Within the realm of organizational change, the article “The most successful approaches to leading Organizational change” from “Harvard Business Review” offers a fresh perspective that challenges traditional knowledge (Rowland et al., 2023). The vital theme revolves around the significance of not just what changes an organization wants to bring but, more critically, how it accomplishes that change. The article presents four wonderful tactics to change: “Directive, Self-assembly, Masterful, and Emergent,” each with its unique traits and potential consequences. As a leader in an “executive protection company,” this text has stimulated me to reevaluate my method for a significant change initiative within my business enterprise.
The context of the change I oversee pertains to improving our executive protection enterprise’s security protocols and service delivery model. In a rapidly evolving safety panorama, we must adapt and innovate to satisfy the needs of our clients efficiently (Mansaray, 2019). This entails restructuring our security teams, updating our technology infrastructure, and enhancing the skills and competencies of our safety employees. To achieve this endeavor, I must determine which of the four change methods mentioned in the article best aligns with our specific scenario.
The primary change method discussed is Directive change. In this model, change is tightly managed from the top, with pinnacle management dictating the change’s what and how. While this approach provides clear steerage and control, it often lacks employee buy-in and minimizes capability building. Reflecting on our scenario, Directive change seems irrelevant. Our protection employees require a high degree of autonomy and empowerment of their roles, and enforcing a top-down change would possibly result in resistance and reduced morale.
The second approach, Self-assembly change, delegates the implementation of change to local management while maintaining a clear route from top control. This method includes numerous equipment, templates, and workshops but often overlooks the effect of those activities. Given the complexity of our enterprise and the various nature of our security operations, Self-assembly change might also result in inconsistent implementation and insufficient functionality building (Harvard Business School, 2020). It is critical to ensure that our protection teams, spread throughout specific places, adhere to standardized procedures and protocols to preserve service quality and consistency.
Masterful change, the third approach, emphasizes engaging with stakeholders and refining the change path. While top control gives a clear framework, employees are free to implement as they see fit, supported by robust change-functionality building. This technique resonates with me as a leader in the executive safety enterprise. Safety specialists thrive after having a say in their work processes and are ready with the skills and expertise to conform to dynamic situations (Rowland et al., 2023). The Masterful change method aligns with our intention of empowering our safety employees to make informed choices while ensuring they have the resources and training they need to prevail.
The fourth approach, Emergent change, allows for a free direction and minimum difficult policies, fostering experimentation and learning from rapid feedback loops. This method can be appropriate for certain contexts, but in the security industry, where precision and adherence to conventional operating procedures are paramount, it can introduce unnecessary dangers. It might be well worth exploring aspects of Emergent change in particular areas, which include technology adoption, where experimentation and adaptability may be useful.
Considering our organization’s current state and the nature of our change initiative, the Masterful change technique seems to be the most suitable. We need to interact significantly with our protection personnel, clients, and stakeholders to refine our direction and offer them the autonomy to implement change effectively. Moreover, investing in comprehensive change-capability building tasks will ensure that our safety teams are properly prepared for the evolving challenges in our industry. Like Ling Yen in the article, it is essential to discover the challenges and pain factors of preceding changes (Rowland et al., 2023). This could be done through open and sincere discussions with our security personnel and different applicable stakeholders. Furthermore, engaging with stakeholders at all company tiers, including security employees, clients, and internal teams, is critical. Their input and remarks will form the course of our change efforts.
References
Rowland, D., Thorley, M., & Brauckmann, N. (2023). Change Management: The Most Successful Approaches to Leading Organizational Change.
Mansaray, H. E. (2019). The Role of Leadership Style in Organizational Change Management: A Literature Review. Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 18–31. Science publishing group.
Sveningsson, S., & Nadja. (2020). Managing change in organizations: how, what, and why? Sage.
Harvard Business School. (2020, March 20). Common Types of Organizational Change & How to Manage Them | HBS Online. Business Insights – Blog. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/types-of-organizational-change
write