An analysis of all aspects of the functioning of an organization, in particular, an analysis of leadership, decision-making and communications, shows that organizations are not something frozen, but have a dynamic nature caused by certain organizational changes. Organizations can change for a variety of reasons. Some changes are imposed from the outside (competition, politics, the "life cycle" of the development of organizations, scientific and technical progress, etc.), others are initiated by ourselves. A change in the dollar or the general economic environment is imposed on your organization from the outside, and it is forced to take retaliatory measures to reduce losses. Moving to another apartment, changing jobs, getting married are changes initiated by you.

Sometimes change is forced and happens against the will of the organization, and sometimes it is welcomed and aspired to. Change can benefit or harm an organization. Change can cause both rise and fall and restructuring. Change can lead to greater efficiency and vice versa.

In one way or another, in organizational change, we are talking about the introduction of a new one, leading to changes that encounter resistance from adherents of the old, well-tested and familiar. The severity and intensity of the conflict between the old and the new depends on the scale of the changes and their significance. Here we can see the organic relationship between change and innovation, since innovation (innovation) ultimately leads to changes in the organization, on the other hand, organizational change brings innovation to organizational functioning.

Large-scale changes in organizations are complex processes that affect the interests of many people. The main types of changes include:

• change in the strategic direction of the organization;
• merger of several organizations;
• implementation or restructuring of a data processing system implemented using modern technical means;
• changing principles or markets;
• introduction of a new management style, etc.

Innovations include marketing system development, financial system, management systems (new management methods are applied, economic evaluation, change in organizational structure), personnel, production facility (for example, change in technology).

The success of the organization and its development are largely determined by taking into account the influence of various factors, external and internal, and changing their impact, so there must certainly be a change in the management of this organization. Thus, managerial innovations in the organization are a prerequisite for its development.

Management innovations can be due to various reasons and factors:

• political: change of system or power, change of law;
• economic: economic benefit or economic efficiency, economic stability/instability; methods economic management, cost accounting, change in approach to spending;
• social: the need for social support for certain strata, categories of workers;
• technological: development of scientific and technological progress - the introduction of new technologies, products, equipment, improvement of the organization of production and labor;
• market: the state of supply and demand, competition; change functionality product, management changes;
• random: Force Majeure.

In order to survive, people have to adapt to the changes taking place around them. But in order to not only survive, but also develop, they must make constant changes in their activities and overcome difficulties. The need to take into account ongoing changes extends to a certain extent both to individual workers as well as groups and organizations as a whole.

Individual level. Changes are associated with various events occurring in the life of the individual. An example of such changes can be various events: appointment, change in the organizational structure.

Group level. Changes affect the interests of groups of people associated with the implementation of a common joint work.

Organization level. Changes affect the entire organization as a whole, ensure the competitiveness of the company, taking into account external and internal factors. They can manifest themselves in changes in both the organizational structure and management methods, and can also be associated with the decision of management to change one or more internal variables in the tasks, goals of the organization, in structure or technology, in the system of interpersonal relations.

In this case, the leader may proactive(self-interested in change) or reactive(just react to the current situation).

The timing of the changes, the difficulties that arise in doing so, and the costs for different levels are different (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1 Levels of change

Various management changes can be carried out in an organization - both large and small, but it must be recognized that the significance of both types of changes is very high.

Management innovations are due to changes in various areas of the organization and functioning of the enterprise (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2 Types of managerial changes

Goals. For the survival of the organization, management must periodically evaluate and change its goals in accordance with changes in the external environment and the organization itself. Goal modification is necessary even for the most successful organizations, if only because the current goals have already been achieved. Often the need to change goals is detected through the control system, which should inform management about the relative performance of the organization as a whole and each unit separately. Radical changes in goals affect all other variables.

Structure. Structural changes - part of the organizational process - refer to changes in the system of distribution of powers and responsibilities, in coordination and integration mechanisms, division into departments, management hierarchy, committees and degree of centralization. Structural change is one of the most common and visible forms of change in an organization. They are a real necessity when there are significant changes in goals or strategy. Structural changes have an obvious impact on human resources, since new people can join the organization, which will change the chain of command. (Fear that structural change will undermine established social and power relationships is often a reason for resistance to such change.) Less obvious is the impact on technology, which is tangentially linked to the new structure. For example, the management information system must change to provide the information needed by both the new unit and the control system for its activities.

Technology. Changes in technology refer to process and schedule changes when new equipment or methods are introduced, regulations change, and the nature of the work itself changes. Like structural change, technological change often disrupts social stereotypes, usually causing plans to be revised. A change in technology may require modifications to the structure and workforce.

Staff. Adequate perception by personnel of ongoing changes within the organization implies the need technical training, preparation for interpersonal or group communication, motivation and a set of acquired business qualities and skills: leadership, assessment of the quality of work, advanced training for management, group formation, implementation of programs to increase job satisfaction and state of mind, improve the quality of working life.

The need for change. Efficient Management is obliged to ensure that the resources (human, financial, material, etc.) set in motion are used better than one might think. In other words, what is done well today will be done even better tomorrow. Such a guarantee is generated by a clear desire for various kinds of changes.

Modern organizations of various industries operate in conditions of uncertainty, dynamism and complexity of the external environment. The individual consumer takes the place of the impersonal mass consumer. This stimulates changes both in products and services (innovations of the first type) and in the production or service processes themselves (innovations of the second type). At the same time, the requirements for the quality of goods are constantly growing, their life cycle is becoming shorter, the range is wider, the volume of output for individual items of the range is less.

While changes are necessary and mandatory, managers must ensure that specific changes make sense. The costs of the change implementation process itself and the benefits it provides must be weighed. In some cases, the financial gain will not pay for the split and disagreement in the team.

Change types. Depending on the depth and nature organizational change different types are possible. The types of change vary according to their depth, from operating unchanged to restructuring an organization where a fundamental change occurs. Each type of change is due to changes occurring in external environment organization, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the organization itself. The nature and depth of the changes carried out in the organization should take into account the stage of the organization's life cycle, since each stage has its own specific processes.

Stages of change. Edgar X. Schein has developed a model of change that has the form of a single process. According to this model, successful change consists of the following three stages:

• 1) unblocking (unfreezing - defrosting);
• 2) changes;
• 3) blocking (refreezing-freezing).

Unlock. All types of learning, whether it be the acquisition of skills, knowledge, or changing attitudes, depend on the desire of the trainee to learn. He must be prepared and motivated to acquire new experience. When settings are changed, existing settings must be eliminated or unlocked in such a way as to make room for new ones. Coercion can be used to facilitate unlocking. If workers could be made to see that the change is relevant to their own needs, they would obviously become more receptive. In other words, their original position may begin to change.

Change. According to the model of E. H. Shane, the change of attitudes occurs only in the presence of identification or internalization. If a person can identify with another who has the desired attitudes, this may contribute to the desire to change. Therefore, it is important for managers to seek out opinion leaders as agents of change. Internalization is the process of trying out, adapting and using new attitudes or methods. If a person's views or beliefs begin to dissolve, that person may want to finally consider new approach. If this approach proves to be productive and desirable, then the change begins to be internalized and accepted. It is important that the samples during the internalization period are good enough and accurate.

Blocking. Blocking is the word used here to denote the final acceptance and integration of desired attitudes in such a way that the innovation becomes a permanent part of the person's personality or activity procedures. This step takes time and support. Immediately and permanently rewarded behavior, apparently, should become part of the usual behavior of a person.

Change styles. Effective adaptability involves making constant changes that ensure the sustainable development of organizations in an unstable environment. Changes in the organization can occur at the levels: individual, group (collective) and at the level of the organization as a whole. The reasons for the change can be very different; in general view they can be classified into internal and external. External ones are due to changes in legislation, the market situation, etc., internal ones are due to insufficient staff qualifications, low labor productivity, imperfect technologies, etc.

Change for Good: The Experience of Organizational Change

Today, more and more situations arise when, in order to maintain a leading position and prevent crises, enterprises need serious changes.

The ability of an enterprise to develop and adapt to changing circumstances is one of the key factors for its survival in today's competitive environment. But, as in the case of a person, any changes in the life of a company are associated with leaving the so-called “comfort zone”. We are talking about established business processes, organizational structure, business customs and other circumstances in which the company is used to working and which it often has no desire to voluntarily change.

That's why best moment for organizational changes, from the point of view of motivation, the crisis situation at the enterprise is - as a rule, an indicator that it (the enterprise) has lagged behind in development and needs to be changed. However, timely adaptation to changing circumstances allows not only to avoid such crises, but also to be in a leading position in the industry. This review is devoted to publications in the Western press about various aspects and problems of counteracting crisis situations through organizational changes in the enterprise.

Meeting the challenges of the times as an organization survival strategy

The twenty-first century is a century of rapid technological advances and ever-increasing competition among market participants, encouraged by the processes of globalization. These are two of the most striking, but far from the only, circumstances that companies trying to win their place in the sun have to reckon with. The survival of the organization in such conditions ensures its ability to respond to the challenges of our time, adapting to market conditions.

In his article titled "Building Organizational Fitness in the 21st Century," author Michael Beer examines the reasons for the failures that large and seemingly unshakable enterprises endure over time, and also suggests a way to maintain the necessary degree of adaptability of the company to changing conditions.

As statistics show, commercial organizations basically they are not flexible: from the list of participants in the “first hundred Forbes” in 1917, 61 enterprises ceased to exist by 1987, and only 16 of the 39 remaining ones retained leadership positions in their fields of activity. The S&P500 index participants are no more joyful: out of the entire composition of 1957, by 1997 only 74 companies remained in the ranks, and only 12 of them managed to overtake the index itself in growth. The author explains these figures by the inability of the majority to maintain their own so-called "organizational suitability" (further in the text of the article, this concept is revealed as the organization's ability to meet the requirements of the market and the business environment).

Studying the dynamics of the development of "organizational fitness" among successful companies over the last 40 years of the 20th century, Beer notes an unconditional evolution in the system of work, structure, management processes, the human resource system, corporate culture and values ​​of those enterprises that have time to keep up with the changing requirements of the business environment. At the same time, the author notes the great attention that has been paid to work with personnel and the development of corporate culture.

There is also a trend in which successful companies are at risk of becoming inert, obsessed with business processes that bring them a lot of income, but potentially lose efficiency in the future. An example of this is Polaroid, the photographic giant of the 1970s, which ignored the development of the computer market and went bankrupt in 2001. The author also recalls the crisis of Apple inc., the founder of the personal computer market, which almost went bankrupt in the late 1990s due to the loss of the market trend to cheaper prices. computer technology and lost market to Microsoft.

Beer identifies the following main barriers, the non-controversial nature of which prevents the company from changing in a timely manner:

– lack of a clear development strategy / conflict of company development priorities;
– inefficient top management;
- the principle of complete non-interference of management in the operational work at lower levels;
– poor communication between organizational levels;
– Poor coordination of the work of departments;
– insufficient management leadership skills and the inability of management to develop such skills.

In order to deal with these barriers, called the “silent killers” of the enterprise by the author of the article, management needs to take the initiative “from above”, allowing its employees (from whose position, as a rule, the organizational mistakes made by management are more visible) to openly and honestly express their views on about problems within the company. This may take the form of some kind of meetings or forums where everyone can express their opinion without fear of being punished for "inappropriate remarks". Showing employees openness and desire to change the company in better side, top management motivates them to take an active part in optimizing business processes.

As an example of a successful reorganization, the author of the article cites the history of Hewlett Packard's Santa Rosa Systems Division (SRSD), founded in 1992 with the aim of mastering the system integration market in the emerging communications market. After two years of its existence, the SRSD faced fundamental organizational difficulties that threatened the unit's success. Among them were highlighted:

– two competing development strategies;
- constant struggle between departments for common technical resources;
– Poorly managed interdepartmental teams coordinating their work at a very low level;
– inefficient top management that paid insufficient attention to strategic objectives;
- passive general manager, unable to solve situations of confrontation of strategic and tactical tasks;
- mutual distrust of employees within the organization;
– insufficient provision of growth and profitability, as well as an unfavorable psychological environment among the staff.

In order to overcome the crisis in the unit, the management decided to investigate the reasons for the unsuccessful start and carry out proper organizational changes by applying the so-called organizational fitness improvement technology (OFP - Organizational Fitness Profiling). The process took about 8-10 weeks and was divided into 4 main stages:

1. At the general meeting of top management, a unified vision of the enterprise development strategy was developed, a unified approach to understanding the status and functions of all departments was formulated, and unified rules for the development of the organization as a whole were developed.

2. In the course of cross-surveys of target groups of employees, from top management to ordinary employees, significant organizational shortcomings were identified, which were announced to management. What he heard had a strong impact on top management, helped him to realize the need for active participation in rectifying the situation.

3. Top management developed an integrated plan for organizational change, including:

– consolidation of previously competing departments into one;

– Creation of a matrix organization of business processes headed by a manager responsible for profitability and having the authority to manage all four key business areas of the division (this management principle was previously considered unpopular among Hewlett Packard divisions);

– reassessment of the role of top management and the establishment of new rules for responding to conflict situations and making decisions.

It is worth noting the establishment of good relations and mutual trust in the team at this stage. The emotional impact of the second stage and the close interaction within the third stage brought the employees together, giving them a sense of working together for the common good.

4. The developed plan was submitted for comments to the previously interviewed lower level target groups. Employees expressed their desire to make certain adjustments to the organizational structure of the enterprise within the framework of the plan. Considering their opinion CEO working groups were created, whose task was to identify alternative approaches to the future organization of business processes. As a result, the employees were presented with a slightly modified plan for the reorganization of the enterprise, which was already discussed at the level of the entire enterprise.

As a result of the measures taken, the team of employees again felt faith in themselves and their company, and the level of general mutual trust increased. Within less than four months, SRSD was reorganized in accordance with the adopted strategy, taking significant first steps towards success.

Within a year of operating under the updated scheme, the division doubled its sales and quadrupled its profitability. Over the next five years of work on the OFP system, SRSD broke out from the lagging Hewlett Packard divisions into the forefront and an example to follow.

The author emphasizes that the experience of such a reorganization of work can be useful and effective for other enterprises, but this requires, first of all, the desire of management to conduct a dialogue with their subordinates and the willingness to listen to them, including impartial assessments of the situation. Ultimately, such events are beneficial, significantly increasing the level of communication within the company and establishing a mechanism for preventing crisis situations and responding to changing circumstances in a timely manner.

Read more about Michael Beer's article on the key points of enterprise reorganization on the pages of the Harvard Business School website at:

Solving the puzzle of organizational dysfunction

Speaking about the problems of organizing the effective work of companies, Shaeffer Consulting Managing Partner Ron Ashkenas compares the actions of modern top management working in a crisis with an unsuccessful game of the Rubik's Cube: no matter how you twist it, you can't put all the colors in place.

Ashkenas believes that in the pursuit of optimizing the work of the enterprise, all the reorganizations undertaken often lead only to the complication of the management structure. A staunch supporter of the principle of management "the simpler, the more effective" (one of the author's latest books - "Simply effective: how to remove complexity in your organization and finally get things done." - Approx. ed.), the author believes that the problem of efficiency can be to solve, not producing new managers, but properly building work with those that are.

First of all, no global reorganizations. The expert emphasizes that management is very fond of carrying out various kinds of structural shuffling when it does not achieve the expected results. This helps to give the impression of a flurry of activity aimed at rethinking priorities, reducing costs, etc. In reality, often everything leads only to additional structural complications. The author believes that most companies can increase their efficiency if managers clearly define goals, appoint specific responsible persons, simplify internal work processes and maintain the proper level of discipline. Keeping anonymity, Ashkenas gives an example from the history of one of the companies that went through 5 large-scale reorganizations in 18 months, none of which led to a significant improvement in the result. On the contrary, when a more competent and experienced specialist was appointed to the post of manager, things went uphill without any further structural changes.

Next, it is worth asking yourself the question: does the existing structure correspond to the development strategy of the enterprise? It seems obvious that the organizational structure of the enterprise should be built on the basis of the upcoming tasks. However, over time, such tasks can change, transform, but at the same time, out of habit, so to speak, all the same employees remain assigned to them. Giving another example from life, the author tells readers about one enterprise for the production of copiers, where the sales points in the field were assigned the function of selling used equipment that was rented out on a leasing basis. However, along with the growth in production and the ever-increasing range of new products, the divisions had less time to resell used equipment, as a result of which this part of the business began to decline. The proposal of the head of sales to create a centralized division for the sale of used equipment met with strong resistance from the heads of branches, who did not want to lose a percentage of sales that they had already become accustomed to consider their rightful. In the end, everything remained in its place, and the backlog of the business for the sale of used equipment was aggravated until the president of the company personally intervened in the situation.

Finally, attention should be paid to the correspondence personal qualities employees to the functions assigned to them. Ashkenas notes that more often than not, instead of solving the problem of employees' compliance with their position, management makes compromises, transferring certain actual powers to other employees, thereby creating an organizational structure that de facto does not work the way it should logically. of things. Using a real-life example, the author tells of a large clinic whose manager appointed a very talented physician to run several remote outpatient units. The effect was the opposite of what was expected: as these units expanded and became larger later on, the lack of managerial experience of the appointed manager led to serious problems, cost overruns, and annoyance of the staff. In order not to offend the doctor by finding her a more suitable position, the head of the clinic appointed a parallel executive manager of departments, who in turn hired deputies. As a result, the structure became cumbersome and inefficient. After some time, the head of the clinic, realizing his mistake, replaced the entire previous structure with a single manager with leadership experience, which corrected the crisis situation.

A note by Ron Ashkenas was published in the blog section of the Harward Business Review website. It is a response to numerous discussions of optimization of the structure of organizations by site visitors. More information about the text and comments to it can be found by clicking on the link:

The art of changing a company from within. New corporate reality

In an article published in the McKinsey Quarterly business magazine, McKinsey & Company branch executives Jonathan Day and Michael Yung question the ability of companies to change at the right time.

In modern conditions, more and more situations arise in which, in order to maintain (or even take) a leading position in its niche, as well as to prevent crisis situations, an enterprise needs serious changes. Unfortunately, in practice, enterprises undergo successful changes only when the crisis has already begun. Conversely, reorganization initiatives undertaken in calm, stable times for the company fail to a greater extent. According to the authors, this is because successful significant reorganization of work requires a holistic understanding of the situation on the part of the team. Moreover, the larger the team, the more difficult it is to achieve such an understanding.

If during a crisis it is easy enough to convey to employees the essence of the dilemma “changes in the company or its death”, then in successful times everything is much more difficult. People are not aware, or they are aware, but try to ignore the need to abandon the established way of doing things, to which everyone is accustomed and which has so far brought results. And the managers themselves often postpone reorganization initiatives until the last, justifying this by their unwillingness to make sudden movements that can lead to an error with undesirable consequences.

Therefore, in order to successfully implement deep changes within the company, it is necessary to create a new corporate reality that will change the approach to the perception of the company by employees, managers, investors and customers. This new vision of the company itself and its place in the business environment should be so clear and impressive that its implementation will become not just a desirable moment for everyone, but will begin to be perceived as a necessity.

How to create and convey such a vision to the team? How to force the enterprise to reorganize in the right direction for itself? The authors identify four essential principles:

First of all, at every level of the enterprise, it is necessary to periodically give employees the opportunity to rise above the daily work routine and look at the situation more broadly. We are talking about the so-called “balcony principle”, to which the most active participants in the reorganization processes should “climb” from time to time, giving themselves the opportunity to see and analyze what is actually happening on the general “dance floor” of the company. Most often, this is implemented through meetings of specialists from different fields and different job levels. At such meetings, the current state of the enterprise is analyzed and mutual understanding is reached on further activities.

The second principle is that when forming a new corporate vision for employees, they should clearly perceive three things:

- why changes are needed, why they are needed right now;
What is the purpose of the change. What exactly should they lead to;
- what is the personal benefit of the employee from such changes.

The third principle also applies personal work with an employee and consists in the need to confirm the success of the changes through his (the employee's) personal direct and non-abstract experience that he had previously received in a similar situation. If there is no such experience, managers are encouraged to create certain conditions for employees, in practice showing them that the new system works.

The fourth principle is the need to prevent and counteract unexpected complications that a company may encounter in the process of reorganization. For this, the authors advise to analyze more often general position affairs in the company, as well as to involve as many specialists of different levels as possible to discuss bottlenecks in the course of the reorganization.

In their article, McKay and Jung also give advice on how to properly shape a new company vision. Since the vision must be clear and precise, it is proposed to arrange it in the form of a history of the company's rebirth. In the event of a crisis, when you have to act on the situation, such a story is born by itself, but in calm times it is worth writing, and the more specific the better. Considering that it is impossible to communicate directly with each of the thousands of employees, and a written or visual presentation of such a story will be perceived by them not as an objective necessity, but as another order from above, the authors advise to indicate only the key, main points in their history, setting a certain vector of development. Further, the so-called “cascade principle” of conveying the idea to employees is proposed: meetings are scheduled at different levels, at which higher-level employees convey to their subordinates the idea of ​​the need for change, retell them the story, preserving its main elements (clearly outlined by the company’s board) and supplementing it with their own personal vision and experience. This approach allows employees to independently participate in the development of specific transformations, psychologically involving them in the process.

Thus, in the course of its global transformation program, the automotive giant Ford Motors, taking the “cascade” principle of conveying an idea as a basis, gave employees the opportunity to create their own interpretations of changes, adhering to the main vectors of the enterprise's development. This principle, called the "accessible point of view", launched a self-sustaining process of generating completely new, but not divergent ideas of transformation within the company at all its levels.

Despite many years successful work on the international market personal care, Johnson & Johnson, mindful of the rapid decline, seemingly unshakable in its industry, IBM, created an internal communication system FrameworkS, essentially representing a set of lengthy meetings of the company's executive committee with the temporary participation of representatives of middle management. Such meetings, each of which lasts about a week, take place on the road, outside the company's offices. During the discussion of the agenda, the opinions of all those present (including temporary participants), regardless of position or status, have the same weight for the executive committee. Upon completion of the event, the board forms specialized committees to address the agreed range of issues. Since these committees include the middle managers who were present at the meeting, they involve hundreds of their subordinates with an understanding of the issue, ensuring that the transformation is effectively implemented.

Such approaches, original tools of internal communication, called by the authors of the article “catalytic objects”, are designed to serve as a link between the understanding of managers about the need to reorganize the company and the same understanding among employees of the enterprise.

At the end of their article, the authors emphasize that there is no single template way to carry out a deep reorganization within a company, since each of them has its own unique specifics and its own own experience. However, they are convinced that the art of successful reorganization from within is not only a matter of luck and that the question of a systematic approach to such reorganization can be studied and formulated in the future.

For more information about the principles and methods of deep reorganization of the enterprise, read the article on the pages of the McKinsey Quarterly online publication at:

Goals of change in the organization

In the work of an organization, it is important to distinguish between changes that occur naturally and changes that are planned by the organization to achieve certain goals. Planned changes occur as a result of the targeted impact of managers and employees to improve the performance of departments or the organization as a whole.

Changes in the organization must be carried out by management and the employees themselves in order to adapt the organization to an external environment that is beyond the control of management. The need for change arises both from the external environment (in the form of increased competition, technical innovations, changes in legislation, social pressure) and from the internal (in the form of employee needs). Some organizations make changes after feeling the impact of the requirements of external or internal environments, while others choose preventive tactics in order to foresee possible changes in advance.

Goals of the planned changes:

• productivity growth;
• development of new products;
• development of new technologies;
• growth of motivation in the activities of employees;
• increased customer satisfaction;
• increase in market share;
• strengthening the position in the market;
• entering new market segments.

All goals imply improved organizational adaptation to the external environment and changes in the behavior of workers. These processes occur simultaneously with the implementation of changes in the organization.

Signs that you need to make changes:

• deterioration in work efficiency;
• increased competition and loss of positions;
• staff passivity;
• in case of incorrect management decisions, the staff does not resist;
• resistance to innovation for no apparent reason;
• there are no procedures for canceling incorrect management decisions;
• reduction in the number of rewards;
• an increase in the number of punishments;
• lack of interest in career growth among employees;
• stereotyped leadership behavior;
• management performs the simplest functions first, and not the most necessary in this moment;
• management does not make independent decisions, but fulfills the requests of subordinates;
• in solving problems they rely only on precedents;
• poorly developed system of delegation of authority;
• "Pygmalion effect", when the staff is not entrusted with important tasks, and the staff themselves work at half strength, do not improve their skills, do not perform the specified functions in full.

Reasons for change in the organization

For each specific organization in the market, the reasons for changes may be different, depending on the situation, type of activity, size of the organization, etc. The whole set of reasons is conventionally divided into three groups:

• change in environmental conditions;
• the emergence of more effective technologies solving work tasks;
• bureaucratization of the administrative apparatus.

The main objects to which changes are directed in the organization:

• goals of the activity;
• organizational structure of management;
• work technologies;
• composition of the staff.

These reasons prompt management to change one or more variables within the organization, its goals, objectives, structure, technologies. The direction of change depends on the nature of the cause. Changes that are made to fix bugs that have been discovered are reactive in nature. The changes that are being made to prevent possible negative consequences are proactive.

J. Kotter and L. Schlesinger identify two types of strategies for implementing changes in an organization:

1. Rapid changes. They require extensive training and detailed plan actions. They involve a small number of participants. If there is resistance from workers, it is actively suppressed. Changes are fast and can be either medium or small in scale.
2. Slow change. They are carried out without prior detailed planning. They involve a large number of participants. When resistance arises on the part of employees, it is weakened by soft methods of influence. Changes take quite a long time, in terms of scale they can be medium, small, large.

When implementing changes, they take into account the strength and nature of the resistance that employees can provide, as well as the number of possible opponents (large or small). In addition, take into account the amount of resources needed to implement the changes. Planning is carried out (either thorough and detailed, or descriptive in a concise manner, depending on the type of change). It is also necessary to calculate the possible risks for the organization.

Today's companies operate in increasingly uncertain and at times even alarming conditions - phenomena that are truly unexpected occur in last years constantly and very quickly. The lifespan of products is shrinking, technology is changing, society is changing, static and permanence is more of a surprise. To remain competitive, companies must respond quickly to change, serve customers better and maintain the right level of technology, they need to implement change more often (and often more radically) than ever before. Stability is increasingly interpreted as a state of "stagnation" of the company, rather than strength and reliability. Incessant change makes it difficult for companies and managers to stay abreast of current events, accurately predict the future, and keep a particular line of business firm. Moreover, the pace of change is constantly accelerating, and it is the pace and unpredictability of events in the external environment that dictate the need for rapid changes in the company, corresponding to the depth and speed of changes in the environment.

Here are some key drivers of accelerating change:

• The emergence of more demanding buyers - intense competition in most areas means that buyers receive better service, best quality and a wider range of goods and services. To remain competitive, an organization must offer the best service, quality, and be able to create or penetrate new markets.
• Globalization - competition is happening on a worldwide scale, buyers are increasingly able to purchase any goods around the world. Goods and services move freely around the world, sources of supply have expanded significantly.
• Technology – Information technology has a major impact on how goods and services are produced, how companies are managed and how goods and services are delivered to the market. In a number of industries, the Internet is changing marketing. Other non-information technologies also have a profound impact on products and markets.
• Company liability - any company is now at the center of various types of liability, it is not only responsible to the law, owners and buyers, its responsibilities are now much wider. Pressure groups with different interests, professional ethics, political and economic factors, industry norms and industry reputation - all this affects the behavior of companies, their freedom of maneuver.
• Personnel - first of all, the responsibility of the organization to its employees has changed. As people increasingly become a factor that differentiates a company's services and adds value to its customers, the need to attract, retain and incentivize employees is critical.

Thus, the conditions in which organizations operate require a quick response, in the absence of which the organization as such often dies. For example, of the hundred largest companies that existed in the early 1990s, only sixteen remained by the end of the decade. During the same period, in the list of the top five hundred most large companies only twenty-nine firms retained their positions (according to Fortune Magazine). Such dramatic changes in the survival and efficiency of companies will be understandable if we take into account the shift of the highly developed world from the economy of the industrial age to the economy of the information age. The most commonly accepted drivers of organizational change in the past two decades have been total quality management (TQM), mergers and acquisitions, reengineering, corporate culture change, and the impact of information technology.

It should be noted that most of the changes did not lead to the desired result, even with the timely implementation of most of the planned organizational changes. In a study of thirty quality programs, McKinsey found that two-thirds of them were discontinued, failed, or failed. A survey of reengineering programs found that 85% of firms achieved little or nothing from their efforts. That is why it is important to understand what “organizational change” is and know how to resist it.

The objectives of this work, therefore, were:

1. Systematization of knowledge to determine the need for change, the types of change and ways to overcome resistance to change.

2. Analysis of specific situations for the implementation of changes on the example of 2 companies.

Types of change in organizations

It must be said that when planning changes, one should take into account what stage of development the organization is at (formation, intensive growth, stabilization or decline), what value orientation prevails in it, what is the organizational culture of the company, etc. In an organization, as in a complex organism, the interests of the individual and groups, incentives and restrictions, rigid technology and innovation, unconditional discipline and free creativity intertwine and coexist. regulatory requirements and informal initiatives. Organizations have their own image, their own culture, their own traditions and reputation. They develop confidently when they have a sound strategy, use resources efficiently and are able to rebuild when they no longer meet their chosen goals. Successful companies that are able to maintain profitability and financial turnover are characterized by the fact that they satisfy a number of well-defined conditions. One of these conditions can be called intra-company value installations. At the moment, there are four main types of value systems corresponding to different cycles of the organization's development. The development cycle of the company "tusovka" is characterized by the value interpersonal communication; cycle "mechanization" - the value of ordering, internal organization; the cycle of "internal entrepreneurship" - the value of the maximum participation of each of the employees in the entrepreneurial process; cycle "quality management" - the universal value of quality.

It is extremely important to determine the stage of development of the company before the changes. For example, at the stage of stabilization, the company should start looking for new ways of further development. If new ways of development (goods, services, consumers) are not found and innovations are not introduced, a crisis naturally sets in, which can end either with the death of the company or with the transition to a new stage of development. If, when changing development cycles, it becomes important to change organizational culture and value attitudes, then in the case of a change in the stages of development, we are more talking about the need structural changes and changes in strategy.

All elements of the organization form a single whole and a change in one of them (strategy, technology, structure, management hierarchy, personnel) leads to a change in others and, therefore, causes changes in the entire organization.

The long-term survival of a company is based on the quality of its strategy—a vision of where the company would like to be at a certain time in the future. Whatever program of change a company chooses - reengineering, total quality management, or changing corporate culture - one must remember the company's strategy - the main path for the development of the organization in a particular period of time. The goal of any organizational change is ultimately to better implement the organizational strategy. Together, the elements of an organization create an organizational culture – these are the beliefs shared by its employees regarding the prevailing values ​​in the organization. Organizational culture rarely coincides with the official statements of the organization, culture is a generalization of observed behavior, the extent to which the behavior of the organization coincides with its declarations, to the same extent luck accompanies it. If there is a gap between the words and the ideal, the cynicism of workers usually fills it, which significantly corrodes the culture and prevents change. It is true, however, that some organizations have developed a culture that is more receptive to change and less concerned about the unknown. The history of such organizations is characterized by rather successful and frequent changes. The fact that an organization is capable of making change, and that it has proven that it can do so, gives it the confidence to change faster, which speeds up change. Needless to say, this is an exceptionally valuable advantage that makes an organization more competitive and drives profits.

Modern organization theory describes 4 main organizational changes that affect all structural elements of the organization to one degree or another.

1. Technological changes. Their ultimate goal is to increase the efficiency of the production of goods or services, and they are most often associated with the implementation of the main production function organizations. AT modern organizations these changes also apply to management and service technologies, including reengineering and total quality management, new communication and information technologies.

2. Product changes. Changes that an organization makes in its product lines or services are primarily related to changes in the needs and preferences of consumers.

3. Structural changes. These are changes related to the goals, hierarchy, procedures and structures of the organization. The most common trends in structural changes are: the transition from mechanistic to adaptive structures, flattening of the hierarchy, decentralization of management, changes in the wage system, the introduction of new rules, etc.

4. Cultural change (the slowest change). Organizational improvement has been shown to be dependent on cultural change—when values, orientations, norms, ideas, definitions, and goals remain constant—even as procedures and strategies change—organizations quickly return to the status quo. Without new fundamental goals, values ​​and expectations, both organizations and individuals, the rest of the measures are superficial and short-lived.

Overcoming resistance to change

There is a wide variety of theories of organizational change. We list some of them: K. Lewin's three-step approach, Bullock and Batten's theory of planned change, Kotter's Eight Steps of change, Beckhard and Harris' change formula, Nadlear and Tushman's matching model, William Bridgers' transition management theory, Carnal's change management model, systems model Senge, the model of complex response processes by Stacey and Shaw, and others. If we turn to practice, then the manager plays a decisive role in real changes. It is the level of management in the company and the personality of the manager that determines the success or failure of organizational changes. The choice of the approach necessary for each particular company, the competent implementation of changes is the task of the manager. But no matter how correctly the approach is chosen, no matter how charismatic the leader or change agent is, he will face the problem of resistance to change and must be able to overcome the resistance of workers.

Resistance to change refers to any actions or inaction of employees aimed at opposing the implementation of changes in the organization, discrediting them. The carriers of resistance are employees who are not so much afraid of the changes themselves, but afraid of being changed. Therefore, they seek to prevent changes in order not to fall into a new structure that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do a lot differently than they are used to. When introducing any innovations in the work of the enterprise, managers must be prepared for the fact that they will not be accepted by a greater or lesser part of the employees. Changes always cause resistance among the members of the organization, as a result of which there are delays in the start of this process, lagging behind the planned deadlines for achieving goals, or even their complete failure.

Resistance is not easy to recognize, because it is built in such a way that allows its bearers, on the one hand, to have reliable protection against innovations, and on the other hand, to ensure the invulnerability of their position. Forms of resistance can be different: from a direct refusal (under various pretexts) to participate in innovation to imitation of activity while demonstrating that the innovation does not give positive results.

At the innovation stage, resistance can take the following forms:

• "Piece Implementation". In this case, under the guise of stages, only some elements are mastered.
• "Eternal Experiment". If a stage of experimental testing of an innovation is carried out before widespread introduction, this stage can continue even after the feasibility of the innovation has been proven.
• "Reporting Implementation". It consists in the discrepancy between the actual level of development of innovation and presented to the report. The degree of distortion in this case can be difficult to detect.
• "Parallel Implementation". It takes place when the new coexists with the old, although it should displace the "predecessor".

Conventionally, the causes of resistance to change can be divided into several groups:

• Economic reasons associated with the potential loss of income or its sources, fear of the prospect of unemployment, reduction of the working day, intensification of work, deprivation of benefits, etc. Economic losses can also be due to the high time and cost of the changes themselves.
• organizational reasons. Here we can mention the unwillingness to change the existing system of relations, disrupt the existing balance of power, fear for a future career, the fate of an informal organization.
• Personal reasons associated mainly with the psychological characteristics of people. Here we can talk about the power of habit, inertia, fear of the new. In the process of change, there is inevitably a threat to the position, personal power, status, position in the company, respect in the eyes of management and colleagues. Finally, personal resistance may be based on the awareness of one's incompetence, disbelief in one's own strengths, the ability to master new activities, unwillingness to overcome difficulties, take on additional responsibilities, etc.
• Socio-political reasons are characteristic not only for individual members of the organization and their groups, but also for the entire team as a whole. Here we can name such factors as the lack of conviction among people in the need for change, largely due to insufficient awareness of their goals, methods, expected benefits and possible losses.
• History of change. If the organization has already experienced unsuccessful changes, employees will resist future changes as well.

If managers encounter resistance to innovation, they must first understand what is causing it and what conditions need to be created or what actions need to be taken to successfully implement change. The extent to which management succeeds in eliminating resistance to change is greatly influenced by the methods used to overcome resistance. The set of these methods is different - from soft (indirect impact on employees) to hard (coercion). The use of methods to overcome resistance to change depends on the style of management, corporate culture, the depth of change and the overall approach of the manager to change.

Types of intervention to facilitate the process of change can be seen in Table. one.

Table 1

Types of interventions in the process of change

behavioral	cognitive
Activity management Reward policy Values ​​drive behavior Management Competence Skill training Management style Honing Activities Feedback	Goal Management Business planning and activity framework Results based on training Interfering with the beliefs, attitudes and culture of the organization foresight
Psychodynamic	Humanistic
Understanding the dynamics of change Helping Employees Cope with Change Attention to hidden questions Appeal to emotions Treating employees and managers like professionals	Respect for values Development of the organization in the learning process Addressing the Hierarchy of Needs Appeal to emotions Stimulating communication and counseling

An important task of the manager in overcoming resistance to change is the task of teaching employees new behavior. Ultimately, organizational change depends on the people working in the organization changing their behavior. In such complex system, as an organization, it also involves the coordinated actions of many people. Behavior change is the result new system views, and it itself demonstrates to the doubters the viability of the new behavior.

There are two conditions for transformational change to occur: survival anxiety must be higher than learning anxiety, and learning anxiety must lower rather than increase survival anxiety. Instead of trying to increase feelings of survival anxiety, it is better to reduce individual learning anxiety.

This can be done through a series of deliberate interventions: creating a convincing picture of the future; formal education; involvement by a mentor or coach; informal team training; practice, training, feedback; support groups; system sequence; imitation and identification. The greater the arsenal of tools involved, especially in terms of informing, consulting, engaging and educating, the more likely the change will be successful.

Informing and consulting - involves an open discussion of ideas and activities, enabling team members to be convinced of the need for changes before they are carried out, conducting special training, informing about the stages of change and success in the field of change. Here, individual conversations, speaking to a group, holding discussions, posting information on an intranet or corporate newspaper can be used. Necessary condition successful informing is an established feedback with employees - information without feedback will not be controlled, inadequate interpretation of information, its deliberate distortion (rumors) is possible. Cons – may require a lot of time, involvement in this process a large number people and budget.

Participation and involvement - employees of the organization should be actively involved in the planning and implementation of changes, which will give them the opportunity to freely express their attitude towards the proposed changes, better imagine the consequences of the changes. Feedback from employees and the desire of the change team to have a dialogue with employees are also important here. Cons - it can take a lot of time and with insufficient organization and insufficient professionalism of managers it will greatly slow down the changes.

Help and support – Employees often need advice to help them overcome fear and anxiety caused by change. A manager or change team members can provide emotional support by listening carefully to employees who are experiencing stress. There may also be a need for additional training to upgrade the skills of staff to meet new demands. Cons - time consuming, requires resources for training, the return on manager's actions or training can be delayed in time.

Negotiations and agreements - to ensure the approval of the innovation, an exchange of opinions is organized and a compromise is reached. Material or other incentives can be used to compensate for the possible losses of employees whose interests are affected by the innovation. This is very important where someone or a group clearly loses when making changes (downsizing, changing areas of responsibility, changing responsibilities, etc.). Cons – May require high costs for severance payments and other arrangements, may have a strong impact on the remaining staff in the organization if the compromise was not fully reached or the scale of the reduction is large.

Co-optation - involves giving a person who may be resistant to change a leading role in making decisions about the introduction and implementation of innovations. It is used when other methods are expensive or not feasible at all. Cons - can create problems if those who are being co-opted understand why it is being done, have the authority to influence the decision to implement changes, are not under the control of the change team.

Since most organizations have several "power centers", located at different levels of the management hierarchy and with different interests, the degree, direction and activity of resistance in different parts of the organization will vary. Managers should take into account that some parts of the organization are less prone to change. It is also important to understand that at the beginning of a change project, most often only leaders of various levels participate in it. When they had already coped with the first personal and organizational problems of change (passed the first stage), their subordinates had only just realized that changes were taking place. This lag in awareness and acceptance of change creates an additional problem for managers, because most often they are expected to achieve results when they are not ready to deliver them. You can initially, when planning changes, put the moment of delay in the schedule of changes, and be prepared for problems.

Our experience of participating in change speaks to another important aspect changes. No change in the organization will be successful if top managers and managers do not demonstrate new patterns of behavior. Employees of the organization, even those who initially perceived the changes positively, will still wait for confirmation of the correctness of changes in the behavior of leaders. If the daily actions of leaders differ from the changes declared by the program, the changes will fail.

J. Kotter, one of the recognized masters in the field of change, believes that successful change does not require management, but genuine leadership. Among the first recommendations he suggests to those responsible for change is to instil in others a sense of the need for change, to create the momentum needed to change the culture or start transforming it.

Constant change as part of the organization's activities

Why do most changes end in partial or complete failure? In our opinion, this is due to the fact that companies are not ready for change. Most changes start in an organization when a problem starts to affect business performance: market share loss, loss of important and large customers, loss of profits, and so on. Under all these conditions, changes are forced, they proceed quickly, in harsh conditions, are associated with great sacrifices and a high level of resistance to change. In order for the company not to be shocked by changes, it must be ready for them, see when it is time to change something, quickly respond to the slightest change in the external environment. "Adaptive" can be considered an organization that successfully implements the constant changes necessary to survive in a particular environment. On the one hand, it must have the skills and ability to make continuous improvements in the quality of goods and services, in internal processes, and also increase customer satisfaction. On the other hand, it must be able to respond to changes in the external environment and do it quickly. Managers must be able to design and manage such organizations so that they are in a state of constant change at many levels. We are talking about organizations capable of:

• to balance constantly occurring changes at some one level;
• support large one-time changes at another level and quickly consolidate their positions.

Some researchers regard this as the ability to balance evolution and revolution. In other words, in modern conditions, the reaction of the organization to changes should be as follows: it needs to develop in itself the ability to achieve two types of changes, one of which is evolution, i.e. improvement of what they do, and the other is a revolution, i.e. making a breakthrough, doing something they've never done before. Successful companies are able to clearly distinguish between revolutionary and evolutionary change - to apply them in the organizational environment and to accurately allocate the various resources needed to implement each.

The basis of the work of such organizations, in our opinion, is a combination of two systems: the balanced scorecard of D. Norton and R. Kaplan and the kaizen system. These systems have much in common when approaching change, but there are a number of differences that make it the combination of these systems that is successful for change - both permanent and one-time. The balanced scorecard has provided companies with a value creation strategy framework based on four pillars: finance, customers, internal business processes, learning, and growth. This system is a combination of objective, easily quantifiable past performance and subjective, to some extent arbitrary, parameters of future growth. We will not dwell on this approach, but will take a closer look at the organization from the perspective of kaizen - the concept of continuous improvement, and although it is about improving the quality of goods and services, improvements in its application usually go far beyond this.

While Western management favors rapid, radical, and innovative change, kaizen culture focuses on small improvements that become permanent rather than part of a recurring initiative. It is important to realize that kaizen is not a one-time initiative, but an ongoing organizational culture that is actively focused on improvement processes, on finding better procedures and methods. It is also about the formation internal systems that support and reward the relentless pursuit of even small improvements. Kaizen seeks, in the words of E. Deming, "to expel fear from the organization", people are not punished for mistakes and bad news. Such a culture encourages the identification of problems and difficulties so that they can be resolved. A culture of kaizen is also a culture of learning where everything we do is evaluated so that improvement and progress can be identified. It encourages groups (teams) (the main operating unit of kaizen) to stop and think about how they work together and how their expectations are met.

The culture of kaizen is the culture of a learning organization. When small improvements are seen not as a goal, but as a continuous practice, people in the organization not only find it easier to change, they come to work expecting change, they are ready to create it and be responsible for its implementation. The kaizen method does not depend on whether kaizen is the predominant culture in the organization, it can be used by any team that seeks an orderly and analytical approach to problem solving. The kaizen process involves the following steps:

• Identification of the problem.
• Understanding the status quo is the basis from which you intend to start improving.
• Finding the root cause of the problem.
• Planning actions for its elimination.
• Implementation of the plan.
• Confirmation of the result of the implementation of the plan.
• Setting a new standard for consolidating change.
• Consider next steps.

A sine qua non for achieving far-reaching change in an organization is a clear and consistent commitment from the top management of the company. This is all the more true when the main goal of change is to create a culture of change in the organization. Commitment to change also means that the organization allocates resources to support initiatives in the field of change (to organize training, seminars and develop the abilities of employees, rewarding them for their successful work).

In order for the kaizen system to function effectively, there must be an atmosphere of complete trust, close communication and tolerance. First of all, it is important to maintain receptivity and positive attitude to change, readiness to accept them. In principle, kaizen, while time-consuming for staff development, does not involve large investments for most other major change initiatives. Much in kaizen is achieved through the deliberate application of common sense and the ability of the team to improve the working environment and processes, as well as increase the efficiency of production.

Let's highlight the key points of Kaizen:

• Change is constant, the organization takes small steps towards a big goal. At the same time, changes can also be of a one-time organizational nature.
• The strategy of each division, group, brigade corresponds to the strategic direction in the company.
• Support and resources are needed to bring about change at all levels of the hierarchy.
• Continuous development and learning, including self-learning.
• Open, trusting and honest corporate culture. A problem is not a tragedy or a blow to reputation, it is an opportunity for improvement.
• Broad employee awareness.

So, kaizen allows you to build an adaptable organization capable of both constant change and one-time change initiatives. In such a culture, the workers themselves initiate and are ready for change. In addition to its ability to achieve continuous improvements in quality, service, processes and customer satisfaction, it also supports ad hoc initiatives to break new ground.

We think it's a good combination of balanced scorecard and kaizen culture. A system of clear indicators allows the manager to see the benchmarks for the implementation of plans, monitor the work of employees (which is important in Western management culture) and track the results of changes in the form of specific indicators. The culture of kaizen allows for constant change and adequate response to one-off initiatives. That is, clarity, planning, control, an objective assessment of what has been achieved is combined with flexibility, openness to new things, and constant improvement of kaizen.

Practical examples of change implementation

As practice shows, the most frequent changes are associated with changes in technology. The introduction of new technologies into the daily work of organizations has become a constant phenomenon. In addition, the desire of business to optimize processes and procedures has led to the emergence of new integrated management and accounting systems. One part of complex electronic control systems are systems electronic document management.

Example #1

Consider the implementation of an electronic document management system in company No. 1. This trading and manufacturing company is one of the leaders in the market consumer goods. At the time of the decision to implement the new system, the company employed more than 1,000 people; regional employees were represented in most major cities in Russia and in a branch in Ukraine. The company is characterized by rapid growth. The company developed and implemented coordination procedures for various business processes: budget control, reporting on directions, agreement of contracts, approval of invoices, and others. According to current procedures, all approvals required written approval, and each unit kept its own record of approved requests. The approval procedure could take a long time, sometimes the approval of a particular document could be delayed while waiting for a signature (for example, the manager whose signature was required for approval was on a business trip). In addition, for each approval, it was required to prepare an “approval sheet” - this did not reduce the time, but increased the number of papers.

It was decided to change this situation - to reduce the time for approval of documents, make it the same for employees of Moscow and the regions and reduce paperwork. After discussion, it was decided to purchase electronic system workflow. Purpose of implementation new technology– standardization and acceleration of work with documents. The electronic document management system was supposed to affect all business processes in the company. All staff were required to work with this system, including regional staff and branch staff. The information technology department was assigned responsibility for the purchase, installation and implementation of the system.

The HR department was aware of the decision of the company's management. Employees of the personnel management department held negotiations with the IT department in order to agree on the implementation procedure: a decision was made on the equal participation of the personnel and information technology department in the implementation. At the insistence of the personnel department, even at the stage of negotiations on the purchase of the system, a requirement was put forward to train personnel in Moscow to work with the system. After choosing the system, the information technology department began to develop detailed instructions on using the system. The HR department took over the PR function in relation to the system. Information about the implementation of the electronic document management system was posted on the corporate portal, indicating the timing of implementation. The Information Technology Department, at the request of the Human Resources Department, made a presentation of the system. The presentation showed the advantages of the system, indicated the documents that will be issued through the system, employees could ask all questions about the system, and the personnel department could see the desire / unwillingness of employees to work with the system. An electronic version of the presentation was sent to all regional employees. In the branch, the information technology department held a separate presentation. Regional employees and employees of the branch could ask all questions about the operation of the system to both the information technology department and the personnel department. The Human Resources department noted employees who reacted negatively to the implementation of the system. It was the personnel department and, if possible, the immediate supervisors who conducted explanatory conversations and explained to employees the importance of implementing the system for the company, its convenience for the employee.

A training program was prepared for the employees of the Moscow office two weeks prior to the implementation of the system. Each department was trained to work with the system and received a user manual. Regional employees and employees of the branch received a memo on working with the system by e-mail.

After the employees of the Moscow office completed the training, the company's management announced the exact date of the start of work with the system. Despite the presentation of the system, training and support of the HR department and heads of departments, many employees were intimidated by the start of working with the system. Company leaders were strict about the mistakes of subordinates and repeated mistakes were usually punished. The HR department asked the company's management to set a time to test the system. After negotiations, the testing period was set at 1 month. During this time, employees were not punished for errors in working with the system, and these errors did not affect the bonus part of employees' income. As soon as an agreement was reached, this information was brought to the attention of the employees. The first month of work with the system was successful. The Information Technology Department and the Human Resources Department responded to emerging staff questions. Regional employees were the first to feel the convenience of working with the system. At the request of the HR department, they actively shared their successes and the convenience of working with the system with other employees. The enthusiasm of the regional employees was also transferred to the Moscow office. The system took root the slowest in the branch. It took the branch employees about two months to master the system (when mastering the system, the branch employees found themselves in the most difficult situation - the head of the branch did not want to implement the system and prevented its implementation as much as he could).

Errors while working with the system by the end of the first month had practically disappeared. By the end of the second month, staff feedback on the system was only positive, and familiarization with the system was included in the onboarding program for new employees.

Thus, the goal of the changes was achieved, the time for working with documents was reduced, and decision-making was accelerated.

Successful implementation of technological changes in example #1

Purpose: optimization of business processes.

Decision making: top managers with a request to the heads of departments.

Informing: posting information on the internal site, presentation of ideas and programs, distribution of materials about the system, internal instructions for use.

Training: internal training by the IT department, external training by the system supplier.

Support: consultations of the IT department, HR department, heads of departments.

Test drive: 1 month of using the system as a duplicating paper workflow.

Feedback: carried out through the HR department, IT department, heads of departments. Feedback results are taken into account.

Rewards: no.

Example #2

The number of company number 2 (confectionery factory) is more than 400 people. The group of companies includes 4 companies: trade and production FMCG, trade and production (Private Label), B2B direction company, engineering company. For a long time, the company did not have general management accounting, all accounting was kept separately and in different systems (Excel, 1C) and was reduced only occasionally. The management of the company needed to receive consolidated information on all companies of the group. The management decided to implement an ERP system. The company is already working in 1C 7.7 and therefore the 1C 8.0 system was chosen. The decision to install the system was made by the CEO. The decision was also taken by the financial director and the director of strategic planning. All other directors of the group of companies did not participate in the decision making and were not notified about the decision. To implement the system and manage the implementation project, it was decided to hire the director of the department - the director of KIKBP. The newly hired Implementation Director negotiated with the system supplier.

After selecting a service provider, specialists from the provider company were invited to the company. The financial director ordered to allocate a separate computer, a table for the provider's specialists. It was the financial director who was the main customer of the system and began to form the terms of reference.

The direction directors of the group of companies learned about the implementation of the system already in the course of the work of the provider's specialists. There was no special notice to the employees about the installation, some of the employees learned about it from the manager, some from colleagues, some by chance, in a conversation with the director of KKBP.

The director of the department responsible for the implementation determined the date of installation of the system. In view of the fact that the finalization of the system to the needs of the customer should have taken at least six months, the director of the KKBP department decided to train employees in a standard configuration. It was decided to train employees of the following departments: accounting department, personnel department (HR inspector), retail sales, sales department B2B direction, logistics department. The remaining employees had to master the system on their own, with the help of trained colleagues. On a certain day, the provider's employees arrived at the company to train employees of departments at their workplaces. The training consisted of several parts: a lecture (differences between the new system and the old one), a practical part (demonstration of working with the system), and answers to questions. Since the training took place on the job, employees were often distracted by phone calls and emails.

On the day of installation of the system, the department for information technology connected all employees to 1C 8.0, the managers announced to their departments that all reports would now be received through the eight. The company did not have a continuous reporting system, so managers usually requested information from employees as needed.

Despite the installation of the system and the announcement of the leaders, the units continued to keep records in familiar systems. The accounting department, referring to the large amount of work, continued to keep records in 1C 7.7. The logistics department kept its records in the figure eight, but only starting from the date of installation of the system (all previous information was in the seven). The retail sales department did not enter data into the eight, arguing that the sales data would not be complete, and continued to record sales in Excel. The personnel department worked in two systems.

The training did not give tangible results, the installed configurations differed from the one shown during the training. The Director of the Department of KIKBP received many questions from the staff. After a week of answering questions, a letter was sent to all employees, in which they indicated that all questions about the system must be asked only in writing through email. Employees did not have fewer questions, but they began to be asked much less frequently.

Having not received an immediate effect from the system, the financial director gave the order to transfer all the data from the seven to the eight. The data was transferred, but required adjustments. Referring to being busy, the importance of current work, ignorance of the system and other reasons, employees either did not correct the data or did it too slowly.

Three months have passed since the installation of the system. The financial director decided to take a full-time programmer and operator to correct the figure eight. Employees did not change their attitude towards the system; in most cases, all data was taken from familiar sources.

At the moment, the project to implement an ERP system is coming to an end. Accounting works in the seven, the transition to the eight is still being postponed. The main reason for working in the old version of the system is the lack of time to correct directories, constant reports. The Human Resources Department operates in two programs. The retail sales department maintains reports in Excel, entering in the eight only data related to the logistics department. The logistics department and the B2B sales department work in the G8. Most of the employees of other divisions do not work in the G8, and reporting is carried out in the usual way. Department directors use the figure eight only when necessary. The system for requesting reports from departments has not changed. Only the CEO, CFO and Director of Strategic Development constantly use the eight.

Thus, the goal of the project was never achieved: we see a “piecewise” implementation, the project does not bring real benefits to the company, and the money for installing the system was wasted.

Unsuccessful implementation of technological changes in example #2

Purpose: creation of a common data system for management accounting.

Decision making: CEO and CFO.

Informing: after choosing a system and starting implementation.

Training: external training by the system supplier.

Support: no.

Test drive: no.

Feedback: no.

Rewards: no.

Consider comparative analysis changes in two practical situations in table. 2.

table 2

Comparative analysis of changes

Parameter	Company No. 1	Company #2
Strategic Goals		Only in the head of the owner
Situation analysis and program selection	Yes, the program is selected based on the experience of the tops	Top Wishes
Decision making, planning	Yes, open	Yes, behind closed doors
Informing	Yes, widely across multiple channels
Feedback	Yes, widely, across multiple channels
Education	Yes, internal and external	Yes, external
Test Drive	Yes, 1 month
Support
Results control
The result of the changes	ACHIEVED	NOT REACHED

According to the results theoretical research problems of organizational change and analysis of practical situations, it seems to us possible to present the process of change as a certain cycle that includes several key stages (Fig. 1). In our opinion, when some changes are completed in a company, there is a need for others, more or less large-scale.

Thus, the reasons for the failure of change in one company and the success in another lie in the same plane. The reasons for the failure of the implementation of the ERP system in company No. 2, in our opinion, are as follows:

1. Lack of informing the staff, both about the changes themselves and the benefits of their implementation.

2. The disinterest of most of the leaders in change. In this case, there was no demonstration of the desired behavior.

3. Poorly organized training for the new system.

4. Complete lack of feedback.

5. Lack of employee support when implementing changes.

Conclusion

The main difficulty in introducing changes is people's adaptation to them - people do not like changes: they scare them, force them to change, challenge them. How can employees and managers cope with this difficulty, learn how to quickly respond to changes?

In our opinion, a manager who implements or participates in change must use a combination of methods and approaches, have a high level of emotional intelligence and be ready for problems. He must not only choose a program of organizational transformations of change, but be able to choose the right program here and now, "ignite" colleagues and subordinates with the idea of ​​​​changes and not lose the chosen direction.

The goal of any change is to better implement the strategy. Whether the change is driven by a crisis in the organization, a desire to improve, new technologies, or customer demands, change must be planned. When planning for change, you can't take everything into account and, therefore, you need to be prepared for problems. As with kaizen strategy, change planning sets the direction for change, paints a picture of the future, but the change plan itself should not be too rigid. When planning change, you need to be realistic about the timing of change, with an eye to the organizational culture and the willingness of staff to change. Too short a timeline for change will cause them to fail rather than win. When planning the timing of change, it is important to keep in mind the heterogeneity of organizations. Some units are more prone to change, some are more conservative. Accordingly, the changes will take place in these divisions in different ways, we can say that they will follow different paths towards the same goal. You should also carefully consider the individuality of employees. Each employee has his own cycle of changes, each requires an individual amount of time to go through the cycle.

Another important point in planning is to choose a transformation program. It is important to decide exactly who will be affected the most by the changes, how much the whole company will be involved in them (how deep the changes will be), who will start the changes. A correctly chosen transformation program will allow you to control the process of change, calculate the possible costs of its implementation, and mark important positive milestones in this process.

In making change, good planning is no guarantee of success. There are many examples of well-planned change failing. The reason for most failures is a lack of attention to other important parts of change, namely information, education and support. Informing in changes is a well-established system that includes several important points:

• creation of a constant flow of information on changes. Mandatory criteria for the information flow are the availability of the report, openness (do not hide problems or difficulties) and reliability. Lack of information will cause the emergence of uncontrolled rumors and speculation, which can lead to unpredictable consequences;
• establishing strong and open feedback. Without feedback, the manager will never understand how many supporters of changes in the company, how many opponents of changes. Established feedback will allow you to understand the individual problems of employees and take timely measures to solve them;
• creating a positive image of change. Even if the employees of the company are fired up with the idea of ​​​​change, all enthusiasm can disappear when problems arise. During the period of transformation (no matter how small they may be), the amount of work for employees increases, problems seem insoluble, and yesterday's guidelines do not work. Employees need to see a picture of the future. In addition, during the period of change, employees go through periods of apathy, which are associated with the fact that the results of their efforts are not always visible. Therefore, it is essential to report to staff on all progress in terms of change, even small ones.

The second important point of change is training. If employees are ready for change, undergo the training necessary for successful work in the new conditions, the fear of change will be reduced. This is especially true when it comes to changing corporate culture. Depending on the chosen change program, various trainings can be used - from informational trainings to trainings personal growth. An important part of learning in change is mentoring and coaching. It is important to create an atmosphere of trust in learning and the desire to acquire new knowledge. It is important for managers to create a culture in which the desire for development and learning will be a mandatory factor in the success of an employee in an organization.

Any change needs support. In the process of change, support is a broad concept - it includes the budget for changes, and administrative support, and the personal example of managers. The cost of change must be taken into account when planning. If change is halted, interrupted or delayed due to lack of budget, employees will take it with great cynicism. When change resumes, managers face a high level of resistance. One of the most negative aspects of the changes is the cynicism of employees. Only under the condition of the leadership's keen interest in changes and their full support will it be possible to reduce the level of cynicism and disbelief in change. In the process of change, management must be the first to change its behavior. Employees will closely monitor the actions of managers and seek guidance for themselves in their behavior.

The key to change is the behavior of the employees themselves. There are several approaches to individual change. It is necessary to set clear goals and outline the desired results, pay attention to the emotional state of the employee and pay increased attention to hidden, unspoken questions, understand the needs of the employee and show the development perspective, it is worth linking the reward policy to changes. Once again, we emphasize the special importance of feedback and learning.

The final aspect of change is monitoring the results of the change program. It is important to evaluate the effect of changes in the organization and bring it to the attention of all employees. This will allow you to understand how much the changes have affected the business performance of the organization, the behavior of employees, how much the changes have brought the company closer to achieving strategic goals. When evaluating the effect of changes, one should use the Norton-Kaplan system, which allows not only to evaluate financial indicators, but also metrics related to customers, business processes, learning and growth.

In our opinion, changes are rather a cyclical process, despite the fact that many experts present it as a straightforward one. Changes do not always have to be company-wide or large-scale. An adaptive organization is also focused on small, including local changes. The main thing is to create a culture ready for change. Companies with this culture are the companies of the future.

Literature

1. Vesnin, V.R. Practical personnel management: a manual on personnel work / V.R. Vesnin. - M .: Jurist, 2003.

2. O "Donovan, G. Guide to corporate culture. How to successfully plan, implement and evaluate a program to change culture / G. O'Donovan // Materials of the Moscow Bussiness School project Summary.

3. Gini, Danielle Duck. Monster of change. Reasons for the success and failure of organizational change / Jeanie Danielle Duck. - M. : Alpina Publisher, 2003.

4. Cameron, K., Quinn, R. Diagnostics and change in organizational culture / K. Cameron, R. Quinn / transl. from English. ; ed. I. V. Andreeva. - St. Petersburg. : Peter, 2001. (Series "Theory and Practice of Management").

5. Colenso, M. Kaizen strategy for successful organizational change: Per. from English. / M. Colenso. - M. : INFRA-M, 2002. (Series "Management for the leader").

6. Corporate culture and change management. - M. : Alpina Business Books, 2007.

7. Newstrom, J., Davis, K. Organizational behavior / J. Newstrom, K. Davis / per. from English. - St. Petersburg. : Peter, 2000.

8. Organizational behavior in tables and diagrams / ed. Dan. G.R. Latfullina, Doctor of Economics HE. Thunderous. - M .: Iris-press, 2000.

9. Kaplan, Robert S., Norton, David P. Balanced Scorecard. From strategy to action / Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton. - M. : CJSC "Olimp-Business", 2003.

10. Personnel management: a textbook for universities / ed. T.Yu. Bazarova, B.L. Eremin. - 2nd ed. - M. : UNITI, 2002.

11. Cameron, E., Green, M. Change management / E. Cameron, M. Green. - M .: Kind book, 2006.

Lyuvalina E.M., source unknown