By Shadreck Zangairai
In one of my previous articles, I presented a topic titled, ‘Can organisations control the pace at which they change’ where I mentioned about emergent and planned change. I got a call from one of the avid followers of this column arguing that emergent change dictates pace in this complex environment as opposed to planned change, hence there can be no planned change in such a situation. I admit that no one has a monopoly of ideas or knowledge, so in that debate, I concurred with him on some of his arguments but we differed on some, which prompted me to write about this topic. It is an undeniable fact that modern businesses are faced with a number of challenges dictated upon them by the turbulent operational environment. The need for change is therefore inevitable if organizations are to remain competitive and survive. There are however divergent views on the most appropriate approach to change and options are between planned and emergent change. Proponents of the emergent approach argue that it is a logical alternate to planned change, whilst advocates of planned change believe that emergent change is just but a complement to planned change. However, I have a strong view that planned change and emergent change are not alternates but complementary to each other. In other words there is no ‘one best way’ or ‘one size fits all’ approach to change.
Organisations and Change Management
The world today is unpredictable because of the fast moving and complex change and no one knows what tomorrow will hold. What is true is that it will be different, more complex and diverse. When change is mentioned, what quickly comes to mind is Top- Down (planned) which is management driven. It is initiated from management down to the lower level. This type of change is suitable in market driven economics such as UK & USA. Using this type of change in Zimbabwe might be difficult because of the economic and political instability. I would not have done justice to my views without starting my arguments by separately explaining the emergent and planned approaches to change.
Emergent Change Approach
Emergent change is unpredictable, unintentional and it can come from anywhere, anytime. If organisations plan for change, they will be not aware of the internal and external factors that might affect their plan. A key assumption on emergent approaches is that for effective change, managers must have a clear understanding of organisational structure, strategies , people and culture. This assist in selecting the most appropriate approach to change and help to weed out barriers to change. Furthermore emergent approach views change as a process that unfolds through the interplay of multiple factors within the organizations. Its rationale is characterised by unforeseen events, disruptions, breakdowns and opportunities that emerge within that period.
However emergent approaches to change may not be completely considered as alternatives to planned change. I concur with some critics who question the applicability of the approach to unique organisational contexts. I believe that organisational performance depends heavily on situational variables and this vary from organisation to organisation, therefore, managers differ in their strategies for change. Since organisations are different in structure, strategy and culture it is not possible to rely on a single approach. I also feel that it is limited to the organisational boundaries where it is applied and how it can be applied.
In addition, the emergent approach to change do not provide an agreed set of methods or guidelines on how to deal with change especially if the organisation is within a turbulent environment. So it is not the best model but it depends on the organisation’s nature, the existing environment and the structure of the organisation. Defining these factors will assist managers to select the correct change model relevant to the organisation, for example a decision to change a type of product by Delta would equate to a pre-planned decision, therefore, it would be ideal to use the planned approach model.
This type of change just manifests itself and is reactive in nature. An example will be communication through WhatsApp, Skype and X (formerly Twitter) that evolved as a new way of communicating without any correspondence to change towards that direction. It happens in a spontaneous, unpredictable and unplanned way. Change in this case will be as a result of a continuous process of experimentation and adaptation to the ever-changing needs of the environment. Change is achieved through a multitude of small scale incremental changes which lead to a major transformation or reconfiguration of the organization. The role of the managers ceases to be planning but to create an enabling organizational climate which leads to innovation. The change is largely in response to the turbulent environment which defies logical planning.
Planned Change Approach
This is the change we deliberately seek. Planned change is pro-active in nature. It is about moving from one state to another in a structured manner following prescribed models or paths. Planned change takes the view that change is intentional, predictable, deliberate, purposeful and systematic and one can pre-plan for it. Planned change was coined by Kurt Lewin and is at times referred to as prescriptive or the Lewinian approach. Planned change therefore is a product of conscious reasoning and action. It is premised on the understanding that the environment is stable. Planned change is usually driven from the top to the bottom focusing on organizational continuous improvement.
Most change leaders are comfortable with planned change than emergent. It is a controlled change with fairly clean boundaries, definable benefits, and vision for the future. Planned change is what is sought unlike the unplanned change which organisations are forced to accept and integrate. For example, technological products such as iPod and iTunes were designed to transform how people buy and listen to music. Their manifestation was planned change by Apple. However, this resulted in unplanned change for Music Record companies such as Gramma, Zimbabwe Music Cooperation (ZMC), Records and Tape Production (RTP), that is if one is coming closer home. Their market diminished gradually. Engaging emergent change in this example would mean how accessible the music and other forms of media are to people. A new or perfect song can be summoned at any time from people’s devices but Apple did not make this happen. People could have resisted the planned change by Apple which could have affected iPod since its inception in 2003. To support this, Apple did not write any memo or letter but the market simply coordinated with each other to evolve on how to listen to the music.
However planned change has got its critics. It is based on the assumption that organisations operate under constant conditions and that everything moves in a pre-planned manner. Because of the current fast changing environment, this approach is weakened. Again, by laying down planning schedules and objectives in advance, it means that the change process is dependent on decision makers who might not be aware of the implications of the plans. In addition, planned change presumes that all stakeholders involved in the change process are willing and interested in implementing it, yet forgetting organizational politics and conflict. Because of such criticism, emergent approach has gained ground. One author, Weick, in 2000, argued that though planned change gets credit from decision makers for delivering new survival strategies but they rarely change the organisational structure and problems usually recur.
To be continued next week!
