Summary Of Quinn's Seven Factors For Organizational Assessme

Summary Of Quinns Seven Factors For Organizational Assessment And Eva

Summarize Quinn’s Seven Factors for Organizational Assessment and Evaluating Potential Strategy Selection for Change Overview Mitzberg (1978) found that strategy selection is not one decision, but rather a set of smaller decisions, or actually a “pattern in a stream of decisions.†When this stream of decisions presents a consistent pattern over time, then a strategy is considered to have formed, regardless of urgency. Quinn (1978, 1980) expanded on the “stream of decisions†concept to explore the main factors successful decision-makers used to evaluate an organizational change situation, and assess both the organizational readiness for, and impact of, the proposed change. Quinn described this process as “logical incrementalism.†Through interviews, with over 100 managers/leaders, he distilled a pattern of assessing their organizations, and the impact of a change strategy, down to seven common factors: 1. Past organizational strategies (success, failures, and style) 2. Managerial/leader attitudes towards risk (risk tolerance) 3. Degree of organizational dependence on environmental factors and/or regulators 4. Organizational culture and power relationships 5. Impact of proposed change on lower level managers and staff personnel 6. Probable actions and reactions of competitors 7. Timing of change strategy (windows of opportunity, staging, project length) A Closer Look at the Seven Factors The Influence of Past Organizational Strategies It is very common for people to commit a vast amount of energy and resources to a past course of action, especially when they were personally responsible for choosing that strategy. Therefore, if the past course was unsuccessful, these people can be very resistant to change. Similarly, if a new course of action is viewed as significantly deviating from past process styles (the way we always did things), some people will be very resistant to new innovations, regardless of logic or strategic opportunity. This factor relates well to Bolman and Deal’s political and symbolic frames. Managerial/Leader Attitudes Toward Risk Risk relates to the perceived chance of loss or damage in both real (economic, political), and symbolic (embarrassment, image) terms. Risk can be viewed as those factors that can negatively impact any “hoped for†planned changes or results. Risk is always present. Organizations, and their respective leaders, develop attitudes, or a culture of dealing with risk, that invariably impact their strategic choices for change. Some leaders/organizations embrace risk (change) easier than others. They are more likely to adopt an active or offensive strategy (proactive) in reaction to environmental change on the horizon, vs. waiting to be forced to react. On-the-other-hand, risk adverse organizations/managers tend to prefer a defensive strategy, where they only react when forced to by external forces. Risk avoiders are more likely to use past strategies (however dysfunctional), while risk tolerant organizations/leaders react more comfortably with discussions and exploration of a wide range of change options. Risk tolerance predicts success on both organizational and leadership levels, particularly in industries that have rapidly changing environments. Risk tolerance relates closely with Bolman and Deal’s human resources (HR) frame. Degree of Organizational Dependence on Environmental Factors and/or Regulators A higher level of organizational dependence on environmental and/or external factors (stakeholders, regulations, unions, competitors, governmental oversight, etc.), lowers the level of flexibility the organization has in the strategic choice process. Research shows that patterns of continual adjustment to an organization’s environment create a perspective that hardens, and then tends to limit or constrain leader/managerial choices. This factor closely resembles Bolman and Deal’s structural and symbolic frames. Organizational Culture and Power Relationships Culture is a concept used to describe and determine the values that set a pattern for an organization’s activities, actions, style, and priorities. Culture is very similar to Bolman and Deal’s symbolic frame. Power is the relationship between people that involves organizational members’ ability to influence others to engage in activities they might not otherwise. Power is also seen through the style individuals use to compete for perceived limited resources within the organization. Power is closely related to politics. Therefore power is closely related to Bolman and Deal’s power frame. When choosing a strategy, and planning for change, one should identify: -The kind of culture needed to support the proposed change -Determine the existing (current) culture -Identify any gaps or potential resistance between the current and needed culture -Decide what methods will be used to decrease resistance and encourage participation and acceptance -Implement the strategy -Refine and repeat as required. This perspective relates closely to Kotter’s 8-stages of implementing change. Impact of the Proposed Change on Lower Level Managers and Other Staff Personnel Change strategies usually have an organizational-wide impact, varying from subtle to extreme. Also, it is very common that those responsible for the major part of any change implementation, are lower level managers and staff. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the impact of the change on these people, and to solicit their comments and input on the proposed change. Given that lower-level managers tend to contribute to projects likely to be accepted, while conversely withholding projects deemed likely to fail, the success of any strategic change outcome can be greatly influenced by individual and sub-unit self-interest, and perceived consideration of their concerns by upper management. When these people are brought into the change discussion, the preferred strategy, chosen by upper management, is usually altered somewhat for the better. Additionally, the views of the lower-level staff tend to be less resistant to change when their sub-unit’s respective perspectives and objectives are integrated, or at least taken into consideration, in developing the ultimate strategic decision. This factor relates closely to all four of Bolman and Deal’s frames. Additionally, this factor has great weight on choosing your guiding coalition, per Kotter’s steps and stages of change. Probable Actions and Reactions from Competitors (both internal and external) Change can have ripple effect not easily predicted. The change agent is wise to view the proposed change from the frame of competitors (either internal or external) and the perceived threat of successful change to them. Furthermore, competitors may use of risk of failure (previously discussed) to weaken the organization, sub-unit, or person leading the change. This is especially true of internal competitors who view their current positive position, or image for future promotions and/or political power, as threatened by a successful change strategy. This is also related to Bolman and Deal’s political frame, and should not be underappreciated. Timing of Change Strategy Change can sometimes be open ended, and other times be very dependent upon windows of opportunity that are either taken advantage of, lost, or cyclic in nature. Certain industries are very cyclic in nature, where any change must conform to timelines, re-approval, or the vagaries of governing bodies and the deliberative process the change agent has very little control over. Higher education curriculum change is an example of a cyclic approval process. Bringing new pharmaceuticals to market, and aviation are examples of the long-term project management and “strategic step watching†required for pre-approval. Bringing technology development to market (especially smart phones) represents opportunities lost or taken advantage. This area closely relates to Bolman and Deals’ structural frame, and the implementation phase of OD. At the end, consider the implications of Quinn’s seven factors in relation to change management, using the case scenario of the Student Medical and Counseling Centers at Central Washington University. The scenario involves considering a significant organizational change to reassign staff responsibilities to a risk-tolerant Business Manager, and assessing potential resistance and impact using Quinn’s seven factors in a detailed, bulleted format. Il s the basis for planning, preparing, and addressing the complexities involved in change initiatives.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding organizational change requires a nuanced analysis of various internal and external factors that influence strategic decisions. Quinn’s seven factors provide a comprehensive framework for assessing organizational readiness and potential impacts when contemplating significant change initiatives. Applying these factors to the scenario of reorganizing staff responsibilities at Central Washington University’s Student Medical and Counseling Centers offers insights into potential challenges, resistance points, and strategies for successful implementation.

Analysis of the Seven Factors in the Context of the Scenario

1. Past Organizational Strategies

The history of the Student Medical and Counseling Centers reveals entrenched workflows, reporting lines, and cultural norms. The medical reception team reports to the Medical Director, emphasizing a hierarchical, professional environment with a focus on clinical and administrative efficiency. Conversely, the counseling staff operate under a different leadership structure, with their own protocols and culture. Past strategies prioritized specialization and clear delineation of responsibilities. Resisting change may stem from loyalty to existing procedures, perceived loss of prestige in reassigning roles, or fear of disrupting proven workflows. Recognizing these historical patterns helps anticipate resistance rooted in organizational memory and culture.

2. Managerial/Leader Attitudes Toward Risk

The medical director demonstrates a conservative, risk-averse stance, preferring stability and proven practices. The counseling director may share similar attitudes, emphasizing caution due to patient confidentiality and service quality concerns. Meanwhile, the Business Manager exhibits a higher risk tolerance owing to their background in business and IT. The apparent leadership divide on risk tolerance could influence acceptance of the proposed reorganization, with the Business Manager more open to experiment and change, whereas clinical leaders might see more threat to established professional standards.

3. Degree of Organizational Dependence on External Factors

The centers are heavily regulated by health and education authorities, with compliance being non-negotiable. This reliance constrains flexibility in implementing organizational changes, particularly in regard to billing, scheduling, and privacy protocols. External dependencies, including student privacy laws and accreditation standards, necessitate careful navigation to avoid legal or regulatory breaches during restructuring.

4. Organizational Culture and Power Relationships

The existing culture values professionalism, specialization, and hierarchical authority, creating potential resistance rooted in perceived threats to status or authority. Power dynamics, such as the rights of directors versus staff, influence receptiveness to change. Reassigning staff responsibilities under a Business Manager might be viewed as diminishing professional authority or prestige, especially if medical and counseling staff see their roles as integral to their professional identities. Addressing cultural gaps involves clarifying the benefits of the change and ensuring respectful inclusion of all stakeholders’ perspectives.

5. Impact on Lower-Level Managers and Staff Personnel

Frontline staff at both centers are directly affected by the proposed reorganization, impacting their daily routines, job security perceptions, and inter-team relationships. Staff may resist due to uncertainty about new supervision, increased workload, or loss of autonomy. Engagement and transparent communication can minimize resistance; involving staff in planning and highlighting how the change aligns with institutional goals may foster acceptance.

6. Probable Actions and Reactions of Competitors

Internal competitors, such as staff members vying for prestige or job security, might react negatively, perceiving the change as a threat to their status. External competitors, such as other universities or health providers, could capitalize on perceived organizational instability to attract students or staff. Recognizing these reactions underscores the necessity of strategic communication and managing political relationships within and outside the organization to mitigate resistance and protect organizational stability.

7. Timing of Change Strategy

The timing of implementing organizational change must consider academic calendars, contractual cycles, and external regulatory deadlines. Launching change during a period of low activity or prior to an accreditation review might reduce disruption and resistance. Conversely, rushing the process could amplify resistance and operational issues. Strategic staging and choosing windows of opportunity are critical to maximize acceptance and minimize chaos.

Implications for Change Management

Applying Quinn’s seven factors provides a structured approach to anticipate potential challenges and resistance in the proposed staff reorganization at Central Washington University. Recognizing historical patterns, leadership attitudes, external dependencies, cultural dynamics, staff impacts, competitor reactions, and optimal timing enables leaders to craft tailored communication, stakeholder engagement, and phased implementation strategies. Cross-referencing with Bolman & Deal’s Four Frames further enriches this analysis by highlighting political and symbolic considerations essential for overcoming resistance and fostering organizational acceptance. Ultimately, thoughtful alignment of these factors enhances the likelihood of sustainable change and organizational resilience.

Conclusion

Organizational change is inherently complex, demanding a comprehensive assessment framework. Quinn’s seven factors serve as a vital tool for navigating this complexity, especially in sensitive environments like healthcare and student services. When planning reorganization efforts such as reassigning responsibilities within the Student Medical and Counseling Centers, a thorough analysis utilizing these factors equips leaders to predict resistance, address concerns proactively, and implement change effectively. Embracing this approach promotes strategic agility and organizational health in the face of evolving demands.

References

• Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Quinn, R. E. (1978). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 16-33.
• Quinn, R. E. (1980). Managing Strategic Change. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
• Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in Strategy Formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934-948.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Burnes, B. (2017). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 392-410.
• Reinhold, S., et al. (2019). Navigating Organizational Culture: Strategies for Change. Journal of Change Management, 19(3), 213-229.
• Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational Change and Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.
• Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.