Category: Organizational Change

Introduction

With the ever changing business environment, change management and strategic planning activities are increasingly becoming issues of focus in the modern business environment. This is because of the significant role they play in helping organizations adapt to the turbulence of change. In this paper, I explore change management and strategic planning in terms of definition, inter-relationships and the impact of change on individuals and organizations.

Main Body

Change management refers to the manner in which top-level managers shape the way organizations adapt, respond to, anticipate and learn about change which occurs within them and the environment.

This is a central tenet to organizations as it enables us understand how these organizations help people (internally and externally) to embrace change. Therefore, change management is the way organizations are designed to positively and proactively anticipate and react to the external environment which is ever-changing and competitive.

Change management also involves institution of internal structures in the organization to enable it to respond better to the turbulence of change (Johnson 1998). If change management is effectively undertaken, it results in creation of a learning institution where employees continuously broaden their capacity to create truly desired outcomes and nurture new and expansive thinking patterns (Johnson 1998; Jager 2006).

Change management also involves equipping employees to acquire knowledge and skills to learn in institutions they encounter. In this context, change management is enhanced by encouraging deep commitment where employees build required skills through out the work place. In addition, change management requires commitment especially at the absolute pinnacle of the organization.

Various authors e.g. Jager and Johnson have pointed out that change management involves the regulation of speed, breadth and depth of learning which should be managed at different levels (Jager 2006; Johnson 1998).

On the other hand, strategic planning refers to long-range planning undertaken to set goals, objectives and policies of the organization and to determine tactics, strategies and programs under which these goals will be achieved. Strategic planning is undertaken by top-level managers who make plans to chart the best courses of future action.

Therefore, strategic planning activities involve defining the mission of the organization using the organizational purpose as a key tool for identification of products, services and customers. Strategic planning also involves setting objectives i.e. purpose, goals and desired outcomes for the organization and its parts (Johnson 1998; Bryson 1995).

When objectives are set, it is important that strategies are developed. These strategies involve activities which enable the organization to adapt and achieve its strategic objectives. Therefore, strategic planning has a longer time horizon and it deals with the interface of the organization and its external environment. In strategic planning, top-level managers use an instrument called SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats).

SWOT analysis is usually used as a framework for organizing the way the organization consumes data and information derived from a situational analysis. When applying the SWOT analysis, top-level managers assess the internal environment (strengths and weaknesses) and external environment (opportunities and threats).

Therefore, during this process, top-level managers carry out long range planning (strategic planning) which is enhanced by considering organizational strengths (positive attributes internal to the organization and within its control), weaknesses (factors which distract the organization and are within its control), opportunities (factors that represent the reason for organizational existence and development) and threats (external factors which risk the mission or operation of the organization but are within its control).

Studies have revealed that if top managers plan strategically by putting up contingency plans to address threats that have a likelihood of recurrence, the organization will be better placed to benefit as it is enabled to withstand the turbulence of change (Johnson 1998; Bryson 1995).

Organizational change has been regarded as a venture that is incredibly difficult for majority of organizations. Although organizations may be aware of the need to communicate change, most of them lack the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary in communication.

Therefore, in the context of these organizations, change management involves communicating of change that is implemented within them. In addition, change management will involve ability of these organizations to define change in great detail.

Therefore, communication of change during change management is a pre-requisite. Authors e.g. Jager have also pointed out that most organizations are unable to define the change they are implementing and as such, they are pushed to the brink of collapse especially if the change implemented cannot be communicated effectively. This implies that the ability to communicate change is crucial to the success of organizations (Jager 2006).

Johnson (1998) mentioned the overwhelming impact of change on individuals and organizations by exploring the importance and awareness of people adapting to change and their response to inevitable consequences of change. Different studies have also demonstrated that change limits individuals and organizations as they encounter difficulties in prophesying the future.

For instance, Johnson (1998) argued that organizations have encountered numerous challenges due to inability to adapt or shift to configurations that come with change. In addition, organizations have had other challenges as a result of change. These include difficulties in creation of new internal structures and rigidity in letting power balances move with change (Johnson 1998; Bryson 1995; Jager 2006).

Authors like Johnson (1998) have used water analogies to depict the ebb and flow of change in the economy. These studies point out that various industries such as telecommunications and consumer electronics have encountered technological change with increased frequency and absorption of major market shifts at a rapid pace.

Under these circumstances, organizations that are more stable are able to sustain rapid change over a short period. Furthermore many organizations face imminent collapse if they do not move with change that is taking place in the economy and in competing organizations. Therefore, if change is not managed effectively, it hinders growth of organizations in the global economy (Johnson 1998; Bryson 1995).

If change is not effectively managed, rigid organizations encounter numerous challenges and are likely to collapse. This implies that organizations that will be prosperous in future are those that have an understanding of change and proactive recognition and embracing of this change (Jager 2006).

In addition, authors e.g. Johnson (1988) have used Lewin’s Model of unfreezing, changing and refreezing to explain the effect of change on individuals and the organization. In line with this model, contemporary life is full of constant and accelerating change and therefore individuals and organizations that speculate and anticipate future events are likely to be more effective and successful. In addition, the model establishes the link between change management and strategic planning.

This is based on the argument that the effective management of intensity, speed and direction of strategic plans and organizational change results in a future difference between those who win and those who lose. Consequently, the losers lose because they are unable to recognize, respond to and manage change while the winners win because they are able to recognize, manage, respond to and propagate the rate of change in the organization in an attempt to survive (Johnson 1998).

Therefore, if organizations are to withstand the turbulence of change, the extent of learning should be more than or equal to rate of organizational change. If this is not the case, organizations risk falling back and collapsing due to loss of market for their products. Furthermore, organizations with higher survival chances during times of change are those which manage competencies, structures and leadership processes effectively (through strategic planning).

This is because of lexibility which is present in such organizations, hence they effectively adapt to change (Jager 2006). Research studies e.g. by Johnson have revealed that bureaucratic practices hinder ability of organizations to move with change. Therefore, If top-level managers stick to bureaucratic practices and do not own change, a “not invented here” syndrome occurs in lower organizational levels (Johnson 1998, p. 10).

Conclusion

In this paper, I explored change management and strategic planning as inter-related factors which affect individuals and organizations. Strategic planning has been perceived as a process which involves systematic use of criteria and rigorous investigations to formulate and control organizational expectations.

On the other hand, change management has been perceived as the way organizations are designed to positively and proactively anticipate and react to the external environment which is ever changing and competitive (Jager 2006; Johnson 1998; Bryson 1995)

List of References

Bryson, J 1995, SWOT Analysis: A Facilitation Tool for Identifying Strategic Issues. Web.

Jager, P 2006, Seven Ways to Communicate Change. Web.

Johnson, J 1998, Embracing Change: A Leadership Model for the Learning Organization. Web.

Introduction

A trustworthy leader is competent, passionate, and open to experiments. Seeing an organization’s interests and successful development as the topmost priority is another feature of trustworthy leaders (Judge, 2013). The role of a leader for any organization is critical because leaders both represent the company and motivate employees to improve the organization’s economic outcomes and thus become more successful. Consider, for instance, the experience of Toyota. If leadership were not interested in organizational change, the company would not have implemented lean management and thereby become one of the leaders in the automotive industry.

Trusting Followers

Trusting followers is another dimension of the organizational capacity for change. It is inseparable from the first aspect, as this characteristic is related to following leaders’ recommendations and believing in the value of their experience as a basis for an organization’s success. It is also critical for each company, and the abovementioned Toyota company’s experience can be used to support this statement. Therefore, if Toyota employees did not pay attention to constant improvement, lean management philosophy would not be efficient.

Capable Champions

This dimension is associated with identifying people within an organization who can drive the process of change based on their authority, experience, skills, and knowledge (Judge, 2013). This aspect is significant as well because leaders alone cannot motivate all people to embrace change. To prove this statement, think of any international company (e.g., General Motors) that has offices across the globe, and all of them have numerous departments. In this way, one leader alone is unlikely to foster change, while having several capable champions is more likely to result in the desired change.

Involved Middle Management

This dimension is associated with heads of departments—managers communicating senior management’s initiative to ordinary employees as well as sharing employees’ needs with senior management. Productive organizational development is impossible without involved middle management because they are the link that assures that any initiative will be supported rather than criticized and opposed (Judge, 2013). The example that could support the abovementioned statement is the experience of any large company with several departments working on different tasks. When implementing universal initiatives, middle managers may point to their advantages for different departments, thus minimizing opposition risks.

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is associated with perceiving an organization as a complex whole. In this way, the implementation of any change should be viewed from the perspective of its influence on all departments and their performance. It is one of the most critical dimensions of organizational change because it is directly connected to operations. Think, for instance, or introduce any innovation (e.g., the introduction of smart bolts in General Motors plants). This decision was made once all needs were estimated (technological, investment, and human), i.e., all aspects of the company’s operation were taken into account.

Communication Systems

Another infrastructure dimension that is related to converting knowledge into practice and assuring adequate and timely distribution of the latest news (Judge, 2013) is connected to effective communication skills (in the case of small companies) and communication technologies (for large companies). Recall the introduction of Web 2.0-based communication systems at most large companies (e.g., Siemens). These aimed not only at sharing information but also knowledge, thus potentially improving employee productivity and performance.

Accountable Culture

In this case, the focus is on the results, not the process. For instance, special attention is paid to meeting deadlines or budgets (Judge, 2013). The influence of this dimension of organizational change is less significant compared to others, though it is still critical. Think of any research organization. Creating an accountable culture is imperative for such an organization’s successful operation, especially in the case of monitoring key performance indicators of all employees. Analyzing it may help identify future change directions.

Innovative Culture

This dimension is linked to the focus on constant improvement of equipment that is especially critical in the twenty-first century—an era of varying technological advancements and their growing role in everyday life. An innovative culture is the foundation of change. One appropriate example is the case of Emirates Airlines paying special attention to innovating their transportation services and using this as one of the strengths for outperforming competitors.

Reference

Judge, W. Q. (2013). Focusing on organizational change. Boston, MA: FlatWorld Knowledge.

Introduction

Business organizations should reconsider the best changes in order to remain competitive. Every business that wants to remain competitive should be ready to embrace new managerial or operational changes. Every successful firm adapts new changes every time. Organizational change helps a firm survive and achieve its goals in a timely manner.

Failure to initiate the relevant changes and strategies in a firm will make it less competitive. Our modern society is changing at a very fast rate. Every company is producing new services and products in order to fulfill the changing expectations of its consumers. This discussion explores why every business firm should initiate new changes.

Reasons for Organizational Change

Organizational change helps a firm thrive and achieve its goals. A number of reasons can force an institution to change its strategy (Senior & Swailes, 2010). The first factor that can promote a new change is competition. Every profitable industry is capable of attracting new players or competitors.

The “entrance of a major competitor in a given industry forces every existing firm to change its business strategy” (Senior & Swailes, 2010, 75). Many companies will implement new practices in order to deal with competition (Senior & Swailes, 2010). Every stakeholder and leader should be involved in the change process. These individuals should be committed in order to make the firm successful and more competitive. Every business firm that decides to ignore new competition will become less competitive.

Modern technologies can compel a company to formulate new changes. A good example occurs when a company decides to introduce new computers. This situation will force the company to train its employees. The practice will ensure the company’s employees can use the computers to provide quality services to every customer.

Every business is using new technologies in order to increase its productivity (Senior & Swailes, 2010). This situation explains why more companies are implementing new operational changes. Such technological changes will ensure every company realizes its goals and objectives. Failure to consider such technological changes will make a firm less competitive.

According to Nelson and Quick (2012), a firm can implement new changes in order to grow. A business organization might decide to change its activities and operations in order to achieve its goals. Such a company will introduce new products and services. This strategy calls for better practices in the firm.

This change will also ensure the company provides the best services and goods to its customers (Nelson & Quick, 2012). The company can also open new stores and outlets in a different location. This change will make it easier for a firm to achieve its goals. The company might also initiate new practices or services in order to remain competitive.

The other possible cause of organizational change is the need to implement new business processes (Nelson & Quick, 2012). A business might choose to increase its output. The firm will be required to hire new experts and employees. The firm will also train its employees in order to improve its manufacturing process (Nelson & Quick, 2012).

The company can also initiate a new production system. Lean production is a good option for every firm that targets to improve its business process. This change will ensure the business realizes its objectives. The process will make every firm more profitable and successful.

The external environment can also force a company to implement new changes. Some of these factors include social, economic, and political forces. The company might also rearrange its operations. The company might also adopt new technologies and programs in order to achieve its goals. The changing consumer needs can also force a company to align its business strategy.

The approach will ensure the company remains profitable. Business leaders should always examine these external forces before implementing every new change. The leaders should also “monitor the targeted change if the firm is to attain its goals” (Senior & Swailes, 2010, p. 93).

The state might present new policies and safety procedures. These policies are necessary because they ensure every person works in a safe environment. These policies and regulations will also force a company to initiate new operational changes. Every firm should reexamine every regulation before instituting the proposed change (Senior & Swailes, 2010).

Failure to undertake these changes will make a firm less productive or competitive. A business firm that ignores these new regulations will not sell its products. The above operational changes will ensure the company provides quality services and goods to its customers.

Conclusion

The above factors explain why business firms should be ready to implement new changes. The global society is evolving at a very fast rate. A number of forces are causing many businesses to examine their organizational practices. These changes are forcing more consumers to purchase quality products and services.

Every firm should consider the best strategies in order to implement and manage the best change. The firm also should examine the consequences of the proposed change. These changes will ensure every company achieves its goals. Business managers and supervisors should always communicate the proposed change. The practice will ensure every stakeholder supports the proposed change. Organizational change is meaningful because it can help every firm overcome competition and realize its goals.

Reference List

Nelson, D., & Quick, J. (2012). Organizational Behavior: Science, the Real World, and You. Cengage: Cengage Learning.

Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2010). Organizational Change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Abstract

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

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

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

Organizational Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose for Adopting Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties and Stakeholders involved in the Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the Effectiveness of Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

References

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

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

ENOC 2012, ENOC Vision and Mission Statement. Web.

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

Oxtoby, B, McGuiness, T, & Morgan, R 2002, ‘Developing Organizational Change Capability’, European Management Journal, vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 310-320.

Piderit, K 2000, ‘Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 25 no.12, pp. 783–794.

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

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