SYSTEM MODEL OF ACTION-RESEARCH PROCESS: APPLIED FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE OF CONTINUOUS SELF-DEVELOPMENT TO MEET SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

by Arthayasa K. Sastra

September 11, 2009  

Content

Introduction

Not only does it provide in-depth understanding and comprehension, but also a great opportunity for me as his doctorate student to put the model into application in my job. The focus on the assignment is expanded into three steps: 1. How to match between the selected kind of change and the suitable model used for the change to be effective.

2. How to analyze my consideration in choosing the change and the model

3. How to put the process of change into the implementation to ensure the success and to minimize the hindrances.

I would highly appreciate the assignment from the professor because of its practicality and efficacy not only is for my study at Doctorate degree at State University of Jakarta, but also it gives me double benefits as a Management Team in PT CVX, a multi-national oil company. I can study and work at the same time which gives added value to the organization I work for. I plan to implement the change in the organization in the same year.  

SYSTEM MODEL OF ACTION-RESEARCH PROCESS: APPLIED FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE OF CONTINUOUS SELF-DEVELOPMENT TO MEET SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE By Arthayasa K. Sastra

1. Why should we use the Model:

Systems Model of Action-Research Process? External forces are getting stronger and stronger that influence the internal state of the organization. When there is no new learning habit change internally, especially people’s behavior in continuously striving for updating their ability or competencies, the end is visible. And the change should be well planned, followed by observable actions, and continuous quality assurance with feedbacks as the loops for quality assurance of the change. Wendell L French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as “organization improvement through action research”. If one idea can be said to summarize OD’s underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded by other scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways.

2. The bottom lineChange—real change—comes from the inside out.

It does not come from hacking at the leaves of attitude and behavior with quick fix personality ethic techniques. It comes from striking at the root—the fabric of our thought, the fundamental essential paradigms, which give definition to our character and create the lens through which we see the world. (Ed Oakley and Doug Crug (1991); Steven Covey (1990) Kurt Lewin is generally regarded as the “father of change theory.” It was he who developed the first model of the change process in the late 1940s. He called his model “Force Field Analysis” to support his concept that change was presented by the pressure of opposing forces acting on a situation. In applying “Force Field Analysis”, it is important to begin with definition of the problem. This is frequently in the form of a question, e.g., “Why can’t we change the way we work together?”  

3. The drivers of the change

The next step is to identify the factors or pressures that strongly support change in the desired direction. These are called the driving forces and are diagrammed as arrows pushing upward. Similarly it is important to identify those factors or pressures which are obstacles to changes. These are known as known as restraining forces and diagrammed as arrows pushing downward. The current circumstance (situation) is the middle line. The relative strength of each of the various forces is shown by the length of its line. When the behavior in a group or organization is established, the forces pushing for change (driving forces) are equal to the forces against change (restraining forces). Lewin’s exact term for this dynamic balance of forces was “quasi-stationary equilibrium” (Q-S equilibrium)

4. The objectives of the change •

To ensure that Systems Model of Action-Research Process is the most suitable and applicable for behavioral change management. • The change becomes people’s new sustainable behavior—everyone in the organization loves learning and expanding their knowledge perspective so that the organization becomes a learning organization.

 5. How do we apply Model:

Systems Model of Action-Research Process in OD Curt Lewin’s Model of Change Management 1. Wendell L. French; Cecil Bell (1973). Organizational Development: behavior science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Pp 18 ISBN 0136416624

2. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research

3. Sherriton, Jacalyn and Tern. James L. Corporate Culture Team Culture Removing the Hidden Barriers to Team Success. AMACOM. NY.1997

4. Kurt Lewin (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston pp.201

a. Input Planning

Wendell L. French and Cecil Bell also call it INPUT.

INPUT

 i. Preliminary diagnosis

 ii. Data gathering

 iii. Feedback of results

 iv. Action Planning Preliminary diagnosis To get a success we want, we need to know our current state, analyze the internal and external invirontment, and calculate risks:

I. Where we are now

II. Where we want to be

III. How to get there

IV. How to sustain the Success The object of the change is ‘ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PT XYZ’

What is the main problem / challenge?

 Based on the SWOT analysis, the current phase of life cycle of the organization is in maturity phase and is about to the declining phase. The first declining occurred in 1992 with huge turn-over, the second declining was in 2002 with total re-engineering, and the in-coming declining will be the third. What a big challenge we are facing! “How we can make the organization’s re-growth with a full and conscientious support of the people in the organization through total change of behavior—getting out from being their comfort zone– to close observable competency gaps that severely hinder the growth.”

SWOT ANALYSIS

TARGET OF CHANGE SUMATRA H&MS UNIT OF PT XYZ’ SPECIFIC TARGET OF CHANGE EMPLOYEES’ BEHAVIORAL CHANGE TOWARDS THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE DIAGNOSIS FACTORS CURRENT STATES STRENGTHS /WEAKNESSES

Internal factors

 EMPLOYEE’S BEHAVIOR

 • Age: 30 – 45 years (potential ages) • Experienced in entry level-typed of work • In learning curve • Education: Diploma-3 (Data: HRIS 2008) • Work in Comfort-zone • Low motivation in learning for higher education (data from individual interview: 2008)

 MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR

• has a organization macro change plan (50% right sizing, out-sourcing) • has policy supporting Employee Self-development program in formal university • Production is declining • Cost of handling external forces is higher • Production contract expires within 10 years; • Shareholders do not want re-invest for new ventures • Anything produced by employees using the company’s facilities legitimately belong to the shareholder

External factors

OPPORTUNITIES THREATHS

CUSTOMERS

 Emerging and promising customers Jakarta, as the center of same service providers, is getting closer for customers due to better and better air transportation services

GOVERNMENT

Support self-development program of Indonesian work-forces The extension of the contract with Government is not guaranteed.

NGO

Universities available for higher education Outside companies are ready to take the outsourced jobs/ contracts

TECHNOLOGY

More hi-tech in market place to choose Left behind from hi-tech invention and

FEEDBACKS OF THE DIAGNOSIS: RESISTANCE IMPACTS OF CURRENT STATES:

a. Resistance due to lack of understanding about productivity, national productivity, and manpower value: Young and potential employees may lose his career in near future if they live in comfort zone and keep their level competency as they were hired.

b. Employee Resistances due to long comfort zone: Change the behavior of employment to be a new behavior of entrepreneurship among employees will create resistances from most employees with excuses due to comfort zone

c. Management Resistance due to cost orientation Education is not merely an expense, but it is an investment for short and medium or long term competitiveness. Maximize the management and government supports towards higher education of Indonesian workforces by developing awareness of higher education opportunity, otherwise it becomes threat.

RESTRAINING FORCES AND DRIVING FORCES APPROACHES

To make a change feasible, we need to maximize the driving force through WIIFM (what’s in it for me) approaches and minimizing restraining forces. Involving people at the beginning of the change, the level of commitment will be higher.

a. Resistance due to lack of understanding about national productivity and manpower value How to approach: Build national awareness. Tactfully communicate with national employees for national awareness on national productivity that has close relationship with international manpower value rate

i. Why our Indonesian employees’ value rate is lower than other ASEAN countries

 ii. What correlation between ‘national productivity’ and ‘man power value rate’. The lower national productivity, the lower Indonesian employees’ value rate

 iii. Motivate employees to do research and development. Recognize small or big breakthroughs. Reward rationally and tangibly.

 b. Employee Resistances

due to comfort zone: Change the behavior of employment to be a new behavior of entrepreneurship among employees will create resistances from most employees with excuses due to comfort zone How to approach: “Omit the comfort zone”; cut-off the hindrance chain key.

(1) Challenge everyone to contribute not just for a piece of rice but pride.

 (2) New mentality “No gain without pains” (Jefferson)

(3) Competency-based and Performance Management-based compensation and career development; no more ‘nepotism’ or ‘collusion’

c. Management Resistance

due to cost Education is not merely an expense, but it is an investment for short and medium or long term competitiveness. Maximize the management and government supports towards higher education of Indonesian workforces by developing awareness of higher education opportunity, otherwise it becomes threat.

How to approach:

 “Convince the management on the value-added to the company’ sustainable competitive advantage” (Peter Drucker)

1. Growing company / organization occurs when the organization is a learning organization and everyone is motivated for self-mastery.

 2. Consistent in motivation approach. No loss to the company’s money because everyone is contributing more and more from his/ her higher education achievement to the growth of organization

3. It is in line with objective of Indonesian Government by Laws on higher education

4. The company’ good will (workforce high competency) can be the company’s bargaining power in contract extension or at least the company has reformed people’s competency for better future of the country.

 b. TRANSFORMATION / CHANGING

Action Learning Processes on how to cope with changes: focus on environment

 i. Performance deficiency & Skill gap analysis and Training Need Analysis

ii. Make Cost Impact Analysis

iii. Do Behavior gap analysis – use ABC approach

 iv. Inventory behavior cases: Do Coaching and counseling processes

Action Planning

Action Steps

N0 ACTION U/I PIC MO-1 MO-2 MO-3 MO-4 I Strategically motivate employees to update their knowledge and skills through self-development program or pursue higher education H/H LEADERS X II

Influence the management members that Indonesia employees must achieve copy rights for the country, not totally for foreign shareholders M/H TEAM X III Involve employees in creating a “learning organization” and self-mastery mind set of Indonesian employees for individual national productivity H/H TEAM X IV Apply approaches that are motivating M/H LEADERS X V Inventory behavior cases: Do Coaching and counseling processes M/M LEADERS X

c. Output –Results (on going)

i. Changing in BehaviorWe motivate people for their self-mastery and new behavior ad would like to see the results one or two years from now on. Self-Mastery is the combination of traits that you need for optimal performance. Self-Mastery is like achieving enlightenment, where you’re ready for anything, with the right attitude and confidence, with all the knowledge and capacity to learn, as you face new challenges.

 ii. Data gathering• Maximize the monthly reports • HR information system be the system that continuously updates the data • Do analysis on the data for further insights to take actions  

6. CONCLUSION

1. Changing people’s mind-set towards current state to future state is the specific target of this change management assignment. Change comfort zone is getting people see out of the box. Change Management is a need in sustaining competitive advantages and continuing quality improvement.

2. Model: Systems Model of Action-Research Process is suitable model for this change management case. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, I strongly agree to Lewin’s that the motivation to change is strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways.

 3. How to implement the model is effectively using Forward focus Communication by applying Enlightened Leadership approach (Ed Oakley & Dough Crug (2001) —how to bring out the best in people. It is one of the most effective ways to get people’s buy-in. Involvement invites commitment.

4. Loop as feedbacks is the very important process for continuous improvement in change management

7. INSIGHTS•

Change management must be focused on the impacts & added-value objectives. • Change counter must be well-planned in timely manner—long before the change alters to be major forces. • The planning itself must be followed up with calculated-risk actions and continually assessed as feedbacks for quality outcome. –Arthayasa K. Sastra, (October 1. 2009)

 8. REFERENCES

1. Wibowo, Prof., Dr., S.E., M. Phil.(2008), Manajemen Perubahan (Change Management). Edisi kedua. Rajawali Press. Jakarta.

2. Wendell L. French; Cecil Bell (1973). Organizational Development: behavior science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Pp 18 ISBN 0136416624

3. Walker, James W. (1992), Human Resource Strategy. McGraw-Hill International Editions, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Singapore.

4. Tomasko, Robert M. (1993), Rethinking the Corporation the Architecture of Change. AMA Membership Edition, New York.

 5. Sherriton, Jacalyn and Tern. James L. Corporate Culture Team Culture Removing the Hidden Barriers to Team Success.AMACOM. NY.1997

6. Robbins, Stephen P. (1989), Organization Behavior. Eighth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey.

7. Kurt Lewin (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston pp.201

8. Koontz, Harald, Cyrill O’Donnell, Heinz Weihch (1989), Management. Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey.

9. Dessler, Gary (1994), Human Resource Management. Sixth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey.

10. Anthony ,William P., Perrewé, Pamela L., dan Kacmar, K. Michelle Kacmar (1996), Strategic Human Resource Management. Second Edition, Harcourt Brace & College Publishers, Forthworth, Texas.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s

%d blogger menyukai ini: