The Importance of the Organizational Role - Term Paper Example

? INTEGRATIVE PAPER Integrative Paper Introduction Change is an integral part of modern life; whether it is exercised within an individual, group or institutional capacity. Change – in the context of organization – refers to the processes or initiatives that constitute a deviation or adjustment in the way with which operations within an organization are conducted. It, therefore, implies that organizational change management and personal change management are an intertwined discipline. Therefore, is change a one-time, mutually specific event or is it a continuous operative function that constitutes the broad managerial function in the business? There are usually two types of organizational change: Initiated or planned change and unplanned or reactive change. The first one refers to a situation where there is a deliberate adoption of new processes and methods of operations. In regard to managerial view of planned change, it originates from the individual who has experience in the particular day-to-day operations and, therefore, is the proposer of the change and implementer as well (Hughes, 2006). Unplanned or reactive change is one which occurs spontaneously and which does undergo a conscious and rational process for its implementation. It is also critical to understand that change within an organization can be both internally and externally generated. As such, the approach towards organizational change management seems to be varied and the complexity within such approaches varies depending on the nature of the situation and the human relations therein (Hayes, 2010). The subsequent discussion shall focus on organized change and change management processes within the organization. Discussion Building the guiding team The importance of the organizational role in achieving its own objectives cannot be stressed enough. The organization’s role is heavily dependent on the ability to attain cohesion within the efforts of individuals, teams and management within the organization. The two authors collectively address themselves to this concern, highlighting its ever-growing importance within the global trade. Kotter and Cohen (2002) place emphasis on the people’s quality and the ability to create cohesive efforts within the change-led team. It identifies and elaborates the role of human impact in change management as irreplaceable. Firstly, the proposals for such alterations in the mode of organizational operations are intimated by the person(s) in charge of the operational function, i.e., the person who actively and directly engages in that level of activity is the identifier of more efficient ways of performing the role, thus proposes the changes for evaluation. Secondly, the proposed change(s) needs be assessed in light of the impact on people. Change is likely to elicit resistance from members in the organization. This is one of the prime challenges for managers in the introduction and managing change in the firm (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2007). Getting the vision right However, the authors take two different approaches in examining this concept. According to Ivancevich et al. (2011), the global approach focuses on individual behavior within the organizational setting in response to setting “right” organizational goals. Kotter and Cohen (2002) address the global trade question by focusing on how change can be effected within the organization to better increase their capacity to handle the emergent global business environment through an eight-step process. The problem with the former strategy lies in its simplification of goal setting within the organization. In practice, however, organizations are faced with a multiplicity of goals; some of which may be in direct conflict with each other (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2011). Similarly, the dominant challenge in the latter’s approach is its assumption that effective change management is a process that can be effected at will within the organization (by management) towards the desired direction and objectives. Additionally, due to the similarity in individual perception and behavior (even amongst individuals with similar sets of skills and competencies) goal setting becomes a somewhat uncertain, if not inferior, measure of evaluating organizational effectiveness in pursuing and addressing global market concerns (Baye, 2009). Increasing urgency In its definition of what constitutes organizational performance and thus effectiveness, it often outlines the analysis of several critical elements: productivity, efficient utilization of raw materials, employee satisfaction and adaptivity to the operating environment, resource development and organizational long-term survival strategies. Ivancevich et al. (2011) undertake this definition with a focus on quality as the link between these elements. It restricts the scope on efficient organizations to those that offer quality goods and services that match consumer needs and preferences. The sense of urgency is equated to increased efficiency in performance. Creating short-term wins and building up momentum The internationalization of trade has led to a paradigm shift in how organizations conduct their business. Essentially it has led to increased competition between organizations leading to a deeper focus on gaining competitive advantage via three key ways (Burnes, 2000): 1. Being the lowest cost provider 2. Identifying and dominating emergent markets 3. Being an industry leader through innovative and creative products and services Kotter and Cohen (2002) emphasize that an organization builds up on its momentum for change through an initial attack on smaller tasks and gradually ascending to other harder tasks of the change process. Where wins are highly visible, there are lesser arguments amongst organizational members. Consequently, there is a higher contribution to the change process. Making change stick The two books also differ in their approach to the role of culture in inducing organizational efficiency. Tradition is a powerful force for effecting organizational change especially on a large scale (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Organizational culture reflects the norms, values and personality of the organization (Carnall, 2007). This culture is unique to each organization; identifying and differentiating from others within similar others as well as influencing its objectives and actions. Employees need to be sensitive to the requirements by organization’s culture on them lest they end up being isolated from their work teams or terminated by the organization from their employment (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2011). This approach puts the organization’s culture as a primary requirement for organizational efficiency. Kotter and Cohen (2002) take an opposite approach to the cultural significance to organizational efficacy by intimating that it should come last in management of change as well as being cognizance of the emotional effects therein. However, the two books agree on the need to support and reinforce organizational culture for attaining and maintaining a winning team and organization. These include the need for new employee orientation and promotional processes. Empowering action Individual rewards are the most powerful influencer of individual performance. According to Ivancevich et al. (2011), the organization’s reward (punishment) system can be used to increase performance of current employees as well as attracting skilled employees into the organization. However, this system can in itself serve to employee progress (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). How does this come about? Since this system is essentially valued in terms of monetary gains (and losses), where there is an introduction of non-economic rewards for performance improvement, there is a creation of a significant and powerful barrier to performance. Motivation of employees and teams collectively has been identified within these works through the empowering of members. Communicating for buy-in Another significant approach adapted by Ivancevich et al. (2011) to organizational efficiency is through the “systems approach.” Herein the author examines the ability of the organization to efficiently convert resources into finished products. The increased globalization of production in areas where the cost of raw materials or production, or transport of finished products to the markets, is relatively cheaper means that there is increased competition for said resources. The system’s efficiency can be examined with regard to how it can adapt to the changing environment in these aspects. Pursuant toKotter and Cohen (2002), the role of technology in transmitting and coordinating the change process is limited to the role of reducing the information bulk, thereby making it easier for leaders to effectively communicate their envisioned change to the effecting team as well as other members of the organization. Both books agree that emotions and perceptions are a significant challenge for management. Kotter and Cohen (2002) identify that these attributes are inextricably connected with regard to performance and that the challenge can effectively be overcome through the first four stages of effective change management. These stages can be separate in themselves or can overlap in this regard so as to allow management to effectively skip one or more. They are: 1. Increasing urgency 2. Building effective teams 3. Acquiring the right vision 4. Communicating the vision These stages ensure that basically the individuals selected as part of the team overseeing the change process satisfy the required competencies and skills to effect the requirements of the change effectively; have a comprehensive change vision that covers strategy, plans and budgets; and communicate it amongst the team members and the greater organization with equal clarity and objectivity. Ivancevich et al. (2011) identify emotions as a result of perception processes that originated from the work environment stimuli. Subsequently, for improved efficiency in performance, they propose that management determine the type and amount of stimuli that subordinates receive for good performance so as to sustain efforts towards increased performance. Ivancevich et al. (2011) also identify change introduction through structural changes that often involve retrenching and rotations within the firm. This is identified as the shallowest form of change management but which can be enhanced by creating more focus on the hearts and minds of the members of the organization. In this regard, the initiators of change must decide whether the strategy adopts a formal (structural) approach or an informal (behavioral) approach. Conclusion Generally, both works pertain to the roles of individuals and their behavior in achieving organizational objectives of increased performance. They similarly highlight the role of management in the creation and conveyance of policies designed towards offering a conducive environment within the organization that is suitable for effecting change at individual, team or organizational level. However, there are subtle differences within the approaches of this broad objective with Kotter and Cohen (2002) promoting an eight-step approach to effective change implementation. On the other hand, Ivancevich et al. (2011) take a more holistic approach to factor influencing behavior of individuals within an organization (in this case formal ones) and how such behaviors can be influenced towards accepting and effecting change within the organization. References Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2007). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge. Baye, M. (2009). Managerial economics & business strategy. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Blackstone, J. H. (1989). Capacity management (APICS South-Western series in production and operations management). South-Western Pub. Burnes, B. (2000). Managing change. Prentice hall. Campbell, D., Edgar, D., & Stonehouse, G. (2011). Business strategy: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Carnall, C. (2007). Managing change in organizations. Financial Times Management. Hayes, J. (2010). The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Hughes, M. (2006). Change management: A critical perspective. CIPD. Ivancevic, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2011). Organizational behavior and management. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Mabey, C., & Mayton-White, B. (1993). Managing change. Sage Publications. Read More