Essay: Internal factors to successfully drive organisational change

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK INTO THE INTERNAL FACTORS TO SUCCESSFULLY DRIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
I. Introduction
Changes are almost inevitable in our daily lives and so they are in organizations. An organization is formed by a group of individuals who possess different characters and behaviors, which can then influence the dynamic of the organization. From the perspective of organizational development, Porras & Robertson (1992) defined change as “a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alteration of organizational members ‘on-the-job behaviors”. In other words, organizations can benefit from having clear understanding of their members behavior in order to ultimately adjust them accordingly to achieve a significant improvement.
Having said that, it is then important to take into account the different forms of organizational change and how they differ from one to another. Changes in organizations may arise unexpectedly and/or come as part of the organization’s plan, which are often described as Emergent and Planned change. Van der Voet (2013) stated that planned change is typically associated with a top-down organization whose style is perceived to be somewhat rigid with the top-level management initiating and directing the change. On the other hand, emergent change is usually found in an organization with more flexibility that employs a bottom-up system where delegation to lower level is expected, giving them the capacity to implement such a change. Blomme (2012) argued that a planned change cannot actually be considered as an organizational change. Instead, the level of how emerging change is being addressed by the organization is what actually determines the existence of organizational change.
On another note, Karl E. Wick and Robert E. Quinn (1999) also made a clear distinction between Episodic and Continuous change. As determined by the unique perspectives of the authors, Episodic change is believed to be discontinuous and infrequent which occurs mostly in large old organizations – it is dynamic, externally driven and is usually short-term. Continuous change however, is constant, continuous, evolving, and occurs in small emerging organizations, driven internally and operates in an unstable environment with a long-term view. With these types in mind, members of an organization are hopefully able to distinguish the kind of change they encounter within their organizations as it can be quite helpful to comprehend how the change is actually originated.
Given these definitions at hand, it seems quite apparent that many of the issues are deriving from within the organization itself. Hence, this essay aims to explain how internal drivers in change can actually be optimized in order to yield a successful implementation of organizational change. To start, this paper will give an overview of some challenges that organizations are facing today. A framework developed by Armenakis et. al (2007) known as the five sentiments will be the foundation of this essay and will be discussed in the second chapter as it is proven to be a useful guide to monitor and gauge the change progress as a way to rectify change drawbacks. In addition, a positive approach toward stress and resistance coined by Tavakoli (2010) will also be covered within this paper. This is due to the fact that both stress and resistance are essentially internal factors that may have negative connotation in change. However, the author suggested that they could actually be beneficial when perceived in a positive manner.
II. Challenges in Organizational Change
Changes in organizations still inexorably pose several challenges for organizations, which can potentially result in failure. In fact, the rate of failure for organizations in transforming is recorded to be as much a 70% and the number will still likely to increase (Forbes, 2017). In addition, a study from IBM shows that there is a growing awareness from organizations to lead change yet their ability to do so is declining (2008). This could perhaps be explained by how organizations are forced to constantly adjust due to the complex and rigorous nature of change (Higgs & Rowland, 2001), which is mostly influenced by the rise of external instability, tension within the organization itself as well as issues that have gone beyond personal and organizational qualities. (Hope Hailey & Balogun, 2002). Devos et al. (2007) believed that this is the rationale behind unsuccessful attempt of organizations to bring about such a change.
Furthermore, another determinant that organization should address within the context organizational change is the pace of the change itself as well as the organization’s adaptability to change. Karl E. Wick and Robert E. Quinn (1999) claimed that tempo of change plays a major role in distinguishing the different forms of change which will ultimately lead to either the successful implementation or failure of change in an organization. The biggest challenge that organizations are facing however, lies in transmitting their view of the change to the members of organizations, making sure that it sticks with them which does require a sufficient amount of time. At the same time, an ideal organization, in any case has to acquire the ability to continuously adapt to the ever-changing environment. The two authors later suggest that change is persistent and organizational changes often fail because organizations are not able to adapt to the circumstances.
Additionally, members may withdraw themselves from change and even become resistant to the idea of change. The resistance of change has been studied by scholars, in which it has been figuratively described as a force that wrestles against the to maintain status quo
maintaining the status quo (Piderit, 2000). This means that members of the organization are moving away from implementing the change as opposed to having an aligned vision toward realizing the transformation. In planned change specifically, Kotter (1995) explained that there are 8 reasons of failure when dealing with the aforementioned type of change: inability to create an urgency to change, insufficient guiding leadership, unaligned vision, failure to build short term objectives, claiming success too soon and inconsistency in integrating change in the organization’s culture.
III. The Five Sentiments
As stated earlier, many organization changes are unsuccessful due to the inadequacy of not having an aligned vision. Change agents fail to convey the belief of change for the betterment of the organizations to the change recipients who refuse to accept such change. This is supported by Armenakis et. al (2007) who believe that these failures are the result from resistance of employees towards change, because change agents neglect the opportunity to guide the recipients along as part of their change efforts. Therefore, in order to allow change agents to have a better understanding of what organizational change entails and to take corrective actions, let us look closely into the five sentiments as described in the study by Armenakis et. al in 2007 on the Diagnostic Benefits of Five Key Change Sentiments. The five sentiments are Discrepancy, Appropriateness, Efficacy, Principal Support and Valence.
Discrepancy
The term discrepancy describes how organizations recognize something out of ordinary from their usual performance by capturing the necessity to change. To put it simply, a discrepancy means identifying the need for a change. It was brought up earlier that many organizations already do have the awareness to devise change, but fail because of the mishap in aligning the views of the recipients. This could possibly be the result from inadequately addressing ‘the need’ for change itself. For example, an organization is taking a transformational action without properly addressing why they need to do so, which may lead to the lack of clarity for the members to understand the purpose behind it.
Interestingly, this lack of clarity can be tied to the concept of ‘equivocality’ in the context of organizational change as studied by Blomme (2012). He mentioned within his research that equivocality is an important factor in change that drives feedback loops, which allow variation and become an indicator of an emergent change. Although it is believed that having equivocality is imperative to an extent, Blomme (2012) stated that lowering the level of equivocality is a key to change, providing members with a common ground. Now, looking back at the identification on the need for change, change agents should then be able to make it clear for the recipients that the strategies being enforced are attuned to the need for change.
Appropriateness
This particular sentiment of change relates to the relevance of actions being taken when addressing the discrepancy. The label appropriateness refers to how the change initiative fits to the current situation, given the unique nature of the environment and behavior of the individuals. In other words, what works in one or two areas may not necessarily work in another area. Armenakis   et. al (2007) found out through their research that of all studies incorporated within their study, 45% considered that the suitability of an executed change is of importance. Hence, change agents should be able to ensure that the proposed change is correct to the organization while taking into account the belief of the recipients that it is indeed suitable and of added values, instead of doing it merely for the sake of following a short-lived trend.
The uniqueness of change, can be reflected through how change can be explained by different theories. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) in their study on explaining development and change in organization acknowledged the complexity of organization change and how it has moved past beyond the four basic theories that revolve around change: Evolution, Life Cycle, Dialectic, and Teleology. These four fundamental theories are later described as change motors. As a result, they developed 16 possible explanations of change by integrating the different kinds of motors as they believed that these motors can come into play by different influences. This shows that change in organization is dynamic and thus, change efforts should be carefully selected and executed based off of what is deemed appropriate.
Efficacy
In addition to the two sentiments mentioned above, efficacy comes as a sentiment that is associated with the level of confidence not only as individuals in the organization, but also from the organization as a whole to go about the change and that it will turn fruitful.  It ultimately goes to the extent of how optimistic the individuals in the organization are towards realizing the change. Therefore, the term efficacy is defined as the belief of individuals and the organization of the successful implementation of change (Armenakis et. al, 2007). With this in mind, change is driven and can be well implemented when the organization with the individuals in it are motivated and have a positive outlook on change.
Principal Support
The fourth sentiment is labeled principal support, which is closely linked to the the leaders of change. The idea of principal support as described by Armenakis et. al (2007) is the ability of change agent, leader, or manager to facilitate and influence the members or recipients in adopting the change.  Attitudes and behaviors of the organization should be taken into account to ensure that they are consistent with the existing or proposed change. Hence, Blomme (2012) suggests that in order for a change to be successful, leaders have to move past the traditional role of an administrative leader. There are 3 leadership functions that he believes are fundamental to change: 1) Having the ability to carry out the emergent process and to lessen unequivocality, because followers will turn to other leaders if these two aspects are not met in search of support and clarity 2) Being adaptable by delegating and passing on powers to the other agents in the organization and 3) Being able to contribute to the growth of the followers’ competences by allowing them to hold the ‘informal’ role of leaders. Although these traits and behavior may very well be effective for an emergent change, it is interesting that Van der Voet (2013) found out they specifically pose no influence toward employee support in highly bureaucratic organizations that mostly take on changes that are deliberately planned.
Valence
Lastly, the sentiment valence describes how individuals discern what they could gain or potentially lose as a result of the change. Vroom (1964) suggested that the initiative, whether in assumption or in reality, could be associated with the level of change attractiveness that motivates individuals to go about the change.  This is supported by a number of studies that have validated the connection between extrinsic and intrinsic elements of the individuals coming from their expectation of the outcome to their dedication to embracing the change (Bandura, 1986; Rousseau, 1989; Dam, 2005). Therefore, organizations can try to combine the extrinsic and intrinsic elements with activities pertaining to change as a means to spur the interests of the individuals to effectively adopt the change.
IV. Positive Approach on Stress and Resistance
Another perspective related to the impact of the internal factors on the organizational change is presented in Mahin Tavakoli’s paper on “A positive approach to stress, resistance, and organizational change”. In this paper, the author theorized the fact that the main factor which leads to various health or behavioral problems in an organization is stress. Initially, Syle (1993) made a clear distinction between distress (as a bad stress) and eustress (as a good stress or stress of fulfillment). This theory was based on the principle of maximizing the eustress instead of avoiding distress. He later identified the benefits of eustress such as, Adaptive and motivational role; Higher level of organizational commitment; Mental and physical stress; Self confidence; Self esteem and positive response to distress.
Furthermore, resistance is believed to be people’s first negative reaction to change that leads to many problems such as tension, low satisfaction with work life and failure to implement the change in the organization (Kurt Lewis, 1950). Tavakoli himself defines resistance as “a behavioral reaction or symptom of distress, intended to reduce distress level”. According to his definition, resistance has actually  three positive functions: (1) Resistance as a symptom similar to a pain signals that there is something wrong and warns people to attend to the problems behind it. (2) It serves to manage or control the distress coming from change. (3) Resistance can be a result of employees’ commitment to their current status, tasks, and groups (Tavakoli, 2001). Therefore, resistance can also be seen as a positive aspect  that can give useful insights for change agents in leading organization to transform.
Nevertheless, organizational change is not destined to produce distress and it is up to the organization to create the environment that helps the employee to cope with any situation. It is theorized that managers play a big role in how employees perceive change. The less invested the managers are, the more negative emotions appear in employees such as, threat, ambiguity, job security, work overload, lack of control, unpredictability, and fear of loss. These negative thoughts and emotions followed by distress reactions can be psychological, emotional, cognitive and behavioral, which may jeopardize the successful implementation of change. Hence, it is of importance to address what employees feel and think of the change in order to avoid these issues from happening.
V. Discussion
As points for discussion, we  address how internal factors are of importance that is worth understanding, because they contribute to a successful implementation of change. Thus,  several implications are included within this essay to provide readers, especially managers in an organization with key insights on what to consider internally when organizations encounter or plan such a change.
First, the need for change should be made clear to the members of organizations in order to have an aligned vision. After that, change should be examined in order to produce an initiative that is correct and suitable for the organization. Moreover, individuals in the organizations should have the confidence that a change that takes place is going to be successful. Hence, it is the agent’s job to provide members with positive encouragement to go about the change, which ultimately brings us to the sentiment of principal support. This sentiment explains the efforts made by the change leaders to support and facilitate the followers to remain determined throughout the process. In order to keep the individuals driven, a change initiative can also be integrated with extrinsic and intrinsic elements toward the expected outcome, as encapsulated within the sentiment of valence.
Furthermore, we are also able to gain positive outlook on stress and resistance in change. Needless to say, these two psychological aspects tend to have a negative association with organizational change. However, Tavakoli (2010) has challenged the belief and proven us otherwise. When looked from a different perspective, both stress and resistance actually hold positive values in a sense that they allow organizations to have insights towards what the individuals feel and think toward the change itself. These insights can be useful to execute a successful change by taking cognitive as well as affective aspects of the individuals within the organization into account.
Despite our discussion on the internal factors of change, a study by Nistelrooij & Caluwe (2007) shows how various organizations still reach out to consultants in order to receive an external perspective of their organization and let them drive change from within. Even so, they found out that consultants are often biased regarding their approach, following the thinking of their managers and not what they think is effective. Therefore, whether an organization decides to outsource support for implementing  change, it does essentially lead back to its inner roots. The authors then advised a few suggestions for organizations in the area of change such as, creating participative organizational change, identifying benefits of the change, empowering organizational justice, having honest and clear communication, and providing individuals with appropriate training. All in all, organizations can benefit from addressing these internal factors of their organizations in order to successfully drive organizational change.
VI. Conclusion
Change in organizations is a complex subject and thus, a critical approach goes hand in hand with any organizational change. There are different angles to look at change: emergent or planned and episodic or continuous. Regardless, one has to consider and address the internal as well as external environments that influence change to yield successful implementation of change. External environment however, seems to have little control to become the decisive factor even though it does have significant influences  according to the complexity theory of change. That said, this essay puts more emphasis on the internal drivers with the foundation borrowed from the five sentiments of change by Armenakis et. al (2007) as well as allowing readers to gain positive outlook on stress and resistance in change (Tavakoli, 2010). This essay also takes into account the challenges that organizations are facing which have led them to failure in implementing change. Hence, by  going deeper into the internal factors of change within organization, it can hopefully change agents to tackle these challenges and drive organizational change successfully.