Motivations for Organizational Change for Sustainability - Essay Example

?Motivations for Organizational Change for Sustainability Change is dynamic and inevitable in the modern world. With the growing technological advancements, increased competition, diverse cultures, political treads, environmental pollution, environmental drivers, and varying customer needs, organization will need to change and sustain their strategies in order to remain afloat and have a better competitive advantage over their equally strong competitors (Emerald, 2011, p.1). Although organizational change varies from one business context to another, organizational change adopts a general definition that refers to a specific change that has direct and significant effects in the management, operation, and output of an organization. Any variations in the way an organization operates and the way it is actually supposed to operate, leads to organizational change to ensure future successful growth and environmental preservation. Indeed the pace of organizational change is rapidly increasing courtesy of the new technology, social pressure, new lifestyles, environmental responsibility, and new ways of doing business. Many researches and model try to discuss organizational change towards sustainability. However, although change is aimed for the benefit of an organization, many stakeholders in organization are usually nervous and will tend to resist change consciously or subconsciously basing their fears on the uncertainty of the proposed changes. Hence, Corporates face many challenges in initiating and implementing sustainable organization changes. An effective organizational change must be timely, sustainable, inclusive, motivational, done in the best professional way, strategic, environmental friendly, and enjoys the best organizational change management. A proposed organizational change must detail the background for the organizational change, nature and the extent of change, possible effects, and the achievable objective of the change. The proposed organizational change should equally highlight the proposed implementation methods, new staffing requirements, timeframe, and the new structure of the organization (University of Western Australia, 2008, p.1). Since change is dynamic, and very fundamental in any organization, there should be an adequate representation of employees and management views in the in the proposed organization change. An organizational change may lead to redundancy, change in working hours, transfers, promotions, retraining, and even loss of job opportunities (University of Western Australia, 2008, p.1). A change in the corporation may also lead to significant changes in the operation size, skills required, and composition of the corporation. There are different types of organizational change. An organizational change can be organizational wide, subsystem, transformational, incremental, remedial, or developmental (McNamara, 2012, p.1). The knowledge on the type of change helps all stake holders stick to the scope, objective and retain scope and perspective of the organizational change during the actual process of changing. An organization change process will involve different departments in an organization. Departments involved in the organizational change process include the targeted department, related departments, IT department which will build and operate the changed system, the finance department that will support the entire process, customer-facing staff department that will apply the changes in customer relations, and the management that will oversee the organization change process (Wallace, 2007, p.1). However, the most important of the entire process of change is the organization change management. Change management is the application of a set of processes that ensure there is a systematic control and implementation of the proposed changes within the organizations’ emblem (University of Adelaide, 2012, p.4). An organizations management aims at designing an effective strategy that will overcome resistance from stakeholders and hence increase their engagement towards a successful transformation and environmental compliance. Management issues should be clear from the initial stages of the strategy for appropriate inclusion of plans and allocation of roles and responsibilities. An effective and sustainable strategy should lead to attainment of objectives, relevant to future changes, create a sense of ownership, and enable a measurable and sustainable environment. In order to achieve this, the management should first have a clear understanding of current state of the organisation before initiating other changes in the system. In fact, management focuses on systems, processes and empowers the process of change (University of Adelaide, 2012, p.5). While some employees will accommodate organizational change, most employees take time to appreciate change. Indeed, resistance to change is very normal in all fields. It is thus the duty of the management to understand the process, assess the attitude of the employees, motivate the employees, and use relevant knowledge in convincing and guiding them in the reasonable direction. The management can use various methods to involve the employees in the process. The management can collaborate with them through seminars and meetings. It can also inform and consult them, can direct them on the importance of the changes, and can coerce them to follow the new changes (Wallace, 2007, p.1). However, in any case, the degree of involvement depends with the magnitude of the change and involvement equally determines the success and sustainability of any organizational change. A successful and sustainable organizational change derives many benefits. It leads to employee participation and a greater understanding of the organizational change. It also leads to better and informed decisions in an organization and compliance to environmental policies. A comprehensive organization strategy guarantees trustworthy changing process and resultant minimal loss of productivity (University of Western Australia, 2008, p.1). Management issues should be clear from the initial stages for appropriate inclusion of plans and allocation of roles and responsibilities. To achieve this, there is significant need to minimize or eliminate resistance for a sustainable and effective organizational change. One of the ways of minimizing resistance is offering motivations. There are a number of motivations for organizational change for sustainability. These motivations will influence organizations strategies. This paper will address key motivations for organizational change for sustainability. It will also analyze their influence on corporate environmental strategies. In the context of organizational change, suitability refers to the act of organizing and running an organization with respect to the set principles, tools, and approaches that focus on economic, social, and environmental success of an organization (Couper et al, 2008, p 2). A corporate strategy that accords social and ecological performance guarantees higher economic productivity. The introduction of sustainability goals in a corporate environment initiates the process of organizational change (Green leaf, 2003, p.10). However, although resistance is a major problem in fostering organizational change, its proper understanding and management may be significant in attaining suitability goals. Because of this, many corporate organizations encourage overt unambiguous resistance via extensive questioning and challenges. This brings forth many new ideas, prevents covert resistance and hence attainment of sustainability goals (Green leaf, 2003, p.8). However, the management should be very cautious in introducing sustainability because its failure is frustrating and significant in reducing the morale of employees. As such all sustainability, goals must focus on altering the organizational culture. This will require a lot of motivation on the employees for it to succeed in bringing organizational change that is environmental friendly. The foundation of motivation lies on individual needs. Hence, there is absolute motivation when an organization change meets the need of the employees. This is possible by offering creative and challenging work, allotment of important jobs, promotions, and recognitions. Additionally, having a pleasant supervisor, good interactions with customers, and friendly coworkers enhances motivation to environment awareness. Better working environmental conditions, compensations, and job security offer enough motivation towards an organization change for sustainability. Other recreational factors like refreshments, convenient working hours, and comfort in the workplace also enhance motivation. It is hard to initiate any sustainable organizational change in absence of employees’ motivation. All governments and corporations face the issue of survival, renewal, and accountability in their daily activities. However, where governments have considerably delegated more responsibilities to corporations, the corporate world feels the pressure of maintaining a sustainable environment even as they continue offering commercial services to the citizens. Some of the issues that affect corporate strategies focusing on sustainable change include poverty and negative effects of globalization and industrialization that arise from weak international agreements that jeopardize responsibility of corporations to the environment and citizens. Additionally, the issue of corporations in developed countries being in possession of major resources and the failure of the international community and individual corporations to address these anomalies are aspects making environmental sustainability a big challenge (Griffiths and Benn, 2007, p 30-31). The side effects of these anomalies mainly include climate change resulting from globalization. As a result, national governments are initiating measures that will use market and legislative mechanisms to foster a more sustainable corporate responsibility. Some of the measures put up by government include the Earth Summit of 1992 that embraced the importance of affirmative relations between the environment and business operations. The aim of the summit was to ensure sustainable development that would guarantee satisfaction of present needs and accord future generations the ability to meet theirs (Griffiths and Benn, 2007, p. 33). The Earth Summit declaration of 1992 remains an uphill task to many corporate organizations. There has been rise in citizen organizations and movements that pressurize corporate organizations to adhere to corporate responsibility in sustaining the environment. Additionally there has been formation of alliances and networks among scientists, communities, local governments, and businesses with an aim of pushing corporate organizations to change their strategies and accord environmental sustainability. The media, NGOs, environmental bodies, and mass boycotts have equally catalyzed the fight for a sustainable environment. Global reporting initiative, Unilever Corporation, worldwide fund for nature, and Marine stewardship Council relentlessly calls for corporate responsibility in sustaining the environment (Griffiths and Benn, 2007, p 46). This has brought a new approach to organizational changes because of the persistent pressures from the government, citizens, NGOs, company stakeholders, and even some corporate leaders who have seen the light. There are new forms of legislation focusing on accommodating the environment sustainability principles in an organizations decision-making process. Some of the key drivers to corporate change are the “user pay” where governments ensure that defaulting organizations pay for the environmental risk. Additionally, consumer fees, pollution taxes, and legislation on producer responsibility are also drivers to corporate responsibility in sustaining the environment. At the same time, national governments are designing goodies and incentives to convince the business gurus to adopt the new realities of considering environmental sustainability even as they make organizational changes. This is after the governments’ realization that sanctions, penalties, and even bans prescribed on defaulting organizations might not be enough to guarantee a sustainable environment in a corporation’s strategy. The incentive include vehicle emission quotas, congestion taxes, carbon taxes, landfill taxes, license fees according to pollution levels, and vehicle return bonuses (Griffiths and Benn, 2007,p 50-51). The cost of non-compliance is huge and thus corporations opt for compliance with 85 % of US based manufacturers having an environmental policy that mandates them to adhere (Griffiths and Benn, 2007, p.53). Hence, the key motivations and drivers of organizational change for sustainability are environmental damage, competitiveness, organizational dynamics, and ethical considerations. In addressing corporate environment strategy towards responsibility to sustainable organizational change, the government has issued different motivations to corporations with a view of encouraging them to comply with set environmental policies. Additionally, organizations have adopted ecological responsive practices to meet legislative requirements and other mandated environmental preservation measures. However, it is worth noting that corporate environment strategies vary with different motivations and ecological practices. Some of the environmental motivations in a corporate environment strategy will include regulatory compliance, pressure from stakeholders, critical events, management initiatives, and ethical concerns. Moreover, legislative compliance, ethical concerns, and competitiveness form the basis of a corporate environment strategy geared towards the sustainability of an organization change (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). The three will then derive an empirical taxonomy of environmental motivations. Regulation or legislation is the most fundamental environmental motivator that influences a corporate environmental strategy. The motivator dictates the level at which the national government can issue warnings or impede a company’s operations based on its compliance to environmental policies. The government influences this motivation by increasing fines and legal costs that force a given corporation to devise a strategy and physically implement it in compliance with the set environmental agencies. The national government delegates this mandate to environmental agencies for enforcement. The environment regulatory agencies also act as coercive force towards environmental compliance by corporations. They also reduce the resultant costs associated with adoption of the set environmental policies. The environmental agencies considerably offer technical assistance towards compliance with the set regulations (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). Hence this motivational is highly regarded in the corporate environment strategy. Competitiveness as an environment motivator is also significant in influencing a corporate environment strategy. All corporations regardless of their specialty and size will strive to remain in the market with an aim of expansion and maximizing profits. Many business researchers argue that corporations in the same domain tend to copy their successful rivals even in matters of environmental policy compliance. They find it safe to comply if the successful corporations have done it because the main corporations have a higher edge to refuse to comply. Additionally, competitiveness plays a major role in inducing corporate ecological responsiveness that is contained in a corporate environmental strategy. Ecological responsiveness applies in the competitive motivated corporations where they believe that by inducing ecological responsiveness in their operations, they will have an upper hand in the competitive markets and thus enjoy more sales and resultant profits in the long term. Similarly, adoption of ecological responsiveness nurtures a good corporate reputation and creates goodwill for the corporation (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). This will draw an affirmative distinction between the corporation and its competitors in the competitive world. Motivations to ecological responsiveness include competitiveness, legitimation, and ecological responsibility (Bansal and Roth, 2000, p.724). Ecological responses also reduce environmental fines and costs in waste disposal that adds to the corporations profits. Ethical motivation is arguably the most significant environmental motivator. The decision to apply this motivator comes from the will of the corporate leaders to adhere to social good without any coercion force. The corporation just decides it is good to comply with the set regulations not for competition purposes or out of mandate. The corporation’s sense of responsibility and philanthropy manifests from its emphasis on ethics and social responsibility towards the environment free from self-interest (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). Hence, corporations motivated by ethics in designing a corporate environment strategy assume idealization rather than rationalization. Such corporations relate to environmental policies as long-term opportunities. The management of the corporation considers their utmost role in sustaining the environment rather than the short-term profitability of failing to comply with the set environmental measures. The ethical motivator still applies in corporations strategies even when the corporation is making losses. The corporation complies with an aim of gaining and maintaining moral legitimacy (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). The ethical motivator is thus the only motivator that applies in free will. Regulatory motivator applies mandatorily while the competitiveness motivator applies with an aim of gaining competitive advantage. As such, ethical environment motivator best influences corporate environment strategy aimed at organisation change. Considerably, all the environment motivators serve the purpose of encouraging corporate to adhere with set environmental policies aimed at sustaining the environment in course of doing business. Corporate environment strategy characteristics include social responsibility, entrepreneurship, and commitment to the environment. The strategy arises from the need of a more innovative response to relations between environment problems and business changes. It aims at securing resources and developing environmental friendly measurers that will sustain the environment. The environment strategy considerably values environment initiatives as long-term opportunities rather than short-term constraints to the corporation. It avails relevant resources to the corporation for purpose of exploitation. Most importantly, corporate environment strategy has a direct relationship with ethical issues or motivators in making corporate environment decisions. It relates social health and safety, environment conservation and social responsibility of the corporation. The strategy confirms the commitment of the corporation to comply with environment policies and accrues all the effects of compliance. The management and the employees adhere voluntarily to environmental sustenance. By extension corporate environment strategy increases employee morale, goodwill, corporate advantage, social responsibility, public relations, and the resulting financial benefits. To achieve these benefits, corporation stakeholders should support the strategy, train employees, reward environmental performance to encourage continuity, and should use the available environmental reporting avenues. All these contributions of corporate environment strategy relate to the key environmental motivators. Hence, it is factual to comment that environmental motivations have a direct correlation with the corporate environment strategy. Thus to devise a sustainable organizational change, a corporate environment strategy is fundamental. There are distinct clusters of environmental motivations that influence corporate environment strategy. The three clusters are coercive, competitive, and comprehensive. Comprehensive and competitive motivation relates to corporate social responsibility while relates to entrepreneurship. However, they influence the corporate environment strategy differently. Comprehensive supersedes competitive and coercive motivation clusters. Competitive outweighs coercive with respect to entrepreneurship. Moreover, the aspect of social responsibility is very eminent in all clusters. Additionally, entrepreneurship is very discriminative among the three clusters (Paulraj, 2008, n.p). Individual concern is another factor that influences corporate environment strategy. This is the level of respect that organizational members accord the natural environment. This moral value affect the corporate environment strategy in that one or more corporate leaders may be involved in designing the strategy and would therefore influence others to adopt environmental friendly measurers. Additionally, individuals judge socially responsible actions that include environmental responsibility. Hence, individual concern for the environment leads to motivation of ecological responsibility in an organization. Another factor that influences the sustainability of a corporate environment strategy is the field cohesion. It defines the intensity and density of network ties between stakeholders in a corporate field. Ina cohesive field the effect of competitiveness and higher levels of ecological responsibility are very low (Bansal and Roth, 2000, p.731). Hence, field cohesion has a negative influence on the corporate environmental strategy. Conclusion Various factors lead to organizational changes. Organizational changes should adhere to the set environmental policies that guarantee sustainable environment. National governments, Nongovernmental organizations, Individuals, Human right bodies, and environmental bodies advocate for corporate strategies that will comply with set measurers for a friendly environment. Since change faces resistance in most cases, many corporations have not complied with the environmental standards. The government has issued sermons, bans, penalties, incentives, and even fines to encourage environmental compliance by corporate organizations. Environmental motivations include regulatory, competitive, and ethical initiatives. Though all the motivations influence corporate environment strategy, ethical initiatives are more significant because they are out of free will. Three clusters of environmental motivation initiatives that include coercion, competitive and comprehension. They all influence corporate environment strategy. Additionally, field cohesion and individual concern influence corporate environmental strategy in significant magnitudes. Works Cited Bansal, P and Roth, K 2000, Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness 2000, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 43, No 4, pp 717-736 Couper et al 2008, Strategic Sustainability Consulting 2008, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.ecosteps.com.au/imagesDB/webPages/EcoSTEPSCouperCrawfordYoungStrategicSustainabilityConsultingChapter24308.pdf> Emerald 2011, Journal of Organizational Change Management 2011, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=jocm> Green leaf 2003, Sustainability, governance and organisational change 2003, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/content/pdfs/lcch5.pdf> Griffiths, A & Benn, S 2007, Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A guide for leaders and change agents of the Future 2007, 2nd ed. Oxon, Rout ledge. McNamara, C 2012, Organizational Change, and Development (Managing Change and Change Management) 2012, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://managementhelp.org/organizationalchange/index.htm> Paulraj, A 2008, Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact on Environmental strategies and practices 2008. The University of Adelaide 2012, Leading Change, Transition & Transformation 2012, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hr/strategic/leading_change_toolit.pdf > University of Western Australia 2008, Organisational Change Guidelines 2008, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/hr/publications/organisational_change_guidelines> Wallace, S 2007, Organisational Change Management 2007, Viewed 15 March 2012, < http://www.epmbook.com/orgchange.htm> Read More