Organizational Culture and Leadership - Literature review Example

Organisational Change and Development What does a critical perspective regarding change and change management entail Introduction Organizational change and development refers to a process in which individuals, processes, practices and whole organizations are transformed from their current position to a new desired position. According to Warren Bennis organizational development is a complex strategic process in which attitudes, values, beliefs and the organizational structure are subject to change through adaptation to new challenges and techniques in equally new market segments. In other words it's a dynamic process intended to bring about systemic improvement and change. Thus organizational culture plays a very significant role here. The process of transformation from what an organization now is to a new dimensional growth trajectory is determined by how best change is accepted by the staff. It has three stages or phases, viz. design, planning and implementation. As much as organizations differ in their internal leadership and cultural set up, the theoretical approaches to change also differ. For instance there are entrepreneurial, bureaucratic and autocratic organizations or/and leadership styles. They need equally diverse and effective theoretical approaches for change. Nowadays nature and the needs of the organizations are changing rapidly and organizational development is changing to meet the changing need of the organization. Thus typical organizational development activities include some forms such as team building, organizational assessment, carrier development, training, coaching, leadership development and change management. It is aim to improve health and effectiveness of the individual and organizational level. It was Kurt Lewin who first suggested a model based on force field. According to Lewin a typical business organization is in equilibrium at a given time. Two opposing forces act on the organization to bring it in to equilibrium. These forces were named by him as driving forces and restraining forces. The former consists of those elements within the organization seeking to change the direction of the organization constantly while the latter is opposed to such changes. When these two forces match each other's strength, the organization would not experience any disequilibrium. However when the driving forces become stronger change becomes inevitable. Thus the organization moves in to a new equilibrium. Thus Lewin came up with new ideas of group dynamics and action research based on organizational development process which is a growing field in many modern organizational approaches. It is often connected with organizational effectiveness. Another theoretical construct on organizational change is based on research carried out by Rosabeth Moss Kanter who argued that it is not necessary to have the backing of the management to bring about change. For instance according to this theory the organization requires authority power, vision, leadership, management and cultural change so that a better view of the organization's capabilities can be obtained. However Kanter suggested that irrespective of where a certain individual employee is in the organization there would be no exclusive power given to one of them to change the organization. These theories were followed by some other not so important variants. Analysis During the past two decades organizational change and development has become a very important aspect in the modern day management practice. Change is more appropriate when everything else has failed to ensure the continuous survival of the business (Clark, 1999). However change and development in itself might not be desirable when the degree of resistance to change becomes stronger because when resistance gathers momentum that in itself is an indicator of the existence of other solutions. If organizational change and development were focused on improving critical success factors related to financial management, Human Resource Management (HRM), employee relations, supply chain management, quality management, marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR), then the organization would have to face considerable resistance. In the first instance when change involves people it is all the more difficult to manage the process of change smoothly because employees depending on their attitude to change would not remain silent. Thus as much as the active management of the change and development process involves attitudinal changes, there are predefined objectives that would require far reaching changes at each level before a final change is brought aboutAlbert Breton (Author) > Visit Amazon's Albert Breton Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author Learn about Author Central . Organizational development also requires a far greater commitment on the part of management to initiate staff development practices (Kawalek, 2006). However once it is initiated the degree of participation by other employees alone would determine the success or the failure of the development program. Thus organizational change and development theories have evolved overtime with particular emphasis on the change and development process of employees in general. The following theoretical analysis shows how historically organizational change and development concept has been evolving. 1) Lewin - Schein Theory Lewin's theory of organizational change rests on a change management process of three tiers in which a system of continuous replacement is adopted (Lewin, 1968). Thus it is known as unfreeze-change-refreeze model. For example in the first stage the existing organizational setup is unfrozen or dismantled. In the second stage changes are introduced. In the third stage those changes are cemented. The assumption that Lewin makes about the power structure of the organization is basically related to an autocratic or bureaucratic organization and therefore the top management of the company will assume all the powers, be they concerned with day-to-day management decisions or organizational change. This is rather simplistic in the modern day organizational context where power relations between managers and subordinates are much more complex. However Lewin was the first author to identify a process of collaborative effort at the organizational level concerning development and progress. Schein suggested a far reaching model that includes even cognitive behavioral patterns of change agents (Schein, 1993). Schein felt that cultural influences came from past experiences and therefore any changes in these cultural attitudes would have to be brought about by removing those undesirable behavioral patterns. However such a cognitive redefinition of human behavior and motivation behind change and development cannot be presented in a tightly controlled preposition because human attitudes to change cannot be articulated in this way. Schein suggested that cognitive behavioral response of the individual employee to survival related contingencies would be characterized by the acceptance of change (Pasmore, & Fagans, 1992). Thus in the second stage change is adopted and accepted as the inevitable outcome. In the third stage yet again the change has to be made permanent. So refreezing those initiated changes is essential within the organization to make sure those employees and managers have realized the relative significance of those changes against the backdrop of an evolving paradigm both within the organization and without. Despite this theoretical postulate fitting in to autocratic and bureaucratic organizational structures and leadership styles, there is a still greater doubt about entrepreneurial organizations and leaderships accepting such change (Carter, 2001). In a business organization where an entrepreneurial leadership styles prevails, change management and development process becomes much easier because motivation of the workforce would be based on rewards for good work. Lewin does not seem to place emphasis on entrepreneurial organizations in his theoretical approach because according to him powers are predefined and given. 2). Rosabeth Moss Kanter's Theory According to Kanter power is not predetermined and organizational change comes from the participation of employees at all levels (Kanter, 2009). It is a collaborative approach that recommends change to subordinates who otherwise would have doubts about the sincerity of their superiors. According to her the manager is the conductor of an orchestra and those employees are the musicians. While individual musicians have their own personal goals, the conductor himself has to make use of those individual's skills of the musicians. In other words it is a horizontal process and a not a top-down process of change. According to her managers have to work closely with employees to achieve management goals and any change. Kanter's theory has become very popular with all varieties of organizations including the bureaucratic, entrepreneurial and autocratic. This success has been attributed mainly to the democratic principles that underlie change. According to her theory perceptions of managers and Subordinates do not differ much. In fact they have the same perception of what others would think of their position and power. As a result those at the top would not know exactly how those at the bottom would respond to change but nevertheless they know for sure that resistance to change comes from their individual perceptions of power relations and structures (Beer, & Walton, 1987). If those at the bottom feel that those at the top are more authoritative the degree of hesitation to accept change will be greater. However neither group has a clearer perception of but the other things and how the other interprets change. Kanter's theory has acquired a new dimension in many subsequent writings by equally influential intellectuals. For instance management gurus like Peter Drucker and Philip Kotler have accepted the norms associated with Kanter's theory. However some critics have pointed out that within the organizational context power structures and relations do not tend to be so fluid as Kanter has suggested. In fact it is not necessary for managers to depend on their subordinates for change. They can if they want bring about meaningful change without the participation of subordinates in change and development programs. They further argue that managers often have a relatively superior perception of their abilities to force change on unsuspecting subordinates because the latter would come to know about change only during the implementation process. Methods adopted by a number of big business organizations at present are basically modeled on these two theories. However Kanter's theory is much more influential in the modern business world than Lewin's theory. For instance Microsoft, Accenture, Google and IBM all have adopted some methods that are either directly or remotely based on Kanter's theoretical approach to organizational change and its development process. Particularly her emphasis on co-opting subordinates effective participation in the development and accomplishment process is very important for the overall success of the efforts. In other words organizational change has to come from the bottom level of employees because it is they who have the ultimate say in the success or the failure of organizational change and effectiveness related programs. Methodology and principles associated with organizational change and development have received much less attention in the current literature on organizational change and development. As a result such critiques become skewed in favor of either totally democratic or autocratic organizational and management structures (Bass, 1983). Change management and organizational development theory is basically influenced by the empirical evidence prevailing at big business organizations and therefore it is essential to identify learning outcomes of organizational change and development theories for a convincing analytical discussion of a model. In fact the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of analysis based on contingency models of organizational change and development have failed to factor in some very important variables including those related to motivation and organized resistance. There has been a perceptive increase in organizational change and performance related methodology in the recent past. For instance the psychological aspect of methodology was ignored in the past. However with Edgar Schein's suggestions mentioned above, the scenario has changed. Despite an ever increasing interest in the psychology of resistance to change by subordinates at different levels of the organization, very few critical works have come out on the subject. A very recent perspective on organizational change and development identifies some critical success factors as the essential elements on which organizational effectiveness and performance must be focused so that methods would not be so divergent. Such a well coordinated convergence in methodology on organizational change and development has to come from the entrepreneurial or the democratic organizational or management structure and therefore it is essential that the relationship between managers and subordinates should be determined by a comprehensive approach to perform and develop as suggested by Philip Kotler. On the other hand cognitive behavioral tendencies as suggested by Schein might play a very significant role in both influencing and accepting or rejecting change. On the part of subordinates resistance to change is much less if their participation is fully sought by managers. This is one of the principles enunciated by Kanter. While it can be said that Kanter's theory places much less emphasis on methodology as against Lewin's theory there is still a much clearer perception of subordinates expectations in the former. Margaret J. Wheatley in her influential writings on organizational change has suggested that almost 75% of efforts to bring about organizational change and development fails due to poor manager subordinate relations (Wheatley, 2008). In other words the-hoped-for results do not materialize and managers are compelled to manage something that has never been planned for. Subordinates tend to become a group of demoralized survivors with little or no motivation to achieve organizational goals. All the more they resist change because it is unrewarding. Wheatley's theory is nothing new. In fact it is a variant of Kanter's theory. Organizational change according to Wheatley has to begin with contemplation of changes at each and every level. According to Wheatley there is something philosophical about organizational change. For instance every individual desires some freedom to create and preserve himself or herself. In other words individuals prefer to have the freedom to perpetuate their own identities. She has used the word auto-poiesis as found in poetical writings (Roberts, 2007). If this idea of organizational change and development were accepted, the concept would become rather spiritual because at the organizational level change is intended for continuous survival. Such change is rooted in acceptance and not rejectionKaren L. Newman (Author) > Visit Amazon's Karen L. Newman Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author Learn about Author Central . The biological principle of life is based on continuity of the self and thus Wheatley projects organizational change under the light of biological evolution. Her objections to forced obedience on the part of subordinates typify the Kanter's theoretical postulate. Finally a synthesis between Kanter's theory and Wheatley's theory can be drawn on the following assumption. If as Wheatley assumes participation is not a choice then what Kanter says is true that subordinates resists change because they do not know how powers are dispensed within the organization. In other words the methodological approach has suggested by Wheatley depends on two factors. In the first place it is essential that subordinates have to adjust themselves to the changing organizational change environment. Secondly they have to accept incentives even if they do not like change. This is because compliance increases the chances of survival. Conclusion Today's organizations operate in a rapidly changing environment. Thus organizational change and development has been one of the most discussed topics in the modern business world. Beginning from Lewin's theory based on the two forces of drivers and restrainers to modern day variants as those of Wheatley's organizational change and development has become a central issue in not only changing structures, people, processes and organizations but also the very methodology of constructing modelsKatherine Catlin (Author) > Visit Amazon's Katherine Catlin Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author Learn about Author Central . In fact Lewin's theory was associated with autocratic and bureaucratic organizational and management structures, though Edgar Schein introduced some modifications. On the other hand Kanter's theory clearly identified the real nature behind the dispensation of powers within the organization. Whether it is a bureaucratic, autocratic, democratic or entrepreneurial organizational and management structure, the ultimate acceptance or rejection of change depends on how best mangers are able to persuade their subordinates to accept change because it is essential for long term survival and the effectiveness of the organizational development. However subordinates might resist such change not because they do not like it but because power relations cannot be predicted accurately. Finally other theories like that of Wheatley's are more or less variants of the above two theories. Methodology-wise they are more practical and less theoretical because they advocate change even if it is not desirable from the individual viewpoint of the employee. Thus the successive organizational change and development process provides key benefits to the individual and to the organization such as empowerment, enhancing the speed and quality of decisions, continuous improvement and putting employee minds to work and so on. REFERENCES 1. Bass, M. 'Issues involved in relations between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in evaluations of organization development', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, 1983, pp.197 - 199. 2. Beer, M. & Walton, AE. 'Organization Change and Development Annual Review of Psychology'. Vol.38, 1987, pp. 339-367. 3. Carter, L. Giber, D. Goldsmith, M. & Beckhard, RF. Best Practices in Organization Development and Change: Culture, Leadership, Retention, Performance, Coaching. Pfeiffer, California, 2001. 4. Clark, Organisational Change in Post-Communist Europe: Management and Transformation in the Czech Republic (Routledge Studies of Societies in Transition, 11). Routledge, London, 1999. 5. Kawalek, JP. Organisational change through management development: A case study of GW Power Utilities: International Journal of Information Management. Elsevier, Netherlands, 2006. 6. Lewin, K 1968, The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological Forces, Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York. 7. Pasmore, WA. & Fagans, MR, 'Participation, individual development, and organizational change: A review and syntheses. Journal of Management, Vol.18, 1992, pp.375 - 397. 8. Roberts, JT. Amy Bellone Hite The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2007. 9. Schein, E 1993, Organizational Culture and Leadership in Classics of Organization Theory, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth. 10. Kanter, RM 2009, SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good, Crown, New York. you can choose any one you want to write but whatever dont out of my subject everything you write should relate about Organisational Change And Development. Do some research plz. this essay is very important for me. use oxford style Read More