Forces Initiating or Inhibiting Change in Organizations - Essay Example

Forces Initiating or Inhibiting Change in Organizations December X, 2006 Forces Initiating or Inhibiting Change in Organizations Corporate culture, consisting of the organization’s practices, beliefs and norms, starts from the founders (Baron and Greenberg, 1989), and transmitted by senior and top managers to succeeding employees (Buchanan, 1997). It may happen that a culture in a small organization with homogenous culture will not change for a longer time, but with increasing diversity and complexity of the situations within and outside the organizations, change is inevitable. Baron and Greenberg (1989) said that a culture changes as a result of external environment (market conditions, new competitors, government policies), nature of the business, and its own members. They added that an organization’s experience with outside situations as it finds a place for itself in the industry and the market also contribute to culture change, and in the process, it adapts some values and practices it finds advantageous. As an example, they cited that pursuing a strong commitment for products with no defects ingrains a value for high quality. New young employees from diverse cultures, they elaborated, with more or lesser training, with varying perception and reaction to the existing culture, would effect a change as they move up the corporate ladder. A conscious effort to alter the structure and operations would necessarily change the culture, such as change in recruitment policies, or manager’s approach in dealing with subordinates, thereby creating new norms and acceptable behaviors (Baron and Greenberg, 1989). The organization, as it adapts with its diverse culture, has to change its policies and practices, especially on human resource, “to attract and keep this more diverse workforce” (Robbins, 2005, p. 265). The coming of new technology, Robins (2005) said, affects the jobs and the organization. There was a time when pagers were in vogue. It was a necessary communication tool for sales and field personnel, but cellular phones took them out of the picture. Computer knowledge is an added requirement for new employees, a necessity in almost all business outfits. Technology, likewise, affects a company or industry, especially the music industry with online downloads and sharing (Robbins, 2005). He commented that genetic technology allows pharmaceutical corporations to produce drugs for particular individuals, which in turn produces a dilemma for insurance companies on who would be insured or not. With competition no longer confined within a geographic territory but globally, new products and services should be introduced for survival (Robbins, 2005). With business deals being transacted and concluded online, technical and support units became part of the structure. The impact of world politics was unimaginable (e.g. break-up of Soviet Union, Middle East bombings, 9-11 attacks, war on terrorism) which changed some business practices (e.g. employee security and profiling), Robbins (2005) elaborated. He added that in both the individual and organization, resistance to change is attributed to the need for stable and predictable behavior (Robbins, 2005). For Miner (1998), the forces that inhibit change are the following: a) individual sources (ill-advised, to retain one’s power), b) group sources (technology that break-up groups), and c) organizational sources (entrenched structures resist power realignments). Robbins (2005) cited two sources or resistance, individual and organizational. Individual resistance is attributed to the inherent human characteristics such as perception, personalities and needs. For individual resistance, he cited the following contributing factors: a) habit (make reaction to complex situations simple through accustomed reaction), b) security (proposal to automate production will result to lay-off), c) economic factors (change in task arouses fear of inability to perform according to new standard or decrease in income), d) fear of unknown (a new quality program creates fear and negative attitude toward the program), and e) selective information processing (perceptions differ among individuals). Organization resistance, due to inherent conservative nature of organizations, is attributed to the following: a) structural inertia (established policies, rules and procedures; people are hired to fit in the system; the structure itself maintains the organization), b) limited focus of change (with the units in an organization interdependent with one another, change in one would affect the rest, thus, a limited change is cancelled out by the whole system), c) group inertia (norms negate individual desire for change), d) threat to expertise (outsourcing some human resource activities is resisted by human resource units), e) threat to established power relationships (participation of teams in decision-making threatens higher level corporate officials), and f) threat to established resource allocations (a change may reduce budget allocation). Diversity works both ways, it enhances change or reinforces resistance to change. Members of a subculture may react negatively to introduced changes if they were not included in the decision-making process or would pose a threat to their security. Breaking up of groups belonging to one culture will be resisted by the group members. A perceived degradation of members of a subculture because the members hold low level or menial positions as a result of policy or structure changes would necessarily resist the changes. Diversity can also soften resistance to change. Specialization to a technical product would require skills from some groups that would break them apart when transferred to a new unit, epecially if structural changes would ensue. Resistance to such changes would mean non-productivity and non-protitability, and bankruptcy in the long run. If resistance will persist, the management would resort to hiring new employees while the resisting members would be separated from work. The best alternative, then, would be to accept the change. Situations with diverse cultures do not exactly repeat itselft in every company. A particular issue may enduce resistance in one organization while it may encourage change in another. Thus, diversity management is crucial in any change that would occur in an organization. AAACN Viewpoint ABNF Journal, The AIDS Treatment News AMAA Journal Aboriginal Nurse, The Adolescence Adolescent Psychiatry Advances in Skin & Wound Care Age and Ageing Alabama Nurse Alberta RN Alcohol Research & Health Alternative Medicine Review American Annals of the Deaf American Family Physician American Fitness Mens Fitness Psychology Today Shape References Baron, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (1989) Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (1997) Organizational behaviour an introductory text. 3rd ed. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe, a division of Simon & Schuster International Group. Miner, J.B. (1998) Organizational behavior: Performance and productivity. New York: Random House. Robbins, S.P. (2005) Essentials of organizational behavior. 8th ed. NJ: Prentice Hall. Models of Organizational Structures Student Name Course Title December x, 2006 Models of Organizational Structures Organizations adapt particular structural designs according to their business objectives. Thus, it is common for organizations to try one model or abandon another that would not work for them. They do this by creating departments (departmentalization) to distribute decision-making power and authority vertically (also termed centralization or decentralization) or horizontally (the need of the head to transfer power to a department involved (Galbraith, 1995). There are several structural designs but the most common are functional, divisional and matrix models. The functional model, the commonly used form of departmentalization in bureaucratic organizations, has the following advantages: a) broad access to specialized personnel, b) good morale, c) ease of supervision, d) task specialization, e) retaining power of major functions, f) training simplification, g) operational economy and efficiency, and h) tight control at the top (Banner, 1995). The disadvantages of this model are as follows: a) only the top level bears the accountability for profits, b) extreme specialization and limited viewpoints of concerned personnel, c) difficulty in economic growth of organization due to poor coordination, d) less coordination among functions causes more discord, and e) growth of general manager is hindered (Banner, 1995). Galbraith (1995) said that this model suits well for beginning organizations, small companies, those requiring proprietary expertise, single product/service and limited market, and products with long life or development cycles. For him, the advantages of this model are as follows: a) grouping of workers with similar skills, e.g. R&D persons, b) greater degree of specialization, c) one purchasing system in operations, and d) one manufacturing function for all production work. He added that this model is not suited for mass customization, short product life cycles, and fast product development. The divisional model tends to group specialists together to generate a product or service and organize around products, geographic regions, or customer groups (Banner, 1995). The model works best when products, locations, and clients vary greatly, Banner (1995) said. Miner (1998) elaborated that diversification accompanied by the utilization of divisional model is an effective mode to achieve growth, especially sales growth, but not necessarily increase in profits. Divisionalization has the following advantages: a) effort is focused on a product, geographic area or customer group, b) the division is accountable for profits, delegation and utilization of human resources, c) better coordination of functional tasks, d) provides a training venue for general managers, e) allows organizational growth of products or services, and f) greater independence of division head is conducive to faster planning and coordination and adjustment to market shifts (Banner, 1995). He cited its disadvantages as follows: a) more experienced general managers needed, b) maintenance of economical central services becomes intricate, c) bigger problem on top management control, d) personnel and facilities repetition, and e) creates negative competition within the whole organization. Miner (1998) mentioned the conditions for matrix design to exist: a) at least two strong bases of departmentation, b) need to implement complex, interdependent tasks and processing of huge information, and c) will require huge economic resources using limited human resources. Banner (1995) explained that the matrix model (simultaneous structure) is a combination of bureaucratic structure and organic elements. The bureaucratic part retains its functional units (marketing, finance, etc.) and a source of manpower for the organic part (Banner, 1995). In the matrix design, the specialists assigned to a project retain their functional tasks (Miner, 1998) and return to their functional “homes” after work completion (Banner, 1995). While the bureaucratic side of the matrix is hierarchical in nature, the organic half is decentralized with a flat structure, Banner (1995) explained. He enumerated the advantages of the matrix model as follows: a) several specialist can provide creative solutions, b) enhanced risk taking with group decision making, c) maximum use of resources by utilizing people expertise to the fullest, d) rapid response to market with its flexibility and adaptability, e) faster rollout of new products with short production run, f) better planning, g) greater communication and information transfer, h) superior managerial growth and maturity, and i) dual head (functional head and team leader) allows professional enrichment. He cited the following matrix disadvantages: a) predisposition toward anarchy where workers seem not responsible to the head, b) power struggles where managers shrewdly maneuver for power, c) severe groupitis (difficulties will arise if group decision-making is sought for every problem), d) collapse during economic crunch (becomes the scapegoat for poor management when business declines), e) excessive overhead with dual management and training costs, f) sinking to group or division level where it works best (it is hard to survive at high levels), g) uncontrolled layering of matrices within matrices, h) navel gazing (with internal politics and management, leaders loss sight of the external world and the bigger picture, i) decision strangulation (a climate is created where everyone votes on everything and ultimately not arriving at a decision). AAACN Viewpoint ABNF Journal, The AIDS Treatment News AMAA Journal Aboriginal Nurse, The Adolescence Adolescent Psychiatry Advances in Skin & Wound Care Age and Ageing Alabama Nurse Alberta RN Alcohol Research & Health Alternative Medicine Review American Annals of the Deaf American Family Physician American Fitness Mens Fitness Psychology Today Shape References Banner, D.K. and Gagne, T.E. (1995) Designing effective organizations: Traditional and transformational views. Thousands Oaks, Ca: Sage. Galbraith, J.R. (1995) Designing organizations: An executive briefing on strategy, structure, and processes. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miner, J.B. (1998) Organizational behavior: Performance and productivity. New York: Random House. Read More