People and Organization Management in the Built Environment - Coursework Example

6. Some say there is one constant and that is Change in organizations. Thinking of organizational theories and management, do you think people and organizations in the built environment consider and manage change as a threat or as an opportunity? Change is indeed the one and only constant that exists within organizations. It is imperative to state that change is rampant because it makes things look easier from the long term perspectives. It makes the top management feel glad with their actions after the change philosophy has been defined, executed and implemented to seek the best possible results for the sake of the organizations. Within this paper, the focus would be kept on the built environment as change is witnessed at different levels so as to apprise all and sundry regarding the issues and concerns that the middle management and the lower staff have from time to time. It will also study the basis of change as a general proposition and then go on to find alternate routes in order to discern how change has been seen over the years in diverse industries and how it will be constantly viewed in the coming times as well. With that a proper understanding of the change principles will be sought which shall tackle the nuances related with how people see change as a catalyst towards creating something big and gigantic within organizations. The role of the employees and the top management is also crucial towards forming such opinions and they will rightfully be given an opportunity to have their viewpoints expressed. Considering the environment as a whole and the change premise within it in meticulous, this paper aims to tackle the grievances that people have with regards to change and how they look to find the best possible remedies, more so within the built environment. To begin the discussion at hand, it is quintessential to know where change can be incorporated within an organization. What this basically does is to tell the people at large how change is being seen and where its maximum uses and benefits can be drawn. It also tells the audiences that change is the only element that shall remain constant at the best of times and must not be disallowed under any situation whatsoever. It only helps the processes become more focused and rationalized, allowing the people involved within it at different levels a greater mileage than ever before. However not many businesses understand this principle as it should be (Berkowitz, 1993). They would much rather bank on the premise of growing together with incremental additions and deletions, which are remarked under the broad subject of modifications. A change is for the wholesale basis and would not be seen as one if not implemented in the most real sense, i.e. completely. Organizational change starts from the very top. The top management’s role at understanding how change shall be a significant exercise of the different processes is necessary to go ahead with the related measures. This is because the top management has a definitive duty to comprehend what path it is leading the organization towards and how this change shall be an important process. The organizational change is indeed quite a significant aspect of knowing where the employees stand and where the much needed amendments can be brought about. This is so required because it handles the changeover in quite an able manner (Want, 1990). The organizational change is indeed a much pivotal aspect of any industrial setting because it touches upon the grey areas and strengthens the already beefed up regions within the terrains of the business. The top management must make sure that there are no delays when it has decided to move ahead with the change process. Sometimes the change process requires significant amount of time which can take the eyes off the goal itself. This is something where the middle management must manifest its due role and keep telling the top tier what they must be steady about. If this keeps happening, there could be issues which could mar the change that one is talking about here. The organizational change would not come about in a magnanimous manner if the top management has new priorities now so it would be an ideal fit to keep abreast of what the industrial players, i.e. the rivals are doing and thus keep in harmony with the same over a period of time. The middle management employees are the ones who bring about the change processes within their entireties. This actually means that they are the ones who practically execute the change dynamics and look up to the same for obtaining sound results. When the middle management meshes its ideology with that of the top tier, results start pouring in, in huge numbers. Ideally, this warrants attention on the part of the middle management because they are the ones who get things going. They are the custodians of the change process and without their specialist roles, nothing would materialize. The essence of the organizational change will come to an end if the middle management does not feel inclined to do so. Since these employees are more or less in a specialist role, the need is to find out who causes the glitch in the first place. The middle management is indeed the ‘brain’ of any organization in this day and age, and they can easily steer the proverbial organizational ship as and how they feel like (Thomas, 2005). Now if they keep working in isolation, irrespective of how things should be managed in a proper way, there is bound to have serious concerns within the entire process of organizational change. The requirement therefore is to discern the exact manner through which change must be managed and dealt with. It will create a balance of sort and aim to objectify the very change that is happening within the organizational realms. If change has to come in within the organizational settings, it must be accompanied with a sense of vision to achieve something drastic and that too in a quantifiable and manageable way. Then only can one suggest significant breakthroughs for a business that aims to bring about that vital change process within its folds. Whether or not change is seen as an opportunity or looked upon at as a threat, the need is to contemplate the actual use of this change to begin with. It can come up as an opportunity area when change brings the employees closer and asks of them to work their way through things in a proper way (Brown, 1996). It can however be deemed as a threat when employees feel insecure at work. The opportunity can be cashed in when the employees know that this change once manifested will be able to garner productive results for the business and allow the employees to develop further. Their salaries will be increased further and there would be more chances that they shall be seen as successful within the societal domains. The threats are in the form of knowing that these employees themselves could ransack the very basis of the organizational change, which essentially means that there could be serious problems in having the change process underway. The need is to address these threats in such a way that there are no quagmires encountered at any stage and that there are immense opportunities to grow and develop with regards to the change that is coming upon their professional selves (Schneier, 1993). If change is an opportunity, then it should be cashed in on as such. This is because change can have lasting impacts on the business regimes and it can go down well with the employees in the long run yet it might not show as such from a short or medium term perspective. Within the built environment, people consider change as somewhat of a differential scenario where it can both have an advantageous proposition as well as a drawback stance attached to it. What is important to know is the kind of understanding that the built environment individuals have with the change premise. If they believe it can hurt their cause in more ways than one, then there should be solid foundations for understanding such concerns (Marshak, 2004). If it comes out as a positive more than anything else, then it should be appreciated by all and sundry across the board. There cannot be a line drawn in between as to whether it is both good and bad at the same time. It might just be possible within the results themselves but what is fundamentally significant is the fact that change has to be either good or bad for the individuals who work within the built environment (Green). Their work regimes must not be affected by it and if this happens, then either the change was not required or it has been manifested in a wholly negative fashion. Corrective measures might just do the trick at resolving the issue but these will not be able to garner the much needed optimism that the related individuals should have, right from the very beginning. However, if change is seen as a threat to people and organizations, then it could be safely stated that the organizational success is not guaranteed within the future. Threats are never appreciated at large by the employees and once they believe that this change process is bound to go wrong, then there is absolutely nothing that can be done to revert back the same. Under such scenarios, it is always a good omen to scrap the change altogether and find out common pathways through which change can once again be manifested in a different manner. If this change is for the betterment of the employees, they should be educated about it and if they seem unreceptive to this philosophy, then there is no reason why one should draft the required learning mechanisms first and then go ahead with the change ideology which has to be set in within the built environment. The threatening regimes need to be discerned as to why there is such a problem with the implementation of change. If change can bring in disrepute and a lack of concord amongst the employees, then it would be in their own interest to understand that they are not working for their own selves within the organization. The business viewpoint needs to be analyzed and understood properly before one can deduce the basis of knowing where anomalies exist and how best to get rid of them at the earliest. Hence a clear cut understanding of the change aspect within areas where it is perceived as a threat is much needed and will weigh in the required attributes in a timely manner. The employees who would detest a change of any kind would do so because they would be of the view that their already set norms and routines are going to be affected drastically. Thus they would protest against organizational change at all times. They would hinder the processes and actions that go into making this change possible. Also it will set a bad precedent for others outside the related lines of business who would know less about organizational change in the first place. Nobody appreciates a change and the employees working within the built environment are no different. They would not like that their already set mannerisms and norms are altered under any condition whatsoever. It would put them in a difficult situation and disallow them to seek mileage from what they are best at doing. In fact, their relevant regimes would be affected in a direct way. Thus it is best to let the employees within the built environment know how the organization shall help them achieve their goals and objectives and resolve the ambiguities that stand in the wake of this very achievement that they have envisioned. The employees must know how things shape up and how the planning stage will be taken on as far as future domains are concerned (Caluwe, 2000). The built environment is such that employees can get de-motivated very quickly and hence it would be a good practice if things are planned in a comprehensive manner whilst keeping the future in sight. Organizational change requires abundance of resources which makes the task easier. If this is not done, change will not be able to manifest its truest self. By resources one means that the adequate processes and actions are in place to make sure that the change will come about with the advent of time. If this has not been done within the initial stages, there is quite a good amount of evidence available which would suggest that the organizational change will require resources at its disposal later. The question arises here as to how these resources will be made available if these are not present at all (Mullins and Christy, 2010). A very direct and simple reply to this can be understood if change is allowed to manifest itself in the truest sense. What this implies is the fact that the organizational change basis will be given the go ahead by the top management and hence any issues that stand in the wake of achieving this change will be resolved at the earliest. The role of the specialists, the middle management and the top line decision makers within the built environment and the organizations that work hand in hand with it is of utmost significance. Hence resource deployment will solve quite a few issues which stand in the wake of achieving organizational change. If this possibility is made, many tasks will automatically start to become coherent and there would be a better chance of accomplishing the goals and objectives that the built environment has developed for its own self (Ginzberg, 1957). Within the built environment where there is a great amount of incorporation from the architectural and designing side, organizational change means that the workers and employees should comprehend how this change is going to bring about amendments within their work routines and the kind of success that the organization has linked up with this change (Ngo, 2001). Designers often find it hard to do things in a different manner than the one that they are undertaking at present. It essentially means that they would have to give up those routines which are not working in their favor but shall boost the basis of the organization in the long run. The strategic thinking needs to be brought in so that any issues that are faced by the organization at a later stage are taken care of immediately and instantly. These aspects pinpoint how well anomalies can be addressed and where significant changes can be incorporated, within proper contexts and proportions (Jedlicka, 1987). The designers might have to make do with new software and programs which will be different from the already chosen ones like CAD, CAM and so on. This could even mean that their work routines shall get amended but what is most required is a vision to set things right and that too in the forward direction. There must not be any backward looking approach as it will curtail the basis of growth and development that could be achieved in the future. The need is to know where these changes for the sake of the built environment can have serious benefits for all and sundry under the related ranks. Change management is indeed an ideology that should be understood to harness the potentials of a business and indeed to find the industrial competitiveness and the abilities of the customers and stakeholders as far as making a sale is concerned. This would ask for a better understanding of how the related industrial domains are shaping up and how this shall bring upon serious success for the related company that one is talking about here. What one must focus upon here is an understanding that draws its basis from the change management premise. It indeed is an ideology that emphasizes a great deal on how things turn into with the passage of time and taps the potentials that exist alongside it or with it from a competitive standpoint. One would think that these are ideal conditions for learning quite a few traits, most of which remain very significant in this day and age (Coghlan). The ideological basis of change management has not been altered with the passage of time; rather the focus has shifted towards more quintessential areas under the auspices of organizational change, which is indeed a very positive sign if seen within the relevant contexts. People within the built environment have started to realize how this change can be deemed as the most appropriate one from their own perspectives as well as from the domains of the organizations that they are a vital part of. It would make them feel privileged at learning new traits and things which was not the case in the times gone by when the change premise was not included within their work tenets (Poole, 2004). Historical evidence has suggested that change has never been adopted in a wholesome fashion. There has always been criticism in the wake of bringing about change that shall remain strategic from all angles and more so within the built environment where the change is a constant element. There could be other philosophies available that have a differential viewpoint with regards to the organizational change but one cannot ensure if these would be deemed as the most pertinent ones. The need is to understand how organizational change is being manifested for the overall success of the employees, the different stakeholders and the middlemen who are involved with the organizations at varied levels. The need is to know where anomalies exist and how these are addressed within quantifiable proportions. The top management must make sure that it has a proper understanding of the people who are working within the realms of the organizations so that when change is implemented, it is estimated well beforehand so that the shortcomings and loopholes are not left uncovered under any stage whatsoever (Church, 2002). The philosophy of change management is such that it will continue to create rifts amongst the employees within the built environment as far as the organizational treatment is concerned. There would be more and more employees who shall feel left out of the related equations, and this is because no one appreciates change for the sake of merely changing their respective domains (Schmuck, 1995). The ideology of sticking on with what has been the time tested phenomenon is also an important one yet it will not be able to draw in the results that one is looking forward to have as far as the organizational comprehension is linked. What remains to be seen is the kind of opportunity or threat change is going to be and how this will affect the people working within the organizations and the organizations themselves in the long run. Some leave the workplace because they feel that they have been hard done by while others protest in their own meticulous ways. Some go up to the management and let them know what they feel about the change while others detest the talk of a mere change to begin with. Then again, every employee has his separate and distinctive style of coming up with an excuse for not accepting change. On the flip side, there are only a handful of employees who will happily accept and adopt change, and this is quite rare. The opportunity and threat basis will be explored at length once the organizational change is understood and hence it will be a good practice to take the viewpoints of everyone involved at one level or the other. The distinctive positions upon which employees exist are given significance because they are the real value of the business enterprise and are therefore treated as such. In the end, it would be sound to suggest that organizational change ensures harmony within its related settings and should therefore always be seen as a pragmatic happening within the organizational realms. This paper has touched upon areas where organizational change has been able to make a name for its own self and the kind of success it has achieved over a period of time. With that serious significance has been paid towards the people who bring about the change process to fruition in the first place. They are the real saviors and must deserve the credit and respect for the change process that comes about within the realms of different organizations around the world in this day and age. Hence this paper has been able to touch base with organizational change from a number of different perspectives which is the need of the hour as far as gaining an incisive look at the topic is concerned. One can only hope that the organizational change will be comprehensive from all angles before it is implemented within an organization so that no hiccups are experienced at any level whatsoever. Bibliography Berkowitz, P., 2003. The Heart of Change. School Administrator 60 Brown, S, 1996. Implementing Change in a Correctional Setting. Corrections Today 58 Caluwe, L, 2000. Learning to Change: A Guide for Organization Change Agents Church, A, 2002. Organization Development: A Data-Driven Approach to Organizational Change. Jossey-Bass Coghlan, D. Managers Learning in Action Management Ginzberg, E, 1957. Effecting Change in Large Organizations. Columbia University Press Green, M, Making Sense of Change Management Jedlicka, A, 1987. Organizational Change and the Third World: Designs for the Twenty-First Century. Praeger Publishers Marshak, R, 2004. Morphing: the Leading Edge of Organizational Change in the Twenty-first Century. Organization Development Journal 22 Mullins, L. and Christy, 2010. Management and Organizational Behavior. Financial Times, Prentice Hall, 9th ed. Ngo, H, 2001. Organization Development and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Multinational and Local Firms. Journal of International Business Studies 32 Poole, M, 2004. Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford University Press Schmuck, R, 1995. Process Consultation and Organization Development Today. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 6 Schneier, C, 1993. Making Organization Change Happen: The Keys to Successful Delayering. Human Resource Planning 16 Thomas, S, 2005. Successfully Managing Change in Organizations Want, J, 1990. Managing the Business Change Cycle. ABA Banking Journal 82 Read More