Change of Work Environment - Example

Running Header: Change of Work Environment Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction In the contemporary society, the debate on how to enterprise and remain in the business to maturity is raging. Perhaps this is because the operating environment both internal and external has remained dynamic and therefore business cannot itself use old-fashioned management styles. Because of the changes that are taking place both internally and externally, change is seen as the only option to keeping the business going. The idea of changing in response to the new challenges is good as they help the organizations to respond accordingly. However, this is not the major, the struggle lies on the way to enact different changes that are relevant and appropriate in the current management styles (Bradford and Burke 2004). This is because there is always fear that change implementation can fail to realize the intended objectives and therefore can be more disastrous to the business. With this view many people are very nervous and not ready to implement change. Further, the fear comes as a result of that feeling that change may impact negatively on people. However, research has revealed that this feeling is due for change after sometime and people are likely to realize that the change is for their betterment and the organisation. However, world over, change in many organizations is gathering momentum with the emergency of new technology and internet that has come to change ways in which people behave and do business (Pietersen 2002). The primary agenda for this assessment however, is to establish the underlying causes for change in work environments, the different management theories available for application, the challenges faced in implementing and the role of the manager in overcoming them. Factors behind work environment change The time has come that a society cannot do without accepting change in workplaces. As a matter of fact change is taking place and at faster rates. Take a simple example of existence of the mobile phones, radios, TVs and existence of microwaves. These devices a few decades were not in the market and people had different ways of life without them. To make matters worse these devices even after they could be in the market for relatively longer period of time, they have already been replaced by such gadgets as computers and internet as well as fax machines. This is alone is confirmatory reason that change is inevitable not only in the household but also in the workplaces by Griffin et al (2004). Existence of new technology is among those factors that have necessitated the need to have change at workplace environment. Imagine a society that was there before and the one that exists now. It is absolutely clear that things have changed. In the past much of the business operations and activities were done using manual processes. However, with the new technology, internet has come into being which has completely with the work systems of many organizations. Application of new technology is seen as a cost saver to many businesses. Leave alone the emergence of new technology, according to Worley and Feyerherm (2003), the technology itself has never been steady as it has continued to change from time to time. In this case therefore, it is an obligation for the business to responsiveness to change so that it does not rag behind. First and foremost, with the introduction of technology training and development of employees is must as they will have to be acquainted with new skills to use the new technology. With this in mind therefore, managers have every reason to be innovative and adaptive to the new business situations Boonstra (2004). Globalization and liberalization of international trade has also got its way into the modern society of business. With globalization, both the consumer and the producer can buy or sell from any market irrespective of the distance. Thanks to the existence of new forms of communication and transportation. There is now free flow of labor, capital and goods and services to any part of the world. Globalization has also caused stir to many workplace environments. This is because many people can work from any part of the globe as long as they have the required capabilities. This follows liberalization of the global labor market (Boonstra 2004). Diversity therefore is very eminent in many organizations. Change in workplace environments, is seen as an approach to helping managers to deal with competition that comes as a result of globalization and liberalization of trade. Change for instance has been witnessed in different companies to respond to issues of globalization. For example, the Sony Corp. is now allowing for recruitment of its staff from different parts of the world where it has business. This is to allow for easy understanding of the different environments that the business operates in and the underlying challenges. On the other hand, at Xerox, diversity Act of 2002 has been enacted to promote diversity at workplace and make good use of the available skills and competencies among the staff. Being a company with global outlook, Xerox has managed to remain very competitive in the industry. This is because like Sony, Xerox has managed to accept diverse at workplace and made use of different skills and competencies owned by individuals Griffin et al (2004). In general, work environment change is activated both by internal and organizational factors which the business must respond to in order to develop and sustain its operations. The internal factors include change of policies, business systems and styles as well as procedures and change of workers attitudes. On the other hand, the external factors entail, political interferences, and change in social life in the community, technological advancement and economy trends. All these aspects are very critical and whenever they take place, then the management expects nothing less than change the work environment to accommodate the new market trends (Bradford and Burke 2004). For instance, in the case of the change in the legal policy on ways to register and carry out business in the country, may have a direct impact on the ways in which the business operates. A good example is the introduction is the introduction of the Fair Work Act of 2009 in Australia to promote working relations between the employers and their workers. In this case the organizations are expected to change their policies to suit into the public domain. On the other hand, in the case of internal factors such as change of attitudes, the companies are subjected to work on ways to fulfill and satisfy employees’ needs (Waddell et al 2011). The employees’ attitudes may change as a result of series industrial actions in other company or change of policies in other companies to take into account the needs of the employees. Further, change in attitudes can be accelerated by the liberalization of the global labor market which has let in a lot of awareness among the workers across all sectors. The relevance of management theories In many years different theories of management have been developed as one way of trying to propose the best management practices that can be used to improve the performance and sustainability of different organizations. One of such renowned theory is the classical schools of management. This theory dates as back during the Industrial Revolution and it’s greatly related to the time when numerous management problems started to emerge in organizations. Following the changes that were caused by industrial revolution, the managers were real worried on what to do following the existence of non-English speakers and highly dissatisfied labor (Worley and Feyerherm 2003). As a result the classical management was developed in an effort to establish the best ways to manage the problems. This school of though was developed into major branches namely the classical scientific the classical administrative. The classical scientific school of thought was a development of Fredrick Tailor, Henry Gant and Frank as well as Lillian Gilberth. Majorly this theory was aimed at finding ways of increasing productivity while maintaining high levels of efficiency. Several contributions were made to the management world including developing standard methods for doing each task, choosing, selecting and developing the workforce rather than allowing them to choose on what to do and finally developing the spirit of cooperation at workplace. On the other hand, the classical administrative school was a development of key researchers such as Max Weber, Henry Fayol, Mary Parker and Follett as well as Chester Barnard (Argyris 2004). While the classical scientific school of management concentrated on efficiency and productivity, the classical administration school of thought chose to look into the management of the organization as a whole and came up with the following recommendations: development of well-defined hierarchies, division of work and specialization, having standard operating procedures, establishment of impersonal relationship between the company managers and the employees, competence in hiring and proper keeping of the companies’ activities records. As a matter of fact what emerged during the industrial revolution is not very different from what is happening in the work environments in the contemporary society of management (Bradford and Burke 2004). Following high level of competition in the world market and liberalization of trade, it’s increasingly becoming notable that many companies are embarking on improving their productivity at the expense of the workers. More than ever before, more and more companies are experiencing numerous industrial actions as a result of having dissatisfied group of employees. Further, the current society is being affected with scarcity of resources as the cost of production has continued to escalate. This has real caused a lot of concern about efficiency and cost of labor (Nohria 2008). This explains the reason as to why these management theories are more relevant in the management environment today. Like before, the business managers are on the run to come up with ways of managing organizational issues today. For example, taking into account the two classical schools of management will provide a wholesome of what is expected in the management today. This is because they address the issues that affect many of the businesses. Challenges faced in change execution Different scholars such as Beer and Nohria (2000), Werkman (2009) and Jackson (2007), have identified a number of issues which they claim are barriers to change in many organizations. According to the 2011 research by KPMG into the delivery of different change projects, a number of barriers were identified which included: general organizational resistance to change, unstable change requirements, lack of business ownership and significant cost over-runs. The other barriers include schedule over-runs, project failure to meet expectation, poor project management and existence of technical problems. However, the KPMG identified five major factors as barriers to change in many organizations and they include project management problems, failure to define change objectives, inexperience in scope and complexity, lack of communication and technical issues. Incase of management, the organization fails to enact change because it lacks the capacity in terms of skills to do so. This means the top level management does not have the necessary skills both soft and hard to propel the business to the next level. In the case, they may be able but unwilling to implement change because they feel that change will impact negatively on them (Waddell et al 2011). The other factors that have been identified as a major challenge to change in many organizations are the failure to have clear objectives. This particularly happens in situations where the business does not clearly state what it wants to achieve and instead just embarks to take on change. Clear objectives for change are especially helpful in guiding the management and the whole workforce on what is expected at the end of the change initiative. Being objective and focused as a motivating factor not only to the management but also to the entire workforce. Further, inexperience in scope and complexity of change has also been cited as one of those factors that also contribute to failure in implementing changing. According to Clegg and Walsh (2004), change requires deeper capabilities such as creativity and innovation to lead the team to accept and implement change. This is because change involves a number of activities that must all be implemented simultaneously. Communication is also considered as one such important aspect in implementing change. This is because it helps inform each and every stakeholder on what his responsibilities are, alongside inform the change team on what the objectives are and how they should be achieved. Finally, there is an element of technical competence. Any change demands that the workforce posses certain skills, experiences and competencies. Incase these workforce attributes are missing, then change may not be effectively be executed (Worley and Feyerherm 2003). Overcoming barriers to change First and foremost, the manager must evaluate his position and understand his role in change. As identified earlier of the factors that make change difficult to implement is poor management. With this in mind it’s the responsibility of the manager to do a lot of homework in order to understand what is expected of him. This is because as a manger one should be able to understand his own situation, the kind of change that is taking place and the skills and knowledge required. To some extent this may require one to work with teammates or mentor to improve on his capabilities (Fairholm 2004b). Lack of clear objectives has been identified as key barrier to change. The role of the manager is very clear in this case. He should always make sure that he has communicated in the most understandable language the objective of change and how each every stakeholder stand to benefit this is important in motivating the employees to work towards change (Worley and Feyerherm 2003). Managing inexperience and complex falls under the manager’s docket. It’s the responsibility of the manager to make sure that there is adequate experience among the team members. This can be done by initiating short training and development programs to learn new skills. This is particularly important in managing complex task especially where new technology is involved (Ford et al 2002). Communication in implementing change is essential in coordinating all activities of the team. The role of the manager in communication is to make sure that all staff members are informed on their responsibilities on time. Incase of there is any change to execution process the manager must also make sure that communication is done accordingly. In general, communication should be promoted by developing a channel that allows for access to information at all times (Ska˚le´n 2004). Finally, incase there is inadequacy of technical competencies it’s advisable for the manager to consider other available options such as sending more employees for further training and in short-term cases, the manager may be expected to outsource for the services of expertise as argued by Ford et al (2002). Conclusion In concluding this assessment, it’s important to highlight that change in work environment is inevitable. Change in many organizations is especially motivated by such factors as globalization and liberalization of the world market. Change in technology and competition are also some of the factors that have contributed to change in work environments. This assessment has also established that different management theories such as the classical schools of management still hold even in the contemporary management society. This is because they address important issues such as productivity, efficiency and competence at workplace. In change, various barriers such as problem in management, lack of clear objectives, inexperience and complexity, lack of communication and inadequacy of technical competencies also exist. All these issues need to be addressed by the manager prior to change execution it all success is to be attained. References Argyris, C 2004, Double loop learning and organizational change. Facilitating transformational change, Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning, pp. 389– 401. Beer, M and Nohria, N 2000, Resolving the Tension between Theories E and O of Change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Boonstra, J 2004, Dynamics of organizational change and learning: reflections and perspectives, Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning, pp. 447–475. Bradford, DL and Burke, WW 2004, Is OD in crisis?, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), pp. 369–373. Clegg, C and Walsh, S 2004, Change management: time for a change!, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), pp. 217–239. Fairholm, MR 2004b, “A new sciences outline for leadership development”. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25(4), 369-383. Ford JD., Ford LW and McNamara, RT 2002, Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (2): 105-121. Jackson TW 2007, ''Applying Autopoiesis to Knowledge Management in Organisations'', Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), pp 78-91. Griffin, M., Rafferty, A and Mason, C 2004, Who started this? Investigating different sources of organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 475-490. Nohria, GL 2008, "Harvard Business Review" . Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Pietersen, W 2002, The Mark twain Dilemma: the theory and practice of change leadership, Journal of Business Strategy, 23(5): 32-37. Ska˚le´n, P 2004, New public management reform and the construction of organizational identities, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(3), pp. 251–263. Worley, CG and Feyerherm, AE 2003, Reflections on the future of organization development, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), pp. 97–115. Waddell,, DM., Cummings TD and Worley, CG 2011, Organizational change: Development and transformation. 4th edition, Asia Pacific. Werkman, RA 2009, Understanding failure to change: a pluralistic approach and five patterns, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(7), pp. 664–684. Worley, CG and Feyerherm, AE 2003, Reflections on the future of organization development, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), pp. 97–115. Read More