Category: Organizational Change

Introduction

Organizational change takes place when a firm makes some shift from its present state to some preferred future state. Successful organizational change usually requires planning as well as the implementation of the transformation in a manner that is likely to evoke minimum employee resistance in addition to bestowing minimum cost constraint on the firm. Businesses today require that firms undergo continuous change in order to stay afloat in the business waters.

Such factors as rapid technological advancements or market globalization impose the urge for the firms to undergo change in a continual fashion so as to survive (Kuriger, 2004). Organizational change usually erupts from the difficulties faced by the company or the firm.

However, some firms change under the impulsion of its visionary leaders who begin by recognizing and then exploiting the emerging potentials in the firm. Organizational change that is not properly organized is usually fought by the employees, leading to its failure. Organizational change occurs for instance when a firm changes its general success strategy, adds or does away with a main practice or plans to do a variation in its nature of operation.

Philosophical approaches

There are two main various towards organizational change. The two main ones that are by their nature opposing, to one another are: the mechanistic and the humanistic approach.

Mechanistic philosophy

This conservative organizational change framework depicts the firm as a set of evidently defined parts (departments) which are stitched together by the official rules and the subsisting relationships.

In this approach, the executives or the management tend to oversee the co-ordination as well as originating and controlling of organizational change plans. Therefore a mechanistic approach towards institutional change is an approach in which the managers plan the needed change then they put it into effect without the involvement of the employees.

Constraints as well as problems that impede the achievement of the perceived goals are envisaged as technical difficulties of which technical solutions are sought. There is heavy reliance on the hierarchical structure of the organization to effect organizational change. In the much idealized form of this approach, the commands are issued from the top toward the employees who are down in the organizational hierarchy.

Organizations that use this type of approach are usually less adaptive to changes in their environment and least responsive to innovations. They also show hierarchical differentiation accompanied with many levels in their command chain, power concentration by the top executives and also the decision-making mandate finds solace only in the hands of the central management crew.

The proponents of this conventional principle argue that it has economic advantages while implementing organizational change during periods of relative stability (Smith, Graetz, 2011).

When firms decide to apply this philosophy, there calls for horizontal and vertical pecking order arrangements as well as differentiation so as to process the organizational change workflow. Differentiation reduces the incidences of contact and movement of the flow of information. As the hierarchy divides the flow of work, communication becomes hard (Richardson, 2005).

The formalization in the control systems when using this philosophy has negative effects on achievement of effective organizational change. This philosophy has a limitation in the theory of organizational change as it creativity stifling in addition to evoking a dissident sub-culture which weakens the ability of the firm to attain such change (Handy, 1985).

The humanistic philosophy

While the mechanistic approach towards organizational change assumes a top-down version, the humanistic approach takes an up-stream model. This philosophy inculcates the views and opinions of the workers in the process of organizational change, therefore there is usually a low employee resistance and efficiency when drafting and effecting organizational change.

This philosophy view organizations as having behaviors as well as personalities. This philosophy is based on a normative posture that people in their own capacity are ends and those interferences to revolutionize the organizations and the people, are not free of value (Leavitt, Pondy & Boje, 1989).

The mechanistic school of thought have criticized this approach citing that it is too squashy and too workers-oriented, but on the other hand, the humanistic consultants stress on impartiality to the participants of the organizational change (Argris, 1986). There is no reliance on the hierarchical structure of the firm when instituting the organizational change; it is easier to obtain relationships of trust as well as honesty.

When these are achieved, communication on the other hand is refurbished. Once good communication has been attained, issues of rumors, paranoia, phobia as well as misperception fade away. The culmination of these events leads to more honesty and trust. The outcome of this virtuous circle is a high synergy firm that is least resistant to organizational change.

Conclusion

Leaders as well as managers are on constant pressure to continually make efforts so as to achieve successful along with significant organizational change because this role is inherent in the management theory.

This therefore calls for a well structuring of the correct and appropriate method or philosophy to use as a channel to affect these organizational changes. The mechanistic approaches to organizational change is deemed suitable for the recurrent management changes which includes adjustments in terms of goals, structure, personnel, and strategy as well as control systems.

While organizations that apply mechanistic approach to organizational change are more responsive to administrative innovations with respect to management accounting as well as internal auditing, the humanistic approach is more adaptive towards NPD-new product developments in addition to changes in the management of sales. Generally, most firms today apply the humanistic philosophy in instituting organizational change as it counters the resistance by employees and instills motivation on the workforce.

Works Cited

Argris, Chris. Strategy, change and defensive routines. London: Pitman, 1986.

Handy, Charles. Understanding organizations (3rd Ed). London: Penguin, 1985.

Kuriger, Craig. Organizational Change: case studies in the real world. Florida: Universal, 2004.

Leavitt, Harold, Pondy, Louis & Boje, David. Readings in Managerial Psychology. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989.

Richardson, Kurt. Managing Organizational Complexity: theory and practice. Michigan: IAP, 2005.

Smith Aaron, & Graetz, Fiona. Philosophies of Organizational Change. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar publishing, 2011.

Change management refers to a strategy applied by organizations in order to modulate people and cooperative units from their current state to a desired state (Balogun 2006). Change management also refers to an administration framework used by organizations to implement new processes, revise structural design, and reorient corporate culture. It aims at eliminating bureaucracy in management of organizations (Weil 2002). Organizational change management addresses human resource aspects in organizations because all activities revolve around organizational workforce.

Effective change management in an organization involves understanding the change process, communicating the need for implementing change to all stakeholders, identifying possible obstacles, and working towards getting support from employees. The process of organizational change management involves four key steps namely assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation (Weil 2002).

One of the cardinal rules in organizational change management is to desist from forcing change on people. It is important to ensure that people are ready for real, feasible, and computable change. Effective change management in an organization requires competent leaders who provide necessary motivation, support, and assurance to employees (Balogun 2006).

In most cases, implementing change in an organization is a nightmare because of resistance from workers under different departments, thus failing to meet set targets. Managers and business leaders often face numerous challenges in implementing change in organizations. Many factors contribute to poor results by managers, most of which stem from within the organizations (Balogun 2006). The first contributing factor is poor understanding and interpretation of the change process.

The change process is often complex and necessitates full comprehension of all demands associated with the process (Balogun 2006). For example, the projects created by automobile companies Toyota and Ford under the names Toyota-ism and Ford-ism respectively demonstrated poor understanding of change management. The two automakers wanted to improve their employee productivity through limiting the time they needed to complete tasks (Weil 2002).

The changes failed in both companies as essential considerations in change process did not apply. Some essential considerations the two companies failed to make before implementing change include objectives of proposed change, reasons for effecting change, as well as criteria of determining success of effected changes. It is also important to identify individuals who are likely to be affected by the change, their possible reactions, and best ways of responding to reactions (Balogun 2006).

Another important consideration is identification of organizational potential to implement change. This entails identifying changes that an organization can implement on its own, those that require external help, and possible avenues for such help (Weil 2002). The second reason why managers fail to implement change in organizations is lack of regular outlines, communication systems, and fundamental paraphernalia for managing change.

This is a challenge to managers because employees and other stakeholders are not familiar with change implementation strategies. It is important to have a universal set of explanations, strategies, and development blueprint within an organization (Balogun 2006). For example, when an organization develops its structure and corporate culture without defining how change will apply, individuals responsible for implementing change, and approaches for doing it, managers are bound to have a hard time when need for change arises.

A clear outline will eliminate employee resistance to change, as they analyze change before its implementation. This also entails identification of individuals responsible for effective change management (Balogun 2006).

In most organizations, managers are responsible for change management and act as reference points for shareholders whenever issues related to change management arise within an organization. Finally, managers may fail to effectively, implement change due to organizational structure and corporate culture (Weil 2002). During development of a business plan that determines how an organization will be structured and the corporate culture it will develop, it is important to incorporate aspects of change management.

Many organizations apply change management as an add-on instead of something that ought to be part of the organizational culture. Change happens all the time and an organization cannot afford to shy away from developing strategies that facilitate effective change management (Weil 2002).

For example, when developing an organizations corporate values, it is important to include values that focus on numerous objectives that promote effective change management. It is also important to ensure that employees at all structural levels within the organization have good knowledge of change management, and their responsibilities in implementing change (Balogun 2006). Despite presence of organizational challenges, managers should strive to apply their skills and competencies in achieving success.

References

Balogun, J 2006, Managing Change: Steering A Course Between Intended Strategies And Unanticipated Outcomes, Elsevier Publishers, New York.

Burnes, B 2004, Managing Change: A Strategic Approach To Organizational Dynamics, Cengage Learning, New York.

Weil, S 2002, Post-Bureaucracy And Change Management, Cengage Learning, New York.

In the ever-changing business environment, change is inevitable; changes in technology, competition, and customer preferences are among the changes that businesses have to face. To remain competitive amidst the changes, organizations need to adjust their processes and products accordingly.

When a business is undergoing a change process, it is likely to face resistance from internal (employees) and external (stakeholders) players. Psychologists define resistance to change as a natural reaction to uncertainty and/or unknown; a number of factors lead to change resistance (Laura-Georgeta, 2008). This paper analyzes the reasons that make individual resist change as well how management can implement change effectively.

Reason for the resistance

When a change is occurring in an organization, the management are the agents of change; the way the communicate the change to be implemented in an organization determines whether the change will be embraced by employees or they will resist it. Despite efforts made by management of a company to ensure that there is good communication, some personal and group attributes lead to resistance of change. Resistance to change can be divided into two areas as:

Managers resistance

Despite the fact that managers are seen as the change agents, there are times that they resist change; this however happens in areas that there is weak management: when referring to management, here the paper is more focused on line management and supervisors; their reasons for change are:

• Fear of loss of power and control

Managers have pride in the power they have, when a change is being implemented, they are not aware that they will retain the power they are having; they thus are likely not to support the change.

• Overload of current tasks, pressures of daily activities and limited resources

Stressed managers see change as another issue that will be added to their busy schedule thus they are more likely to resist the change as they feel it will add to the worries they already have.

• Skepticism and disagreement about the need for change

Managers may have issues with the new change that is to be implemented, they may feel that the change is not warranted, they are not very sure that the change will be of good to the organization or will lead to issues in the organization (Diamond, 1986).

Employees resistance

For an effective change, employees are expected to support the change process and strongly support the change; depending with the angle one is looking at it, however they are mostly those employees who are the team members lead by a certain team manager. The following are the reasons why they are likely to resist change:

• Fear of unknown

When a change is being implemented in an organization, it creates and uncertainty in the minds of the employees; they are not aware of what the change will have on them. They are not aware what will happen to their jobs, status ranks and even salaries, the truth of the matter is that there is always some effects on employees. They feel that the intended change will have a negative impact on their lives and thus they repel the change; the fear may be in one person or an entire department. Fear comes with repelling the intended change but also make a slowdown of the normal processes. The fear is seen like a wave of demonization prevailing in the organization.

• Organizational culture and past experiences

Organizational culture is a set of belief that exists in an organization and determines how the employees interact with each other as well as how the workers respond to a certain situation. Culture of an organization determines how employees are going to perceive change; if an organization has a culture that sees change as a threat to their status quo, then the human capital are likely to resist change.

On the other hand, if in the future there was a change that injured some people in the organization, then the company is likely to face resistance, as people are likely to think they will suffer again (Ford, Ford And Damelio, 2008)

The most important feature in a change management process

When an organization is implementing a change, the most important feature that must be considered all through the change process is change communication. A change always defines where an organization is and where it want to be; change agents have the role of pioneering their business to their intended destination; they must have a clear vision of what the future will look like.

The change agent or the originator of change may be a small group of people and sometimes may even be an individual; the change wanted should be communicated to the entire organization to facilitate its implementation. One most interesting aspect of change communication is that it appears across the entire process and pegged on communication within an organization.

In an organization, communication is the system through which management and the teams transfer information; it also covers how employees communicate with each other. An effective communication in an organization means that issues and progress of the business are discussed in a way that the target group gets the intended message.

the case of a management that does not maintain good relations that facilitate communication, then when change comers will be seen as a move by the management to make things happen. People will not be willing to come from their status quo and adopt the change but they will be willing to fight the change.

Resistance to change when there is no communication is even higher when groups in the organization join hands together to repel the change. There will be no one who really understands the need for the change since they are a distance with the management. For example incase an organization want to establish a computer network in its organization, the employees may feel they the change is coming to replace them. They are likely to refuse change.

The first step in successful change is to identify the communication weaknesses in a business. Such challenges can be obtained through reviewing the day-to-day activities of the business. Some questions may serve as a guideline, these include:

• Have employees been provided with a good working environment? Are they happy with what they are doing?
• Has the business been able to satisfy all the clients?
• Is proper information provided to all stakeholders?
• Is there good flow of conversations? Four communication weaknesses or barriers are overload of messages, failure to share information among major stakeholders, failure to include employees in decision-making processes, and personal attributes.

According to change gurus, an effective change management process should ensure that the change has been adopted in the minimal time and the response of staffs is positive; it should recognize that in the transition stage, business has to continue as usual; to let the people understand, this, and then it calls for massive communication.

In 1996, at Apple Inc. Steve jobs, introduced a freelance culture in the organization; the culture facilitated communication in the organization and when changes where implemented, the company was able to communicate and effect them effectively.

Employees are given many instructions and they are not given room to practice them nor to show their expertise. Communication means more than just giving out messages; it involves speaking, listening, sending, and receiving messages.

In communication, listening is the key to success and most of the time listening gets people into problems because they do not practice it. For business communication to be successful, listening has to be proficient. Listening simply means holding back ones judgment and allowing answers to come from outside. This is not the case in staples where the managers decide what to do instead of receiving views from the other members of staff. Sharing of important information is poor and most of the time it is withheld from the staff.

In organizations that have good communication, the change can easily be implemented without much hassle; employees will have the chance of asking questions that make them fear and resist the change; this will facilitate an effective change process (Hansen and Gammel, 2008).

Organizational change is the style of managerial behavior

The leadership of an organization plays an important role in strategy development; they have the role of overseeing an effective change process, leaders are the change agents so they need to have accepted the change. Leaders behavior and the attitude, the behavior and the attitude they have towards a change will affect the success of the change.

Developing efficiency in a business is the responsibility of leaders within the organization; different situations need different leaders. Team leaders have the role of developing orchestrate teams from groups in an organization; their decisions and the way they exercise their leadership power determines the success of their organization.

According to Situational Leadership theory, leaders are supposed to adopt a leadership skill that portray and reflect the needs of the time their organization is going through. In the case of change, they should read employees mode and adopt the best approach in such a situation.

Some changes may need the leader to use autocratic leadership style; for example, Mitsubishi has changed its production lines to have high water recycling strategies; when undertaking the changes, some employees services had to be shifted to other places and restructuring of the company made, in such situations managers needed not to consult their employees.

In most case when autocratic leadership is used when implementing change, it is when the industry is forcing change or change is from an external needs for example the need for environmental conservation in the world businesses are forced to effect the change with or without consultation of employees (Barbara and Jocelyne, 2006).

According to transformational theory of leadership, managing change is the main role of managers, under this theory the role of leadership in implementing and transforming performance of an organization; the theory mandates a leader to be changing agents in all decisions he makes.

Whether it is making a strategy, changing things, employing or another task within the organization is seen as change. The theory is of the opinion that business change day to day and managers have the role of seeing the success of the change process (Ian and Dunford, 2005).

In multinationals, when they want to diversify to other countries; there are high chances that they will change their management style and approach; in such a situation, then managers at a prescribed level should discuss and see the way forward, the change can only be effected with democratic form of leadership.

When undergoing a change process, staffs have a number of unanswered questions; if the leaders are not ready to answer questions posed by employees as well as manage fears that the employees have, employees are likely to see the move to change as unplanned and uncontrolled. Leaders are from the top most to the supervisors.

For example when automating a hotel, employees are not sure whether the automation has come to replace them, they are less willing to embrace the change and support it. Another example is in the implementation of a Health Information management system (HIMS) at John Hoskins Hospital, the system was initially repelled by staffs as they thought it has come to , change this usual way of life; the management had to adopt Consultative style of management where the leaders were seen on the ground trying to forge a way forward to the issue at hand.

If there has been no well ordinate communication, then the employees are likely to repel the change. Immediate team leaders are free with the employees and they should be willing and entertaining the change coming. If themselves they are not willing to change, the same will happen with their employees. When communicating the decision made by an organization to change, leaders are mandated with the task of airing these new to the employees. If they do not have the right characters to be able to manage effectively the transition period

Leaders are mandated with the task of leading the organization to its desired destination; they are the change agents. In transitional period, the leaders were the one who guided subordinates to the desired pathway that leads to the attainment of the changes required in the organization. They make rules and policies to be followed in attaining the goals: without disregarding their subordinates. Change needs to be planned at all, times when it is being implemented and conducted in such a way that it will be accepted in the business.

Conclusion

When implement changes within an organization, managers face resistance from internal customers (employees) and stakeholder. Despite the strong resistance, change is inevitable as the world undergoes changes in technology, competition, customer preferences, innovations, and invention. The major factors that lead to resistance to change are fear of unknown, fear to lose power, organizational culture, internal, and external factors to an organization.

Leaders have the role of seeing change implementation process a success; they should support change and aim at shortening the transformation period as well as reducing adverse effects to their business during the transition period. Effective change communication within an organization during change is crucial for a smooth transition.

References

Barbara, S. and Jocelyne F., 2006. Organizational change. Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Diamond, M. ,1986. Resistance To Change: A Psychoanalytic Critique Of Argyris And Schons Contributions To Organization Theory And Intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23(5),PP. 543-562.

Ford, J., Ford, L. And Damelio, A. ,2008. Resistance To Change: The Rest Of The Story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), PP. 362-377.

Hansen, M. and Gammel, G.,2008. Management of Change. Professional Safety, 53(10),P. 41.

Ian, P. and Dunford, R.,2005. Managing Organizational Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Laura-Georgeta, T. ,2008. Change Management  Resistance to the Change. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 17(4), Pp.622-624.

Introduction

Current global organizational changes threaten to make yesterdays managers outdated. However, awareness of the changes and how to take advantage of them offers tomorrows managers countless opportunities. Even though the nature of managerial function varies across organizations and changes constantly, one general thread pervades nearly all managerial activities. Therefore, the behaviors of people and management processes in firms are closely intertwined (Scheffknecht 76).

This paper relates the wider field of organization change management to the specific area of organizational culture. It argues that a new leader coming into an organization will have difficulty in changing an existing organizational culture. In that respect, the paper explores three important environments that are considered to be important in changing organizational culture. These include social and cultural environment, global environment as well as technological and innovative environment.

Literature review

A manager seeking to change an already existing culture has the responsibility of shifting the changes towards the core business competencies. It is noted that the force of nature exerts much pressure on organizations to the disadvantage of management initiatives (Sims 469).

That is, if globalization is a trend towards winning competitive advantages, managers have no other option but to develop a culture that responds to such changes. Again, if technology adoption is the answer to successful business, then it must be a priority for the management. Unfortunately, very few corporate cultures will support such initiatives. Hence, higher resistance towards such changes will be eminent.

Social and cultural environment

Organizational culture in addition to the general social and cultural environments can be considered as a link because when people enter organizations from surrounding societies bring their cultures and social lives with them (Sims 457). Therefore, the changing social and cultural environment influences corporate culture and poses a big challenge to managers yearning for change.

York, Gumbus and Lilley in their research study found that forces in this environment are those that effect ways of how people live and work (209). Mohanty and Rath think that managers must be responsive to those changes that take place in the surrounding societies as they affect all aspects of corporate culture (66). However, new managers have little knowledge about these changes.

Global environment

The global business environment is changing drastically thus requiring new approaches to business (Brakman 9). Apart from the regulatory changes, diversity and consumer behaviours, the global economic factors have experienced significant economic changes thus influencing organizational cultures greatly.

For many organizations, the main objective boils down to creating a culture that might improve competitive advantages and eventually the profitability of a corporation in a threatening economic environment. Therefore, organizational cultures that are witnessed today have nothing to do with the traditional emphasis on aligning corporate cultures with national cultures. Firms, including small-to-medium enterprises (SME) are internationalizing their operations to seek for business opportunities (Schuler 243).

Technological environment

One element of organizational culture that firms have focused on is innovation. Almost every organization creates a culture that can make the employees more creative. The most significant driver to innovation is information technology (IT) and its integration in business operations. In as much as IT is important to organizational activities, it poses a major challenge to todays managers (Cronley and Patterson 289).

They have no other alternative but to involve IT when changing the organizational culture. In order to promote organizational learning and create knowledge, they must use IT to define, acquire, arrange, organize, input, manipulate, transmit and store information. Organizational learning can only occur if the employees can manage knowledge and information to attain a better understanding of the need to change (Schuler 245).

Research Methodology and Study Design

Research Procedure

In order to investigate how organizations attempt to manage specific area of organizational culture, this investigative study was both qualitative and quantitative. The requisite research information was gathered across the study population through sampling strategy.

A research technique dubbed as survey method was drawn on while content analysis was applied to help analyze the obtained data. These research methods were successively considered to be the best given that they rarely provide chances of disqualifying any notable alternative explanations and they infer to the event causations.

Besides, to critically illustrate the consequences of the assumed actions as they exist when this study was conducted, the suggested descriptive statistics was accrued from the observations made. The researcher also used the specified research methods by taking into consideration relevant first hand research information and any other related data obtained from the research respondents. This assisted in devising sound and rational study conclusions.

Primary and secondary data sources

In order to present significant research findings and appropriate conclusions, the investigative study on how organizations attempt to manage specific area of organizational culture used primary data sources and secondary data sources.

However, the primary research information and desired data were obtained through administering self-designed survey questionnaires and conducting in-depth interviews to the study targeted population. In fact, the researcher administered the questionnaires to the study participants, organizations managers and employees in person.

Conversely, the secondary investigative information accrued from various organizations change management and corporate culture records as well as other authenticated documentations that have been filed by the investigated organizations. Such research information facilitated the ascertainment of whether the organizations in question had any primed cultural management strategies and the consequences of the assumed actions.

Research Findings

How organizations attempt to manage specific area of organizational culture

Social and cultural environment

From the investigation, it appears that new leaders at Enron and Hewlett-Packard Corporations are tasked with the development of corporate ethics and well-being in order to initiate organizational change. Investigation reveals that huge ethical scandals in corporations such as Enron and Hewlett-Packard plagued hundreds of United States firms.

Unethical behaviours in these companies damaged the firms reputation and cost them the goodwill of employees and customers. Moreover, the losses led to financial and economic damages. The corporate managers changed such cultures by establishing ethical codes that defined acceptable behaviours and developed frameworks for rewards and punishments in order to implement ethical codes.

According to Sims (459), corporate ethics is perceived as an element of corporate culture that is hard to change, as ethics is defined differently by individual organizations. Thus, by implementing the ethical codes, the damaged corporate reputation and the associated costs of losing the goodwill of employees and customers were restored.

However, for a firm like Citigroup, the interviewed managers revealed that social or ethical responsibility means taking any action that was legal. In such a culture, developing codes of ethics that help the firm to protect their reputation and ensure the goodwill of employees and customers appear to be hard for a newcomer.

Study conducted by Sims showed that the challenge encountered by Citigroup can be overcome by building an organizational culture where members oppose the temptation to act in ethical manners that promote individual interests at the cost of the firm or promote the interest of the firm at the cost of the society (471).

Indeed, most corporations executives akin to Citigroup have been unable to take effective measures when faced with ethical scandals. The consequences were that Citigroup suffered dearly from the scandals and the executives could only chose corporate silence strategy action in order to maintain the reputation of the company (York et al. 211).

Workforce diversity is also a big challenge to managers wishing to change an existing organizational culture. In as much as organization such as Enron, Citigroup and Hewlett-Packard are legally and socially committed, they must include employees from different diverse environments.

However, some of the organizations are not sensitive to the diversity issue while others have overemphasized on the issue. As a matter of fact, the number of women and minorities being hired by the firms is increasing. The demographic composition of workers has changed considerably as more female workers and minorities enter the workforce. This means that new managers employed in these corporations must address this factor when changing organizational culture.

Studies have shown that workforce diversity is an important resource to improve performance and that the quality of decision making is richer and broader in terms of diverse employees (Moran et al. 201). While this is an important consideration to managers, some existing organizational cultures discourage such efforts to an extent of justifying that diversification lowers the quality of management. Such beliefs make it difficult for managers to change the culture as they require the commitment of both the manager and employees.

Global environment

Organizations such as Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard are focusing on creating corporate cultures that might improve competitive advantages and eventually the profitability in threatening economic environments. This makes such corporations internationalize their operations while seeking for business opportunities (Schuler 466).

As a matter of fact, these organizations managers are challenged by a myriad of factors stemming from the changing global environment. First, cultural differences witnessed in Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard influence corporate culture in different countries. Management functions directed towards corporate culture become more complex as the firms activities expand internationally and the coordination of organizational as well as decision-making issues become significantly difficult (Moran et al. 210).

These corporations managers fight in vain to create corporate cultures that balance between the needs of the foreign markets and the impact of the cultural disparities on important organizational issues such as evaluation, compensation packages and promotion policies.

Second, understanding global difference is a challenge to new managers in appreciating the changing global environment. There are issues related to understanding corporate behavior in diverse global settings. Corporate culture becomes especially complicated at global level since desires, attitudes and values of employees differ across countries (Moran et al. 210).

Again, the issue of coordinating activities to match organizational environment becomes more complicated as these firms expand internationally. Apart from Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard, many organizations are locating to specific regions because these permit them to increase efficiency, but in this manner, also affect corporate culture.

Therefore, to address this issue, Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard corporate managers have opted to adopt global learning or the process of attaining and learning the knowledge, skills and corporate behaviours that have helped organizations abroad to become strongly positioned in the global market.

Besides, for this challenge, the managers create corporate cultures that might allow the firms to rotate employees to other foreign operations in order to learn the opportunities and problems that lie overseas. Apparently, this is difficult for the managers and costly to the firms.

No wonder many researches on expatriation have pointed the key challenge to successful expatriation as the capacity of the organization to create a culture that arms the employees with the necessary skills and knowledge to fit in foreign cultures (Du Plessis and Beaver 170; Franke and Nicholson 25).

Technological environment

Corporations such as Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard almost create cultures that might make the employees more creative. In these organizations, the most significant driver to innovation is information technology (IT) and its integration in business operations. They have no other alternative but to involve IT when changing the organizational culture. Study reveals that, organizational learning can only occur if the employees appropriately manage knowledge and information to attain a better understanding of the need to change.

Regarding technology Melitski, Gavin and Joanne shed light on organizational culture and its adoption (547). According to them, organizations are increasingly operating in uncertain, decentralized, networked environments, where adoption of IT has become essential to organizational change (546).

Managers of Citigroup, Enron and Hewlett-Packard agree that organizational cultures institutionary shape the way in which firms choose to use technology. They showed that there are environmental factors which influence employees willingness to adopt new technology and these form part of their strategic actions in dealing with this issue.

When the organizational culture is supportive, the probability of adoption is substantially higher. Employees who work in firms where work is well organized, their opinions are considered and they are well informed about the relevant issues in the firm. Thus, they will be willing to adopt new technologies.

Unfortunately, many organizations do not have supportive cultures that can enhance the willingness of employees to adopt new technologies. Recently, changes in organization culture have taken many directions with respect to technology, work and employment relationships.

Technology adoption has been associated with downsizing, the growth of temporary workers or contingents, outsourcing, and with employees who no longer spend their full careers in one firm. As a result, new managers have to work with employees whose confidences in the firm are fainted by changes taking place within. Hence, they are likely to resist change.

Conclusion

Organizational culture change means changing the corporate philosophy, the values and images that inform action, and this new approach to understanding the corporate life must be passed on to the process of management. The reason why it is difficult to implement change of an existing culture lies in the challenges posed by changes in global, technological, social and cultural environments.

Works Cited

Cronley, Courtney and David Patterson. How Well Does It Fit? An Organizational Culture Approach to Assessing Technology Use among Homeless Service Providers. Administration in Social Work 34.3 (2010): 286-303. Print.

Du Plessis, Andries and Bob Beaver. The Changing Role of Human Resource Managers for International Assignments. International Review of Business Research Papers 4.5 (2008): 166-181. Print.

Franke, Johann and Nigel Nicholson. Who Shall We Send? Cultural and Other Influences on the Rating of Selection Criteria for Expatriate Assignments. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2.1 (2002): 21-36. Print.

Mohanty, Jagannath and Bhabani Rath. Influence of Organizational Culture on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Global Journal of Business Research 6.1 (2012): 65-76. Print.

Moran, Robert, Harris Philip and Moran Sarah. Managing Cultural Differences: Global Leadership Strategies for Cross-Cultural Business Success. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Scheffknecht, Sabine. Multinational Enterprise-Organizational Culture vs. National Culture. International Journal of Management Cases 13.4 (2011): 73-78. Print.

Schuler, Randall. The Internationalization of Human Resource Management. Journal of International Management 6.8 (2000): 239-260. Print.

Sims, Ronald. Toward a Better Understanding of Organizational Efforts to Rebuilding Reputation Following an Ethical Scandal. Journal of Business Ethics 90.4 (2009): 453-472. Print.

York, Christopher, Gumbus, Andra and Stephen Lilley. Reading the Tea Leaves-Did Citigroup Risk Their Reputation during 2004-2005? Business and Society Review 113.4 (2008): 199-225. Print.

Executive Summary

The contemporary business environment is very competitive, thus calling for all business organizations to implement organizational changes in order to attain competitive advantage over rival firms. However, it is a common phenomenon across all industries that employees will always be resistant to change, thus the need for proper planning in order to ensure benefits accumulate to both the employees and the organization.

In the case of Wilders Store, several problems have been identified as negatively affecting the performance of the company. Such problems include inadequate personnel in assembly section and inadequate storage space. In this view, the store plans to implement changes in the above mentioned areas, however, it faces resistance from employees, who perceive the proposed change as being an interruption to the normal working condition.

In implementing the change, the firm should ensure that it communicates the proposed change clearly to all employees, as well as making the understand the need and the benefits they will derive from the implemented change. Indeed, involvement of employees in change process will reduce resistance.

In implementing change, several steps have to be followed including, establishing the sense of urgency, forming guiding coalition, creating a clear vision and communicating such vision to all stakeholders, commitment to sustainable change and finally, making a follow-up plan to establish the effectiveness of implementation. When all the above are observed and employees involved in change process, there would be smooth implementation of change and subsequently, positive results from the implementation.

Introduction

For change to be desired in an organization there must be a reason behind it. Change could be associated with an aim of increasing profits, achieving a competitive advantage and changing the organization image. Whatever the case, change implementation should be handled with care as it may be faced with various hindrances such as employee resistance.

Change in any organization is very important; however, it needs to be planned for in advance and should be firm for it to be effective in an organization. In addition, change should involve a number of steps, which include preparation for change, managing the change, and reinforcing the change.

Change management not only involves the organizational operations, but also its employees by reducing change resistance among them and encouraging them to embrace change. The management of an organization should ensure that their change management tools are effective both to the employees and the organization.

First, management must create awareness in the organization for employees to be well informed. Communication at this stage is very important, as it enables employees to understand why proposed change is vital to the organization, and the risks involved if the change is not implemented.

Below is a table indicating the change management process.

Employees involvement in change management is very important as they feel part of an important issue that also affects their organizational life. According to Hussey (2000, p2), change is crucial in any organization, therefore the way change is handled yields to either positive or negative consequences.

When change is handled in an inappropriate manner, there is possibility of frustrations. In addition, the cost of implementation may increase due to delays involved. Nevertheless, change may be caused by a number of factors, which include technological change due to the advancing technology.

The stiff competition in the operating market may also contribute to the desire of obtaining fast and effective technology, for instance, online marketing. Customer demand may also be a factor that drives an organization to adopt change; this is evident when customers needs change with the changing technology.

In this case, when an organization adopts change, it is able to gain customers loyalty, thus increasing sales. The author further adds that change may be accompanied by a number of forces such as downsizing, organization improvement, fast and effective methods of production, and an increase in joint ventures among others (Hussey, 2000, p.7).

Wilders Department Store Case Study

It is evident that Wilders Store is associated with many problems, thus causing attention from the management. Despite its outstanding sales of bicycles, record keeping has been neglected, whilst bicycle assembling causes delays, as there is only one employee that handles bicycle assembling.

In addition, the store has a storage problem, as space is running out due to stored boxed, assembled and lay-by bicycles. Despite the higher sales of bicycles, there are delays, which cost clients dearly, especially when they do not receive their bicycles on time, more so during Christmas holiday.

It is however clear that the main root of Wilder Stores problem is the fact that there is only one employee that assembles the bicycles. Another factor is the limited storage space for the bicycles, placing of sales dockets on the back of a note book, hence causing congestion which in return interferes with the employees morale and customers loyalty.

The fact that Wilders shares the warehouse with several others causes them to hold back on their stock if the warehouse has less of that particular stock. This causes congestion in the warehouse in the long run.

These reasons cause a reason for change within the Wilders department store. For change to be implemented there must be a plan. According to Hussey (2000, p12), urgency determines the rate at which change will be implemented. Nevertheless, change should be realistic such that it is achievable and measurable.

Change should not be for sale, however, it should be explained to the employees such that they are able to understand and cope with it. Those affected by change should be in a position to agree with the change, mainly the employees. It is important to note that employees cannot be held liable for managing change; this is the managements duty.

Whenever change occurs, there are difficulties associated with it, for instance, employee resistance. Therefore, it is important that an organization is governed by participation, involvement and communication. Moreover, change should not be imposed; however, it should be communicated to employees effectively for them to trust the proposed change.

Nevertheless, the proposed change is likely to be faced by resistance, which according to Hussey (2000 p13), the degree of resistance is important since the higher the resistance is, the harder it is to overcome. Sharma (2006, p.127) emphasizes that a change initiative cannot be declared complete without effective implementation. Nevertheless, maintaining change is the most important factor.

Change Strategies for the Wilders Department Store

Having noted the areas that need urgent measures, first, the management should make sure that they communicate their intentions to the employees. The management can go an extra step and educate the employees on why change is necessary at this particular time.

There are a number of reasons why the Wilders Store needs change; first, it should be in a position to defend its market share by achieving a competitive advantage. Secondly, it should be in a position to compete with its competitors, of whom the customers may prefer due to the issue of punctuality in service and effectiveness, which Wilders Store lacks at the moment.

Employees need to be informed on the importance of maintaining their jobs, which will be determined by the proposed change. In such a case, if the business is able to achieve a competitive advantage, perhaps through maintaining their customers, there will be high returns. Therefore, the organization will afford paying its employees.

Nevertheless, it is important for the management to note that employees will not just accept change just because the management said so; therefore, there is need for consultation, as it gives the two parties clarification of the proposed change, and the affected individuals are able to see the positive side of the change.

According to Rash (2010, p.14), a plan is required whereby, the management should decide on what to change and how to change it. He further adds that poor change management will definitely lead to negative consequences that could compromise the business.

The Wilders department store needs a number of changes in its operations. First, the management needs to discuss its intentions with the employees, and convince them on the urgent need for change. The management needs to employ several employees to assist in the assembling of bicycles, thus avoiding delays.

Secondly, employees should be allocated specific duties and they should not be expected to assist in another department, as this interferes with the stores operations.

Once a client purchases a bike, the assembling of that particular item should begin immediately to avoid delays, hence the need for more employees. The management should shift from manual book keeping to computerized entry, which is automatic and saves on paperwork and time too. Hence, there is need for a qualified personnel or training the current employees on data entry.

Another concern is the processing of the entire sale from the bicycle, toys and sporting departments in one cashier to avoid confusion and biasness at the cashiers desk. Therefore, there is need to separate each sale from the three departments. This means getting separate cashiers for each department.

These measures will reduce both the clients and clerks confusion to meet the deadlines especially when Christmas nears. The storage space will not be an issue if bicycles are assembled on time, hence customers will be satisfied with the stores services and not opt for the competitors.

According to Peterson & Yang (2004, p.802), customer loyalty involves attracting customers and retaining them, hence, they purchase frequently and even bring along other customers. However, this can only be achieved if the customers are treated with respect and their needs are met on time and as per the desired quality.

The action plan

It is important to note that employee involvement is vital during the change process. Therefore, there is need to receive feedback from employees. Hence, the management should act based on the feedback. Needless say, resistance towards change is always expected, however, resistant may vary as it could be high or low. Therefore, it is upon the management to decide on how to manage resistant from employees.

Challenges the Managers May Face When Implementing Change

According to McNamara (N.d), for any organization to develop, it must undergo some changes throughout its existence. Despite change being undertaken with an aim of improving organization performance, it is prone to resistance. Nevertheless, change may not always be embraced by the affected individuals.

According to Maycunich & Gilley (2000 p28), many organizations fail to adopt to change due to their unrealistic assumptions pertaining to change. One such assumption is the belief that change may occur without affecting the leadership system. Such beliefs create unrealistic expectations, which cannot be achieved; with such assumptions existing in an organization, its employees are likely to be disappointed, thus leading to low morale and low performance.

Resistance to change is common in any organization; however, employees have a variety of reasons as to why they resist change. One such reason is fear of the unknown. According to Wadell & Sohan (1998, p.543), resistant is an enemy of change. Surprisingly, disregarding of resistance may yield to lack of securing a successful change by organizations.

Therefore, it is important to note that resistance is simply an expression of reservation that reacts to change. He further argues that resistance is associated with some advantages, which when utilized effectively may assist greatly in the change process, thus enhancing organization stability.

In addition, research shows that individuals do not resist change; however, they are resistant to the uncertainties and outcomes associated with change. The authors further explain that, resistance causes energy to effectively address the wanting problem.

Therefore, when managers are faced with resistance to change from employees, they should review the proposed change before implementing it (Wadell & Sohan, 1998, p.545). The Wilders department store management is likely to be faced with resistance from employees who fear uncertainties of the proposed change by viewing it as a threat.

In addition, there is a possibility of financial challenge as management prepares for change, as it has to consider payments of the additional employees, training programs and advanced technology. Nevertheless, resistance from employees stands out, as they are part of the organization. Resistance to change may be as a result of reluctance to lose control, cognitive rigidity, lack of psychological resilience, intolerance, preference for low levels of stimulation and reluctance to give up old habits (Oreg, 2003, p.680).

Agarwal (1983, p.331) emphasizes that attitudes contribute greatly to change resistance, especially if the employees perceive change as a threat. Therefore, according to Deegan (2005, p.27), managing change successfully is important especially when it affects an individuals personal and social value.

Therefore, it is important for management to anticipate, prepare for resistance and find ways of dealing with the resistance. Griffin (2006, p.174) insists that managers can overcome resistance to change by involving employees in planning and implementing the proposed change. Employees also need to be educated on the importance and need for change; hence, an open communication is vital.

Theories Associated With Change

John kotters change model emphasizes on an eight steps model. Establishing the sense of urgency, which involves a high sense of urgency, thus leading to fast and effective decisions regarding the proposed change, is the first step. The second is forming a guiding coalition, which should compromise of effective leadership with credibility.

In addition, creating a clear vision should inspire the employees. The vision should be communicated to others with an aim of empowering them to support the vision. Short term wins should also be created, whilst improvements are encouraged, which yield to creation of more changes (Sabri, et al., 2006, p.179).

According to Rhydderch, et al. (2004, p214), systems theory emphasizes the interrelatedness of parts of an organization. Improving one part requires that consideration be given to the relationships with other parts of the system. This theory involves setting specific standards, measuring the achievements that yield from these standards and receiving feedback.

The social worlds theory entails negotiations between two social worlds; however, it is associated with tensions that argue which practices are fit for the organization. The organization development theory assumes that, for change in an organization to be successful, the individuals must be in agreement with the organizational goals (Rhydderch, et al., 2004, p.214).

According to Aragon (2010, p.42), the theories of change exist both on the inside and outside of an individual. He emphasizes on the theory of habitus, which is concerned with an individual practices such as what he eats, which sports he prefers and his political stand among others.

Hence, this theory differentiates between rights and wrong, hence habits are socially acquired. Nevertheless, for an organization to succeed in the change initiative, first, it must identify assumptions such as setting the initiatives as part of their beliefs. Secondly an organization should analyze its choices, as a way of examining how decisions are made.

Thirdly, an organization should make commitments that will bring about a lasting change. An appropriate action should be selected with an aim of developing the organization. This will include changes that are designed to yield satisfactory results. Finally, a follow up on their actions should be made to ensure that it is effective with time (Maycunich & Gilley, 2000, p.31).

Unfreezing of a status quo is important as it paralysis an individuals attempt to resist change. Unfreezing may include motivating individuals by assisting them in preparing for change such as building of trust whilst training individuals to recognize the need for change. Enlightening individuals on the persisting problems that could cost an organization if not mitigated creates a sense of understanding; hence, they support the proposed change willingly.

Conclusion

As the Wilders department store deals with change, it is important for the management to understand that different employees react differently to change, as each individual has different needs that need to be met. In addition, losses may occur; hence, the change expectations should always be realistic, otherwise unrealistic expectations may yield to low morale and poor performance.

Therefore, it is important for the management to enhance open communication when informing employees on the change initiatives, such that, employees are able to participate in change implementation. Change should not be imposed; rather, it should involve the affected individuals. When participation is encouraged, resistance becomes easier to curb.

Reference List

Agarwal, R. 1983, Organization and management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education Publisher, New Delhi.

Aragon, O. 2010, Change for Purposeful Organizational Capacity Development, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 43. No. 3.

Deegan, C. et al. 2005, Managing change initiatives in clinical areas, Nursing Management, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp.24-29.

Gilley, J. & Maycunich, A. 2000, beyond the learning organization: creating a culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human resource practices, Basic Books, NY.

Griffin, R. 2006, Principles of Management, Cengage Learning Publisher, Ohio.

Hussey, D. 2000, How to manage organizational change Creating Success, Kogan Page Publishers, London.

McNamara, C. N.d., Copyright, Authenticity Consulting, LLC, Organizational Change and Development. Web.

Oreg, S. 2003, Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure, Journal of applied psychology, vol. 88, Issue 4, pp. 680-693.

Rash, W. 2010, First, you need a plan. Web.

Rhydderch, M. et al. 2004, Organizational change theory and the use of indicators in general practice. Web.

Sabri, E. et al. 2006, Purchase order management best practices: process, technology, and change management, Ross Publishing, New Jersey.

Sharma, S. 2006, Change Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education Publisher, New Delhi.

Waddell, D. & Sohal, A. 1998, Resistance: a constructive tool for change management, Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Web.

Yang, Z. & Peterson, R. 2004, Customer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty: The Role of Switching Costs, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21, Issue 10, pp.799822. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Web.

Introduction

Organizational change happens in response to change in the organizations environment. The change can be from the internal environment such as demands from employees. It can also be change from the external environment such as change in consumer tastes and preferences or government regulation.

Therefore, an organization must have flexible systems and structures that can respond swiftly to any change in its environment. A company that is rigid to change in its environment risks being pushed out of business. There are some issues about organizational change which members of the organization must know.

These include the importance of change and the challenges of organizational change that are related to resistance to change. This will help them in securing the maximum benefits of organizational change¹

Importance of organizational change

Change in an organization is very important because it helps the organization to secure many benefits that it cannot achieve if it remains in the same state. Change can help an organization to increase its operational efficiency by reducing its operational costs. An organization can change its way of operation by adopting new technology which will help it cut cost.

For instance, an organization can start using computers in functions that were previously done by people. The company will realize a reduction in costs because it will have reduced salary expenses. Change can also help an organization increase its earnings whereby it adopts new products or enters new markets.

This means that it identifies new needs in the market which it will seek to satisfy. Therefore, it might change its operations to start producing a different line of products to meet the new needs. As a result, it will be able to increase its earnings by venturing in to new market areas².

Change is also important in fighting competition from rivals in the market. When a new entrant in the market threatens a companys market the company will need to initiate a change in its strategies. This involves restructuring operations such as dropping product lines that are less profitable. This allows the company to focus its resources on product lines that are more productive.

Therefore, operations dealing with the dropped product lines will be stopped. Change can also help a company to effectively anticipate and meet customer needs. A company that is product oriented can change its strategies to be customer focused. This will help the company to identify and meet the specific customer needs³.

Challenges of organizational change

Some institutions are characterized by central control of power whereby few individuals at the top make all decisions. Such organizations are often not successful in implementing changes in the organization. The leaders will always try to impose their ideas on the subordinates which lead to failure of the change process.

This shows the importance of involving everyone that will be affected by the change in developing and implementing the change. Therefore, if the leaders use force to implement changes they will end up failing. Effective management of resources is also a challenge to organizational change.

When an organization is intending to put in place some changes it must ensure that a plan that shows how resources will be used is made. The management must also ensure that those implementing the change stick to the plan. Otherwise, the implementation process might not be completed due to poor management of resources⁴.

Another challenge to organizational change that is associated to the need to overcome resistance is communication. Human beings are inherently opposed to change due to the fear of the unknown. Therefore, any attempts to change operations at the workplace will always face resistance some of which may be groundless.

This shows the importance of communication whereby any intended change should be effectively communicated to the members. This includes telling them of the benefits associated with the change, any risks involved and how the risks can be minimized. Therefore, employees are likely to support the changes if they have adequate information⁵.

Culture of an organization is another challenge to organizational change. Most organizational changes often change the existing culture within an organization but change in the organizational culture is not always welcomed by the members. This calls for a clear understanding of the culture to determine the effective approach of implementation⁶.

An experience with resistance to change

Windsor Development Inc., a microfinance company is involved in offering financial services to small and medium enterprises and performed most of operations manually. Therefore, management reached a decision to implement some technological changes that would help the company reduce its operation costs and improve efficiency in its services to customers.

However, the management did not consult with the employees before reaching the decision. The employees communicated through informal networks on how they would frustrate the change process. They feared that implementation of technology would lead to loss of employment for some of them.

Therefore, they threatened to down their tools if the management dared to implement the changes. This led to a standoff in the organization between the management and the employees. The employees saw the change as a threat to their employment but the management saw it as an opportunity for increasing operational efficiency⁷.

Productive measures to address the resistance

The management held a meeting with the employees whereby it explained to them the need to implement those changes and the benefits that would be realized if the changes were implemented successfully. In addition, the CEO directed the departmental managers to develop manuals that would explain in detail the changes which included the people to be affected either positively or negatively.

The CEO further promised that any member that will lose his job because of the changes would be compensated fairly. The management also promised to sponsor training on the technology for all employees. This was to help them to be equipped with the necessary skills. The employees therefore embraced the changes, because they now felt valued by the organization⁸.

Conclusion

Organizational change is very important in many ways which include fighting competition, increasing an organizations earnings and satisfying customer needs. Organizations can also adopt changes that will help it to reduce operation cost which leads to efficiency in operations. However, there are challenges that face an organization in an attempt to implement changes successfully.

These challenges are associated with the need to overcome resistance to change. They include misuse of power, effective management of resources, effective communication and organizational culture.

Therefore, the management needs to have a clear understanding of these challenges so that it can implement changes successfully. It is also important to address the fears of the employees even if some are ungrounded because will help in securing their support for the changes.

Bibliography

Belasen, Alan T. Leading the learning organization: communication and competencies for managing change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000.

Krawinkel, Bastian. The Importance of Organizational Learning in Change Processes. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag, 2008.

Osborne, Stephen P. and Brown, Kerry. Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.

Sisaye, Seleshi. Organizational change and development in management control systems: process innovation for internal auditing and management accounting. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing, 2001.

Wilson, John P. Human resource development: learning & training for individuals & organizations. London: Kogan Page Publishers, 2005.

Footnotes

¹ Krawinkel, Bastian. The Importance of Organizational Learning in Change Processes. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag, 2008 P. 7-14

² Osborne, Stephen P. and Kerry Brown Osborne, Stephen P. and Brown, Kerry. Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005 13-19

³ Belasen, Alan T. Leading the learning organization: communication and competencies for managing change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000p. 70-79

⁴. Wilson, John P. Human resource development: learning & training for individuals & organizations. London: Kogan Page Publishers, 200555-56

⁵Ibid p. 54

⁶ Sisaye, Seleshi. Organizational change and development in management control systems: process innovation for internal auditing and management accounting. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing, 2001. p.85-90

⁷ Osborne, Stephen P. and Kerry Brown. Supra, P. 72-79

⁸ Ibid

Examples of Organizations Experience of Change

Change can lead organizations either to success or failure. Organizational change is usually driven by necessity rather than anticipation, i.e., organizations tend to resort to change when there is a recognized need for such and a threat to their current operation, profits, or even existence. Changing thus becomes a way to survive, and the normal direction, in this case, is toward expanding: discovering new demand and engaging in new production. There are many examples of businesses that grew after pursuing organizational change. However, there are also examples of poor implementation or poor strategic planning, and some businesses have failed as a result of their attempts to change.

A positive example is Pearson, one of the largest publishers in the world. Though the company was quite successful, a new chief education advisor (CEA) decided to implement organizational change in 2011 (Radjou & Prabhu, 2013). He recognized that the company possessed sufficient assets and resources to become the biggest player in the education business. The CEA proposed restructuring with the main focus on efficacy, both internal and external. This means that the company formed goals to create a strategy of delivering high-quality education at the lowest possible cost and to operate as a global education organization with minimal resources. The change was challenging, and the resistance was intense, but the company managed to succeed due to proper planning and communication.

An example of poor organizational change is the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber. A leading player in its industry, the company had constantly been growing, but its profits immediately decreased when a different company introduced a new technology (radial tires), against which Firestone could not compete (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2014). Technological myopia was an issue, but there was a need for action. The company attempted to change, but the power of inertia was too strong. Existing procedures were too inflexible for change, and the company fell behind its competitors. This illustrates how the rigidity of operation and an established formula for success can harm a business.

Personal Reflection on Organizational Change

I think that managing organizational change should be focused on ensuring that every modification is justified and linked to a goal that is clearly defined before implementing change. Also, it is important for managers to realize that organizational change is not the same as altering existing procedures by force from abovea change that is imposed like this is likely to fail. Instead, the purposes of change and the potential positive outcomes need to be properly communicated to employees, who should be willing to adopt new practices.

I do not think that organizations can avoid changing in the modern world. They either change or fail. Demand is constantly changing, and technology is constantly changing, which is why businesses should change, too (Radjou & Prabhu, 2013). Besides, there are many businesses around that do change, so they are more likely to develop competitive advantages than those that prefer to stay the same.

I believe that change should be driven by leaders (as opposed to grassroots movements) because it is the responsibility of the leadership to see the bigger picture and to suggest how distant goals can be achieved (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2014). Organizational change should be conducted strategically, and it is the leadership that is in charge of strategies. However, grassroots initiatives should not be ignored because they may provide perspectives for business development that are invisible for some reason to the leaders.

Organizational change normally faces resistance, and it should be addressed through communication efforts, but I think that organizations should not resist change if there is an acknowledged need for it. Companies rarely perish due to change, but they often perish due to staying the same, which is why I believe that changing is more of a good thing despite its difficulties.

References

Ferrell, L., & Ferrell, O. C. (2014). Examining organizational integrity failures. In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), Business and corporate integrity: Sustaining organizational compliance, ethics, and trust (pp. 181-204). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Radjou, N., & Prabhu, J. (2013). How Pearson is reinventing global education. Web.

Organizational change is an integral component of development and moving forward. Change in education is primarily aimed at continuous improvement. There are many educational change models, which have some common characteristics. This analysis compares ideas of Fullan (2016), Herdrich (2003), and Moffett (2000) for change implementation expressed in change models and provides an example of introducing change in an educational institution.

The model of continuous improvement process and sustaining educational change developed by Herdrich (2003) comprises the following elements. First of all, it is necessary to define where the organization is at the moment, reveal its mission and goals. This element is followed by the assessment of needs and planning, which is similar to the aspect described by Fullan (2016) as repositioning planning. Fullan (2016) also includes the evaluation of reasons for change failure. Some of these reasons include the use of incomplete ideas, excessive planning, the lack of action, human factor, and pressure. To empower change, it is necessary to understand the organization as a system and consider the human element.

Moffett (2000) also analyzes initiation, implementation, and sustaining change in education. He claims that there is a need for developing a reform-support infrastructure thus providing a solid basis for future change. Also, it is important to stimulate the creation of professional communities (Moffett, 2000).

This idea recalls the suggestion of Fullan (2016) to consider the human element and its goals partially coincide with professional development activities included as an element of a change model by Herdrich (2003). Moreover, these professional development activities are identical with the idea of abundant staff development provision included by Moffett (2000). Another similarity can be traced in assessment as the necessary component of change, which is suggested by both Fullan (2016) and Herdrich (2003).

I have experienced the implementation of the unsuccessful change initiative. On the one hand, it was based on some useful elements of the change process, but there were some drawbacks that led to change failure. Thus, it was an attempt to introduce information technology in the process of learning. Certainly, IT in education is a common practice. Nevertheless, the school that initiated this change was not technically prepared to provide an educational process with the necessary equipment. Also, parents of students refused to by new gadgets or allow their children to take their laptops or tablets to school. Consequently, the change initiative failed.

Some reasons for this failure can be identified. First of all, there was a careful planning process. However, it did not include the funding aspect. Hence, the plan was more theoretical than practical and proved to be inefficient. Fullan (2016) singles out such reason of planning failure as not taking into account the local context. This reason is also applicable to this case because the ability and desire of parents buy new gadgets to their children were not assessed and not considered.

Moreover, the lack of action became another cause of the change failure. The problem of equipping classrooms had to be solved before the beginning of the academic year, but it also remained only in the plan. Consequently, no positive results could be expected. In fact, the complexity inherent in the change initiative was not addressed. Finally, the human element, which is also significant, was not taken into account (Fullan, 2016). The reaction of parents was not predicted before implementation. Therefore, their resistance to pressure from the school administration did not contribute to the successful change implementation.

References

Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Herdrich. (2003). Research based change model.

Moffett, C. A. (2000). Sustaining change: The answers are blowing in the wind. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 35-38.

Abstract

Facing changes in business operational dynamics requires embracement of organizational transformations. The current paper investigates the value and mechanism of enhancing organizational change with particular focus on the Emirates National Oil Company (ENOC). The company embraced change through alteration of governance structures from four to seven segments.

It also considered implementation of an organizational change that was tagged Shared Service Concept (SSC). Implementing these changes called for alteration of roles and responsibilities of some personnel who were in charge of running the company.

Consistent with Lewins model for organizational change implementation, such changes must be accompanied by increased pay packages. However, this strategy was not the case for ENOC. The paper recommends reconsideration of this omission, which may affect the morale and motivation of ENOCs workforce.

Organizational Background

Emirates National Oil Company (ENOC) is a huge energy group in Dubai that was established in 1993. Based in the UAE, ENOC is owned by the Dubai government. Most of its operations are in Dubai and Northern Emirates in the UAE. ENOC processing Company, EPCL, is one of ENOCs subsidiaries run by Jebel Ali refinery whose operations are mainly in Dubai.

As stipulated in the companys vision, the main interest of ENOC is in gas and oil. ENOC has more than 20 subsidiaries, which are owned both directly and indirectly. Since ENOC was established, it has made enormous progress towards meeting the companys objectives and achieving its mission and vision.

ENOCs vision is to be a leading regional integrated oil and gas group, which is highly profitable and socially responsible towards employees, community, and environment (ENOC 2012, Para.1). This vision is developed through the statement of the mission of the company.

The company sates that its mission is to gain sustainable development in the effort to maximize the profitability of the organization. It plans to meet the energy growing needs of the people of Dubai by having an up-to-date technology to use in the implementation of the organizations practices.

By so doing, it will achieve an excellent performance by giving customers the best service by exceeding their expectations in terms of quality and service (ENOC 2012, Para.3). Additionally, the company aims to gain and maintain industry standards in environment, health, and safety together with bringing, making, and retaining employees with top talents.

Faced by various operational challenges, the company has considered various mechanisms of inducing organizational change in the effort to gain competitive advantage in its industry of operation. An organizational framework for change is the review of the organizational structure, which checks deeper into the relationships between positions in the organization (Spector 2007).

The review seeks to improve the organizational needs. ENOC has been encountering various organizational challenges, which prompted for putting in place various organizational changes to enhance the performance of the organization.

Purpose for Adopting Change

Organizations in all industries are interested in maintaining their levels of competitiveness for continued delivery of value to their owners- shareholders. In fact, according to Bertscherk and Kaiser (2004), any organization in todays fast moving environment that is looking for the pace of change to slow is likely to be sorely disappointed (p.395).

This argument means that organizations need to welcome and embrace change that would increase their performance. Zhou and Tse (2006) support this assertion by maintaining that organizations that are reluctant to embrace change risk losing their competitive edge and hence miss the capacity to realize the needs of their clients together with delivering value to shareholders and other interest groups (p.249).

In the line of improving service delivery and hence retaining of clientele of ENOC, the companys management found it plausible to initiate various changes. Some of these changes include the introduction of the shared service concept (SSC) and the restructuring of the organization to enhance management and governance.

The above changes were paramount in terms of addressing the challenges articulated to the status quo. Indeed, the change management theory suggests, organizations benefit from change that result in new ways of looking at customer needs, new ways of delivering customer service, new ways of strengthening customer interaction, and new products that might attract new markets (Oxtoby, McGuiness & Morgan 2002, p.312).

By simply asking how and why an organization is not able to attain certain specified goals in the organizations visions and mission statements, an opportunity is created for adoption of creative and innovative strategies for enhancing success. In fact, change at ENOC is not only significant to the owners of the company since they would benefit from increased returns owing to good governance practices but also to the employees.

Leigh and Media (2013) support this augment by further maintaining, change is important in organizations to allow employees to learn new skills, explore new opportunities, and exercise their creativity in ways that ultimately benefit the organization through new ideas and increased commitment (Para.3).

This argument implies that organizational change is all about enhancing the performance of employees by putting in place mechanisms of enabling them to achieve better outputs. One of such an approach is diversification of the jobs done by employees in organizations.

Appreciating this noble paradigm of organizational change, it perhaps underlines the significance of ENOC changes in terms of restructuring the organization to comprise seven structures rather than four strictures, as it was previously the case before implementation of the change.

At ENOC, change was implemented for various reasons. The organization structural changes were implemented in 2011 in the effort to keep at the pace with the growing need for increased performance in the quest to acquire competitiveness. In fact, before this change, 30 companies comprising the business segments of ENOC were managed through only four structures.

These segments were corporate departments and the international refinery marketing and retail while not negating supply and trading segment. The main task of these four segments was to provide cute management of noncore together with core business of the organization. However, management and alignment of these cores and noncore business were incredibly difficult to realize.

Faced with this challenge, the organizations board strategically focused on enactment of organizational change that would ensure more business focus together with better alignment.

The most effective and practical change adopted by the board was restructuring of the organization to create four more business model management segments that were consistent with the business activities of ENOC. The aim was to make such business activities for ENOC more effective and efficient.

Parties and Stakeholders involved in the Change

Change within any organization affects all parties that are involved in the day-to-day running of organization affairs including the employees. For the case of ENOC, implementing change in the organizational structures and the inculcation of the shared service concept, many stakeholders, rather than just the subordinate employees were impacted.

The realization of SSC governance required proactive participation of the shared service executive committee (SSEC). In the realization of change, this committee was mandated to carry a number of responsibilities. One of such responsibilities was to set the strategy and strategy directions.

This step entails approval of the SSC missions and vision together with values that comply precisely with the corporate objectives driving the spirit of change.

It also involves making approval for the strategic plans of the SSC and business plans, deriving and facilitating the implementation of the operating principles for clients that would enhance better service provision, and presenting various concerns of SSC in other organizational managerial forums.

Successful implementation of the change also required the inputs of the policy and stewardship, operations management, and the financial management personnel. From the context of the financial management, the personnel serving in the financial management docket at ENOC were impacted by the change.

In addition to their traditional roles in the organization, implementation of the shared service change added extra roles to them. They were required to facilitate success of change through making approval for the SSC budgetary requirements, labor plans, and unit prices for the service provided.

They also made approval for capital expenditure coupled with capital allocations related to SSC besides providing financial objectives of SSC, setting targets, and providing audits for financial performance of the SSC.

The operations management also needed to take up extra roles that added into their workload at ENOC. The personnel in operations management were required to make approval for the proposals akin to successful execution of outsourcing services and establishing various criteria for determining the priorities and mechanisms of resolution to various customer disputes coupled with other service units.

They were also required to evaluate and make recommendations that endorsed appointments for the senior management together with users council memberships and utilizing the KPL performance standards to review performance of the endorsed persons. They were also to establish existing gaps in SSC anticipated outputs.

For the successful realization of the calls for change to embrace the SSC strategy, the policy and stewardship personnel were anticipated to achieve two main things. The first one is to provide approvals for the SSC-particular policies and procedures that would produce success of the desired change.

Secondly, they were mandated to enhance consistency in the operations of SSC in a manner that measures up to the policies and objectives of the corporate.

Change Implementation

After identification of the necessary changes in organizations that would produce short-term and long- term success, the next step is the implementation of the changes. This step is done with the help of a particular theoretical model for change implementation such as Lewins Model and Sequential Model among others. An example of change models is shown in fig.1 below. Booz & Company deploys this model.

Considering the purpose and the parties involved in enhancing change at ENOC, it is evident that ENOC change is implementable through Lewins Model. Spector (2007) supports this assertion that Lewins model for organizational change is realized through three main stages: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing (p.29).

In the unfreezing stage, an organization creates and interrogates whether the current practices (status quo) are appropriate. For ENOC, the response to this query was no. Consequently, the company progressed to stage two of the Lewins model for change implementation entailing the redesigning and reorganization of responsibilities and roles of various stakeholders who are in charge of implementing the changes (Spector 2007).

The second stage aspect was successfully achieved through determination of mandates of various stakeholders who were charged with enhancing the SCC and restructuring of ENOC. However, the third stage in the Lewins model, which is alignment of pay-and-reward systems with the new responsibilities and roles, is missing in the case of ENOC.

According to Lewins model for change implementations, in the first stage an organizational also needs to consider diagnosis of internal barriers to improve performance followed by promotion of supporters or removal of resistors in the second stage (Spector 2007, p.29). In such an effort, an organization has to create new structures. This argument perhaps explains well ENOC experience with organizational change in 2011.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Change

The effectiveness of change may be assessed from a number of dimensions. One of such dimensions is the extent to which the adopted changes comply with various standard practices coupled with the existing industry success benchmarks. Therefore, it is important for ENOC to review its performance upon implementation of changes for consistency with KPLs standards.

Where gaps are identified, possible recommendations for additional changes are made. Evaluation is aimed at comparing the strategies of change with the desired outputs (Piderit 2000, p.785).

Indeed, in any organizational change, apart from the persons that are influenced by the change in terms of alteration and or additions of their roles and responsibilities, parties who gain from the change are also part of the change. The gains achieved act as indicators of the effectiveness of the change.

From the above argument, owners of ENOC who are also the shareholders of the company are the chief beneficiaries of the of the ENOCs organizational change. The goal of the SSC change strategy for enhancing the performance of ENOC is tied within the paradigms of the relevance of adding value and delivering it to the organizational stakeholders. Value here implies adding benefits to the shareholders.

However, this goal cannot be achieved without increasing service demand, which is achieved by increasing the value of the service delivered by a company to the clients-customers (Leigh & Media 2013). This argument implies that the effectiveness of the change can be evaluated from the context of the magnitude of clientele demand for ENOCs services.

The above argument underlines the significance of alteration of the organizational administrative structure of ENOC in the quest to deliver services that are cost effective, timely, and value adding.

Measuring the effectiveness of organizational change from the context of the capacity of SSC change to satisfy the diversified needs of customers means that customers are plausible indicators of success of any change that is adopted by an organization.

With regard to Zhou and Tse (2006), such an attempt is crucial in helping to leverage resources and systems to enhance processes and service levels to build and maintain a sustainable customer-centered partnership with all stakeholders (p.260).

The central argument here is the objective of organizational change is to influence customers by adding value to the services delivered to them in the effort to retain and maintain them as stipulated in the mission statement of ENOC Company.

Recommendations

Changes of organizational structures and SSC strategies are important aspects of organizational change that would enhance the long-term and short-term performance of ENOC. Consistent with the third stage of the Lewins model for change implementation, an organization aligns its pay and reward systems with the altered roles of various organizational stakeholders.

The discussion of paper identified that this aspect was missing for the case of ENOC. As a recommendation, in the quest to ensure that ENOC succeeds with implementation of the changes, the company also needs to consider keeping the personnel in charge of the changes motivated and aligned with the organizational goals and objectives of the change.

This step needs to be done through a revision of reward and remuneration packages for all personnel whose responsibilities and roles in the organization have increased because of the new organizational changes.

References

Bertscherk, I & Kaiser, U 2004, Productivity Effects of Organizational Change: Microeconometric Evidence, Management Science, vol. 50 no. 3, pp. 394-404.

Booz & Company 2010, Shared Service Centre, Booz & Co., Dubai.

ENOC 2012, ENOC Vision and Mission Statement. Web.

Leigh, R & Media, D 2013, Why is Change Important in an Organization?. Web.

Oxtoby, B, McGuiness, T, & Morgan, R 2002, Developing Organizational Change Capability, European Management Journal, vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 310-320.

Piderit, K 2000, Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change, Academy of Management Review, vol. 25 no.12, pp. 783794.

Spector, B 2007, Implementing Organizational Change: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Zhou, Z & Tse, D 2006, Organizational changes in emerging economies: drivers and consequences, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37 no.13, pp. 248-263.

The first frame essential to organization change is human resource. The specific barrier to change is that people feel incompetent and needy (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The cases of Honk Kong Chinese employees provide examples of the use of organizational processes, such as soliciting and accepting voice and engaging in problem solving discussions (Snell et al., 2021, p. 103). The strategy of participation and involvement of employees allowed Hong Kong businesses to overcome employees lack of confidence.

The second frame important for a successful organizational change is structural. The loss of direction constitutes the example of a barrier (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The study of the construction industry in Addis Ababa City has ascertained that employees with insufficient communication have the worst results (Fromsa et al. 2020). The strategy that helped companies mitigate the lack of communication was direct supervision on construction sites.

The third frame that has to be considered is political. The specific barrier to change is disempowerment, which prevents lower-ranking employees from committing to their work (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The case study of Honk Kong businesses by Snell et al. (2021) has showcased the prevalence of superior manipulation. The development of a cooperative arena has allowed the companies to involve employees in decision-making thus restoring mutual respect.

The fourth frame important for organization change is symbolic. A specific barrier that hinges meaningful changes is clinging to past (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Lewis et al. (2017) mention the study of Virgin Atlantic implementing a different advertising campaign that allowed it overcome traditional gender stereotypes. By choosing a strategy celebrating the future free od sexist assumptions, the company managed to encode new meaning of aesthetics in the airlines industry.

In conclusion, it should be evident that using each frame would result in a fundamental organizational change. The case study of a European financial services provider AssetCo provides an example of a company that experienced four frame changes (Chanias et al., 2019). Digital transformation has enhanced the role of employees, making their opinions both influential and valued by higher management, while promoting new ideas of a digital corporate culture.

References

Bolman & Deal (2017). Chapters 18-19, Reframing Change in Organizations, and Reframing Ethics and Spirit, in L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal (Eds.), Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (pp. 359-397). John Wiley & Sons.

Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17-33. Web.

Fromsa, A., Ararsa, W., & Quezon, E. T. (2020). Effects of poor workmanship on building construction and its implication to project management practice: A case study in Addis Ababa City. Journal of Xidian University, 14(9). Web.

Lewis, P., Benschop, Y., & Simpson, R. (2017). Postfeminism, gender and organization. Gender, Work and Organization, 24(3), 213-225. Web.

Snell, R. S., Chak, A. M. K., Wong, M. M. L., & Hui, S. S. K. (2021). Self-perceived misattributed culpability or incompetence at work. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 103-128. Web.