The Prudence of Numerous Perspectives on Organizational Change - Essay Example

The Prudence of Numerous Perspectives on Organizational Change Task: Organizational Change Introduction The intricacy of the organizational change phenomenon justifies the presence of multiple change management perspectives. The following research reveals that the complexity of the organizational change phenomenon and primarily responsible for the multitude of perspectives on change in organizations. This article firsts evaluates the diverse drivers for change, it evaluates external and internal drivers. The research proceeds to evaluate the different perspectives of change, especially as accentuate by Grieves (2010). Finally the article concludes by supporting the claim on the necessity of the varied perspectives to change. Organizational change is at the heart of contemporary organization research. Numerous theories were developed, to ensure smooth and efficient implementation of organizational change frameworks. It is unequivocally acknowledged that leaders and managers view organizational change in entirely different ways. More important is the complexity of governmental change and change management. Apparently, there is a need to explore the relevance of multiple organizational change perspectives in more detail. The following research accentuates that organizational change is the concept with no clear boundaries and draws on a number of traditions and social science disciplines (Hughes 2006). The complexity in organizational change phenomenon justifies the presence of multiple transformation management perspectives. Organizational change is interpreted in a number of ways. Numerous literatures exist on the various perspectives on organizational change and change management. The organizational change process is extremely complex. Generally, organizations apply to change, with the goal to transform and, consequentially, adapt to environmental changes (Stacey 1995, p. 477-478). Organizational change is always rational and intentional (Stacey 1995, p. 478). Most organization suppositions explicate and confirm the variability of organizational characteristics (Hannan & Freeman 1994, p. 149). The multitude of organizational change perspectives can be interpreted from a number of viewpoints. The causes and anticipated consequences of organizational change greatly affect organization attitudes to change. Environmental variables and the disciplines on which organizational change frameworks build matter a lot. The issue in question should be interpreted through the prism of the organizations’ values, missions, and performance principles. All these factors warrant examination and have to be considered in more detail. Grieves (2010) lists several important perspectives on organizational change: structural-functional, multiple constituencies, organizational development perspective, and critical theory of change. These perspectives represent diverse stand points in viewing organizational change (Grieves 2010, p. 4). Amagoh (2008) evaluates two theories concerning change. He evaluates the system theory and the complexity theory. This is only a representation of the proposed theories explaining change. However, the term theory should not be confused with impracticability, but with a conceptual frame work from which different people approach issues concerning change. Causes and drivers of organizational change Organizations are social arrangements for the controlled performance of collective goals (Buchanan 1991, p.7). Change has been described as the source of all human progress and all human pain. However, it is inevitable and necessary for the improvement of organizations. Organizations operate in multifaceted environments in which the temporal environment, the current internal and external environment are all vital. Temporal environment refers to the historical developments bringing change over time to an industry and pointing the need for brain power and knowledge. Such temporal environment includes the feminization of labor. Observed trends reflect a persistent swell in the number of women in the work place across the globe. The complexity of the absorption experienced by women in the labor market ends up becoming a general paradigm irrespective of gender (Morini 2007, p. 43). Women are replacing cognitive workers in their reproductive skills which end up as part of a payment dynamic. This interpreted as increased reproductive freedom for women and the transformation of reproduction into a good open to the market. The increased population of women in organizations necessitates changes in management. Morini indicates a rather precarious situation in which there is a tendency to employ women in labor activities that cannot be exported to less developed countries where there is cheaper labor. Another gender related issue is the issues of transsexuals in the work place. Earlier, it was not an issue, but due to right advocacy they are admitting their sexuality and seeking employment (Barclay & Scott 2006, p. 477-480). This also pushes for transformations. Another illustration of a temporal environment is the neoliberal thought. Its proponents underlined political ideals of human dignity and individual autonomy and being basic in civilization. This was in turn in oppositions to other forms of thought like fascism, dictatorship and communism which emphasized collective judgment rather that personal choice. The neoliberal thought also envisages a free market and unrestricted trade (Harvey 2005, p.6). Harvey cites examples of these changes in Iraq whose invasion was justified due to the freedom which was to be achieved by the citizens. This was followed by a series of restructuring policies which favored the neoliberal thought. This was not new in Iraq, but a historical phenomenon exemplified Latin America especially in Chile. In later years, neoliberalism was introduced in the west. This change in directional thought was instigated in by the perceived failure of capitalism and communism. Of importance in this article is the effect of such fundamental alterations in the management of institutions. Another environmental change is the change in the understanding of labor. The old dissimilarity between manual and intellectual labor has since turned redundant. Manual labor, in modern day, is been redefined to activities that involve intellectualism. Furthermore, the definition of intellectual labor has increasingly come to include facets that require knowledge. According to Lazzarato, these weighty changes in these strategic sectors have significantly modified the composition, administration, regulation of the work force, organization of manufacturing and the role of intellectuals and their activities within the society. In modern times, the laborers work involves the ability to choose among divergent alternatives. This translates to a degree of responsibility regarding decision making. This phenomenon increasingly entails new management techniques that seek to bond the worker’s soul to the organization. More than material labor, the worker’s personality is required to be disposed to organization and command. This transformation towards immateriality and the change of working-class labor into controlled labor with increased information interactions and decision making capacity, affects workers in various ways depending on the function and rank in an organization. Other drivers of organizational changes are the external environments. These include the economic environment, the socio-cultural, surroundings, political atmosphere and scientific environment. Economic environment have always played a vital role in coercing organizations to anticipate what competitors are doing and the varying needs and desires of actual and potential customers. These anticipated needs lead to re-orientation of the company’s goals, tactics, niches or even business. These changes are inevitably accompanied by changes in the roles and functions of individual employees and the organizational structure adopted. Globalization has led to alliances, mergers and other forms of conglomeration. Organizations are driven by the need to increase their value by increasing revenues and thinning costs. Organizations, consequently, seek to achieve leaner but efficient management and workforce in order to remain viable. In tow is the socio-cultural environment. This incorporates changes in the age of the employed population, changes in living, working and leisure pursuits. The organization must revolutionize in an attempt to adapt to these changes and remain competitive. The technological environment is often, and rightly, linked to the increased use of internet in almost every kind of organization. Traditional businesses are constantly faced with the challenges of incorporating ICT further in their operations. Additionally, some modern ones are entirely based on the capacities of the internet. The advent of internet communication even within the organization employees in the same building represents new environments that require novel management structures. Internal triggers of change refer to the responses to the external demands for change. These changes are the more visible ones. They include the formation and diffusion of labor unions within the organization, new appointments, changing administrative structures, new IT equipment, new marketing strategy, outsourcing, layoffs, redefinition of job specifications, promotions and demotions and factory redesign and office layout. All these responses to change in the external environment are changes themselves, and pose challenges to the organization. How organizations implement change. Depending on the nature of an organization’s business, different organizations tackle change implementation differently. Nevertheless, there are general kinds of interventions utilized by organizations while implementing changes. One of the approaches is the human method interventions at the individual, collective, and total system levels. This approach is among the earliest ones and is the most used (Thomas & Worley 2009, p. 254). This approach attempts to improve peoples working relationship with one another. They are aimed at aiding members of groups in evaluating their interactions and finding more effective ways of working. This method comprises of such processes as process discussion, third-party intercession and team building. Process consultation helps employees to understand, diagnose and improve behavior. Team building is aimed at helping a team perform better. It helps to illuminate the functions of individuals within the group. This method includes project teams and task forces. Another approach to change implementation is interventions that modify an organization’s structure and technology. These are wide-range process interference directed at improving such processes as organizational problem solving, leadership, visioning and task accomplishment. This includes organizational confrontation meeting, inter-group associations and collective interventions. Most organizations are increasingly employing strategic interventions involving the organization’s relationship to its exterior atmosphere, and the inner arrangement and practice requisite to support a business strategy. Increasing worldwide rivalry and speedy technological and environmental changes are coercing organizations to restructure themselves from rigid bureaucracy to more flexible designs. To achieve this, departments are merged and fewer managers and employees are required. The managers who are required are highly skilled for efficient management. This often requires firing some managers alongside some employees. Other organizational restructuring processes adopted include organizational redesign and outsourcing. This involves moving functions that are not part of the organizations core competences to outside contractors (Thomas & Worley 2009, p. 327). Other structural adjustments include reengineering, which significantly redesigns the organizations work process to bring closer linkages and synchronization among different tasks. Many organizations acquire new technology that allows employees to control and coordinate work processes more efficiently. Creation of buzz-words is another strategy used by organization when implementing changes. Buzz-words are meant to provide an operational motivation towards the progression of the organization in a certain general direction. They are mostly effective for a short period without accompanying strategic interventions. In the absence of such strategies, they become normal and interpreted as another management fad that will pass with time. Different perspectives on organizational Change is inevitable. Organizations can only survive if they manage change, positively and effectively. The chief catch in this is adopting an effective approach to change. The perspective adopted presents a conceptual framework to be used by the organization in all situations of change. Organizational change is initiated within models and support that advice our understanding of change. Thus, comprehension and implementation of organizational change is influenced by assumptions derived from the used models (Grieves 2010, p 4). This underscores the importance of managers understanding the different perspective on change and their implications. Amagoh (2008) points out to the ever increasing competition and globalization as a motivation towards organizational change. He evaluates two perspectives to organizational change; the systems theory and the complexity theory. System theory is rooted in biology, economics and engineering. He describes a system as a set of elements where the performance of one affects the other elements. In this setting, a system attains the definition of a collection of subsystems whose inter-linkages and interdependence approaches equilibrium within the larger system (Amagoh 2008, p. 2). Central to this view is the distinction between closed and open systems. Closed systems view internal structures of organizations as the only vital part in an organizations, and external interactions as inconsequential. Open system approach views the interaction of the organization with the external environment as necessary for the survival of the organization. He opines that the components of an organization must be viewed in terms of their linkage with one another, and with the exterior setting. The open system includes the input-throughput-output component, their interaction within themselves and the external environment. In this approach the objectives, structure, processes and knowledge must be coordinated by the management in the valoration of the organization. Mason (2007) defines complexity as the degree of variance in internal and surrounding factors such as departments, clients, suppliers, socio-politics and technology (Amagoh 2008, p. 6). Complexity theory focuses on how the components, at the micro-level in a complex structure, affect budding behavior and the final outcome at the macro level. As the complexity of the structure increases the ability to understand and use information to anticipate becomes harder. Eventually, the advances in complexity lead to more changes within the system. Making sense of the system becomes difficult and adjusting to changes becomes problematic (Stacey 1995, p.480). Complex systems are viewed to evolve via phase of instability, and systems that operate near instability tend to portray creativity and generate new and inventive behaviors. This gives rise to the concept of entropy, or disorder. Grieves (2010) outlined four organizational change perspectives, the structural-functional, multiple constituencies, organizational development and creativity and volition perspectives. The structural-function theory is similar to Amagoh’s system theory. It links structure to function and relates the growth of an organism to the growth of an organization. This analogy points out to variability in complexity between organizations at different levels of development. As the organization develops new organs replace old ones. The progression of complexity demands new structures to cope with the increasing needs. Selznick, suggest five pertinent imperatives of the organism model, security, stability of authority and information, stability of informal relations with the organization, continuity of policy and the uniformity of outlook (Grieves 2010, p. 10). These portray an organization as a restrictive entity with no room for creative thoughts, and requiring conformity. Theorists postulate that an organization is an open system. This theory aims at explaining compound relationships among organization’s elements and outside variables by utilizing quantitative methods. The perception of organizations as continually changing dynamic equilibrium makes the proponents of this theory view an organization as designed to survive and manage change. It views an organization as an adaptive entity. The multiple constituencies are based on the acknowledgement of the fact that an organization is conglomerations of participants with personal goals. It contrasts with the structural-function theory in that the later views individual as mere components in the system poised to implement the organization’s goals. The appreciation of the needs of the people working in the organization results in the view of change in a significantly different way. Change is viewed as arising from a bargaining process that seeks to attain equilibrium between individual’s needs and the organization’s goals. Adopting this perspective means appreciating how change affects personal and groups of individuals, and also how the needs of these groups create demands that result to change in the organization. The organization comprises of internal and external interest groups. Though the interest of groups may overlap, they each have goals they are pursuing. Each constituency brings its own goals and impetuses into the organization. These interests are continually changing and therefore present an organization as an absolutely negotiable order (Grieves 2010, p. 20). Organizational development was a by product of scientific attempts to improve work performance. The failure of the experiments refocused attention to psychology. According to Grieves (2010) the present understanding of OD is pegged of six traits. These include a technique drawn fro action research and keen organizational analysis as the bases of changes. The need for process consultation during changes and the awareness of inhibitions to personal development and organizational change also characterize the theory. Finally, the emphasis on individual and organizational learning as contrasted from training and the appreciation of the contribution of groups and traditions to change. OD starts with problem identification by applying Action research at the different levels. After keen diagnosis, intervention strategies are formulated. For individuals level behavioral modification theory is utilized to promote personal growth. At the group level, interventions are advised through group dynamics analysis (Hughes 2006, p. 5). At the organizational level, alteration is implemented through strategic interventions. These comprise managerial restructuring, new technology and change to HR. The creativity and volition theory is based on a discernment of change different from the other theories. Change is viewed to be a result of conflict rather than of truce. The tenets of this theory are then, the appreciation of the conflict and dynamic nature of organizational interactions, the admittance that individuals do not unquestionably follow orders and the rejection of the spectator view of knowledge. Creativity is cited as the driving force of organizational change. Why the many perspectives To assess whether the above discussed perspectives are necessary this article will highlight several case studies involving change. The first is the case on San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). It was formed in 2001 and mandated with the operation of airports within the county. The establishing law required the unification of former authorities and the transfer of their functions to SDCRAA within two years. Accompanying the change were expectations of the new management to double the revenue of the aviation business (Thomas & Worley 2009, p. 32). Another case of organizational change was Cisco’s change from pre-modern technology and a silo-based organizational structure to a life-cycle based model. In the previous model, employees engaged both in implementation as well as operational work. This was characterized by duplication of effort. A report was conducted on the situation to asses the matching of goals with efforts and resources. The result was a restructuring of the organizational structure to achieve more harmony within the organization and improved focus on core competencies (Randal 2004, p. 223). The last example concerns the London Ambulance Service (LAS). LAS is a giant service provider in its field. In 1992, it undertook the project of instituting a computer aided dispatch system. The project collapsed after two weeks, the failure of the system led to the death of a person. In the following years after several evaluations, LAS was receiving awards due to its computer system (Clerke 2001, p. 10). The above cases represent needs and attempts to institute organizational change. However, all these cases are different in a variety of ways. The first case, in San Diego, the change came from without the organization. It was as a result of political influence. The government needed more revenue and the transformation of the organization presented one opportunity. In the Cisco case, the need for change came from within the organization as a result of interactions between employees. The interactions were unpleasant owing to the overlapping nature of their duties. In the third case, LAS was to incorporate technology in their operations, external influence. An interpretation of change from one perspective cannot be applicable in the three cases owing to their difference. Each case requires an evaluation to determine the best approach to assume. This is more explicitly exemplified by the LAS case. The implementation of change failed in the first attempt. However, in the second attempt, they employed principles associated to OD, where change is preceded by research. The second attempt succeeded. The above examples show the need for the various perspectives on change. One perspective may fail in one situation and succeed in another. The drivers for change are diverse, and so are the organizations. As Dawson (2003) postulates, a universal change perspective is unrealistic since transformation involves movement to future state that comprises an undefined context and time (Hughes 2006, p. 9) References Morini, C., 2007. The feminization of labor in cognitive capitalism. The feminist review, vol. 87. Pp. 40-59. Barclay, J. M. & Scott, L. J., 2006, Transsexuals and workplace diversity: A case of change management, Personnel Review, vol.35, no.4, pp.487-502. Grieves, J 2010, Organizational change: Themes and issues, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hannan, M & Freeman, J 1984, Structural inertia and organizational change, American Sociological Review, vol.49, no.2, pp.149-164. Stacey, R 1995, the science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management Journal, vol.16, pp.477-495. Amagoh, F 2008, Perspectives on organizational change: systems and complexity theories. The innovation journal: the public sector innovation journal, Vol. 13(3) pp. 1-14. Thomas, G & Worley, C 2009, Organizational development and change, Cengage Learning, London. Hughes, C 2006, Change management: critical perspectives, CIPD Publications, London. Clarke, S 2001, Information systems strategic management: an integrated approach, Routledge, New York. Randal, J 2004, Managing change/changing managers, Routledge, New York Read More