Why a Management Dots on the Institutionalization of Rules and Responsibility - Term Paper Example

Incorporating Changes in organizational rules Introduction Companies that have been successful in creating goodwill in its long history of production and marketing are often seen to have a tradition that is worthy of following to them. The case is more so in companies that are likened to a familial structure and holding on to certain specific assumptions of the regarding the roles and behavioral pattern of employees. Under such circumstances, incorporating changes in the organizational structure becomes a bit difficult, despite the fact that the internal employees’ perspectives or the external market forces demand changes. “Strategy is not new in the change management realm. Strategies are ways of pursuing the vision and mission. They answer the questions, such as "What are we trying to do? What is the right change for our organization?” (Carter, 2008) As we are now living in a dynamic, constantly changing world, changes are nonetheless important to incorporate as it can help the organizational goal through the improvement of function, competitiveness, standardizations, enhancement of efficiency and finally success (Gilley, Godek and Gilley, 2009, p. 4). The paper is going to discuss why a management dots on the institutionalization of rules and responsibility and what approach can be taken to overcome the resistance to change that is built into the organizational structure. “Organizational institutionalization brings about organizational rigidity and resistance to change” (Fleck, 2007, p.66). Case analysis Institutionalized resistance to changes makes an organization weak and vulnerable to the competition of the free market. It has been observed in research that 30% to 90% large-scale effort in change either does not work or make the situation worse (Gilley, Godek and Gilley, 2009, p.4). It has also been observed that that the inability to cope with change has resulted in the demise of a number of firms (Gilley, Godek and Gilley, 2009, p. 4). A well-grounded research is necessary to help organizations with change models so that they are able to take the inevitable challenge. But Weick and Quinn are more cautionary as observe that the basic tension underlying discussions of organizational changes is the failure to perform a job and therefore it should be taken care of that things are done properly in the first place (Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 362). The magnitude of a company is predictable basing on how that company communicate, motivates its workforce and integrate changes. According to Dam, Oreg and Schyns (2008), the change process can severely be hampered by resistance to it and it can also associate unconstructive outcomes like loss in productivity, reduced satisfaction, psychological well-being and absenteeism and so on (Dam, Oreg and Schyns, 2008, p. 314). The Reasons of resistance are also numerous. It can be individual attitude to change, disruption of routine, fear of unknown, fear of failure, loss of control, status, security etc (Gilley, Godek and Gilley, 2009, p.5). One of the key challenges to the management of an organization is to overcome the resistance to change. As it has been observed earlier that resistance is inherent to an organization, scientific approaches are to be taken to subjugate the resistance ensuring maximum positive effect from the changes implemented. Lewin in 1951 brought forth a three-step change model. The first step of his model is termed unfreezing by which he meant the acceleration of the deriving forces and retardation of restraining forces and in this way the status quo—the accepted equilibrium of the system can be changed. The second step is dedicated to explore a new equilibrium and it can be achieved by persuading the employee that the existing condition is not beneficial for organization, helping them see the situation from a fresh perspective and supporting this new outlook with the observation of powerful leaders. Third step is intended to institutionalize the changes adopted through “formal and informal mechanisms including policies and procedures” (Kritsonis, 2005, p.2). “The change is maintained by providing continued assistance and support to people using the system” (Lee, 2006, p.488). But there is an issue of interpretation of the changes introduced. According to Parsons and Broadbridge, “meaning of planned change will be subject to reinterpretation due to the presence of subcultures” (Parsons and Broadbridge, 2004, p.232). They also observe that differences between levels of integration and cultural boundaries and analyses lead to multiple interpretation of the changes by the insiders (Parsons and Broadbridge, 2004:232). Lewin also noticed how the type of management could affect the employee behaviors. Basing on a research, he predicted how the employees working under a democratic leadership would be inclined to stick to their task. Conversely the employees working under autocratic management is less likely to sustain their productivity (Scott, 2009:2). In this connection, the case of Ojuice can be referred to here. The organization of this organization has prided on the efficient system that has been in effect probably since its inception. The long-standing rules and procedures related to their organizational culture reflected a traditional family oriented background. What is implied in this small information is its autocratic system, resistance to changes necessary to build an environment of trust and responsibility with the new employees who have been raised and educated in a culture different from the hexagenerian CEOs. If the young employees are enabled to think on their own for the benefit of the company, the two in Ojuice would not have switched to other company and manufacturing a renewed product with them. One of the very important points made by Lewin is the reduction of restraining forces. Another restraining force is the marginality in multinational organizations. According to Unger, a positive recognition of previous marginalization can help in supporting a ‘vision of collective and as well as individual responsibility for change’ (Unger, 2000, p.177). Hoogendoorn and treur believe that an “approach could be to model a multi-agent system in which each of the agents have those specific capabilities, and show the effectiveness of the system as a whole in this domain” (Hoogendoorn and Treur, 2009, p.119). On the other hand Ulrich has forwarded a seven-step model for implementing changes. He is more concerned with the monitoring of organizational behaviors. The steps devised by him include leading change, creating a shared need, shaping a vision, mobilizing commitment, monitoring progress and taking measures to make the changes last. In the theorization of Ulrich it is apparent that creating a vision can help the employees in building self-directed imperative but it should not be ignored that this urgency for developing a vision is imposed from the outside and in this case the management can not be considered democratic (Gilley, Godek and Gilley, 2009, p.5). In this connection it can be discerned that should have a change-agent who can facilitate the sense making of commonsense by all other employee. The responsibility of the change agent is to “act in accordance with commonsense perspectives” and “minimize ambivalence based on common sense perspectives” (Moon, 2009, p.520). The crux of the matter is that in an employee group, each should exemplify the commonsense perceptions to other and thus eradicate confusions, ambivalence and other restraining forces regarding the role responsibility of employees. Moon observes, “change-agent may design a communication strategy that accounts for perceived violations of stakeholders’ perspectives to reduce their ambivalence” (Moon, 2009, p.520). But still incorporation of the employees to define challenges and find solution is neglected in the model of Ulrich. Recommendations In the light of above review it is clear that the primary challenge to Janice Tyler, the newly appointed CEO of Ojuice, is to understand the changes demanded by the environment. The two employees who allegedly broke rules inserted ‘unique’ posters and ‘fanciful’ dream catchers and therefore they can not be accused of indulging vulgar habits—rather they were creative in mind and looked for changes in the procedures and management and functioning of Ojuice. In this connection, there is a relevant observation by Lalonde who thinks that social and behavioral sciences can be called upon “to strengthen abilities and capacities of organizations over the long term to confront changes and to better attain their objectives” (Lalonde, 2007, p.98). Since this organization is on the verse of extinction, creativity can help it compete with rivals. Burnes thinks, “creativity and growth are at their optimal when a complex system operates at the edge of chaos” (Burnes, 2004, p.315). The behaviors of the two employees then can be interpreted as arising from creative force at their work. Burnes also believes that “people need the freedom to own their own power, think innovatively, and operate in new patterns” (Burnes, 2004, p.316). Basing on their research on a manufacturing company that had been in decline for the past thirty years, MacIntosh and MacLean also provides evidences of how important is the application of suitable order-generating rules (Burnes, 2004, p.317). So the duty responsibility of Janice would be to look from the viewpoints of young employees and capitalize the opportunity of reframing the organizational structure to save Ojuice. She can bring changes through “meaningful dialogue regarding any attempts to realign the program with contemporary business realities” (Kerno Jr., 2010, p.24). Concluding remarks From the above discussion, it is clear that that resistance coming from the institutionalized rules and management can no longer help in overcoming the challenges that arise in the struggle for survive. As proposed resistance is built into the structure of a system but systematic approach should be taken to make the organizational rules more flexible so that employees can exercise their creative energy to put the maximum of their productivity in effect. Researchers have found how skillful handling of resistance and disagreement by facilitators can yield good results by ensuring that all views are heard (Rhydderch, Edwards, Marshall and Grol, 2006, p.7). Improved of communication especially in the information age is extremely important to manage changes in an organization. Through communication one can maintain the flow and exchange of information within the organization and with the outside world. References BURNES B, (2004), Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?, Journal of Change Management, 4(4), pp.309-325 Carter E (2008), Successful change requires more than change management, Journal for Quality and Participation, The Spring, Retrieved on September 6, 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3616/is_200804/ai_n25500042/ Dam K V, Oreg S and B Schyns, (2008), Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader– Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics, APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, Vol.57, No.2, pp.313–334 Fleck D (2007), Institutionalization and organizational long-term success, Brazilian Administrative Review, 4(2), pp. 64-80 Gilley, Godek and Gilley (2009), Change, Resistance, and the Organizational Immune System, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal; 74(4), pp.4-10 Hoogendoorn M and J Treur (2009), An adaptive multi-agent organization model based on dynamic role allocation, International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems, 13, pp.119–139 Kerno Jr. S (2010), Peer Pressure, Mechanical Engineering, Aug 2010, 132(8), pp.24-27 Kritsonis A (2005), Comparison of change theories, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY ACADEMIC INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY, 8(1), pp.1-7 Lee T (2006), Adopting a personal digital assistant system: application of Lewin’s change theory, NURSING AND HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT AND POLICY , 355, pp.487-496 Lalonde C (2007), The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to Crisis Management, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 15(2), pp. 95-104 Moon M Y (2009), Making sense of common sense for change management buy-in, Management Decision, 47(3), pp.518-532 Parsons E and A Broadbridge, Managing Change in Nonprofit Organizations: Insights From the UK Charity Retail Sector, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15 (3), pp.227-242 Rhydderch M, Edwards A, Marshall M, Elwyn G and R Grol (2006), Developing a facilitation model to promote organizational development in primary care practices, BMC Family Practice, 7(38), Retrieved on September 6, 2010 form: http://www.equip.ch/files/23/maturity_matrix_16.06.06_article.pdf Unger R K (2000), Outsiders inside: positive marginality and social change, Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), pp.163-174 Weick K E and R E Quinn, Annu. Rev. Psychol. (1999). ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT, Annual Review of Psychology, 50, pp.361–86 Read More