CONSIDERING CHANGE MANAGEMENT WHEN CONDUCTING HPT EVALUATION

ISPI-Identified Change Management Models

Change management encompasses the entire HPT process, and Van Tiem et al. (2012) identify the following eight change management models to promote organizational change:

• 8-Step Model of Organizational Change

• The ADKAR Model

• Business Process Reengineering

• Kaizen

• Leadership Culture-Change Actions

• McKinsey 7-S Framework

• Three Stages of Change

• Total Quality Management

Change management models offer prescriptive strategies to promote buy-in for the change. However, many models in the field of change management do not provide details on how to assess employees' attitudes toward a change or evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation. For example, only two of the eight change management authors mentioned by Van Tiem et al. (2012) describe assessment in their foundational publications. Hiatt (2006) provides an assessment tool that contains six open-ended questions. The questions ask participants to self-identify their acceptance of the change implementation and identify how the organization considered elements of ADKAR. Unlike Hiatt's (2006) post-implementation assessment, Lewin's (1951) force field equation, \(\def\upalpha{\unicode[Times]{x3B1}}\)\(\def\upbeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B2}}\)\(\def\upgamma{\unicode[Times]{x3B3}}\)\(\def\updelta{\unicode[Times]{x3B4}}\)\(\def\upvarepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3B5}}\)\(\def\upzeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B6}}\)\(\def\upeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B7}}\)\(\def\uptheta{\unicode[Times]{x3B8}}\)\(\def\upiota{\unicode[Times]{x3B9}}\)\(\def\upkappa{\unicode[Times]{x3BA}}\)\(\def\uplambda{\unicode[Times]{x3BB}}\)\(\def\upmu{\unicode[Times]{x3BC}}\)\(\def\upnu{\unicode[Times]{x3BD}}\)\(\def\upxi{\unicode[Times]{x3BE}}\)\(\def\upomicron{\unicode[Times]{x3BF}}\)\(\def\uppi{\unicode[Times]{x3C0}}\)\(\def\uprho{\unicode[Times]{x3C1}}\)\(\def\upsigma{\unicode[Times]{x3C3}}\)\(\def\uptau{\unicode[Times]{x3C4}}\)\(\def\upupsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3C5}}\)\(\def\upphi{\unicode[Times]{x3C6}}\)\(\def\upchi{\unicode[Times]{x3C7}}\)\(\def\uppsy{\unicode[Times]{x3C8}}\)\(\def\upomega{\unicode[Times]{x3C9}}\)\(\def\bialpha{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bibeta{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\)\(\def\bigamma{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bidelta{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\)\(\def\bivarepsilon{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bizeta{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bieta{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\)\(\def\bitheta{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\)\(\def\biiota{\\boldsymbol{\iota}}\)\(\def\bikappa{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\)\(\def\bilambda{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\)\(\def\\bimu{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\)\(\def\binu{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\)\(\def\bixi{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\)\(\def\biomicron{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\)\(\def\bipi{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\)\(\def\birho{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\)\(\def\bisigma{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\)\(\def\bitau{\boldsymbol{\\tau}}\)\(\def\biupsilon{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\biphi{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\)\(\def\bichi{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\)\(\def\bipsy{\boldsymbol{\psy}}\)\(\def\biomega{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\)\(\def\bupalpha{\bf{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bupbeta{\bf{\beta}}\)\(\def\bupgamma{\bf{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bupdelta{\bf{\delta}}\)\(\def\bupvarepsilon{\bf{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bupzeta{\bf{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bupeta{\bf{\eta}}\)\(\def\buptheta{\bf{\theta}}\)\(\def\bupiota{\bf{\iota}}\)\(\def\bupkappa{\bf{\kappa}}\)\(\def\\buplambda{\bf{\lambda}}\)\(\def\bupmu{\bf{\mu}}\)\(\def\bupnu{\bf{\nu}}\)\(\def\bupxi{\bf{\xi}}\)\(\def\bupomicron{\bf{\micron}}\)\(\def\buppi{\bf{\pi}}\)\(\def\buprho{\bf{\rho}}\)\(\def\bupsigma{\bf{\sigma}}\)\(\def\buptau{\bf{\tau}}\)\(\def\bupupsilon{\bf{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\bupphi{\bf{\phi}}\)\(\def\bupchi{\bf{\chi}}\)\(\def\buppsy{\bf{\psy}}\)\(\def\bupomega{\bf{\omega}}\)\(\def\bGamma{\bf{\Gamma}}\)\(\def\bDelta{\bf{\Delta}}\)\(\def\bTheta{\bf{\Theta}}\)\(\def\bLambda{\bf{\Lambda}}\)\(\def\bXi{\bf{\Xi}}\)\(\def\bPi{\bf{\Pi}}\)\(\def\bSigma{\bf{\Sigma}}\)\(\def\bPhi{\bf{\Phi}}\)\(\def\bPsi{\bf{\Psi}}\)\(\def\bOmega{\bf{\Omega}}\)\(| {f_{\left( L + \right),L}^*} | = | {f_{L,n}}|\), explains how much force (\(f)\) is required to move the present level (\(L\) ) in a different direction (\(n\)). Because people are resistant to change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), the force field equation helps practitioners identify the level of force required to break a social habit.

Van Tiem et al. (2012) mention three models that align with performance improvement more than with change management. Business Process Reengineering (Davenport, 1993), Kaizen (Imai, 1986), and Total Quality Management (Deming, 1986) describe the effectiveness of promoting change. However, the purpose of these models is to change how an organization performs instead of focusing on the process of promoting change. For example, Total Quality Management (TQM) suggests that improving quality increases employee motivation and satisfaction. TQM appears to be a performance improvement model because the effectiveness of TQM is dependent on a performance outcome and not employee motivation and readiness for change.

The remaining three change management models—the 8-Step Model of Organizational Change (Kotter, 2012), Leadership Culture-Change Actions (Schein, 1969), and McKinsey 7-S Framework (Waterman et al., 1980)—identify specific strategies that change managers should follow. Each model uses a different collection of strategies, and practitioners must consider different evaluation measures based on which model they implement. Further, each model may implement the phases of the change in a different order. Whereas change management models consist of a sequential series of steps, change management frameworks are an interconnected series of strategies that do not follow a linear prescription. This requires practitioners to adjust the order in which they evaluate different phases. For example, Kotter (2012) suggests implementing the 8-Step Model in the order in which the phases are listed. However, Waterman et al. (1980) describe how the phases of the McKinsey 7-S Framework are interconnected without a starting point or order. Choosing an effective method to evaluate an organizational change would differ between models and frameworks because of the order in which the practitioner implements the phases.

Change Management Strategies

Each phase of a change management model consists of measurable strategies that describe how to promote change. Although change managers implement different strategies depending on the desires of the organization, there are similar strategies found in multiple models. Phillips and Klein (2022) identified the following change management strategies found in at least eight change management models:

• Provide all members of the organization with clear communication about the change

• Have open support and commitment from the administration

• Focus on changing organizational culture

• Distinguish the differences between leadership and management

• Create a vision for the change that aligns with the organization's mission

• Reward new behavior

• Listen to employees' concerns about the change

• Include employees in change decisions

• Prepare for unexpected shifts

• Generate short-term wins

• Create groups or subsystems to tackle the change

• Provide employees with training

Many change management models contain strategies that align with HPT's systems-based phases. For example, both fields consider (a) focusing on changing organizational culture, (b) providing employees with incentives, (c) providing employees with training, and (d) listening to employees' concerns. Because change management encompasses performance improvement in the HPT model, practitioners should evaluate similar performance improvement and change management strategies simultaneously (e.g., providing employees with incentives meets the goals of both change management and performance improvement). Instead of evaluating the strategies separately, practitioners should consider how these strategies systemically affect both performance improvement and change management implementations.

HPT Evaluation Models

There are numerous evaluation models in the field of performance improvement. Van Tiem et al. (2012) identify six “ageless” evaluation models used in HPT. The models vary in how practitioners should approach evaluation. However, each model can effectively evaluate both performance improvement and change management. Table 1 identifies the models and details the steps of each model.

TABLE 1 The Steps of the Six “Ageless” Evaluation Models

View Fullscreen

Kirkpatrick's Four Levels

The Kirkpatrick Model consists of four levels of evaluation—reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). When implementing a training intervention, the levels of evaluation align with elements of change management. Practitioners evaluate the participant's reaction to the change to determine their readiness and motivation toward the change. A positive reaction to the intervention encourages employees to support the change. Learning determines if the employees had a change in knowledge, skill, and attitude. By evaluating learning, practitioners can determine the effectiveness of implementing the change. Behavior is an aspect of organizational culture, which consists of employee behavioral patterns, demeanors, and attitudes (Craig, 2020). Although employees may have a change in knowledge, skill, and attitude, the purpose of change management is for employees to continuously engage in the new behavior. The results of the intervention describe the effectiveness of the change management implementation by providing administrators with evidence-based results on how change management strategies led to a change in behavior.

Table 2 identifies how Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's (2006) levels of evaluation align with strategies found in the change management models.

TABLE 2 Similar Strategies Identified in Kirkpatrick's Four Levels and Change Management Models

View Fullscreen

Evaluating Performance and Behavior

Change management addresses organizational performance and employee behavior (Army & Army, 2008; Griffith-Cooper & King, 2007). Whereas organizational performance focuses on meeting the desired goals, behavior focuses on sustaining the desired goals (Army & Army, 2008). All six HPT models evaluate a change in behavior by determining if the employees transferred and retained new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Additionally, the HPT evaluation models include strategies found in numerous change management models. For example, evaluating the clarity of communication is a strategy of Kirkpatrick's Four Levels, Brinkerhoff's Six-Stage Model, and The Targeted Evaluation Model. These similarities allow practitioners to use HPT evaluation models as a foundation for change management evaluation. However, performance improvement and change management are different disciplines that sometimes evaluate discipline-specific processes. Using multiple evaluation models simultaneously can help practitioners evaluate processes that are not relevant to both performance improvement and change management.

Content-Focused and Process-Focused Models

HPT evaluation models are content-focused or process-focused (Chyung, 2015). Whereas content-focused models identify what practitioners should evaluate, process-focused models describe how practitioners should conduct an evaluation. For example, Kirkpatrick's Four Levels identifies what practitioners should evaluate (i.e., reaction, learning, behavior, and results), while the Targeted Evaluation Model identifies the steps that practitioners should use to evaluate the intervention (e.g., target stakeholders and gather and analyze data). Chyung (2015) explains that HPT practitioners should use both content-focused and process-focused evaluation models. By considering both types of models, HPT practitioners can (a) recognize the essential content required to evaluate performance improvement and change management simultaneously, and (b) have the necessary guides and rubrics to conduct a discipline-specific evaluation. For instance, an HPT implementation may use Kirkpatrick's Level 1 evaluation to evaluate an employee's reaction to the change while simultaneously using a process-focused evaluation model that judges the effectiveness of different forms of communication strategies.