Picking up from our earlier article, this piece explores the connection, or sometime lack of, between change strategy and organisational context.
We’re deep into the research on group dynamics and social influence, in particular Herbet Kelman’s 1958 paper on “attitude change” and the impact of a compliance-based or internalisation-based change how influence, compliance and internalisation can show up in organisational change strategy.
TL;DR
- Kelman identified three forms of attitude change, compliance, identfication and internalisation.
- Kotter places much importance on creating a sense of urgency.
- What is the relationship between urgency and attitude change?
Compliance, Identification and Internalisation
Kotter defines a sense of urgency as the drive to act with speed and determination in the face of change. It involves creating a compelling reason for change that motivates people to take action. What Kotter doesn’t explore is the relationship between depth of change required and time frame to achieve.
Kelman’s compliance, identfication and internalisation looks at the depth side and considers sustainability of change. In essence compliance to change is not sustainable as when the force for compliane is removed, behaviour will revert. Sustainble change occurs when individuals truly internalise ‘why’ change is important to them.
What does this mean for Change Strategy
With these factors considered, in situations where an organisation faces short time frames or high urgency, such as responding to a crisis or regulatory deadline, a compliance-based change strategy may be the appropriate approach. In these scenarios, the primary focus is often on achieving immediate results and ensuring rapid adherence to new policies or procedures.
Conversely, in contexts where there is lower urgency and/or a longer time frame for change implementation, a strategy focused on internalisation may be more suitable. In these situations, the emphasis on building a shared sense of purpose, engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, and addressing underlying beliefs and values may be more appropriate.
So, what goes wrong?
In a nutshell, choosing the wrong approach relative to the organisational context.
Compliance with low urgency/long time frame
Choosing a compliance strategy when there is low urgency and a long-time frame for change can lead to failure. Firstly, compliance-based approaches often prioritise short-term adherence to directives without fostering genuine understanding or commitment among employees.
In the absence of immediate pressure or urgency, employees may perceive compliance as arbitrary or unnecessary, leading to resistance or apathy towards the proposed changes. Consequently, the change effort may lack buy-in and support from key stakeholders, hindering its effectiveness and sustainability over the long term.
Internalisation with high urgency/short time frame
Conversely, opting for an internalisation strategy in times of high urgency and a short time frame can also lead to failure. In urgent situations, such as responding to a crisis or sudden market shift, there may be limited time available to engage stakeholders, build consensus, and foster deep understanding and commitment to the proposed changes. Activities which may not be feasible when immediate action is required.
Consequently, attempting to internalise change can result in delays, inertia, or paralysis as organisations struggle to overcome resistance, navigate conflicting priorities, and mobilise resources effectively when a compelling threat is looming.
Summary
Ultimately, the choice between a compliance-based or internalisation-based change strategy depends on the specific context, goals, and constraints facing the organisation.
While compliance may be necessary for addressing immediate challenges and meeting short-term objectives, internalisation offers the potential for deeper and more enduring change that aligns with the organisation’s long-term vision and values.
Organisations should carefully assess their unique circumstances and consider the trade-offs associated with each approach when determining the most appropriate strategy for driving successful organisational transformation.
