Movement/Change

The movement section of Lewin’s change model is where the behavior of the organization, department, or individual changes. This change is due to intervention by the change agent promoting the change. While this makes it sound as if this action is caused by the consultant or a senior team member it can be promoted by the individual himself if the tension between the current perceived condition and desired condition is sufficient to cause actions. While this model seems simple in that it is only comprised of one step, it is actually quite complicated. It is complicated because of the nature of change itself. If a change is desired by one member of a

Before we make a move to the entire organization we should assess suitability

Figure 4.2 Before we make a move to the entire organization we should assess suitability.

group, but no others how does that one individual demonstrate the tension they see for change to the other members of the group? This has been the question many have asked and few know the answer to: enter the learning organization. If we look at the five portions of the learning organization: Personnel Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning, and Systems Thinking, we can see how if one individual sees the need for a change the group would also see some need as well. However, this does not mean that the change desire would be agreed upon initially, but acknowledgement of a need is usually the hardest part of change.

In the Action Research Model, the movement/change phase described by Lewin consists of feedback to key client or group members, joint diagnosis of problem, joint action planning, action, and data gathering after action.1 In this model the key difference is that there is a feedback loop called out after the action(s) or change has occurred back to the step of feedback to key clients or members. This addition to the change model puts it in alignment with organization development and the learning

organization in that a continual learning and developmental process is employed. Again, however, this model makes it seem if a consultant is required to execute the process and as we discussed in the beginning of this chapter that may or may not be the case based on the organization itself.

In the Positive Model, the movement/change phase consists of discovering themes, envisioning a preferred future, and designing and delivering ways to create the future. This model also has a loop from the “Design and Deliver Ways to Create the Future” section back to the “Inquire into Best Practices” section, which is another example of loop learning like we saw in the action research model. While Lewin’s change model and the action research model are both based on correction of some shortcoming the positive research model is based on positives. This approach to change has its basis in social constructionism. Social constructionism places more emphasis on interactions of people (experiences) to determine their view of reality.1 As we have alluded to numerous times perception alters reality (socially) and our interactions (experiences) shape our perceptions. This is a subjective statement in that reality is what is real: i.e, If everyone in a group calls a duck a chicken it does not change what the duck is, but does change its name so thus describing it to someone outside the group they would think it a chicken. Using a theory like social constructionism for change promotes a sharing of experiences between people about their view of the organization to help develop a shared-vision, one of the tenents of a learning organization. Also, if each individual shares their perspective of the organization it should bring the groups’ perspective closer to what the organization actually is versus a jaded opinion of the organization. This clearer current understanding of the organizations’ status will aid in determining the changes needed to obtain the desired results.

Freezing

The freezing or refreezing section of Lewin’s change model is described as when the organization is at its new state (post-change) and employs a reinforcement strategy to maintain the new stated The reinforcement stategy for this new or desired state is ill-defined in Lewin’s model. There are as many types of reinforcement strategies as there are change models, if not more. They are commonly broken into positive and negative reinforcements. A common error in reinforcement strategies

is the confusion between a reinforcement and a reward [1] Reinforcement theory of motivation according to B.F. Skinner states that the individual’s behavior is a function of its consequences (law of effect), i.e., positive reinforcement tends to reinforce behavior, but negative reinforcement reduces the likelihood of said behavior.f Reward is something provided by the individual or group desiring the specific behavior and may not be in alignment with what the recipient thinks appropriate or desired.[1] To put it bluntly reward is what the change agent thinks will work and reinforcement is what is proven to work (desired by the individual or group executing the change). Reinforcement is in alignment with Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation.

Lunenburg5 states that Vroom’s expectancy differs from Maslow, Herzberg, and Aldefer because Vroom does not attempt to suggest what motivates but instead discusses the different cognitive processes of individuals that may produce motivational factors. The cognitive process evaluates the motivational factor (MF) of behavioral options based on the individual’s perception of possible goal attainment. Therefore, the motivational force can be shown by the following: MF = Expectancy x Instrumentality x$D(Valence(s).‘ Expectancy is the individual’s assessment of the relationship between effort and performances, i.e., will the effort applied produce the performance equal to or greater than itself?[3] Instrumentality is the performance to reward relationship, i.e., what is the probability that the performance will yield the desired reward?tt Valence is the value the individual places on the reward. Rewards that hold little to no value have a negative valence and are of no motivational value.[4] It is clear that this theory covers both physiological and psychological needs. However, it does not openly address either focusing on the mental process behind the assessment instead.

Tlie freezing section of the Action Research Model is composed of “Data Gathering after Action” and if we are looking at it in the perpetual cycle (see the connection between “Data Gathering after Action” and “Feedback to Key Client or Group”) it initiates another movement/change cycle. This is in alignment with what we discussed in the change section of the Action Research Model. This is the basic model most Organizational Developmental personnel prefer due to its cyclic construction. This cyclic nature can also be seen in the Positive Model for change; the only discernable difference between the Action Research Model and the Positive Model for this section is essentially where the loop connects back to as far as general change processes. The Positive Model loops back further into the “Unfreezing” section than the Action Research model.

Planned Change Summary

In the planned change section, we took a look at three basic change models by using Lewin’s Planned Change model as a benchmark for comparison for the other two models. This was to show that while the philosophy behind change models has developed over time the basic structure remains similar to what was developed greater than fifty years ago. Change occurs when the tension between as is (perceived or real) and desired is enough to facilitate some form of action. This tension is affected by both the individuals within the organization and the environment of the organization. If the tension (need for change) is seen by the individuals, but organization is not perceptive then the change is less likely to occur. However, a change will occur in the personnel of the organization in this situation that will make any change desired later by the organization itself harder to facilitate. This concept is also conversely (Organization to Individual) true.

The philosophical change over time that has occurred has mainly been as a result of a deeper understanding of both social and individual psychology. This itself is a prime example of how learning and the collection of knowledge changes things at least as far as our understanding of those things. It may not actually affect the how or why, but once we understand more, our perception changes and thus changes what we think. This is evident by how social constructionism has become part of change models, something that initially was not even considered.

Continuous and Embedded Learning for Organizations

118

It is important to explore when defects are found, that bring up change that may not be planned

Figure 4.3 It is important to explore when defects are found, that bring up change that may not be planned.

  • [1] Lenenburg, F. C. (2015). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations.International journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6, Sam HoustonState University. http://nationalforum.com/Electronic journal volumes/Lunenburg, Fred CExpectancy Theory Altering Expectations 1] M BA vl5 N1 2011.PDF
  • [2] Lenenburg, F. C. (2015). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations.International journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6, Sam HoustonState University. http://nationalforum.com/Electronic journal volumes/Lunenburg, Fred CExpectancy Theory Altering Expectations 1] M BA vl5 N1 2011.PDF
  • [3] Lenenburg, F. C. (2015). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations.International journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6, Sam HoustonState University. http://nationalforum.com/Electronic journal volumes/Lunenburg, Fred CExpectancy Theory Altering Expectations 1] M BA vl5 N1 2011.PDFtf Lenenburg, F. C. (2015). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations.International journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6, Sam HoustonState University. http://nationalforum.com/Electronic journal volumes/Lunenburg, Fred CExpectancy Theory Altering Expectations 1] M BA vl5 N1 2011.PDF
  • [4] Lenenburg, F. C. (2015). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations.International journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6, Sam HoustonState University. http://nationalforum.com/Electronic journal volumes/Lunenburg, Fred CExpectancy Theory Altering Expectations IJMBA vl5 N1 2011.PDF
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >