Management of strategic change at Tamoil Kenya

Academicians and practitioners are in agreement that change is a constant feature of \norganizational life (Burnes, 2004; Causon, 2004; Staniforth, 1996), and that change is all \nabout learning (Beer, Eisenstat and Spector, 1990). Few now doubt the importance of an \norganization's ability to identify where it needs to be in the future (Burnes, 2003). Val \nand Fuentes (2003), have defined organizational change as an empirical observation in an \norganization entity of variations in shape, quality or state over time after the deliberate \nintroduction of new ways of thinking, acting and operating. In offering this definition Val \nand Fuentes (2003), echo the findings of other researchers that the general aim of \norganizational change is adaptation to the environment or an improvement In \nperformance. Practitioners, academics and writers have established different models for \nleading change successfully (Mbogo, 2003). These models, if properly applied, they \nargue, should see change managed successfully. \nThis study set out to establish change management practices within Tamoil Kenya and \nevaluate the change management process in light of the models of change management. \nTowards this end both primary and secondary data was collected, this being an important \napproach for a case study design. Primary data was collected through personal interviews \nto top management and business line managers, and secondary data was obtained through \nreviews of internal documentation relating to the change management program. The data \nobtained was analyzed using Conceptual Content Analysis with the analysis being guided \nby six dimensions of the integrated change management model. \nThe organizational change at Tamoil Kenya is still at infancy stage having now been \nimplemented over the last one year. It is shown that the organizational change has been \ncharacterized by a lack of clarity on the future state of the organization, an overemphasis \non changes to structures, simultaneous introduction of relatively many change programs, \nand mild staff resistance. Mild resistance is attributed to recognition by the organization's \ntop leadership to respond to staff fears and concerns as it has been a time of questioning \nand confusion for employees. Both planned and emergent approaches to change \nmanagement models are evident in management of the change process. However, it is the \nmanagement of the process elements of change management that is impacting on the \nperformance of the change initiatives. The performance of the change management \nprocess is being influenced by a number of factors, including lack of clarity of \norganization future state, inadequate communication, inadequate leadership, knowledge \nregarding important aspects of change management on the part of managers, change in \nculture and mild resistance by organizational members. \nA major success of the change management program is the improved profitability of the \nbusiness since January 2007, while loss of experience.d. human resource to competition is \ncited as a significant failure of the change management process.