Types of strategic transformations. Challenges of making strategic changes

Executing a strategy involves making the necessary changes, without which even the most well-developed strategy can fail. Therefore, we can confidently say that strategic change is the key to strategy execution.

Carrying out strategic changes in an organization is a very difficult task. The difficulties in solving this problem are primarily due to the fact that any change encounters resistance, which can sometimes be so strong that those who carry out the changes cannot overcome it. Therefore, in order to make changes, it is necessary, at a minimum, to do the following:

Reveal, analyze and predict what resistance the planned change may encounter;

Reduce this resistance (potential and real) to the minimum possible;

Establish the status quo of a new state.

The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. In principle, people are not afraid of change, they are afraid of being changed. People are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization, i.e. the established status quo. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes in order not to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do things differently than they are already used to doing, and do something different from what they did before.

Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors: 1) acceptance or non-acceptance of change; 2) open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change (Fig. 2.1).

Fig.2.1.

The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, should try to find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which of the organization's employees will take the position of supporters of the changes, and who will end up in one of the three remaining positions. This type of forecast is especially relevant in large organizations and in organizations that have existed without change for a fairly long period of time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.

Reducing resistance to change plays a key role in implementing change. Analysis of potential forces of resistance allows us to reveal those individual members of the organization or those groups in the organization who will resist change, and to understand the motives for not accepting the change. In order to reduce potential resistance, it is useful to unite people into creative groups that will facilitate the change, involve a wide range of employees in the development of the change program, and carry out extensive explanatory work among the organization’s employees aimed at convincing them of the need to carry out the change. changes to solve the problems facing the organization.

The success of a change depends on how management implements it. Managers must remember that when making changes they must demonstrate high level confidence in its correctness and necessity and try to be, if possible, consistent in implementing the change program. At the same time, they must always remember that people's positions may change as the change is carried out. Therefore, they should not pay attention to slight resistance to change and treat normally people who initially resisted change and then stopped this resistance.

The style of implementing the change has a great influence on the extent to which management manages to eliminate resistance to change. A leader can be tough and inflexible in eliminating resistance, or he can be flexible. It is believed that the autocratic style can only be useful in very specific situations that require the immediate elimination of resistance when carrying out very important changes. In most cases, a style in which management reduces resistance to change by winning over those who were initially opposed to change is considered more acceptable. Participative is very successful in this regard. leadership style, in which many members of the organization are involved in resolving issues.

When resolving conflicts that may arise in an organization during change, managers can use various styles manuals. The most pronounced styles are the following:

* competitive style, emphasizing strength, based on perseverance, assertion of one’s rights, based on the fact that conflict resolution presupposes the presence of a winner and a loser;

* a style of self-withdrawal, manifested in the fact that management demonstrates low persistence and at the same time does not strive to find ways to cooperate with dissenting members of the organization;

* a style of compromise, which involves moderate insistence by management on the implementation of its approaches to resolving the conflict and at the same time a moderate desire by management to cooperate with those who resist;

* style of adaptation, expressed in the desire of management to establish cooperation in resolving the conflict while at the same time weakly insisting on accepting the decisions it proposes;

* a collaborative style, characterized by the fact that management strives both to implement its approaches to change and to establish cooperative relationships with dissenting members of the organization.

It is impossible to say unequivocally that any of the five styles mentioned above is more acceptable for conflict resolution, and some less. It all depends on the situation, what change is being made, what problems are being solved and what forces are resisting. It is also important to consider the nature of the conflict. It is completely wrong to assume that conflicts always have only a negative, destructive nature. Any conflict contains both negative and positive principles. If the negative principle predominates, then the conflict is destructive in nature and in this case any style that can effectively prevent the destructive consequences of the conflict is applicable. If the conflict leads to positive results, such as, for example, bringing people out of an indifferent state, creating new communication channels, or increasing the level of awareness of organization members about the processes taking place in it, then it is important to use this style of resolving conflicts arising in connection with changes, which would contribute to the emergence of as many wide range positive results of the change.

The change must result in the establishment of a new status quo in the organization. It is very important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.

2.3 Methods for overcoming resistance to change

As a rule, a strategy for overcoming resistance to change should be developed for each enterprise separately. First of all, because just as there are no two completely identical organizations, there are no universal rules for overcoming resistance. As J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger note, many managers underestimate not only the variety with which people can respond to changes in the organization, but also how positive influence these changes can impact individuals and teams. However, there are still a number of fairly universal methods for overcoming resistance to strategic changes. Two groups of methods proposed by E. Hughes (1975) and J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger are offered for consideration.

Hughes identifies eight factors for overcoming resistance to change:

1. Taking into account the reasons for an individual’s behavior in an organization:

* take into account the needs, inclinations and hopes of those affected by the changes;

* demonstrate the receipt of individual benefits.

* sufficient power and influence.

3. Providing information to the group:

* relevant information that is relevant and of sufficient importance.

4. Achieving a common understanding:

* general understanding of the need for change;

* participation in the search and interpretation of information.

5. Feeling of belonging to a group:

* general feeling of involvement in changes;

* sufficient degree of participation.

* coordinated group work to reduce opposition.

7. Group leader support for changes:

* attracting a leader in a specific work environment (without interruption from direct work).

8. Awareness of group members:

* opening communication channels;

* exchange of objective information;

* knowledge of the achieved results of the change.

J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger offer the following methods for overcoming resistance to change:

Information and communication;

Participation and involvement;

Help and support;

Negotiations and agreements;

Manipulation and co-optation;

Explicit and implicit coercion.

Let us consider the ways and conditions for the successful implementation of these methods, but first present the results of the analysis in Table 2.2 (Appendix 2).

Information and communication. One of the most common ways to overcome resistance to implementing a strategy is to inform people in advance. Gaining insight into upcoming strategic changes helps to understand the need for these changes and their logic. The outreach process may include one-on-one discussions, group workshops, or reports. In practice, this is done, for example, by conducting seminars by the manager for lower-level managers. A communication or information program may be perceived as most appropriate if resistance to a strategy is based on incorrect or insufficient information, especially if “strategists” need the help of opponents of strategic change in implementing those changes. This program requires time and effort if its implementation involves participation large quantities people.

Participation and involvement. If strategists engage potential opponents of a strategy during the planning stage, they can often avoid resistance. In an effort to gain participation in the implementation of strategic change, change initiators listen to the opinions of employees involved in this strategy and subsequently use their advice. J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger found that many managers take the issue of staff participation in strategy implementation very seriously. Sometimes it wears positive character, sometimes - negative, i.e. Some managers believe that they should always be involved in the change process, while others believe that this is an absolute mistake. Both relationships can create a number of problems for a manager, as neither is ideal.

Help and support can come in the form of opportunities to learn new skills, free time for learning, simply the opportunity to be listened to and receive emotional support. Help and support are especially needed when resistance is rooted in fear and anxiety. Experienced harsh managers usually ignore similar species resistance, as well as the effectiveness of this method of dealing with resistance. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it requires a lot of time, is therefore expensive and yet often fails. If there is simply no time, money and patience, then using the method of help and support does not make sense.

Negotiations and agreements. Another way to combat resistance is to provide incentives to active or potential opponents of the change. For example, a manager may offer an employee a higher wages in exchange for a change in work assignment, he may increase the pension of an individual employee in exchange for more early date retirement. Negotiation is especially appropriate when it is clear that someone has to lose as a result of the change, but nevertheless has significant resistance power. Reaching an agreement is relatively the easy way avoid strong resistance, although, like many other methods, it can be quite expensive. Especially at the moment when the manager makes it clear that he is ready to negotiate in order to avoid strong resistance. In this case, he may become an object of blackmail.

Manipulation and co-optation. In some situations, managers try to hide their intentions from other people by using manipulation. Manipulation in this case implies the selective use of information and the conscious presentation of events in a certain order that is beneficial for the initiator of change. One of the most common forms of manipulation is co-optation. Co-optation of an individual involves giving him the desired role in planning and implementing changes. Co-opting a group involves giving one of its leaders, or someone the group respects, a key role in planning and implementing change. This is not a form of participation, because the initiators of change are not trying to get the advice of the co-opted, but only their support. Under certain circumstances, co-optation can be a relatively cheap and easy way to gain the support of an individual or group of employees (cheaper than negotiation and faster than participation). It has a number of disadvantages. If people feel that they are simply being fooled into resisting change, that they are not being treated equally, or that they are simply being deceived, then their reaction can be extremely negative. In addition, cooptation can create additional problems if those coopted use their ability to influence the organization and implement changes in ways that are not in the interests of the organization. Other forms of manipulation also have disadvantages that may be even more significant. Most people are likely to react negatively to what they perceive as dishonesty and lies. Moreover, if a manager continues to have a reputation as a manipulator, then he risks losing the opportunity to use such necessary approaches as education, communication, participation and involvement. And it can even ruin your career.

Explicit and implicit coercion. Managers often overcome resistance through coercion. Basically, they force people to accept strategic changes through implicit or explicit threats (threats of losing a job, promotion opportunity, etc.), or through actual dismissal, or through transfer to a lower-paying job. Like manipulation, the use of coercion is a risky process because people always resist imposed change. However, in situations where a strategy must be implemented quickly, and where it is not popular no matter how it is implemented, coercion may be the manager's only option.

Successful implementation of strategy in an organization is always characterized by the skillful application of a number of these approaches, often in a variety of combinations. However, successful implementation is characterized by two features: managers use these approaches taking into account their advantages and disadvantages and assess the situation realistically.

The most common mistake managers make is using only one or a limited number of approaches, regardless of the situation. This applies to the harsh boss who often resorts to coercion, the employee-oriented manager who constantly tries to attract and support his people, the cynical boss who always manipulates his employees and often resorts to co-optation, and the intelligent manager who relies heavily on education and communication, and finally a lawyer-type manager who tries to negotiate all the time.

Changes in the organization- these are the decisions of its management to change something in internal factors (goals, structure, tasks, technology, personnel). The reason for the changes is the need to respond to changes occurring in external environment(for example, competition, changes in legislation, etc.) or on internal problems(increased productivity, etc.).

Changes in the organization- This:

innovation – introduction of progressive material and intangible innovations;

changes in production and organizational structures dictated by strategic plans;

internal events of a local nature (modernization or replacement of equipment, reconstruction of buildings, etc.

The most main goal change management - to obtain consent for their implementation.

The usual practice for the development and implementation of large, systemic innovations is that they are initiated either by the first person or by the entire senior management personnel of the company. In this case, the usual algorithm involves first developing a transformation strategy, then introducing new system solutions and, finally, training personnel to work in new conditions. Often the last stage is not implemented, and workers are forced to adapt to new conditions through trial and error.

Model of successful management of organizational change by L. Greiner consists of six stages:

1. Pressure and inducement: analyzing the problem together with the team and thereby encouraging them to change.

2. Mediation and reorientation of attention : awareness true reasons and the need for change, Developing together an idea (orientation) on how to organize the process of achieving goals and manage it.

3. Diagnosis and awareness: identifying problems whose solution should change the existing situation, collecting information from lower levels, encouraging consistency in developing a new vision, competence in implementing it and cohesion.

4. New decision and new obligations : finding new solutions and getting the support of those who will implement them.

5. Translating the renewal process into formal policies, systems and structures.

6. Carrying out changes on a full scale. Controlling the renewal process and adapting the strategy to problems that arise during its implementation.

Proven methods of reducing (eliminating) resistance to change: open discussion of ideas and measures for change, convincing employees of their necessity; Involving subordinates in decision-making, creating an atmosphere of openness; assistant support; stimulating the consent of those who resist; maneuvering; compulsion.

The problems of carrying out strategic changes in organizations are associated with the presence of resistance on the part of employees, therefore, to overcome them, the following measures should be taken:

– reduce real and potential resistance to a minimum by explaining to employees the benefits that they will be able to receive after implementing the plans;

– establish the status quo of a new state;

– make a forecast of possible employee resistance to the planned changes.

Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors:

– acceptance or non-acceptance of the change;

– open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change.

The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, should try to find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which of the organization's employees will take the position of supporters of the changes, and who will be in one of the other positions. This type of forecast is especially relevant in large organizations and in organizations that have existed without change for a fairly long period of time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.

The success of a change depends on how management implements it. Managers must remember that when implementing a change, they must demonstrate confidence in its correctness and necessity and try to be as consistent as possible in implementing the change program. At the same time, they must always remember that people's positions may change as the change is carried out. Therefore, they should not pay attention to small resistance to change and be calm about people who initially resisted change and then stopped this resistance.

The style of implementing the change has a great influence on the extent to which management manages to eliminate resistance to change. A leader can be tough and adamant in eliminating resistance, or he can be flexible. In most cases, a more acceptable style is one in which management reduces resistance to change by winning over those who were initially opposed to it. Participative leadership style is very successful in this regard, in which many members of the organization are involved in solving issues of change.

Along with strategic changes and the creation of the necessary climate in the organization, an important task that management has to solve at the strategy implementation stage is the formation and mobilization of the organization’s resources, especially its human potential, to implement the strategy.

The process of formation and mobilization of resources begins with the fact that the mechanism for using resource potential the organization is aligned with the strategy being implemented. To do this, top management must bring the nature and focus of the activities of functional units in accordance with the objectives of implementing the strategy. New tasks must be brought to the functional units that manage the movement of resources within the organization.

The process of resource mobilization at the stage of strategy implementation involves, along with the effective allocation of resources, also the assessment and retention of sources of capital. Management must not only be aware of the sources that it can use to obtain money, the possibilities and restrictions on their use, and the cost of capital, but also do everything possible to maintain these sources and acquire new ones if necessary to implement strategies.

The main tool used to allocate resources is the preparation and execution of a budget, which may concern not only cash, but also inventories, sales, etc.

Typically, change involves the introduction of new ways of working and new people, which directly affects the organization's staff. To successfully manage change, the key is to understand the consequences of implementing changes for all participants in the process. Emerging in connection with this problems may manifest themselves in different ways, but mainly they are found in several aspects presented in table. 1.
Table 1
Classification of problems arising in the process of managing organizational change

Each of these problems is both independent and at the same time closely related to the others.
Considering change management in a narrow sense, i.e. As the management of factors influencing the deviation of the system from a given course, the main attention should be paid to the phenomenon of resistance to change, considered by many researchers as the main one in a number of problems arising in the process of managing organizational change.
After the implementation of planned measures to implement changes, there is an inevitable gap in the company’s performance indicators; changes do not immediately lead to the desired results; a movement arises in the organization to return to the previous position.
It is worth noting that conflict-free implementation of changes in conditions of cooperation of the entire team is the exception rather than the rule. This is due to the fact that changes are assessed differently from the outside as senior management enterprises and employees. Resistance to change can be different strength and intensity.
The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. In principle, people are not afraid of change, they are afraid of being changed. People are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization, i.e. the existing status quo. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes so as not to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do many things differently from what they are already used to doing, and do something different from what they did before.
Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors:
1) acceptance or non-acceptance of the change;
2) open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Matrix “change - resistance”
The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, must find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which employees will take the position of supporters of the changes, and who will find themselves in one of the three remaining positions. This type of forecast is especially relevant in large organizations and in those that have existed without change for a fairly long period of time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.
The above issues can be summarized into the following guidelines for planning and implementing change management strategies1:
1. Achieving sustainable change requires a high degree of employee commitment and vision-based leadership from management.
2. It is necessary to understand the culture of the organization and the levers of change that will be effective in this culture. Managers at all levels must have the right temperament and leadership qualities appropriate to the specific organization's circumstances and its change strategies.
3. It is important to create a work environment that leads to change - this means developing the company as a learning organization.
4. Commitment to change increases if the people involved in the change have the opportunity to fully participate in the planning and implementation of plans.
5. The reward system should stimulate innovation and record success in achieving change.
6. Change strategies must be adaptive, as the ability to quickly respond to new situations and demands that will inevitably arise is vital.
7. Along with success, change will inevitably involve failure. It is necessary to expect possible failures and learn from mistakes.
8. Clear evidence and data about the need for change is a powerful tool to start the process, but identifying the need for change is still easier than making decisions to meet that need.
9. The focus should be on changing behavior rather than trying to impose corporate values.
10. It is easier to change behavior by changing processes, structures and systems than by changing attitudes.
11. It is necessary to predict problems in the implementation process.
12. Resistance to change is inevitable if employees feel that the changes will obviously or implicitly make them worse off. Poor change management can trigger this type of reaction. The change must result in the establishment of a new status quo in the organization. It is important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.
Resume
Traditionally, strategic change has been conceptualized as an infrequent, sometimes one-time, large-scale change. However, in lately the strategic development of the organization is considered in to a greater extent as continuous evolutionary process, in which one strategic change creates the need for other changes.
In a complex dynamic world that is changing ever faster, in order to have time to react to changes, it is necessary to “run even faster.” To adapt to new market conditions better than your competitors, you should constantly modify. An organization's ability to change determines its success. Therefore, we can say that strategic changes lay the foundation for future success.
Strategic changes, if carried out correctly, are systemic in nature, affecting all aspects of the organization. However, we can distinguish two sections of the organization that are the main ones when carrying out strategic changes. The first cut is organizational structure, the second is organizational culture.

Carrying out strategic changes creates the conditions in the organization necessary to complete tasks strategic plan. To do this, it is necessary to identify problems that should be solved as part of the changes being carried out.

Evans and Bjorn's law. No matter what trouble happens, there will always be someone who knew that it would happen.

The emergence of problems in the activities of an organization that impede the implementation of the strategic plan and require strategic changes may be due to various external and internal reasons. It is important to note here that some of these problems are obvious to managers. Any qualified manager can, without special analysis, formulate the problems that exist in his field of activity. Such problems lie on the surface.

Other problems are not so obvious (hidden problems), the existence of which is revealed as a result of special analysis. For example, there is a decrease in sales volume, the market share is decreasing, but these are only symptoms, and it is important to identify the reasons for their manifestation. Everything needs to be explored possible reasons emerging symptoms.

If there are several problems (and in practice this is a common occurrence), then after identifying and describing each problem, a comparative analysis of them is carried out, and the priority of their solution is determined.

Helrang Law. Wait - and the bad will disappear by itself. An addition to it proposed by Sheivelson: “...by causing due damage.”

A clear, concise statement of problems is key to successfully developing a strategic change plan.

To identify problems that arose during the development and implementation of the strategic plan, we will consider the method of logical-semantic modeling.

The procedure for identifying problems includes the formation of a catalog of problems and its structuring. The most difficult task is the formation of a catalog of problems (an edited, but unordered list of problems in the area of “cause-effect” relationships). There is even a strong belief that if a problem is correctly formulated, then it can be considered partially solved. Identifying and correctly formulating a problem is creative process, which can hardly be formalized. The basis of this process is the expert method used to compile a list of problems and their examination. Managers and specialists with sufficient knowledge in the field of the problems being studied are involved in the expert survey.

The initial list of problems obtained as a result of the expert survey is compiled by members of the working group. Completed and coded questionnaires are examined and processed.

An examination of the original list of problems involves excluding from the list identical problems that are similar in content but differ in formulation and replacing them with a problem with a generalized formulation.

As a result, the original list is “compressed” and turns into a catalog of problems.

The connection of problems most often obeys the dialectic of the “cause-effect” relationship. Used on many directory problems binary relation"causality". The ego attitude characterizes one problem as a cause, another as a consequence, or these problems may be incomparable. (On deeper study problematic situation the precedence relation may also be used.)

Based on the above, we can formulate a sequence of procedures performed when compiling a catalog of problems and structuring it:

1. Identifying problems and shaping them full list(catalogue) based on an expert survey. Experts highlight the problems that have arisen in the field of strategic change. The problem must be formulated quite specifically. Generalizing formulations of problems that almost completely cover the content of the corresponding area of strategic change should not be allowed. For example, it is inappropriate to allow language like “ Corporate culture impedes strategic change." Such a formulation of the problem, covering the content of all the problems in a given area of change, obviously becomes a basic, cardinal problem. At the same time, it is too general.
2. Establishing and measuring causality relationships between catalog problems. This procedure can also be carried out on the basis of an expert survey in interactive mode with a computer. With a limited number of problems (approximately 10-20), this procedure can be carried out “manually” by filling out the table. 10.1, which provides an example of a possible set of problems in implementing strategic change and measuring it in a cause-effect relationship.
3. A pairwise comparison of all problems is made according to the “cause-effect” relationship. The problem “cause” is assigned 1 point - “1”, the problem “effect” - “O”, problems not related to this relationship receive an “O”. These assessments are presented in the form of a tournament table (Table 10.1).
4. Basic problems are identified, i.e. problems that have accumulated greatest number points.

Table 10.1

Results of assessing the problems of carrying out strategic changes based on the “cause-effect” relationship

Problem
1. There is no thoughtful approach to determining the content of the changes being carried out
2. There are no proven procedures for implementing strategic changes
3. There is no clear system for monitoring changes
4. Insufficient information to staff about the changes being carried out
5. Low quality of pre-plan strategic analysis
6. An imbalance between set goals and resources is allowed.
7. Resistance of some staff to the changes being carried out
8. The expertise of qualified experts is underutilized when preparing a strategic change plan.
9. Insufficient attention is paid to justifying the need for strategic changes

In our example, the problem that must be addressed first is problem 1 (there is no thoughtful approach to determining the content of the changes being carried out), as well as problem 8 (the experience of qualified experts is not sufficiently used when preparing a plan for carrying out strategic changes). After solving these problems, the prerequisites are created for the successful solution of other problems-consequences. It should also be noted that problem 9 (due attention is not paid to justifying the need for strategic changes) from the point of view of its basic level is also of high importance.

Based on table 10.1, you can construct a graph in which problems, taking into account their assessment, are separated into levels characterizing the degree of their basic level. Thus, at the first level of the graph, problems with a score of greatest number"one". The following levels consistently form problems with fewer “ones”. At the last level there are problems that, in relation to all those discussed above, are consequences (have only “zeros”). (Details of using the paired comparison method to construct a problem graph are discussed in |2|.)

If it is not possible to simultaneously solve all the basic problems, then it is possible to rank the problems by priority (determining their weight).

Incorrect citation of H. L. Mencken's law by Grossman. Complex problems always have simple, easy-to-understand wrong solutions.

The identification of problems carried out in this way and the determination of their mutual influence make it possible to create the necessary prerequisites for the development and analysis of ways (methods, means) for solving these problems.

TO merits this method should include:

1) the relative simplicity and speed of its implementation;
2) highlighting basic, cardinal problems makes it possible to concentrate efforts and resources on solving the truly most important problems;
3) structuring and ordering of problems make it possible to analyze the causes of problems, assess their relevance and urgency, and determine the relationship of this problem with other problems.

Among the main shortcomings of this method, and in general terms of all methods based on expert assessments, include the following:

1) it is difficult to assess the degree of completeness and reliability of the information provided by experts. There is no complete confidence that the experts have actually identified all the main problems and correctly identified the relationships between them. Analysis of identified problems sometimes suggests the absence of any problems. On the one hand, we can invite experts to add them additionally to the catalog of problems. On the other hand, our main task is to identify the most important, basic problems. The absence of some necessary problem in the initial catalog does not mean that the experts made a mistake. It is possible that for this object of study this problem is not of fundamental importance;
2) the absence of an explicit analytical substantiation of the identified problems, although qualified experts, when formulating and analyzing problems, can use such analytical information;
3) individual experts may not be willing to identify all problems. With a clear formulation of the problem, it is possible that the “culprits” for its occurrence, mistakes and insufficient competence of the person who made the corresponding decision will be revealed.

Taking into account the identified basic problems of carrying out strategic changes, the content of the strategic plan is clarified and a plan for carrying out changes is developed. The composition of the measures, the timing of the changes, as well as the resources necessary for their implementation are determined.

Implementation of the strategy involves carrying out the necessary changes, without which even the most well-developed strategy can fail. Therefore, we can confidently say that strategic change is the key to strategy execution.

Carrying out strategic change in an organization is a very difficult task. The difficulties in solving this problem are primarily due to the fact that any change is met resistance, which can sometimes be so strong that it cannot be overcome by those making changes. Therefore, in order to make changes, it is necessary, at a minimum, to do the following:

Reveal, analyze and predict what resistance the planned change may encounter;

Reduce this resistance (potential and real) to the minimum possible;

Establish the status quo of a new state.

The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. In principle, people are not afraid of change, they are afraid of being changed. People are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization, i.e. the existing status quo. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes in order not to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do things differently than they are already used to doing, and do something different from what they did before.

Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors: 1) acceptance or non-acceptance of change; 2) open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change (Fig. 5.3).

Fig 5 3 Matrix “change - resistance”

Reducing resistance to change plays a key role in implementing change. Analysis of potential forces of resistance allows us to reveal those individual members of the organization or those groups in the organization that will resist change, and to understand the motives for not accepting the change. In order to reduce potential resistance, it is useful to unite people into creative groups that will facilitate the change, involve a wide range of employees in the development of the change program, and carry out extensive explanatory work among the organization’s employees aimed at convincing them of the need to carry out the change. changes to solve the problems facing the organization.

The success of a change depends on how management implements it. Managers must remember that when implementing change they must demonstrate a high level of confidence in its rightness and necessity and try to be, if possible, consistent in implementing the change program. At the same time, they must always remember that people's positions may change as the change is carried out. Therefore, they should not pay attention to slight resistance to change and treat normally people who initially resisted change and then stopped this resistance.

The degree to which management manages to eliminate resistance to change has a major influence on style carrying out the change. A leader can be tough and inflexible in eliminating resistance, or he can be flexible. It is believed that the autocratic style can only be useful in very specific situations that require the immediate elimination of resistance to very important changes. In most cases, a more acceptable style is one in which management reduces resistance to change by winning over those who were initially opposed to change. Participative leadership style, in which many members of the organization are involved in resolving issues, is very successful in this regard.

When resolved conflicts, that may arise in an organization during change, managers may use different leadership styles. The most pronounced styles are the following:

competitive style, emphasizing strength, based on perseverance, assertion of one’s rights, based on the fact that conflict resolution presupposes the presence of a winner and a loser;

withdrawal style manifested in the fact that management demonstrates low persistence and at the same time does not strive to find ways to cooperate with dissenting members of the organization;

style of compromise implying moderate insistence by management on the implementation of its approaches to resolving the conflict and at the same time moderate desire by management to cooperate with those who resist;

fixture style, expressed in the desire of management to establish cooperation in resolving the conflict while at the same time weakly insisting on the adoption of the decisions it proposes;

collaboration style, characterized by the fact that management strives both to implement its approaches to change and to establish cooperative relationships with dissenting members of the organization.

It is impossible to say unequivocally that any of the five styles mentioned is more acceptable for resolving conflicts, and some less so. It all depends on the situation, what change is being made, what problems are being solved and what forces are resisting. It is also important to consider the nature of the conflict. It is completely wrong to assume that conflicts always have only a negative, destructive nature. Any conflict contains both negative and positive principles. If the negative principle predominates, then the conflict is destructive in nature and in this case any style that can effectively prevent the destructive consequences of the conflict is applicable. If the conflict leads to positive results, such as, for example, bringing people out of an indifferent state, creating new communication channels or increasing the level of awareness of organization members about the processes taking place in it, then it is important to use this style of resolving conflicts arising in connection with changes, that would promote the widest possible range of positive outcomes from the change.

The change must be completed establishing new status quo in the organization. It is very important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.

Types of strategic transformations. Challenges of making strategic changes

Related articles

Read also