Organizational Change in the Twenty-First Century - Essay Example

Planned organizational change is closely related to organizational development. This suggests that managing change needs to be developed through a set of internal actions to produce specific outcomes which can be achieved through a predetermined sequence Organizational change is an imperative part of any organization or business because it brings a number of things in a perspective that is deemed necessary right from the onset. Organizational development similarly involves a series of steps and processes which need to be inculcated time and again through assistance, facilitation and help amongst the different avenues, all of which fall under the aegis of an organization. Change must start from the top so that the middle tier and the support staff feel the need for having change within their folds. If they feel change is important and yet being followed by the people who are above them, it will come about in a smooth manner. However if they feel that they are the only victims of change, there would be immense resistance that is going to be shown, and it is only natural to think of it as such. Managing change is all the more important because it cultivates harmony within the organization across the board. There are no two opinions with regards to such an understanding at all. This paper will study the basis of organizational change as being pretty close to how organizational development regimes work, and how the two decide the course of the future as far as an organization is concerned. Any change, no matter incremental or otherwise, is of paramount significance towards the basis of an organization. It dictates the way under which this change is going to shape up the future actions of the business as well as outline the need for having solid plans handy in the coming times. Organizational change is necessary because it teaches the employees to get out of their norms and do something entirely differently. It asks of them to get out of their cool and cozy work attitudes and start all over again (Ramirez 1994). It gives them a challenge, and it is entirely up to them as to how they take it. For an employee who is loyal to his job and remains committed with the different nuances within his work realms, he must showcase willingness to learn from the change that has been presented his way. If he stops then and there, it is his eventual death as far as his professional progression is concerned. It is for this matter that employees are offered training programs, a host of workshops and seminars, and the like, so that they can remain one step ahead of what is happening around them. The approach is indeed proactive which is a very important element of understanding such discussions. More than anything else, it is the urge and the desire to outsmart one’s own self that makes for a perfect mesh between the employee and his organization. This puts a number of different things into proper perspectives. Since organizational development takes all processes in a step by step manner, organizational change is not any dissimilar to the same (Marshak 2004). Organizational change happens when there are concerted efforts on the part of the people who matter the most within any organization who in other words are also known as the top management domains. The helms of affairs within these organizations are indeed the movers and shakers, and hence should be given the respect that they deserve. No matter how difficult it is to achieve success within a change process, it remains a fact that organizational harmony is a necessity, and in the times much like today, it remains supremely quintessential. The internal actions and processes within any organization embody the basis of its success in the long run. More so if this success is based on the shoulders of organizational change, the necessity to adhere with the required norms and procedures is even further. This is an important consideration which needs to be understood in a very proper way. If the top management is not quite sold to the idea of having organizational change within its folds, it would mean that there are problems left, right and center for the sake of the organization. If however this has meant that the top management is in a state of confusion with regards to its actions and processes, then there is good enough reason that the change process will not come about in a smooth and free-flowing way. All these actions which are happening within the realms of an organization, and that too in an internal fashion, must be understood properly before moving ahead any further. The sequence for following these steps which are more than just actions bring a number of different things into proper comprehension (Jedlicka 1987). One must decipher the true meaning of organizational change and how it would mean that the employees have to shape up their new working norms, routines and procedures. If they have understood the essence of it, there is good enough reason that the organizational change process would happen very amicably. On the flip side, if there are issues of a magnanimous nature, then problems could creep in, and new solutions need to be found firsthand. The role of the top management becomes even more important here. The role of the middle tier within the organizational change process is indeed very essential. It is because the middle management decides the future course of action and without any proper homework done into it, it would only be deemed as incomplete and inadequate in the most basic sense. The middle management dictates the exact way or the mannerism under which organizational change would be seen as significant and would bring about the outcomes which have been envisaged by the top management domains. The middle tier therefore has the responsibility to make it happen for the sake of not only the business concern but also the fellow employees who are working in either similar or different capacities under the aegis of the same organization. The middle tier can think and is therefore regarded as the specialist unit within the organization. If the specialists are unable to come to terms with the organizational change processes, then there could be problems and looming issues for the sake of the entire organization. The middle tier must share the responsibility for a number of things which happen within the aegis of an organization. If the middle management does not care much, then this could mean disharmony of sorts and an eventual breakdown in communication amongst the relevant stakeholders (Weick 1999). The middle management bears the responsibility of a number of things, most important of which are the change management mechanism which are in place, as well as the exact ways and means through which success within the related quarters is attained and achieved. Comparing organizational change with organizational development, one can understand that both are inter-linked yet have differential treatments towards their undertaking processes. Organizational change banks on the premise of bringing about novel methods and processes within the folds of the organization while organizational development is centered on the ideology of taking the organization from one notch to another. Organizational change can be incremental and organizational development similarly can take some time to develop over a period of time, however the latter remains continuous in its own right and entirety. Organizational change can be triggered by constant changing scenarios which are coming on to the fore while organizational development can happen with due regards to the evolving nature of the organization, and so on and so forth. Organizational change can mean so much more for the organization if nearly all the activities are in sync and in line with one another. However organizational development can be different since it phases out in different segments, and happens on a proactively consistent basis. An organization can be developed over a period of time but change happens whenever it is really needed (Rampersad 2004). Similarly organizational development is usually given the go ahead signal by the top management within any business concern and the case of organizational change is not any different. Both these mechanisms run side by side and hence their basic working methodologies are more or less the same. These elements of change are important as they dictate the manner in which success will be achieved by the organization as well as its employees in the long run scheme of things. Managing change is dependent on the forces which bring about this change in the first place. One really cannot do anything if the change element is short of ideas and the top management is unwary and doubtful of the fact that what this change will eventually bring for the organization and its people. Change must remain a constant as long as it brings people together on a singular platform. If this change is dependent on the actions and undertakings of the people who matter the most, then so be it. If these people are not playing their cards well, it is their own mistake. Managing change has received quite applause because it is in and will make the difference in the times to come. The change proponents have long and hard tried to justify their stance since this makes up their ideology even more pertinent (Church 2002). If change is not the only constant, there could be serious problems for one and all, considering that the times are changing and much needs to be attained in the time and age of today. Those who are against the change regimes suggest that it is a cumbersome exercise and one which shall lead towards a lot of problems for the sake of the organization. Change is an imperative aspect and one which will bring success at the end of the day. More than anything else, change is the last resort for a number of organizations around the world. If these organizations do not believe in change now, the future might hold a great deal of problems for them in the future. The top management needs to realize that change is pertinent and must happen in the right capacity at the right time. If this change is impossible to have within a given time frame, there could be serious problems cropping up in the wake of adverse scenarios. These situations must not come about since change means so much more to an organization that one can think of. Change is important as it dictates the way things will shape up in the coming times, as well as pinpoint the necessities that are important from an organizational standpoint. Managing change within an organization means a whole lot more than merely changing the dynamics inside out. It means bringing in a whole new ballgame of aspects and avenues which were undiscovered in the past and which need to be worked upon in the future. In the end, it would be adequately sound to state that organizational change is a thing of the present and will continue to be as such in the future as well. What this means is the fact that organizational change will change beliefs and bring to the fore a host of important elements and attributes, all of which are significant towards the eventual work regimes of the business in the long run. Organizational development similarly means a whole lot more if seen within the proper contexts. Development of any business concern or kind is entirely up to the ways and means through which success will be envisaged over a period of time. Organizational harmony will only come about when the right ingredients for organizational success are discussed and thus brought to the fore under a corrective measure (Poole 2004). All said and done, organizational change and organizational development run side by side, and hence touch upon some of the most salient aspects of success that one can ever think of. This would eventually bring luck and success for the people who are related with the organization in one way or the other. Bibliography Church, Allan (2002). Organization Development: A Data-Driven Approach to Organizational Change. Jossey-Bass Jedlicka, Allen (1987). Organizational Change and the Third World: Designs for the Twenty-First Century. Praeger Publishers Marshak, Robert (2004). Morphing: the Leading Edge of Organizational Change in the Twenty-first Century. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 Poole, Marshall (2004). Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford University Press Ramirez, Stephen (1994). Organizational Development: Planned Change in an Unplanned, Changing World. PM. Public Management, Vol. 76, October Rampersad, Hubert (2004). Learning and Unlearning in Accordance with Organizational Change. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 Weick, Karl (1999). Organizational Change and Development. Annual Review of Psychology Read More