Organization Development Change - Essay Example

 Introduction Organization development change is widely known as a process that is devoted in researches that are aimed at generating developmental theories in regard to all forms of organization change (Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn 2003). In essence, this field pays it focus on the procedures and effects that are in relation to given organizations change at individual, group and organizational levels by using numerous ways and perspective (Buck 2006) Never the less, organization development has been termed as an ambiguous concept as it entails assorted definitions. It has two distinct types; professional development and organization development. The principal concept of both professional and organization development is similar although it is diverse in focus. Essentially, professional development deals with improvement of individual’s effectiveness in practise, while organizational development entails the ways in which organizations can be enhanced through overall productivity, human fulfilment, and the response that is necessary towards the environment. In light of this, scholars such as Rittel and Weber have proposed the concept of wicked problems and wicked projects as a class of problems that has difficulty in definition and has no ultimate solution. Moreover, they argue that these wicked problems are found in several forms that are in different organizations, as well as, environments. It is worth noting that wicked problems generate from a dense network of interconnected factors that are challenging in understanding how a particular decision is viable towards influencing decisions in other areas (Charles and Shelton 2007). Change in Organizations Change has numerous definitions that go in line with where it has been used. Never the less, a change agent could be best explained as a helper, advisor, coach, and leader or consultant. Its main function is the catalyst effect that entails bringing change to an organization or businesses in specific ways. In light of this, many companies, as well as, organizations hire change agents to foresee specific changes in organizations. Apparently, an organization practitioner must be in a position give consultation to the organizations about particular issues that affect the organization, and give advice that is related to change. It is expected that the practitioner has self management skills which makes it easier to practise interpersonal skills to members of the organization. Besides, the practitioner must be adversely knowledgeable about organization development theory (Beyerlin and Marauhn, 2011). Of importance to note is that change is constant as it occurs in both national and international levels, over and above, physical environment particularly in ways that organizations are structured and ways in which the organizations operated politically, socially and economically. Apparently, the world has become so complex and is continuously integrated to the extent of changes that seem too far being affective. Moreover, change appear to be frequent and random, a situation that makes the world a global village. According to Fitzmaurice 2009, incredible amount of change that is being witnessed globally has put the world in a position where individuals and organizations are now able to see the big picture in relation to how events are affecting them and vise versa. Change Applications Application of organization development in terms of change ensures that organizations and individuals are aware of the changes and how they are affecting them. Besides, the applications of organizational development support individuals and organizations to deal with change through events such as team building efforts and improvement of functions within the organization, over and above, those that are external through the introduction of planned change efforts (Griffiths 2007). In every organization development change, there are three practitioners’ who are involved ensuring that there is change in organizations. They include; OD professional, professionals for other related disciplines, over and above, managers and administrators (Jan 2008). Principally, organization development professional have qualifications, training and experience while those professionals from related disciplines have gained the skills from continuous engagement they have on this profession. Consequently, managers and administrators have applied organization development skills that they have gained from the job. Furthermore, organizations should follow professional criterion while selecting organization development practitioners to ensure that change and development are realised at length. Some of the skills that are necessary during the selection include interpersonal skills, a degree of focus that the practitioner has, experience or skills that are related to the task, and an evidence of success in the previous organization development roles. On the other hand, the organization should clarify on the role and outcome expected from the practitioner. Professional status and association membership and client references must be considered. Contract Development As soon as the organization practitioner has been selected and is ready for the new task, it is indispensible for the organisation and the practitioner to come up with a contract through clarity and agreement on the work to be undertaken. Principally, the contract ought to provide focus on the change process. All contracts that relate to organization development change have three main areas to work from. These three areas entail; mutual expectations, time and resources and ground rules (Lombard, 1999). Mutual expectations A mutual expectation is a component of the main contract whose centre of attention is based on client and organization development practitioner. On one hand, the client declares the services and outcomes that should be provided by the practitioner with the inclusion of the expectations from the organization. On the other hand, the practitioner should lay down his or her expectation in relation to organization development process. Resources and Time For organizations to accomplish the change they need, they and the practitioners must commit time and resources to the project. Both organization and the practitioner must be certain on vigour and capital that is required for a given process of change. Lack of necessary arrangement drags down the process and could lead total collapse. Ground Rules This process gives out specifications on how the client – organization and the organization practitioner will work together. It also entails the way in which organization development practitioners should become involved in personal or inter personal issue. Practitioner Styles Numerous styles are present in organization development practitioners and they revolve around effectiveness and morale especially in accomplishment of goals, relationships and participant satisfaction. Miller and Jentz 2011 argue that one common approach to organizations development change is through a consultant style matrix that scales on emphasis on morale verse emphasis on effectiveness. Moreover, there are five practitioner style that are mostly used in organizations such as stabilizer style, persuader style, Cheerleader style, pathfinder style and the analyzer style. To begin with, practitioners who use the stabilizer style are known to maintain a low profile, while following directives from top management. In the case of cheerleader practitioner style, emphasis is placed on member satisfaction, but does not pay much attention on organization effectiveness. In fact, it is mainly concerned with motivation and morale of employee whilst avoiding open conflict and maintaining harmony by solving differences. An analyzer practitioner expects authority to solve arising conflict, places emphasis on efficiency, although it gives less attention to the satisfaction of members. In addition, a practitioner who uses persuader style seeks compromise between cheerleader and analyzer practitioner, has low risk, and achieves average performance (Narayan 2000). Of most importance is that, pathfinder practitioner style is the most preferred due to its complexity in handling organization development change. Essentially, it focuses on six processes that are crucial in ensuring that it is effective in its work. The six processes comprise of communication, member roles in groups, groups problem solving, group norms and growth, leadership and authority and intergroup cooperation. It is worth noting that external practitioners that are not previously associated with client system like organizations that require developmental change are more advantaged in terms of having diverse viewpoint and objectivity especially with the fact that they are independent. Change Agent Change agent in an organization can be both external and internal. Internal change agent is time saving and can be readily accessible to clients. Besides, there is an intimate knowledge of the organization, its dynamics, culture and informal practises. Essentially, it is easy to access a variety of information as most of it is found internal company reports and direct observations. Moreover, there is much safety in working with insiders that it would be working with outsiders as it is much easier it establish rapport and trust (Philippe and MacKenzie 2012). Contrary to this, external change agent entails expertise that is never available internally. Such change agent is able to bring more objective perspective into organization development process as compared to internal change agent. Additionally, there is an ability to probe challenging issues, over and above, questioning the status quo where necessary. Hence, external change agents are afforded a substantial amount of deference and power. None the less, both external and internal change agents have disadvantages. Internal change agent may lack certain skills and knowledge that is necessary in facilitating change in the organization. Besides, there could be a lack of objectivity and extremely cautious when dealing with internal power structures or any other structure that have a huge impact to the organization. Conversely, external change agents need extra time to familiarise with the organization in which they are working for as it posses the largest disadvantage due to the time factor. In light of this, there is a perception within an organization that external change agent are outsiders who are less interested in investing in outcomes. Thus, organization must beware of outsiders to ensure that organizations are safe from destruction (Schaffer, Agusti and Earle 2009). Importance of Change in Organizations It is crucial that organizations manage change in today’s market. This is because organizations or businesses at present operate in rapid changing market, which dictates that change must be continuous. In respect to this, Griffiths 2007 articulates that pressure from competitors and other external changes have forced businesses and organizations to overwhelming respond to change, over and above, making amendments on the existing operations. Resistance to Change According to researchers, literature recognizes resistance as critical variable in influencing the success or failure of the change effort. Apparently, human beings have been known globally to resist change due to the fact that it entails an adoption of new ideas and techniques which must be emphasized by hard work, trial and error. Principally, resistance to change occurs when reasons for change are unclear in terms of cost, equipment or work leading to negative reactions among the users. Ideally, human beings have the tendency to insist for consultations whenever new ideas emanate (Sharan 2006) It is argued that human beings are reluctant to change due to fear of moving from their existing state to unknown state. Moreover, there is increased anxiety about the consequences of change or misunderstanding of change more so when there is a tendency to mistrust those that are leading the change. Managerial Responses to Resistance Though acknowledge as a significance issue that needs to be well managed, there is an existence of minor recognition towards resistance that has resistance qualities. Hence, three major strategies have been used to assist in dealing with resistance; empathy and support, communication and participation and involvement (Yarwood 2011). These strategies revolve around human beings and their ability to give consent in consensus not withstanding stakeholder engagement. Meaningful Change and Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement is a concept that is used by organizations in ensuring that a common purpose is created towards addressing the complex issues that affect the world. Basically, stakeholder engagement aims at creating value for organizations and society. Of importance to note is that organization continuously practises openness through sharing information and experience with their stakeholders. Consequently, this has further contributed to shared activities within and outside organizations (Ungson and Wong 2007). Empathy and Support Empathy and support entails identifying those that have issues with accepting change. Moreover, there should be open relationship that provides useful information about resistance and how to overcome it. It should be noted that the lack of sufficient information encourages rumours and gossip. Essentially, effective communication on change reduces consequences and fear. Use of Consensus Global problem is a challenge that revolves around the world as one that incorporates a significant number of states and countries. Notably, a global problem could be social, political or economic. However, it is important for the global players to come up a consensus toward working out the global problem that may be present. In essence, consensus decision making entails collaborative discussion as compared to adversarial debate because through consensus, it is easier to have a common ground (Van-Hoof 1983). Essentially, through consensus better decisions are present because all the perspectives of the group are taken into consideration. Besides, there is a good relationship within the players through collaboration rather than competing since group members are able to build a good relationship that is close through the process. Furthermore, through consensus there is a better implementation of decisions as there is achievable widespread agreement from the players, over and above, participation of every player in a process especially in search for a solution to curb global problem. Sharan 2006 argues that it is less likely for any player to be disgruntled to extent of having a passive sabotage towards the effective implementation of decision. In relation to organization development change, consensus within players could be compared to participative strategy in implementing a selected change within a given organization. Participative strategy is an essential tool in organization change that has a unique aspect of allowing change to be more widely acceptable. Additionally, it promotes active involvement of people, over and above, ensuring that the said commitment and enthusiasm for the change process (Yarwood 2011). For instance, in organizations there are chances for employees and managers to learn from the experiences and skills of this participation. Conclusion Organization development change is widely known as to be a process that is devoted in researches that are aimed at generating developmental theories in regard to all forms of organization change. It has two distinct types; professional development and organization development. The principal concept of both professional and organization development is similar although it is diverse in focus. Essentially, professional development deals with improvement of individual’s effectiveness in practise, while organizational development entails the ways in which organizations can be enhanced through overall productivity, human fulfilment, and the response that is necessary towards the environment. Never the less, a change agent could be best explained as a helper, advisor, coach, and leader or consultant. Their main function is the catalyst effect that entails bringing change to an organization or businesses in specific ways. Of importance to note is that change is constant as it occurs in both national and international levels, over and above, physical environment particularly in ways that organizations are structured and ways in which the organizations operated politically, socially and economically. Application of organization development in terms of change ensures that organizations and persons are responsive of the changes and how they are affecting them. In every organization development change, there are three practitioners’ who are involved ensuring that there is change in organizations. They include; OD professional, professionals for other related disciplines, over and above, managers and administrators. Moreover, there are five practitioner style that are mostly used in organizations such as stabilizer style, persuader style, Cheerleader style, pathfinder style and the analyzer style. Of most importance is that, pathfinder practitioner style is the most preferred due to its complexity in handling organization development change. Change agent in an organization can be both external and internal. It is crucial that organizations manage change in today’s market. This is because organizations or businesses at present operate in rapid changing market, which dictates that change must be continuous. Bibliography; Beyerlin, U. and Marauhn, T., 2011. International Environmental Law. Oxford : Hart Publishers. Buck, J. S., 2006. Understanding Environmental Administration and Law, 3rd Edition. Washinton DC: Island Press. Charles, A. K. and Shelton, D., 2007. Guide to International Environmental Law. Leiden: BRILL. Dunphy, D. C., Griffiths, A. and S. Benn., 2003. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future: Understanding Organizational Change Series. London: Routledge. Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary issues in international environmental law. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Griffiths, M., 2007. International relations theory for the twenty- first century. London: Routledge. Jan, Z., 2008. Europe as a Global Actor: Empire by Example? International Affairs 84(3), 471-484. Lombard, E., 1999. International management of the environment: pollution control in North America. XA-GB.Westport, Conn. [u.a.] Praeger. Miller L. R., Jentz A. G., 2011. Business law today: the essentials: text & summarized cases: e-commerce, legal, ethical, and international environment. Mason, OH: South- Western Cengage Learning. Narayan, B., 2000. Ecosystem management. New Delhi: A.P.H. Philippe, S. And MacKenzie, R., 2012. Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge, EN: Cambridge University Press. Schaffer R., Agusti F., and Earle B., 2009. International business law and its environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Sharan, V., 2006. International business Concept, environment and strategy. Delhi: Pearson Education publishers. Ungson, G. and Wong, Y., 2007. Global strategic management. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe publishers. Van-Hoof, G. J. H., 1983. Rethinking the sources of international law. Deventer [usw.] Frankfurt A.: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publ. Yarwood, L., 2011. State Accountability under International Law: Holding States Accountable for a Breach of Jus Cogens Norms. New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More