Organizational Change Management, Change, Talk and Sensemaking - Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated Bibliography Thurlow, A., & Mills, J. (2009) Change, talk and sensemaking. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 (5), 459 –479. In this article, the authors present the argument or theory that managing organizational language is a key tactic used by managers and leaders, to bring about desired results in times of change. The problem with this control is that it may inhibit the sense making ability of those most affected by the change. This is particularly true where terminology used may have more than one meaning or are used interchangeably with other vocabulary. Those who are expected to buy in to the change may be unclear as to what is expected or in the actual processes that will change. The focus of this article is actually on professionals that come in from the outside to help organizations change. This is a particularly different approach from implementing change in-house, because much of the language analysis prepared in this article would not be necessary if everyone involved in the change used common language that is familiar to all within the organization. Outsiders may use terminology differently, which may be the actual cause of confusion. The analysis provides an example of why clear and concise communication is necessary, particularly during periods of change. If outsiders are brought in, their language should be adjusted to that of the firm, or a list of commonly used terminology should be provided at all levels of the organization. Buy-in may be more successful when everyone is on the same page in terms of understanding. Isern, J., Meany, M. & Wilson, S.(2009). Corporate transformation under pressure. Mckinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Change_Management/Corporat e_transformation_under_pressure_2308. This article shares the results of a survey taken by the authors, that examines trends in how organizations change. The findings indicate that true organizational change only occurred about 40% of the time. The best results, as high as 80%, are achieved by companies that abide by principles such a strong senior leadership, clear vision of goals and consistent communication of goals. The survey also found that companies that were under pressure to change from external forces usually failed because they tried to have “troubleshooters” take care of the transformation in secret rather than appealing to the broad base of employees. This article is valuable to research, as it provides strong argument against secret or covert actions taken to bring about change in an organization. Outsourcing decisions that do not communicate a clear set of goals will not received a broad base of support within the organization. This will lead to less than desirable results in the change process. Lack of open communication and secretive ventures of this nature can create a great deal of distrust. The research also suggests that change which is expected to bring about improvement within an organization should be proactive, rather than reactive. This means that taking measures to prevent problem before they occur, being able to anticipate them and having solutions in place if they do occur can help organizations weather storms much more successfully. The research further shows that organizations involved in continuous change processes and ongoing learning activities are much better equipped. Reacting to crises requires isolating causes and handling them individually, rather than by enforcing solutions that create major changes within the entire organization. Long term solutions are best dealt with one at a time, as they are more likely to be instituted or adopted on a continuing basis. Goh, S. (1998) Toward a Learning Organization: The Strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 63. In this article, the author discusses the idea of learning organizations. These are organizations that communicate well and as a result, actually become more intelligent and responsive. This occurs through the constant assimilation and sharing of information and feedback, about the performance of the company as a whole. A key element in the building of such an organization is the development and implementation of a team mentality, which allows for and promotes sharing of information. Such a structure promotes organizational goals over individual goals. As important components of a team, individuals are more willing to share information and take responsibility, as they are more likely to view their role as critical, within the organization and team. The formation of teams tends to break down barriers within an organization, among those in the same department and from one department to another. This is particularly true for organizations that use cross functional teams. Boundaries in communication and those of divisiveness result in organizational failure to grown. Initially, this article appeared to be only marginally related to teamwork and organizational change. In reading further, it becomes more apparent that the discussion provides valuable clues as to the accomplishments that can be made with the structuring of teams. Team building goes well beyond a few group exercises. It encourages ongoing learning and development of its members, as ideas, concepts and experiences are shared. Dynamic organizations that adopt a teaming structure are the best examples of learning organizations. Swee C. Goh has published numerous books and articles on learning organizations, in professional journals. He is highly regarded in his field. Salas, E., Mullen, B. & Driskell, J. (1999). The Effect of team building on performance. Small Group Research vol. 30 (3), 309-329. The authors of this article share results of a meta-analysis, which involves reported results of firms that have undertaken teambuilding strategies on an organizational level. The results of their analysis are surprising. Teambuilding activities is small organization do not improve results in organizational performance. This meta-analysis was very thorough, including data from well over 100 organizations. Data was collected empirically as well as subjectively. It is apparent that working as a team makes individual workers feel as though more is getting done, but the empirical data does not support these feelings. This article seems to refute much of the other research. However, upon close examination of the analysis contents, it appears to support the fact that teambuilding is an essential aspect of organizational change, even though organizational change fails more often than it succeeds. The implications of the analysis are that some teambuilding efforts are more effective than others, especially when they are ongoing, rather than a one time occurrence. Activities that occur once may seem to employees as an exercise in human relations, rather than one of organizational strategy. They may not take it as seriously as when the activities or involvement in teams are ongoing. This article is highly regarded by other authors that have conducted similar research. Many of them have similar results in their research, which may reinforce the fact that not all teambuilding activities are beneficial to the organization. Care should be taken in selecting teams and assigning the activities team is responsible for. Wheatley, M. & Kellney-Rogers, M. (1998). Bringing about organizational change. Journal for Strategic Performance Measurement. The authors acknowledge that organizational change is ineffective most of the time. However, they provide alternative explanations for many of these failures. They present the notion that managers and leaders are too quick to point the finger at employees, who are unmotivated, highly resistant and unwilling to put in any effort into change processes. The authors argue that this view is most unhelpful and only serves to set of the organization for further failure. Two explanations are provided as to why organizational change often feels. First, teams are usually small in nature and are expected to devise solutions which affect the entire organization. Solutions devised by a team from one sector within an organization are not likely to see the big picture and may not fully understand the functions of other departments or positions. Second, teams do not take advantage of the ideas and capacities of many of the members, if all members’ contributions are not considered. The implications that these authors suggest are that corporations do not understand how employees gain satisfaction from work. They also fail to see the value in allowing individual ideas or concepts to build upon each other. Often great solutions require more than one idea. Individual work units or departments may function very differently. The best solutions may come from those within the units that are familiar with the nature of the work and how more efficient or effective functioning might look. Organizations that overlook solutions from within the problem areas may be missing the opportunity to experience more effective change. The authors serve as consultants to many well know corporations and are highly esteemed for the creative or fresh look on how to foster positive organizational change. Read More