Organizational Cchange and Development - of Brookway Financial Institution - Case Study Example

Topic: CHANGE IN AN ORGANIZATION (Name) (Institution’s Name) 31 /03/08 Introduction Change is one of the things that puts pressure on our comfort zone and forces us out of this comfort zones. It is faith built, destiny filtered and heart grown. Change occurs on all sections of the people and it is no respecter of persons. Change does not care about the cultural, economic, social or political affiliations of individuals. It has two faces, that is, it occurs for the better or for the worst. This depends on how an individual views it. It is always uncomfortable for individuals to change from one state to the other and change has an adjustment period which varies from one individual to the other. Change leaves lasting effects on those who try to oppose it and won't let go. Flexibility is the only key to change because even riding a roller coaster can be very interesting when one learns how to create and lean to create a new balance within the change. The statement ‘just hang there' is just a great enemy of change but the statement you can make it is a good show of embracing change. Change is never fixed by worrying, crying or other mental thoughts but it is won by those who are ready to endure rather than retreat. At the first sight change appears to be very awkward. Change has a strong muscle that pushes us to do our personal best beyond our own strength and helps us enjoy the dynamics of life that occur in our lives and that lies ahead of us. Change leaves several causalities and these causalities are those who try to resist change and they remain defeated. It causes us to learn or to churn and it affects the speed of time and the course of doing things how things from the usual to a new way of carrying out activities (Chaudron, 1992) Literature Review Time can be said to be a whirlwind for those who are ready to welcome its effects but it is slow for those who are reluctant to welcome its effects. Change becomes complete when one realizes that he/she is different but it seeks a better place at the end. The measurement of change is simply the impact it brings on those who are connected to it. Robey (1991) observes that origin of change is in the heart even before it is proclaimed by the actions in form of work and it doers not look for a place to rest but it looks for the next point where it can be launched. It quickens those who move slower than itself because it is either one changes or is left to feel the effects of change. It reinvents what we can see through the power that is invested in the unseen. It can be likened with the act of driving in a fog where you can not see very far but the whole trip can just be completed that way. There are seven things that happen when people are in a situation of change. Firstly, people embark on doing things that they are not used to doing because there attempt to resist this is tantamount to suffering and pain. Secondly, people start thinking what they have to give up in order to be accommodated in the new wave of change and it is rare to see people thinking of what they would gain. Thirdly, some people feel lonely seeing their comrades going through the change and fourthly people are able to handle as much change as they can if given a certain limit of time. Fifthly, different people develop different levels of their abilities to embrace the change. Sixthly, in time of change people always put on the perception that they have got no enough resources to help them embrace the change and seventh if the force of change goes off people are more likely to revert back to the usual ways that they are used to. According to Senge (1999), there are several assumptions that underlie the occurrence of change. These assumptions are as follows, change has to be owned by every body because those who resist become a great enemy of change. It does not happen in a flash of lightning but is a process which should be initiated by a need that arises in an organization or anywhere else. Another assumption is that it does not occur automatically and that much success is brought by the management who provides focus and clarity of why change is needed. In an organization the people who should provide the focus and clarity of change are those who develop and support the personnel. In addition change has to be planned for and it is not something that a person can wake up and initiate without much research and wider consultations. This is because if change is not planned for it can bring bitter and unexpected fruits which fire back to those who tried to initiate the change. Another assumption is that different individuals have got different responses to change and that the whole department that initiates change has to be part of the institution so that it can also flow and also feel the impact of change. In addition Senge (1990) observes that there are three phases of change. The first is the unfreeze phase, the second is the phase of changing and the third is the phase of creating a new culture in an organization that fully accommodates the new opinions brought by the change. The unfreeze stage involves assessing the situation currently and diagnosing any possible chances of resisting to change as well as preparing the ground for communicating intentions to other colleagues about the current look of things. The second phase involves the selection of strategies which encompasses issues such as communication through education, facilitation and support and the manipulation. It also involves the selection of a timescale which has two ends, that is fast and slow. The selection of a time scale is determined by the type and the amount of resistance one expects to encounter from those who are supposed to change and the difference in power between those who would resist the change. In creating a new culture one has to ensure that the change is felt by every player in the organization thus achieving the objective of institutionalizing the change. Why change According to Pruger and Miller (1991) organizational change occurs mainly when an organization decides to change its strategies of success in or decides to do away with a certain practice or a section of its operations. It does not entail the small changes that occur such as hiring a new person into the organization or modifying a certain program. It mostly focuses on restructuring operations, change in the mission, major collaborations and mergers, new technologies. It therefore comprises a radical and an important reorientation of the operations in the organization. Organizational change also occurs when the organization wants to add or change the nature of the usual way of doing things. Another reason why change must occur especially in organizations is because everything must undergo period of life cycle. Change occurs also in order to rhyme with the unending requirements of nature which can turn to be sour if we try to resist. For example, in the construction industry engineers have to change their ways of constructing tall buildings if an area becomes infested with earth quakes and if they ignore this fact then they have got no option but to be dismayed by the extent of destruction that can be brought by the earth quake which is not man made. In the medical field, the doctors have to keep on changing the medicines used for treating different diseases because if they do not do so they will find the usual medicines overtaken by the tough bacteria and viruses that cause these diseases. Change is therefore inevitable if one plans to progress rather than retrogress. Managers and leaders of various organizations always strive to successfully accomplish significant changes in their organizations. Some succeed but others try and fail. In order for one to successfully change a certain concept in an organization Nanus (1992) reiterates that the agent of change has to understand among others things, the structures in an organization, the systems that operate in that organization as well as the broader understanding of the leadership and management in that organization. There are several things that provoke organizational change. Since change is directed into accomplishing a goal in the long run, it is vital to stick to the initial need for it. It is provoked by some major driving forces which are steered from outside such as, need for dramatic production increase, a great cut in funding and the need to address new and major markets for goods and services. Organizational change meets hurdles which tests its worthiness. This is because people already think that things are well and there is no need for any change to occur. Many become inherently cynical about the occurrence of the change. Others even doubt the resources available to handle such a major change. The top managers of the organization strive to straighten the conflicting goals of trying to increase the resources to attain the change yet also trying to cut costs concurrently in order to remain viable. It is therefore crucial to address the culture of the organization in order to change how members believe that things should be done. For a successful change to occur in an organization the top management which includes the chief executive officer must be part and parcel of the mission. It is better done when carried out in the team spirit rather than as an individual activity. Strategic plans, procedures and policies should be modified in order to achieve a sustainable organizational change. The need for change should be widely communicated to all the people in the organization and much feedback should be accepted from the people or the employees. The change instigator should at all times keep focus so as not to loose the original goals of the change. In addition wider reading must be done so that one can get to know how such a change worked or failed in another organization. This helps in preventing the recurrence of loop holes that resulted into failure in another organization where such a change was deemed to occur as well as getting new ideas of how best to carry out the change process deriving from the success of another organization where such a change occurred. (Brager and Holloway, 1992) Case Study The Brookway financial institution is one of the organizations witnessing changes in its operations as well restructuring of the whole organization. The origin of this change was cultivated by the need to accelerate and maintain the profitability of this organization which had gone through several months of loses. It was initiated by the financial manager who found the need to carry out the organizational change in order for the institution to have the assurance of being in the market populated by fierce competitors. The top management led by the chief executive officer agreed that there was need to carry out an organizational change in order to put back the institution in its former glory. The initiator laid down his vision for the company after the change had occurred and stipulated key objectives that he wanted the accomplish change for the sake of the company's future performance. In his statement the financial manager stated that he had planned for such a change and it is not something he woke up and thought of. He initiated these changes putting into consideration the structures of the organization, the systems in operations in the institution and he had a broader knowledge and understanding of the management of the institution. There was need to do away with old ways of carrying out activities in the organization such as manual handling of financial transactions and substitute it with electronic means of handling this transactions in order to increase efficiency and competency as well as saving time when retrieving information from various customers documents. It was also important to adopt this new technology in order to open up the financial institution to the outside world as a first step for the company to broaden it operations. It was also seen as an important step in order to create a foundation for interconnecting the organization to others through the internet and other electronic communication media. The top management developed and continued this organizational change through continuous trainings of its employees and continuously assuring the employees that the new technology would not take away their jobs rather it would be a step into equipping them with skills of carrying out different activities using the computer technology rather than the manual method that they are used to. The management also cited good examples of organizations that have adopted such kind of technologies and the organizations had been able to perform better in the market. Various implications brought about by the change did affect both the organization and the employees. The first implication of this change to the organization was the fact that the operations in the organization would be made simpler thus transforming the organization from the old faced institution into a completely new and current organization. As a result the organization will not need some form of services such as messengers who were there before and used to relay information from one office to the other. Various departments would be able to communicate without much need of sending a messenger to deliver information to other offices. This would ensure accuracy and faster deliverance of information. The organization's image to the customers will also change and the customers will have a positive attitude towards the organization. This is because the customers will be able to get faster services from the organization and limit the chances of their data getting lost as it was before when manual operations was carried out. To the employees the organizational change would equip them with new skills of carrying out the same activities but in a different form. They would also get a chance of enhancing their competitiveness in the market because they would be using the technology being used by other employees in other financial institutions. As a result they will be up to date in the usage of new technologies such as the internet in communication. The employees would be able to deliver more efficiently to the customers and as a result increase their level of work satisfaction. It would also increase the morale of the employees because they would be able to carry out complex and difficult assignments within a short period of time and without much difficulty. This would trickle down into motivating them work for longer hours because they will be able to handle large operations in the organization within a short period of time. The top managers prepared for the change in the organization by firstly being in agreement that such a change was very crucial in the company. They decided in unison to support the implementation of the change because it was aimed at increasing and propelling the institution to greater heights in its profitabilities. They also new that such a change would also require the employees to change the culture they are used to and as a result the managers organized various seminars aimed at teaching the employees the need to let loose the old ways that they are hooked to and embrace new changes. This would entail the change in values, belief systems and the norms of how the organization functions. Radical change in the organizational culture would involve the change in the style, philosophy and the behavior of the employees. The managers also prepared to meet resistance from the employees who feared that the new technology would mean losing their jobs. Due to this, the managers assured the employees that the change would only be a stepping stone into advancing their careers. Key considerations that were keenly observed by the managers were the alignment of the various organizational systems. This included the performance appraisal rewards for the employees who performed well manually and promotion of those who showed outstanding results even though they worked manually. The following is the interview carried out to determine the need for the change in the company, the level of expectations from this change, the perception of employees towards this change and the level of achievement of this change. The interview was conducted among several sections of people in the organization such as the top management where the chief executive was interviewed, the initiator of the changes, the employees and the customers of the financial institution. Interview Interviewer: How did you rise up to the occasion of accepting the fact that your organization required to undergo such a major change? Chief executive: Change is inevitable and because the change was for the good of the company then I had to accept. Interviewer: Why do you think this change was important in your organization? Chief executive: It would make the institution more current and increase its competitiveness in the market. Interviewer: How did you perceive this kind of creativity from one of your junior officers? Chief executive: I had a positive perception towards the initiator of this change and I was encouraged by the move. Interviewer: Why did you instigate such a big organizational change? Financial manager: I saw the need for the institution to adopt the current methods of running its operations so as to accelerate its performance that had dwindled for a long time. Interviewer: Did you expect any resistance from other managers and employees? Financial manager: Yes, but I was focused and brought out my aims clearly in every meeting where people wanted to know about the new changes. Interviewer: What were the strategies that you used to accomplish your mission? Financial manager: I had to ensure that all the managers were in agreement with what I was doing. Then the other managers helped organize training for the employees in their departments. In this training and education seminars employees were informed of the need to embrace the new changes. Interviewer: How did you perceive the change at first? Employee: I was afraid that the new technology would result into loss of jobs. Interviewer: How did you adopt to the new change? Employee: I was able to adopt because the managers took time to train us on the new technology and its application. Interviewer: Has the change brought any change in the company? Employee: Yes, because we are able to carry our duties than before and we are able to handle multiple transactions without any difficulties. Interviewer: Did you find any problems changing the culture you were used to, to a new one? Why? Employee: Yes, because various things changed such as much time we spent walking up and down, from one office to the other to deliver files and other documents. I was able to meet almost every person while moving from one office to the other. After the changes I only meet with my colleagues in the morning and in the evening. Interviewer: As a customer how do you view the new changes? Customer: They are very crucial because they have saved on the time it takes for one to be served. Interviewer: Would you recommend you friends and colleagues to this organization? Customer: The level of customer satisfaction has greatly improved and I would therefore recommend my colleagues to be clients in this financial organization. Conclusion Organizational change and development is an exercise that becomes simple to carry out if all the players agree. The top management should show their commitment to this change even before it trickles down to the employees. There are hurdles that can become stumbling block to the change and the initiator should pre-plan on how to handle the complexity and the problems arising from the organizational change. The employees should be assisted in their transformation from one culture to the other. This is because culture differences may become a great problem even if the change occurs. References Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader of change.( MA: Addison Wesley) Bennis, W., Benne, K, & Chin, R., Eds. (1985). The Planning of Change. 4th Ed.,( New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,) Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership and change. (New York: Harper & Row) Brager, G. & Holloway, S. (1992). "Assessing the Prospects for Organizational Change: The Uses of Force Field Analysis." Administration in Social Work. 16(3/4), 15­28. Chaudron, D. (1992). "How OD can help TQM." OD Practitioner. 24(1), 14­18. Kanssr, R. (1983). The Change Masters. (New York: Simon & Schuster. ) Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership in organizational change. (San Francisco: Jossey­Bass.) Pruger, R. & Miller, L. (1991). Organizational change. (New York:New York Press) Robey, D. (1991). Designing Organizations change 3rd ed.,( Homewood, IL: Irwin) Senge, P. (1999). Assumptions of organizational change and development (New York: Doubleday Currency) Read More