Organizational Change and Capacity for Rapid Continuous Change or Painless Change - Assignment Example

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE; CAPACITY FOR RAPID, CONTINUOUS CHANGE OR PAINLESS CHANGE? Introduction In the scholarly realms, organizational change in the context of dynamics embedded institutional set-up has been subjected to diverse discourses. This argument is supported by Apfelthaler, Muller & Rehder (2002) who cite that there are heightened uncertainties and dynamism in the contemporary business environment at the international spectrum. As a result,feasibility of organizations is being confronted by enormous challenges amid instabilities in the global market and interdependence amongst players in the global level. Consequently, institutional leaders and other stakeholders therein are gradually recognizing the fact that the wisdom that has received extensive acceptability in the recent past in regard to paradigms defining organizational operations and transformation is becoming deficient in significance at an accelerated (Glover, Jones & Friedman, 2002). As a result, this analysis is a profound effort to examine the applicability of developing a capacity for rapid and continuous change or the more mild ‘painless change’. What is organizational change? Various scholars have offered diverse definition for the term. Nevertheless, Kezar (2001) infers that definition of change in organizations has some variance which is determined by the particular model that the interested individual utilizes in analyzing. There exists some basic definitions that have been brought forward by various proponents, for instance, according to Burnes (1996), organizational change can be perceived to refer to comprehending variations in the organizational level at the widest level. This is usually amongst groups, personalities at the shared level across the wider institution. On the other hand, Van de Ven & Poole (1995) define change in organizations to infer to the examination of disparities over a specified time in a singular or multiple aspects of an entity. However, Kezar (2001) is critical of these definitions and notes that they have a deficiency in capturing the presumptions which are intrinsic in the diverse models of change theories. Organizational change perspectives Lawler (2000) determine that diverse books have been written in the realms of behavior in organizations and cultivating effectiveness all aimed at generating a practical model of managing change. In the effort to manage organizational change, Durant (1999) cites that different organizations have been confronted by heightened rapidity in regard to change more than they had experienced before. The epoch of the 1980s saw many institutions struggling with business concerns that were new to them. Consequently, by the apex of 1993, many organizations had formulated and implemented extensive mechanisms, which were a determinant factor of the success of these organizations in solving their financial woes or had gone underground all together. Durant (1999) continue to determine that after this period, many institutions commenced with initiating operations that would enhance their efficiency, performance and assist them in attaining and maintaining a competitive niche in the global market. This was after a prevalent view that the environment which was external to the organization, and which played a major role in determining the tide of change, has eventually relaxed and normalcy in professionalism could be restored. This generates the paramount needs to understand the most strategic approach which will be efficient in managing the changes in the organizations, failure of which will result in ultimate underperformance and failure. The primary analysis in this paper will focus on two propositions; ‘painless change’ and the obligation of organizations to develop a capacity for rapid and continuous change. Developing capacity for rapid and continuous change Malone (2007) determines that the change that was prevalent in the 1990s differentiates between, intermittent and continuous, episodic, emergent change in different organizations. This distinction is integral to the progression of structures in theory and operation for change in organizations. Lawler (2000) cites that elevated demands in performance and speedy change continue to characterize the corporate surrounding in which many organizations in the modern world are operating in. As a result of this dilemma, many institutions are confronted with the problem of facing two distinctive goals namely exemplary performance and transformation aimed at adjusting to the prevailing environment in business. This assertion is supported by Smith & Torppa (2010) who cite that in an environment where change is continuous and relentless, particular institutions are under the obligation of looking for a mechanism which will assist them in surmounting their predicaments. This should be done concurrently with the efforts to develop ideal ability to flourish in order to face any contingencies in the future. Moreover, predictability often characterizes the behavior of majority of managers who are in the middle of a phase of enormous change. Therefore, they refurbish the organizational strategy, amass the set of suspicious personnel, readjust inducements, and uproot any evident incompetency (Galvin & Roberto, 2005). In most of these cases, speed and skills prove paramount in the implementation of the changes in the corporate strategy, which ought to have been prepared with specific goals and objective in mind, which enhances the level of efficiency. This is based on the background that regular change that is usually executed between short intervals in the attempts to foster special change efforts are far inadequate in the sense that in many cases, they are often characterized by delays and disruptions(Lawler, 2000) This necessitates the rapid and constant nature of organizational change if at all the organization is to be compatible with the business speed (Lawler, 2000). Lawler & Galbraith (2004)uses the metaphor of ‘corporate dinosaurs’ to reflects on the unchanging organizations which are characterized by inflexibility by inferring that the imperative niche taken by change in today’s business environment will ensure that the organizations which will be rigid to change will cascade into extinction due to their unfitness in the current business environs. However, it is worth noting that these challenges continue to intensify the level of pressure, changing the operations and how organizations conduct their day to day business.Regardless of whether the changes are progressive or retrogressive, it is an apparent fact that they have some impacts on the personnel. This is portrayed by opposition to change, extensive exhaustion and indifference. All these can be major impediments towards the acceptability and eventual successful implementation of programs (Amenakis, Harris & Field, 1999). This has been a major point of criticism from the proponents of painless change, as will be analyzed in the subsequent section. Malone (2007) cites that the feasibility of an organization is fundamentally dependent on the level of incessant preparedness and adjustment to change in organizations. Painless change Eisendardt & Bourgeois (1998) cite that the trend nowadays is focused on operating environs of ‘high velocity’ (change that is repeated). In this case, unstable exterior conditions are eventually converted into initiatives which are often complicated. As a result, they end up having impacts on the overall organizational design and work, operations and processes and allocation of resources in the constant efforts to enhance organizational performance. The above phenomenon calls for a strategic approach aimed at redesigning the structures. This is evident in the inference by Whittngton & Mayer (2002) who argue that the most fundamental facet in the performance of the organization is the capacity to conduct organizational restructuring on regular basis. Abrahamson (2000) presents a persuasive discourse for ‘painless change’ founded on ‘dynamic stability’. This entails trivial and constant changes such as restructuring the practices that are still in existence rather than rushing forward to develop new ones. At its essence, stability which is dynamic lays more emphasis on continuity and initiating minor changes. This can be perceived to entail alignment of practices that are still in existence, as opposed to the creation of new ones (ibid). However, this is subject to a prerequisite that successful change should not be subjected to continuity since it can have far reaching impacts in regard generation of pessimism and exhaustion. In this regard, minor changes should be slotted in the course of implementing a major change which is unavoidable. This is what Abrahamson (2000) referred to as ‘tinkering’ and ‘kludging’. In his book Change without pain, Abrahamson (2000) regards ‘painless change’ as recombination which is creative and fostering a capacity for rapid, continuous change as creative destruction. He infers that the prior is a much strenuous since rather than demolishing a company’s divisions and proceeding to mold totally new frameworks, change trickles in through a combination of elements of an organization into new configurations which have higher utility capacity (Abrahamson, 2000). There are several demerits, which according to Abrahamson (2000), are associated with developing a capacity for rapid, continuous change. He sites that creative destruction culminates into a condition of repetitive-change results which entail overload of initiatives, change related chaos and employees’ cynicism, burnout and anxiety. All of these are explored in the subsequent analysis. Initiative overload: This is founded on the fact that more initiatives aimed at generating change are needed in a greater capacity in rapid, continuous change, that it is necessary in ‘painless change’. This is bound to cause more scenarios of overburdening in terms of initiatives. This is because in the event of rapid, continuous change, one has to first demolish the frameworks which were initially in place, engage in system designing and this will culminate in execution of the developed plan. This is bound to trigger extensive opposition at the organizational level (Abrahamson, 2000). Change related chaos: It is apparent that a transition window is necessary in destruction which is creative principally in the period between when the old organizational structures were destroyed by the agent initiating the change until the completion of new system implementation. In many cases, this tends to generate chaos that are related to change, which can mean total disruption of organizational operations during this window. Cynicism by employees: Abrahamson (2000) infers that ‘painless change’ is mostly characterized by minimal levels of pessimism and exhaustion, both of which are prevalent in rapid and continuous change. The reason behind this is that there is some familiarity between the existing structures, amid some minor adjustments, which tends to minimize the level of unease among the employees. Similarly, small changes require less efforts and time, and thus, the employees seldom suffer from extensive exhaustion. All the above are some of the merits associated with painless change. Nonetheless, a profound reflection on the utility of these propositions is paramount in the efforts to have a comprehensive insight into their relevance in today’s business environment. What is the ideal way in the future? Painless change is insufficient in accounting for particular dynamics in the modern world which are fundamental in determining the eventual performance and sustainability of the organization. These dynamics include globalization, trends towards strategic alliances in the corporate sector, the effects of economic meltdown like the one that was experienced in 2008. All these changes call for rapid, swift and decisive approach in confronting these challenges, which will be a determining factor in defining the competitive niche of a company in the highly competitive environment. Smith & Torppa (2010) exemplifies this phenomenon by inferring similar to the phenomenon in institutions, deteriorating economic capacity, change towards human capital based on knowledge and accelerated advances in technology continue to affect extension organizations. These challenges are paramount in the establishment of new spectators to the extension programs and creation of excellent chances for the creative programs. The relevance of either developing capacity for rapid, continuous change or painless change in a contemporary business is thus influenced by the evident characteristics in the corporate world. This will ensure that the business is able to be compatible with the dynamics as well as implement mechanisms to curtail the diabolical impacts of initiatives which are overburdening, change related chaos and pessimism by the employees. Thus, it is paramount to note that the strides towards developing capacity for continuous, rapid growth is relevant to today’s business world which is characterized by massive uncertainties, as opposed to painless change as proposed by Abrahamson (2000). According to a research by Clampitt, Williams & DeKock (2002), there is a more profound employees’ preference of institutions that have the culture of supporting and adopting uncertainties. This is founded on the fact that employees who are based in organizations that tend to welcome uncertainties, tend to portray more fulfillment and contentment in their occupations, and express a higher level of commitment to their institution. In addition, they have a tendency of inherent optimism in the organization as well as having both long and short term positive identification with the organization (ibid). In conclusion, it is evident that change ought to be managed with the goal of yielding outcomes that are sustainable in mind. Moreover, measurement mechanisms ought to be formulated to aid in tracking the progress after the execution of the set strategies. This is parallel to the inference by Durant (1999) who advocates for the establishment of a system for measurement which is both effective and efficient. This is characterized by simplicity, understandable and involves both the managerial echelon of the organization and other staff. Thus, an organization that is undergoing change ought to make a profound decision on the real nature of the change, the merits and the demerits of the approach that it is going to apply to promote adaptability, and the mechanisms that are applicable in curtailing any negative effects of this change. From the above discourse, it is apparent the developing capacity for rapid continuous change is the most applicable in modern business environment. REFERENCES Abrahamson, E., (2000). Change without Pain. Harvard Business Review, 78(4), 75-9. Amenakis. A, Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 97-128. Apfellthaler, G., Muller, Helen., Rehder, R., (2002). Corporate global culture as competitive advantage: learning from Germany and Japan in Alabama and Austria? Journal of World Business, 37 (2), 108-18. Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics. London:Pitman. Clampit, P.G, Williams, M.J, & DeKoch, R.J (2002). Embracing uncertainty: The Executive’s Challenge. Journal of Change Management, 2, 212-228 Durant M.W, (1999). Managing Organizational Change. Columbia: Credit Research Foundation. Eisendardt, K.M & Bourgeois, L.J (1998). Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High Velocity Environment: Towards a mid-range Theory. Academic of management journal, 31(4), 737-70. Galvin D.A & Roberto M, A (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review. 83(2), 1-9. Glover, J., Jones, G., & Friedman, H. (2002). Adaptive leadership: When change is not enough (part 1). Organizational Development Journal, 20, 15-32. Kezar,A. J. (2001). Understanding and FacilitatingOrganizational Changein the 21st Century. New York: John Wiley & Sons Lawler, E. (2000). Designing change capable Organizations. California: CEO publication Lawler, E. E. & Galbraith, J. R. (1994). Avoiding the Corporate Dinosaur Syndrome. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (2), 5-17. Malone S. A, (2007). Creating Organizational Capacity for Continuous and Adaptive Change. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2008/papers/ Malone_38.pdf Smith K.L, & Torppa C.B, (2010). Creating the Capacity for Organizational Change: Personnel Participation and Receptivity to Change. Journal of extension, 48(4), 1-9 Van de Ven, A. H. &Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. Whittngton, R. & Mayer, M. & Smith, A. (2002). The shape of things to come. People management, 8(20), 28-34. Read More