Several researchers have examined the management of organizational politics in the change process. Anthony Cobb (1986) suggests that, in an organizational change effort, the analysis of politics must be performed at three levels: individual, coalition, and network. At the individual level, management needs to identify people who hold powerful positions and have developed reputations for power, perhaps through their influence on important decisions. I remember a lower-level product manager at Unisys in the early 1970s who didn't seem to spend too much time managing products. Closer inspection revealed that he was actually a human "personnel inventory" of corporate talent; Unisys managers all over the world relied on this individual to steer them to capable candidates for critical positions. This product manager was involved in decisions far beyond what his title conveyed he was very powerful.
Powerful coalitions can be identified in a similar way. It is also important to look at interest groups that control key resources or have held together for a long time; powerful coalitions seldom are temporary. That's why top management teams, and not just a couple of top managers, are often removed in a change effort. Merely eliminating a couple of managers will not prevent the remainder of the team---often a long-standing, powerful coalition from blocking the change.
At what Cobb (1986) calls the "macro" level, powerful networks (of both individuals and coalitions) can be identified by studying key linkages among individuals and coalitions: Who talks to whom? Who shares similar values and interests? Who shares access to key resources? Decades of research on individual and group behavior show that we socialize with those who are similar to us, support us, and share our goals.
Not only must the advocates of change watch out for political and power plays, they must also use power and politics themselves. It's a necessary case of fighting fire with fire. However, as Kumar and Thibodeaux note (1990), the degree of political maneuvering should vary with the level of change sought. The lowest level of maneuvering is a simple political awareness of how people feel about a situation; it is appropriate for minor changes--a new procedure in one department, for example.
A somewhat higher level of political maneuvering--political facilitation---calls for direct interaction with those who may help or hinder the change. It applies to more substantial changes-- perhaps major reorganizations within manufacturing divisions, individual retail outlets, or government agencies.
The level of political maneuvering appropriate for large-scale organizational change--the topic of this article--is what Kumar and Thibodeaux call political intervention. This is a true "activist" approach in which management goes beyond facilitation and support to encourage people to question existing beliefs and values. This intervention may require that management align with powerful others or consciously manipulate to achieve desired ends.
Organizational culture is not the "change trigger" we assumed it was in the early 1980s. We cannot change organizations by focusing directly and immediately on culture, because culture is too broad and resistant. Moreover, it is influenced by factors (the competitive environment) largely beyond the control of management. However, we need to assess culture to determine the best way to proceed with change. That effort is much more likely to be successful if, instead of treading on existing assumptions and values, management will collaborate with employees in assessing behaviors and practices.
Management's leadership in the change effort seems to be the key determinant of whether that change will succeed. It is not new to say that leadership is critical. What is new is the type of leadership being recommended-one that does more than just create and articulate a new vision for the organization. Management needs to communicate openly with those affected by the change and, once again, collaborate with those same individuals to obtain their input. Part of communication and collaboration involves Wing the intended changes to organizational outcomes--what does the change mean in terms of productivity and quality of work life? Another key leadership feature involves role modeling of expected behaviors. For example, if top management expects lower-level managers and employees to behave ethically, then top executives themselves must do the same.
We now recognize that changing organizations requires a consideration of power and politics. Effective managers of change understand that what others do and say may not reveal their true intent. People do attempt to create meaning for others--perhaps through manipulation of information--to reach desired objectives.
Top managers wishing to transform an organization might best begin with a careful assessment of its history. This can reveal the individuals and coalitions that wield the greatest power. It is also important to examine the organizational stakeholders--both internal and external to determine those that might support or block a change effort. It might be possible to manage those stakeholders (and their influence) by collaborating with supporters and defending against non-supporters.
Fortunately, both power and politics can be used in positive ways. Although manipulation and coercion may sometimes be needed to influence those who refuse to support change, collaboration and communication can usually set the stage for political activities of a more positive nature--especially if the organizational culture has been considered and the leadership of the change effort has been effective.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar