What Difficulties an Organisational Development May Face in Managing Change - Essay Example

DIFFICULTIES AN ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH MAY FACE IN MANAGING CHANGE IN A LARGE ORGANISATION In today’s business world, one of the primary considerations in measuring the Human Resource management’s objective of the organization is the way service is rendered. At least from the contingency of the studies in the restructuring of organizations, there are no two firms or organisations that utilise the same approach in improving their operation (Swift, n.d). The ever-changing business environment demands a strategic change aimed at recuperating performance of individual (s), group (S), and organisation (s) at different levels of management. All these efforts are often directed at keeping the organisation up-to-date, reviving its strategies and fostering creativity or innovationist to keep up with the competition (Naghibi and Baban, 2010). One of such strategy is the initiation and implementation of the Organisation Development (OD) Approach- that is practitioner-driven intercession that influences organisation change to enhance the effectiveness (Uk.Sagepub.Com, n.d.). OD approach had its origin in the early 1930s when a group of psychologists realized that the organisational structure has an effect on both workers’ motivation and behaviour (Med.upenn.edu, 2014). The current OD system has extended to include policies of aligning organisations with swiftly evolving and complex business atmosphere through organisation training, skills management and organisation norms and values transformation (Med.upenn.edu, 2014). However, the process of implementing the OD is not always smooth as some of the difficulties may be experienced. The difficulties may be varied depending on the size of the organisation. For instances, a larger organisation (above 1000 employees) will often have its norms, and values documented than in small organisations (Huberths, 2012). Some of the difficulties experienced in managing change include individual resistance and organisational resistance to change. What is Organisation development approach? Several definitions have been generated to explain the meaning of organizational development, some of which are significant. According to Hitt and Middlemist, organizational development (OD) is a systematic way for planned change that engrosses the whole organization and is anticipated to boost organization’s efficiency (Learning Ace, 2014). Another definition by Cumming and Huse is that OD is a wide application system of behavioural science skills to the premeditated development and fortification of organizational strategies, processes, and structure, for fostering an organization’s efficiency (Cummings and Christopher, 2010). Final definition is by the encyclopaedia of business which refers OD as a holistic approach that stresses cautiously crafted approaches to transforming or improving organization’s structure and operations, in an endeavour to minimize unconstructive side effects and capitalizing on organisational effectiveness (Mote, 2014). Several sections of the above three definitions are principally worth emphasizing and thus brings out how the whole OD approach should look like together with its roles. The first defines OD as a systematic action- meaning a progressive process that aids an organisation in dealing with both current and projected challenges, putting the leadership in a proactive rather than reactive approach (Learning Ace, 2014). The approach differs from the put-out-fires strategy that is often invoked in many organisations traditionally. The second notable item is that OD engrosses planned change inside an entire organization, meaning that a proactive attitude is indispensable for change to be effective; or else, the premeditated change attempt will delay the anticipated outcome. The third definition refers OD as holistic, meaning that it involves a combination of efforts to transform behaviour throughout the entire sector. For instance, an organization may change its techniques for the basic organizational development process to include data gathering, planning the changes, and then implementing and finally managing the changes (Mote, 2014). Overall, organization development approach is all matter concerning performance improvement in either Individual or group or organization levels. Therefore, OD is a strategy developed by a particular organization having considered its challenges, to counter effectively to changes in its peripheral environment (Humansynergistics.com, n.d). However, the managing of whichever OD changes that an entity arrives at is bound to be hampered by some difficulties considering that some changes are radical, and not all people may agree. Likely difficulties OD approach might face in managing change in a Large Organisation. Change of any kind in a large organization is bound to raise highbrows and mixed reactions. Unlike in the small organisation where change is introduced through informal interactions, changes in larger organizations indemnify that everybody is properly enlightened of the change often in a written document (Huberths, 2012). The organization values and norms are well scripted for everyone to comprehend. Nonetheless, the managing this change often encounters some difficulties. This is no surprise as explained by Dr Kübler - Ross’s studies where he notes that before contemplating about change, it is important to factor what the type of change is, who is involved or who is affected and therefore the two points ought to be made. He further illustrated that change involves up-and-downs of denial, development, frustrations, immobilization, and acceptance (Essentialtoolsseries.Com, 2014).Having explained that difficulties arise from the people involved in the OD change; the most significant difficulties are resistance to change and organizational resistance. Resistance to change difficulties Resistance to change is a common phenomenon not only at managing change, but also as early as conception of the approach and the whole implementation process. Immediately a communication is either rumoured or made of expected change, several reactions are bound to surface. Such difficulties arise from a number of individuals who may either openly resist or may try to avert those who are not so devoted to the change. Such individuals may be categorized into four groups; the protesters, Zombies, saboteurs and survivors (Essentialtoolsseries.Com, 2014). The protesters will openly make their objection known publicly to colleagues and organization; the zombies are neither here or there and have no constructive opinion to help the team. Thirdly are the saboteurs who will contest a change on the premise that old ways are better than new changes and will often seek ways to fail the change. Finally are survivors who even though they may support the change, they offer their effort best to utilize the change for the own advantage (Essentialtoolsseries.Com, 2014). As clearly described, these individuals are reluctant to accept change and therefore pose difficulties in implementing organizational development approach. Why is there resistance to change? The number one reason is the personal fear of change itself. There is a common tendency of not being enthusiastic to forego the past or former ways of conducting their organizational dealings in favour of unfamiliar and perhaps unsafe terrain (Learning Ace, 2014). This is because, change represents the mystery that could mean a probable failure, and the diminishing of an individual’s width of control and discretion (Learning Ace, 2014). In addition, it could be that the planned change has minute or no effect on the organization at all. Any one of such potential can raise doubt and therefore fear, justifiably causing resistance to the transform efforts. Furthermore, the changeover between the current state and the transformed state is difficult at both individual (s) and organization(s) level. About individual level, persons must be reminiscent that every transition effort commences with an ending i.e. the termination of the current situation. Since the organization under study is a large with over 1000 employees, reaching a consensus is definitely a difficult, and this allows dissenting views with may waive further fear to change. The organization design consideration for such large organization is also connected to the difficulties experienced with OD change. As defined by Jeff Schwartz- the leader of Deloitte consulting service line, organizational design is the vehicle for execution of business strategy and the atmosphere at which organisation’s talent is exposed (Schwartz et al., n.d). Changes should be considered seriously, because ultimate change interventions will pose difficulties if the change on one subsystem is done at the exclusion of the other in a large organization. This is because all subsystems seem to exhibit some dependency, and therefore the implementers should pay attention to the influence on other related structures (Naghibi and Baban, 2011). When such precautions are initiated, it is easier to alleviate peoples’ fear to change. Organisational resistance difficulties Similar as with individual resistance to changes on which are difficulties at personal change, it should be noticeable that this observable fact transpires at the organizational level as well (Learning Ace, 2014) Large organization under consideration here contains an extensive number of individuals or stakeholders who obviously hold varied opinions and stands. The extent to which organization’s individuals can efficiently manage change is portrayed by the extent of their potential for change. However, there are peculiar difficulties around organization design and setting that hampers the full implementation of the Organizational development changes. Such barriers include inertia, unclear communication, low-risk atmosphere, and lack of sufficient resources (Learning Ace, 2014) As one of the organizational resistance factors, inertia is one of the significant obstruct of change break-through. Inertia is the free push or urgency which, unfortunately, due to day-to-day work demand diminishes the will of implementing the change endeavour which often vanishes completely within the organization (Sirkin, Jackson and Keenan, 2005). Secondly is the lack of apposite communication whereby the information concerning the change often leads to varied perceptions and expectations of the OD approach. Another difficulty is the low- risk atmosphere whereby the organization doesn’t advance change and leans towards reprimanding mistakes (Schein, 2010). The results are that individuals develop resistance to transform, preferring instead to maintain the status quo, the safe less-risk structure. Final organizational resistance impediment is insufficient time; funds, staff, and other complimentary resources provision to facilitate the change implementation (Learning Ace, 2014) This sabotage amounts to resistance, and therefore these factors together with individual resistance to change discussed above, are some of the major difficulties experienced in managing change, and their prevalence can completely hamper change implementation. Future recommendation As with individual resistance to change, it is important for leaders to explain to each individual as to how the change was conceptualized initiated and what it is aimed to achieve. That way, regardless of all changes being often stressful, it becomes easier to go through to conclusion and into transition especially if the OD was driven internally, rather than initiation by external sources (Learning Ace, 2014) Often if, the change is driven by external sources, the transition is difficult, individual resistance is prevalent, and therefore indoor deliberations should be invoked to allow individuals within the organization to participate. This will work in letting organisation’s stakeholders (employees, lead teams, employers, etc) the right to ownership of the transformation dream or simply being the masters of the change (Sirkin, Jackson and Keenan, 2005). Such proactive approach will alleviate fear and resistance to change. About organizational resistance to change, the best recommendation as suggested by several HRM researchers is to become committed to dream of change (Sirkin, Jackson and Keenan, 2005). In full realization of change, organization should address the difficulties to restore the inertia, proper communication, provision of low-risk environment and provision of the necessary resources to achieve effective change. A brilliant change agent can spend the indispensable time to foresee and plan ways to manage resistance. A combination of transforming, mental and comprehending skills can help in overcoming organization resistance. The transforming skills will enable the agent to create a supportive risk-taking atmosphere, self-awareness, and self-confidence as these emotional techniques motivate teams. Mental skills enable change agents to think holistically and help the rest to see the bigger picture of change through symbols and metaphors. Such figurative language aids the pessimistic individuals to relate to change process and to tolerate anxiety and resist contestation on every issue (Learning Ace, 2014). Conclusion In conclusion, change is unavoidable in the contemporary business world, and organisations should be ready to adopt new OD approaches to keep up-to-date with competition particularly large organisations. However, these changes come with their pros and cons, and the most prevalent difficulty is resistance to change, both individual and organisational resistance. The difficulties are orientated to either organisational design or the change leadership team. For a successful management of change in a large entity, a number of recommendations are necessary for the future. They include efforts to restore the commitment among all those involved using transforming and mental skills to reduce organisational resistance. The Change leadership team should make it clear to everybody, what the change is all about thus alleviating the resistance from likes of protesters, zombies, survivors and saboteurs. Nonetheless, change is inevitable, and once a change process is initiated, the leaders must identify the difficulties and struck remedies to ensure successful sailing of change dream. Bibliography UK.SAGEPUB.COM, n.d. Chapter 5 Organizational Development and Change. 1st ed. Sage Publication. Available at http://www.uk.sagepub.com/millward/files/case_study/ch5_overview.doc [Accessed 21 Nov. 2014]. CUMMINGS, THOMAS G. and CHRISTOPHER, G. W., 2012. Organization Development And Change. ESSENTIALTOOLSSERIES.COM, 2014. CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 1st ed. essentialtoolsseries.com. HUBERTHS, G.J., 2012. Differences In Management Control Systems Between Large And Small Organisations: A Configuration Approach. 1st ed. University of Twente. Available at http://essay.utwente.nl/61900/1/Differences_in_MCS_between_large_and_small_organisations%2C_master_thesis_GJ_Huberts [Accessed 21 Nov. 2014]. HUMANSYNERGISTICS.COM, n.d. Organization Development to Improve Performance. LEARNIG ACE, 2014. Chapter 12: Organizational Change and Development. 1st ed. Learning Ace. Available at http://jeritt.msu.edu/documents/TallmanWithoutAttachment [Accessed 21 Nov. 2014]. MED.UPENN.EDU, 2014. Health Behavior and Health Education | Part Four, Chapter Fifteen: Organizational Development Theory. MOTE, DAVE, 2014. Organizational Development - Benefits. Referenceforbusiness.com. N.p. NAGHIBI, M.A., and HEDIYEH B., 2011. "Strategic change management: The challenges faced by organizations." International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research 4. SCHEIN, EDGAR H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership. Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons. SCHWARTZ, JEFF L. ET AL., n.d. Deloite. Boosting Business Performance Through Organization Design. 1st ed. Deloitte. SIRKIN, HAROLD L., ALAN JACKSON, and PERRY KEENAN, 2005. The Hard Side Of Change Management. Harvard Business Review. N.p. SWIFT, GAIL. n.d. Human Resource Service Delivery. Managing People And Organisation. 1st ed. cipd.co.uk. Read More