Organisational Change Management Changing organizations is as messy as it is exhilarating, as frustrating as it is satisfying, as muddling-through and creative a process as it is a rational one – Palmer, Dunford and Akin (2005, p. 1) These lines are not only mere an illusion of some research scholars but contextually reflecting the true picture behind organizational change. Palaniswamy and Sushil (2003) pointed out that organizations do not go for system change or recalibration of process path unless it is forced to do so by external environment. Parnell et al. (2000) and Trompenaars and Wolliams (2003) supported their view by stating that organizations adopt change for multiple reasons such as, 1- decreasing cost of operation or increasing profitability, 2- reshuffling the organizational structure after or before a merger and acquisition, 3- expansion of international operation or opening up strategic business unit in foreign countries, 4- moving ahead in competition or achieve competitive advantage , 5- altering business process in order to implement new technologies, 6- addressing political pressures etc. Careful consideration of research work of Pellettiere (2006) and Priem, R. and Butler (2001) reveals that managing change within organization is a resource intensive process and there is surety about the return on investment (ROI) in the process. Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003) pointed out that organization faces challenges while dealing with resistance to change from organizational individuals. In such context, Kurt Lewin (1947) given a three stage change management process map for organizations which can help firms to reduce change resistance and create positive environment for organizational change. These three steps can be described in the following manner. Unfreezing In this stage, organizations destabilize the equilibrium of existing organizational structure or process an in order to create the basal plan for facilitating the change process. As part of initial planning, top level management of the organizations try to identify those individuals who have the dissatisfaction about the existing process and use these individuals as the change agents. Then, top level management and change agents use the existing dissatisfaction as the change agenda and motivate organizational individuals to support the change agenda. In some cases, organizations try to enhance employee knowledge about competitive threats, current market scenario, organizational problems etc in order to decrease the level of resistance from them. Change In this stage, organizations use it all three level of management to facilitate the change process. In many cases, organizations take help of external project managers in order to implement a new process or reengineer the existing business process. According to Moilanen (2005), organizations use rewards, flexible management style, and knowledge sharing, cross departmental learning as systematic tools for facilitating change process. In this phase organizations emphasizes on different aspects such as establishing reward system for employees, bringing the flexibility in managerial style and others to decrease resistance from stakeholders. Refreezing Voelpel et al. (2004) defined refreezing as the outcome of organizational fitness alert for restoring the change process. In this phase, organizations monitor the outcome of implemented change process and institutionalize organizational members with the newly implemented system. Many organizations use training, knowledge sharing seminars and programme, mentoring coaching as part of institutionalization process. Organizations provide both visible and invisible rewards to participant in change process in order to recognize their contribution and restore the positive results of implemented change process in sustainable manner. After understanding the core elements of Lewin’s change management process, the researcher will try to understand to identify how the concept can be applied to Qatarization strategy. Qatarization Qatarization policy was created with an intention of developing national labour force of Qatar by replacing foreign professionals from important job positions and replacing them with Qatari nationals. Government of Qatar has designed the Qatarization policy to increase number of Qatari nationals in government departments and joint venture industries by attracting both foreign educated Qataris and educated domestic Qataris to join the national labour force by replacing expatriates. Unfreeze Qatar government should improve the standard of professional education by implementing right educational policy or follow the standard education policy followed by global leaders. The government should communicate the benefits of working in Qatar for Qatar nationals through carefully designed advertisement program. Change Qatar government should declare subsidies to joint ventures which recruit Qatari professionals instead of expatriates and also take steps to employ foreign educated Qatari professionals in government industries. Refreeze Qatar government should provide tax benefits, subsidies and other policy benefits to companies’ which have more than 50% of Qatari professionals in important positions in order to restore the benefits of Qatarization policy. Even the government might create a target plan of 75% of Qatarization in government sectors and joint venture industries within next 10 years in order to restore the benefits of change process in measurable and sustainable manner. Reference List Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. II. Channels of group life. social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(1), pp. 1143-53. Moilanen, R., 2005. Diagnosing and measuring learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 12, pp. 71-89. Palaniswamy, R. and Sushil, J. L., 2003. Measurement and enablement of information systems for organizational flexibility: An empirical study. Journal of Services Research, 3, pp. 81-103. Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G., 2005. Managing Organizational Change. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Parnell, J., Lester, D. and Menefee, M., 2000. Strategy as a response to organizational uncertainty: An alternative perspective on the strategy-performance relationship. Management Decision, 38(8), pp. 520-30. Pellettiere, V., 2006. Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and risk for a planned change. Organizational Development Journal, 24, pp. 38-44. Priem, R. and Butler, J., 2001. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 22-40. Siggelkow, N. and Levinthal, D., 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, pp. 650-69. Trompenaars, F. and Wolliams, P., 2003. A new framework for managing change across Cultures. Journal of Change Management, 3, pp. 361-81. Voelpel, S., Leibold, M. and Mahmoud, K., 2004. The organizational fitness navigator: Enabling organizational fitness for rapid change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4, pp. 123-40.