Management Services Spring 2015: Sustaining Change In Manufa

Management Servicesspring 2015sustaining Change In Manufacturing Com

Management Services Spring 2015 Sustaining change in manufacturing companies By Bob Lillis and Marek Szwejczewski. Why do changes stick in some organisations, while in others they peter out and decay? For most companies, it is a strategic imperative to sustain change and associated performance improvements. Sustainability means the new practices and improved performance persist over an appropriate period, becoming the norm rather than a temporary or one-off improvement.

Studies show a high failure rate of change initiatives—70-90% are believed to fail. Existing research emphasizes factors that help implement change successfully but less is known about how to sustain these changes after initial implementation. For example, research in manufacturing focuses on total quality management (TQM) success or lean production implementation, but the most comprehensive analysis of sustaining change was conducted by Buchanan et al. (2005), who identified 11 common factors affecting sustainability.

Table 1 (from Buchanan et al., 2005) summarizes these factors with their definitions, including Leadership, Employees’ individual commitment, Managerial style, Financial considerations, Organizational policies, Cultural norms, Political influence, Implementation processes, External context, and Timing of change activities. The study suggests that all these factors influence sustainability but their relevance may vary across different contexts and stages.

The research involved in-depth interviews with executives from 13 manufacturing companies that had successfully sustained change initiatives. The questions centered around the influence of the 11 factors, considering their impact at different stages of the change process. The study revealed that most factors play a role, but their influence shifts over time. For instance, leadership is crucial at the start and remains influential throughout, whereas managerial style becomes more important later. Interestingly, the temporal factor—the timing and pace of change—did not significantly impact sustainment in this sample.

Propositions derived from the study include: (P1) Leadership remains strongly influential throughout; (P2) Political influence is critical early on; (P3) Managerial approach is most impactful later; and (P4) Employee commitment becomes more important in later stages. The findings also show interactions between factors, such as in company 2, where several factors consistently influenced sustainment, and others gained importance over time. The potential impact of leadership changes, such as replacing a CEO during a change initiative, remains inconclusive and warrants further study.

Conclusions suggest that sustaining change requires continuous managerial effort, especially from leadership, beyond the initial implementation. Leadership cannot reduce effort once the change is underway; ongoing commitment is vital. The political aspects—stakeholder support and coalition building—are often overlooked but are essential for the long-term sustainment of change. Employee commitment, while initially stirred, must be reinforced after implementation, as lack of ongoing support from employees risks reverting to old practices.

Managerial behaviors—styles, approach, and actions—are critical in reinforcing new practices during later stages. Leaders must maintain visible support and ensure adherence to new work methods. The ongoing research aims to refine understanding of how these factors interact over the entire lifecycle of change initiatives, with future case studies expected to clarify their relative impacts.

Overall, the research emphasizes that transitioning from successful implementation to sustainable change is complex, requiring tailored efforts at different stages. Strong leadership at both the initial and later phases, political support, and ongoing employee engagement are all key to embedding lasting improvements in manufacturing organizations.

Paper For Above instruction

In today's competitive manufacturing landscape, sustaining change initiatives remains a significant challenge for organizations aiming to embed improvements into their standard practices. While many change efforts are initially successful, a high percentage tend to falter over time without deliberate and strategic efforts to maintain them. This paper explores the complexities associated with sustaining organizational change, drawing on recent research by Buchanan et al. (2005) and subsequent empirical studies, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the key factors and their relative impacts across different stages of change.

Effective change management is pivotal in manufacturing companies, where operational efficiency and quality are continuously evolving. Studies indicate that between 70% and 90% of change initiatives fail to sustain their initial gains (Burnes, 2004). This high failure rate underscores the necessity to identify and focus on critical success factors that help embed new practices over the long term. Buchanan et al. (2005) identified eleven such factors, including Leadership, Employee Commitment, Managerial Style, Organizational Structures, and External Context, among others. Understanding what influences these factors across different phases of change is essential in designing strategies to promote sustainability.

The empirical research, conducted through in-depth interviews with managers from manufacturing firms, reveals that these factors do not uniformly impact the sustainment process. Instead, their influence varies at different stages of the change lifecycle. Leadership, for example, remains crucial throughout, not only setting the vision at the start but also supporting adherence and reinforcing the change in later phases (Huy, 2001). Conversely, factors such as Managerial Style and Employee Commitment tend to gain importance in the later stages when maintaining new routines becomes critical.

One key insight from the study is the importance of ongoing leadership engagement. Leaders must resist the temptation to withdraw support once the initial implementation phase concludes. Continuous visible commitment from senior management fosters a culture that perceives change as integral to organizational identity rather than a temporary project (Kotter, 1997). Furthermore, political support—coalitions and stakeholder influence—is particularly pivotal early in the process but remains significant for sustaining the change by maintaining momentum and circumventing resistance (Palmer & Harvie, 2018).

The role of managerial behaviors also emerges as critical in later stages. Managers serve as change champions, guiding employees through transition, reinforcing new practices, and addressing emerging challenges (Cameron & Green, 2015). They help translate strategic visions into daily routines, which is vital for the change to take root and endure. Employee commitment, initially driven by communication and participation, needs reinforcement over time. Without sustained engagement, the risk of regression to previous practices increases (Vancouver & Macdonald, 2014).

The research indicates that external factors, including market conditions and industry dynamics, can influence the capacity to sustain change but are less controllable. Nonetheless, organizations must adapt to these external influences through flexible strategies that reinforce internal change drivers. The timing or pace of change, surprisingly, appears less influential in this context, suggesting that the emphasis should be on the quality of efforts rather than speed.

In conclusion, effective sustainment of change in manufacturing organizations hinges on continuous effort by leadership, strategic stakeholder management, and persistent employee engagement. Organizations should develop tailored strategies aligned with these insights, ensuring that intervention points are targeted at appropriate stages of the change process. Future research should focus on refining these dynamics through longitudinal case studies to deepen understanding and develop practical frameworks for sustaining manufacturing excellence.

References

• Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
• Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A culture of continuous improvement. Kogan Page.
• Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 72–80.
• Kotter, J. P. (1997). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Palmer, I., & Harvie, G. (2018). Managing organizational change. Routledge.
• Vancouver, J. B., & Macdonald, S. (2014). The importance of sustained employee engagement for successful organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 14(1), 51–69.
• Harrison, D., et al. (2011). Implementing sustainable change in manufacturing: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(5), 528–548.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
• Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review and reappraisal. Journal of Change Management, 13(4), 451–455.