 So, today we are going to look at a different perspective of managing and leading larger scale plan change process and we will also look at the OD process, what is the organization development process, what are the steps involved into it. I would like to start with a small case lit. So, you are supposed to read this and identify what will be your approach if you face this kind of challenge. So, this case is about a company called Bishsoft. This is a fictitious name, but the data is real and the situation is real. So, this Bishsoft, they were one of the first Indian IT firms, it is a software development company working in the field of ERP, product life cycle management, automation using machine learning and big data analytics. Its revenue source is oil and gas companies, infrastructure, pharma and the media companies. The size of the company is about 500 millions after a recent acquisition of a 100 plus million dollar company. Like any other organization in the domain of Bishsoft also need to master the technological advancement in blockchain, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, internet of things and so on is being felt. The project size, the project, the size of the project this company is getting like any other competitive companies, the size of the product is decreasing. Nowadays, the product, project size and the duration involved in that is decreasing and number of projects can be more, but with the same client around the specific needs of the client. So, the project size is becoming smaller and the need for digitization is increasing particularly amongst the client for whom they have worked or working on the ERP projects. The question for this organization is how to reach to the big league of IT companies say of the size of 2000 million dollars. The profitability is fine, PE ratio is 10 and a half, the net profit margin is about 15 percent and they are good and professional organization. They tend to have more difficult time attracting and retaining talent which is understandable for the company of this size because people join this kind of organization, they learn the tricks of the trade and then they look forward to join some bigger IT companies. So, they have a challenge in attracting and retaining talent, but they have very mature HR processes, very progressive learning in organization development and HR department which is willing to put in the required effort to address these challenges. Many of its peers which is started almost at the same time or even after while after them like enforces and cognizant, they have made it big and now this sort being part of a very reputed big business conglomerate in India, they also want to reach to that level and in that league. So, this is a challenge suppose you have to engage with this organization for the change and development and organization development process, how you will go about it. Think for 2, 3 minutes jot down the points and then we can have a discussion around it. 16000 strong employees workforce, generally they are able to hire from reasonably good management in engineering colleges. So, what I gauge from this discussion is that they need to first build their technical competence, they need to look at the clients and the prospective clients from where they can have the have more interesting and high value projects. And number 3, they need to look at their existing clients and see how the they can have project of a higher of a greater size or project more in numbers and more tasks they are able to do, they are able to get from their clients. So, yeah. So, that is these are like obvious things you need to look at the you need to expand the market, you need to build your competency and then you systematically search for new projects and keep hunting for the kind of project you would like doing which can which gives sufficient which gives the kind of value which can help this organization to move to this level. So, this is an example of a change process where the deficit is in the side of opportunity there is no there is not a crisis situation, but there is an opportunity deficit. So, they need to fill that opportunity deficit and need to grow. So, that may require transformation, but it is not a very quick transformation and it may not be based only on the economic logic of reducing cost etcetera, but it will be based on the logic of competence building. So, there are two approaches two very broad approaches of going about a change process. Number one economic approach which emphasize a lot on cost saving, emphasize a lot on quick majors and another approach is of the competency building which emphasizes more on building the competency of the people for them to do different thing and things better than what they were doing till now. So, this is a case for transformation, but approaching this transformation from the competency building perspective. If we look at what are the models and concepts available to explain and to address this kind of situation very first model comes to our mind is Levin's change model. The current Levin the pioneer in many ways about organizational psychology about group dynamics he gave this model and now so many more sophisticated models have come up, but the basic logic remains the same that any organization development and change process is about bringing organization from one level to the another level. So, that logic is same where we are and where we want to be no organization can move where it wants to be without creating sense of urgency without shaking up the basic assumptions without making people aware of the need for the change. So, that is the first phase that is called unfreezing where we make we aim to make the organization and people more conscious of the need for change to recognize the urgency for change and then comes the movement phase where you where you do different things may be cost cutting, maybe competency building, maybe involve the internal consultants, maybe you can involve the external consultants. How do we use the financial incentives, how we use the technology, do we change the organization design drastically or we or we make the incremental changes in the organization design all these decisions come into the movement phase and through the movement phase we aim at reaching to the refreezing stage where organization reaches to the level which where it wants to be only change. So, this model was given in the late 50s and now we are in the 21st century major change which has happened now is that we have accepted that there is nothing like refreezing. It is constant improvement and change process which is required, but unfreezing and movement has to go on. So, Peter Bloch calls it permanent white water, permanent white water simply means there is lot of flux and lot of activity in the water that is why it looks white and that is the kind of and we also hear this term WUCA world it is a volatile, uncertain world where we need to constantly look for building the competency to respond to the constantly emerging new needs of the business environment. So, this is one model at which we can frame our situation and look at who are the people we need to make conscious of and need for change, who are the people who need to be influenced about looking at the need for the change process, what are the activities required and so that they reach to the another level of reality. We will look at some more like sophisticated models, but that is a logic, this is a basic logic any change process organization development process start with where we are, where we want to be many time we do not articulate where we want to be when the organizations do not know where they want to be and at the same time dissatisfied with the current situation they end up having lot of infighting, they end up having lot of conflicts, but organizations which are clear about where they want to be, but they do not have the good understanding and appreciation of what they are today they generally are not able to start the change process and in those organizations we see lot of failed initiatives. So, when organization is not clear about where we are and aspire to bring the change process there are possibility of lot of futile initiatives and failed initiatives, when organizations know where they are, but they do not have clarity or consensus about where they want to be in the change process we witness lot of infighting and the hard feelings. Another approach of going about the change process is action research approach. Now, action research approach has two element action and research. Action means managerial action, action means whatever is required to be done in the situation where organization change is required. So, whether it is competence building, cost cutting, looking out for projects is looking out for new clients etcetera all that is action, but what is research in it? Research is when we approach a problem not just a managerial problem, but it is a knowledge problem. So, it is not only about finding new projects or increasing that scope of the existing projects also doing systematic data collection after proper diagnosis and to see whether my hypothesis about the change in the outcome are validated by this data or not. So, this is much more systematic process where we identify the problem and in consultation with the internal and expert internal stakeholders and experts we get to know more about the problem. We unpack the problem and its nature. Based on this insights and understanding data gathering in primary diagnosis is done which means we identify what is working, what are the factors, what are the supporting factors, what are the opposing factors in order to achieve the change process working inside organization and outside organization and we collect the feedback and do joint diagnosis with the organization. So, in the action learning project in the action research mode the external consultant and the organization they collaborate more in terms of data collection as well as diagnosis and feedback. Based on this feedback they jointly come up with the action plan and that action plan is much more informed in comparison to the conventional approach of action planning and problem solving because it is supported by much more data and systematic analysis. So, naturally when you have sufficient data and more analysis you build certain hypothesis. Based on those conversation we get to know more about the situation, we get more about that we get more data about what is the situation, what are the likely ways of approaching this these challenges. We can develop some hypothesis. Now, based on those hypothesis a joint action plan is made and action is taken. Now, after action is taken we look at the outcome and that outcome help us to recognize whether it is supporting my hypothesis or it is not supporting the hypothesis. If it is supporting the hypothesis we build further on that if it is not supporting the hypothesis that means, action is not giving the desired result and the results we which were expected at the time of making joint action plan. We collect more data, we frame new hypothesis and again the cycle starts with joint action planning, action and data gathering. So, it is like approaching organization development or change management problem not just as a manager, but as a reflective manager and a social scientist. Reflective manager and a social scientist is different from a very activist manager. The manager who is too much into the action mode give much lesser time in reflection and then they their focus and energy is more directed towards immediate problem solving. Whereas, a reflective manager and a social scientist would like to look at the different interpretations, different possibilities, they will look at and connect to more number of experts and through that approach they approach the business problem in a more holistic way. So, that is second way of approaching the long term process, long term change and plan change process which is action research model. So, I would like to point out that emergence of action research and second school of thought in the field of OD that is called socio-technical school and also known as Tavistock school actually emerged together. There was a industrial situation in the coal mines near Tavistock, owners and manager approached the local university. In the local university professor Trist and his student approach this problem and they came up with the insight that organizations are not only social system and not only technical system either organizations are socio-technical system where social system and technical system interact with each other and affect each other. So, when they studied these mines coal mines and their challenges they came up with this insight and this was the emergence of the socio-technical school of thought in the field of organization development and along with that the approach of action research also evolved in the early 60s and late 50s. So, you can see that action research model involves diagnostics, it involves the participation. So, it is participative in nature, empirical where you collect the objective data about the situation and also probable solution and experimental. So, the element of diagnosis, participation, empirical and being experimental are the essence of action learning and action research modes of organization change process. More recent approach of model for change we term it positive models. Positive models start with a very basic tenet which is different from the conventional organization development or consulting engagements. What is that tenet? Most of the consulting and organization development approaches start with a tenet that there is a problem and we need to solve it. Whereas positive model operate on a tenet that there must be something well and something good happening in a system which is giving life to it. So, organizations are not basically problems to be solved, but they are miracles to be embraced. So, you initiate the inquiry and inquiry not about what is not working well. You initiate the inquiry about what is working very well, what are the best practices? You inquire the best practices, what is what are the most promising pockets in the organization, where something wonderful is happening and discover the themes around those and envision the future, envision the preferred future after this positive inquiry. We know that if we keep thinking about problems and keep thinking about and collecting data about what is not working well, naturally we cannot have a very grand and positive vision about the future. However, if we are look if we look at what is working well, what are the positive forces, our minds become prepared to think further and have a grand and more positive vision for the future and based on this logic there is a process called appreciative inquiry. So, towards the later part of the course we will have more discussion and case analysis about the appreciative inquiry and in this process after envisioning a preferred future which is based on the positivity which is based on the discovering the life giving forces in a system, design and delivery ways to create the future is identified. So, if we have to apply this logic to the bid soft this company how we will go about it? First we will identify which are the fields where bid soft is doing very well, what are the competencies, what are the projects, what are the clients, which are the sites, who are the people? We will talk we will look at all these things where something very good is happening, something which is appreciable is happening. Based on that we will identify what are the great things, what are the life giving forces to the system? Upper identifying that which is called discovery phase we will look at what are the themes in the discovery phase, what are the pockets and what are the themes of the greatness, what are the themes of the positivity and being and knowing that keeping that in view collectively in a collaborative manner envisioning for the future preferred future is done. And after that envisioning is done we identify who will do what and when and you can see it is very different from the typical unfreezing movement change or action learning model. So, these are the three basic approaches you one can adapt for any planned change process. What are the similarities and differences in the three modes of planned change? The similarities are that change precedes by diagnosis or preparation. There has to be some prior work before a planned change or a long term change process starts. We need to apply the behavioral science knowledge how and why people are people get ready and people put in their effort for change process. Stress involvement of organizational members, if you look at all the three models they all talk about involvement of the people. It is not only through a top down approach any change process any planned change process at least in the human systems can work. In all the approaches there is a recognition for the role of consultants. There are lot of conversations and there can be many insights which can be brought by external consultants. That does not mean that external consultants might be knowing the job of the internal managers better than what managers know their jobs. However, consultants being some insights or some frankness with which data is confronted and they are less politically sense the space, politically sense to space to speak up certain uncomfortable truths and of share their observations. But there is a difference as well general versus specific activities. So, there are action learning projects can be related to more specific problem. Centrality of the consultant role when a typical consulting mode is adopted external consultant has a more active role. But when the positive model of change is adopted consultant's role is more of a collaborator and a facilitator. The diagnosis and the defining of the intervention process is much more collaborative and participative. Problem solving versus social constructionism, action learning model and the model given by Kurt Levin both talk about solving problem. Whereas, positive change model talks about the social construction of reality and the building about the change agenda using positive stories and the life giving experiences within the organization. So, these are the similarities and differences of the three approaches we just discussed.