Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Organizational goals can be achieved by different strategies and due to the different organizations of companies. However, in any team, conflict situations can arise that can interfere with the performance of their functions and become reasons for failure. In such cases, it is important to analyze the political and symbolic framework that can help in understanding the sources of conflict. The study of their influence on problems of organizational behavior can be seen in the example of the resistance to change of employees in the marketing department.
The political frame may view organizations as groups of people who can compete for limited resources. Based on this, employees may have various disagreements that become obstacles in their work. An example of limited resources would be promotions or pay raises. Resistance to change is a common problem in companies where organizational rules and regulations have not changed for a long time (Pereira et al., 2019). In this example, the political frame can be used to explain the lack of involvement in the change process and the fear of possible personnel changes and layoffs. When any changes are unexpected for employees, they begin to resist them, as they may feel a threat to their position in the team. In addition, a wrong decision of the management can also be the reason for the negative attitude of the team towards the innovations being introduced since, in this case, they lose confidence in the leader.
Another reason the political frame can be analyzed in terms of organizational change is the redistribution of power. A position of power can often be used both to implement certain innovations in the company and to resist them (Lui & Ngo, 2021). In addition, power in the team can be formal, which relates directly to the manager, and informal, when it comes to opinion leaders. In the second case, it is more likely to use leverage to prevent organizational change. If a conditional employee with informal power can, for example, be transferred to another department as a result of changes, then he will lose his position. In this case, it is disadvantageous for them to support the implementation of the new rules. This is a political frame since the motivation to resist change comes from the argument of losing one’s previous advantageous position and depriving a limited resource of power.
Based on the political frame, the marketing manager will have to analyze how the implementation of the new rules can affect all employees. In this way, they will be able to avoid the negative consequences of organizational resistance to change. To achieve such a positive effect, it is important to involve all stakeholders in the process of planning organizational changes (Lui & Ngo, 2021). In this case, each person to whom the innovations relate will be able to express their thoughts and protest to adjust the new plan before its implementation begins. By considering the political frame when planning change, the department leader will be able to anticipate possible risks and provide strategies to address them.
From the organization’s point of view, considering the symbolic frame, it can be said that the company is a kind of cultural environment. Thus, the interaction of employees is not determined by the positions of power but by the ethical norms of interaction between employees (Lüdeke‐Freund, 2020). This frame is of the greatest importance for the company’s corporate ethics, as it regulates informal employee relations and some cultural norms of behavior that could develop in the organization. However, for the example under consideration, the symbolic system of interactions is also suitable since resistance to change may be due to ethical aspects.
Different sets of cultural characteristics, practices, and beliefs can regulate the behavior of an employee in terms of a symbolic frame. In this sense, these aspects of behavior can be both barriers and drivers of change in companies (Phillips & O’Reilly, 2019). In the example under consideration, employees, for a long time at work, could develop different cultural and ethical habits that shape their behavior. In this case, introducing changes without considering their opinions may affect certain patterns of behavior that people are used to. This means that with the full implementation of innovations, these determinants can be removed. In this case, this can become a factor that will encourage employees to resist change so as not to lose their usual form of interaction in a team. Another aspect may be the prevailing corporate culture in which employees hold conservative views and do not perceive innovation. This could be another potential reason for resistance to change in terms of the symbolic frame.
If the head of the marketing department considers and analyzes all the cultural aspects that add up to the symbolic frame, then they will be able to draw up the right strategy for introducing changes. In this context, it will also be a relevant decision to involve all stakeholders in the planning of the change strategy. In this case, the symbolic aspects of existing corporate behavior can be taken into account and help warn against resistance to change.
Political and symbolic frames may come together in employee rejection of organizational change being introduced. The first frame highlights how important it may be for some employees to maintain their positions in the company. From the point of view of symbolic aspects, the behavior and relationship of employees are of key importance due to innovations to form resistance in the company. In both cases, this may be connected to the fact that people are used to certain established patterns of behavior, and when they change, many will take a long time to get used to. With a comprehensive management approach to change, they should consider both frames and involve stakeholders to avoid unpleasant consequences. This consideration of different cultural and positional aspects can be a preventive measure to avoid the appearance of resistance (Saks & Gruman, 2020). Thus, by considering, the desires of employees from the political and symbolic frames, the head of the marketing department could achieve better results.
In conclusion, it is important to note that political and symbolic frames are of great importance for any organizational activity. The first of them is responsible for the relations in which it is important for all employees to maintain their current positions in the company, and the second one considers the organization from the side of ethical and cultural relations. In this example, both frames were ignored by the head of marketing, which led to resistance from employees. Thus, each employee could lose a certain fixed degree of comfort, as a result of which motivation and desire to work would be lost. Thus, when planning changes, it is important to take into account the wishes of all stakeholders and, based on this, introduce innovations.
References
Lüdeke‐Freund, F. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: Integrative framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 665-681. Web.
Lui, T., & Ngo, H. (2021). Power and resistance to change in organizations: A review of theories and research. Human Resource Management Review, 31(1), 101-112. Web.
Pereira, V. R., Maximiano, A. C. A., & de Souza Bido, D. (2019). Resistance to change in BPM implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 25(7), 1564-1586. Web.
Phillips, K. W., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2019). Organizational culture and change. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 87-111. Web.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2020). Integrating the frames of organizational behavior: An overview. In A. M. Saks & J. A. Gruman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of organizational behavior (pp. 11-24). Cambridge University Press. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.