Managing Organizational Change - Nasim and Sushil - Essay Example

Managing Organizational Change Organizational culture is a critical aspect in any company in either the public or private sector. The type of culture that thrives in an organization determines its performance. Moreover, culture defines the belief systems and values adopted by all the employees. It is also a fundamental in providing guidelines of decision-making in the organization. Other aspects such as management styles and employer-employee relationship also depend on the organizational culture. Different organizations face the compulsion to change the organizational culture. However, the most critical aspect of the adoption of such change is its management. The management of change in organizational culture poses multiple challenges for any organization. There are various scholars who have embarked on describing different concepts related to organizational culture. Sushil and Nasim highlighted that managing organizational culture involves the management of paradoxes, and more specifically the paradox of continuity and change. This paper will develop a critical argument from the idea posited by these two scholars. It has become evident that change is inevitable. Organizations face the urgency of adopting change, although the course of change presents new complexities. Apparently, only a third of all ventures aimed at fostering change are likely to succeed. The failure of two thirds of all projects seeking to foster change emphasizes the urgency of new strategies for managing change. However, different scholars have posited opinions on whether managing change is a possibility (Collin, 2004:560). One school of thought opines that through management, it is possible to exert a form of control on organizational culture. A different group of scholars has highlighted that organizational culture change can only occur under certain conditions that act as preconditions for the change. The third school of thought is pessimistic concerning the potential of controlling cultural change through management. For these scholars, managing cultural change in an organization is an unlikely venture. Nasim and Sushil (2011:186) highlighted the numerous paradoxes that have been used by different scholars to describe organizational change. The term paradoxes in this context denote the contradictions surrounding organizational change. One of the described paradoxes is the arising debate on whether cultural change in an organization takes place in an orderly preplanned manner or just emerges depending on the prevailing environmental conditions. The planned view of cultural change introduces the ideology that cultural change occurs in episodes that involve a shift from a fixed state to the next. However, this ideology has received a challenge from the perceived dynamism of change as defined by prevailing conditions. Other scholars view change as an incremental process that takes place under the orchestration of the executives in an organization. On the other hand, other scholars describe cultural change as a radical event (Currie and Brown, 2003:572). An additional paradox revolves around the focus of cultural change. Whereas some theorists view cultural change as a narrowed focus either on the context or process, there is the argument that cultural change occurs in a holistic approach that views all aspects comprehensively. In addition, there is a prevalent ideology that organizational culture change takes place on a macro scale. However, a counter opinion highlights that the organizational change occurs on a micro scale, which highlights a focus on individual perceptions. There is a surging debate on whether organizations should adopt an epistemological approach in reorganizing the management practices or whether they should shift focus to exploitation and exploration (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011:188). Beer and Nohria described the contradictions between the theoretical archetypes E and A that seek to explore the reasons behind organizational change, and how it happens (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011:189). Nasim and Sushil also highlighted the paradox surrounding the simultaneous management of both the organizational change and continuity in a bid to improve organizational performance. Apparently, Nasim and Sushil (2011:190) depict their stand in support of the ideology advocating for the need to manage cultural change in the organization through management. Concerning the paradoxes described, different authors have emphasized on the need to address the contradictions surrounding each of them. Theorists have highlighted that there are several approaches that can serve as effective ways of addressing the controversies surrounding the inherent paradoxes. These approaches include patching, embracing, balancing and resolving. Different scholars exhibit t diversity in the application of these approaches, but Sushil and Nasim posit it is of essence to manage the opposing forces inherent in each paradox. This translates to the fact that an organization must exhibit concerted efforts in embracing the two extremes inherent in each of the paradoxes. The earlier perception of many theorists was the inclusion and exclusion understanding of the described extremes in the paradoxes. Apparently, the adoption of the new attitude that seeks to create a balance in the contradictions seems to present more benefits for organizations (2011:199). The paradox of change and continuity needs a higher sense of management because theorists have outlined change and continuity are coexistent aspects in each organization. This calls for pertinent management in order to strike a balance between continuity and change. The centrality of this paradox in determining the organizational performance only serves to increase the tension surrounding the concerted efforts of all departments in organization to strike a balance between its opposing forces. The urgency of establishing a balance between continuity and change may also apply to the individual levels especially when an organization undergoes radical changes. A classical illustration is the case study of Westco where the millennium venture introduced rigorous changes (Ogbonna, and Harris, 1998:275). Employees at different levels needed to exhibit an understanding of ways in which they would establish the required balance between continuity and change. Apparently, each manager in the organization had to embrace stability and strive to embrace the opposing forces of change and continuity. Failure to exhibit effective management introduced numerous unintended consequences as the organization adopted cultural change (Ogbonna, and Harris, 2002:32). This example should intensify the need for highlighting the various ways in which an organization can manage both continuity and change. Nasim and Sushil introduce a powerful metaphorical expression to describe the need for managing both continuity and change in an organization (Sushil, 2013:34). The metaphor of a stream that must exhibit continuity and change depending on the conditions reflects the situation of organizations. Just like the stream, an organization must reckon with both the forces of change and those of continuity (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011:187). Forces of change in this context of denote any contextual factors that introduce the need or necessity for change in the organization. Theorists have described these as situational factors such as government policies, legislations, needs and expectations of stakeholders and globalization. On the other hand, forces of continuity denote the factors that have the potential of introducing inertia to the organization. These include central ideologies, culture, existing exemplary performance, and core competencies defining the organization. Theorists have identified that there is a need for management of continuity forces because their passage into the future occurs by default. Whereas some of the forces of continuity may be potential barriers to organizational change, others may prove to foster the intended change. As these authors highlight, different propositions of managing continuity and change present varied results (Kolb, 2003:182). For example, the case of Westco highlights the need for conscious management of the forces of continuity because some aspects of culture practiced prior to the millennium venture have been placing obstacles in the implementation of the project(Ogbonna, and Harris, 1998:285). The ‘just do it’ attitude of some employees continued, by default, irrespective of the efforts towards a changed culture. The management of the forces of continuity and change has a direct impact on the organizational performance. Organizational performance takes into consideration many aspects of the organization; the best scope for assessing performance requires the use of more comprehensive approaches (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011:188). In most cases, the enterprise and the customer form the two aspects requiring critical consideration while assessing organizational performance. Although Westco introduced a rigorous system of change in a bid to increase organizational performance, it depicted multiple challenges in balancing the opposing forces namely continuity and change. As Taylor (2011:5) elaborates, the leaders of any organization intending to undergo cultural changes must assume the leading position in making the change a reality. Moreover, he mentions that the management of change and continuity can prove easier if leaders adopt transformational leadership. There has been an overemphasis on the need for change in an organization. This unwarranted emphasis has introduced a cynical attitude in many organizations. Many managers and leaders are only versed in the language of change and understand little about continuity (Taylor, 2011:6). Their lack of knowledge on the importance of continuity, coupled with the misconception that continuity is boring and has no place in the dynamic world, explains why they have been focusing on managing change alone. It is time for organizations to start viewing continuity as one of the dynamic aspects. Therefore, managers should realize that the forces of continuity should play the critical role introducing stability to the organization as change progresses. Moreover, some managers view continuity as a form of regression. Apparently, continuity may seek to establish a connection between the past of the company and the future. In some instances, managers may want to discard everything belonging to the past in their efforts to manage change. The case of Westco serves as a perfect example in elaborating this idea. After the introduction of the millennium project that sought to transform the organizational culture, the managers focused on discarding the ‘old world’ and replacing it with the new ideologies defined in the new culture. This served to reveal the organization’s incapability to manage consciously continuity, and defining the positive aspects from the past that deserve continuity into the future (Pollitt, & Bouckaert, 2009:67). As described above, organizational culture is one of the compelling forces determining organizational performance. Changing organizational culture presents multiple challenges and paradoxes that necessitate the presence of effective management. Theorists have highlighted that there are several approaches that can serve as effective ways of addressing the controversies surrounding the inherent paradoxes. These approaches include patching, embracing, balancing and resolving. Managers should realize that the forces of continuity play the critical role introducing stability to the organization as change progresses. Future research should elaborate on the different propositions of controlling both change and continuity simultaneously. Bibliography Collin, D., 2004. Who put the con in consultancy? Fads,recipes and ‘vodka margarine’, Human Relations, 57, pp. 553-572. Currie. G., and Brown, D., 2003. A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital, Human Relations, 56. Pp. 563-586. Kolb, G., 2003. Seeking Continuity Amidst Organizational Change: A Storytelling Approach, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, pp.180-183. Nasim, S., and Sushil. 2011. Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of Managing Continuity and Change, Journal of Change Management, 11(2), pp.185–206. Ogbonna, E., and Harris, C., 2002. The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions:A Study of Unexpected Outcomes, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 31–49. Ogbonna, E., and Harris. C., 1998. Managing organizational culture: compliance or genuine change?British Journal of Management, 29, pp. 273-288. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. 2009. Continuity and change in public policy and management. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=487362. Sushil. 2013. Flowing stream strategy leveraging strategic change with continuity. India, Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0726-9. Taylor, R., 2011. Continuity & Change: The Yin Yang of Leadership, Business Leadership Review VIII:I. pp. 1-9. Wines, A., and Hamilton III, J.B., 2009. On Changing Organizational Cultures by Injecting New Ideologies: The Power of Stories, Journal of Business Ethics 89, pp. 433–447. Read More