Rapid Continuous Change versus Painless Change - Essay Example

Organisational Change The argument for rapid and continuous change vs. ‘painless change’ Name of student: Student No: Date: Name of Supervisor: Organisational Change; The Argument for Rapid, Continuous Change vs. ‘Painless Change The recent market turbulence is a harbinger of a new stage in globalisation where constant volatility can be expected. Once the current crisis subsides, there will still be fundamental instability in the prices of commodities, currency, and energy due in part to the growth of fresh competition, and increased consumer expectations that will cause upheaval in conventional commerce and operating models in the near future. This could cause organisations to find themselves in a bind if their response is not quick and agile enough to the dynamism in the market. In order to ensure sustainability in today’s knowledge-based markets, it is important to be able to convert information into insight. Organisations have to find ways to introduce flexibility into their processes. This report examines the ways in which firms can do that. In some organisations, the recommendation is to facilitate rapid and continuous change over time to keep up with a market in flux. In others, ‘painless’ change is preferred. The issue is whether one paradigm is better than the other in terms of maintaining an organisation’s niche in the marketplace. The most important reason that we focus on organisational change according to Abrahamson (2000) can be summarised as the premise that in order to stay alive, an organisation must change. However, the approaches and theories advanced to manage change are sometimes in conflict with each other (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). In the past, many organisations regarded change from the point of view of a secure business environment where routine and order were prevalent. This engendered a sense of security and certainty in the members of the business community (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). The archetypal reaction to change is via the silver bullet methods (Schneider, 1996) which include total quality management, redesigning the organisation, or re-engineering new training programs. The problem is that these solutions were only partially successful (Kotter, 1995). It has now come to be understood that silver bullet change methods tend to be ineffective according to Glover, Jones, and Friedman (2004) unless they are coupled with a program to develop and enable company ability to continuously adapt. This is because they realised that change initiatives is not always accompanied by adaptation. It is necessary for firms to maintain an ongoing state of preparedness for change and adaptation. This state of preparedness is interspersed with periods where change is initiated via planned change events. This is crucial for the organisation to remain viable (Rowden, 2001). While ability to change and grow in response to the dynamic operating arena was previously an optional extra for many organisations, it has now become an integral part of any successful organisation hoping to arrive at success. This is because success is never completely achieved, but organisations continue to strive toward it at all times. Thus ‘painless change’ as part and parcel of the organisational framework would be advised. Studies on organisational change in the 1990s uncovered a distinction between episodic, intermittent, and continuous emerging organisational change according to Weick and Quinn (1999). The distinction marked a progression in the development of theoretical and operational structures that guide change in the organisation. From a distant perspective, this flux appears to be composed of monotonous action, habitual torpor interspersed with sporadic spurts of radical change. However, when the operation is viewed from a more intimate perspective according to Tsoukas and Chia (2002) the weave of activity by organisational members that from a distance resembles routine inertia is actually manifold cyclical adaptation and adjustment activity (Weick and Quinn, 1999). This can also be termed as ‘painless change’, because it tends to occur in a way that escapes notice. In order for the process of change to be understood, there must be a consideration of the sequence of events that leads to the change as well as the flow of energy and activity that must take place. The change must comprise of both technical and cultural components in order to be effective. The technical element is composed of a new system, structure, or process that is required to be set up. Once this is done, the pertinent issue is to deal with the human reaction to the change. This is the area where change management methodology fails. This is because it is difficult to institute rapid and continuous change without involving the human element, but this is little understood. Without doubt, globalisation is experiencing dynamic movement but the results of the movement depend on what stage of globalisation an organisation is in. The first stage is those firms with international market entry. These are shielded from the uncertainty prevalent in international markets since they feature in relatively few of them. They are also in a position to control the rate of their immersion in these markets and are thus able to evaluate the change drivers and escape those markets with high volatility (Douglas and Craig, 1996). They are thus able to institute painless change by incorporating it in their processes. Organisations in phase two are in local market expansion in addition to a quite expanded overseas operation that will be exposed to change variations. There will be those that are experiencing rapid dynamism while others are fairly stable. This diversity in change events means that the firm must have more than one strategic plan to cope with the crosscurrents. The more markets the firm is involved in, the more intricate must be its coping mechanisms (Douglas and Craig, 1996). Such organisations must be ready to adjust to any change that they may encounter at a rapid pace and therefore may do better to evolve a system that allows for this fast-paced adaptation. A mix of both rapid continuous and painless change would be more effective for this group. Organisations in stage three, that is, global rationalisation, are vulnerable to insidious change which influences all facets of the business in universal markets. The more widespread its global operations, the more it will feel the recurrent effects of change. This occurs not only in different markets but also the interconnections between markets. This means that change is a persistent reality that must be dealt with as such and incorporated in the short and long-term strategic plans of the organisation (Douglas and Craig, 1996). This means that this type of organisation must be in a state of constant preparedness in order to deal with rapid and continuous change. It would be extremely impractical to expect that change in such an organisation could be painless. There are advantages and disadvantages to rapid change. For organisations that have the mechanisms in place to respond rapidly to paradigm shifts, the opportunities are endless. However, those who do not will witness a drop in market share. Those firms who are at entry level in international markets enjoy the privilege of picking and choosing which markets best suit their core competencies. Those who are dealing with global rationalisation have to contend with having the organisational agility to deal with fast-paced change that is continuously occurring over diverse markets at an uneven pace. One way to do this is by allocating resources to facilitate change rather than being caught up in it as it occurs. Those firms that mostly deal with the local market development are in between these two situations and therefore have the most difficult situation when coping with the challenges that change brings. Since their infrastructural frameworks for the incorporation and control of manifold interconnecting markets is not so well developed, they have difficulty with accessing mechanisms to deals with change as it occurs. In order to sustain change in an organisation, Schneider (1996) suggests that the change must affect both the climate and culture of an organisation. Thus when change is initiated, it tends to fail because the basic psyche of the organisation maintains a status quo. In order to ensure sustainability of change processes, the daily protocols, standard operating procedures and routines must also change. These changes must wield considerable influence on the beliefs and principles that affect behaviour. This type of change permeates not only the way the organisation exists, but also what it becomes rather than merely changing the way the personnel do things. It is evident on every level of the organisation from architecture to culture to climate. When the beliefs of the organisation are changed and institutional systems and customs transform these beliefs into action and these are then entrenched in the organisation, then sustainable change can be achieved according to Fairholm (2004). This is done via the exertion of will and actively choosing to merge the belief and institutional systems in order to work together to bring about sustainability. It is obvious that this process cannot be passive or ‘painless’ if it is to be effective. Fairholm (2004) also insists that the institutional systems need to align with organisational culture in order to ensure sustainability in the long run. This is because they counterbalance each other. A study conducted by Rosenborg (2003) bears this out. It examines the ideas behind participative management and the learning that takes place in an intricate situation. When change is implemented, the research discovered that members of the organisation found it extremely difficult to produce the desired results. In the first place, traditional methods were used to implement change with emphasis on what the proposed results would be. Rosenborg (2003) made the discovery that focussing on this alone was not enough to bring about change in the organisation to the expected level. Once a more inclusive methodology was implemented and networks created, the results were more in line with expectations. Self-determined learning, problem solving, and collaborative action that is self-organised were the outcome. This study lends credence to the premise that a dynamic, non-conventional approach to change which is all-inclusive and self motivated and sustaining is the key to a shift in paradigm concerning organisational change that is necessary in order to ensure sustainability. Further insight into this concept was provided by Clark (2003) who conducted a study in five cities in Europe in the 1990s in which he pinpointed the pathways of transformation. He achieved this by studying the ways in which universities forged a path from transformation to sustainability. As a result he proposed that there were three fundamental reasons for change that is sustainable; these are the strengthened interconnections that link transforming organisational elements; the ongoing adjustment facilitated by incremental change; and the shared aspirations, dedication and institutional motivation. Thus a mix of both rapid, continuous change as well as painless change is necessary. Every organisation is experiencing change and must therefore adapt to the new conditions. Many efforts in this regard do not work (Burke, 2002) because while the times change, the organisation cannot seem to develop the capacity to adapt to these rapidly shifting paradigms. Lawler and Worley (2006) are in agreement with this premise, and argue that it is erroneous to expect that the established, mechanistic organisations would be able to function in an intricate, fast-paced dynamic environment while still adhering to traditional system. This is a recipe for failure. The majority of organisations are dependent upon planned change that is instituted via a linear methodology according to Cummings and Worley (2005). This does not really gel with the reality on the ground where change is disordered and complex (Bloom, 2000) and does not adhere to a theoretical cause and effect model. Although the allegory of planned change is important as a roadmap with which to approach the enactment of change, it is important to develop a deeper comprehension of the nature of organisational change according to Burke (2002) and the basis in theory upon which the study is founded. In conclusion, it can be said that organisational change is a complex organism whose component parts cannot be broken down into simple linear ideologies that lean toward one concept or another. In today’s world, change occurs at a rapid pace and organisations must be structured in such a way as to be able to deal with it. Rigidity in methodology, choosing ‘painless change’ over rapid and continuous change or vice versa, is a fallacy. The very nature of change is fluid and in flux and requires flexibility in order to ensure success. References Abrahamson, E. (2000). ‘Change without pain’. Harvard Business Review. July–Aug., 75-79. Bloom, S. (2000). Chaos, Complexity, Self-Organization and Us. Psychotherapy Review, 2, No. 8, August, 2000. p. 1-5. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/mathematics/chaos.pdf Burke, W. (2002). Organization Change Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Clark, B. (2003). Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts. Tertiary Education and Management. European Management Journal, 16, 31-38. Abstract obtained from Kluwer, 2003. Cummings, T., Worley, C. (Ed). (2005). Organization Development & Change, OH. South-Western. Fairholm, M. (2004). A New Sciences Outline for Leadership Development, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25. 369-383. Glover, J., Jones, G., & Friedman, H. (2002). Adaptive leadership: When change is not enough (part 1). Organizational Development Journal, 20, 15-32. Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 73), 9-67. Lawler, E., Worley. C. (2006). Built To Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rosenborg, L. D. (2003). A facilitated approach to developing collaborative action in primary healthcare. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 2, 63-80. Rowden, R. W. (2001). The learning organization and strategic change. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66, 1. Retrieved 13 March 2012 from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001040001. Schneider, B. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Development Journal, 24(4), 6-15. Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). ‘The hard side of change management’. Harvard Business Review, October, 109-118. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567-582. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 361-386. Retrieved 13 March 2012, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001249962 Read More