Ch. 5 Change Management Strategy M.L. Markus and R.I. Benjamin

1. Ch. 5Change Management StrategyM.L. Markus and R.I. Benjamin

2. Purpose • To stimulate information systems specialists’ efforts to become more effective and credible agent of organizational change • To improve organizational effectiveness in order to avoid IT implementation failures at great cost in money, organizational competitiveness, and individual careers.

3. Introduction • Why do IS specialists need to become better agents of organizational change? • Reasons • New IT is an organizational intervention • Need to know how to market • How IT is implemented is a major factor in the results organizations achieve from new ITs. • Change Agentry will become a large part of IS work • Outsourcing of in-house technical IS work • Organization-specific knowledge stays in-house • IT Implementation and change management issues are unlikely to diminish

4. Introduction (cont’d) • Reasons (cont’d) • To improve IS specialist credibility • Strong mutual relationship between credibility and change management skill • Effective IS specialists act ‘out of the box’ • Transform not only their interpersonal relationships with clients, but also behavior of managers and users in IT projects and decision making

5. Issues • Disagreement in both theory and practice • 3 models on what change agents do and why • Traditional IS model • Facilitator model • Identified in various Organizational Development (OD) text, (Schwarz (1944)and Cummings and Huse (1989)) • Advocate model • Originated from the innovation, management, and change politics literatures, (Kanter et al.,1992; Rogers, 1995)

6. Traditional IS model • Technology causes change • No change responsibilities beyond building technology • The manager’s pair of hands • Not responsible for achieving change or improvements in organizational performances

7. Consequences • Widespread systems failures for social reasons • Perspective in handling users training • Groupware Implementation • IS inhibiting change • Technology standards • Personal/group interest: Learning & Costs • Low IS credibility • Outsourcing: Poor financial performances • Poor interpersonal skills • ‘Heterophilous’ (different in background, beliefs systems & interests • Lack ‘value congruence’

8. Structural Conditions • IS specialists are sole providers of services • Clients have limited technical and sourcing options • Low budget pressure exists • Lack of external competitions • IS specialists rewarded based on functional unit goals

9. The Facilitator model • Clients make change using technology; technology does not • Facilitators • Promote change • Avoid exert power/other power over clients • Serve interests of all clients • Not responsible for changes; clients are responsible

10. Consequences • Greater attention to building user capacity • To increase project success and IS credibility • Emphasis on client self-sufficiency • To reduce client resentment & increase IS credibility • New information technologies provide greater opportunities to IS specialists as facilitators than as experts/builders

11. Structured Conditions • Facilitator • Not a client group member • Lies outside the hierarchical chain-of-command • Not formally responsible for business results • Valuable expertise will be negated • Authority for organizational control • Sending mixed messages • Authority for technical outcomes • Concerns about locus of employment

12. The Advocate Model • People make change • Identifying and direction of change • Advocate influence change target as desirable • More flexible in accepting change • ‘Whatever works’ • Serve the organizations’ best interests even there are personal or professional conflicts

13. Consequences • Benefits from using advocate model • ‘Managers unaware of how IT can be deployed ‘ • Sharing traditional IS specialist’s belief • Technology to create organizational change • IS specialists to add business value • Advocating process change & user skill training • ‘Emphasis on communication’ • Lack of communications • CIOs, CEOs, Managers, IS analyst and users • Change agentry is a contact sport • Increase Credibility and communications

14. Consequences (Cont’d) • The advocate role may fit the issues of IT infrastructure • Today’s challenge • To ensure levels of commonality • Interoperability to support internal/external communication & future flexibility • Public goods problem • Advocate uses consensus decision-making approach • To negotiate the political shoals of IT infrastructure development

15. Structural Conditions • 2 assumptions to define the change agents role • 1st assumption • Involve in gov’t funded/public organizations • Tactics: • communicating/empathizing with change targets • Gaining target’s confidence (social station & attitudes) • Working through the targets’ ‘opinion leaders’

16. Structural Conditions • 2nd assumption on change agents role • Advocates are line managers • Mandate and enforce changes do not work • Applying behavior modeling, changing organizational symbols, displaying of power • Problems: • Lack of line mgmt authority • Lack of direct authority over users and the managers who funded the project • Require Senior executive to initiate and support the change project

17. Implications • IS specialist have different levels of skill in client contact & involvement in bringing organizational change • Suggestions: • Intellectually familiar with, behaviorally skilled in, and highly adaptable to the 3 models • To increase credibility and contribute to organizational success with IT

18. Research Agenda • Educational Reform • To improve interpersonal or ‘soft skills’ • Debate about the place of soft skills training in IS and other technical curricula. • Proposed a change in the relevant content and outline a program structure in IS academics. • Role plays using case scenarios are the best ways to foster affective and behavioral learning. • ‘computers and society’ course be the first course in the track. • Effectively engage them in the intellectual level, setting the stage for later behavioral and affective growth.

19. Research Agenda (cont’d) • Educational Reform (cont) • Promotes the development of insight and perspective before the student takes more technical subjects later on. • Second course will focus on interpersonal skills in the IS context to complement cognitive skills development. • It will cover individual differences (cognitive, affective, behavioral) and the student’s own personal style. • Active listening skills, interpersonal conflict, interviewing techniques. • Recognition of, and intervention in, group and intergroup dynamics. • The last course will be the course in change agentry, the last in the soft skills track.

20. Research Agenda (cont’d) • In-house training and development • is necessary because the structural aspects of their jobs are likely to jeopardize their credibility. • Partner with ‘neutral’ internal training staff or academics to design/conduct training. • Make participation voluntary and avoid including bosses and their subordinates. • Don’t worry excessively about the training materials at first. • Document and disseminate the key lessons learned to build interest in others in attending subsequent trainings.

21. Research Agenda (cont’d) • IS professional ethics • Ethical dilemma arises from their change agent roles: when interests differ, whose interests are to be served? • Ethical codes prepared for computer science community did not address these issues. • IS community needs a separate code that specifically addresses the ethical dilemmas faced by in-house IS professionals, to tackle in house change agentry role in particular.

22. Conclusion • Obstacles • Differing views about what it means to be a change agent, inhibiting progress. • Many IS specialists do not see any need to change. • Structural barriers to change in the change agentry role, esp. over-reliance on technical expertise, control authority, and an inappropriate reward system. • Positive Prospect • IS managers and executives’ structural abilities as effective change advocates • Voluntary efforts on the part of IS departments to relinquish or share the control that their clients resent.