4. Organizational change and transformation theory
In this theory, the relationship level between the people that are participating in a change project, and those that are affected by the change project, is the key to success (Bass, 1960, p.89). The theory describes how relationship improves communication clarity and how communication clarity improves relationships as a main contributing factor to organizational change transformation.
Transformation of change, as Bass (1960), Goleman et al (2002), and Kotter (2002) suggested, is that an improved relationship due to a higher degree of trust between the colleagues will lead more likely to improved communication levels. Therefore a communicated vision is understood with much more clarity. The authors proposed that a clear vision between colleagues aids in increased collaboration and task effectiveness in the change initiative. The better the relationship and the clearer the vision is and equally well understood among them, the lesser are the arguments among the stakeholder teams. Arguments easily arise when one understands the vision or instructions for change differently than another (p67). And the better the relationship between one leader and one follower is the less resistance likely will occur.
4.1. Need for relationship building in change
It can perhaps be not better said than Davenport (1993) explained the need for relationship building in following 4 quotes for the purpose of getting process reengineering, successfully completed (p96):
- “…the evangelists of process innovation are much more likely to lead the information services function than the human resource function.”
- “…because the human aspects of change are managed as afterthoughts, [they] lead to significant human resource problems.”
- “Too many systems fail to yield any real business benefit because of human problems in implementation.”
- “If process innovation is to succeed, the human side of change cannot be left to manage itself.”
And Bass (1960) said that interaction between people or co-workers or departments (which is the building of relationships) “produces change results sooner than through isolated acting.” (p.129).
The human side of organizational processes is suggested to be the people’s needs during the change. The workers of an organization are the followers and are those individuals that are affected by any change. Davenport (1993) said that their needs should not be left alone. Goleman et al (2002) suggested that relationship building between supervisors, subordinates, and colleagues is the basis for communication clarity and the basis for an improved work environment. Co-workers collaborate and work together more effectively when they have a good relationship with each other, and their communication is clearer. With good relationships, errors are easier forgiven than among people who have bad relationships. And the needs of relationship maintenance cannot be addressed by an automation system such as IT, or if not addressed at all.
4.2. Inability to change
Bass (1960) said: “Many group situations exist where the basic difficulties or resistances to change are due to members’ inabilities to change rather than to lack of incentive.” (p.101). Another reason for resistance is the leadership style applied, for instance a dissonant version, fear. Fear is a good way to get immediate followership to change. Long-term however, it is increasing resistance to change (Bass, 1960, p.79). This means that resistance to change comes either through the inability of the follower to change, and / or both, the wrong leadership style applied for the situation required.