Improvement of Organizational Development - Case Study Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : OD is no longer relevant to change management Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2013 Introduction The central aim of any business organization is to realize sustainable success in achievement of its goals and objectives. To do this business organization needs an organization development (OD) as supported by Waddel, Cummings, & Worley (2011 Pp 6,125, 689). As such, organization development is the process by which behavioral science knowledge and practice are used to facilitate firms and business organization achieve greater effectiveness in achievement of their goals and objectives. This includes improved performance of the work force, proper management, and improvement of the organizational culture. Organizational development focuses on the holistic development of the organization through various levels and subsystems in an organization for instance leadership, employees, organizational culture, to bring the planned change. In regards to Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons (2000, Pp. 82). organization development identify the stages through which the organization procedurally passes in the process of their development. In addition, organization developments process is planned as it entail systematic diagnosis, program development and mobilization of resources in separate sub units or the entire organization. Indeed, firms can adopt organization strategy to revive the business performance and channel it to sustainable success. Scholar call this change management where the organization development analysis the formal and the informal parts of an organization. (Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2000, Pp. 82) As such, formal parts of the company include objectives, structure policy human resources and compensation. On the other hand, informal aspects of the organization include values, attitudes and social relationship. Over the recent past, scholars have been having a different perspective on the relevance of organization development on its capacity to handle change management in the modern business organization given the many business environmental turbulences and complexity. This paper, therefore, seeks to analyze and explore this hypothesis citing example from occurrences in the world of business. In regard to different scholars such as Adel (2001, Pp 6, Chian-Son, 2005, pp. 142) change management is the systematic approach to dealing with change both from perspective of an organization and on the individual level. It entails adapting to change, controlling change and affecting change. Indeed, it is a process that involves defining and implementation of procedures or technologies to deal with change in the business environment and to gain from changing opportunities. For this change to effectively take place organization development is fundamental and therefore organization development consultants who act as a catalyst for this change are always needed by such a firm which wants change. Change is inevitable in any organization which has been experiencing difficulties in achieving its goals and objectives. As further argued by Adel (2001, Pp 6) organization culture is always at the heart of any organization and it determines its achievements of sustainable success. As such, in an underachieving company its cultural components, therefore, need to be review and change for the better if necessary. Consequently, the organization development plans need to be implemented on the different subculture and the organization culture as a whole. National Australia bank for instance reformed the different cultural components of the bank which included the lax and corrupt management which almost made the bank to be bankrupts, poorly motivated employees as well as lack of enough good and adequate communication infrastructure. It required transformational and democratic leadership which ensure employees motivation and creativity hence high productivity (Adel, 2001, Pp 6, Chian-Son, 2005, pp. 142). Waddel et al (2011, pp 4) and other scholars argues that while an organizational development was a very effective traditional method of developing the effectiveness of a business organization, it has become substantially irrelevant in the modern world of business. This is highly blamed on the change in business environment which have highly dominated the modern market. Mason (2007, pp. 2) points out that business environment is change at a very high rate than ever before with the changes occurring in two major dimensions that is complexity and turbulence. In regards to Waddel et al (2011, pp 11), no single business organization can claim to be immune of these factors. While organization development is a systematic holistic process which entails gradual as well as progressive achievement of results, it is no longer viable to with stand complexity and turbulent forces. He further argues that as complexity increases the ability to comprehend and utilize information to plan and anticipate the future become difficult. As such complexity is the wide addition of new products people process and strategic initiatives. Further increase in complexity leads to more change and therefore, pose to be more hazardous to for implementation of the organization development plans hence making it problematic for changing the environment. Mason (2007, pp. 2). For instance, complexity has increase in the subsystems of business organization including the relationship either formal or informal (Collinson & Jay, 2011). Innovation of social media such as face book and twitter has further increased the complexity of relationship which may include employee to employee, employee to leaders and leaders to employees. Also the relationship between the organization and the clients/customer has equally increased in complexity such that the customer can constantly be informed of the organization through online. To some points some business organizations have started operating through online sales where businesses launch new product, explain the value of the products and market through online. At the same time, some components of organization culture such as communication infrastructure have metamorphosis to becoming more complex making communication (the genesis of any relationship) to be more delicate. Especially with the expansion of business to other geographical area particularly other countries has made communication more complex for instance the National Australia Bank unlike expanded to other countries such as New Zealand complicating communication further. Active communication miscommunication in an organization for instance with the stakeholders such as the suppliers, customers and the operating core culminates to reduced productivity and hence lack of competitive advantage over other competitors. As such, other than OD new approach is clearly needed: a way to embrace the complexity in business relationships, to master it and use it to drive value across the organization hence value based organization (Waddel et al, 2011, pp 11). The traditional organization development clearly cannot maneuver in such a complexity unless it is altered completely to fit the modern world of business. Initially relationships were easier to handle, they were manageable with organizational development as they were less complex given the few means of communication that were available (Waddel et al, 2011, pp 11). Management as a component of corporate culture has equally undergone evolution to different methods of where different leaders predispose diverse personalities which are very essential in the gross performance of the business organization. Over the years, research on the best methods of leadership have been done resulting in leadership styles such democratic, transformational, aristocratic and many others. Discovery of personality disorders such as corporate psychopath have complicated business even more. Delegation of duties has been predominant among leaders especially the passive leaders. The progressive expansion has led to continuous addition of employees in organizations. This including addition of products in the market is overwhelming to leaders who instead of solving complexity treat it as uncontrollable and inevitable. This have further complicated the need change management making it unsuccessful as it starts with the leaders (drivers of business organizations). As argued by Mason (2007, pp. 2) increase in complexity should be followed by more formal method for managing people or add specialists divisions, new process and new strategic initiatives. In the modern world of business this is not the case complexity is left unchecked and unregulated thus causing over complication and a drag of efficiency commonly known as complexity curve. In such a case, organizations development has become more challenging to handle change management. Delayed decision making have become inevitable as there have been wide range of options as well as the uncertainty they face. The too many demands may also distract them from making key decisions. It is apparent that normal organizational development plans are inapplicable under the clearly complex business world (Mason, 2007, pp. 2). On the other hand, turbulence which is the dynamism in the environment entails rapid and unexpected change in the environment internal and external. Initially a stable environment dominated the market and business organizations as a whole (Millson & Wilemon, 2002, Pp. 7).This made predictions to be possible and therefore advance preparations of the organizations so as not to be met unaware. Consequently, organization development had few challenges hence more applicable. For instance the national Australia bank was able negotiate again to achieve its initial competitive advantage easily through application of organizational development plan. It culture was transformed easily from reluctance and low motivation among the employees. Equally, the management was completely changed to goal oriented management leading to sustainable success which is manifested up to date. As a natural state, the world turbulence can trace its genesis in changes in, and interaction between the various environmental factors (Thomas & Worley, 2008). Particularly advancement in technology and the influence of computer have played a big role in turbulences. Telecommunication and media industry have had tremendous influence also hence causing instability even more. Out of all this reduced orderly competitions, quicker cycles of development, increased need for information and more difficulty in predicting customer product and service requirement have been born (Thomas & Worley, 2008). Turbulences have highly altered the normal business environment resulting in shorter decision windows, increased risk of obsolescence impossibility in long-term control of business and more non-linearity and unpredictability (Helfat, 2009, Pp. 1, 6, 115). Managers have to learn new ways of operating in the turbulent environment this in turn have resulted in alterations of organizational culture, strategies, structure and everything else in the firms/corporate. In the world such financial crises as world market turbulence of 2007-2008, high risk managerial turmoil as well as the increased market inflations have resulted due to these untamable turbulent forces. While organizational development plan is systematic and procedural, its application has become completely impossible as the environment is extremely dynamic. Consequently in an effort for the firms to apply organizational development plans so as to make changes they create ripple in the whole market forcing other firms to try to improve their strategic fit. Indeed this is to mean that market place is in a continuous state of disequilibrium and the more participants there are in the markets the more the ripples and therefore further disequilibrium and more complexity. Conclusion In conclusion it is apparent that organizational development in its normal state is outdated given the overall changes in the business world. Entrepreneurs now must find other way of business developments which can with stand the highly unstable business environment so as to maintain their existence and also competitive advantage over other competitors. If profit is to be achieved business must facilitate in development of regulation and checking laws so as to try tame the turbulence in the market so as to avoid cases such as financial crisis, market inflation and different type of risks businesses are exposed to. Equally managers must find ways to turn complexity into simplicity hence helping reduces the losses associated with complexity. Bibliography Adel M, (2001), Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Journal of Emerald vol 7 pp. 1-50 Chian-Son Yu, (2005), causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation ERP system. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 (1), pp.115 - 132 Collinson S, & Jay M, (2011), Confronting Complexity. Journal of Strategy: Complexity vol 15(20). Fitzsimmons J, & Fitzsimmons M, (2000), New Service Development: Creating Memorable Experiences New York: Sage. Helfat C, (2009), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mason R, (2007), The external environment’s effect on management and strategy: A complexity theory approach journal of Management Decision. Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 10-28 Millson M, & Wilemon D, (2002), The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success. Journal of Industrial Marketing Management. Vol 31 (1), Pp. 1–23 Thomas G, & Worley C, (2008), Organization Development and Change. Cengage Learning Australia. Triana, P, (2011), The Number That Killed Us: A Story of Modern Banking Flawed Mathematics, and a Big Financial Crisis. New York: John Wiley & Sons Waddel, Cummings & Worley, (2011), organizational Change: Development and Transformation with Student Resource Access 12 Months, 4th Ed. Cengage Learning Australia Read More