Factors that May Contribute to Inefficiency in Introducing Company’s Change

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.

The joy of every investor is to see the initial capital invested in the business grow according to the business plan outlined. This evaluation monitors growth in terms of profit realized by the firm, the human resource base and market penetration of the company’s products and services.

However, due to inevitable conditions it is quite tricky to realize these dreams. This leaves the investor with endless nightmares on ways through which the business can improve. The following are factors that may contribute to inefficiency in introducing change that boosts the operations of a company.

The world has become extremely competitive, and this necessitates the need for organizations to restructure their management and leadership styles. Most firms have a centralized way of managing various issues. This does not reflect team work and leadership styles that are vital for efficient running of any firm. It is necessary to consider the presence of skills, experience and qualifications of other workers as tools for better performance.

However, the existence of a “pin point” leadership style is a stumbling block to realize the benefits related with delegation of executive and leadership roles (Kotter 1996).

Competitions among firms necessitate the need to explore all values, skills, experience and abilities of all workers in order to have higher chances of competing effectively with other workers. The best way through which this can be attained is by transfer of roles in any company to enable all employees have better grounds of contributing towards the general growth of any company.

Present investments are experiencing challenges ranging from inflation to insecurity posed by unpredictable changes in the world. The economic crisis is affecting all sectors of the economy, and this does not leave investors with easier options than to adopt to the changes that occur.

This makes investment impractical since investors fear to engage in their daily activities without feeling the pinch of recession and inflation. This means that even if a company is not directly faced with the problem of recession, it is automatically exposed to the effects of inflation by default.

Terrorism and uncontrolled population increase contribute to limited investment chances as nations face a financial crisis in budgetary allocations to development and employment creation opportunities. However, trying to decentralize the operations of any company poses a substantial risk to the initiator of this project due to the fact most managers have deep root to the traditional systems and modes of management where all decisions are made by a single body that runs the company.

The intended purpose of this program was to ensure that all employees actively take part in the daily running of their companies operations. However, this does not mean that there is the need to establish more departments and offices for this program to be effective.

The program’s main agenda was to identify employees who have potential to perform beyond the ordinary and utilize these abilities to fight the global economic crisis (Kotter 1996). It is essential to note that the traditional practices where the manager is the creator and giver of all instructions and guidelines in a company, hinders the utilization of skills and abilities of junior staff.

The practice bars other members of staff from airing their views, opinions and suggestions to enable management have ample time in implementing business policies. Decentralization of roles was considered a reasonable way of ensuring that all workers, irrespective of their positions take part in the daily running of the company’s activities.

This program no longer meets its intended purpose due to a number of reasons that are a stumbling block to its implementation. The management was unable to delegate some of their roles to junior staff. This was further enhanced by the need to maintain the status quo that is associated with the power and fame linked to managerial positions (Kotter 1996). There were other issues being handled under the carpet, and thus devolution was considered a significant threat, since it would expose these evils.

On the other hand, junior workers were reluctant to embrace the changes brought by devolution since they had fears that they may not perform the new roles according to the company’s expectations. Tradition and culture seemed to play a crucial role in regulating who does what in the company.

Most junior staff was comfortable despite the downward trend that was being witnessed in not only this company but also in other investments. Despite the fact that they identified the need to have changes in the company in order to cushion the company against inflation, they were reluctant to embrace any attempts that were geared towards bringing change in the company.

The author in ‘Successful Change and the Force that Drives IT’ identifies some aspects that drive change. Economic integrations among nations of the world necessitate states and their citizens to adopt new practices that adhere to the rules and regulations set by the international bodies (Kotter 1996). When markets mature nations adopt the international standards required in order to compete effectively in international trade. International trade enables nations to reduce the balances of trade and payments.

On the other hand, the increase in capitalism means that few individuals are able to control massive capital in terms of investments, production and other business activities. The terms and conditions they propose become law since those with limited capital will have no say in such matters (Kotter 1996). This means that when a country has fewer capitalists, delegation of responsibilities and management of resources become centralized.

Arm twisting and coercion, which are serious evils of management and leadership, become the order of the day. Change management should be spearheaded by every employee irrespective of the roles they play in an organization. However, the management is better placed to foresee the inevitable changes in the near future and advise pother junior staff accordingly.

The greatest cultural changes needed to implement change in management include the scrapping of traditions like centralization of power and decision making. Employees should stop feeling inferior and incapable of handling tasks without assistance from management. The long chain of command must not be an excuse to decision making and sharing of vital information in an organization.

Conclusion

Modernization necessitates the need for organizations to change and employees to evolve their practices in order to compete effectively with others. It is necessary to note that managers need to delegate duties to other staff members in order to improve efficiency in service delivery.

Junior staff should not fear to handle strange roles as organizations restructure since all these efforts are aimed at improving service delivery. Changes are inevitable as far as running any organization is concerned. Therefore, managers should get ready to embrace new developments associated with modernization and challenges of inflation.

Reference

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Successful Change and the Force that Drives It. New York: Harvard Business Review Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Factors that May Contribute to Inefficiency in Introducing Company’s Change

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)