Category: Organizational Change

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 D’amelio, 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 one’s 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. Leader’s 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 Schon’s Contributions To Organization Theory And Intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23(5),PP. 543-562.

Ford, J., Ford, L. And D’amelio, 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.

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 Wilder’s 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.

Employee’s 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 customer’s 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 Store’s 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 employee’s morale and customer’s loyalty.

The fact that Wilder’s 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 Wilder’s 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 management’s 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 Wilder’s 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 Wilder’s 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 Wilder’s 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 Wilder’s 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 store’s 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 cashier’s 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 client’s and clerk’s 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 store’s 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 Wilder’s 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 individual’s 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 kotter’s 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 world’s 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 individual’s 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 Wilder’s 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.799–822. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Web.

Introduction

Current global organizational changes threaten to make yesterday’s managers outdated. However, awareness of the changes and how to take advantage of them offers tomorrow’s 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 today’s 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.

Introduction

Organizational change happens in response to change in the organization’s 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 company’s 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 organization’s 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

Introduction

Researchers first began to toy with the idea of sustainability due to the environmental pressures associated with the world’s ever growing population (Millar et al. 489). The population’s expansion has forced nations to make infrastructural and social adjustments to accommodate the growing numbers.

These adjustments are more significant when viewed with respect to natural resources, such as crude oil and coal, which are non-renewable in nature. Increased numbers have meant that over the decades they have continued to attract greater demand. Initially, technological advancements were lauded for making it possible for multitudes to access these resources. However, the same technology resulted in over exploitation of these very resources.

The net result has been that the exploitation of the natural resources is such that their availability for future generations is increasingly under threat. Herein, the concept of sustainable development raises, whereby present advancements in exploitation should be done with the interest of safeguarding the same resources’ availability for future generations (Millar et al. 490). Based on the importance of sustainability, this paper looks at how the concept affects organizational changes and transformations in commerce.

Importance of Sustainability

Over the years, sustainability in economics has greatly evolved to include commercial activities. Sustainable development now widely involves management practices that are governing how organizations tackle their daily issues. These issues are in the form of personal, commercial and political nature and are the ones that may hamper long term sustainable commercial growth (Millar et al. 493). An example of such an issue is poverty.

According to the fact of how businesses are run, commerce functions are such that more money generates more money. If the trend of the rich continuing to get richer is not checked, the effect is that more persons in the middle class will keep on feeling the pressure of the spending power of an increasingly stronger upper class. The situation becomes worse when the poor are involved, as the unique challenges that they face mean that they continue becoming even more disenfranchised.

The issue of poverty has thus forced many organizations to look into ways in which their practices can help to transform the lives of the communities in which they operate. This corporate-social responsibility and transformation in vision are done with the hope of empowering communities. From this empowerment, companies eventually reap the benefits of an increasingly skilled labor force and increased spending power for their products by the community in the future.

The need for changes in traditional management methods that sustainability brought to organizations was a great deterrent to the concept. The reasoning behind the laxity by firms to jump into the sustainability bandwagon was mainly due to the additional costs related to transformation.

However, due to the increased competition from the globalization of commerce, many organizations face increasing difficulties to remain profitable in their own economies. In order to increase competitive advantage, the concept of sustainable development in business is now being viewed as an investment.

The future reward of this investment, many CEOs believe, is such that those companies that make sustainability a lynchpin of their vision will be more competitive and better placed to benefit economically. According to a study by the UN, 93% of CEOs interviewed believe that sustainability is fundamental for future success of their organizations and that in 15 years time; sustainability will be a default part in company strategies (Millar et al. 490).

The challenge of implementing sustainability’s measures in organization lies squarely on the leadership and management of an organization. This is due to the fact that management is responsible for setting up a company’s targets and priorities (Millar et al. 494). Despite the fact that many business leaders accept the significance of sustainability in their practice, the statement that they view its future goal means that many may not necessarily prioritize sustainability.

The problem with this is that organizations will continue to put off sustainability in favor of short term goals and in the end sustainability just remains a well-written business plan. To ensure that this situation does not happen, the implementation of a sustainability program should commence as soon as the management adopts the program.

This will enable the process to gradually grow on the entire organization and become easily integrated to the operations of the firm. The organizational change influences employee perception and ultimately leads to smoother implementation over time.

A reliable way of successful implementation of sustainability is to go beyond merely changing employee’s perception and also bring about changes to the leadership. Management ought to encourage responsible leadership in the sustainability program by entrusting its employees with additional authority and power (Millar et al. 491).

This can be achieved by adaptation of a consultative approach during the drawing up of a sustainability plan, allocation of resources for the program and general decision making. Through such measures, the introduction of a sustainability program is not viewed as a management initiative but rather as a process owned by the entire organization.

For providing this, certain organizational aspects, such as the vision and mission of the firm, have to be changed. It may look like a trivial matter but in the long run, any far reaching changes that are introduced to an organization have to be linked with a firm’s future plans if the comprehensive changes are to lead to further success.

Once sustainability is adopted, the organization as a whole ought to be committed to the program. Commitment is an important aspect that should be present in a firm once a sustainability initiative has been prioritized (Millar et al. 495). The importance of commitment comes into play especially in the initial implementation phases when teething troubles arise.

Apart from the operational aspects, the management has to be utterly committed due to the fact that during the commencement of the program, profitability of the firm may become affected. This is the make or break period during which a business has to evaluate its priorities and decide what line of action suits them better. If the management team views short term profitability as their main motivation, then inevitably any plans of sustainability that they hope to implement are doomed to fail long before they are in place.

Conclusion

The evolution of sustainability into a major part of business and strategic planning was a timely act especially with the increased globalization of commerce. By drawing its origins in environmental issues, sustainability has shown that an organization’s competitive advantage is a treasured resource for any firm.

In case organizations are willing to remain relevant in the future and attain continued growth, measures should be taken to ensure that they maintain or even improve this competitive advantage. Therefore, sustainability becomes the answer, whereby organizations include sustainable development practices in their policies and visions.

Implementation of sustainability plans should thereafter commence gradually with the aid of the staff helping the management and leadership. Significant sacrifices might be required in order to the implementation of the initiative to become successful. An organization should be content to make the necessary sacrifices unless sustainability does not rank very high in their list of priorities.

Works Cited

Millar, Carla et al. “Sustainability and the need for change: Organizational change and transformational vision.”Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25.4 (2012): pp. 489-500. Print.

Organizational change is carried out to enhance the functioning of the organization or a section of the organization. Change should not just be done without reason but should be done to improve the organization’s performance. Thus, thorough research is required before embarking on it.

This paper studies the need for change in organizations. It first examines the external and internal environments that affect change. It examines the driving forces of change by focusing on stakeholder analysis, SWOT analysis, and Kotter’s vision on organizational change. It studies the types of change and the major elements of change, resistance to change, and the assessment of change.

Organizational change takes place, especially when an institution changes its general success policy, gets rid of or adds an important practice or department or intends to change its way of operation. It also takes place when an institution advances through various life stages. For development to take place in an organization, it has to go through several changes at various stages in growth (Coghlan, 1994). Managers often strive to achieve success as required by their jobs.

Need for a strategy

Big performing organizations successfully influence their companies more efficiently than competitors and get more than 64% on profit from each worker than next-level performers. Fewer organizations; however view their companies strategically as they should – which is shocking looking at the degree to which institutions potentials and performance steer today’s business importance. Today’s businesses are not well equipped to give the expected business results of tomorrow (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

Various changes are necessary to ensure that strategic objective is totally accomplished. Unfortunately, many organizations change their business strategies into specific and workable plans, but the same extent of rigor is seldom given to the institutional allegations of the strategy (Ford & Ford, 2009).

Efficient organizational strategy allows an organization to grow into a company that can convey its strategy. Organizational strategy shows the importance of change in an organization and gives the strategy of the business plus a workable plan to execute the change.

Causes of Organizational Change

The technology used in organizations is often replaced over time. This implies that an organization requires to be open to innovation in technology. The skills of employees also need to be improved with the improvement in technology. Organizations which are not ready for change are less likely to exist in the coming years (Laurie et al., 2006). Organizations that want to be successful must be ready to embrace change and adapt to new environments.

Organizations undergo transformation times that can lead to stress and reluctance. Organizations must advance in production technologies, make new products demanded in the market, improve the skills of its workers and instigate new systems of administration. Organizations that successfully adjust are always profitable and respected. Managers are supposed to compete with every aspect that has an effect on their organizations (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

Factors that affect the environment are clustered into external factors and internal factors. External factors include social/cultural, political/legal, physical/natural technological, competitive, and global market factors. Internal factors include the company’s stability, people, attention to detail, innovation, and risk-taking (Kvernbekk, 2011).

External Analysis

No organization can exist without the influence of other organizations. It has to interact with others over time, including the customers, stakeholders, the government, suppliers, and unions (Coghlan, 1994). Every organization has responsibilities and objectives connected to each other in the business environment.

External factors manipulating change as mentioned above include social-cultural, political, natural, technological, competitive, and international market factors. Changes in these forces can lead to organizational changes like economic control, relations in the management of labor, production process, and the environment of competition (Isaksen, 2007).

Technology changes over time because of globalization. When a slight change is experienced in technology, organizations reduce their efficiency in costs and their competitive positions are weakened. These companies have to comply with the change and accept the new technology. This means that new software should be purchased affecting the running of the organization.

Given that all organizations export their products, they have to encounter competition in the global market. There are various forces that may influence the competitive place of an organization – these are other companies supplying the same outputs, and consumers that are not purchasing the output.

Any alterations in these forces needs appropriate changes in the organization. With a liberalized economy, there are very many international organizations in the market. This implies that organizations should have to restructure themselves to comply with the new situation (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008).

Buyers have constant changing demands on the products and services offered in the market. Organizations will therefore need to change their products to meet the requirements of the buyers (Petrescu, 2011).

Socio-cultural changes are evident in the daily lives of people in terms of their methods of working, needs and objectives. They affect the behavior of the workers in organizations and are as a result of different educational backgrounds, urbanization, self-governance and globalization. Adjustments are therefore necessary to tone with people.

Legal and political factors majorly describe the activities that can be undertaken by an organization and techniques that will be pursued by it in reaching those interests (Kereber & Buono, 2005). Any changes in these factors may influence the running of the organization.

Internal analysis

Any alteration in the internal factors of an organization may demand change. Such changes are needed due to changes in management personnel and insufficiency in present organizational customs. There is always a change in managerial positions within organizations due to retirement, dismissal, promotion or transfers.

Every leader works in whatever way they know best. When a new leader is appointed, he brings in his own ideas with him (Maurer, 2011). Employee – management relationship often changes due to new management. To add on that, the personnel will change their outlook on operations even though there are no changes thereby forcing the organization to change.

The nature of the personnel changes with time. Employees who are above 50 years are loyal and respect their employers. Employees between 30 and 40 years are only loyal to themselves. Employees below 30 years only respect their careers and are loyal to them. The personnel profile is rapidly changing too (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

The new generation of employees is well educated and concentrates on personal value and even query the authority of the management. They have a very complex behavior, thus driving them to achieve organizational success which is difficult for the managers.

The stability of an organization is a major internal factor of change. When an organization has financial problems, the management will have to look at every possible alternative for the business to survive. These alternatives may include reducing operations, doing away with programs, which are not profitable and cutting operating costs.

Cutting costs may even mean reducing the number of employees. Downsizing of employees often brings numerous problems caused by overworking, which may lead to employee strikes (Isaksen, 2007). The management usually faces hard times as they are confused on what measure to take. It is important that they consult different constituents to come up with the best solution that will not greatly affect the running of the organization.

Stakeholder Analysis and Management (Kotter)

Stakeholder analysis is not a very simple task to perform. The leader has to come up with decisions that may affect or be affected by needs of stakeholders. Stakeholders have the capacity to oppose changes made in an organization or influence them (Kotter, 1990). Stakeholders’ interest is not only in the financial benefits of an organization but also on its management.

The importance of analyzing the various interests of stakeholders in an organization is to invent a plan that can get the biggest support. This involves doing away with barriers that could hinder the change from taking place.

Stakeholder analysis entails involving stakeholders at every stage of the organizational change to enhance the efficiency of programs and services.

The process of solicitating interests, priorities, and concerns of stakeholders in the initial stages of monitoring and evaluation, helps in addressing the needs of stakeholders and also assists in behavioral change. Involving stakeholders and putting their opinions to account gives prospects to inquire on assumptions and investigate other explanations and add to innovation and learning. It also enhances the acceptance of change (Kotter, 1990).

Identification of Customers, Suppliers, and Competitors (Porter’s 5-Forces Model)

Rivalries usually develop among organizations competing for the same market. Competitors employ methods of advertising, warranties, and competitions of prices to improve their market share in specific industries. Rivalry may sometimes cause slow growth in industries and price cutting and investments of high-stake. Changes that may be introduced in any organization should be positive to give it a competitive edge.

The strength of suppliers is enhanced when a group of companies run them because there will be no substitute products. The organization has no control over these effects. Organizational changes should always be strategized to modify the power of suppliers (Stonehouse & Snowdon, 2007).

The power of buyers is vital. Buyers are capable of pushing prices down and demanding better quality products and services. Buyers are more powerful when they are in large numbers, the products and services are important aspects of the buyer, switching costs are minimal, and the buyer has complete disclosure on supply, costs, demand, and prices. The bargaining power of buyers varies with time and the competitive strategy of an organization.

The threat of new entrants relies on an industry’s economies of scale, switching costs, product differentiation, government regulations, and requirements of capital for entry (Potter, 1998). New organizations can anticipate barriers like technology, labor forces, and strategic planning in the business.

Driving and restraining forces

Driving forces encourage the process of change to have effect. They easen the process of change as they push people toward the direction of change, and cause a move in equilibrium towards change. Restraining forces oppose driving forces. They prevent change as they make people go against change. They therefore influence a shift in equilibrium, which counters the effort of change (Humphreys, 2005).

Passive resistance

This is a method of protest that does not involve any violence against laws so as to force a change. It involves acts like strikes, demonstrations, and boycotts. Passive resistance has characteristics like worrying and complaining about the strategy of change management. Passive resistance is a serious case and needs to be reviewed. It is a distraction that can reduce the pace of the whole organization’s rate of learning and acceptance of the strategy of change management.

Aggressive resistance

Aggressive resistance is expressed in hostile behaviors that show aggression. It can be defined as a personality disorder expressed by negative attitudes and resistance in work-related situations. This type of resistance is manifested in procrastination, stubbornness, and deliberate failures in completing tasks that one is assigned (Ford & Ford, 2009).

Embracing change

For the continued existence of organizations, it is necessary to adapt to new environmental and market demands. Employees and organizations that embrace change are more successful, unlike the resistors who eventually accept change. Sometimes change is so difficult that it is sometimes resisted. The process of change needs determination and vision. During the process of change, motivators, and trainings are necessary. The environment should be conducive enough to allow change.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT signifies the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of an organization. SWOT analysis evaluates the internal weaknesses and strengths of a company with threats and opportunities in its external surroundings. It is an important planning tool when evaluating an organization.

It is founded on the notion that managers can use it to choose the perfect strategy to ensure the success of an organization. An organization’s strength is very important as it grants a competitive advantage over other similar companies. It gives an organization a good position in the market. Organizations should ensure that they do not affect their strengths while implementing changes (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

A weakness on the other hand, puts an organization at risk. It is a disadvantage of the company, and it makes it viable to competitive forces (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008). Weaknesses need to be scrutinized closely as they can cause the downfall of organizations. Weaknesses may include lack of a clear vision, poor image, poor technology and facilities, and low employee motivation.

An organization should ensure that implementation of any change is aimed at reducing the weaknesses in the organization and not enhancing them. Change should always do away with the weaknesses if not reduce them.

Opportunities are conditions that favor the organization and can be employed for constructive reasons. Opportunities are usually presented by the outside environment, and it is up to the company to maximize on them (Kereber & Buono, 2005).

These opportunities may be brought about by a conducive change in the environment or by the government in making the external environment suitable for them. Examples of opportunities may include new improved technologies, vertical integration, and powerful economies. Leaders should ensure that any change implemented will maximize all the organization’s opportunities.

Not all changes have a positive impact in the organization. External changes may also be a threat to the organizations. Leaders should be able to foresee such probable threats and impact changes that will neutralize the threat. New regulations, economic recession, and cheaper technology are examples of threats. Organizational changes should help in the reducing the effects of these threats and not enhance them.

Kotter’s view on change

Sense of urgency

For change to take place, it is easier if the whole organization needs the change. A sense of urgency on the need for change needs to be created. This assists in enhancing the initial plan of making things happen (Kotter, 1990). It should be a very convincing talk on the current status of the market and what the organization’s competitors are doing that has necessitated change. If employees start discussing the change, it is as good as done.

This talk should include the identification of possible threats to organizations and demonstrate what could take place in the future. The leader should look at the opportunities that can be exploited by the organization should the change be implemented. Initiate a powerful discussion that will convince the employees and get them thinking.

Consultation to support the argument can be sought from stakeholders and customers that are not directly linked to the organization. Kotter stresses that change cannot be effective if three-quarters of the organization are not for the idea. Therefore, the need for change should be stressed to employees for them to understand and buy into the change (Kerber & Buono, 2005).

Formation of a strong Coalition

People need to be convinced that they need the proposed change. This requires powerful leadership and evident support from the top management in the organization. Change should not just be managed but sustained. A coalition is therefore important to persuade the employees who have different sources of power like political significance, status, and skills.

When the coalition is organized, it should move together as a team and continue to develop the urgency and force surrounding the need for change (Humpreys & Langford, 2008). For a coalition to be formed; the leaders need to be identified and emotional support sought from them. Team building also has to be reinforced in the coalition. Weak areas in the team need to be discovered and filled. The team should also have various employees from different sections and levels of the organization.

Develop a vision for change

Before a vision is developed the organization needs to know its current state and what it intends to achieve from the change. When a vision is clear, employees get to understand the importance of change and why they should embrace it. When employees get the picture of what the change will do for them and for the organization, they will see the reason for change and accept it.

The most important values need to be sought first followed by a statement of the expectations of the change in future. The vision should be executed by creating a strategy that can execute it. The coalition formed should understand the vision and practice it most of the time (Mathews, 2009).

Communicating the vision

Conveying the vision after its formation is very important. The vision needs to be communicated regularly and powerfully to make it more effective. It should also be inclined with everything that happens in the organization. The vision should not just be communicated in meetings but all the time. It should also be employed in the handling of issues in the organization and making of decisions. It should be top of the mind in every employee’s mind and demonstrated by the leaders (Isaksen, 2007).

Do away with obstacles

The above steps done, it is assumed that the employees will concentrate on the changes. Although all this is taking place, the management should ensure that there are no barriers disrupting the process of change. Doing away with obstacles can help in empowering of employees implement the vision and assist the process of change forge ahead.

Types of change

There are three types of change that are interrelated. These are guided, planned, and directed change. Directed change is propelled from top management and depends on authority, conformity, and persuasion. Leaders develop and state the change and try to convince the employees to embrace it, according to the importance of the business, emotional pleas, and logical reasons. Directed change exposes a quick, important approach to initiating change in an institution.

Planned change, which is very common, originates from any point in the organization although it is supported by the top. Leaders of change and initiators look for involvement in and loyalty to change by employing the use of particular actions, categorized through experience and investigations, which moderate the normal opposition and productivity damages linked with directed change (Coghlan, 1994).

Rather than developing and proclaiming a change, planned change gives an approach to the process of change. It tries make people participate in the process of change, recognizing, and supporting major stakeholders to take part in the outline and execution of the change.

Guided change is a completely different type of change. It originates at any level in the organization. It is founded on the loyalty of the employees and their input to the objective of the organization. In the competitive environment of today, this is the best method as it maximizes the skills and creativity of employees, as natural changes surface and develop, reorganizing current models and practices, and analyzing new concepts and perspectives (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008).

Guided change is a process of interaction of previous understanding and design, execution, and improvisation, gaining knowledge from the sharing the knowledge with others, bringing about constant re-interpretation and restoration of change as required. This learning contributes to constant enhancement of existing efforts of change and the capacity to produce new changes and resolutions. Each of the above types of changes has their positive and negative effects.

When directed change is not properly utilized, employees are forced to adjust to the reactions of the receivers to whom the change is imparted. These reactions include anger, loss, denial, bargaining, and sadness. Likewise, even as planned change develops a significant potential in the organizations of today when not well used it can lead to major drops in productivity, overcome the employees with its density, and isolate major stakeholders as a consequence of partial participation and good impact in the process.

Planned change has a similar shortcoming when there is no flexibility in the conditions of change. Efforts of planned change many a times restrain the capability of the company to reach its set goals.

To add on that the trouble for commencing and maintaining the change is still put directly on the management, from recognizing the importance of change and developing an image of aspired results to determining which changes are finally feasible (Petrescu, 2011). Guided change if not well employed can play a part in organizational problems, as constant changes and evolutions complicate and frustrate instead of enlightening employees and other major stakeholders.

Driving Forces of change and resistors to change

For change to occur, the driving forces should be more powerful than the preventive forces. A number of employees resist about any type of change. The leaders and managers should be able to handle the opposers of change and pay attention to their fears and remarks. When the opposers realize that their concerns are listened to, they will also give in to other opinions. In some situations, however, resistors of change need to be done away with regardless of their opinions.

Leadership role is very important in the execution of a major change. The leader is required to have a plan that focuses on the launching event, training, and orientation, monitoring, reward, progress report, and institutionalization. The launching event is very important as it gives the leader a chance to state the change with reasons for, and how the employees will gain from it.

The leader is also required to state the major challenges that will come with the change and explain the execution program. This event is supposed to be exciting and inspiring. This can be done by issuing of t-shirts, and souvenirs connected to the change program (Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens & Weir, 2006).

Change needs employees to act in new ways. It is good to give employees the training and skills that they require for the change. A needs assessment is therefore important to know exactly what is missing and what is needed. Acquiring the correct training program is the next step (Laurie et al 2006). At this point, just-in-time training is advisable.

Monitoring and measuring of the change is important. The results of the change need to measured to know just how good or bad the change is. The leader is mandated to monitor the whole practice and keep the employees up to date with the progress. Execution of any big change needs course rectifications and adjustments.

Rewarding and recognizing the efforts made by the management, and the employees is very important (Maurer, 2011). It builds momentum and motivates people to continue working and embrace the change the more.

Progress reports keep people updated with the process of change. This should be done via the organization newsletters, memos, meetings, videos, and e-mails. The leader should hold meetings regularly with the management to state pressing matters.

Institutionalization needs the absorption of change into the strategies, job descriptions, and the organization’s practices. The company infrastructure should be able to sustain the new changes for the change to be permanent. Revising the manuals and procedures to incorporate the change makes it more permanent (Isasken, 2007).

Implementing an organizational change is not an easy task. The leadership role at this point is very crucial, and the leader must understand the functions and responsibilities of the project manager and employees and his own role in implementing the change.

Cost of change

When a change is very costly, the chances of executing it are very slim. Cheap changes are easily implemented that major changes. Change involves training. Education is not cheap, especially for the entire organization as they may need a week’s training or training until change has been fully executed. Labor changes are also very expensive. Conducting of interviews and employment of new staff is also very costly (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

Resistance to change

There are numerous ways in which resistance to change can be conquered. Education and communication assists in realizing the need for change. This can be done by presentations, discussions, reports or journals. For this to work there has to be trust between the leaders and the employees. Employees have to trust their leaders in order to listen to them and follow their orders.

Participation and involvement entails the whole organization. When employees take part in the process of change there is a very small chance that they will resist it. Participation makes the employees committed to the change and enhances the reason for change.

Facilitation and support from the leaders is very important when implementing change. This includes being open-minded, letting the employees share their views, and using their ideas (Kereber & Buono, 2005). They should ensure that the work environment is accommodative and pleasant for workers. Training where necessary is recommended.

Negotiation and appreciation requires the leaders to offset resistance by giving incentives to the employees who cooperate. This may include increasing of salaries and giving of bonuses.

Manipulation takes place when the leaders are choosy on the employees who get news, how much news they give, the accuracy of the news, and when to circulate the news to improve the possibility that the change will be triumphant. Cooptation entails a major role in the process of change (Humpreys & Langford, 2008). The advice of leaders is required to get their support. Manipulation and cooptation ways are not costly, and they manipulate probable resistors of change to embrace change. However, these methods can fail if the employees get to know that they are being deceived, thus destroying the reliability of the leaders.

Assessment

Benchmarking entails setting up measures of performance by use of relative data on major operations of the organization from competitor organizations in the industry. Management can push organizational change by employing insights obtained from benchmarking on the practices of the industry and the perceptions of customers (Michelman, 2007).

Before going into benchmarking, it is important to ascertain the target customers who describe their particular needs. It also helps in widening the potential industries and customers lying within the benchmarking scope of the company. Classify the drivers of business present for each product and service given by the organization. These can be the major drivers of business capable of managing costs of operation. Statistics about the competitor companies should also be accessed.

This can be derived from government sources, publications or the Internet. The organization’s performance should be compared with that of the selected company. The operation should be on internal, financial, and production matters as compared to the benchmark position of the organization.

The benchmark research should be used to initiate change. The benchmark research assists the leaders in implementing organizational change as it gives explanation for change. On the other hand, business intelligence derived through benchmark research can force internal changes and help organizations in responsibility of its destiny (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

References

Coghlan, D. (1994). Managing organizational change through teams and groups. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15(2), 18-23.

Ford, J., & Ford, L. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 99-103.

Humphreys, J. (2005). Developing the Big Picture. MIT Sloan Management Review, 7(1), 96-112.

Humphreys, J., & Langford, H. (2008). Managing a Corporate Culture ‘Slide’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 24-27.

Isaksen, S. (2007). The Climate for Transformation: Lessons for Leaders. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 3-15.

Kerber, K., & Buono, A. (2005). Rethinking organizational change: Reframing the Challenge of Change Management. Organizational development Journal, 23(3), 25-38.

Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change. New York: The Free Press.

Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The Concept of Evidence in Evidence-Based Practice. Educational Theory, 61(5), 515-532.

Lewis, L.K., Schmisseur, A., Stephens, K., & Weir, K. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change. Journal of Business Communication, 43(2), 113- 137.

Mathews, J. (2009). Models of Change Management: A Reanalysis. ICFAI Journal of Business Strategy, 6(2), 7-17.

Maurer, R. (2011). Why Do So Many Changes Still Fall? (Part Two). The Journal for quality & participation, 33 (4), 33-34.

Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Harvard Management Update, 12(7), 3-4.

Paton, B., Beranek, L., & Smith, I. (2008).The transit lounge: a view of organisational change from a point in the journey. Library Management, 29 (1/2), 87-103.

Petrescu, R. (2011). The Importance of Communication in Organizational Change Process. Young Economists Journal, 9(16), 81-84.

Stonehouse, G., & Snowdon, B. (2007). Competitive Advantage Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 256-273.

Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

One of the foremost preconditions for ensuring the effectiveness of an organizational change has traditionally been considered managers’ awareness of what accounts for such change’s dialectics (Ford & Ford, 1994).

In other words, it is not only that, in order to be able to design an appropriate strategy for organizational change managers must understand what needs to be done, in technical sense of this word, but also what amounts to the objective prerequisites for such change to be embarked upon, in the first place.

In its turn, this usually implies that, prior to designing change-related strategy; managers need to conduct PEST analysis of the whole spectrum of external and internal factors that affect the functioning of an organization.

The information, in regards to the challenges currently faced by Flairtex Fashions, contained in the case study, allows us to identify a number of internal and external forces that presuppose the eventual prospect of company’s organizational restructuring:

1. Economic force – from the case study, it appears that the current decrease in Flairtex’s profits has been predetermined by downturn of a domestic textile market and by an increased competition from the East.
2. Technological force – given the fact that, as it appears from the case study, Flairtex has not been particularly enthusiastic about making investments into ensuring the technological adequacy of utilized equipment, it is not particularly surprising that, during the course of last six months, the amount of downtime due to maintenance has been increased by 15%. This resulted in undermining the extent of company’s competitiveness and consequently, established an additional precondition for organizational change to take place.
3. Socio-cultural force – the reading of the case study leaves few doubts as to the fact that the normal functioning of Flairtex Fashions is being negatively affected by a so-called ‘conflict of generations’ between Adrian Thwaite and Hilary James, on one hand, and Pat Robertson, Jamie Wright and Hari Rana, on another.
4. Political force – it is quite clear from the case study that, the UNITE union is preparing to adopt a particularly active stance in negotiating compensation for employers’ grievances. In its turn, this creates an additional obstacle on the way of managers striving to maintain Flairtex’s competitiveness.

Thus, there can be few doubts as to essentially emergent nature of organizational change (Wilson, 1992), which Flairtex is about to undergo.

The validity of this suggestion can be easily illustrated in regards to what represents the foremost principle of open thermodynamic system’s functioning, with just about any commercial organization representing the classical example of such a system (Checkland, 1972; McAleer, 1982; von Bertanlanfy, 1971).

Given the fact that, while being affected by the continuous inflow of energy (the incoming investments, the influx of new employees, etc.), organization/system’s structural elements never cease undergoing qualitative transformation, it is always just a matter of time before this transformation would lead to system’s qualitative restructuring, as a whole.

In its turn, this explains why the impending organizational change, in relation to Flairtex, is best discussed in terms of necessity rather than in terms of eventuality.

Within the context of Force Field Analysis (Lewin, 1948), the earlier outlined forces can be conceptualized as the ‘driving forces of change’. In their turn, these forces are being counterbalanced by what Lewin refers to as ‘restraining forces of change’, which in regards to the case study can be formulated as follows:

1. Employees’ subtly expressed resistance to change – as the case study indicates, there is a growing discontent among Flairtex’s workers, regarding to what they sense accounts for the foremost danger of an impending change – namely, the relocation of a production site out of the town, which will result in the layoffs among employees.
2. Thwaite and James’ subtle sabotage of change-related initiatives – from the case study, it appears that, due to these directors’ perceptional inflexibility (which largely accounts to their old age), they are being quite incapable of realizing a simple fact that undergoing organizational change for Flairtex is not an option.
3. The lack of technological awareness, on the part of Jamie Wright – even though this particular director has proven himself quite open to the idea of change, he nevertheless refuses to believe that computerizing presently utilized equipment should be thought of as an integral part of such a change.

Thus, in order for Flairtex to undergo organizational change and to consequently succeed with maintaining its commercial efficiency, the restraining forces of change must be weakened considerably (Hannan, Pólos & Carroll, 2003).

This, however, will require company’s management to adopt a systemic outlook on what represents dialectically predetermined phases of such a change, which in turn presupposes managers’ endowment with an understanding of what should be thought of as the foremost keys to ensuring organizational change’s success:

• organizational change can only serve one purpose – enhancing organization’s effectiveness,
• the process of organizational restructuring must to be as short as possible,
• organizational change must be complex/systemic (Barnett & Carroll, 1995).

As it appears from the case study, the organizational model of Flairflex Fashions is best defined as the ‘bureaucracy with senior management team’ (Senior & Flemming, 2006).

The foremost advantage of this particular model is that does ensure a comparative adequacy of managerial decision-making, in regards to continuously transforming operational challenges, faced by the company (Staudenmayer, Tyre & Perlow, 2002). However, its utilization can hardly be considered appropriate in time when company is about to become affected by change-related turbulations.

The reason for this is simple – this model is being only moderately authoritarian; whereas, the successfulness of an organizational change largely depends on the promptness of its implementation, which in turn presupposes such implementation being the subject of an unquestionable authority (Weber, 1947).

As it was implied earlier, the factor of Flairtex employees’ resistance to change constitutes one of the major obstacles on the way of such change’s implementation. And, if not properly addressed, employees’ subtle sabotage of change-related managerial initiatives will undermine change’s effectiveness rather severely, at best (Alvesson, 1993).

From the reading of the case study, it appears that dealing with Flairtex workers’ explicitly and implicitly expressed unacceptance of an impending change will probably be the most challengeable issue for the managers to tackle.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that, for as long as managers never cease being aware of what accounts for the proper strategy of making employees comfortable with the idea of organizational change, they will succeed. In its turn, such strategy revolves around three fundamental key-concepts: empathy, communication and participation (Fossum & Crisp, 1989).

Given the fact that Flairtex employees’ professional behavior seems to be greatly affected by their exposure to a number of unofficially circulating rumors, as to what company’s management has in plans for them, it will only be logical to assume that company’s middle-level managers have failed at communicating reasons behind the intended change to workers.

One of the reasons why most Flairtex employees were not utterly enthusiastic about the appointment of Anton Duval as Assistant Production Manager, which sublimated in their subtle sabotage of his executive decisions, is that they felt that their opinion, in regards to this appointment (they favored Geoff Dicks), mattered very little to company’s top-officials.

In other words, the continuing deterioration of the strength of employees’ professional commitment can be partially explained by their realization of the fact that Flairtex’s officials are being ignorant of their opinions, in regards to the important aspects of company’s functioning.

Apparently, workers sensed the lack of empathy towards themselves, on the part of managers, which is why it does not come as a particular surprise that, following the appointment of Anton Duval, they have grown even more uncooperative (Huy, 2002).

To amend the situation, managers would have to be provided with incentives to never cease indulging in close interaction with company’s employees, in professional and social senses of this word (Dawson, 2002).

The incidences with marketing executive articulating her hysterical complaints as to what she considered an ‘unfair treatment’ and with Elaine Cooper overhearing one of company’s managers subjecting female employee to verbal abuse, highlight another ‘restraining force’ – specifically, managers’ lessened understanding of the sheer importance of taking active part in addressing just about all of employees’ job-related concerns, as the ultimate instrument of making workers feel empowered (Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000).

And yet, only psychologically empowered employees can act as organizational change’s active participants. Therefore, I would recommend to the Board of Directors to assign middle-level managers with an additional duty of providing weekly reports on the state of their subordinates’ emotional well-being.

At the same time, given the fact that it is specifically the recent qualitative dynamics within Fairtex’s workforce, which appear potentially capable of hampering the implementation of an intended organizational change, it would be equally important for company’s top and mid-level managers to be capable of enforcing their executive decisions upon the subordinates (March & Sutton, 1997).

The validity of this statement appears especially self-evident in the light of case study’s provisions. After all, the recent deterioration of relationship between Flairtex’s employees and managers cannot be solely attributed to the lack of professional adequacy, on the part of company’s subdivisional authority figures.

As it appears from the case study, within the body of Flairtex’s workforce, there are individuals who actively oppose themselves against the values of company’s corporate culture.

This explains the reports of some employees being subjected to racial jokes. It is needless to mention, of course, that such state of affairs can hardly be referred to as tolerable, because the ultimate consequence of employees finding themselves at liberty to utilize racial slur is an overall undermining of company’s corporate culture, as a whole (Winterdyk & Antonopoulos, 2008).

And, once employees become alienated from the values of corporate culture, it is only the matter of time before they begin acting as the active agents of resistance to change, even when it happens despite their conscious will.

Therefore, I would recommend the representatives of Quality Control department to investigate this issue thoroughly, in order to identify workers with little understanding of what the concept of corporate culture strands for, so that they could be laid off.

To conclude this presentation, it must be reinstated again that the implementing organizational change for Flairtex Fashions is not the matter of an option.

The very essence of post-industrial living, associated with the process of international and domestic markets becoming increasingly dynamic, technology-friendly and diversified and with the fact that today’s consumers grow progressively more comfortable with paying money for ‘perceived’ rather than for ‘factual’ value of goods and services (Goodman, 1995), substantiates the soundness of an earlier articulated suggestion.

Apparently, undergoing organizational change for Flairtex is the crucial precondition for its survival, in the long run. And, the sooner company’s officials decide to embark on it – the better.

References

Alvesson, M 1993, Cultural perspectives on organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Barnett, W & Carroll, G 1995, ‘Modeling internal organizational change’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 217-236.

Checkland, P 1972, ‘Towards a systems based methodology for real world problem solving’, Journal of Systems Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 87-116.

Dawson, P 2002, Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience of people at work, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.

Ford, J & Ford, L 1994, ‘Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 756-785.

Fossum, L & Crisp, M 1989, Understanding organizational change: Converting theory into practice. Boston, Course Technology Crisp.

Goodman, M 1995, Creative management. Prentice Hall, Hempstead.

Hage, J 1999, ‘Organizational innovation and organizational change’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 597-622.

Hannan, M, Pólos, L & Carroll, G 2003, ‘Cascading organizational change’, Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 463-482.

Huy, N 2002, ‘Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 31-69.

Labianca, G, Gray, B & Brass, D 2000, ‘A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment’, Organization Science, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 235-257.

Lewin, K 1948, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics, Harper and Brothers, New York.

March, J & Sutton, R 1997, ‘Organizational performance as a dependent variable’, Organization Science, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 698-706.

McAleer, W 1982, ‘Systems: a concept for business and management’, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, vol.9, no. 5, pp. 99-129.

Senior, B & Flemming, J 2006, Organizational change, 3^rd ed. Prentice Hall, London.

Staudenmayer, N, Tyre, M & Perlow, L 2002, ‘Time to change: Temporal shifts as enablers of organizational change’, Organization Science, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 583-597.

Von Bertanlanfy, L 1971, General systems theory, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Weber, M 1947, ‘The Theory of Social and Economic Organization’, in A Henderson & T Parsons (eds), 1990, Organization theory: Selected readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Wilson, D 1992, A Strategy of change, Routledge, New York. Winterdyk, J & Antonopoulos, G 2008, Racist victimization: International reflections and perspectives, Ashgate Publishing Group, Abingdon.

Culture audit is an integral part of initiating and managing change in organizations. This implies that the well-being of an organization heavily relies on the existing culture. As a result, it is crucial for the leadership of an organization to devise and pursue cultural practices that are in tandem with the broad goals and objectives.

In other words, any form of culture embraced and adopted by a firm should be able to sustain the vibrancy or satisfaction of employees. Needless to say, succession management demands an effective culture in place. Nonetheless, corporate culture is often hardly seen by persons practicing it. This brief essay assesses the culture of my workplace organization.

I am an employee in a governmental hospital working as an ambulatory care pharmacist. Although this healthcare institution has been performing quite well over the years, there are still areas that need to be improved within its corporate culture (Buick, Blackman, O’Donnell, O’Flynn & West, 2015). For example, a number of barriers that impede patient wellness exist.

To begin with, communication style at this healthcare facility is relatively effective. Grassroots conversations are highly valued by the leadership of the organization instead of one-way broadcasts from the senior management (Tabuena, 2013). In most instances, employees are often requested to voice their opinions on any aspect of change that is due to be executed by the organization.

It is apparent that the organization has realized the importance of involving employees in the wider process of decision making. Decisions are made after thorough consensus even with the subordinate employees. Using the four-quadrant matrix for culture audit, it is evident that consensual decision making and effective communication have been long-term growth opportunities for this healthcare organization (Buick et al., 2015).

In order to get work done, the organization has developed a long term culture of team work coupled with group collaboration. Although each department is mandated to perform its unique roles and responsibilities, it is vital to mention that departmental collaboration is a long-term practice that has existed in this organization.

The management usually organizes for team-building exercises on a regular basis as part and parcel of boosting the morale of workers. However, the main long term threats to collaboration and team building include social loafing and lack of innovation. When employees are assigned tasks to complete as individuals, it is highly likely that they will be innovative and productive.

Besides, individual assignments can be easily accounted for because only one person is responsible. Worse still, employees tend to emphasize more on methods rather than results when they work as teams or groups. The corporate culture of my workplace organization is also influenced or witnessed through the immediate environment.

For example, the organization’s vision is to be the industry leader in the provision of sound healthcare services to the community and also be compassionate enough to patients who are receiving care. This is definitely a long term aspiration of the organization (Buick et al., 2015). As much as the organization always endeavors to attain this vision, there are still visible missing links.

As it stands now, establishing additional ambulatory care facilities is a long term opportunity that the healthcare institution can use to attain its vision. However, there are no plans in place. The ambulatory care division is often overwhelmed by the amount of incoming and outgoing patients seeking emergency care. The inadequate number of ambulatory care pharmacists is also a major short term threat in attaining a viable corporate culture in the organization.

The stated implicit values of the organization are not in line with the quality of services being offered to patients (Tabuena, 2013). In regards to key guidelines to change management issues identified in the above culture audit, it is evident that a number of change measures should be initiated in order to improve the corporate culture. The proposed changes include additional capital investment in ambulatory care and hiring adequate ambulatory care pharmacists to expedite care delivery to clients.

References

Buick, F., Blackman, D. A., O’Donnell, M. E., O’Flynn, J. L., & West, D. (2015). Can enhanced performance management support public sector change? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 271.

Tabuena, J. (2013). Can you audit corporate culture? Compliance Week, 10(114), 32- 33.

Introduction

Organizations require workers to connect them with the widening array of coworkers, consultants, and the shared knowledge bases. This connection is important during the process of change and/or when preparing for it. It is crucial to note that it is impossible to implement any change without clear and precise communication.

Indeed, communication encourages the development of a shared teamwork vision to minimize competition between workers. It contributes towards the development of knowledge learning and sharing culture, which is an important aspect for change and organizational continuity. This paper critically reviews an article by Smith Ian titled Achieving Readiness for Organizational Change with a particular focus on the theme of communication.

Article Summary

In the article, Achieving Readiness for Organizational Change, Ian (2005) discusses different roles that people play within organizations during a change process. His main purpose entails examining the significance of being equipped to welcome change, the strategy that people can adopt to implement a change, and the criteria that can be deployed to evaluate the change (Ian, 2005).

In its findings, the article considers the attainment of change and its sustainability incredibly important for any organization. However, the issue of the role of communicate comes in when Ian (2005) declares people the success factors or hindrances to effective change. They need to be prepared for the change to make it possible.

How can organizations achieve change preparedness? Ian (2005) responds to this question by claiming that people’s readiness for change can be achieved through creating the earnestness or requirement of change in them and ensuring that they feel and appreciate its meaning. This process involves releasing the status quo and creating an expressive stirrup in people.

The goal is to create dissatisfaction with the status quo so that people can begin looking for different ways of reducing such disappointment with the current situation or status. In this process, Ian (2005) reveals how the communication of change is incredibly important.

Critical Review

Irrespective of the change strategies that organization adopts, Ian (2005) posits that planting the seed of change in an organization requires the establishment of a shared vision. The shared vision may originate from one individual, probably a leader, an organization’s employee, or a group of employees. To ensure that all other people embrace the idea of change, its communication is important.

Ian (2005) supports this line of argument by adding that through active revelation of discrepancies that exist between the present situation and the envisioned state, it becomes possible to build motivation and the readiness for change. A potential criticism is that Ian (2005) does not provide information on how this end can be achieved.

However, he counters this gap by reckoning, “communicating the change messages and ensuring participation and involvement” (Ian, 2005, p.410) are the key factors to ensuring that people develop the desire for change. Consistent with Ian’s (2005) school of thought, communication links the plans that leaders develop to enhance the success of an organization and the actual implementation process.

Developing working strategies requires ardent communication at all hierarchical structures of an organization. Communication is vital since the implementation of new strategies often involves change (Williams & Seaman, 2001). Poor communication often results in the resistance to change, especially where the persons who work in an organization consider the change a threat to their jobs and personal excellence.

For instance, while personnel at the administrative centers may be fighting for the standardization of products that an organization produces to ease the supply chain and logistics challenges, employees at the departmental levels may be opposed to such an endeavor. This gap reveals why Ian (2005) says that people are either success factors or great hindrances to the change process.

Despite Ian’s (2005) substantive arguments on the necessity of communication during a change, he does not demonstrate it using a particular case on how communication can frustrate or enhance the change process. For example, Barrett (2006) says that inadequate communication at the intra-organizational levels may result in different perceptions of brands that are availed in the market.

This miscommunication minimizes the opportunities for channeling all organizational energies to the profitable brands. The emphasis on areas that are critical in pushing for the acceptance of brands in the market requires leaders to communicate effectively on the organization’s positioning and sales targets. Ian (2005) does not also explain who is supposed to communicate the desired change in an organization.

The change may involve a modification of workers’ attitude or the alteration of work processes in the effort to support an organization’s competitive advantage (Williams & Seaman, 2001). Effective leadership entails the communication of success strategies that touch on business objectives and goals (Barrett, 2006). Such communication should feature terms that employees can understand easily.

In response, employees feel engaged and valued. Hence, they work collectively towards driving organizational success. In fact, many communication programs fail when they do not address precisely what employees, who are also the change implementers, need to know and/or do to enhance excellent organizational performance.

Conclusion

Ian (2005) should have considered leaders the communicators of the vision to the employees. Leaders who are capable of leading through change acknowledge the fact that communication can help to deliver tangible products. Issues such as improving consumer satisfaction, enhancing service delivery, and/or enhancing employee retention are all dependent on effective communication that the article addresses.

Reference List

Barrett, J. (2006). Leadership Communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ian, S. (2005). Achieving Readiness for Organizational Change. Library Management, 26(6/7), 408-412.

Williams, J., & Seaman, E. (2001). Predicting change in management accounting systems: National culture and industry effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(5), 443−460.

The inclusion and acceptance of change have significantly featured in the present organization operations. User acceptance of change is vital for its implementation.

Perceived utility and simplicity of use is one factor that motivates individuals towards its acceptance. For a leader to guide, initiate, and implement change, he/she should have a good understanding of factors that reinforce or wane the workers.

The reasons as to why people resist change varies from both internal, individual initiated to external environmental factors. Losing something worth is something employees fear. This comes because of focusing on internal interest instead of organization’s interest (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).

However rational the change could be, people will anticipate loss of things that they value if they accept change. When people perceive that change may cost them much or misunderstand its implications, they may resist it.

A situation like that arises when there is no trust between individuals involved in the change process. Besides, when employees believe that they do not have the required skills or may not develop them with respect to the change to be initiated, they may not tolerate it at all.

Peer pressure and attitude that supervisors may have towards change also contributes to low tolerance for change.

If the nature of the change involves new processes, it may cause the need for new behavior and relationships resulting from new recruits. Low tolerance of such by employees may impact the intended new change.

Other resistances to change factors includes individual’ routine seeking and short term focus. This is explained in terms of preference to oppose or adjust to change, whereby some people are more inclined to change than others are (Nov & Ye, 2008) depending on the use of technology and personal behavior.

Individuals who are routine seeking relate change to negative outcomes and do not tolerate uncertainty. For this reason, therefore, they would rather continue with their daily routine and focus than incorporate new ones.

Disagreements within the management over the pros and cons of change can also cause resistance. The risks that may be involved may far outweigh benefits proposed.

The tension that results may cause its implementation difficult for employees to understand especially if it is not communicated out well or due to inadequate information. Loss of income, jobs and breakup of work groups also contribute to resistance within the firm.

External factors may involve the culture that the organization perceives its operations run. These may involve the basic norms and beliefs that employees and outsiders have on how a firm operations are controlled. This may determine its survival and success in the market (Handler & Kram, 1988).

The contingency perspective also affects change implementation. Firms in complex environments would require unrefined structures with many liaisons through amalgamations, collisions and mergers unlike those in simple environments in order to initiate change.

For ecological reasons, some firms may be influenced by external factors in terms of survival or annihilation depending on the nature of services they provide to the market and the necessity of demand for them.

Self-interest

After experiencing growth for quite some period, The CEO of a local company decided that he needed to introduce a new product different in nature from the one they offered before to the market.

This would mean new processes and people would be needed to initiate the change because of the unique product nature and the technological advancement it needed. The CEO eliminated the advice of other operating managers and grew the concern on a few.

The operations manager and the procurement department were not involved though they were to help in determining effective production strategies.

The CEO tried for several months to initiate the change until when the operations manager and head of procurement approached him with protest as to why they thought the change would not be successful. Objections from other departments also grew until the CEO finally abandoned the idea.

The resistance rose from within the company. It had not reached the market where the firm marketed its products. The CEO focused most on his own interest in the expense of interest of the firm. Because of personal behavior and attitude, new ideas may come up which may need to be put into trial.

However, attempting to put them into operation without involving the norms that other people are used to would most obviously cause turmoil in the organization. This was the practical aspect of the resistance due to exclusion from decision making.

As a course of resistance, the users might have been worried or feared that the new change would not work. Subconscious thought or feelings of users have the tendency of diverting energy elsewhere from the change being initiated (Bovey & Hede, 2001).

The people who are to promote change should have the same interest and not divided attention otherwise the process may not go through the transition.

In order to overcome the resistance, it is imperative to educate the managers and communicate to the users the need for change. This requires a good relationship, time, effort, and involvement of everyone (Baack, 1999).

The CEO should involve the resistors in the process of designing and putting the product into the market. This can motivate them to work towards the same desired direction (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). He should then support the process through facilitation of new skills that could be required to produce a product.

This can help in reducing fear and anxiety among employees. The CEO should offer incentives to potential resistors and negotiate with them. To manipulate them, he should give them desired roles to play through co-optation failure to which he can try coercion, both implicit and explicit only for the interest of the company.

To follow Kotter’s model effectively and initiate change, one must establish a communication ground from which they will lay down information for change to the employees.

They should establish a long lasting relationship with available employees, giving them offs and time to think about the change and accepting their opinion in the implementation process. It should be based on willingness to contribute to change through accepting responsibility.

Give them freedom to choose ways or methods of working out solutions geared towards the same goal (Oreg, 2003). The CEO should empower all departmental heads and give them a chance to do what they can do.

Their unique intellects and thoughts should be stimulated provided that they conform to the desired direction of change.

Confirming that resistance has reduced is a process that requires the willingness of all employees.

When leaders from other departments are able to see and understand that resistance results from their actions and they take measures to reduce them, it becomes a clear indication that change is being taken care of.

Some other indicators include all employees accept responsibility for their actions, people work hard to meet targets without complaining among others. Everyone seems to be guided by the same goals and objectives the firm tries to achieve.

References

Baack, D. (1999). Organizational behavior, 3rd edition. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of defense mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16 (7), 534-548.

Handler, W., & Kram, K. (1988). Succession in family firms: the problem of resistance. Family Business Review, 1(4), 361-38.

Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. California: Harvard Business School.

Nov, O., & Ye, C. (2008). Users’ personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: the case for resistance to change. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 845-851.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 680- 693.