Problem:
The information illustrated below contain discussions of organizational change formula. They were based on the learners' experience working through a change initiative using the formula. They also explain how the change leader could have leveraged the formula to increase the likelihood of success in resisting change.
Please provide comments for both of these discussions pertain to the following:
When responding to others, seek clarification, share your personal experiences that relate to their experience, and provide feedback on their posts. In addition, consider providing suggestions for using the formula to improve their change experience.
As we learned, the D,V,F > R formula is as follows:
D – Dissatisfaction with the current state to be motivated for change. If the dissatisfaction is low, the urgent need for change may not be strong enough to warrant change.
V – Vision for the future must be strong and clear in order to bring on change. If there is not a strong vision for the future, change will not likely occur.
F – First steps must be taken to move toward the vision. Once initial wins are witnessed, benefits of moving forward with change to get to the vision will be more evident. If no steps are taken, change will likely not occur because people will not see or understand how they get to the vision.
R – Resistance to change may be great because people tend to shy away from the unknown. We are creatures of habit, and we will always resist change to a certain degree.
The DVF>R formula shows us that a strong dissatisfaction of the current system, a clear vision, and first steps toward the vision will accomplish change. However, if resistance is equal or greater to these three things, change will not likely occur.
One of the changes I witnessed was an integration of our End of Lease Specialist position and our Asset Remarketing position when I worked in our Asset Management department. When I left the department last month, the training for the integration was in full force, yet employees were still feeling the pain of the new change. I worked as an End of Lease Specialist for about 9 months before being promoted to an Asset Remarketer. The vision of smashing the two roles together was not appealing to me, as the End of Lease position was more of a glorified customer service position, whereas the Asset Remarketing position was more of a sales position (selling off-lease equipment). My initial thought of learning about the integration was one of disappointment. I worked hard to get promoted to being an Asset Remarketer, and the thought of having to go back to working in more of a customer service role did not appeal to me at all. My former boss did not portray a clear vision of the “whys” behind this, and how he envisioned this integration benefiting our group. It was a great move for my co-workers who were in the End of Lease position; it was essentially a promotion. However, the Asset Remarketers viewed this whole integration as a major step backward (moving from sales into customer service). I know my former boss had to go forward with the integration because he was told to by his boss, however, I believe if he would have spent more time communicating with us what he saw as NOT working and how he envisioned this change benefiting us in the future, we may have seen more dissatisfaction with the way we were operating and would have welcomed the change. In the end, the resistance to change for a couple people was just too high to believe in the integration. One of my co-workers left the company after many years, and I was offered a position doing project analysis and administrative work, which I felt was a great opportunity to move forward with my career.
A very simple model for assessing the probability of whether a change model will be successful is expressed by the formula (–DVF>R) (Beckhard, 1969). In this formula, D refers to dissatisfaction in a system; V refers to vision; F refers to first steps; and R refers to resistance to change.
When trying to use this model, one must understand that change is a function of leadership, not numbers, and that no model will generate a 100% guarantee of success. To explain: imagine that one could assign numerical values to each component (DVFR), then any project where DVF is greater than R, should be a change success.
The problem with this thinking is that it is difficult to measure each of these components. Dissatisfaction could be with the system, with the leader, or within the individual. Before putting a number on dissatisfaction, one must have a measurement of the will to change which is really resistance (R). Leadership can influence will (both organizational and individual); therefore, it is leadership relationship more than numbers that drive change.
How does one measure vision? Long term shared vision means that everyone in the company or organization sees, understands, and agrees (a link to dissatisfaction) with the direction being taken. One big question I ask is, “Is this the right move at this time”. Vision in more than just seeing the future, it involves among other things, company placement in the future. All first steps (F) are based on this vision, and are the core foundations. One could think of F as inversely proportional to V. If the first steps are wrong, then it takes longer to realize V. Vision comes from leadership; therefore, leadership is the most correct indicator of change success. Collins wrote, “Every good to great company had Level 5 leadership during the transition years” (Collins, 2001, p. 39).
I have observed that trying to use a tool to gauge resistance to change creates conflict. I believe successful leaders drive change, yet that transition is only situational. In other words, a change agent for one project may not be successful at another project. When that happens, most companies resort to finding what went wrong. In that case, why not use this tool?
Reference:
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organizational development: Strategies and models. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins.