2. Change management practices and models

If we move from the types of changes to change management practices it is also possible to distinguish different approaches. According to By (2005), four main approaches existing in literature could be defined: planned, emergent, contingency and choice. Usually the first two dominate the literature, however, there is still no consensus on the best one.

Planned change is a classical approach to change implementation with long history of research. Its main objective is to explain the process of change and to define the stages through which the enterprise should pass to get the necessary state. The first, highly recognized, planned change model has been proposed by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. According to the model to get the planned results organization should pass through three stages of change: unfreezing, moving and re-freezing. The main purpose of the first stage is to “thaw out existing structures and processes”, analyze current situation, describe the willing future state and identify the change drivers. The next stage is dedicated to initiating of necessary change actions that finish at the third stage which purpose is to fix and stabilize the new state (Lewin, 1947). It is necessary to highlight that despite the simplicity the model proposed has become a basic concept in questions of organizational changes and, in fact, it still has a great influence on the change perception (Garies, 2010).

Afterwards, a lot of models, developing the idea of Lewin’s model, had been proposed. For instance, Bullock and Batten have suggested a four-stage model that splits the change process into exploration, planning, action and integration (Bullock and Batten, 1985).

However, in spite of its clarity the planned approach has become a subject to a harsh criticism since the 1980s. First of all, it is necessary to mention that such approach is vulnerable due to the high environmental turbulence, where it is hardly possible to plan change in detailed manner ex ante. In its turn, it could lead to several disadvantages like problems arising from limited foresight, possibility of relapse or large losses etc. (Weick, 2000; Burnes, 2004). The other point is that planned approach could not be efficient in crisis situations which usually require fast and radical changes and where common agreement of all the stakeholders could be hardly reached.

This criticism has led to appearance of the other, emergent approach to change management. This type assumes that changes could be characterized as having unpredictable and spontaneous traits that does not allow to plan and implement changes in a predefined way. Thus, the emergent approach could be seen not as the sequence of events or actions but as a continuous process of adaptation to the changing environment (Burnes, 1996; Dawson, 1994).

Moreover the advocators of the emergent approach highlight that due to the uncertainty and complexity of the internal and external environment of organization an enterprise should become an open learning system which is able to analyze information about environment and also has a deep understanding of the existing processes and culture and their impact on coming changes. So, it’s possible to conclude that from emergent point of view the change process depends more on the readiness to change than on the predefined stages. Due to these assumptions some authors totally reject existence of any possible rules for change implementation. However, some authors (Kanter et al. (1992), Kotter (1996) and Luecke (2003) propose quite well defined and “more practical guidance to managers” (Todnem, 2005, p. 375) about managing emergent changes.

The first model, called Ten Commandments for Executing Change has been proposed by Kanter et al. (1992) in 1992 and includes ten steps of change process. According to the author, the first step, which is analyzing the organization and its needs to change, should be followed by creation of common vision and directions, separating organization from the past and creation of sense of urgency. Next, a strong leadership and political sponsorship should be established, as well as the implementation plan should be created. To implement change successfully it also crucial to develop structures, establish communications, involve people and be transparent. Finally, at the final step change should be institutionalized.

Another model, called Seven Steps, which also consists of several stages of change implementation, has been suggested by Luecke (2003). The author recommends to start the process of changes from mobilizing energy and commitment through identification problems and solutions jointly with employees. As a result, at the next step a shared vision of how to organize and manage the change should be developed, as well, leadership should be identified. At the next, formalizing step policies, systems and structures should be developed to implement change. Finally during the implementation monitoring of the process and adapting the strategy to the issues emerging should be held.

However the most widely known model has become a John Kotter’s model proposed in 1996. While elaborating this model author has investigated more than one hundred cases of change implementation and has defined eight major causes of change failures. Subsequently, these mistakes have been transformed into eight change steps which are: establish a sense of urgency, create a powerful guiding coalition, develop a vision and a strategy, communicate the vision, empower others to act on the vision, plan for and create short-term wins, consolidate improvement and produce more change, institutionalize new approaches.

According to the author about 50% of change initiatives fail just at the very beginning because it could be really difficult to communicate the importance and necessity of changes to managers and other associates and get the change program started. Thus, the first step of any change process should be establishing a sense of urgency. The key factor of success is a strong leader who clearly sees the need for a change and who is able to transfer this idea to other employees with the high degree of urgency.

The second step consists in creating a guiding coalition; its size could vary depending on the size of organization, however it should possess a high reputation and enough power that means and strong support from top management. The team should be motivated to work together, develop trust and communication and have a common understanding of problems and perspectives.

The most important tasks of this team are developing a vision and strategy of its implementation. Creating of the vision is a crucial point for the whole change initiative; otherwise, the whole strategy could turn into the chaotic, not aligned or even contradictory projects. Thus, the vision should be maximally implemented into the strategy and be translated through all the possible communication channels.

However, all the mentioned above is not enough in the case when an employee face various barriers while realizing the strategy. They could include existing organizational structure, motivation system etc. Such barriers should be eliminated and employees should be empowered to act on the vision.

Talking about motivation it’s necessary to highlight the importance of planning short-term wins. Usually changes need to take time and people cannot see any results for a long time that demotivate them. Short wins encourage employees and motivate them to move on. However it is still important not to overestimate short wins, continuously improve the results of improvement, align them with vision and identify new challenges.

And, finally, at the last step the changes should be anchored in organizational culture. Kotter argues that especially important is to demonstrate how changes contribute to the success of the enterprise and create the means to ensure the understanding of changes by new leaders. Otherwise, all the efforts could be destroyed at once (Kotter, 1995).

Generally speaking the main idea of the Kotter consists in the assumption that successful change implementation depends mainly on high quality of leadership and appropriate motivation to overcome resistance. Afterwards, Frailinger and Fisher have developed this model by adding new stages to Kotter’s model. Thus, the authors introduced the project management stage after vision transfer as a tool for realization of changes. In fact, adding of this stage makes the model closer to planned type; however, to overcome this the authors introduced the feedback as the last stage. It shows that the sequence of the stages is not obligatory. As well it’s supposed that during the change process some control points should exist which allows to compare the planned and real results, identify gaps and adjust actions (Фрайлингер, Фишер, 2002). As it follows from the review above, on the one hand, the models described seems to be quite similar, however, on the other hand, each of them has its own peculiarities which is revealed in the comparative Table 2 provided below.

Table 2: A comparison of three models of emergent change (By, 2005)

Ten commandments for executing change. Kanter et al. (1992)	Eight-stage process for successful organizational transformation. Kotter (1996)	Seven steps. Luecke (2003)
Analyze the organization and its need for change Create a vision and a common direction Separate from the past Create a sense of urgency Support a strong leader role Line up political sponsorship Craft an implementation plan Develop enabling structures Communicate, involve people and be honest Reinforce and institutionalize change	Developing a vision and strategy Establishing a sense of urgency Creating a guiding coalition Empowering broad-based action Communicating the change vision Anchoring new approaches in the culture Generating short-term wins Consolidating gains and producing more change	Mobilize energy and commitment through joint identification of problems and solutions Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness Identify the leadership Institutionalize success through formal policies, systems and structures 4. Focus in results, not on activities Start change at the periphery, then let it spread to other units without pushing from the top Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the change process

Talking about the emergent approach it’s necessary to mention that it is relatively new comparing to the planned one that results in the lack of integrity and diversity of methods and techniques. However, according to some experts it could be considered as the universal one in terms of environment uncertainty and turbulence that we face today.

Nevertheless, some authors consider that such approach is more applicable for operational changes rather than strategic ones (Biedenbach, Soderholm, 2008), as well as that change strategy should fit to changing environment (Dunphy and Stace, 1993). According to the opinion of some scholars, being an open system influenced by various factors organization should act in line with situation. Thus, the situational or «contingency» approach should be applied and strategy of change implementation should be defined by dimensions characterizing external environment and enterprise itself.

The contingency theory has been extremely popular in the 1960s and 1970s, however it received revitalization relatively recently. The model proposed by Dunphy and Stace divide scale of changes into four categories: fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation. The first type characterizes an ongoing process of aligning processes, structures, organizational culture and strategy. Such changes usually take place at particular organizational levels or departments and are aimed to improve organizational practices. Incremental adjustment is a change process in management practices and organizational strategies however these changes are not radical. In case of modular transformation changes trigger some important shifts in one ore more departments but do not influence the whole organization what happens in case of corporate transformation (Dunphy, Stace, 1993).

The last type of change approaches existing in the literature has been proposed by Burnes who has developed a choice concept. His model presents a four-field matrix composed by two dimensions: type of environment and speed of change. Thus, the choice approach provide a possibility to use different strategies in diverse situations and organization is able to make choice about what and how to change that makes it more flexible.

The idea of choice approach has also been used by Ronald Garies. To identify the types of changes and strategies that should be applied Garies (2010) has proposed the model characterized by two dimensions: change potential and change demand. The first dimension reveals the level of individual and organizational competencies in terms of managing changes. The level of change demand, in its turn, characterizes the first- and second-order changes of Levy and Merry mentioned above. Four possible combinations of these dimensions form four main change types: radical positioning, transformation, further development and organizational learning. According to the model, the more urgent and radical changes are the less change competencies organization possess and vice versa.