Developing a Strategic Plan - Assignment Example

PART In developing a strategic plan in creating a different 'attitude' within the organization, the most appropriate theoretical framework or theory for the scenario is a combination of groupthink and social comparison theories. The mix of these two 'extreme' theories explaining organizational culture aims to retain the organization's culture, yet still instill the needed change in attitude that the CEO has suggested. The groupthink theory describes the propensity of close-knit organizations to cultivate the same attitude and behavior as members of the organization. Members tend to identify themselves strongly with their organization, and differentiate themselves from others based on organizational differences. Generally, groupthink is illustrated in organizations such as the military, fraternities/sororities, and cults. This theory, although characterized to have a strong organizational cohesion, is considered as a negative characteristic because it does not promote progressive thinking among its members, therefore stunting the organization's development. Social comparison theory, meanwhile, provides a pragmatic view of organizational cultures. In this theory, cultures are assessed based on their differences, and relative development against each other. Social comparison theory provides the venue for organizations to look into their culture, and create changes or modifications in it for the improvement of the organization's operations and processes and members' improvement and efficient performance. In effect, social comparison theory, although it increases the distinction between or among cultures, also develops organization culture towards better and improved development. Combining both groupthink and social comparison theories, the suggested change by the CEO can be implemented. Through the mix of groupthink and social comparison theories, the organization can retain its unique identity as an organization, yet open itself up to changes that will stimulate development within the organization, including its processes and members. To subsist to groupthink alone would mean subsisting to the same kind of culture that would leave the organization stagnating, while subsisting solely to social comparison theory would mean deviating from the organization's unique culture and assuming a new culture that could result to an unexpected, rapid loss of the organization's identity. Given this explanation of why a combination of both groupthink and social comparison theories is recommended, three changes that can be used to improve organizational conditions include: (1) drafting of trainings or programs that promote the members' development and improvement in the organization; (2) organizational re-structuring that reflect the vision and mission of the cultural changes suggested and implemented; and (3) creation of rules that bear the objectives of the new organizational culture to further inculcate these new attitudes. These plans are suggested because rules and regulations, organizational structure, and member/employee development are key factors that ultimately shape and transform not only the people's attitudes towards their being members of the organization, but they ultimately determine the organization's culture. Thus, through these factors, the CEO's proposal of changing the people's attitude, for their improvement and development, will in turn translate to organizational change. PART 2 The decision-making process that our team used in developing our plan was to present each theory's advantages and disadvantages in terms of the proposed plan to change the culture of the organization. In deciding which theory works best, we used two criteria: the theory that will be chosen should not cannibalize the existing culture of the organization, and should instead introduce a hybrid form of culture integrating the old culture with the new one. With this in mind, we arrived at a consensus that among the theories presented, the groupthink and social comparison theories are the best frameworks by which we could establish the new attitude that the CEO wanted to implement. Through these theories, we were able to compare the organizational culture at two levels. The first level involves a comparison of existing cultures within the organization, wherein the groupthink theory will be best applicable. The second level is determining the organizational culture against other organizational cultures (i.e., company A culture versus company B culture). Internally and externally assessing the organization's culture allowed our team to make a thorough assessment of the consequences that a change in organizational culture can bring to the organization's human resources and operations. Because the team deemed it vital to preserve the old organizational culture, at least in the meantime that the new culture is being introduced, what resulted is a hybrid culture that preserves the good points of the old culture, while the bad points are to be replaced by the new culture or 'organizational attitude.' Biases are inherent in our team during the decision-making process, since we have our respective views of the kind of cultures cultivated within the organization. Since we are a diverse team, with different work backgrounds, it has become both difficult and fruitful for us to decide on what kind of change will be implemented in the organization. Instead of turning each member's biases as a negative factor in the overall performance of the team, we used these biases as basis in evaluating the pros and cons of developing a new hybrid organizational culture. The key to ensuring that biases do not get in the way of decision-making, wherein one individual dominates over the other, is to control these biases, make sure that each member has laid out his/her biases and arguments for it, and make a quick assessment, wherein we determine what argument is more sound and logical for our task's objectives and goals. Social influence creates a tremendous impact both for the individual and organizations. Within the individual, social influence acts as a catalyst that prompts an individual to behave and act in accordance to his/her social environment. Of course, one's behavior and actions also depend on the degree of influence that the social or external environment has over him/her. In the case of organizations, social influence has a greater impact, since the external environment acts as a catalyst not just on one person, but a group of people who share the same values and belief system. Unlike the individual, who is susceptible to behave and act variably because of numerous external factors, social influence on groups or organizations tend to act or behave in a normative manner, since there are more people involved who tend to behave in the same manner as what they are expected to behave by their social environment and the organization as well (Santrock, 2001:456). Work cited: Santrock, J. (2001). Psychology. NY: McGraw-Hill. Read More