Transaction VS Transformation | Change Management | MGMT625_Lecture06

Hello students! Our topic today is quite similar to the last one, and our theme remains the same: some basic concepts and definitions of change management. And students! You might remember that last time we were discussing various concepts of change management, and the concept where we left off was logical incrementalism. So today, we will start our session exactly where we discontinued, and that is to look at some slides regarding the stages of logical incrementalism. So let's see the slide! The first stage of logical incrementalism is to produce awareness about change and awareness about opportunity. The second stage is to broadcast the general idea without details, allowing the idea to float for reactions, pros and cons, and refinement. Meaning, for the change we desire to bring into this organization, we should present it as a bird's-eye view, and we shouldn't reveal too many details at this stage. In this second stage, you actually have to leave a " feeler" in the organization to see how people view this change, which forces are in favor of it, which are against it, what the repercussions and consequences are, and what people think about the desired future state. The third stage is basically the formal development of the change plan. Once we have left this "feeler," presented the idea, and people have started discussing it and their concerns have grown, we start to learn about the consequences. And we start talking about it. Then we find out which forces are in favor of it and which are against it. Then we develop a change plan—a formal one—assigning responsibilities and building the change strategy. Or plan, Or action process, and strategy. With a crisis or opportunity trigger, we proceed to the implementation of the change plan. In the fourth stage, once our change plan is developed and we have moved to implementation, we look for an event, an opportunity, or a crisis/conflict that develops, and then we utilize that crisis or conflict in our favor. For instance, the retirement of a senior manager or a sudden loss of market share; if such an event occurs, we must utilize it positively. For instance, if an organization is rapidly losing market share, we can legitimize our change by showing that change is needed because organizational performance is declining relative to our competitors. The point here is to create a sense of urgency that this change is fundamentally needed; if we don't change, it means we are going to go bankrupt, or we will have to close down , and so on and so forth. The fifth stage of logical incrementalism is the adaptation of the plan as implementation progresses. Now, what does this adaptation mean? It means we must keep the change plan flexible during the implementation phase—the plan we developed in the third stage— regarding how, by what means, with what resources, and with what authorities we will execute it, and how we fix the quantity and quality of resource deployment. So, we should not approach this as something hard and fast or rigid; rather, we keep the change plan somewhat dynamic and flexible, where if we need to revise objectives somewhere, or if we need to make changes, adaptations, or improvisations to the resources we have deployed. So, basically, these are the five stages we can call the constituent stages of basic logical incrementalism, or we can refer to them as its components, so they must be considered. The overall spirit of logical incrementalism is that the members of the organization realize and feel the need for change, then we develop a change plan, then we implement it, and we maintain flexibility during implementation. Now, we want to look at what critics have to say about logical incrementalism. Naturally, with any theory, any new concept, or philosophy, we find some scholars in its favor and some against it. So, now let's see what the people against it have to say. The scholars who are against it say that it is basically a disjointed approach, that it highlights the perspective of managerial maneuvering, and that it is basically a "garbage can" approach. Those who are against this logical incrementalism say it is meaningless, and in fact, another scholar says that it essentially [maintains] the existing system somewhat. It supports and legitimizes it because you don't provide participants with greater details or a longer view of the extent to which you go, rather you initially give them a general and vague concern about the change, so it's a bit ambiguous, a bit abstract. So instead of being ambiguous and abstract, you should tell them greater details about what you want and what you want to achieve in time. However, this is the basis on which scholars who criticize this approach do so. Now, as for those in favor, many organizations have exercised logical incrementalism and run change management programs successfully and. The basic philosophy in its favor is that if we float the idea early, we will essentially get good quality information because we are sharing this change program with members of the organization, even if it is at an abstract level. But we will learn about their reaction to it and the problems, pros, and cons in its execution or implementation. So, it is basically also said that it proves helpful in overcoming human psychology or the politics that occur in an organization, or in downplaying that resistance. That if a type of change Reduces emotional cycles and political barriers that people have, uh, Facilitates policy planners and CEOs to go for logical incrementalism. Next, we see what the typology is. That typology is basically very interesting; there are two states of affairs which we can also call leadership paradigms. One is transactional type of change or transactional leadership or management style, and the second is transformational leadership. Now we see what transactional leadership means. Transactional leadership essentially means going by contract, agreement, or job description. So, this is basically the traditional model of the organization we get, like what we call the Weberian approach or Frederick Taylor's model that everyone is in their place, or Weber's model that every person should have a fixation of their own authority and responsibility, and which leads us towards organizational legality or a legal approach that everyone is concerned with. Job description, meaning what role is described for that member of the organization in the organization's charter or its constitution or in it, and what they are supposed to do? The dos and don'ts are basically provided to us in the job description; the dos are usually clear and explicit. So the point here is, is a transactional leadership style important for a manager, or a transformational one? Well, a transformational leadership style is somewhat different from that. In this case, if something is going wrong in any other department, you are a——critics would just say "don't" —concern about it! Because look, that's not my job; that's outside my authority, and I keep myself indifferent. In fact, we see this very thing in bureaucracy, where everyone sticks to their own work and doesn't interfere in others 'affairs. This is basically the individualistic view that is a hallmark of Western society, where individualism is the focus, and the same thing manifests in their organizations; everyone is aware of their own responsibility, center, authority, context, and jurisdiction— you cannot go beyond that. Now, what is the result of this? The result is that every manager's life becomes completely fragmented, and they are only partially involved in their work. And if you... ...see it from a holistic perspective —that is, the organization—if I am working in marketing, I will say, "Fine , given my job jurisdiction, I have no concern if something is going wrong in production, finance, or HR, the human resource department context." Someone will say, "Fine, my concern is to focus on my own job." And as a......workforce position, as a manager, I don't care; I have no concern for the organization at a holistic level. So, this develops a fragmented view, with the result that in an organization......coordination, harmony, and an integrated view basically tend to be lacking, so the organization cannot be seen as a corporate whole entity because everyone is focused on their own sphere of influence. So, this thing basically promotes a mechanical way of life, or a legalistic way of life, or a fragmented approach, which is completely different from an integrated approach. So, later on, organizational consultants and management scholars realized that this is proving to be a barrier in the way of achieving productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. And Western management consultants realized this further when Japanese success came to light, because the Japanese have different Asiatic, yeah, outlook and ethnic patterns, and a special trait of Asiatic people that Western scholars observe is that......they look at organizational and management phenomena from a holistic point of view. In Asian organizations, and even if you look at our Pakistani context, we believe more in intervention. It is a hallmark of collectivist societies to believe in frequent intervention and to view things from a holistic perspective instead of focusing narrowly on the job . Therefore, it has been said that the Asian style is a different style; a style that is basically a transformational leadership style. Even the West realized that there are two types of leadership styles, and the purpose of change management is often to make organizations more productive by transforming them from transactional styles of leadership, communication, and decision-making to a transformational type of leadership. Now, in transformational leadership, the leader's concern or role is inspirational. The leader believes in the learning and grooming of their followers. If you look at the boss-subordinate context, instead of focusing on a narrow, transaction-oriented view, they promote overall learning. This is more organic rather than mechanical, and there is a deep human concern, with managers having a stronger human orientation toward treating individuals— considering them more like Theory Y, if you recall. And the assumption in Theory Y was that managers or individuals are responsible entities, and they can be self-motivated and self-directed. There is responsibility involved, and if you delegate to them, an individual can do wonders; they are essentially responsible, and if you delegate, they will set and achieve their own goals and higher levels of performance. This is basically the difference between transactional and transformational forms of leadership. Transactional leadership leads toward a bureaucratic and mechanistic type of organization, while the transformational leadership style directs us toward more human, democratic, and highly productive organizations. So, the relevance of this classification to change management is: what is the basic concept of change management, what type of change should there be, and how do we make an organization productive? Often, the concern of change management scholars is how to make organizations humanistic. How do we make them human? Because traditionally, organizations were autocratic and mechanistic, and the goal is to make them more organic and human-centric. Characteristics of Asian societies and Western societies. Our next concern is basically the two types of frameworks regarding change, which are widely cited and widely quoted. In every change management literature, you will find types of change; it is simple to understand, and there are basically two types: continuous change or first-order change , and the second is discontinuous, episodic, or second-order change. The term "first-order change" is borrowed from mathematics or physics, and as I have mentioned before, management literature or management sciences and theories are essentially applied and derived knowledge, so we see many metaphors or analogies from pure science disciplines applied in management. The philosophy of continuous change is quite similar to the incrementalism concept we discussed previously; the core idea remains that you have a stable system, and the system itself remains unchanged. This continuous change is incremental and marginal in nature, while the overall system does not actually change. Its attributes are that changes and variations are considered necessary for a business to grow in a competitive environment. Even marginal, slight incremental changes are considered a must for an organization, for business, and for the market. Otherwise, as we have discussed before, what is the purpose of change? It is because, at times, one feels boredom and fatigue. Now, relating this to the learning curve: after some time, it reaches a point of diminishing returns, meaning the learning curve decreases, and we must prevent this by introducing certain new elements into organizational life. Companies or organizations, especially multinationals, do the same with consumers to retain their loyalty, which we study in the context of brand loyalty, ensuring consumers don't get bored and keep using the product with a new element. We study the same thing in organizational life cycles: an organization has a birth, growth, maturity, and then a decline. The point is, when does an organization reach the decline stage? When there are no reforms within it. When there is no upgradation, or perhaps that upgradation could be in the sense of mission and objectives. It could be in the form of exploring new markets, it could be product development, or it could be in the context of manufacturing and production. The main point is that under the organizational life cycle approach, an organization must continually grow within whatever stage it currently occupies. For instance, if it is in the birth stage, its focus is survival; once it reaches the growth phase, there is continuous evolution within that stage, and the purpose is to keep growing. Then, once it reaches maturity, a problem arises: how to achieve self-sustenance? And then, in order to prevent decline, decay, and death, the organization has to do something new. This could be in the form of technology or in the form of policies, both of which I have already explained. So, this is the first-order change or continuous change , which we have viewed from an evolutionary and life cycle perspective . Next is, basically, discontinuous or second-order change. Now, discontinuous or second-order change is basically where there is a break from your previous traditions and the new event itself is a defining moment. Earlier, we talked about how continuous change is working within a system, so this discontinuous change is working on the system—meaning you transform from one system to another, and this change basically alters the fundamental attributes or properties of the system itself. For instance, look at an event in international politics: the fall of communism. The fall of communism changed the nature of the entire existing world economic and political system, and in the subsequent conditions, you see that the capitalist system became dominant. It also had effects on developing countries, not just on Eastern Europe, Russia, or the former Soviet Union. It even impacted the politics of developed countries as well. The point is that a new economic system has started, and we must consider the requirements, attributes, and characteristics of this system, which has brought a discontinuity from the previous one. Now, organizations, societies, or states must operate within this new system. Similarly, when you introduce new technology in an organization, it represents a discontinuity from the past. Like the introduction of technology—the biggest fear organizations or employees perceive is that a new technology has arrived that will increase productivity and production, and it is highly automated. We mostly interpret " high-tech" as something that becomes capital-intensive, where technology plays a greater role in determining productivity and production, and the biggest fear here is job loss. Like downsizing, like restructuring; the layers of hierarchy or middle-level management feel the most threatened because you have senior executives or policy makers, and this technology has basically threatened the layer of middle-level managers in organizations, which will either decrease or disappear entirely, leaving you with a need for workers at the operational level. So, this is basically an example of a second-order change or a discontinuous change. And you can see the sectors most affected by this change in terms of IT, banking, communications, and organizations related to these industries; you feel this change most acutely there, and we can also relate it to the organizational life cycle, as this is also considered a discontinuous change. It occurs when you move from one stage—as I have previously explained regarding the stages of an organizational life cycle, such as birth or survival, where an organization's existence is endangered, or the growth and maturity phases, or decline and decay—these are all different stages. So, where an organization changes its stage, for instance, after survival, an entrepreneurial organization has already survived; now, its biggest problem is how to transform itself from entrepreneurship into a medium or large organization. In this sense, it becomes discontinuous because, initially, an organization exists as a small entity, then it demonstrates success and ensures market and product development, and the next stage is growth in its products or sales, which directly impacts its systems: a small system that was managed informally must now transform into a formal system, moving toward a larger structure. So this transition, especially if we study it in the context of entrepreneurship, shows that many organizations that successfully developed and survived encountered problems when they entered the transformation phase, moving from one stage to the next. And these problems, in fact, they were so severe that even their survival was put at risk! So the whole point is that the transformation at the systemic level, from one stage to another, is very critical and is a kind of discontinuous stage. Things will have to be redefined ; previously, work was done at an entrepreneurial level, but now it must be done in a more formalized way—its manners, its values, its management style, everything is now. Different, so the manager has to, the entrepreneur has to, the senior at the CEO level has to realize this, and then accordingly, after understanding it, apply the policies. So it is basically perceived that, again, there is a debate whether continuous change is better or quantum change—moving from one stage to another, a big leap forward—so which one is better? This debate will remain ongoing. Another thing, there is another scholar who said that there is both continuous change and discontinuous change. In between, in a transition, we have another type of change; this change is identified as middle-order change, and it is basically a compromise between the two in terms of magnitude. It is exactly in the middle, meaning the magnitude of change is basically between first-order change and second-order change. This change is called middle-order change. Another classification that we see is micro-changes and macro-changes. Micro-changes are a matter of degrees, essentially the same thing we discussed regarding continuous change, where in this type of change, we talk about modification, improvisation, enhancement, and upgrading, so we call these micro-changes. And the other change we discuss is macro-changes. Macro-changes mean differences in kind, meaning a new system arrives and it is at a structural level, so this change is somewhat analogous to discontinuous change, and it basically operates at the society, state, and international levels. So, this is the basic classification. Now, there is another classification that is very interesting , and economists also own this concept; that concept is human capital and social capital. There are two concepts, like human capital and social capital; that is, what is the role of human capital in change management, and what is the role of social capital in change management? And as I have mentioned before, economists also own this concept, and it is a very interesting concept. Does human capital mean that learning or change at the individual level is an individual-level phenomenon ? Like changing knowledge, changing skills, and changing attitudes— changing these at an individual level within the organization, meaning the competency of senior executives regarding their individual knowledge, skills, and values, is important. So, the situation is that when an organization retains human intellect or individuals, it is basically formulating human capital, and that is important for the organization to bring about change. The second thing is a contrary approach, which you can call a sociological approach, that learning or the change phenomenon is basically dependent on...Social aspects. So, this is a contrasting position: is learning or change an individual-related phenomenon, and will it be effective only when an individual updates and upgrades their knowledge, skills, and values to be effective for the organization? Or is learning a social phenomenon in which organizational processes play a greater role, such as communication processes, decision-making, objective setting, control, monitoring, problem-solving, or problem and opportunity finding processes? So, one aspect of learning refers to human capital formation, meaning the organization will be better off with accumulated human capital— what you might call a human resource-oriented approach—where the organization has good people with the required knowledge, skills, and values, and they can make the organization effective. The other is that no, we not only need good people, but we also need their social interaction and understanding, their group decision-making processes, which we focus on in leadership studies—or decision-making, communication, and other organizational processes where interpersonal or social skills matter —which actually make the organization effective in change management. So, the basic question is the same: in human capital, we treat the knowledge creation phenomenon as an individual or individual-level phenomenon, whereas in social capital, we promote discourse and dialogue, suggesting that it is basically the interaction among people that matters and will make change effective to achieve desired results. So human capital basically refers to the full range...Of ability...That can produce outcomes. In a practical organization, you will see that at senior executive levels, or what we call upper echelons, if managers have enhanced knowledge and competencies, they can reach the change management objectives. Now, we classify this human capital in two ways: one is firm-specific human capital, which means it involves operations, our knowledge, our way of doing things at an operational level, and my communication and decision-making style ; such things matter. In the firm-specific capital category. General human capital versus. Knowledge of the larger environment, like knowing about the organization, competitors, and suppliers. Customers and stakeholders; general human capital is basically important. Human capital and social capital. We also study social capital in another way, which is the linkage between individuals or social actors, because essentially, in an organization , policy formulation moving to the implementation stage passes through a social interaction phenomenon. And we identify this through another related subject, and you can also access it in a way we call networking. If you place this as a keyword in any good digital library, "network and networking," it will also lead you in an organization. To literature related to change management, it will give you access. That we mention this social capital in terms of networking, that there are different networks in an organization along different lines—ethnic, professional, linguistic, and other informal networks that exist, or even on a professional basis, and they help in achieving change management objectives. The key dimensions of this social capital are, first, structural, which is the relationship among. Leading social actors; second is relational, meaning what type of relationship exists among these social actors? Do they extend trust to each other? What are their norms? What are their obligations? Or what is their ethics or ethical level, basically? Because, in fact, the relationship among social actors flows from this. And the third component of social capital is cognitive; cognitive means what are the shared beliefs? These beliefs and language—the way they communicate—is there any harmony, is there any understanding, or not? So, this social capital formulation basically facilitates change management , concerning how much harmony, integration, and understanding exists between your social linkages and the upper echelons, i.e., senior executives . And then, does this understanding exist between the social actors at the upper echelon and the lower level of employees, managers, or supervisors? The situation becomes very interesting if you look at it from the perspective of an organization that has excellent human capital, but the individuals do not cooperate and lack mutual understanding. That is, the equation will be: What is an organization that has human capital but no social capital ? And what of an organization that has social capital—meaning their understanding, teamwork, integration, coherence, or organizational cohesion is strong, with visible unity and corporate culture—but they lack human capital, such as people who excel in their intellect and individuality. So, this is a very interesting proposition, and this area requires further research : which type of organization is preferable? Should we hire people who are the best in their individual expertise, or should we choose those who are somewhat mediocre in their intellect and potential but have a good understanding of each other? This is also a very interesting research proposition. Moving to further research , we will now discuss organizational change in terms of the four types of organizational culture. One is basically power culture, another is role culture, another is task or achievement culture, and the last is person or support culture. So, first of all, let’s look at the fact that there is politics within an organization as well. Although the subject of organizational politics has been addressed relatively little, today’s research admits that organizational politics is equally important because, after all, humans have political tendencies and orientations. Current research is giving more recognition to the fact that organizational politics is a field that has been under-researched and now requires more study. Just as we study professional behavior in organizations or different mechanistic models, a lot of research has been done on strategy, structure, and processes; but now, research is focusing on areas like organizational culture—which has been studied extensively—as well as the role of religion in organizations and the role of politics in organizations. Anyway, this is a classification that two specific authors have acknowledged regarding which type of culture prevails in an organization, whether it is a power culture, role culture, task culture, or a support or individualistic culture, basically. So let us first look at what power culture is. In a power culture organization, managers are told what to do; they are instructed, and power is exercised by leaders and people at the top level of the organization. Leaders simply tell the manager that you have to do this. They are explicitly and categorically advised, and in this, the manager basically feels pressure to perform. This is basically based on the extrinsic theory of motivation, where financial incentives are provided, and factors like promotion and status are taken into account if you want to change your behavior and bring conformity to what is desired by the leader. What is desired by the leader here makes sense in terms of senior executives and chief executives, or in the sense of a boss; the boss directs you politically, and you have to change your behavior. It could be regarding objectives or policies, and then the leader seeks compliance—basically political compliance—so you have to follow this. The second thing emerging is role culture. Now, what is the manager's role in the organization, and how do they define their role? Managers basically define their role through their job description: what objectives they have to achieve in the job description and what their responsibilities are. How it has been identified—and here I will give a classic example—is that often bureaucratic organizations, or even large multinational organizations, can also become bureaucratic organizations. It is not necessary to associate bureaucratic organizations only with the public sector or typical public sector organizations. We call those organizations bureaucratic or bureaucracies that are based on the classical Weberian model, where the focus is on authority, responsibility, hierarchy, job descriptions, and such things. So, the important thing is, how does a manager identify themselves in a role culture? Do they make a narrow interpretation of their role, or do they make a broader interpretation? Now , in this regard, I want to give you a very interesting example of a public sector organization; for instance, and this actually happens in real life, if there is a stenographer in a public sector organization, and given the technological changes that have occurred, their traditionally written job description follows a specific pattern, while the practical work expected of them now—due to being high-tech—leads to different expectations from managers in the organization. So, if a stenographer, for instance, is asked to send an email or a fax as part of their duties and they refuse by saying, "Sir, no, this is something that wasn't written in my job description," then what is the problem here? The problem is that this stenographer or staff member is explaining their job from a very narrow technical and legal viewpoint. Basically, it is a narrow interpretation, and an added complexity arises because our organizations are unionized, and the union also has provisions in its constitution or the organization's constitution; thus, things become quite complex and are then basically determined politically. So the point is that organizational consultants or management consultants are now saying that rather than fixing on a role culture, you should transform towards a support culture to achieve greater productivity. We need to humanize the organization, and since the legal or job description aspect is only one part of achieving productivity , we must define an integrated, socially and humanly acceptable role in the organization from both the employer's and employee's perspectives. This is what management consultants are looking at now. The third type is the task or achievement culture, where an individual finds the most suitable way to complete a task, and this addresses intrinsic motivation; a person feels satisfied and is intrinsically motivated when they have achieved objectives, their self-satisfaction and self-esteem are high, and it involves a concept of autonomy. Therefore, a task or achievement-oriented culture is another type that is highly focused on in the literature. The fourth type is basically a support culture or people-oriented culture, which we talk about, where individuals are somewhat allowed to take initiative and define things on their own. This is basically close to Theory Y. That an organization should be people-oriented, because after all, an organization is basically a collection of individuals, and productivity is always achieved through people. Therefore, people are considered from an asset perspective, and unless an organization retains its individuals humanely and considerately and invests in them, the institution will not be very productive. So, this is basically a classification that exists regarding organizational culture , concerning which culture we are moving from and towards if we want to bring about change. Basically, the direction is that from power culture and role culture, or even task culture, we move towards our eventual goal of a support culture, where managers are facilitated. And achieve a higher level of objectivity. Now, there is another concept that we call Organization Development. Organization Development is considered synonymous with change management courses, and there are many things common between them; however, Organization Development is still taught as a distinct subject and significantly overlaps with change management. The similarity is that the theme of both is the individual and the organization, and the ultimate purpose is to enhance productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The difference between the two subjects is that in Organization Development, we are concerned with improvisation within the organization and within the system; basically, we want to achieve a higher level of efficiency, and it includes typical techniques like MBO, T-groups, sensitivity training, and managerial grids. This is basically a technique-driven course, and as you might have guessed, the change management course is somewhat more philosophical, broader, and wider in scope, and it deals with change both within the organization and outside the organization as well. So now, let's look at a slide to see what the OD discipline is and how it relates to change management. OD is defined as a systematic, organization-wide process of data collection, diagnosis, action planning, intervention, and evaluation, primarily for enhancing congruence between organizational structure, processes, strategy, people, and culture. So, as you have seen in the first point, the organization development process involves collecting data, diagnosing, planning, focusing on the intervention activity to be performed, and then evaluating that activity to see if we have succeeded in achieving our desired objectives. The first principle is that we must find compatibility between an organization's strategy, its structure, its various processes, and its culture; these must be aligned. The purpose of OD is to create this alignment among these various processes. You may remember that in our early sessions, we talked about how strategy, structure, process, culture, and politics are important concepts in organization studies. If we understand the organization, we can also understand change management— specifically how to bring about change in all these functional areas or concepts, how to determine the appropriate structure, how to change the strategy, and which structure is appropriate for its execution. What are the processes in an organization? And how can we make them relevant to our strategy? And ultimately, there is the culture we talked about a little while ago, as cultural transformation is also a goal of the organization to attain desired results. The second thing is developing new and creative organizational solutions. For creative solutions in an organization, we look at the bottlenecks—they might be procedural bottlenecks, or they could be in a specific functional area like marketing, administration, production, and so on. So, regarding the visualized strategy and the bottlenecks the organization is perceiving, how do we remove those bottlenecks and barriers to achieve our objectives? So, the purpose of OD is also to provide creative organizational solutions. The third point is basically developing organizational self-renewal capacity. This is a theme of change management, which we also study in OD. Generally, in management, our focus is on how to bring the organization to a level where it is self-sustained, where it can maintain its competitive advantage, maintain its market share, maintain its leadership in the industry, and essentially sustain itself on a perpetual basis. So, this is basically the purpose of OD. In terms of its purposes, the subject of OD is very similar to change management, but the focus of the organization development course is on the internal aspects of the organization, whereas change management, as I told you, has both internal and external purposes and is fundamentally based on human psychology and sociology at a philosophical level. So, there is a difference; OD is basically technique-driven. In OD, there are management consultants who have certain techniques that they focus on. As I mentioned that it is technique-driven, such as providing training on the managerial grid, MBO, delegation, or sensitivity training or T-group training, these are basically some standardized training techniques they focus on, while change management has a broader focus and a wider scope, which I have already explained to you earlier. So, on this note, I would like to conclude, having explained to you the relevance of OD to change management. And let us look at what we have covered in today's session and what subject areas we have dealt with. The first thing is that it is very important to understand the basic concepts of change management before moving forward, and the concepts of change management that we discussed today are logical incrementalism, transactional change, and transformational change, or we also looked at it in terms of what transactional leadership and transformational leadership are. Then we also looked at what continuous change and its attributes are, and what discontinuous change, its attributes, and its features are. And in the same way, we then discussed cultural change in the organization, and then discussed the OD subject and its relevance. And on this note, I will say goodbye to you ; thank you and goodbye.