org change burke litwin model adlt 625

7/29/2019 Org Change Burke Litwin Model Adlt 625

1/16

RUNNING HEAD: Organizational Change

Organizational Change Analysis

ADLT 625

Buddy Murr

Virginia Commonwealth University

I work for a medium sized pharmaceutical production company, which I will

refer to as Global Meds. The company has implemented a change strategy over a

1


2/16


three year period in response to several events which were seen as threats to the

future of the company. In this paper I will analyze this change strategy as I

understand it using the Burke-Litwin model of organizational change (Burke, 2008).

The events that were seen as threatening to the organization and prompted

the leadership to develop a change strategy included several components that

seemed to converge at the same point in time. These included an expansion of the

plant facilities, which added to the already rapid growth in the company, the

requirement to produce increasingly complex products, and a crisis in the supply

chain which resulted in the company falling behind in customer orders resulting in

the loss of millions of dollars in potential sales. In addition, the company had

received several letters of discontent from clients, a less than stellar audit by a

major regulatory agency, and had experienced a change in company leadership

within a short period of time. These events did not escape the notice of the parent

company and pressure was exerted on the leadership team of Global Meds to

address the issues. To assist them in this work, several expatriates from the

corporate headquarters in Germany were installed in key positions in the local

company.

Burke (2008) points out that the external environment often prompts

organizational change. In this case several of the antecedents to the

implementation of the change strategy were external. Among them was the

expansion of the facility, which was the decision of the global leadership team in

response to the need for the large scale production of a new drug. This event led to

relatively large growth in the number of employees, which in turn brought to light

the need for better processes and policies to cope with the growth. External

2


3/16


4/16


occur over a long period of time. According to Burke (2008) this would describe

transactional change, which is continuous over time. However, the company insists

that the change strategy they implemented is transformative. Burke describes

transformative change as discontinuous and revolutionary, which is not congruent

with the companys use of the term.

The change strategy began with the installation of the new COO, which is in

alignment with transformational change in the Burke-Litwin model (Burke, 2008).

The corporate leadership understood that the site needed a leader who understood

the business and who had experience with bringing about large scale and deep

change within a company. Such a change agent was brought in to make sweeping

changes. This new leader, after spending some months assessing the current

climate and culture of the site, hired a consulting firm to help structure and

implement the changes needed. Once the consultants began the work they

discovered the problems required a greater intervention than was previously

realized by the leadership team.

One of the first steps the site leadership took was to change the sites

mission statement. This action is also in line with the Burke-Litwin model (Burke,

2008) for transformational change. The leadership team discovered that many of

the leadership members did not interpret the former mission statement in the same

way and subsequently were not communicating a consistent message to the site as

to its mission. A new mission statement was developed which would communicate a

clear purpose and an expected level of quality. This was a major step aimed at

changing the culture of the site. The new mission statement was introduced to the

site at a town meeting presented by the entire leadership team. The message was

4


5/16


also communicated through department managers, human resources members,

and was repeated in all site-wide communications. The new mission was painted on

the large water storage tank in the middle of the plant, and mission statement cards

were given to all employees to be attached to their identification cards and worn at

all times. The leadership team would also randomly question employees as to what

our mission was. The message was shared that all actions had to relate to the

mission of the company. The new mission was resisted by many in the company in

the beginning, but I believe that consistent messaging and the support of middle

management has helped most employees adopt it over time.

In an effort to attain the goal of changing the culture, the leadership team set

out to change the way the company operated. Specifically, a change was needed in

the mindset of employees from the former way of doing business. Previously, the

focus of the company was to get the pounds out the door. This thinking had been

reinforced by leadership at every level and quantity was valued because higher

quantity equaled higher profits. The new values focused on quality and doing

things right the first time and reflected a change in business strategy. This shift in

mindset was prompted in part by the fact that running at full speed often resulted in

mistakes and rework, which is more expensive and less efficient in the long run. It

also resulted in loss of business and hurt the reputation of the company. The new

mission statement reflected this change in values. This portion of the change

strategy was implemented through consistent and widespread messaging, as well

as by using it to support a host of changes in task requirements.

While this new way of doing business has been consistently communicated

throughout the organization, I still see evidence that the message has not become

5


6/16


part of the culture. Many employees still talk about the fact that if we are not

producing as fast as we can, we must be losing business and failing as a company. I

hear many employees offering lip-service to the concept of right the first time,

while still operating as if quantity is what keeps us in business. I do not believe the

goal of changing the culture in this area has been accomplished and therefore

transformational change has not occurred.

At this point, the leadership team began to look at the structure of the

company. It was decided that because our core business function was production,

the company would discontinue its small research and development operations.

This function was transferred to the U.S. headquarters, as research and

development was their core function. This action displaced a small number of

employees, many of whom moved to the U.S. headquarters or found other positions

within the company. A few others had to leave the company. This action had a huge

affect on the climate of the organization. In its thirty year history the company had

never displaced any employees, as it has always been the assertion of the company

that Global Meds has a caring culture and takes care of its employees. While the

leadership team tried to explain the need for this action, the results of several

climate surveys clearly indicated that the impact was negative. Employees did not

have a high level of trust in the leadership of the company. In addition, as the

companys focus changed, several high level employees were terminated, which in

this small company was very visible. The phrase As long as the gate goes up in the

morning... referring to the security gate at the entrance of the plant, became a

unifying comment among employees across the site. This sentiment communicated

feelings of fear and the perception that no one was safe from the effects of all the

6


7/16


changes. These internal events worked against the efforts of the leadership team

to relate the change strategies to positive change.

The new COO and the director of human resources worked together with the

consultants to shape the structure and messaging of the change strategy. Part of

this strategy included the hiring of a manager of communications and public

relations in order to coordinate and implement the change messages to the site and

externally. In order to address the changes needed in quality, a new vice president

of quality was hired to manage that effort. The addition of these leaders in these

functions is reflective of the management practices described in the Burke-Litwin

model (Burke, 2008) as transactional factors. In addition, there were subsequent

department reorganizations in quality control, quality assurance, document control,

maintenance, manufacturing, and human resources. This restructuring of

departments was intended to improve communications and alignment of resources

to better accomplish the new mission and goals of the organization. These

structural changes also align with the transactional change described in the Burke-

Litwin model.

The large number of reorganizations throughout the company in a short

period of time was interpreted by many as evidence of instability and

disorganization in leadership. I believe that while these changes were necessary to

support the change strategy, the timing and the large number of them was

disruptive to the company and further alienated employees.

Both the transformational and transactional portions of the Burke-Litwin

model (Burke, 2008) contain individual and organizational performance as the

output of the organization. This area also serves a connection between the external

7


8/16


environment and performance. As part of the change strategy at Global Meds, the

company introduced the concept of balanced scorecards to measure organizational

performance. Scorecards were instituted in every department and were used for

reporting site performance to corporate offices. The project management

department was given the responsibility of ensuring alignment of the company

goals and initiatives with the goals of each department which are reflected on the

scorecards. These measures are reported monthly and are made available to the

entire site. Scorecards were implemented to create what the leadership calls a

visual workplace. This change is what the Burke-Litwin model describes as

systems changes, which is also part of transactional change.

Balanced scorecards were instituted, in part, as a means of improving

accountability, transparency, and performance. They also served to communicate

and provide visibility of success and a connection of efforts across the site. While

the introduction of such structural changes is transactional according to the Burke-

Litwin model (Burke, 2008), it was the leaderships expressed intention that the use

of scorecards would bring about changes that would influence the culture of the

site, which the Burke-Litwin model suggest is transformational. Again, there seemed

to be a disconnection between the actions and expectations of company leadership

and their use of the term transformational change.

I believe the over use of scorecards has negatively influenced the climate of

the company and consequently have served to lower employee motivation because

they have been taken to extreme. There are scorecards for company and

department goals, as well as for individual initiatives. This has caused people to

become overwhelmed and confused. What was put in place to bring order and to

8


9/16


create connections is creating disorder and resistance. In hindsight, it might have

been better to limit the use of scorecards to site initiatives, which would in turn

support the goals of the site.

Other changes that have been made include changes in the performance

management process and the implementation of development planning for all

employees. These systems are expected to positively affect the climate of the

organization and serve to influence continuous improvement, which is described as

transactional in the Burke-Litwin model (Burke, 2008). Again, these are examples

of the structural changes implemented by the leadership in what has been termed a

transformational change effort.

Task requirements are another area that was targeted by the leadership

team. The focus has been largely limited to quality and document controls. In

conjunction with doing things right the first time, significant changes have been

implemented in these areas. Structurally, additional staff has been hired to manage

the changes, trainers have been identified in each department to teach these

changes, and quality management champions have been put in place in

manufacturing, warehouse, and maintenance to oversee compliance to these

changes and to communicate updates in procedures. In addition, the business

process excellence group has introduced and begun training employees in Lean and

Six Sigma techniques. Department site scorecards also reflect the added measure

of quality points, which are earned by each department upon the successful

application of these process improvement tools. These task requirement changes

are described in the Burke-Litwin model (Burke, 2008) as transactional changes, as

9


10/16


they are designed to create evolutionary change through continuous improvement

in processes, operational excellence, and efficiencies.

Another structural change has been the increased emphasis on training. The

training department has increased in size dramatically over the past few years to

meet this need. Organizational Development (OD) has been introduced to the site

as a function to address the need to educate and train employees in order to

establish and reinforce the change strategies. Management training, leadership

training, performance management, development planning, and change skills are

included in the focus of the OD function. These changes in training fall under the

area of individual skills and abilities in the Burke-Litwin model (Burke, 2008), which

again, are transactional factors.

Also belonging to this category are the changes that are yet to come in the

organization related to talent management. The leadership of the company is

working to create a connection between the performance management system and

employee development planning in an effort to work towards ensuring a good job-

person match which Burke (2008) describes as a match between the

responsibilities of the job and the knowledge and skills of the person holding that

position. This is called strategic human capital management within the company

and is part of what the leadership calls our transformational change.

The leadership has made a special effort to emphasize improvement in what

is referred to as both the smart and the healthy sides of the business. Smart is

equated with management (clearly defined policies, processes, roles and

responsibilities with an infrastructure that supports change) and healthy is

equated with leadership (strong team dynamics coupled with exemplified behaviors

10


11/16


and mindsets needed to live and breathe the changes made). Again, these

statements reflect contradictions when viewed through the lens of the Burke-Litwin

model (Burke, 2008). Smart is equated with management which is transactional

according to the model and healthy is equated with leadership, which refers to

transformational change. Yet, Global Meds is purporting to accomplish both, largely

through transactional changes in order to bring about transformational change

within the organization.

Structural change is also part of the leaderships future plans to identify key

positions within the company which add the greatest value to the core business of

the company, as well as the top talent within the company to fill these positions.

This change will have a great impact on the climate of the company and eventually

the culture of the company. It is my opinion that this impact will prove to be

negative, as it will create a caste system and will hurt employee morale rather than

encourage initiative and drive. This change initiative also falls under the task

requirement and individual skills/abilities area in the Burke-Litwin model (Burke,

2008), which is part of transactional change. It is clear that the company is

introducing these changes in an evolutionary and planned way as the leadership

openly describes. However, the term transformational change is used to describe

the total change effort, which is not congruent with the behavior.

An area of transactional change described by the Burke-Litwin model (Burke,

2008) that I believe has been neglected in this change effort is that of individual

needs and values. The company has made little effort to help employees match

their own needs and values with those of the company. The Burke-Litwin model

illustrates that this relationship has an impact on motivation, as do task

11


12/16


requirements and individual skills and abilities. As was mentioned earlier, the

company is looking at defining top talent and matching that talent with strategic

positions within the company, however that is for the benefit of the company and is

not intended to create a match between what the employee needs and what the

positions can provide. I believe that failure to address this area is reflective of the

leaderships lack of understanding or concern for the importance of this component

and its impact on the culture of the company. While there is discussion of increasing

talent management within the company, it is always in relation to getting the best

people in the key positions, and not necessarily finding the best fit for employees. If

I were involved in developing the change strategy for the company, I would make

this a priority.

It is clear that the change strategy implemented by Global Meds is largely

transactional, despite the claim that the company is experiencing transformational

change. The leadership team is using that term to describe their belief that the

changes implemented will result in a change in the operation of the business that is

significantly different from the way things have been done in the past. The means

to accomplish this change involve making changes in the day-to-day operations, as

well as in behavior and structure with the expectation that these changes will bring

about the desired changes in the deep structure and ultimately the culture of the

company.

I believe this discrepancy goes beyond just semantics. The leadership of the

company is trying to accomplish transformational change through largely

transactional factors in an evolutionary way over a long period of time. While some

of the actions taken do involve transformational factors as described in the Burke-

12


13/16


Litwin model (Burke, 2008), it is clear that much of the change taking place is

transactional. The change strategy that has been implemented at Global Meds is

not congruent with the Burke-Litwin model of transformational change and I believe

that the company will ultimately fail to create lasting, transformational change in

the culture of the company. I believe that everyone in the company is aware that

planned change is taking place, however most do not see this change as part of a

conscious effort to change the culture of the company. The implementation of the

change strategy has produced a great deal of frustration and mistrust among many

employees. This is reflected in climate and communication survey results.

If I were involved in designing the change strategy, I would have wanted the

leadership team to first consider the current culture of the site to determine its

readiness for the changes using Kotter and Hesketts characteristics of an adaptive

culture (1992), as cited by Burke (2008). If those norms and goals were at work in

our organization the implementation of the change strategy would have yielded

much greater success. In my opinion, our culture is not devoid of all of the eleven

characteristics suggested, however some consideration as to where we were and

what areas would need support would have been prudent.

I believe the use of some of the techniques suggested by Burke (2008)

pertaining to pre-launch, launch, post-launch, and sustaining the change.

Specifically, once the mission and strategy were determined and the new direction

had been shared I would have worked to plant seeds among those in the company

who are known to have influence among employees. Burke refers to these as

connectors, mavens, and salesmen. Getting these influencers to clearly

understand and buy into the change strategy would have helped to positively

13


14/16


influence many others on site. In this way, even when the changes were difficult or

painful there might be widespread support and acceptance. I also would have

focused more on ensuring that the change message was repeated over and over in

different ways to communicate a consistency of purpose during and following the

launch of the change strategy.

I also would have used Burkes suggestion that the change strategy be

connected to a story that helps people understand and remember the overall goals.

This would help to link the many different changes to the overall mission of the site.

This was not done in this instance. The leadership focused more on what would

happen to us if we did not change than on the positive results we should achieve if

the change strategy is successful. It would have been helpful if the leadership had

worked to sustain the changes by sharing with everyone the successes we were

experiencing both often and consistently. The leadership team did do some of this

in the annual town meeting, however once a year may not be enough. In addition, it

would be helpful if more creative ways to share success stories were used across

the site which would capture employees attention or even involve them in the

process.

Employee surveys are used in the company to gage the response to the

changes. The results of these surveys are analyzed and distributed in a cascading

process from the leadership level through managers to employees. Managers are

required to meet with their department and discuss the implications of the results

and get more specific feedback form employees. Managers are then required to

develop action plans to address the issues raised. I think this process is actually a

good way to respond to the concerns raised in these surveys. However, I think there

14


15/16


should also be a format for communicating the work accomplished as a result of

these action plans.

I think the Burke-Litwin model of organizational change (Burke, 2008) is

sound and does represent important components that make up the work of an

organization. I also like the division between components which represent

transactional work and those which represent transformational work. My experience

with organizational change at Global Meds has helped me to understand how

necessary it is to have such a model to work with before planning organizational

change. I believe that if the leadership team or the consultant group they worked

with had used such a model to help them plan and implement the change strategy,

they would have been able to accomplish the kind of deep structural change that is

needed to change the culture.

References

Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage

Publications.

15


16/16


16

org change burke litwin model adlt 625

Documents