Many Factors of Organizational Change - Term Paper Example

work] Managing Change Is change easy to achieve for managers in organizations? The opposite appears to be true. The responsibility to manage change falls on management and executives of the organisation (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). The fact that change has to be managed implies that it has intricacies and that if it were managed poorly, change will not be carried out. There are many factors to be considered in organizational change as it is not just the managers who are involved but also the managed (Remoussenard, 2007). Because of this, change appears difficult to achieve. Reasons for changes There are many reasons for changes to occur in an organization. There may be organization-wide changes such as mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, leadership changes, and changes in technology. There may be the upsizing, downsizing and resizing that force organizations to change, and in some cases almost daily (Joyce, 2005). There are also changes needed in the culture of organizations or the way they do things. History is replete with many organizations changing for the better and organizations that did not and were doomed to failure in some parts of their history (Waldera, 2002). Organizations and changes American Express. American Express, for example, had announced organization and management changes in mid- 2005. The reasons given were that changes were driven by several key developments including: the rapid growth of their Global Network Services (GNS) business in the United States and around the world; the expansion of their worldwide merchant network; the broader long-term relationships they are developing to build business with their merchant partners; and the recent entry of the Travelers Cheque business into the prepaid card arena (“American Express,” 2005). Their company, they said, is in an excellent position. They would like to further strengthen their long-term position and propel the new American Express into the ranks of the most successful and most admired companies in the world (“American Express,” 2005). IBM Integrated Supply Chain. Throughout 2003 and 2004, the IBM Integrated Supply Chain (ISC) experienced significant change (McLaughlin, Paton & Macbeth, 2006). These changes have been driven by market forces, and have impacted every aspect relating to how IBM as a corporation manages its supply chains. IBM is not unique; its supply chain considerations impact upon many organizations as they attempt to find integrated solutions to complex problems. However, within IBM, this transition, which has affected organizational structure and alignment, process, and IT support, has not been without its problems. The drive to shift from a Functional to a Process control alignment has required a shift in the mindset of the organizations employees (McLaughlin, Paton & Macbeth, 2006). The IBM, as an organization needed to be able to develop flexible end-to-end (E2E) processes that can be “tweaked” and modified to meet changes in customer demand, product availability and overall performance. Performance to them is not simply down to the implementation of elaborate IT systems, but requires the alignment of key personnel in an understanding of the knowledge management aspects relating to the E2E processes. This required management to think about how the business operates from a process, as opposed to a function, perspective (McLaughlin, Paton & Macbeth, 2006). Hewlett Packard. Adizes (1988) postulated that as companies go through various life-cycle stages, their cultures need to change in order to adapt to different business challenges. Rigid adherence to a set of cultural norms can foretell disaster, especially in rapidly changing market conditions (Waldera, 2002) Consider the fate of a non-renewing organization as defined by Waldera (2002). The “HP Way” guided the success and development of this premier technology company since its inception in 1939. However effective the “HP Way” culture was in guiding the company’s growth during the first fifty years of its history, it began to curtail its growth in more recent history. These were caused by decentralized decision making model, informal communication, and nurturing a corporate environment ill-equipped to compete in the global fast-paced market of the 1990s. It was not until Carly Fiorina stepped in, that cultural practices were questioned. The culture adapted to new market conditions after a bitter proxy fight over the Compaq merger (Waldera, 2002) IBM. In contrast, IBM changed its cultural practices in order to meet the demands of the marketplace (Waldera, 2002). Begun in 1924, IBM had established a strong legacy culture of formality, discipline and “white shirts.” It was in the 1980s and 1990s that it encountered a market revolution, with the inception of the PC and client/server environment. Business purchasers became individual departments and work groups, not a place where IBM had relationships. Then, Lou Gerstner arrived in 1993, the first CEO hired from outside the ranks in IBM history. He proceeded to transform the culture with a new customer focus and cross-functional collaboration, thus securing IBM’s market leadership for the future (Waldera, 2002). Some rules or principles in change management There are some rules for effective management of change. This is one reason why change is not as easy as it seems because management has to be done along some principles. Consult the people involved. Change management involves thoughtful planning and sensitive implementation, and above all, consultation with, and involvement of, the people affected by the changes (“Top strategies,” 2007). It is said that if you force change on people normally problems arise. Change must be realistic, achievable and measurable. These aspects are especially relevant to managing personal change. Accordingly, before starting organizational change, one should ask - What do we want to achieve with this change, why, and how will we know that the change has been achieved? Who is affected by this change, and how will they react to it? How much of this change can we achieve ourselves, and what parts of the change do we need help with? These aspects also relate strongly to the management of personal as well as organizational change (“Change management”) Communicate well. One is not supposed to sell change to people as a way of accelerating agreement and implementation. Selling change to people is not a sustainable strategy for success. Instead, change needs to be understood and managed in a way that people can cope effectively with it. Change can be unsettling, so the manager logically needs to be a settling influence (Remoussenard, 2007) People, affected by the change agree with, or at least understand, the need for change, and have a chance to decide how the change will be managed, and to be involved in the planning and implementation of the change. A manager must use face-to-face communications to handle sensitive aspects of organisational change management. According to business.com, email and written notices are extremely weak at conveying and developing understanding. Nature of change and change management Not quite easy. Change is not exactly easy. There will always be resistance. Letting people accept it requires an art. The natural reaction to change, even in the best circumstances, is to resist. Awareness of the business need to change is a critical ingredient of any change and must come first (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003).   Structured. Change management is a structured approach for ensuring that changes are thoroughly and smoothly implemented, and that the lasting benefits of change are achieved. The focus is on the wider impacts of change, particularly on people and how they, as individuals and teams, move from the current situation to the new one. The change in question could range from a simple process change, to major changes in policy or strategy needed if the organization is to achieve its potential (Joyce, 2005). Can mitigate risks. Change management can not only mitigate these business risks, but in many cases avoid them entirely. Business leaders have the potential to not only manage resistance once it appears, but to prevent it in the first place. Unfortunately, many business leaders and project teams do not appreciate their role in managing the people side of change until after resistance impacts the success of their change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). Approach is customary. No two changes are exactly alike; therefore following a recipe for change management is not enough. The right approach will be situation specific. If you do not understand the why, changes can fail even when standard processes are followed. According to Hiatt & Creasey (2003), research has shown that a "one size fits all" approach is not sufficient. To be effective at leading change, one will need to customize and scale one’s change management efforts based on the unique characteristics of the change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). To accomplish this customization, an understanding of the psychology of change and guiding principles is needed. It is said that there are many change management methodologies and one can adjust approach according to the size of the change necessary. Impacts the whole system. Theories about how organizations change draw on many disciplines, from psychology and behavioral science, through to engineering and systems thinking (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). The underlying principle is that change does not happen in isolation – it impacts the whole organization or system around it, and all the people touched by it. In order to manage change successfully, it is necessary to attend to the wider impacts of the changes. The tangible impacts of change are as important to consider as the intangible (Waldera, 2002). When change management falls short. Managing the people side of change falls short when the following are encountered: 1)Managers who were unwilling to assign the needed resources to the project or would not allow their representative adequate time to participate; 2) Managers who filtered out important messages or started negative conversations about the change; 3) Employees who became distracted and lost interest in their current work responsibilities thereby impacting overall productivity and customers; 4) Valued employees who left the organization; 5) More people taking sick leave or not showing up for work; 6)Unforeseen obstacles to the change that seemingly appeared from nowhere; and 7) A lack of funding for the change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). Because of this, a manager is expected to be a change leader and sponsor of change able to do the following: manage employee resistance to change, build change competency into one’s organization, minimize productivity losses and adverse effects on customers during major changes, avoid unnecessary turnover or loss of valued employees, and increase the probability that one’s business changes produce the desired results (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). Change can also be done on the personal level just by treating one’s workers fairly and squarely and looking at them as assets. The following advice from AlphaMeasure (Greenberg, 2005) is said to be workable. Practical advice AlphaMeasure where Josh Greenberg (2005) comes from, provides organizations of all sizes a powerful web-based method for measuring employee satisfaction, determining employee engagement, and increasing employee retention. Greenberg (2005 gives age-old advices to the would-be manager. These have something to do with instructions, correcting low performance, feedback on employee performance, and recognizing good work as Greenberg (2005) would put it - Clear instructions. When you give instructions, be as clear as you can. Dont expect people to be able to read your mind. Let them know what you need, how and when you need it - with regard to workload. Dont make them guess, as people hate it and it wastes time and results in unnecessary extra work and inferior quality. Back room discussion. If you have a problem with someones performance or conduct - take it to the back room. Discuss it, one on one, in private and come to an agreement. Recognize good work. Dont hold back on praising your workers for a job well done. It doesnt cost anything and lets them know that their hard work is appreciated. Social Construction of reality In the management of change, Hiatt & Creasey (2003) mention five plans to include communication plans and resistance management plans. Many managers allegedly assume that if they communicate clearly with their employees, their job is done. In principles of change, it is mentioned that there are many reasons why employees may not hear or understand what their managers are saying. Messages need to be repeated 6 to 7 times before they are cemented into the minds of employees. That is because each employee’s readiness to hear depends on many factors (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). Accordingly, messages about the business that must be shared during the earliest stages of the change include the following: 1) The current situation and the rationale for the change, 2) The business issues or drivers that created a need for change, 3) Competitive issues or changes in the marketplace including customer issues, 4) Financial issues or trends, and 5) What might happen if a change is not made (Hiatt & Creasey, 2003). On the practical side again, to be effective, managers need to know about the craft of management including some important concepts. According to Lisa Haneberg (2006) all managers ought to understand and test the notions of social construction of reality. To her, this is one of the most powerful management concepts one can use to facilitate change. Accordingly, social constructionists believe that reality is socially constructed. It means that when people talk about something, they define it and make it real. It is during daily interactions that people do construct their versions of knowledge and what they believe is real. As explained, two different languages or conversations can create two realities. One’s conversations, one’s talk, make things real to one. Haneberg (2006) says conversation broadly includes verbal exchanges, written communications, nonverbal communications, and various other media forms. One million people reading a story in the newspaper can create new conversation that shifts reality for themselves, she said. As exemplified in a crime committed in a neighborhood, several conversations and several realities are created - those of the police, the criminal, the neighbors, and the witnesses. Reality, however, must not be confused with objective truth (Haneberg, 2006). In many situations, particularly those dealing with people, there is no one correct way to view the situation. Perceptions about reality are important to managers as these determine clients’ behaviors and results. Haneberg (2006) suggests that to change what is real, the conversation should be changed. One of the most powerful ways to create change, she said, is to shift what people are talking about. The principle is that the conversations must be in support of the change they seek, but often, they are not (Haneberg, 2006). To exemplify, so-called victim conversations are a good example of conversations that define a reality that is unhelpful to the organization. Managers then must find ways to get workers and clients to take on an alternative conversation and reality, Haneberg (2006) said. Conclusion Theoretically, change appears hard and difficult to manage as propounded by Hiatt & Creasey (2003), Dan Zrymiak (2003), Management-issues.com (“Top strategies,” 2007), and Businessballs.com. From the experiences of other management moguls, however, change can be handled practically, more particularly from communication efforts. One is through relational and tactful communication in as simple as praising good performance and private conversation with low performers. The other is through intentionally directing positive conversation hitched to worker reality that should prevail in the workplace. This has the effect on work behavior that translates into customer behavior. If these practical suggestions are followed, change can be said to be easy to achieve for managers in organizations, even in as simple as communication. It can go a long way. Managing change in this perspective, therefore, does not have to be all-encompassing, labor-extensive, and expensive, but easy. References. Adizes, I. (1988.) Corporate LifeCycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About It. Prentice Hall. American Express announces organization and management changes. New York, June 20, 2005. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from, http://home3.americanexpress.com/corp/pc/2005/structure.asp Change management. Businessballs.com. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm Greenberg, J. Tales from the Corporate Frontlines: A New Managers Tale. AlphaMeasure, Inc. 2005. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://www.alphameasure.com/corporate_tales_a_new_manager.html Haneberg, L. Managers need to know about social construction of reality! Management Craft. Discussions about state of the art management. February 24, 2006. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://managementcraft.typepad.com/management_craft/2006/02/managers_need_t.html Hiatt, J. M. & Creasey, T. J. Change Management. (September 2003). Prosci Research. ISBN-10: 1930885180. ISBN-13: 978-1930885189 Joyce, K. Six Steps to a Successful Change Management Process. The Quantum Group, LLC. May 13, 2005.   Retrieved august 19, 2007, from http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=9031 McLaughlin, S., Paton, R.A. & Macbeth, D.K. Managing change within IBM: a complex supply chain. Management Decision, Volume 44 Number 8, 2006. Remoussenard, C. Making Change. MITSloan Management Review. MIT’s journal of management research and ideas. June 15, 2007. Top strategies for embracing change. Change Management. March 2, 2007. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from http://www.management-issues.com/2007/3/2/research/top-strategies-for-embracing-change.asp Waldera, L. Culture Matters: How an intangible asset impacts growth. October, 2002. Retrieved august 19, 2007, from http://www.inmomentum.com/resources/pdfs/cult_matters.pdf Zrymiak, Dan. The Case for Change in a Successful Organization. Vol. 5, No. 1. May 2003. ESI International, Inc. Newsletter. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from http://www.esi-intl.com/public/publications/Horizonspdfs/horizons0503.pdf Summary of changes from original discussion The original discussion did not hit on the topic and its apparent intention; therefore there was much overhauling of the ideas presented for this new version. In the original, there was no documenting of organizations that changed, unlike in this second one. The bibliographical entries in the first one did not included professional sources like management websites where management issues are discussed. All in all, this second one is a much improved version, if not a total revamp of the first one. In this improved version, there is the inclusion of management ideas from the theoretical perspective which were documented properly. Looking at theoretical discussions, it is as though change has to be all-encompassing, difficult, and with many intricacies that as though change cannot be done without all-sweeping initiatives. Any false move would then spell disaster. However, this was followed by practical suggestions from vintage managers like Lisa Haneberg (2006) and Joyce (2005), and Greenberg (2005). Basically, the recommendations were found in communication ranging from praising work and recognizing good performance, to directing positive conversation to prevail in the workplace so that eventually attitude and behavior can be influenced – from the worker to the client. Aside from improved presentation of ideas, the grammar and syntax have been ascertained to be correct. More importantly, the argumentation for the topic has been arranged properly to sound logical in presentation. Read More