberg Group.”
This group started out small, but eventually grew to have about
9 people, changing over time, from different parts of the
organization, meeting regularly to see how to implement the rest
of the 8 Steps.
Step 3) The vision that the group created was designed to change
everyone’s mentality and attitude about safety. Injuries could not
be treated as an acceptable risk at a railroad – they had to be
reduced in order to get the railroad’s efficiency up and costs down.
Step 4) Communicating this vision was a constant battle, since most of a
railroad’s employees are on the move at any given time. Furthermore, most
of the crew members did not have access to modern communications like
e-mail.

As a result, the vision was communicated through a vehicle called “job

briefings,” where the days weather & track conditions were discussed for
crews about to go out on to the tracks. These briefings happen 3 times a
day, at the beginning of every shift. The Iceberg Group started
communicating the change vision at job briefings, around the clock, for two
weeks straight. Over time, every crew member was touched by the vision
multiple times, right at their point of highest awareness – before going out
to work on the trains.
Step 5)The largest barrier Katie felt she needed to overcome were related
to the concept of raising the bar on safety standards – how can you make
people really care about the highest possible safety standards, when
current standards are already high? The way to do it, she said, was to
make it personal – get to the heart and not just the mind. They forced
people to think about their families and how they would feel about an
injury to their loved ones. Over time, the message began to sink in and
people started to change their behavior. This created a high level of
engagement with the crew.
Step 6) The Iceberg Group set a goal for a short term win – six months
injury free and communicated it broadly. Since the inception of the Iceberg
Group’s work, with the exception of a small muscle pull, the Atlanta terminal
has gone almost 9 months injury free.

Other outcomes resulted as well, for example, because the terminal

became so proficient, they’ve never had to reduce the number of shifts
running, even as other companies have cut back. With injuries down about
97% over last year, the Atlanta terminal has had fewer missed days of
work, fewer injury-related costs and more productive workers, enabling it to
gain a critical advantage over the competition.
Step 7&8) Even with this success, the Atlanta terminal isn’t content
to let up. As they continue to move through the 8 Step process,
they hope to make the change permanent by anchoring these new
changes into the culture. The Iceberg Group continues to meet,
looking for other ways in which they can help the company improve
its operations, and hopefully, spread the Iceberg philosophy to
other divisions of the company