Organizational Change in Organization - Annotated Bibliography Example

Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. 2005, ‘Alternative approaches for studying organizational change,’ Organisation Studies, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1377, ISSN: 0170-8406. There have been differing opinions and views on whether firms or organizational change should be embedded on processes or attributes that define organization. Van de Ven and Poole (2005) on the one hand have argued that an organization is about processes and for a change to be realized, there has to be a critical review of these processes. Based on this view, they provide alternative approaches that can be used for studying organizational change. The onset of their argument is the ontological perspective of organization which is two-fold; as things and as processes. Though they have two perspectives of viewing an organization, they are inclined towards seeing an organization as a single block comprising process. Considering research by Chae and Poole (2005), this view is simplistic and cannot be used in assessing the needed changes. That is, Chae and Poole (2005) believe that associated theories and viewpoints on organization do not see an organization as a process but a reification of a set of things and process that has been composed to maintain the needed change and this is done by continuously structuring these processes and changes. Based on this view, there is clear distinct on what Van de Ven and Poole (2005) consider to comprise an organization. Similarly, the alternative approaches for studying organization change as they propose do not augur well with variance theory where any proposed change should represent a dependent variable and this variable explained with other independent variables that succinctly explain variations in the dependent variable of change. Scholars such as Bartel and Raghu (2004) have had different view from that of Van de Ven and Poole (2005) on what constitute an organization. The view is that an organization is event-driven and not a process. Though Van de Ven and Poole (2005) have proposed that one approach of changing an organization is to make it event-driven, Bartel and Raghu (2004) define an organization as structure made of events that are driven towards a common goal. From this perspective, it is clear that Van de Ven and Poole (2005) and Bartel and Raghu (2004) differ on what constitute an organization and consequently differ on alternative approaches for studying organizational change. In supporting Bartel and Raghu (2004), Van de Ven and Poole (2005) simply propose alternative approaches to organizational change without considering multifaceted approaches of defining an organization. Secondly, there has been increasing and popular ways of studying change and this has been done at multiple levels of analysis. An organization is comprised of different departments and stakeholders thus it becomes invalid to assume that these departments and stakeholders require a single or codified alternative approaches for change. Contrariwise, process theories support views held by Van de Ven and Poole (2005). As they propose, alternative approach for change should encompass reconstruction, direct observation and multiple case study analyses. This view is also true when it comes to process theories that support hypothetice-deductive procedures such as observation of organization trends, procedures and processes (Bartel and Raghu 2004). While views held by Van de Ven and Poole (2005) augur well with contemporary organisations, what constitute an organization is still multifaceted and there is need for Van de Ven and Poole (2005) to test hypothesized models of change process. Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 722-750. Organizational communication has moved from being a one dimensional approach to a concept that stretches beyond theories, methodologies and organizational demands. Jones, Watson, Gardner and Gallois (2004) look at organizational communication as one of the critical challenges that affects the functionalities of organizations in the new century. The first challenge the authors identify is the ‘Innovate in Theory and Methodology.’ First, Jones et al. (2004) disqualify theories that have been related to communication models in an organization. For instance, Symon (2000) suggested a communication-based theory of organizations. According to this theory, there are a number of assumptions that dictate the manner and direction communication in an organization should embrace. However, Jones et al. (2004) assessment of this theory through ‘Innovate in Theory and Methodology’ shows that scholars ought to be mindful about managers and stakeholders in ongoing organizations. Their approach of disqualifying earlier theories of oganisational communication is neither a positivist approach nor a rich examination of organizational strategies of communication. This in turn brings related issues that they have already termed as ‘challenges for the new century.’ To date, response from organization communication researchers has been slight (Symon 2000; Sellnow and Brand 2001). That is, context seems to be playing a critical role especially when they consider the newer theoretical contenders in any organization. Giving an example, social identity theory (SIT) tends to dispute what Jones et al. (2004) have considered as communication challenges for the new century. Secondly, communication accommodation theory (CAT) lays down structures of communication in any organization. Based on these theories, critical discourse analysis of Jones et al. (2004) view similarly explicates the crucial role of context. Context is essential and overrides what Jones et al. (2004) proposes as communication challenges for modern organization. Again, in as much as the article sees communication as a bigger challenge in any organization, there is need to make use of the already detailed theories instead of detailing their roles in researches. Based on the fifth challenge (Understand the Communication of Organisation Change) the authors argue about, it has to be noted that changing the way an organization communicates is ubiquitous phenomenon. Secondly, this challenge may not be felt by all organisations as the authors put. The point is that organization challenge, change and communication are linked and that researches should attempt to focus on aspects like adoption, design and employee responses to new models of communication rather than focusing energies in the implementation of new communication strategies. In support of this view, Sellnow and Brand (2001) argued that researches should focus more on communications strategies and environments under which organisations operate. What Jones et al. (2004) see as communication challenges to organization might be circumstance affecting the change process. Lastly, another challenge that has been identified as critical by article is ‘Examine Diversity and Intergroup Communication.’ It has to be noted that Jones et al. (2004) explicitly acknowledge that communication is key and central in the change process. Secondly, they have employed different theories to underscore the need for employees to be part of the change implementation. However, ‘Examine Diversity and Intergroup Communication’ tend to assume that all organizations work under the same environment and variables. Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (2008). Organizational Change and the Importance of Embedded Assumptions. British Journal of Management, 19(s1), S20-S32. Critical areas that have researched on about an organization is change. Despite growing literatures on the topic, there seems to me no common ontological method or assumptions that can be taken to understand changes in an organization. This has consequently made it difficult to develop a key strategy organization should take in dealing with changes. This is the same view Palmer and Dunford (2008) have approached the issue when discussing organizational change and the importance of embedded assumptions. Assumption about change outcome is one area Palmer and Dunford (2008) have shown disagreement with other authors. They identify partially intended change, intended change and untended change outcomes as variables that can be used to assess implications of changes in an organization. For instance, their position on intended change outcomes is that managers and stakeholders should be able to influence the proposed change outcomes. The position these authors hold is that control remains central as far as management action is concerned. Looking at suggestions made by Geisler (2001), factors external to stakeholders and managers still remain critical when it comes to organizational change. Additionally, outcomes of change are partly emergent therefore it will be inaccurate to argue that they can be wholly planned. Their ‘vision from the six-image perspective’ brings a new dimension on organization change. From the analysis of what they give, image is important when an organization is looking to produce change. This opinion has been supported by Balogun and Johnson (2005) who believed that an organization that has vision will be able to deal with any changes. However, for an organization to have ‘vision from the six-image perspective’ there is need for acceptance of change and this must also be accompanied by resources for strategic change. For example, in a case where employees will be subjected to sudden and constant directing there is likelihood that this may create dissatisfaction with the status quo. The argument is that the topic Organizational Change and the Importance of Embedded Assumptions should consider that much of the vision literature sees active stakeholders and managers as interfering with the processes of an organization so as to implement a given change (Grobman 2005). The authors also review resistance to change from the six image perspective. First, there is consensus among scholars that resistance is a sign that an organization is not ready or unwilling to welcome the new change. Secondly, Palmer and Dunford (2008) see resistance as factor that should not be overcome anytime a company faces it. However, adopting a perspective formalized in stakeholder analysis, a change comes with resistance therefore managers should analyse the case or situation in accordance with the rationale for groups or individuals to take a stance anti or pro the change. What Palmer and Dunford (20080) ought to have included in their anlaysis of the six image perspective is that resistance is impossible to eliminate. In most cases, resistance will always be short-lived and futile especially when the change is meant to bring positive impacts. Todnem By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380. Change management has been viewed as a planned process where an organization renews its direction, structures and abilities to serve the dynamics of the organization (Burnes 2004; Altman and Iles 1998). This is the position that has been held by Todnem (2005) however, he does this by assessing contemporary organisations, theoretical frameworks and challenges affecting decisions on organizational change management. Todnem (2005) sees change management as the ability of managers to acknowledge change as reactive, unpredictable and discontinuous and this has always been triggered by a scenario where an organization is facing a crisis. While the author succinctly establishes these variables, he fails to identify a common point or consensus concerning a framework for organizational change management. There is consensus from literatures that have stressed on the significance of change (Altman and Iles 1998). These literatures have also suggested ways of approaching changes that emanate from organization. However, Todnem (2005) does not suggest ways of approaching organizational change. Additionally, the author does not provide empirical evidence that can support different theories and approaches suggested. Secondly, the article adopted Senior’s (2002) threes models of change in an organization as a structure which can link main theories and approaches in assessing organisational change management. According to Senior (2002), the three models are change characterized by the rate of occurrence, the rate and by how it comes along. While Senior’s models have been adopted by other scholars such as Bamford and Forrester (2003), Todnem’s (2005) integration of Senior’s models fails to acknowledge aspects such as total quality management and business process re-engineering. Failure to embrace these aspects in his thesis statement makes Todnem (2005) view on organizational change management incomplete especially when relating his views with theories of organizational change. According to Todnem (2005), ‘what is suggested as a better approach to change is a situation where organizations and their people repeatedly sense, monitor and respond to the internal and external environment ins small step but as an ongoing procedure’ (p. 4). What Todnem (2005) argues about is that a continuous change should be managed effectively so that organisations can embrace a fundamental can only managed through limited, successive and negotiated shifts (see also Burnes 2004).aspect required for fast-moving pace of change. However, what Todnem (2005) misses is that change management depends on the environment an organization is operating. Additionally, change Todnem’s (2005) argument on ‘change characterized by scale’ offers new dimension and differs significantly with other authors (Bamford and Forrester 2003). Todnem (2005) approaches this by bringing the aspect of fine-tuning. By fine-tuning, managing organization change should be about integrating workers or employees to conform to new requirements of an organization. This view has also been supported by Burnes (2004) who found that managing change is an inclusive task that requires the radicalization of all employees that reflects business strategies. Though Todnem (2005) view has hugely depended on Senior’s model, it has to be noted that organisational change management stretches beyond what Senior proposes. For instance, it has to be noted that organisations do not need to adapt to all internal or external changes instead, readiness to adapt to any change should be critical. Christensen, L. T., Cornelissen, J., & Morsing, M. (2007). Correspondence: Corporate communications and its receptions A comment on Llewellyn and Harrison. Human Relations, 60(4), 653-661. This article develops its thesis from publication by Llewellyn and Harrison and though it aimed at critiquing findings by Llewellyn and Harrison, its research provides broader view and dimensions on corporate communications on the one hand but also fails to advance detailed understanding of corporate communications in light of contemporary organization and theories relating to aspects such as corporate social responsibility. The first argument Christensen et al. (2007) develop is the blue-collar employees as presented by Llewellyn and Harrison. According to Llewellyn and Harrison, blue-collar employees have communication cultures that tend to be aligned with objectives of the organization. In so doing, they embrace corporate communications that are geared towards improvements of the organization. However, this is the approach Christensen et al. (2007) dispute adding that blue-collar employees provide some levels of resistance to change and the logic they affirm has not been supported in the ongoing circles of research and social structures in corporate firms. The first logic Christensen et al. (2007) raised about blue-collar employees is the character and value corporate communications they possess. However, an attempt to believe that blue-collar employees cannot conform to contemporary needs of corporate firms will be misguided approach and ill-conceived. In criticizing Llewellyn and Harrison, Christensen et al. (2007) believe that corporate communication is about redesigning corporate firms so as to make the right step. This was the same view held by Bartel and Raghu (2004). Basically, Llewellyn and Harrison did not fail to consider the fact that corporate communication needs to assess how communication is received, read and internalized by employees. However, there are two reasons why Christensen et al. (2007) and Bartel and Raghu (2004) have failed to understand the position held by Llewellyn and Harrison. First, the practice of corporate communication is not new. That is, Llewellyn and Harrison wrote about corporate communication based on the then existing theories and practices of organization. Based on the times Llewellyn and Harrison viewed corporate communication, blue-collar employees fitted best with tenets of corporate communication. However, Christensen et al. (2007) and Bartel and Raghu (2004) are seeing globalized organisations as composed of increased complexities and third generation employees whose vision and targets are not based on what Llewellyn and Harrison viewed but social accreditations that have been hinged on the ability to communicate effectively and consistently across external and internal audiences. It has to be recognized that corporate communication is not practiced uniformly across all firms and employees. It is therefore important to recognize and acknowledge the argument made by Llewellyn and Harrison. Secondly, Christensen et al. (2007) are not justified to ignore the advances made by Llewellyn and Harrison as this will be tantamount to reducing field of corporate communication to aspects such as publications, messages and signs. Again, overreliance on the proposal made by Christensen et al. (2007) will ignore the bigger development of the field of corporate communication which currently covers liner messaging to social interactive process of policy making and dialogue. References Altman, Y. and Iles, P. (1998) ‘Learning, leadership, teams: corporate learning and organisational change’, Journal of Management Development, 17(1), pp. 44–55. Bamford, D. R. and Forrester, P. L. (2003) ‘Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), pp. 546–564. Balogun, J. and G. Johnson (2005). ‘From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking’, Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1573–1601. Bartel, C. A., and Raghu Garud (2004) ‘The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation’. Working paper, New York University, Stern School of Business. Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th edn (Harlow: Prentice Hall). Chae, B., and M. S. Poole 2005 ‘The surface of emergence in systems development: Agency, institutions, and large scale information systems’. European Journal of Information Systems 14/1: 19–36. Geisler, D. (2001). ‘Bottom-feeders: people who reject change’, Executive Excellence, 18 (12), p. 19. Grobman, G. M. (2005). ‘Complexity theory: a new way to look at organizational change’, Public Administration Quarterly, 29, pp. 350–382. Sellnow, T. L., & Brand, J. D. (2001). Establishing the structure of reality for an industry: Model and anti-model arguments as advocacy in Nike’s crisis communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(3), 278–295. Read More