• Unique and new activities or ideas, Emphasizes the act of creation, Inventing something new, Seeing something from a different perspective.

• The people who innovate,

• Improving existing processes, Improve something that already exists. Performing a task in a new way,

• The dissemination of new activities or ideas. Adoption of innovations, All adoptions are innovations,

Change Management… Define Innovation…Lee Zhuang

Change Management,.. Define Change

Organizational Change is not "happening",but intentional, usually triggered by external eventsto the organization.

Planned change can be effected incrementally, or revolutionary.

Change Management: Define Culture

Organizational culture has been defined and described as aset of key values, guiding beliefs, and understandings that are shared by members of an organization(Meyer, 1982; Smircich, 1983a; O'Reilly, 1989).

As such, culture is seen as defining basic organizationalvalues and communicating to both old and new membersthe appropriate way to think, act, and "how things oughtto be done" (Schein, 1969, 1984, 1985; Smircich, 1983b).

For most, organizational culture represents theunwritten, affective part of the organization.

Culture is also, using Wilson's analogy, "to an organization what personality is to an individual" (1989, 91).

Change Management… Change Process

The action roles in the change process are:

(1) The Initiator, usually, though not always theresponsibility of top-management;

(2) The Change Implementers, the project team or change agent, often represented bymiddle-management and external consultants;

(3) The Change Recipients or Change Targets, all people affected by the chang

Reinvention…. J Thomas Hennessey Jr;

Inability to change the culture has been identified as the most serious obstacle to change in the federal government(Kettl, 1994; Carroll, 1995; Carroll and Lynn,1996)

and simultaneously criticized as too simplistic andunrealistic in its approach (DiIulio, Garvey, and Kettl, 1993;DiIulio, 1994; Moe, 1994).

•There is a strong relationship between organizational culture and performance,

•Leadership appeared to be the key to improved organizationalperformance and more amenable organizational cultures

Change Management… Innovation … Glor

Once a government decides it wants to be innovative - that it is in the business of innovation - it faces a pile of challenges…. Eleanor Glor

The support of four key groups is needed:

1. the government in power,

2. management,

3. employees,

4. clients and publics outside the government

Change Management: Efficiency and Innovation

An innovative organization must create value.

It does so by:

•creating a greater variety of solutions to problems,

•challenging unwarranted assumptions

•identifying problems before seeking solutions.

A champion of innovation wants to be in a position to describe the costs of not innovating - and also the costs of efficiency.

While reengineering and downsizing increase efficiency, they also eliminate slack. By eliminatingslack, governments are reducing their capacity to be innovative, since innovation often grows out of slack ?????

Change Management… Innovation … Glor

Change Management… Innovation … Glor

An innovation champion needs to take a long view. A positive environment for innovation in government willnot develop overnight.

Reasons people resist any change:

•fear of the unknown, •threat to job security, •loss of the familiar, •uncertainty about where they stand in the new order, •lack of understanding of the change or its rationale, •threat to vested interests and current perks, •skepticism that the change will lead to success, and •uncertainty about the future and therefore about whetherthe change will succeed or make things better.

Change: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

Change is difficult and can fail… Glor

•Change is “stressing” for people going through it.

•Management is also frequently challenged and threatened by innovators and innovation.

• Hierarchy does not encourage innovation.

• Management must not only understand its important role in encouraging innovation but also in promoting innovations, and should be held accountable for this role.

•Mobilizing an organization to adapt its behaviors to thrive in new business environment is critical.

Change Management… Employees… Glor

Employees will support innovation if they believe it can improve either their own work environment or the product or service they provide for their clients - in other words, if it will make things better.

They need an environment which encourages self-knowledge, risk-taking and constant learning. Sufficient time and resources to do innovation well must be provided.

They need an environment which encouragesself-knowledge, risk-taking and constant learning. Sufficient time and resources to do innovation well mustbe provided.

Change Management… Adaptive Change

Leaders today face adaptive challenges.

•clarify their values & mission

•develop new strategies,

•and learn new ways of operating

Leaders have to identify struggles over values and power, patterns of work avoidance, and the many other reactions tochange.

Leaders need to understand themselves, their people, and the potential sources of conflict.

Realize that people can learn only so much so fast, and maintain a productive level of tension and motivate people without disabling them.

Also requires the ability to hold steady and maintain the tension.

Change Management: AdaptiveChange

•Emotional capacity to tolerate uncertainty, frustration and pain.

•No one learns anything without being open to contrastingpoints of view.

•Give work back to the people..

•Giving a voice to all people. Too often whistle-blowers, creative deviants, and other such original voices routinely get smashed and silenced.

Change Management: AdaptiveChange

Change Management: Adaptive Work

Adaptive work is required:

•when our deeply held beliefs are challenged,

•when the values that made us successful become less relevant,

•competing perspectives emerge.

Adaptive situations are hard to define andresolve precisely because they demand the work and responsibility of all members. They are not amenable tosolutions provided by leaders; adaptive solutionsrequire members to take responsibility for the problemsthat face them.

Change Management: How Do We Get Innovation Going?Glor…………...

• One approach is to encourage constant learning.

• Create permission for risk-taking.

• Avoid leaving people out.

• Improve the climate for increasing self-awareness.

• Change the environment in other ways.

• Change laws that need changing.

• Invest resources adequately in innovation.

Change Management: Winning Teams

•Are clear about their goals. •Are in touch with what is going on outside the team. •Are small in size, but large enough to master the process. •Have and increase complementary skills. •Value input, regardless of rank. •Are confident in overcoming conflict. •Support each other in achieving more than they ever thought possible. •Celebrate their success.

Re-Engineering

A Reengineering project effects revolutionary change to an organization.

The project deliverables are radically improvedbusiness processes, which satisfy customer requirements much better than before, and which achieve drastic improvements to the operational results of a company.

Reenginnering: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

Reengineering's promise is technical and rational,implying that organizations can be completely redesigned by a group of designers who take an empty sheet of paperand redraw the organization for rational excellence andpure performance.

Companies often set off on their journeys in highspirits-the designers engage in a logicalprocess that does indeed lead to a plan for a neworganization..

Change Management: Reengineering

Externally, focus on end customers and the generation of greater value for customers.

Give customers and users a single and accessible point of contact through which they can harness whatever resourcesand people are relevant to their needs and interests. Internally, focus on harnessing more of the potential of people and applying it to those activities which identify and deliver value to customers. This principle tends to be overlooked. Encourage learning and development by building creative working environments. This principle has been almost forgotten in many organizations, the current emphasis being to squeeze more out of people and working them harder, rather than improving the quality of work life and working more cleverly. Think and execute as much activity as possible horizontally, concentrating on flows and processes (including communication) through the organization. Remove non-value added activities, undertake parallel activities, speed up response and development times. Concentrate on outputs rather than inputs, and link performance measures and rewards to customer related outputs. Give priority to the delivery of value rather than the maintenance of management control. The role of the manager is being redefined and an emphasis on command and control is giving way to empowerment, and the notion of the coach and facilitator. Network related people and activities. Virtual corporations are becoming commonplace in some business sectors. Implement work teams and case managers extensively throughout the organization. Move discretion and authority closer to the customer, and re-allocate responsibilities between the organization, its suppliers and customers. Encourage involvement and participation. This requires error-tolerant leadership. Ensure people are equipped, motivated and empowered to do what is expected of them. Where ever possible, people should assume full responsibility for managing and controlling themselves. This requires planning skills. Work should be broadened without sacrificing depth of expertise in strategic areas. Avoid over-sophistication. Don't replace creative thinking with software tools. Keep the number of core processes to a minimum (approx. 12). They all should be directed to external customers. Management processes such as corporate planning processes which deliver too late to have any real impact can lack both internal and external customers. Build learning, renewal, and short feedback loops into business processes. Ensure that continuous improvement is built into implemented solutions. Experience of Business Reengineering can re-awaken interest in TQM (Total Quality Management) ; both are natural complements. This is widely overlooked.

The following section gives a description of each of thecompetencies and how each of the nine leaders were assessed.

1. Management of Attention Although arguably the vaguest of the four competencies, management of attention is the most specific in how an individual leader shapesthe work that he/she is performing. Bennis's description of the leaders who manage attention "through a compelling vision that brings others to a place they have notbeen before" resounded in only the most reinvented of the nine subject organizations (Bennis, 1993, 79). Remarkably, both the leader that exhibited the most and theleader that demonstrated the least "management of attention" were absent from their organizations a considerable amount of time each month. The differencesbetween them was that in the case of the organization most reinvented, the compelling vision of the leader made his presence almost unnecessary. In the case of thelowest rated organization, the absence of the leader corresponded with an apparent cessation of meaningful work throughout the organization. The extraordinaryefforts taken by leaders of the most reinvented organizations included: personal responsibility for organizational newsletters, travel or visits to each componentelement of the organization, and an "open door" policy that was clear and unequivocal to all members of the organization. Interviews in the most reinventedorganizations resounded with comments by members on "How far we have come in such a short time," "We never could have done so much before," and "Weaccomplish more now in less time than ever before," all of which exemplified having been brought to a place they had not been before.

2. Management of Meaning The second competency is based primarily on the ability of a leader to communicate his/her vision to members of the organization. Thiscommunication ability is more than simply the ability to speak or write well; it also means acting in ways that convey the leader's vision. One of the most capableleaders was trained as a graphic artist and combined that ability with the capacity for developing a common vision throughout the organization. The resulting graphicso captured the organization's common vision that employees adopted the graphic as an illustration of the organization's goals and objectives. Among the three highestrated leaders, the highest rated leader communicated clearly and graphically a shared vision for the organization. The unique feature of that vision was that it was onedeveloped through a series of focus and discussion groups across the organization. Again, comparing the highest with the lowest, it was found that the lowest ratedorganization had no clear vision of where it was going or, if an objective or goal was identified, how it was to arrive at that destination. To illustrate, a majororganizational success for the lowest rated organization did not generate enthusiasm for future success but rather raised concerns that the higher visibility would placethe organization under greater scrutiny and stress in the future. In this case, an event that should have been cause for organizational celebration was instead one thatgenerated anxiety for the future.

3. Management of Trust The third competency is less defined by Bennis (1993, 82), but rests upon the manner in which the leader demonstrates reliability orconstancy. According to the 135 interviews conducted during the research, each of the top three leaders was considered the most consistent in their actions. Therelevance of this finding is that it also coincided with Bennis's view that constancy does not always mean agreement. Much of the qualitative data suggested that eventhose who disagreed with specific actions or decisions found the constancy of the leader's actions a source of confidence in that leader. Those leaders demonstratingthe greatest amount of trust were often characterized as "keeping their word," while the outcomes of their efforts were found in phrases such as "we always knowwhere we stand." The phrases found most often in the organizations of leaders with less "management of trust" were "I am not sure what is expected of me," "I feelthreatened by the change," and "We are never told why we are doing something differently."

4. Management of Self The final competency has much to do with a leader's ability to apply his/her strengths and to compensate for their individual weaknesses. Italso facilitates an ability to make decisions and then not to waste time wondering if the decisions made were the best or even necessary. Not surprisingly, the mostfrequently heard comments about the leaders that demonstrated the greatest amount of "management of self" had to do with the collective nature of the decisionsmade within the organization rather than the efforts of the individual leader. For example, individuals in those organizations found to be the most reinvented typicallycommented that "I feel much more involved in the dayto-day decisionmaking than I have ever been"; "We can make the decisions we need to make"; "The boss letsus make the decisions we are best qualified to make and always backs us up"; and "Empowerment means something to me." In those organizations less reinvented,phrases like "I don't see how we have changed. I still don't have any input"; "There are constant changes and no one tells us why"; "One day we are doing this, thenext day that. I am not sure anyone knows what is going on."

Change Management/Reengineering

1. What are some of the major problemsassociated with innovation and change? Whatstrategies can be employed to facilitate changeand stimulate innovation in organization. (CiteReadings).

2. What is reengineering? What are the basicsteps in successful reengineering?

Several flawed assumptions about reengineering practiceget in the way of producing the desired results

Reenginnering Problems Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

Certain practices that undermine its radical aspirationshave crept into its actual process.

Deep change poses challenges

1. Achieving critical mass. It is not easy to get people to be different. Many companies confuse coercion, howeverbenevolent, with commitment.

Companies getpeople to do some new things, but inwardly, the employees neither understand what they are doing nor whythey have to do it.

2. Remaining open to discovery and learning. Reengineering is a major risk, moving forward into uncertainty, and is not something that can be done cautiously. To cutjobs and costs while maintaining people working in similar ways, with similar roles and mind-sets and in similar structures, is the antithesis of reengineering. In manyorganizations, managers want to avoid risks and to keep things safe. This conservative strategy can work for a large organization with a sustainable competitiveadvantage in a world of slow and evolutionary change. However, it does not work in a world of fast change. Avoiding risk is a losing strategy in a shiftingenvironment.

Many organizations undertaking change, if pressed, would note that getting people to change does not necessarily involve learning or that it only involves learning at avery rudimentary level. Hurst (1995) suggests, paradoxically, that organization is the past tense of learning. If you stick to what you know, the changes you producewill be very limited. If you try to move into new territory, then you will have to learn as you go. You cannot specify the end point at the beginning. Leaders are likegenerals who are always fighting the last war. They face a fundamentally changed world with the tools and practices that made them successful in the past. Pastsuccess is confused with wisdom. Leaders talk about change but act as if change is the last thing they can accept.

One of the most common effects of reengineering is that when the plan is implemented, unintended effects or difficulties show up. Yet, often, the pressure for results,for keeping on schedule, leads the reengineering leaders to not want to face the unexpected. They define the difficulty as resistance to change, and they forcecompliance. The people who are taking the risk of bringing up difficulties learn that, as in the traditional workplace, their real job is to shut up and do what they aretold. This only postpones the awareness of needed changes.

3. Reengineering is the enemy of hierarchy. Change is the enemy of the status quo, the stable organization, the hierarchy, and the political organization. If you have anorganizational core that wants to maintain power, perks, or precedence without regard to performance, then you have difficulty changing. Reengineering is political inthat it will upset power relationships and frustrate people who operate by virtue of their history and authority. These people are frequently the most influential peoplein the company.

Many companies do not understand that the main reason they are not responsive to customers is that the people in the organization are not allowed to do what isright. They talk about flat or horizontal organizations, about breaking down the silos, and about responding to the customer, but all of their behavior reinforces the factthat the people at the top are in control. If the people designing or implementing the change are not able to let go and create some fundamental changes in thehierarchy and in the authority relations, then they will get change but no learning.

4. Overcoming resistance. Organizations and people are designed to resist change, not to embrace it. Change is more difficult to achieve than many leaders wouldlike to believe. They want to carry out change quickly and easily, which leads them to ignore the human dimensions of the process. To change, people need to shifttheir mind-sets, their ways of seeing the organization, and their established roles to take on new and unfamiliar activities that may be highly threatening. They needemotional support to change and to learn about the new ways.

Successful Reinvention: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

2. Remaining open to discovery and learning.

•Reengineering is a major risk,

•Does not necessarily involve learning or that it only involves learning at a very rudimentary level.

•Leaders talk about change but act as if change is the last thingthey can accept.

•When the plan is implemented, unintended effects ordifficulties show up.

3. Reengineering is the enemy of hierarchy. Change is the enemy of the status quo, the stable organization, the hierarchy, and the political organization. If you have anorganizational core that wants to maintain power, perks, or precedence without regard to performance, then you have difficulty changing. Reengineering is political inthat it will upset power relationships and frustrate people who operate by virtue of their history and authority. These people are frequently the most influential peoplein the company.

Many companies do not understand that the main reason they are not responsive to customers is that the people in the organization are not allowed to do what isright. They talk about flat or horizontal organizations, about breaking down the silos, and about responding to the customer, but all of their behavior reinforces the factthat the people at the top are in control. If the people designing or implementing the change are not able to let go and create some fundamental changes in thehierarchy and in the authority relations, then they will get change but no learning.

4. Overcoming resistance. Organizations and people are designed to resist change, not to embrace it. Change is more difficult to achieve than many leaders wouldlike to believe. They want to carry out change quickly and easily, which leads them to ignore the human dimensions of the process. To change, people need to shifttheir mind-sets, their ways of seeing the organization, and their established roles to take on new and unfamiliar activities that may be highly threatening. They needemotional support to change and to learn about the new ways.

Successful Reinvention: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

3. Reengineering is the enemy of hierarchy.

Change is the enemy of the status quo, the stable organization, the hierarchy, and the political organization.

4. Overcoming resistance.

Successful Reinvention: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;

Fully engaged top leadership. Top leaders often believe that sponsoring change means making the decision, hiring a consultant, and giving a pep talk. However, it isclear that no deep change is successful if the leaders are not fully engaged and deeply involved in the effort. In fact, leaders must discover that they too will have tochange. An effective change leadership team must engage the change process through several activities.

Leaders set a context for change, providing a container in which the organization goes about changing itself. They do not tell people what to change but set up theapparatus for change. If they set up a good container-a good climate for reflection, learning, and design-the change process is well grounded. They are closelyobserved by the rest of the organization for signs of political discord, inadequate commitment, or ambivalence about the change. For every leader whose message ofchange is believed, there are several whose message is doubted because people do not see real commitment.

Change leadership often means that leaders must let go and not decide what to change or how. Letting go is not the same as delegating and stepping aside. In fact,passing responsibility downward still involves a very demanding and active leadership role. The leader must visibly support the reengineering process and set theground rules and expectations consistently and repeatedly. To tap the creativity and knowledge of their workforce, the leaders need to understand that they cannotmicromanage the process.

If you are leading change, the first changes have to take place in your own behavior. In the midst of a troubled reengineering process, we met with an executive groupand asked them how they were reengineering their own roles and responsibilities. The question had not even come up. Yet, throughout their company, the managersmost involved with change were quite aware of the lack of change in the top team, and they took that as the real message.

Change leaders are visible. In one plant that was being closed, the people were angry and confused about what was happening. They felt diminished by the businessdecision to close the plant. When the CEO showed up to talk to them about it, although they did not like the message, the courage and directness of his explanationspread through the whole company quickly. Too many leaders want to be absent when difficult messages are conveyed. A message from a real person is easier tohear than is one from a memo or one relayed through a chain of command.

Change is not about a few changing the many; it is about many people agreeing to change together. The former is the way organizations have traditionally managedchange-the few leaders told the rest what to do. Consultants in turn told the leaders what to do. The rest of the organization was told what to do. The problem withchange is that when people merely are told to change, they change only their external behavior; they do not fundamentally change how they see the organization. Theytry to do different things with the same attitudes and mind-sets. In reengineering, the leaders may know very little about the exact way the organization must change.Leaders need to listen to and learn from their people-at much lower levels than is customary in traditional change-and models from other companies.

Clarifying the new work contract. In asking people to commit to a redesigned organization, we ask them to sign up for an entirely new way of working. But managersresist giving up or redefining their power, and employees often are afraid to take up new responsibilities. In addition, as people leave the organization, more falls onthe shoulders of those who remain. The continuing employees are not immediately happy with this. Reality shows that there is resistance at all levels. For someemployees, strong needs for structure, identity, defined roles, and limited risk taking are met by the traditional organizational structure. Some employees have becomecomfortable in blaming management as a means of managing anxiety. As one such employee stated, "I'd rather be dead than empowered!"

The study of cultures produces several insights that bear on this dilemma. Cultures and individual people are not designed to be easy to change. The process ofmaintaining the integrity of boundaries-homeostasis-means that people and organizations resist attempts to change them. They like the familiar, comfortable ways inwhich they have learned how to operate and succeed. They fear the future, where new demands, new skills, and new outcomes are more uncertain. How can they beexpected to welcome change when everything that they value is thereby called into question? People who have invested many years in a set of expectations ofstability and continued employment in a large company are not easily enticed to get up and change. Although this insight is usually applied to the rank and file, it isequally true of leaders. Sometimes everyone talks about change, but nobody really wants to see it happen.

As you move down the organization, radical change becomes more threatening, more consequential, more difficult, and more upsetting. In fact, major organizationalchange is frequently experienced as a highly traumatic event, as severe as a divorce or a death in the family. Losing a job one values is a deep loss that woundsself-esteem as well as social standing. From the study of trauma and of people's responses to disastrous change, we discover several principles (Jaffe, Scott, &Tobe, 1994):

Change: Dennis T Jaffe; Cynthia D Scott;