The Human Side of Enterprise - Dissertation Example

ASSESSMENT ITEM 2 The concept of “Change Management” has, in a growing assortment of forms, been one of the most well-known themes faced by the managers since the past several decades. Factors such as enduring natural calamities, startling statistics concerning employment and labor situations, product line expansion or the adoption and implementation of new technologies, have all been dominant factors influencing the management’s decision to adapt to the changing external environment in order to be able to stay afloat in the intensifying competitive environment in the market. Furthermore, efforts targeted at solely pursuing profit motives are relatively of lesser significance than retaining one’s competitive position in the industry and this requires implementing change from time to time. Firms which fail to change promptly in response to the changes taking place in the external environment often fail to survive and are eventually thrown out of the competition. Hence the battle for survival has become tougher and more intense, and change management is one of the factors that the firms seek as an effective tool of survival in the industry. Addressing the various issues involved in implementation of change, often raises serious concerns since this new awareness is not only extremely intricate but at the same time , it demands constant attention and care from the managers and leaders to foresee and instigate remarkable changes and for this purpose it requires efficient management team which can not only successfully implement but maintain change across all levels of an organization. The critical issue of concern is not the actual implementation of change but the manner in which to avoid the additional distractions that confront the management in the process of adopting change management. The management must take adequate precautions to avoid taking hasty decisions particularly in the face of intense competition since in such a case, any decision based on false analyses may ultimately lead the firm to suffer immense loss – both monetary as well as loss of faith in the company’s product and / brand name. The array of choice available at the disposal of the management may be many but the decision must be made based on evidence based facts rather than research based data. There are innumerable cases available for study of firms which have successfully implemented change management however the list of firms who have failed to implement change management on account of inefficient data / information based on inaccurate and superficial analyses is also quite long. Firms implement change based on external analyses however such an analyses is more often than not driven by an urgent need on the part of the firms to counter the rival’s strategic measures and outdo them in the market. Decisions taken on account of such cases often causes more damage than profit to the firms concerned. This paper seeks to investigate the rationale behind the key question: What are the various risks involved in initiating change in organizations based on superficial analyses? Directing firms towards the path of accomplishing transformational and organization wide change is a overwhelming task. Some of such significant transformations include downsizing, mergers, new product launch, modifying the existing product range or adoption of new technology. Such changes characteristically engender workforce ambiguity, apprehension, and conflict, which tend to diminish the overall self-esteem, focus, and organizational performance. Organizations and government agencies alike often report high rates of failure in procuring required information and subsequently in implementing organization wide transformation based on the information collected, even after spending substantial amount of resources on change management measures. Tools such as analytical surveys reveal alarmingly low rates of employee trust in management, and persistent discontent with working environment in the organization. No amount of management intervention to foresee and alleviate the unsettling consequences of organization wide transformational change would succeed unless the underlying root causes are successfully eliminated. Change management upsets the status quo, forcing both the management as well as the employees / workers and in some cases even the consumers, to come out of their comfort zones and work in the midst of a conflicting environment rather than an established and tried and tested patterns, process and norms. Characteristic responses amount to an organization’s resistant reactions, as organizations and individuals resist change and act to uphold prior equilibrium conditions. Besides, even though the preferred / intended transformations are implemented successfully, the key challenge lies in sustaining such changes, because in the absence of continuous observation on the part of the management with regard to the management of the implemented changes the organizations often run the risk of relapsing back to its previous state, attitudes and behavior and hence causing loss of resources, time and money. (source: Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E., (). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, John Wiley and Sons, Pp. 372) Case Study: Coca Cola (Bolman and Deal 2003, Pp. 378 – 79) In the early 1980s, Americas cola wars - a battle between Coke and Pepsi, reached a fever pitch. Pepsi was making inroads into the Coca colas market share by winning customer confidence through various tests such as the blind tests, and signing big stars such as Michael Jackson for promotion of their ad campaigns. This apparently was a cause of concern for the management at Coca cola who then eventually devised a revolutionary strategy – that of launching one of the company’s most significant announcements in its ninety nine year old history: Old coke to be replaced by a brand new one. This brand new venture was launched amidst great media hype which sought to revitalize the old coke into a new improved product, in the process sidestepping years of research which had gone into the program. All the evidences shown by external analyses i.e. reports and data collected by the management pointed towards the development of a “new” formula which ensured customer’s preference towards this new product as compared to the old one. The management was sure that by launching the new product the firm would be able to regain its lost market share to its rival cola brand, and sustain its competitiveness. The management hence was confronted with a strategic dilemma – either to rely on the external analyses and launch the new product or do nothing about it and continue sale of the existing product. However, relying on the information collected through external analyses the management finally decided to defy the market signals by relying on the false analyses and surveys and went on to launch the new product. The rest as they say is history. Contrary to the management’s perception, the new product failed miserably in the market and failed to woo the consumers, who instantly rejected the new product stating that they felt ‘betrayed’ by the company and a majority of them were outraged. Hence despite the in depth analyses of all sorts and nation wide surveys, the change management efforts failed to impress the end users, leading to significant losses to the company’s revenues as well as its reputation. Multi- frame Approach to Organizational Diagnosis Lee Bolman and Terry Deal contend that managers benefit from being able to evaluate organizations from the perspectives of four different "frames" or "lenses" each of which offers a unique perspective on the manner in which organizations function. In the absence of such an ability of using multiple frames, the managers may become trapped in their one favored way of perceiving the world. According to Bolman and Deal: "Organizations are filled with people who have their own interpretations of what is and what should be happening. Each version contains a glimmer of truth, but each is a product of the prejudices and blind spots of its maker" The four frames discussed by Bolman and Deal include - the strucutural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. Bolman and Deal (2003) perceive organizations as machines, families, jungles, and theater. The representations are the outcomes of their effort to amalgamate and incorporate the key practices in organizational theory into four distinctive categories: theories concerning organizational structuring, concerns related to human resources, political dynamics, and emblematic apprehensions. Each of the four key categories which the authors refer to as frames has their own enclosed vision / outlook of the organizational setting, entrenched in diverse intellectual regulations. Each of such four frames also contains their own individual highlights, fundamental hypothesis, action judgment, course to executive efficiency, and key supporters. Each of them confines a significant segment of organizational authenticity, but often comes across as incomplete when viewed as a solitary element. Dependence on any one viewpoint can cause the management to misunderstand a part of the field for the whole. Jointly, on the other hand, the four frames control the pluralism in the organizational theory foundation, recognizing its affluence and intricacy while categorizing its fundamental constituents for effortless admission and appliance. The structural frame, views organizations as machines and perceives them as rational systems. It strengthens the significance of manipulative structural forms which support the organizational objectives, mission, know-how, and surroundings (e.g., Galbraith, 2001; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1986; Perrow, 1986). Segregation of job functions and chores offers more lucidity of rationale and involvement, but leads to the requirement for suitable harmonization and incorporation methods. The human resource frame, views the organization as a family, and captivates the symbiotic rapport between individuals and organizations: individuals require prospects to communicate their aptitudes and proficiencies; while organizations require human resources and involvement to stimulate their endeavors. Both the organizations as well as individuals can benefit with a right combination of elements. Output can be increased when people are encouraged to put in their best efforts. Organizational development and human resource frames contain their roots in seminal theorists such as Chris Argyris (1962), Abraham Maslow (1954), and Douglas McGregor (1960), who initiated research in this field for more than a century, stressing on the human side of organization and the significance of addressing the issues concerning intra and inter personal dynamics in an organization. The political frame views the organization as a jungle, an field of continuing disparities, inadequate resources, and the inescapability of authority and argument (e.g., Cyert and March, 1963; Pfeffer, 1994; Smith, 1988). Multiplicity in terms of principles, attitude, wellbeing, performances, talents, and world views are permanent and inescapable facets of organizational certainties. They are frequently lethal, although they can also be a foundation of originality, inspiration, imagination and improvement when identified and successfully administered. Lastly, the symbolic frame views organizational life as an enduring drama whereby individuals congregate to generate situation, customs, and implication as they play their designated tasks and bring creativity and eloquence into their work (e.g., Weick, 1995; Cohen and March, 1974; Deal and Kennedy, 2000; Meyer and Rowan, 1983; Schein, 2004). A superior theater stimulates the ethical thoughts and involves head and heart. Organizations which address these symbolic issues concerning their own theater of work instill daily endeavors with inspiration, vigor, and good spirit. A continuing realization of these four frames nurtures unyielding analytical traditions in a field like organization development where efficiency necessitates a wide-ranging, universal outlook on an indefinite, dynamic organizational landscape, which apparently is not always effortless. All individuals depend greatly on inadequate cognitive outlooks to comprehend situations which surround us, eagerly revert to customary rejoinders to crisis and disputes, and turn a blind eye towards the other relatively insignificant alternatives. Developmental restraints (Gallos, 1989, 2006) conspire to uphold convictions which our manner of judgment and viewing the world is often “the only way”. These perceptions about self keep individuals in their comfort zones and hence often miles away from the real understanding which defy the individuals to break their frames and accept a more complex socio emotional, rational, and principled analysis (Weick, 1979). Quintessentially superior diagnosticians entail various lenses to generalize what they envision and interpret its meaning. They are less appropriate to use them; though, in the absence of a structure which pushes them further than their developmentally-secured inclinations and into multi-frame thinking. To complicate the subjects, the vagueness in organizational life causes various potential elucidations as well as implied explanations for any given problem. In their research conducted across various organizations, sectors, and nations, Bolman and Deal (2003) repetitively established that the first and most general opinion of organizational incompetence is interpersonal i.e. shifting the blame. Blaming other people for the errors seems to be the most easies thing to do, and the most universally sought explanation for all types of human error, stupidity, or deceitfulness. Although shifting the blame seems to be second nature to all individuals it prevents them from easily comprehending the structural flaws and other more subtle system dynamics. The propensity to identify such occurrences must be the first priority of the management according to organizational theory whereby the management seek to encourage values and traditions among their team and emphasize on enhancing human relations to eliminate the risk of increasing the fault finding attitude among the employees. Research on perception and human development corroborates the fact that individuals often see what they expect to see. And it is the ability to look beyond the people or established structures that promises supplementary opportunities. The oral confrontations may be opinionated, for instance, rooted in the nepotism shown to one of the employees by a naive supervisor who has mistakenly fashioned a spirited work environment where the feeble seize at any minute share of the turf. The paramount involvement in such a case is with the supervisor who needs to be trained to exercise administrative control with fairness and integrity. Figure 1: Frame Potential Issues and Areas to Investigate structural rules, regulations, goals, policies, roles, tasks, job designs, job descriptions, technology, environment, chain of command, vertical and horizontal coordinating mechanisms, assessment and reward systems, standard operating procedures, authority spans and structures, spans of control, specialization/division of labor, information systems, formal feedback loops, boundary scanning and management processes human resource needs, skills, relationships, norms, perceptions and attitudes, morale, motivation, training and development, interpersonal and group dynamics, supervision, teams, job satisfaction, participation and involvement, informal organization, support, respect for diversity, formal and informal leadership political key stakeholders, divergent interests, scarce resources, areas of uncertainty, individual and group agendas, sources and bases of power, power distributions, formal and informal resource allocation systems and processes, influence, conflict, competition, politicking, coalitions, formal and informal alliances and networks, interdependence, control of rewards and punishment, informal communication channels symbolic culture, rituals, ceremonies, stories, myths, symbols, metaphors, meaning, spirituality, values, vision, charisma, passions and commitments Bibliography: Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E., (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, John Wiley and Sons, Pp. 372 - 379 Cohen, M. and March, J. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (second edition). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Galbraith, J. (2001). Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefing on Strategy, Structure, and Process (second edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gallos, J. V. (2006). “Career Counseling Revisited: A Developmental Perspective.” Career Planning and Adult Development, Winter. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation. New York: Harper Collins. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1986). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (revised edition). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper Collins McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1983). “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony” in J. Meyer and W. Scott (eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations (third edition). New York: McGraw Hill. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (third edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, H. (1988). The Power Game. New York: Random House. Weick, Karl. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage. Read More