INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A life cycle evaluation of change in an engineering organization: A case study Amarjit Singh a

a,*

, Max Maher Shoura

b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2540 Dole Street, Holmes Hall 383, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2382, United States b KJM Associates, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 1030, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA Received 4 April 2005; received in revised form 14 June 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract The change process is explored and a life cycle model of change is analyzed to see how a large public client organization perceives and reacts to change. Various parameters that occur over the change cycle that relate to initial instability, anxiety, awareness, acceptance of change, tasking and managing, integration, and implementation are evaluated through a quantitative questionnaire circulated to engineers of this organization. Among the findings are that whereas general desire for change is high through a high commitment to change, the upper leadership does not appropriately follow through with the change process, leaving the middle and lower-level engineers to carry a burden for which they are ill-prepared. The level of communication is insufficient. Statistical tests reveal that general direction and leadership is lacking even though the middle-level managers are responsive for change and commitment to change is high among all groups. There were significant differences in the response for parameters evaluated within specific stages of the change life cycle between the various seniority levels of engineers. Engineers mostly agree that there is no incentive to implement changes; many agree that there is little help available for transitional services. Many other deficiencies are noted in this large public client organization. Among other, it is recommended for senior managers to understand that employees are an essential partner. The organizational change (OC) model used provides a workable approach for analyzing the process of change. This case study helps practicing managers understand their responsibilities in managing change. The inability to change proactively affects the efficiency and success of public organizations involved in project management. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Change; Perception; Managing and leading; Integration – life cycle; Managing programmes; Success and strategy

1. Background The management of change is a fundamental tenet of organizational development and modern organizational management. It is necessary to change at the cultural, technological, and organizational levels for an organization to remain competitive and efficient in its operations and services. Change is too pervasive to ignore. The modern thinking on change accepts change for its beneficial effects, rather than rejecting or contradicting it. Change agents are no longer seen as ‘‘trouble makers’’ as *

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Singh), mshoura@ kjmassoc.com (M.M. Shoura). 0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.001

in earlier times [2]. Moreover, change is no longer just the prerogative of senior management, but must be taken up by all responsible members of the organization. Thus, organizational leadership, where responsible members are permitted to take initiative, replaces visionary leadership of top managers. A sense of freedom is nurtured in contrast to supervision and the exercise of control. Organizational designs and objectives remain flexible rather than rigid, and strong cultures give way to flexible cultures [12]. The methods to initiate change in engineering organizations are generalized as twofold: (1) TQM, and (2) Re-engineering. TQM, though originally for improving engineering quality and performance, really amounts to a method for changing the organization for the better. TQM is a rather incremental and continuous process when managed

338

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Nomenclature CE III Civil Engineer Rank III CE IV Civil Engineer Rank IV CE V Civil Engineer Rank V

properly. Reengineering, on the other hand, is considered radical and often just a one-time project till the next discrete phase. Consequently, incremental change carries lower risk than radical change because the quantum of change is lesser. Argyris [3] believed that creative thinking was the foundation of organizational change. That dictum is probably a permanent necessity in all change. If organizations canÕt have creative thinking, they canÕt have effective change, and as the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, observed, ‘‘If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near’’ [11]. This, then, is how important change management is in modern organizations, especially large, public ones. Nalder [9] and Schein [10] emphasized the value of systematic data collection and analysis in the matter of effecting successful change. This study applies their approach in collecting data for this study, and subsequently makes recommendations based on the results obtained. 2. Aims The aim of this case study is to understand how change is effected in the State Department of Engineering and Construction (SDEC) – a large public construction and contract management organization. This case study was a funded research that aimed very specifically to study only SDEC. Through use of statistics, relationship analysis, and statistical inference, the researchers aim to verify the significance of observations made for the Ôchange management processÕ and subsequently interpret the studyÕs results. The magnitude of the change that is effected is aimed to be estimated, whether that magnitude of change is adequate or not, and whether it is conducted appropriately and effectively. Specifically, this study seeks to understand what is going on inside the organization and to discover the climate for change, with an aim at recommending appropriate intervention strategies and guidelines for organizational development, such that better use may be made of the human resources, specifically engineers.

CE VI Civil Engineer Rank VI [The seniority in rank is as follows: CE VI > CE V > CE IV > CE III]

At the time of the study, executives were partially committed to organizational change. For instance, the agency had plans to buy new computers and connections, revamp organizational structure, and streamline the procedures manual. SDEC had exhibited an interest in changing, and so the study was particularly timely, needed, and relevant. The study was all the more significant since it involved a large public organization consuming immense taxpayer money at a time of budget shortfalls. The study was a very practical, hands-on approach to managing the entwined problem of change, and then giving practical recommendations for implementation. 4. Literature search In general, change in construction organizations is an under-researched area. Change models for construction come from fields of general management and project management. The change model of Fig. 1, modified from Adams et al. [2], was applied in this study. This model was adopted for its ability to track change from inception to implementation. Various change models exist in management science, such as the dual-motor constructive process model of organizational change that models change along lines of a dialectic motor that captures forces for promoting and opposing change. There are numerous theories of organizations, and the organization of theories often show evidence of diverse and polarized theories [4]. For a practical study, such as this one, it is meaningful to take one applicable change model and apply it fully. The Organizational Development network, for instance, lists seven data diagnosis models for measuring organizational change [1]:  Weisbord Six-Box Model.  Burke–Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change.  McKinsey 7-S Framework.  Tichy Strategic Alignment Process.  Gelinas–James Elements of Organizations Model.  6 Levers of Organization Change Model.

3. Motivation for the study The large public agency researched here operates in the public limelight, consumes large amounts of taxpayer monies, and its operations and performance are of interest to the public. The total contract value of projects at this agency is normally in the vicinity of US$1.5 billion. The organization has multiple political and social forces pulling in various directions.

These models are broad based: for example, the Burke– Litwin model uses broad management parameters such as leadership, motivation, and feedback to measure climate and culture, transformational and transactional forces. The other models are valid for strategic management or specifically geared toward personnel management. There are literally dozens of organizational development (OD) models in literature spread across management science, construc-

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Integration and Execution

IV

SENIOR MANAGEMENT

Idea generation and Destabilization

Commitment to Change

III

I II

Acceptance and Exploring Options

Anxiety and Awareness

Integration Idea generation and Execution and Destabilization

IV

Commitment to Change

III

IV

Anxiety and Awareness

Idea generation and Destabilization

Commitment to Change

III Acceptance and Exploring Options

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

II

Acceptance and Exploring Options

Integration and Execution

I

I

LOWER MANAGEMENT

II Anxiety and Awareness

Fig. 1. The change model.

tion management, and management information systems; these are ethic-based, technology-based, psychology-based, performance-based, and so on, all of which are too numerous to recount or reference here. In contrast, AdamsÕ model was found to have particular relevance to project management organizations where the precise change phases are modeled and linked to management hierarchical levels – a practical approach that was immensely in line with the needs of the agency sponsoring this research. Moreover, SDEC followed a generally hierarchical approach to management, even though contemporary management may tend towards flat organizational structures and independent work entities, making the AdamsÕ model more appropriate for application to SDEC. 5. Organizational change (OC) model 5.1. Model description The change model, given in Fig. 1, and modified from Adams et al. [2], was the basis of this study. This model was adopted for its life-cycle assessment capabilities of pro-

339

ject change and ability to track change from inception to implementation. The model has been partially altered from its original to suit the details of this study. In the cyclical nature of this model, change is assumed to start with an initiative that generates ripples of destabilization, identified by Quadrant I. The change process moves clockwise to Quadrant II, where a sense of anxiety appears to manifest among employees. Once the anxiety can be overcome with a positive awareness, employees begin to accept the change proposal. This is followed in Quadrant III by exploring options and alternatives, planning for task allocation, and management of the plan. The quadrants in the model actually reflect the typical management planning process well known to every project management student – that of planning, organizing, execution, and control. The change process, once identified, is basically a finite project – large or small as the case may be – to be essentially started and effectively completed. Once the managing and tasking is accomplished in Quadrant III, effective execution requires that there be integration of the various groups and forces in the organization, Quadrant IV. The larger the project, the greater the general need for organizational integration, because the uncertainties are more, and chances are likely to be higher that the process could slip into disorder. Therefore, the need to keep the organization tightly knit together through integrative efforts is higher. Finally, once the execution nears completion, a proactive management team begins planning for the next steps in project evolution to ensure that the organization remains active and alert to be competitive. This resonates with Jack WelchÕs statement ‘‘The wisdom may lie in changing the institution while itÕs still winning – reinvigorating a business, in fact, while itÕs making more money than anyone ever dreamed it could make’’ [8]. Overall, AdamsÕ model represents and typifies the complete life cycle of the change management process in an engineering organization. 5.2. Cyclical phase difference Often, upper leadership orders the change project to begin, rather than the change process being ordered from below. Thus, another aspect of this model is the Ôphase differenceÕ between engineers in upper management and engineers at lower management levels. In the hierarchy of this organization, leadership for change flows from area engineers (CE V and CE VI rank) to resident engineers (CE IV rank) to project engineers and field engineers (CE III rank). The OC model operates on the premise that change management must first be understood and accepted by senior management before middle and lower level managers can become involved. This means that the upper managers advance to Quadrant III and vicinity by the time they instruct the organization to examine the change process. This demonstrates the Ôphase differenceÕ between managers at different levels. Many employees who now hear of this order may feel insecure, but this is only natural; however,

340

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

they will have to go through Quadrants I and II before they come to accept the change proposal. The premise of this model is that upper management must exhibit a forward thinking vision for the change process to be successful. Change management flows through

the management layers, top–down, until the complete cycle of change has been accomplished. Fig. 2 shows the various activities, influences, and change management parameters that appear during the change process. 5.3. Model quadrants and change management parameters (CMPÕs) Each quadrant is characterized by specific variables called change management parameters (CMPÕs). These variables measure the performance of the specific quadrant. The questions that contribute to each quadrant are given in Table 1. The questionnaire, itself, is given in Appendix 1. The CMPÕs of each quadrant are described in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.5 (refer Figs. 1 and 2). 5.3.1. First quadrant This is the stage of destabilizing forces; it includes the CMPÕs of Continued employment, Individual & system adaptabilities, Individual realization, and Resources availability. Many of these CMPÕs are self explanatory, but a

Fig. 2. Change parameters and overall scores for each quadrant.

Table 1 Responses to questions, sorted by group Question number (from Appendix)

CE III (n = 14) Avg.

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Averages

Group scores CE IV (n = 9)

CE V/VI (n = 8)

Combined data Groups (n = 3)

r

Avg.

r

Avg.

r

Avg.

r

Avg.

r

CMPÕs where question is used (Refer Table 2)

5.4 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.1 5.8 3.5 5.3 5.1 4.2 5.3 4.7 4.4 5.1 3.6 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.9 5.6 5.4 4.3 3.9 3.5 4.8 3.5 3.8 4.6 6.1 4.0

2.02 1.09 1.04 1.14 2.14 0.83 1.81 1.44 1.61 1.28 0.91 1.70 1.45 1.19 1.61 1.55 1.76 1.33 1.55 1.45 0.96 1.89 1.64 1.39 1.83 1.27 1.63 1.22 0.83 1.15

5.7 6.0 5.4 4.6 3.6 5.1 4.4 5.4 5.2 4.1 5.0 4.3 5.1 5.2 4.6 3.7 3.4 4.2 4.2 5.8 5.6 4.2 4.7 4.4 5.4 4.6 5.3 5.7 5.8 3.9

1.94 0.71 1.42 1.13 1.94 1.17 0.73 0.73 1.39 0.78 1.12 1.22 0.60 0.97 1.24 1.00 1.88 1.39 1.48 0.97 0.73 1.39 1.22 1.51 0.88 1.01 0.87 0.71 0.67 1.17

6.3 5.9 5.6 4.3 2.5 5.5 3.0 5.4 5.3 3.5 5.4 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.9 2.1 3.5 2.4 3.1 5.5 5.4 4.4 3.3 2.9 4.4 3.1 4.1 3.9 5.3 3.1

0.89 1.13 1.19 0.89 1.41 1.20 1.31 1.06 1.98 1.60 1.06 1.98 1.51 1.55 1.25 1.36 1.07 1.30 1.96 0.93 1.06 2.45 1.58 1.73 2.39 1.73 1.96 2.03 1.91 1.96

5.8 5.9 5.6 4.6 3.4 5.5 3.7 5.4 5.2 3.9 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.8 5.6 5.4 4.3 3.9 3.6 4.9 3.7 4.4 4.7 5.7 3.7

1.62 0.98 1.22 1.05 1.83 1.06 1.28 1.07 1.66 1.22 1.03 1.64 1.18 1.24 1.36 1.30 1.57 1.34 1.66 1.11 0.92 1.91 1.48 1.54 1.70 1.34 1.48 1.32 1.13 1.43

5.7 5.9 5.6 4.6 3.5 5.5 3.7 5.4 5.2 4.0 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.8 5.6 5.4 4.3 4.0 3.6 4.9 3.7 4.4 4.7 5.8 3.7

1.76 0.97 1.17 1.08 1.96 1.04 1.49 1.14 1.60 1.25 0.99 1.65 1.40 1.28 1.43 1.44 1.59 1.48 1.65 1.17 0.90 1.86 1.56 1.59 1.78 1.41 1.63 1.48 1.18 1.41

1 2, 3 5, 6 4 2 5 7 5, 8 9 9, 10 9 7 11, 12 2, 12, 13 11 11 12 14 20 8, 10 10, 13 13 14 14 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 19 16, 17 16, 18 19, 20

4.5

1.42

4.8

1.13

4.1

1.51

4.5

1.36

4.5

1.41

Respondents (n = 31)

Correlations between CE III and CE IV = 0.72; CE III and CE V/VI = 0.88; CE IV and CE V/VI = 0.82.

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

brief definition is provided below (cross-refer questions in the Questionnaire distributed, Appendix 1):  Continued employment: Uses Question 2. It is a measure of the employee comfort level and how each employee feels he/she fits in a dynamic and changing organization.  Individual adaptability: Uses Questions 3, 6, and 8. It assesses how the employees adapt and accept added duties and how they deal with new authority and change.  System (Group) adaptability: Uses Question 4. It assesses the perception of how the group, as a whole, adapts to change.  Individual awareness: Uses Question 1. It is a measure of individual awareness of managementÕs decisions and new organizational directions.  Resources availability: Uses Questions 9, 10, 11, 21, and 22. It measures the organizationÕs desire to change, the pursuit of change, and the availability of resources that must be dedicated to the change process.

5.3.2. Second quadrant This is where anxiety and awareness develop; the CMPÕs here are Organizational support, Anxiety management, Employee empowerment, and Managing increased responsibilities. These CMPÕs are defined as:  Organizational support: Uses Questions 13, 15, and 16. It assesses the organizationÕs support to employees to fulfill tasks and transfer within or outside the organization.  Anxiety management: Uses Questions 2, 5, and 14. It measures the individualsÕ awareness of on-going changes, anxiety levels, and any positive attitude of how change is embraced.  Employee empowerment: Uses Questions 7 and 12. It measures employeesÕ empowerment and their ability to use it.  Managing increased responsibilities: Uses Question 3. It measures the individualsÕ receptiveness to increased responsibility.

5.3.3. Third quadrant This is the stage of acceptance and managing tasks; The CMPÕs are Acceptance of change, Receptiveness to change, Perception of change/change management, and Inhibition control. These CMPÕs are defined as:  Acceptance of change: Uses Question 8. It measures adaptability to and acceptance of change.  Receptiveness to change: Uses Questions 10, 21, and 22. It measures the employeeÕs direct receptiveness.  Perception of change: Uses Questions 28 and 31. It measures the employeesÕ satisfaction with the implementation of change.

341

 Perception of change management: Uses Questions 19 and 31. It measures the employeesÕ satisfaction with the leadership managing the changes.  Inhibition control: Uses Questions 14, 22, 23, and 28. It measures the positive versus negative factors.

5.3.4. Fourth quadrant This is the integration, execution, and restart stage; it includes the following CMPÕs: Synergy for change, Enthusiasm for change, Commitment to change, and System stabilization. These CMPÕs are defined as:  Synergy in change: Uses Questions 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. It measures the factors that form the synergy between the individual and the organization effort during change implementation.  Enthusiasm in change: Uses Questions 26 and 27. It assesses how change excites or should excite employees.  Commitment to change: Uses Questions 29 and 30. It represents the commitment level and passion for change among groups, leadership, and the individuals.  System stabilization: Uses Questions 13, 14, and 17. It measures the factors that lead to stable organization.

5.3.5. Loop center A central feature of the OC model is the specific change concept of commitment to change, which is shown in the center of the circle. This serves as a major part of the concept of the model. It should be noted here that a true commitment to change is an element that is essential to the process of change while traversing all four quadrants. In consideration of the concept of Ôcommitment to changeÕ in the Loop Center, one often reflects on three elements that represent past learning, present position, and future plans.  OneÕs own basic belief that change is necessary.  OneÕs desire to change, and  OneÕs pledge to actively participate in the change process. In reality, the change parameters do not occur in a neat step-by-step fashion, rather they merge into each other over the quadrants, the parameters, and layers of perception, motivated by the commitment to change. Thus, the Loop Center is common to all quadrants, and a basic force through the entire change process. This helps to understand the primary engine of the model. 6. Approach to change The management and psychological variables laid out in the questionnaire set the trend for the approach to the study. The model revolves around the belief that factors such as personal impressions, adaptation, support struc-

342

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

ture, personality (receptivity and selectivity), reaction to authority, expectations of leadership, organizational incentives, desire and orientation to change, and related factors are fundamental to initiating change and managing it. However, these factors were found particularly relevant to SDEC after initial interviews with the engineers. But, each organization is unique and individualistic, having special characteristics; therefore, such factors and questionnaires will have to be carefully developed for each organization. The authors do not believe that there is one change formula that fits all, or one technique can be applied to all organizations, or one size fits all. Change is a very behavioral phenomenon, and individuals composing organizations have different value systems and beliefs even within the same town, let alone around the world. 7. Research methodology and response The Methodology was to use a survey instrument distributed to all engineers of SDEC. The survey was specially designed to match the change model of Adams et al. Specific change management parameters (CMPÕs) were quantitatively assessed in the instrument for each phase of the change projectÕs life cycle. Since the entire population was covered, the results were amenable to statistical analysis. Subsequently, Anova, ScheffeÕs test, correlation analysis, and deviation analysis were all performed on the data and inferences on relationships and significance were drawn. Various observations were noted and conclusions made. Finally, a set of recommendations was developed to match the specific conclusions. 8. Survey response A questionnaire of 31 questions covering 20 CMPÕs was confidentially circulated to all ranks of engineers of this public agency. Thus, the entire population was covered. The responses help to ascertain the engineersÕ standing in the various quadrants of the model and the CMPÕs. In addition, seven qualitative field surveys were conducted that helped the investigators get a close feel of the happenings, frustrations, and management performance in the agency. Thirty-one responses were received to the quantitative survey, broken down by groups, as follows:  14 replies from CE III level engineers working in field offices;  9 replies from CE IV engineers who supervise work at field office; and  8 replies from CE V and VI engineer-managers who coordinate work in this agency. The responses represented a 75% return rate, since there are 42 engineers in this organization. The responses were considered valid, since they covered the entire population. The responses followed central tendencies, evidenced by values clustering around their means, and by a narrow

range of standard deviations in the scores [these are both standard demonstrations for normality in statistical analysis]. This validated normal statistical tests to be undertaken on the response data. 9. Measurements made Raw scores for each question are given in Table 1. The following scores are collected on the basis of the AdamsÕ model: 1. CMP score – these are collected for each parameter for the three groups. 2. Quadrant score, QS – these are collected for each group, as well as for the overall respondents. 3. Overall score, OS – this is collected for each quadrant for all CMPÕs and all groups. Statistical tests are subsequently undertaken for these scores. The aim now is to (1) discover how smoothly change flows across the quadrants, characterized by the life-cycle of the change process, and (2) discover whether there are any breaks or discord in the flow of change over itÕs life-cycle, spanning the various stages and different ranks of engineers. 10. Statistical tests and interpretation 10.1. Inferences from significance analysis (ANOVA) To test whether there are any statistically significant differences in the scores obtained between different quadrants, CMPÕs, and groups, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the data; the results were as follows:  There is statistical significance in the differences shown to exist in one-way ANOVA in the following cases: – There were differences for how each group rated on the CMPÕs in each quadrant. – There were differences in how each group compared overall to each other for their CMP responses, irrespective of quadrants. – The values for all CMPÕs in each quadrant were significantly different to each other.  However, there is no apparent significant difference for the total scores of groups among the quadrants. This ANOVA exercise allows us to make valid interpretations of the observed differences as will be shown in the sections to follow. 10.2. Inferences from ScheffeÕs test Subsequent analyses using ScheffeÕs Test fail to show any further significance for differences between groups in quadrants. ScheffeÕs Test is a conservative statistical test

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

10.3. Correlation analysis The correlation in overall group scores over the four quadrants between the CE III engineers and CE IV is 0.87, between CE III and CE V/VI is 0.97, and between CE IV and CE V/VI is 0.72 (data of Figs. 3 and 4) (see Nomenclature for explanation of engineer ranks). The correlation between the questions asked is 0.72 between CE III and CE IV; 0.88 between CE III and CE V/VI; and 0.80 between CE IV and CE V/VI (Table 1). The correlation between the groups for their responses to CMPÕs is 0.84 between CE III and CE IV, 0.93 between CE III and CE V/VI, and 0.79 between CE IV and CE V/ VI. Results are given in Table 2.

QS = 0.57 SENIOR MANAGEMENT, CE V/VI

IV

QS = 0.77

I

Loop Center

III

II

QS = 0.61

0.9 0.8 0.7

Scores

commonly used for multiple comparisons between a limited number of compounded groups, such as for groups between the quadrants [7]. An additional benefit for these tests is to find out if there was any leading group, but there was no such interpretation apparent.

343

0.6 0.5 0.4

CE V/VI

0.3

CE IV

0.2

CE III

0.1 0 I

II

III

IV

Quadrants Fig. 4. Quadrant scores for each group.

Interpretation: Whereas, all these correlation analyses appear high, there is really no significance at 95% confidence for any of them, except for the one in the group quadrant scores between the CE IIIÕs and CE V/VIÕs. This is perhaps an indication that the various levels of engineers operate independently, are not in sync, or have different agendas and missions. In fact, from our interviews of engineers, it was quite clear that each group marches to its own drummer, and that there is no discernible, unified organizational culture. The one significant correlation between the CE V/VI and CE IIIÕs probably indicates that there is an equal disinterest and lack of enthusiasm in their approach and outlook. The scores of the CE IVÕs are discernibly higher than other levels, and so there was no common correlation in their scores.

QS = 0.62

10.4. Deviation analysis

QS = 0.72

IV

Loop Center

III

IV

QS = 0.652

QS = 0.70

QS = 0.76

Loop Center

III

I

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT, CE IV

II

QS = 0.70

QS = 0.655

QS = 0.74

I

LOWER MANAGEMENT, CE III

II QS = 0.655

Fig. 3. Quadrant scores for each management level.

The average score by CE IVÕs on all questions was highest at 4.8, followed by CE IIIÕs at 4.5, and then by CE V/ VIÕs at 4.1. The average deviation was highest among CE V/VIÕs at 1.51, followed by CE IIIÕs at 1.42, and by CE IVÕs at 1.13. Interpretation: Basically, this reveals that the CE IVÕs are the most inspired group of the department (highest score), and have focused objectives (narrow deviation). In stark contrast, the upper leadership has not only the lowest scores of all groups, but also the widest dispersion of views and approaches. This confirms our general finding that the CE V/VIÕs are not imparting focused messages to their organization, that it is they who are pulling in different directions, and that it is through them that inefficiency is likely pervading the organization. 11. Characteristics 11.1. Upper leadershipÕs scores To ensure effective direction and purpose to the change process, the score of upper leadership, CE V/VI, should not be significantly less than the scores of lower groups. Their high scores are necessary if there is to be appropriate

344

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Table 2 Values of change management parameters Change mgmt parameters

CE III group AVG

r

AVG

r

AVG

r

AVG

r

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0.81 0.70 0.82 0.70 0.79 0.80 0.59 0.77 0.68 0.72 0.53 0.62 0.64 0.55 0.59 0.76 0.67 0.86 0.56 0.57

0.24 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.16

0.81 0.75 0.86 0.65 0.76 0.78 0.63 0.80 0.68 0.74 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.68 0.71 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.66 0.58

0.28 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.19

0.89 0.74 0.84 0.61 0.79 0.80 0.48 0.78 0.67 0.68 0.45 0.52 0.62 0.48 0.54 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.52 0.45

0.13 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.28

0.84 0.73 0.84 0.65 0.78 0.79 0.57 0.78 0.68 0.71 0.54 0.60 0.66 0.57 0.61 0.74 0.68 0.81 0.58 0.53

0.21 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.21

0.69

0.15

0.73

0.12

0.64

0.18

0.69

0.15

Individual realization Anxiety management Continued employment System adaptability Individual adaptability Managing incr. responsibility Employee empowerment Acceptance of change Resources availability Receptiveness to change Organizational support System stabilization Inhibition control Synergy in change Enthusiasm in change Commitment by group Commitment by orgl. lÕship Commitment by individual Perception of change Perception of change mgmt.

Parameter average score and standard deviation (r)

CE IV group

CE V/VI group

Combined groups

Correlations between groups CE III & CE IV

CE III & CE V/VI

CE IV & CE V/VI

0.84

0.93

0.79

motivation and respect for leadership, and if there is to be enough of a thrust for the order to survive at lower levels and later phases of the project. However, even though the first quadrant score of CE V/VI is the highest, there is not a significant difference between their scores and those of CE IVÕs and IIIÕs. In fact, their fourth quadrant score of 0.57 is the lowest of all group quadrant scores. From Fig. 2, it is seen that the combined group scores of Quadrants I, II, III, and IV were 0.76, 0.66, 0.654, and 0.65, respectively. Overall group scores, OS, were 64%, 71%, and 68% for CE V/VI, CE IV, and CE III, respectively. The group score of CE V/VI is significantly the lowest (64%) among all groups. This finding shows that the CE V/VI group is not demonstrating adequate leadership, in relation to the middle and lower groups. 11.2. Quadrant scores among different groups It is observed that CE V/VI scores show systematically decreasing scores in the loop of quadrants I through IV (Figs. 3 and 4). To a lesser degree, the other two groups showed decreasing loop scores but were less pronounced. The biggest drop in any one quadrantÕs score from its preceding quadrant in the loop was in Q.II, awareness/anxiety, for CE V/VIÕs. The highest overall quadrant score was recorded by the CE V/VIÕs Quadrant I, destabilizing forces – implying that higher management is appropriately

accepting the need for change. The lowest overall quadrant score was recorded by integration, Q.IV, of CE V/VIÕs – implying that upper leadership is slow in moving on to the next phase of change. As a central category to this model, Commitment to Change earned high scores from all groups (0.75, 0.83, & 0.86 for CE III, CE IV, and CE V/VI, respectively). The CE V/VI group seems to provide the initial leadership for change management. However, the one concern is that scores are not systematically high for the CE V/VIÕs. This group, therefore, has not fully ‘‘bought in’’ to the change process, and hence does not manifest a leadership that is as decisive as one may expect. From Scheffe´Õs Test, we find that the senior managers are not more motivated than the lower level engineers. All groups are highly committed to change, a very positive aspect in their attitude toward change. Additionally, the lower groups seem to reflect a higher degree of commitment; this is also viewed positively since they are the ones who have to implement the real changes.

11.3. Observations on CMPÕs of combined groups The highest and lowest scores recorded by the combined groups on change management parameters were as given below (refer Table 2):

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Highest scores Continued employment Individual realization Commitment to change

Lowest scores 0.84 0.84

Perception of change management Organizational support

0.53 0.54

0.81

Employee empowerment

0.57

Synergy in change

0.57

It seems that engineers are ideally aware of the need for change and are committed to the process. Since this is a public organization, they are relatively secure in their employment. However, the organizational support for managing change, the attitudes and perceptions relating to change, the motivation of the employees, and teamwork for change management are all seriously wanting. These low scores reflect a climate of uncertainty and distrust. This finding was backed up by the qualitative surveys. The enthusiasm score is at 0.61, a low level. Whereas we would expect upper leadership to be enthusiastic of change, we find that the middle level engineers are actually most enthusiastic. One reason for this behavior may be that the CE IVÕs are so fed up with the state of affairs, as well as mature enough to understand the needs involved in modern organizations, that they are enthusiastic about introducing changes that will expectedly change their lot. Engineers felt fairly confident of their own capabilities, but did not expect much from the system at all. Thus, scores on individual adaptability and managing for increased responsibilities are high, while scores on system adaptability are low. 11.4. Group responses to individual questions In reviewing group results, the highest and lowest recorded scores were as follows (refer Table 2): Highest group scores

Lowest group scores

0.89, CE V/VI, individual realization 0.86. CE III, commitment to change 0.84. CE V/VI, continued employment 0.83, CE IV, commitment to change

0.45, CE V/VI, change mgmt 0.45, CE V/VI, support 0.48, CE V/VI, empowerment; 0.48, CE V/VI, change.

perception of organizational employee synergy in

These scores complement those for combined groups, as should be logical. However, the alarming discovery is that the lowest scores all belong to the CE V/VI – the senior managers and the leadership in this organization. Whereas, the upper leadership has some high scores, as well, their low scores completely give away the fact that they are polarized in their own approach and attitude to change, which obviously causes ripples downstream at lower management levels, and prevents the organization from fully

345

achieving its stated goals for change. The lack of consistency in leadership must be rectified by alleviating the difficulties this group faces, enhancing the authority available to this group, clearing some perceived bottlenecks for them, and delegating more authority to lower groups. 12. Flow of change Whereas the CE IVÕs and IIIÕs start their Quadrant I at quadrant scores of 0.74 and 0.76, respectively, the CE V/ VIÕs are down by that time in Quadrant III with a score of 0.61. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Quadrant I score of the middle and lower level engineers is virtually as high as that of the upper managers, solely because of the relatively higher enthusiasm, commitment, and perception of change that the middle and lower groups posses. In general, there is a decline in activity over the life cycle, as evident from Fig. 4. The organization is unable to sustain its momentum for reasons that can be attributed to unsatisfactory communication and substantial distrust of upper leadership. There should have been more or equal synergy downstream among the group, instead we are seeing widening gap (decrease) in views going into Quadrant IV from Quadrant I. 13. Major observations The CE IIIÕs, who did not have the highest scores in quadrants, exhibited the highest score for Commitment to change. Given their low salaries, poor work conditions, and general distrust of upper leadership, it stands to reason to understand that they are definitely committed to change. What is missing, however, is the connection between their version of change and those of their seniors. The CE IVÕs illustrated their highest score for Continued employment, which implies that the job security of their organization is important to them. Given that they are in the middle of the organizationÕs activities and conflict ridden environment, they can at least rest content in that no one can take their job away without cause. Finally, the highest score (89%), anywhere in this study, was obtained for Individual Realization by CE V/VIÕs, signifying that they are truly cognizant of the problems besetting the organization (many of which have been created by them). In addition, since they are the ones to really initiate change, it stands to reason to expect them to understand the nature of changes being undertaken, a realization that is obviously not shared by the other groups. However, most CMPÕs show consistently low performances – such as empowerment, organizational support, synergy in change, enthusiasm in change, perception of change, and perception of change management (refer Table 2). The CE IVÕs and IIIÕs exhibited highest scores on 17 out of the 20 CMPÕs. The CE IVÕs recorded 15 highs by themselves, with one tie with the CE IIIÕs; the CE IIIÕs had five highs, with three ties with the other groups. The CE V/VIÕs had only one exclusive high – that for individual realization.

346

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Again, this is evidence that the CE V/VIÕs lack the spirit of their subordinates, which is not healthy when it is uniformly so. The morale of this organization is very low, as understood through qualitative surveys. Public complaints are unusually frequent, and public dissatisfaction runs high. Of additional significance is that the engineers in this organization generally accept change, are committed, and are able to manage increased responsibility. This reveals a pattern when contrasted against an unsatisfactory perception of change and change management, low synergy in change, low organizational support, and a less than high enthusiasm for change, as exhibited. It becomes apparent that the individuals are ready and willing, but the organizational direction is weak. ItÕs much like having keen soldiers under poor generalship.

cycle that starts with idea generation, destabilization, awareness and acceptance, moves on to exploring options, managing, tasking, integration, and execution, and finally closing with a start for the next step of change. Three groups of engineers at different hierarchical levels – from top to bottom – were surveyed. Surveys were sent out to all engineers in this engineering organization. 75% of the engineers responded. Statistical analysis was undertaken on the responses for significance testing and relationship analysis to fulfill the aims of this study. Various discoveries were made on the behavior and approach of the engineer groups, as well as for the individual engineers. Quantitative scores were confirmed with qualitative surveys, where the research team personally interviewed each engineer. The study finished with recommendations for this organization to handle change in a more suitable manner.

14. Discussion 16. Conclusions A case study as this provides pointers to the issues present in an organization, and is able to direct managers to making relevant interventions. The organization, it appears, wants change en masse, but is unable to identify the how and what of it. There is no collective and mutual agreement or understanding. Given that job security is granted, there doesnÕt appear to be much enthusiasm for coming to agreement, though the CE IVÕs did exhibit enthusiasm for change. Teamwork is at low ebb, with low synergy and collaboration in efforts. This public organization carries on its day to day work at low energy levels, just enough to survive. Actual changes undertaken are low – and discontent and dissatisfaction were found to be high during the interviews. In many ways, this is the typical model of a dysfunctional public organization, out of touch with reality, and unable to do anything by themselves within the organization. While the individuals exhibit personal skills, talent, and knowledge of their technical matter, they lack the drive to bring improvements, enhancements, and changes. Most importantly, they lack the will to work together. Essentially, a concept of fear was discovered to pervade the organization. Engineers were afraid to speak out or assert themselves, and complained of working with ‘‘one hand tied behind their backs.’’ Decision-making freedoms are curtailed, and there are few incentives for managers to recommend and implement improvement. 15. Summary The purpose of this study was to obtain a representative sampling and analysis of the approach to change among engineers in a large public organization. A variation of the model of Adams et al. was used to quantitatively measure change issues. The aim was to recommend an appropriate intervention based on measurement of the on-going change process: its magnitude, adequacy, appropriateness, and effectiveness over the entire life-cycle – a

Using inferences from statistical testing, ANOVA and Scheffe tests confirmed that there was no significant relationship between how the groups responded to the change management parameters, and that there was no relationship between the group scores over the quadrants and life cycle for the CMP values. Moreover, there is no statistical difference between the overall scores in each quadrant for the groups. Generally, there is no correlation between the scores of groups over the life cycle, except for one incident out of six, where CE V/VI and CE III have a correlation for the score patterns over the life cycle. This directly indicates that this organization has no cohesive approach or culture for change, otherwise the scores would have been significantly related and correlated. Thus, individuals and groups pull in various directions, which implies that they further fragment the organization (that is already functioning poorly). Whereas, the data showed that all engineers are generally committed to change to a high degree, they are unable to come to terms with each other on how the change should be effected. This was manifest by their varying perceptions of the problem. The upper leadership provides a strong initial impetus for change, demonstrated by high initial scores, but fails to follow through in an optimal manner, finishing with a whimper instead of a bang. The variation in the scores of upper leadership over the life cycle is the highest of all groups, indicating that upper leadership loses steam as the change project progresses. Individual and overall scores illustrated that the leadership is ineffective. The fact that there is no statistical difference in the overall score of groups over the life cycle indicates that no one group is really able to do more than any other to accomplish the aims of change. As a consequence, no group is able to break out of the rut of organizational policies and procedures that curb innovation. In addition, there is no leading group. Even though the senior managers are

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

tasked with providing the necessary leadership, they were not exercising leadership. Interestingly, the middle level managers had the highest scores over the life cycle. It is anticipated they wish to see change take place effectively and soon, since the middle level managers have a lot to lose over the remaining portion of their career if changes donÕt take place soon enough for them. Hence, they want to see that change before they get old on the job. The conclusions appeared to match other significant aspects of this organization reported through interviews and qualitative analysis, where morale was found to be very low. It can be concluded that low morale and deficient change management approaches feed into each other, preventing this organization from emerging out of its dismal situation. It was concluded that rather than there being some efficiency, production, or procedural matters that occluded the engineers from performing well that were the cause of public complaints, the real reason for the poor performance and public complaints is an impoverished organizational culture with an ineffective communication system, where the leaders lack understanding of modern systems of management and are thus unable to convey the desired change strategies or vision to the engineers (This was in spite of a couple of the leaders having received prestigious awards such as the ‘‘best engineer of the year’’ awarded by the State Society of Professional Engineers.). The case study, through a formal quantitative questionnaire and formal qualitative surveys, enabled the research team to identify pertinent problems in the organization, such that appropriate managerial recommendations could be made, thereby fulfilling the aims of the study.

approaches, management styles, or morale management and motivation are all missing. Leadership here can take multiple initiatives for multiple organizational changes. It appears that the list for actions is potentially long, but the most applicable specific remedies from the vast list of remedies available in management science are mentioned here that can directly influence change management at SDEC. These remedies follow from the diagnosis of the situation at SDEC, the reports made available to the research team by individuals during qualitative analysis, and results from the quantitative survey. The link between the results and remedies is presented in Table 3. These follow, generally, from classical and conventional management intervention strategies. A discovered deficiency, such as poor communication, for instance, is remedied by addressing the communication systems, organizational culture, and interaction between supervisors and subordinates. The following remedies are, therefore, recommended, to help this organization become healthy and take its place among advanced, contemporary organizations. 





 

17. Recommendations The dynamics of management in this public organization are discovered to have neither a modern orientation, nor to operate in sync to each other. Consequently, many of the drawbacks and deficiencies of this organization can be traced to lack of management understanding among the engineers managing the organization. The general awareness of management processes, management

347



 

Improve communication exchange on all change issues. Discuss the organizational change proposals with lower level engineers; get them on board well before the change is implemented. Reduce the Ôphase differenceÕ as much as possible. Communicate all changes to all employees through memos, newsletters, bulletin boards, meetings, discussions, and brainstorming sessions. Seek Ôbuy-inÕ by all employees for the change proposals; seek input from everyone, seek views of engineers during change, and embrace new ideas and concepts. Grant incentives to engineers for implementing changes. Provide support to engineers during the change process. DonÕt leave them on a limb! Fulfill their resource, communication, and information requirements. Rather than be glum and content with the high job security that creates an environment without adequate motivation, create a participative management environment. Encourage employees to be partners in change initiatives and change processes. Seek to fulfill the aspirations of employees rather than seeking to ÔcontrolÕ them.

Table 3 Causal relations between findings and remedies Observations/findings

Recommendations/remedies

Low perception of change management No cohesive approach for change across engineering management layers Low employee empowerment

Improve exchange on all change issues by communicating changes to employees using various means Seek Ôbuy-inÕ by all employees for the change proposals. Provide a feeling of partnership in change management between employees and upper management Foster a participative management environment, get input from all, seek views of engineers, and embrace new ideas and concepts Emphasize the leadership role in advancing the process and guiding others Encourage senior management to use Expert power and Theory Y Place incentives for engineers to implement proposed changes Create a participative management environment Encourage engineers to experiment with creating Ôa change a dayÕ Provide support for engineers during change

No leading group, and low synergy in change Low morale, enthusiasm and average receptiveness and acceptance Low organization support

348

A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Coach senior managers in using expertise power and Theory Y leadership systems.  Realize that Ôa change a dayÕ is need in this organization, so plans for change have to be pursued with some high degree of vigor. 

Some experimentation may no doubt be necessary, but unless a positive start is made in a big way, rather than in a piecemeal way, this organization will be unable to experience the benefits of managerial change and organizational development, resulting in inoptimal use of taxpayer monies. Appendix 1. Questionnaire on organizational change All references to ÔorganizationÕ denote your Department. Answers require you to respond on a seven-point scale that represents intensity of belief and opinion. Please be candid in your responses and exercise your conscience. Please mark your numerical responses according to the scale below, ranging from 1 (positively no) to 7 (positively yes). 1 Positively no

2

3

4

5

6

7 Positively yes

Questions: 1. Are you aware that your organization is going through an organizational change process? 2. Do you think that you will fit into a new form (a change) of organization? 3. Do you think you can perform new additional duties in an efficient manner after changes occur? 4. Do you think you and other employees are easily adaptable to change in organization? 5. Do you have any job anxiety due to upcoming changes? 6. How comfortably can you deal with new authority and possible changes in management style? 7. If a change (procedure/administrative policies) is required, are you empowered to suggest, formulate and implement changes? 8. When a change is happening, do you adapt and accept it easily? 9. If a change is needed or required, do you request the resources to implement it? 10. How receptive are your superiors to your ideas of change? 11. How receptive are you to othersÕ (superiors and subordinates) ideas of change? 12. Can you get selective in implementing your own method to complete/achieve the sought change? 13. If a change occurs at your agency, do you expect the organization to support you dealing with changes? 14. Do you expect changes to affect your employment in a positive way?

15. If you have to transfer from your position/function, do you get support from the organization? 16. If you have to leave your job due to changes here, is there help in this organization for transitioning to a new position outside? 17. Are you assured that, if changes take place, you would have a safe transition to a new position? 18. Does the organization place incentives to implement changes? 19. Do you think changes have been managed correctly by your agencyÕs leadership? 20. Do you have suggestions for better ways to manage changes to come? List some below: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 21. Do you think changes are necessary? 22. Is it easy for you to get along with new organizational changes? 23. Do you think there are any local or cultural blocks against implementing changes? 24. Are the efforts of management and employees combined to achieve a desired change? 25. Does the organization seek the help of employees to initiate change? 26. In your opinion, should the process of change create excitement in an organization? 27. Does the process of change create excitement in your organization? 28. Does the process of change excite you personally? 29. Do you feel the organization is committed to making changes for the better? 31. Are you committed to a continued progress and to making changes for the better? 31. Do you feel satisfied with the speed of this organization at implementing changes? References [1] Action Research Tools, Organizational Development Network, 2004, Available from: http://www.odnet.org/toolkit/alltools.php. [2] Adams JR, Bilbro CR, Stockert TC. An organizational development approach to project management. Project Management Institute; 1986. [3] Argyris C. Organization and innovation. Illinois: Homewood; 1965. [4] Collins D. New paradigms for change? Theories of organization and the organization of theories. J Org Change Mgmt 1996;9(4):9–23. [7] Keppel G. Design and analysis: a researcherÕs handbook. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 2004. [8] Lowe J. Jack Welch speaks. New York: Wiley; 1998. [9] Nadler David A. Feedback and organizational development: using data based methods. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.; 1977. [10] Schein EH. Process consultation: its role in organizational development. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley; 1969. [11] Slater R. Jack Welch and the GE Way: management insights and leadership secrets of the legendary CEO. New York: McGraw Hill; 1999. [12] Stacey RD. Managing the unknowable: strategic boundaries between order and chaos in organizations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 1992.