Strategy Implementation – Master Strategic Management Tilburg University
Summary on papers & digital book
Week 1 – session 2
John P. Kotter, 2007. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business
Review, January, 2007.
The most general lesson to be learned from the successful change cases is that the change process
goes through a series of phases that in total usually require a considerable amount of time. Skipping
steps never produces a satisfying result. A second lesson is that critical mistakes in any of the phases
have a devastating impact. Even very capable people often make at least one big error.
Error 1: not establishing a great enough sense of urgency
- If the renewal target is the entire company, the CEO is key. If change is needed in a division,
the division manager is key.
- When the urgency rate is not pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot
succeed and the long-term future of the organization is put in jeopardy.
- The urgency rate should be around 75% of a company’s management that is honestly
convinced that business-as-usual is unacceptable.
Error 2: not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition
- A high sense of urgency within the managerial ranks helps in putting a guiding coalition
together.
- No matter how capable or dedicated the staff head, groups without strong line leadership
never achieve the power that is required.
Error 3: lacking a vision
- A vision says something that clarifies in which direction the organization needs to move.
- In failed transformations, you often find plenty of plans and directives and programs, but no
vision.
Error 4: under communicating the vision by a factor of ten
- This phase is particularly challenging if the short-term sacrifices include job losses.
- In more successful transformation efforts, executives use all existing communication
channels to broadcast the vision.
Error 5: not removing obstacles to the new vision
- Such an obstacle can be an organizational structure or a boss who does not act nor
encourages other people to change.
Error 6: not systematically planning for and creating short-term wins
- Without these, too many people give up or actively join the ranks of those who have been
resisting change.
- Commitment to produce them keeps the urgency level up and forces detailed analytical
thinking.
Error 7: declaring victory too soon.
- Until changes sink deeply into a company’s culture, a process that can take five to ten years,
new approaches are fragile and subject to regression.
, - Successful efforts use the credibility afforded by short-term wins to tackle even bigger
problems.
Error 8: not anchoring changes in the corporation’s culture
- Until new behaviors are rooted in social norms and shared values, they are subject to
degradation once the pressure is removed.
- Two factors are important in institutionalizing change;
o A conscious attempt to show people how the new approaches, behaviors, etc.,
helped improve performance.
o Taking sufficient time to make sure that the next generation of top management
really does personify the new approach.
Leading organizational change / Ryan L. Raffaelli - HBS
Performance gaps: arise from a difference between expected and actual performance. They are
often exposed when leaders realize that their organization is not as efficient as their competitors are.
Opportunity gaps: potential future problems or missed value-creating opportunities the organization
will face if it does not act today. They arise in two ways;
1. From evolving shifts in customer preferences and demands
2. From successful organizations assuming that their track records and capabilities will sustain
them indefinitely.
A change must fit the type of gap and the set of challenges, together those decisions reveal the SORT
of change that will be required. SORT: Scope, Origin, Rollout, Timing.
Scope of change; radical vs incremental. Scope changes are largely about the intended impact of
change on the organization’s core practices, norms, identity and member behaviors.
Radical change: is intended to affect nearly all of these
aspects of the organization. It forces leaders to reconsider
taken-for-granted assumptions.
Incremental change: intended to make small adjustments to
the existing organizational systems, processes and routines.
It produces small, but critical adjustments to the existing
organization.
It rarely is one of them, but mostly a blend.
Origin of change; top down vs bottom up. Origin refers to whether the leader plans the change or it
emerges from business units more organically.
Top-down change: is mainly planned by leaders with clear directives, goals, communication
plans and assessment models. It requires buy-in from the management team. It provides
greater certainty and control, but can stifle innovation or buy-in from those below.
Bottom-up change: emerges from within the organization and can look quite different across
multiple business units depending on how it gets started. Can lead to greater diversity of
ideas and buy-in, but can be more difficult to coordinate and implement reliably across the
organization.
Mostly a combination of both.
, Types of change based on scope and origin design decisions
● Tactical change: designed to address a specific issue within
the organization and to achieve a particular goal. Implies a
shift in behaviors or routines that can be targeted and
quickly implemented. Mainly implemented when the leader
is confident that there will be little resistance.
● Evolutionary change: leaders rely on ideas to emerge from
individuals and subunits within the organization. The
leader’s role is to provide resources and remove barriers.
Mostly do not move up to the entire organization and can
be a good way of testing.
● Revolutionary change: this type of change impacts the core
beliefs and norms and structures guiding the organization. It emerges from within the
organization and starts with an idea from a single business unit, it might reach through the
entire organization. This might lead to chaos and collateral damage if the leader disagrees.
● Transformational change: this starts with the leaders' goals in mind. The leader devotes a lot
of resources in it as achieving this satisfies strategic goals. It’s important for leaders to gain
buy-in and acceptance at all levels. Organizations rarely go back to the old way of doing
things after a transformational change.
Rollout of change; systemwide vs localized. Rollout: refers to the decision about where to
implement change across the organization.
Systemwide: these are rolled out across multiple business
units or subunits simultaneously. This can be very
effective if the change needs to start immediately. It can
require significant resources and coordination. One of the
risks is that there are fewer opportunities for the leaders
to learn and evaluate before implementing it in new
areas.
Localized: rolled out in a successive process.
Implementing the change in specific units, one by one. The benefit is that leaders can devote
more resources and attention to each segment of the organization.
Timing of change; fast vs slow. Timing: determines the pace of the implementation effort.
Fast: is implemented quickly, with the goal of enacting it rapidly and then returning to the
‘new normal’. Fast change is often most effective following a jolt that threatens the
organization’s taken-for-granted routines, e.g. a new technology. Process:
1) Unfreezing the existing organizational routines
2) Enacting and implementing the change
3) Refreezing the organization around a new set of organizational standards, practices
and norms.
Slow: is implemented over an extended period of time or may go on indefinitely. These
provide more opportunities for evaluation and learning, but can lose momentum if they
extend too long.
