IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE

<< IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE:Recognize the challenge

IMPLEMENTATION: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM MODEL:Features of Radical Change, Theory of P-E model >>

Change Management MGMT625

Lesson # 41

IMPLEMENTATION: RADICAL OR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE

In this lesson we will continue to discuss the leftover of Francis & Bessant model of managing

radical change

Stage III: Competency required for extensive innovation

Most innovation takes place within an established envelope of possibilities, usually following some

kind of "technological trajectory". When this occurs change is possible in small or large increments but

the overall boundary conditions remain relatively stable. For example in their studies of bicycle, Roy

and colleagues showed how the dominant design emerged in the mid-nineteenth century and remained

the framework within which innovation took place for the next century. Countless innovations have

taken place in terms of product modifications and process developments so that today's bicycle is

smoother, safer, cheaper, available in different configurations to suit different users, etc. But all of this

innovation has essentially been "doing what we do better" the fundamental framework remains

constant.

By contrast, the emergence of the float glass represented a radical shift to in the way in which flat glass

had been made. For centuries the basic envelope within which product and process innovation took

place was bounded by the principles of grinding and polishing to create the finished product.

Pilkington's breakthrough innovation transformed the industry and the fortunes of the company with

them. This is an example of "do different" innovation that establishes a new dominant design a new

trajectory for the development and a new envelope within which product and process innovations can

be explored.

The journey to become more successfully innovative is not easy to manage, especially in firms that are

facing major discontinuities. Among the case companies that we studied, difficulties faced included:

�

Failure of perception

Not recognizing the need to innovate. As mentioned above, this can arise through isolation from key

environmental signals (typically a small firm problem) or from insulation caused by a corporate

"mindset" associated with particular historical strengths core competencies can become what Leonard

Barton (1995) "core rigidities".

�

Inappropriate innovation

Recognizing the need to change but responding in ways that have poor strategic fit with the business or

divert from more important ends. Here firms may take changes but they cannot support them for

example the failure of EMI Body scanner is attributed at least in part to a lack of suitable experience or

competence in manufacturing and marketing of complex high tech products. Another common problem

is adoption of innovation as a result of following fashion rather than for clear strategic purposes.

�

Episodic innovation

Recognizing the need but on occasional basis so that intensive innovation effort is followed by a period

of inactivity. Here the problem is one of maintaining continuity and ensuring a steady stream of

innovation rather than pursuing a blockbuster approach

�

Emphasizing steady state innovation

Recognizing the need for and deploying innovation on a continuous basis but where product and

process innovations are essentially "doing what we do better" rather than transformational in intent.

126

Change Management MGMT625

Discontinuous innovation is qualitatively different from the improvement-oriented approaches

illustrated earlier. These forms of innovation are likely to provide transformational change

opportunities. According to this author, the differences between incremental and discontinuous

innovations are in the following respects:

�

Both the positive and/or negative impact of discontinuous innovation is greater.

�

Generally, discontinuous innovation requires destruction of mind-sets and other assets.

�

Discontinuous innovation requires entering into a psychological space with unknowns

and uncertainties

�

The risk element is high

�

There are like to be many trials and tribulations

�

Distinctive skills are needed

Stage IV: Competency to manage systematic change

Firms can be proactive with regard to discontinuities they can seek actively to create them and,

thereby, to "re-write the rules of the competitive game". Alternatively, they can be unresponsive, being

surprised by emerging developments and not maintaining their position within the new strategic

opportunity space. Our research indicates that, at a minimum, firms need to develop strategic

orientations and routines to help them cope not only with "steady state" innovation, but also with

discontinuity. Frequently, this requires change in multiple parts of organization i.e. systematic

change.

One of the key requirements seems to be a massive upgrading of an organization's capacity to

be open to signals from the outside and be prepared to learn from "outside of the box".

Consequently there is often tension between groups tasked with radical change. The solution may

require the separation of the radical and steady state groups. New divisions and companies may need to

be established or frustrated staff with entrepreneurial skills may leave to set up their own organizations

to pursue their radical vision. Key routines are required for activities like scanning the environment for

signals to trigger innovation, managing the implementations of projects, coordinating different

knowledge sets, etc. The solution sought to this problem is either in the form of (Strategic Business

Unit) SBU or in the concepts like corporate entrepreneurship.

Stage V: Competency to install leadership process.

Our research suggests that a key to managing a successful transition is to have the capacity to manage

paradoxes. This requires a strength and subtlety of leadership that we consider to be comparatively rare.

This suggests that leadership processes need to be capable of contextual adaptability and handling

paradox.

Interestingly the ten paradoxes outlined below encapsulate "competing values" and can be

characterized into "hard" and "soft", re-awaking the debates into the merits of androgyny as a guiding

management philosophy. In brief, it seems that an organization's leaders need to be able to be both hard

and soft, most importantly, to know when each stance is best at a moment in time. In periods of

transformational change there is a need of attention, agility of mind and wise judgment.

As Slatter (1984) showed a common cause of corporate collapse is that the firm is led by a strong

personality who does not listen to others. Our research suggests that a major risk in managing

transitions is that "wrong people are chosen to lead.

The capacity to pursue apparently paradoxical principles, sometimes at the same time appears to

especially important when sea-change is contemplated. Managers need to develop themselves, their

processes and adopt values that promote prudent, radical change. Without the capacity to manage

paradoxes a company in transition is in peril

127

Change Management MGMT625

Research questions for further

�

Are older organizations (type of Org) less likely to undergo radical change?

�

Do they respond less quickly?

�

Does the occurrence of fundamental change decrease the probability of organizational survival?

�

Do the slower responses to environmental shift increase the likelihood of survival?

�

I leave these questions with you to find their answers but answer these in critical tonality in an

analytical style instead of mere descriptive. Also try to seek application in the context of Pakistani

organization, industry and or society.

128

Table of Contents: