Roles- Leader, Sponsor, Agent, Advocate, Target
- Darlene Edgar
Conner, D. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. Villard Books. (In course pack)
"Managing at the Speed of Change" by Conner (1992) delves into the various roles involved in change management and the configurations of relationships that influence change success. Here's a breakdown of the key points from the text:
Roles in Change Management: Change management involves complex, multiple roles that may shift over time. Understanding these key roles is essential for building resiliency in managing change. The four distinct roles identified are:
Sponsor: Individuals or groups with the power to legitimize change, assess potential changes, communicate priorities, and create an environment conducive to change.
Agent: Individuals or groups responsible for implementing change, including diagnosing problems, developing plans, and executing change effectively.
Target: Individuals or groups who must undergo change, requiring focus, education, involvement, and support in the implementation process.
Advocate: Individuals or groups who desire change but lack the power to initiate it.
Relationship Configurations: Change management relationships can take different configurations, including linear, triangular, and square.
Linear: Follows the traditional management chain of command, with sponsors delegating responsibility to agents who work with targets to ensure change occurs.
Triangular: Involves a more complex dynamic, where agents and targets work for a common sponsor, but targets do not report directly to agents.
Square: Involves agents reporting to one sponsor and targets to another, often leading to dysfunction and ineffective change implementation.
Role of the Sponsor: The sponsor plays a vital role in change management, requiring organizational power, a vision for change, resources, sensitivity to personal issues, public and private support, and a willingness to sacrifice for change success. Successful sponsorship involves commitment, monitoring progress, and persistence.
Black Holes in Change Management: Black holes occur when information is withheld or distorted, roles are confused, or commitments are lacking, leading to failure in change initiatives. Sponsors are essential in preventing black holes by providing strong support and guidance throughout the change process.
Sustaining Sponsorship: Change success relies on a network of sustaining sponsorship, which cascades commitment throughout the organization. Linking rhetoric with incentives and pressures helps dissolve black holes and promotes change achievement.
Role Axioms: Key principles for each role include not taking on more change than can be properly sponsored, not working harder than one's sponsor, not participating in change when unclear about expectations, and not confusing the desire for change with the probability of success.
Key Principles for Change Management: Five key principles are identified to increase resiliency in managing change, including understanding key roles, effective relationship configurations, strong sponsorship, clear change sanctioning, and consistent rhetoric with meaningful consequences.
Overall, Conner emphasizes the importance of understanding roles, relationships, and sponsorship in effectively managing change and achieving success in organizational initiatives.
Jacobs, G., & Keegan, A. (2018). Ethical considerations and change recipients’ reactions: ‘It’s not all about
me’: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 73-90. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2103463347/F8919B98102B49D1PQ/4?accountid=142373
Research often views change agents and recipients through the lens of "how will this affect me?" and "what will happen to me?"
There is a need for a more nuanced perspective on organizational change, considering ambivalence and justice concerns.
Studies often overlook moral and justice-based concerns of change recipients, focusing mainly on self-interest.
Justice concerns are significant in uncertain situations like organizational change, influencing reactions of employees.
Third-party reactions, considering impacts on colleagues and organizational outcomes, offer a broader perspective on change reactions.
Employees may resist or embrace change not only based on personal interests but also on concerns for others or organizational outcomes.
Incorporating moral explanations into change theories can enhance understanding of change processes.
Social settings of organizational change provide a rich basis for multifaceted observations and sensemaking among change actors.
Organizational change research often overlooks the influence of social factors on individual reactions to change.
Factors like charismatic leadership at the organizational level and social influences within work units can shape reactions to change.
Employees tend to resist change more when their social environment, including colleagues and supervisors, also resists change.
The prevailing assumption in research is that individuals assess change from a self-interested perspective.
However, deontic justice research suggests that people also value fairness for its own sake and may have concerns for others' well-being.
Sensemaking theory suggests that change recipients actively construct meaning from their interactions and observations.
Change processes involve multiple perspectives, leading to complex reactions among recipients.
Employees consider not only how change affects themselves but also how it impacts colleagues and the broader organization.
Moral identity can lead individuals to consider the ethical implications of change for a wider circle of stakeholders.
Overall, the focus on self-interest in understanding change reactions overlooks the complexity of social observations and moral considerations among change recipients.
Reasons included individual impacts, impacts on others (peers, managers), and organizational effects (service quality, public perceptions).
Coding revealed observations of losses and gains in three foci: 'me', colleagues, and work/organization.
Three broad themes emerged: impact on 'me', colleagues, and work/organization, with subthemes for losses and gains.
Observations showed ambivalence, with changes perceived as delivering both losses and gains simultaneously.
Change recipients assessed outcomes based on ethical considerations, considering impacts on themselves, colleagues, and the organization.
Focus was rarely exclusively on 'me', with emphasis on losses and gains for colleagues and the organization.
Recipients made sense of change through observations of ethical impacts, indicating a broader perspective beyond self-interest.
Recipients' assessments of change rooted partly in ethical considerations, considering impacts on themselves, colleagues, and the organization.
Ambivalence observed, with changes delivering both positive and negative outcomes simultaneously.
Focus on colleagues and the organization, indicating genuine concern for the well-being of others.
Emphasis on ethical considerations suggests a broader perspective beyond self-interest in evaluating change outcomes.
Argues against demonizing change recipients who focus on broader organizational impacts rather than solely on personal gains.
It asserts that these broader observations are crucial for understanding the practical and social factors that influence change success.
Change recipients possess unique insights into daily work routines, contributing to their superior 'line of sight' regarding implementation aspects of change.
Resistance to change often stems from this proximity to implementation realities.
Change recipients experience change firsthand, expressing its complex and ambivalent nature, which may not be fully grasped by distant change agents.
A sensemaking perspective suggests that change is dynamic and unfolds through personal interactions and shared experiences in the workplace.
It advocates for sensitivity to insights from knowledgeable and reflective change recipients in research studies to enhance understanding of change processes.