Challenges to the Pluralism such as Marxism Feminism and Neo-Liberalism - Coursework Example

UNDERSTANDING WORKPLACE CHANGE Student’s Name Course Tutor Date UNDERSTANDING WORKPLACE CHANGE Introduction Since the beginning of industrial revolution the main concern that has continued to be a nightmare for business organisations has all along been how to achieve the best levels of work organization in order to minimise costs and maximise productivity. Securing as well as maintenance of competitive advantage through application of new systems and methods of work organisation has largely depended on financial and commercial concerns as opposed to the well-being of the workforce. For Instance, in modern business workplace, issues concerning workers health and safety have resurfaced very strongly and as is the case in many parts of the world, legislations have tried to protect workers to ensure that they have maximum safety and security in places of work (Glendon, Sharon & McKenna 2006, p 2). The central argument of this discussion paper is therefore based on the neoliberalism perspectives of social, political and economic change in business organisations based on reactive policies and traditional thinking of most management on social issues such as health and their significance to the general improvement of the well-being of workers. Significance of organisational change Organisational change in the wake of neoliberalism is concerned with social, political and economic practices that advocate that the well-being of people can meaningfully be advanced by adequate liberation of individual business skills and freedoms. In managing change, the state plays the role of ensuring that there is creation and preservation of institutional framework necessary for carrying out the practices. Change is basically a natural process which is very critical for the development of individuals and the business organisations. Therefore in the absence of change individuals and the business organisations would essentially remain the same regardless of time. Organisational experts have argued that any attempt to resist change is not natural and hinders the mechanisms of evolution of employees and the organisations they work in. Change should then be seen as a natural process that can essentially help individuals experience growth and business organizations to develop. The continuous process of growth and development is very vital for business organizations both domestically and internationally. Challenges to the pluralism such as Marxism Feminism and Neo-liberalism In light of Marxism, capitalist oriented organisations have been marked by a lot of inequality when considered in terms of wealth, opportunity and power. The questioning of inequality in the workplace by workers is not a welcome idea in most organisations as it is believed to be an instrument of discipline. In most cases, when change is enacted in a business organisation, the management can only embrace it if it is beneficial to the running and growth of business, but if it is to benefit the workers then it is considered a loss to the company (Goold, M. & Campbell (2002 pp.117-124). Companies therefore survive under the pretext that such inequalities and resistance to change is justified. Change in the workplace makes inequality to be socially unacceptable as it rallies for fair treatment of employees. Business organizations that welcome change makes workers to have high levels of performance for their interests are catered for. The workplace is also a place where liberal feminism has had significant contributions, and also an arena where women still have a long way to go in terms of achieving gender equality. Change in the workplace to recognize women have been due to feminist pressure that has enabled women to take up job opportunities that were a preserve of men. In modern day organizations, women are holding positions of authority. However, in light of such organizational change, gender patterns of hiring as well as promotion still ensure workplaces where different genders work at different jobs and most of the senior positions are held by men. Liberal feminism in the workplace as a formidable force to organizational change has developed theories to explain why there is gender stratification and gender segregation. In the wake of organisational change brought about by feminism at work where employers are compelled by legislations to hire workers with the view of maintaining gender balance has been on the rise. Such legislations also require employers to offer equal remuneration and give equal chances for career advancement (Wajcman 1998, pp 91-104). However, it is argued that implementation of change in any business organisation largely depends with the management. If stipulated regulations and recommendations for change are adhered to, then more innovative solutions to various issues at workplace or business organizations can be found (Goold & Campbell 2002, pp 119-124).In light of organizational change, the current interests in notions of social business, social innovation and social entrepreneurship provide a rare opportunity to look for fresh approaches to important issues such as safety management and occupational health in business organisations. It is obvious that many business organizations put more emphasis on industrial production as well as control of work in a bid to exert pressure for greater performance at the expense of the general welfare of the employees. Many organisational studies have looked at the social aspects of organisational work hence paying attention to social innovation concept as one of the modern-day organisational changes (Catherine McMahon & Barbara Pocock 2011). Organisational change and business innovation Business innovations are generally associated with the transformation of new concepts and the manner in which things are done into ethically significant products and services. The need to make profits has been the main idea behind change and innovation in business organizations with very little or no concern to the plight of the employees and the health complications of working under very poor conditions and terms of service. Most industrialists have therefore laid focus on the best ways of structuring their business entities by making good use of machinery so as to increase the levels of production and profitability. The modern-day commercial entrepreneurs use their powers to unethically decide the speed, direction and type of organizational change and more authoritarian in the way they approach organizational matters (Dawson 2003, pp 26-28). With the initial growth of industrialisation, noble methods for work organization were significantly adopted that were in line with the principle of the division of labour forwarded by Adam Smith in his famous book The Wealth of Nations. He used an example of pin making to clearly demonstrate how organizational output can be tremendously increased when a worker would just be assigned one task as opposed to many tasks in the process of pin making. Most approaches to industrial production and work design have fundamentally ignored the most important social aspects of workers safety measures and health (Dawson 2003, pp 26-28). Although some scanty instances of innovative workplace change advocating for improvement in the condition of work may be cited such as in the European nations, many of them have not been sustainable hence short-lived. Earlier studies carried out on industrial fatigue were a good indicator of highlighting the critical need for improving work conditions. A sociological perspective of change in the workplace In understanding highly personalized issues of social life, it is important to look at the context under which patterns of behaviour occur as well as its relative significance in social relationships. A typical interest of organisational change experts concerns the distribution of wealth, occupation and issue of class which has gone out of proportion in terms of occupations and social classes (Bohle & Quinlan 2000, pp101-111). As argued by Johnson (2004, pp 97-103), social class provides a very strong indicator of the relative ease of suffering from numerous forms of real conditions. He therefore noted that those in the society who are in the upper class tend to live longer and stay healthier in their lifetime. In work organizations, it is obvious to find a host of social related issues which sadly shows how provision of health greatly deteriorates with the social status and ironically improves amongst people in the upper class. This shows that social class is a strong determinant of social issues such as health in an organisation. Since most workers fall in the lower class, they are seen to have access to poor health facilities, substandard education and mostly reside in poor environments characterized by air pollution and housing problems. Criticism has been wedged on attempts that are geared towards solving organisational social issues such as managing health issues through organisational programmes that are mandated to modify the general behaviour of workers. The undesirable social effects of non-stipulated work conditions and patterns that encompass long hours and shift work have been well documented over the time and are expected to be taken seriously by the employees’ representatives. For example, in Australia, the Workers Health Centre, which was established in 1976 to ensure improvement in safety and health at work, documented some of the social issue implications such as health of workers when forced to work for relatively long hours and shift work. Exposure to such kind of working conditions result in quite a number of health complications that includes social problems and psychiatric disorder, increased fatigue and sleep disorders. Research has shown that the system of work organization can be a big impediment to organizational change that can benefit the workers socially and as mentioned by Dwyer (1991, pp 21-26); work schedules, personnel and bureaucratic control systems are some of the elements that should be put into consideration when making business organisation policy matters. For instance, this fact was well illustrated by Bohle and Quinlan (2000, p104) when they gave example of payment systems that are based on production bonuses in which the use of protective devices, most notably glasses and gloves, can hinder work output potential and thus workers may choose not to put on the safety devices so as to claim production bonus. Over the last forty years, the fundamental right of employees to have adequate knowledge of the potential dangers they face in line of duty has been gathering momentum hence being accepted by business organizations as one of the most important aspects of organisational change. Labour unions have been instrumental in ensuring that appropriate industrial support and training are provided hence since the 1970s matters relating to safety and health of workers have formed quite a number of industrial disputes. In developed nations such as Australia about 20 percent of industrial disputes have been as a result of poor state of physical working conditions. Given that sociological studies concerning organizational social issues such as health and industrial relations, most research have shifted their focus from psychological determinants to the principal social causes (Glendon, Sharon & McKenna 2006, p 2). As a wider scheme of the critique of modern business organisational approaches to social issues such as the medical model, apparent unwillingness and managerial orientation to consider social change is a big issue. Most organizational change are mostly laying focus on factors but no good orientation of management and development of satisfactory models of social change in organizations. Although it has been argued that some of the issues such as injury that might occur in the workplace is deeply rooted in the nature of the work, addressing issues of health and safety at work is paramount for the well-being of the workers. The examination of organisational social innovation management as a prerequisite for social change is very important for an inclusive organizational change that in essence benefits the employer and the employees. In the past, very little attention has been accorded the need to look at the general health and work conditions of individuals (Glendon, Sharon and McKenna 2006, p 2). Work psychology based studies have demonstrated the significance of information concerning what causes stress and the resulting problems of employee anxiety and tension on productivity and work processes. From this perspective, the means to reduce injury and ill-health is seen to largely rest with the individual. This shows that policies and prescriptions solely depend on the techniques and strategies that can significantly change the workers behaviour so as to alleviate the general feelings of anxiety and stress within the workplace. Even though labour have tried to mediate over conditions of work and payment systems in their bid to address the subject of structural and work designs, sociologists believe that social causes as opposed to psychological causes are the main causative agents of lack of social change in organisations based on work settings (McMahon & Pocock 2011, pp 117-129). According to Upchurch (2010, pp 54-69), meaningful organizational change should be concerned with the pattern and pace of work relationships of authority and mechanisms of control imposed on workers on a daily basis. Even though a lot of perspectives have been proposed by many organizational researchers, many of them are very narrow in scope and focus. Comprehensive organizational change calls for holistic approach and view for the effective management of social, economic and political issues. It is important for organization. Such managers should consider it appropriate to embrace growing need of social innovation at work, thus examination of the ways of managing work processes that come in handy in improving the well-being of the workers. It should not be geared towards increasing organisational productivity as well as profitability. Essence of flexibility and persistence in effecting organisational change Persistence in regard to organisational change calls for no giving up before the enaction of a program of change. On the other hand, flexibility refers to not being too rigid hence relate to the abil­ity of a business organisation to adequately and professionally react to unexpected changes while undergoing a programme of organisational change. It is strongly believed that changing an established business organization calls for persistence as well as flexibility. Persist­ence is very vital because no amount of change can be realised within a very short period of time, while flexibility allows organizational managers to appropriately adapt to the changes in the new environment characterizing the process of change. In regards (Glendon, Sharon & McKenna 2006, p 2).there are a number of things that can occur within an organization in the absence of flexibility. There are four stages characterizing business organization undergoing workplace change. First, business organisations generally articulate their vision as enabling mechanisms are put in place to see through the vision as well as guiding the firm through the real change, which marks the second stage. In most cases, it is quite unfortunate that the steering mechanisms are mostly marked by rigidity such that focus principally shifts from laying more emphasis on the changing environment to vision. This opens the doors for the third stage which is deterioration of feedback hence the utilization of the critical information necessary for achievement of change is not fruitfully utilized, thus the fourth stage. Bessant (2007, pp 38-49)pointed to the fact that a vision represent a very vital aspect of the process of change, but organisational managers should have the awareness that vision should be the guiding principle for the workers and should not make an organization to lack flexibility. It is believed that putting a lot of formality in a system may result in lack of creativity, simplicity and flexibility. Since change may be a dramatic process in respect to workers and management, persist­ence and flexibility are very important factors in achieving organizational change if they are properly balanced. Conclusion In conclusion, Change generally causes a lot of confusion within organizations. This is due to the fact that it presents a feeling of uncertainty that makes people to get confused about what to do and what to expect and the aftermath of the change being implemented. As is normal to human beings, change is unwelcome because it takes people from the well-known to unknown hence the relative fear of moving out of the comfort zone to unpredictable future. Change is therefore personal and has a lot to do with emotions. Since business organizations are manned by the same human beings, it is understandable that the fear for change cannot be avoided. However, it should be understood that without change business organizations cannot meaningfully develop hence can become irrelevant. Bibliography Bessant, J & Tidd J, 2007 Innovation and enterpreneurship John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Bohle P and Quinlan M, 2000 Managing occupational health and safety: A multidisciplinary approach, second edition, MacMillan Publishers, South Yarra. Catherine McMahon and Barbara Pocock 2011, doing things differently: Case Studies of Work- Life Innovation in Six Australian Workplaces, Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia Dawson P, 2003 Understanding organizational change, Sage, London. Dwyer T, 1991 Life and death at work: Industrial accidents as a case of socially produced error, Plenum Press, New York City. Glendon A, Sharon C and McKenna E, 2006 Human safety and risk management, 2nd edition, CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca Raton, FL. Goold, M. & Campbell, A 2002, “Do you have a well-designed organization?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 117-124. Johnson J.V, 2004 Work stressors and social class, PhD, University of Maryland, USA. McMahon, C & Pocock, B 2011, Doing things differently: Case Studies of Work- Life Innovation in Six Australian Workplaces, Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia. Web. Feb. 2012. Upchurch, M 2010, ‘Creating a sustainable work environment in British Airways: implications of the 2010 cabin crew dispute’, Technical Report, Middlesex University, London. Web. Feb. 2012. Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M, & Streb, C.K 2005, “The innovation meme: Managing innovation replicators for organizational fitness”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57-69. Wagner, C.K1995, “Managing change in business: Views from the ancient past”. Business Horizons, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 8-12. Read More