Changing Organizational Culture - Cracking the Whip - Literature review Example

Name: Student number: Assignment title: Word count: 3211 Tutor; Date: Executive summary Success in organizational change is dependent on the process itself rather than the ideal vision the change agent has, this report is based on an analysis of the ‘Cracking the Whip’ case study in order to highlight some of the issues that human resources practitioners should put into consideration when developing and implementing plans and policies in an organization designed to bring about change. It is evident from the report that it is important the agent acts as a facilitator to change and therefore involves people in order not to appear as an inexperienced outsider. To achieve change people must be involved in the whole process and eventually own it. If people don’t own the process the chances of it succeeding are limited as it is evidenced in the case study. Table of summary 1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4 2.0 The role of change agent…………………………………………………………..4 3.0 The freeze change and unfreeze process…………………………………………6 3.1 Unfreezing…………………………………………………………………………..6 3.2 Change………………………………………………………………………………7 3.3 Refreezing stage……………………………………………………………………9 4.0 Understanding the context………………………………………………………….9 5.0 Dialogue and involvement………………………………………………………….11 6.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….12 7.0 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………13 References ………………………………………………………………………………..14 1.0 Introduction This paper is based on an analysis of the case study ‘cracking the whip’ from this case study, the change agent is faced with a hard task of in implementing change in an organization where he is faced with a lot of resistance from the people who should be supporting him. The change agent is adamant that people should adapt to the new ways of doing things and would consider nobody’s opinion. This paper will thus highlight issue to be considered in HRM plans and policies relating to organizational change such as the role of change agent, ethical issues in the freeze-change-freeze process, understanding the change context and the need for dialogue and involvement. The paper will finally give recommendations on what change agents should consider in the organizational culture change projects. 2.0 The role of change agent In this case study is an outsider who is in a mission to improve the performance of Department of Technical Services. The job is quite complicated for Pitcher as he is an outsider in the organization. Pitcher was previously working in the Treasury department where he had carried out a similar survey exercise in the treasury. Pitcher was selected by the director of the DTs who is currently in vacation leaving his office under the care of Davidson. Davidson is not well averse with the department and so he entrusts Pitcher with the exercise to improve the department. The role of the change agent who is Pitcher in this case presents an ethical yet contentious issue as far as the people who have worked in the organization are concerned. According to the people who have worked in the organization, it is very disrespectful and arrogant of any outsider to come with a better way of doing things and assume the staff has been doing the wrong thing all along. In this case study, we can see the workers and more so the team selected to work with pitcher do not approve of his style of change implementation. Actually the case study is all about how the whole of the organization is protesting about how Pitcher wants to institute rapid changes and go against how the organization is used to doing things. It therefore presents a; question; what is the role of the change agent? To stay within ethical extremes there a few considerations that the change agent must take when implementing a change plan: His/her role should have clear demarcation of what he/she can and what he/she can’t do. As such the change agent should only use interventions that don’t exceed his level of expertise (Callahan, 2002). The management of the organization should be informed about the nature of the process and the few problems that may be as a result of the process (Callahan, 2002). In this case we can see that the management of the DTS do not approve of the way Pitcher is implementing the program despite Pitcher coming from a higher authority. The agent and the organization should work hand in hand to implement the whole program so that there are minimal misunderstandings. Pitcher did not do this. Instead he is not willing to sit down with the management and deliberate on how the program is to be executed. He is just concerned about the strict deadline he has and the change agenda he has to see through. The change agent is also tasked with ensuring that the staff who he is working to change understands the benefits of the change program (Drake & Drake, 1988, Callahan, 2002). At some point Davidson thinks that a proper plan should be adopted to institute change in the institution by first building a case for change that will convince the department staff and their customer; that a change of how things are done is necessary. When employees go through an abrupt change of culture it does not always end with desired result but instead it results into resistance just like it is the case in this case study with many employees protesting how the change agent is carrying on he is mission,. It can therefore bee seen that effective communication is very important to ensure that transition from old culture to new culture is successful and little if any problems are experienced in the whole process. Many change agents especially form outside. Don’t care to involve all the stake holders in the organizational culture change. In fact a lot of the employees in these exercises don’t even understand what is going on nor do they even know what their involvement is in the whole process. It is vital that the plan takes time to explain to all stakeholders and more so the subordinate staff why an exercise is important and how the agent is intending to go about the process. It is not enough that only the senior management is aware of the whole process while the rest of the organization has to find a place to attach themselves in the process. As a result they will not own the change process and it most likely going to fail (Martin, 1992). 3.0 The freeze change and unfreeze process There are several ethical issues that emerge during any culture change process. The lemin’s organizational development model as detailed by Burnes (2004) gives an idea of how the culture change process progresses within an organization. Basing on this model we can analyze some of the ethical issues that arise from culture change process within an organization. 3.1 Unfreezing This is the first stage of the change process in an organization. The employees have to be adequately involved at this stage. This stage simply means destabilizing the status quo, or challenging the notion that ‘this is how we do thing around here’. It is at this stage that inspirational talks from significant individuals can be held. The stage convinces those involved in the day to day running of the organization or those affected by the activities of the organization of the need to have an organizational change (Ford and Ford, 1995). Ford and Ford (1995) note that one ethical issue that may arise at this stage is who defines what is wrong with the current system and who decides what should be done to fix the wrong. The employees believe that what they have been doing all along is correct and in fact they are qualified. In this case study , Davidson tries to reiterate this notion by telling Pitcher that the managers know what they are doing they are competent enough wand will thus not welcome any suggestions from Pitcher who to the is an outsider trying to challenge their knowledge and culture of doing things. Scientific analysis such as SWOT may address the issue of what is the underlying problem and perhaps be used to convince the stakeholders of the need for change. Who defines the remedy to the problem remains an ethical issue that always brings out negative energy in the people who are supposed to be changed. It is vital therefore that any change agent tries as much to search for remedies to change together with the organizational people and not only top management so that they can all own the change process (Burnes, 2004). 3.2 Change Change will have come from all the people in the organization and they will all adopt the new culture as something they have all participated in creating and thus can be called their culture; it will be their new way of doing things (Burnes, 2004).Pitcher has fallen into the trap of stereotyping the old management as a group which is resistant to change and don’t have anything to contribute to organizational change. He is actually not interested in the history of the DTS nor is he interested pin the culture of the DTS. Understanding the existing culture is a step towards solving problems attached to the culture since you can use strong points of a culture to build on a strong new culture molded from the best attributes of the old culture and the history of the organization. Pitcher had failed in this and he should at least appreciate that the top management is not always resistant to change and they have to be involved if any tangible results are to be realized from a culture change process. According to Collins (1998) personal transition takes cycles. In many cases it moves from denial, anger abandonment and adjustment before the new values are internalized. It is worthy noting that various people go through this cycle at varying speed and some might get fixated at one stage. Improvement might not be achieved until individuals’ esteem have picked up. Abandoning old culture if not handled well may result in anxiety stress and apprehension in the face of uncertainty and equally unethical conduct by the change agent. The change stage is not so different from the unfreezing stage. Child (2005) suggests that if the change agent has achieved much of the objectives in the unfreezing stage he is fit to ethically conduct change in the organization. The amount of resistance is equally small but if one has not adequately prepared the organization and stakeholders on the need for change, then process will present great problems like the ones witnessed in this particular case study. The public affairs department feels that the change agent is overstepping his mandate and behaving in unethical if not rude manner. The department does not think that change can be achieved as quickly as Pitcher wants it to happen. This is the kind of resistance one may face implementing change if the people have not done away with the old culture through unfreezing and appreciating the fact that a new way of doing things need to be implemented. 3.3 Refreezing stage This stage is all about consolidating the gains that have been made by the organizational effectiveness improvement program. The new culture must be institutionalized in the minds of the people in the organization so that it becomes part of how things are done. It should be appreciated that individuals hold a personal opinion and thus should not be coerced into accepting the new changes but rather be brought to understand the progress that has been made and what more can be achieved through adoption of the new culture (Anthony, 1994). Anthony (1994) argues that the employees’ attitudes might not have changed at all and this is what may indicate failure in the first stage. It may also be a case of employees abiding because of fear but deep inside they don’t own the change process or its outcomes. It is crucial then that all participate in proposing the changes, implementing them and celebrating progress in order to institute the new culture. 4.0 Understanding the context According to Badham, Garrety, Morrigan and Dawson (2003) one of the major factors that contribute largely to failure in implementation of cultural change in the organization is the failure by the change agent and the management in general to understand that organizational change is about people and not merely an objective to be pursued. It should then be understood that the entire organization is to be included in the change process. It is not about a group of enlightened superiors getting the organization to change without giving any regard to the fact that they are dealing with people who have been used to a certain culture of doing things and will thus question what the new arrangement is set to achieve. It is important that people involved in spearheading change efforts within the organization think and rethink their ideas to ensure they will have the right atmosphere to implement change and bring everybody on board. It is inappropriate to think that once an idea about organizational change has been conceived the next step is to get everybody to implement it regardless of his approval of it (Badham et al, 2003). Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) acknowledge that it is important that a change agent and the management alike work with moderate and realistic aims whenever a culture change is being pursued. The change agent shou0ld live in a realistic world where the meanings and orientations of the whole organization are the basis of change and not merely the ideal destination the agent wants to take the organization which maybe a dream depending on the time the plan is to be implemented. In our case study, the Pitcher is caught in the huge gap between the ideals and the reality. It gets to a point where Davidson Technology Development Director Phil Canseco feels that Pitcher is demanding unrealistic performance from his managers concerning the project budget. In fact Phil thinks that Pitcher is not living in the real world. Organizational change is thus not achieved in a fortnight. It is as a result of structured small plans and targets that eventually lead to the realization of the big objective. There is therefore need for endurance and long term vision of the organization. Culture is never static it is dynamic but then the degree of change in culture is very small overtime. It takes a very long time for people to let go of old convictions and ways of doing things. Quick fixes like the one being adopted by Pitcher do not work; instead they result in resistance from the same people who should support the plan. It is persistence and enduring through the process that works to convince people of the need to change the culture (Woodall, 1996, Dawson, 2003). 5.0 Dialogue and involvement In any organizational change plan, there should be a strong emphasis on getting the people to own the project. There should be a great sense of ‘we’ in order get people involved with the change process as means to benefit ‘us’ and not the organization only. If the change agents or those championing for change in the organization are seen as outsiders who don’t understand the organization culture of doing things, then the credibility and experience relevance of the change agent will be in doubt and he will face a great problem of convincing the organization’s stakeholders that he can indeed provide a solution (Balogun, 2006). To these people the change agent is just a great problem to a system that was doing all too well in accomplishing tasks the way things are done. It is important that one who is working to bring change does not put himself in a position where he will be seen negatively like in this case Pitcher is seen as a bureaucrat from the higher authority with orders but does not understand how the system works. He is much of a nuisance than a welcomed solution. His solution is seen as a suggestion from ‘these people’ and not from the organization. It would have been better if Pitcher engaged the middle level management and certain employees to work with him in order to give an impression that this project is about ‘us’ and not just ‘them’ (Balogun, 2006, Alvesson & sveningsson, 2008). In light of this understanding it is vital that the change agent adopts an approach that is more of dialogue and pushing the agenda and not just dictating the new ideals to be adopted. The agent may select a group of people who read from the same page in regards to the vision he has for the organization. Once these select few have the new ideology they can be used to appeal and reach to others and mobilize them to move into the new ways of doing things which is more productive and beneficial to everybody in the organization and not just the management (Balogun and Johnson 2004). This is what Pitcher failed to do but instead relied on his knowledge and previous experience to think he could it could work the same way. Instead Pitcher should have mobilized a highly effective team to engage the rest in adopting a new organizational culture. This way he would have received minimal resistance. To get the agenda moving dialogue should be combined with a little bit of pushing since anyway some resistance and reluctance will always be there. 6.0 Conclusion Achieving organizational change is not as simple as the intention may be. It involves fast getting people to abandon beliefs and convictions they have held for year if not decades. Once the organization has lost its culture then you have to get them to adopt the new ideal culture. This means that a lot of work has to be dedicated into ensuring that people first understand the need to adopt a new culture. In fact the reason many will fail is because people don’t understand why the new culture is so good to warrant the abandonment of the existing culture. Ponce you as the change agent don’t have the support of the organizations people, then you will fail to achieve the organizational change in culture that you desire. The agent is supposed to envision the whole process from the begging and involve all the stakeholders to understand their roles in the change process. The agent is just a facilitator but the real change should at the end of the day be owned by the originations’ people including the employees and not just management. As such it is vital to realize it is much about changing peoples attitudes and not merely process that the people engage in. 7.0 Recommendations For organizational change to be achieved, the change agent must first understand his role in the organization and then get everybody to understand their roles. From here solutions and suggestions may shape the need for a new culture. If a solid base is made for the need to change culture it is easy to get people to adopt a new culture and eventually own it. Dialogue and persuasion should be adopted instead of the know it all attitude adopted by Pitcher in our case study. Once you have instituted a new ideology in people’s minds you can be sure the sustenance of the new organizational culture is guaranteed but this is achievable only through sustained effort and patience since culture change is a slow phenomenon that achieves goals that are not easily changed. It is about a people’s way of doing things and they attach pride in it as intellectual beings. Disapproving of it in a manner that exudes arrogance is seen as an insult and therefore may make you look like an outsider. References Anthony, P. 1994. Managing Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press. Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. 2003. ‘Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: contradiction of (non)leadership in a knowledge intensive organization. Organization Studies, 24, 6: 961–88. Alvesson, M., & sveningsson, S. 2008. Organizational Culture: Cultural change work in progress: London. Routledge Badham, R., Garrety, K., Morrigan, V. and Dawson, P. 2003. ‘Designer deviance: enterprise and deviance in cultural change programmes’. Organization, 10, 4: 707–30. Balogun, J. 2006. Managing change: steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39: 29–49. Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. 2004. ‘Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking’. Academy Burnes, B. 2004. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics, Harlow: Prentice Hall. Callahan, J. L. 2002. ‘Masking the need for cultural change: the effects of emotion structuration’. Organization Studies, 23, 2: 281–97. Child, J. 2005. Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Collins, D. 1998. Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London: Routledge. Dawson, P. 2003. Understanding Organizational Change, London: Sage. Drake, B., & Drake, E., 1988. Ethical and legal aspects of managing corporate cultures, California Management Review, winter issue, pp. 107-23 Ford, J. D. and Ford, L.W. 1995. ‘The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations’. Academy of Management Review, 20: 541–70. Martin, J., 1992. Cultures in organizations: three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press Woodall, J., 1996. ‘Managing culture change: can it ever be ethical?’ Personal review, 25(6). P 26-40 Read More