Change Models

       Change is a constant in life, and learning to adjust to it ensures we survive and thrive. The Covid-19 pandemic has been a global push to make critical changes to succeed amid the chaos it has created. Furthermore, the pandemic has taken a humanitarian toll on institutions and personal lives. Personally, the pandemic's impact weighed on my encounters as a leader and part-time business owner. The landscape-scale impact affected both the business and employees, causing disorientation, emotional disturbance, and uncertainty for prospects. More so, finances were heavily influenced by the decreasing business, which caused a personal lifestyle change and dealing with bitter employees and stubborn clientele. Furthermore, a chunk of my time got the virus or had a family member who did. My life since the beginning of the pandemic, now ruled by unfamiliar and uncertain occurrences, demanded the implementation of a change model framework to cope with the emotional and psychological aspects the crisis caused.

          The requirement of every individual, especially a leader, during an unfamiliar crisis is a positive mindset and not a predefined crisis response plan. The business motto broadly implies that we were one people; one family meant the employees were part of a family whose sanity I had to maintain while ensuring I did not lose control over personal life. Therefore, several change model frameworks were considered to balance life as a leader and a general human being affected by the pandemic. The change model frameworks included; Nadler and Tushman's Congruence model, Sterman's System's Dynamic, and Quinn's Competing Values models. Additional models in consideration were; Greiner's Model of Organizational growth and Stacey's complexity theory. The winning model implementation had to fit with my personal life and role as a leader, innovator, producer, mentor, and facilitator. My leadership position and personal life are intertwined because my productivity, fulfillment, financial and psychological stability rest on my employees' performance. Therefore, the most appropriate model was Quinn's Competing Values Model.

Change Models Defined

          All change model frameworks have a common agenda but have relatively different impacts when applied. Nadler-Tushman's Congruence Model mainly addresses performance aspects. Every aspect of the model is intertwined, such as the work, employees, organization structure, and culture. They are congruent and can only work together hence the harmonious theme (Sabir, 2018). Furthermore, though the model analyzes a problem, it does not solve the identified crisis. Additionally, it focuses on internal aspects, ignoring the external. The Sterman’s System Dynamics model mainly addresses organizational problems and provides tools to solve arising institutional dynamics (Schwaninger, 2019). The system is therefore not suitable for personal life changes.

          Greiner's Model of Organizational Growth prioritizes organizations and does not address personal growth. One can explain its focus in two significant aspects, namely evolution and revolution. Evolution is prolonged organizational growth without upheavals, while a revolution describes upheavals during development (Hotamisli, Ibicioglu, & Karavel, 2009). Stacie's Complexity Theory is perhaps the easiest to comprehend, with clearly defined categories divided into simple, complicated, anarchy, and complex tasks (Herbil). Though the next best approach, Stacey’s Complexity theory does not provide clear guidelines for handling complex and anarchy tasks. Hence, the analysis of the models makes Quinn's Competing Value Model the most appropriate for the intertwined personal and leader's daily life.

Quinn’s Competing Values Model

                    The model can be described as both a convergent and divergent framework. The model combines four other models: the Human Relations, Open Systems, Internal Process, and the Rational Goal models (Quinn Association). The Rational Goal Model developed in the 1900s emphasizes good leadership for effective results. The manager is the coordinator and producer of all the aspects of a business. The Human Relations Model formulated during the chaotic stock market crash in 1929 and World War two focuses on relationships, the informal performance of a team, and reasonable wages. The model encourages a leader to mentor his team and respond to need passionately. Additionally, the Open System Model, mostly applied during the oil embargo, provides insight on the importance of an external support system as an organizational booster (Quinn Association). The Internal Process Model handles the internal affairs and encourages continuous re-invention and improvement with the flexibility of the times.

          As a leader, the four models are applied in different ways. The Human Relation Model was a guide as a mentor and facilitator, while the Open Systems Model sparked innovation to cover the external market. The internal Process Model helped as a monitor and coordinator guideline, while the Rational Goal Model ensured that though I had a passion for my employees and clientele and the pandemic's impact on them, I maintained the power and sanity as a leader for their good. A mentor and facilitator are required to understand themselves and others, empower, and effective communication. Furthermore, one is expected to facilitate team-building activities and resolve conflicts effectively. On the other hand, an innovator should have the capacity to incorporate change (Quinn Association) creatively. The roles go the extra mile.

          The producer, director, and monitor roles are critical to individual and institutional success. The producer ensures a conducive and productive working environment and manages stress. A director designs and communicates goals, objectives, and visions. Moreover, a monitor evaluates individual and collective performance and manages acculturation (Quinn Association). The critically dissected models and roles depict the effectiveness of Quinn's Value Competitive framework in building a leader's esteem and capability while enabling them to maintain passion and control for their team and clientele. As a part-time business owner, the model assisted me in handling employees and clients, mentor, encouraging, and assisting effectively. Furthermore, the model helped maintain personal and business finances while innovating effective ways to fit the affected market. Therefore, while most of the other models focused on only organizational performance, this model had more depth and infiltrated the needs of every individual.

Improvements Needed to Enhance Change-Related Success

          The pandemic was not anticipated hence depicted unfamiliarity and uncertainty. The financial adjustments were rapid; the business experienced a downhill impact, and my employees faced psychological and emotional turmoil. I experienced disturbing anxiety on how to handle all the factors of life and maintain sanity. Though Quinn's model assisted in managing a chunk of the issues effectively, the need to have predefined measures to handle and enhance change-related success was evident. The improvements included various personal aspects that would overflow the business if faced with uncertainty or urgently required adjustments.

           The plan was to implement several successful change management tools. The tools included; effective communication, research, critical thinking, enhanced leadership, and progress management. Communication involves identifying changes required and explaining to the employees the need for the shift hence attaining their support and cooperation. Careful research is also an essential aspect concerning the study of both personal and organizational change methodologies. Pre-stipulated research ensures a smooth transition in the event of sudden roadblocks. Critical thinking involves anticipating issues and strategizing, while leadership involves maintaining sanity and control during the chaos and unfamiliar situations.