Distinction between Strategic Change and Grassroots Change - Assignment Example

Organizational change and behavior of Organizational change and behavior Exercise Distinction betweenstrategic change and grassroots change Business organizations generally exist in dynamic and changing environments. Survival and growth depends upon strategic thinking, planning and implementation. Strategic change involves the top management and, as the name suggests, business strategy. This could involve the whole organization and its impact will be medium to long term planning. This form of change is also influenced by the vision, mission and organizational values (Denhardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2009, 355). Grassroots change involves lower level and supervisory departments. According to the authors mentioned above, this is intended to cater to the needs of local customers which could change between different markets. This evidently helps the organization to cope up with the demands of local markets. The employees involved are in direct contact with customers and hence the need to understand their needs and requirements. Exercise 2(a): Example of mechanistic organizations: Mechanistic organizations are required when technology and automation are important. Customer requirements are based on these aspects. An automobile factory is a perfect example of such an organizational structure (Field, 2002). Exercise 2(b): Example of organic organizations: Organic organizations need to be acutely tuned to the needs of individual customers. There is no fixed or rigid product. Each product will be made or developed according to the needs of the customer. An advertising agency is a good example of the organic structure. Exercise 2(c): Example of matrix structures: This structure is required when the organizational goals need technology, automation, and customer needs. This could be the most complex of the three structures in this exercise. A prime example would be a pharmaceutical company like Bayer AG of Germany. The company had the technology, but needed to cater to the needs of many customers faced with a wide range of diseases. The top management differentiated between its technology division and human resources division for this purpose (Mote, 2012). Exercise 3: The concept of non-structural issues by Oxman and Smith: The authors put across several new concepts in structure that challenges the concept of traditional organizational hierarchy. “The hierarchical organizational chart once provided a structure that enabled companies to run efficiently. However, the rapid pace of change and widespread use of technology have mandated, in a number of key areas, the evolution of mechanisms less dependent on top-down decision making and more based on cross-functional activity” (Oxman & Smith, 2003, 81). The authors feel that traditional hierarchical structures have to be changed. They categorize the change under two categories namely ‘what’s happened and ‘evolutionary implications’. They argue for a dynamic structure rather than go in for a rigid mechanical one. For this to happen, a flatter hierarchy where powers are passed down to the lower levels of management is necessary. The terms or strategies used are sharing of information across all levels of management, knowledge management, performance management, and focus on retaining key employees. The article does not mention any new technical terms for these concepts. Exercise 4: Oxman and Smith agreeing with Denhardt et al regarding organizational change: It can be seen that both these publications have a commonality with regard to organizational change. The limits of cultural change argue that traditional organizational change is no longer the norm in dynamic environments. Traditional hierarchical structures are inefficient to cope up in the current business atmosphere. A flatter structure that involves employee participation at all levels is recommended. They include such modern concepts like need advocacy, information sharing, providing authority to make decisions, and make work challenging and exciting to the employees. Denhardt et al also argues strongly about the need for organizational change. The authors provide several change structures that could be common with those provided by Oxman and Smith. They include the concept of structural and grassroots level change. Both these change structures are based on how organizations cope up with current business environments. Strategic change cannot be based on hierarchical structures where decisions take a long time to be implemented since it has to be based on a long chain of command. Grassroots level change is about giving power to lower level employees and supervisors to understand a particular market. Two other change structures are also discussed in this context, namely incremental change and discontinuous change. The former type is a smooth implementation of strategic management plans even if the business environment is healthy for an organization. The second type is a more dramatic change that involves major restructuring of policies and plans. One fact that needs to be mentioned here is that Denhardt et al focuses on public and non-profit organizations. It is noteworthy that even such organizations (formed not for profit) have to cope up with the external environment. In other words, all types of organizations are subject to change, if not, they are likely to perish or subject to state/government funding to survive. So, in different words, and ideas, both these publications stress on the importance of change that argues for a flatter structure that is less dependent on hierarchy and more attuned to a dynamic business environment. Supervisory roles in service sector organizations: The term service is self-explanatory. Customer service is a necessity for all types of organizations. But managers and supervisors in the service sector should be more aware of the term with regard to servicing the customer. The following definition or the ‘Seven Rs Rule’ will provide a clear picture for supervisors as to what the customers can expect, especially in service sector organizations. “The ‘Seven Rs’ stand for the right product, in the right quantity, in the right condition, at the right place, at the right time, for the right customer, at the right cost. A perfect order occurs when all the ‘Seven Rs’ are satisfied. This customer service definition can be applied to any service, or manufacturer, and to any customer” (Wisner, Tan & Leong, 2009, 358). Once this is understood and applied, customer service becomes perfect for any type of organization, including service oriented ones. Supervisors have to identify and understand both internal and external customers (Denhardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2009, 405). Internal customers are those within the organization itself. For example, an advertising agency first relies on the front office personnel as a means of initial contact with the customer. They should get the support of the art work and copy writing personnel when the customer is referred to them. In this case, the front office personnel are an internal customer for the art and copy writing departments. The front office personnel in turn should see the other department employees as internal customers. External customers are the actual people that require service from an organization. With regard to the public sector, employees may not feel motivated enough to comply with all the customer satisfaction and supervisory role requirements. One factor is that many public service organizations are monopolistic and run by governments. The police department of any country can be cited as an example. There is no profit motive for the organization and hence monetary rewards for performance cannot be paid to the employees. Under these circumstances, managers need to have a genuine service oriented mentality and approach in dealing with customers. This will depend on the capability of those who manage such organizations. Denhardt et al provides the following insight into supervisory roles in the public sector. Private sector employees have their own personal interests in working for an organization. They can receive performance incentives which are a motivation to be efficient. “There is nothing wrong in meeting our needs and priorities at work, but in the public service, the needs of others take precedence. We are in the public service to serve others – our country, our community, our fellow citizens (including our employees and co-workers) – and not ourselves (Denhardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2009, 14). It is this attitude that rules the supervisors in playing their roles as employees in public sector organizations. It would be worthwhile to study whether this attitude actually exists in such organizations. As mentioned earlier, it is up to the management of the organization and the governments that run it to develop such a service oriented mentality. Interplay between phases of performance measurement and the particular organizational culture and management style: Performance management and organizational culture are words used to measure the effectiveness of an organization. Performance management is a tool that is primarily used to motivate employees to work effectively. This ensures that efficient employees are rewarded according to their achievements. Organizational culture on the other hand is the working environment, vision and style that exist within the work place. The question is whether performance management alone or vice versa is enough to measure the effectiveness of an organization. Studies have shown that the two are inter-related. In other words, both culture and performance management is required elements in the success of an organization. (Bititci et al, 2006, 1326) The above diagram is illustrative of this interplay. The authors through their research and review of other studies have concluded that there is a dyadic (interplay) between these three concepts. According to their findings, current management studies show that performance management is only effective as the organizational culture and management style within an organization. In other words, simply implementing a performance measurement system will not result in performance improvement. A few case studies as discussed in the paper is given here. Company A employing approximately four hundred people initiated a performance measuring system. The problem was that the manager who initiated the step was an autocratic manager. The combination of autocratic leadership and a strict performance management system resulted in fear and insecurity (of their jobs) among the employees. Clearly, the autocratic culture did nothing to improve employee performance. This manager was replaced by another who had a consultative and democratic leadership style. According to the authors, the results were dramatic and employee performance improved drastically. Company B was another example where organizational culture stood in the way of performance and its measurement. The company had well laid out departments, but had no effective communication between them. Each department had their own priorities and needs with little regard for other departments. Like Company A, this organization also had an authoritative management approach. The initiative failed in this case also due to the culture that existed within the organization. A study by Van de Ven and Sun focused on the concept of organizational change. While it does not specifically study performance measurement, it does categorically state that organizational change is a necessity to cope with dynamic business environments.”Change is an ongoing and never ending process in organizational life. Although we would like to explain, predict and control the process, organizational change often does not unfold in expected ways” (Van de Ven & Sun, n.d., 58). What connects these two articles is culture with regard to organizational change. In other words, performance measurement is not effective unless there is organizational change in culture. This can be seen from the two case studies of Companies A and B mentioned above. But organizational change is a complicated process and should be implemented in a careful manner. These aspects prove that organizational culture and management style is closely related with how performance measurement and improvement takes place. It can be concluded that unless there is a favorable work culture and management style, performance will not improve even with a highly evolved performance measurement system in place. References Bititci et al. (2006). Dynamics of performance measurement and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(12), 1325-1350. Denhardt, R.B., Denhardt, J.V. & Aristigueta, M.P. (2009). Managing human behavior in public and non-profit organizations, SAGE Publications. Field, R. H. G. (2002). Richard field on management and information science. Retrieved 26 August 24, 2012 from http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/Organizational Effectiveness, Structure, and Technology.htm Mote, D. (2012). Matrix management and structure. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Man-Mix/Matrix-Management-and-Structure.html Oxman, J. A. & Smith, B. D. (2003). The limits of cultural change. MIT Sloan Management Review, Van de Ven, A. & Sun, K. (n.d.). Breakdowns in implementing organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives , 58-74. Provided by student Wisner, J.D., Tan, K & Leong, G.K. (2009). Principles of supply chain management, Cengage Learning Read More