Organizational Change - Essay Example

Organizational Change It has been a most frequently used adage that nothing is constant except change. In contemporary organizations, experience has proven that business entities require both stability and continuity, in conjunction with innovation and adaptation. Without equilibrium, any business organization could not effectively function; yet, without adaptation, it definitely cannot survive. The option open to organizations is not between continuity or discontinuity; but a balance between them. Organizational change is therefore, the quintessence of adaptation and innovation: a crucial and necessary fact of life. In this regard, the aim of the paper is to proffer pertinent aspects relative to organizational change, particularly delving into why organizations change; what types of changes may occur; and what resistance might come with change. Why do organizations change? 1. The Nature of Change a. Definitions change and organizational change. According to Martires and Fule (2004), change is any alteration in the present state of a system. In social organizations, change is initiated, implemented, and maintained to achieve a new and higher level of performance by the system. In a report written by Kezar (2001), the author cited two definitions of organizational change, to wit: “Burnes noted that organizational change refers to understanding alterations within organizations at the broadest level among individuals, groups, and at the collective level across the entire organization (1996). Another definition is that change is the observation of difference over time in one or more dimensions of an entity (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995)” [Kez01]. From these meanings, it is therefore apparent that organizational change contains transformations of one or more elements within the organization over a pre-defined period of time. 2. A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Change. An organizational change model depicts the notion that excellence, growth and development, as well as satisfaction and high morale are achieved through adaptation and innovation (Martires and Fule, 2004, p. 352). The organization is seen as a system with at least five interacting variables: strategy, structure, technology, products or services, and people. People have been located at the center because it is they who link all other variables in a productive way. The organization tries to obtain a new level of performance and excellence by adjusting its internal functions and processes, as well as modifying its goals. This means that any or all of the five variables may be changed to realize the necessary adjustment. Furthermore, the system’s elements are highly interdependent and interrelated, and any change in one will have an influence on the others. 3. Characteristics or Attributes of Innovative Companies. Since innovation is crucial to organizational effectiveness and growth, the question of what characterizes innovative companies is an important one in managing change. Answers to this question provide broad outlines for action and give the change process its direction. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr.’s (1982) research on successful American companies offers significant insights as to where the direction of change should be. In their study, they identified eight attributes which distinguish excellent and innovative companies from those which are not. The authors noted that not all eight attributes were present to the same degree in the excellent companies that they studied. But in every case, at least a preponderance of the eight was clearly visible. These attributes or characteristics of innovative companies are enumerated herewith: (1) a bias for action; (2) close to the customer; (3) autonomy and entrepreneurship; (4) productivity through people; (5) hands on and value driven; (6) stick to the knitting; (7) simple form and lean staff; and finally (8) simultaneous loose-tight properties (Peters and Waterman, 1982, pp. 13-15). 4. Identify rationales for organizational change. From the book entitled Management (2001), the various rationale for organizational change have been classified into the following: (1) environmental pressures; and (2) organizational pressures. In the discourse written by Kezar (2001), she indicated that “change is not always good” (p. 8). She expounded that “change should be engaged in only if the environment legitimately challenges the organization’s key mission or expertise” [Kez01]. The forces or sources necessitating change, therefore, as seen from the research of Kezar (2001) is consistent with the information from Management (2001) as two different sources emanating from the external environment (environmental pressures) and the internal environment (organizational pressures). Therefore, to respond to the question why do organizations change, one has clearly identified that different external and organizational pressures that impinge and influence the core existence, mission, values, performance, operations and productivity of the business entity necessitate movement, alterations, transformations to do better. Significantly, the crucial finding noted is summarized as “although planned change is often a response to external factors, the impetus for the change is usually internal” [Kez01]. What types of changes may occur? There are different types of changes that have been discussed ranging from first-order versus second-order changes and those that go beyond these two types as revealed in Management (2001). Likewise, other types pertain to downsizing, technological changes, mergers and acquisitions, among others [Pal01]. The fact is that various researches on organizational change present the change process according to a multidisciplinary approach where the change process is measured according to degrees, timing, scale, and focus [Kez01]. The first and second-order changes have actually been classified under degree of change where “first-order change involves minor adjustments and improvements in one or a few dimensions of the organization; it does not change the organization’s core” [Kez01]. On the other hand, “second-order change is transformational change; the underlying values or mission, culture, functioning processes, and structure of the organization change (Levy and Merry, 1986)” [Kez01]. Other change types according to timing were disclosed as either revolutionary versus evolutionary; where “revolutionary change departs significantly from the existing organization and usually occurs suddenly, with drastic changes within the mission, culture, and structure” [Kez01] and evolutionary is a more long-term transformative process. Changes according to scale have been presented to encompass alterations from different levels or components of the organization, from the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels (Goodman, 1982; cited in Kezar, 2001, p. 18). Further, a more comprehensive change according to scale has been noted by Meyer, Brooks, and Goes (1990) as: “(1) adaptation (firm-level, first-order change); (2) metamorphosis (firm-level, second-order change); (3) evolution (industry-level, first-order change); and (4) revolution (industry-level, second-order change)” [Kez01]. Finally, organizational change could assume diverse foci as looking into “structure, process, and attitude (Bergquist, 1992). Structure refers to the organizational chart, the reward system, or institutional policies and procedures. In contrast, process relates to the way people interact within existing structures. Attitude focuses on how people feel about working within the existing structures and processes of the organization” [Kez01]. From the foregoing, the types of change that could occur in organizations are diverse and complex as these were categorized according to degrees, timing, scale, and focus. Changes were therefore closely examined and evaluated in terms of influencing different organizational members and participants, as well as the extent and time frame these transformations significantly influence and alter either the core competence of the entity or only trivial aspects that do not alter the organization’s mission or goals. What resistance might come with change? 1. Kinds of Resistance As people settle down and become habituated to certain conditions, they resist most changes because these are seen as a threat to the status quo. Change threatens people’s needs for security, social relationships, and status. As revealed by Martires and Fule (2004), the resistance of people to change can have four different bases: rational, emotional, social and political. Rational objections result from a logical appraisal of the merits and demerits of change. These include time and cost considerations. Resistance based on emotions are feelings and attitudes toward the change, the change agent, and others involved in the change process. Likewise, objections can be based on social factors when group forces and the desire to maintain relationships operate to sustain the status quo. Finally, change can be rejected due to political considerations. On this basis, there is a desire to preserve existing power relationships within the organizational setting. 2. Implementing Change In organizations, change proposals may actually come from anyone. They may come from the rank and file, supervisors, managers, and key executives, or from suppliers and customers. However, many changes originate from management. Management, therefore, acts as the change agent and initiates the change as seen according to its proper adoption and implementation. In this regard, the basic strategies that would assist in implementing organizational change are as follows: (1) building support for and overcoming resistance to change through information and communication, consultation and participation, shared rewards, and monitoring the impact on employee security; (2) using the group as a medium of change where there should be a strong sense of belonging, attractiveness of the group, a perceived and eminent range of influence, an actual leader that governs the change process, and where he price of deviation from group norms is appropriately addressed [Mar04]. Recommendations To facilitate change, management creates a climate for it through adequate consideration of human needs. This climate is characterized by open communication, consultation and participation, shared rewards, and employee security. The dynamics of individuals and work groups can be used constructively to effect changes in workforce behavior. An explicit strategy for initiating and implementing organizational changes for any type of change patterns should include several activities that the change manager should do; namely, determine the real need for change, look for an idea that suits the need, consider the benefits and costs of change, obtain support for change, change by small steps at a time, assign an idea champion, and determine any post-change problems and treat them immediately. A strategy prevents haphazard initiation and implementation of organizational change that could potentially result in resistance, confusion, and frustration. Implications and Conclusion The current paper on organizational change have proffered pertinent aspects relative to organizational change, particularly delving into why organizations change; what types of changes may occur; and what resistance might come with change. This information would be useful in reinforcing the concept that although change is inevitable, it is not always good. The crucial factor that signals the need for change in the organizational setting is that which has been emphasized by Kezar (2001) that “change should be engaged in only if the environment legitimately challenges the organization’s key mission or expertise” (p. 9). Otherwise, the business entity could bask in its current success while maintaining a proactive stance in scanning the external environment to determine which opportunities could be tapped to promote a needed change. References Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 12), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 9), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 15), Pal01: , (Palmer-Dunford-Akin, 2001), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 16), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, pp. 17-18), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 18), Kez01: , (Kezar, 2001, p. 19), Mar04: , (Martires & Fule, 2004, pp. 371-375), Read More