Organizational Change Concepts that are Vital to Successful Quality Management Implementation - Example

Quality Management: Organizational Change Concepts that are vital to Successful Quality Management Implementation Student’s name: Institution: Instructor: Subject: Quality Management: Organizational Change concepts that are vital to successful Quality Management Implementation Quality management has been cited as one of the best method through which any organization is able to achieve good relations with its clients and further obtain better results (Chang, 1994). In quality management, the company or organization aims to come up with products or services that are of interest to the customer. Quinn (2004) observed that if the internal operations of the organizations do not fully match the needs of the customers, then the operations of the organizations are bound to experience numerous challenges. If the situation reaches this level then organization change would be required. According to Dannemiller & Tolchinsky (2000), organization change would require such an organization to shift from a traditional way of doing things to that which is centered in quality improvement. Change in any system definitely brings mixed reactions to the parties involved more so because it involves restructuring of the already adapted system. Balancing between the internal management structure and the way the organization is viewed by the customers is something that such an organization has to deal with. The success or failure of change implementation depends on the relevance of the concepts applied to the change process. This essay looks at the organization concepts that are important to the success of implementation of quality management. It looks at the developed theories, their relevance and applicability. The change concepts were developed with the aim ensuring there is a smooth translation from the old way of doing things to the new way of doing things. In most organizations, management is done at different hierarchies and therefore, whenever changes are made at one level, there is likelihood that other levels are going to be affected. The process of change would therefore require that the transition state from the present state to the desired state is done as efficiently as possible. Failure to do this would result to commotion during and after the implementation of the change process. Proper studying the system and planning effectively are the preliminary things that ought to be done before any strategy is implemented. There are basically two stages that are involved during any organization transition stage; unfreezing state and the freezing state (Connor, 1998). The unfreezing state is the state that changes in the organization is motivated. It is the stage at which the people within that organization feels that they need a new operating procedures in order to handle their operations better. The refreezing state comes after changes have been made. It is the process that requires integrating and stabilizing the change. At this stage, the organization learns new behaviors of dealing with its conditions. The concepts of change are aimed to ensuring that there is smooth transition between from the freezing to the refreezing stage (Kelley & Conner, 197). The process of change involves a model of change that describes some ordered stages whose progression is chronological (Eckel, Hill, & Green, 1998). The organization in transition experiences various forms of unfreezing forces and experiences new disconfirmations and confirmations. If such an organization is to respond appropriately to these forces, then the process of change in the organization must be seen as a long-lasting process which could be analyzed in different discrete stages. This is to enable the process of planning to be clear and have specific change initiative. Kezar (1991) observes that once the process of change has been initialized, the change leaders works at every stage identifying new areas that had not been frozen and making sure that every detail in the change of new system properly integrates as it was required. One of the most important elements to consider in the quality management implementation is the position of the human element. According to Eckel, Hill, & Green (1998), in organization change, the human element plays a significant role and is therefore the major determinant on the success or failure of a strategy. In quality management changes in the organizations should be made in such a way that critical attentions are given to the change of aspects that are relating to the human. The Human element influences the orderliness in transition and therefore is the main player. Kotter (1996) observes that improper handling of this element would result to resistances in the actual implementation of organizational change. To most people, whenever they are confronted with change, they tend to maintain their sense of control of their lives. The nous of control comes up when such a person feels that they understands the environment and can conform to the change that occurs with it. Sometimes, the change may disturb the person’s pattern of future expectation (Fletcher et al, 1992). This would lead to the person experiencing uncertainty that may disrupt his or her sense of control. If the changes are minor changes; changes that do not threaten the individual’s expectations, then they are likely to make the person to psychologically adjust to his or her expectations and conform to the change (Ven & Poole, 1995). However, if the change is major; changes which causes the expectations of the individual to become invalid, then such an individual is likely to react to feelings of loss of equilibrium, confusion, disorientation and uncertainty. It is these kinds of feelings that results to inconsistent between what is perceived and what is expected. A person experiencing these kinds of feelings may not be in a position to know what to expect from self or others. Therefore, if not critically looked at, some form of changes may result to disrupting of the expectations of the persons involved that results to crises. Nutt, (1992) explains that whenever major changes are to be implemented in the organization, caution should be taken to ensure that persons or groups who have to alter their behavior, altitude, skills or knowledge does so in a manner that accommodates that change. There are four major determinants of change in any organization; the willingness of organization, a plan that is implementable, commitment of building the change and availability of proficiency and skills to carry out the plan (Tierney, 1988). The four functions are interdependent and therefore if any of the function is weak, it shall significantly reduce the ability of the entire process becoming a success. Vision for organization change is the main driver of the entire process of change (Fullan, 2001). Vision is what drives the participants to build commitment of coming up with organizational change. Through this vision, a system is designed that caters for this vision. Out of the design, a plan is developed. The plan is a set of sequential steps that shall be implemented in the organization till the vision is achieved. A strategy that is well constructed ought to have systematic processes that are followed in the process of implementing the organization change. The designed model of implementing change strategy should at least have goals that to be achieved, the means to measure these goals, participants that are clearly defined, the specific steps that needs to be taken during the unfreezing, transition and the refreezing stages, the strategies for addressing issues that might arise in the cause of implementation of the strategy, the methods of communication to be used and availability of the resources Gelinas & James (1998). In particular, the strategy of addressing issues that arises during implementation of change is to maximize the organization’s commitments and cater for avenues of managing conflicts. In organizational change, several theories have been developed all with the concept of bringing smooth transition and bringing in a successful implementation of quality management. These theories include, machine theory, administrative theory, bureaucracy theory, hawthorn theory among others (Fossum, 1989). The main role that these theories serve is ensuring there is upon enactment of change in the organization, better results are achieved with as minimum hitches as possible. The machine theory was developed by Frederick Taylor in the principals of scientific management (Green, 1997). A machine scientifically developed system is one which has interlocking elements which required proper coordination between the elements so that the desired results are achieved. The theory is centered on use of scientific methods to improve the productivity of the organization. This is achieved through reorganizing the management system from bottom management to the top management, use of initiatives and incentives, studying of time to determine the most efficient way to perform jobs, specialization, simplifying of jobs and optimizing of the tasks (Hiam, 1997). Machine theory is based on four principles which are; replacing the rule of thumb work with task studies, scientifically training and developing workers, cooperating with the workers to ensure that there is efficiency and dividing the work equally between workers. This model has been tested and seen to work in large organizations that involves complex management processes. The administrative theory by Failor emphasizes on the need of having hierarchical that is structured in form of a pyramid (Burke, 1995). This way, the top management is able to control the implementation of organizational change. In this case, superiors and the subordinate ought to have a chain of command that runs along different hierarches. The top management initiates the process and directs the role of each department in the organization toward implementation of the strategy (Holman & Devane 1999). Then the departments restructure themselves in a way that they conform to the requirements of the top management. This is a sure way of ensuring that there is overall change in the entire organization. Most small and medium sized organizations use this form model whenever in implementing quality management change. Bureaucracy theory is one of the oldest organization theories. Developed by Weber, the theory puts a lot of responsibility to the top management or the superiors (Bridges, 1991). For the change to be effective it has to be properly coordinated and this is the responsibility of the top leadership. Therefore, clear instructions are made all levels by the management. Clarity of instructions and procedures are very important to the success of the change strategy (Kanter, 1983). It is for this reason that the theory emphases on written rules of conduct, division of labor to ensure the process is efficient and all the activities should be goal centered. The success or failure of change based on this theory solely depends of the leadership (Schein, 1969). It has been observed that whenever the leadership fails to fully commit itself or put adequate strategies then no significant change is observed. However, if the superior management is committed and puts adequate resources to the process, then the process becomes smooth and achieves its intended results. Human resource and motivation is another element that greatly determines the success or failure of the change strategy. According to theory hawthorn theory developed by Mayo, organization is a social work team or group and therefore interest of the members should be put in place whenever change is to be enacted in an organization (Beck, & Harris, 1987). Mayo observes that work is a group activity and therefore there is need to security and sense of belonging to all members of the group. Complains that arises from the group should be resolved amicably around the sense of status. The collaboration of the group needs to be properly planned and developed in a manner that it brings in cohesion to resist disruptions. Bergquist (1992) further emphasizes on the need of human resource and motivation. According to Maslow, change should be done in a manner that it urges individuals within the organization to produce and create for job satisfaction in line with meeting the needs of the upper management. The effect that change brings to the physiology, safety, love and esteem of the persons involved in the change system should be critically looked at. In the his theory “ The Human Side of Enterprise,” McGregor observes that humans have dislikes of work and must therefore be threatened or controlled in order to do work. Therefore, most people would need to be given direction and dislikes being given responsibilities. Above all people should be assured of the security. Most people need to know what is expected of them and what they will be held accountable of. Though work is a natural state of human beings, making changes in the way that work is done may bring negative effects to the way a person perceives that job. Whatever changes are made in the management, they should be such that they make man to direct his own steps and be committed to making the goal of the organization achievable. Research has shown that if the job is satisfying, then people would be committed and if the job is not, then they are likely not to give out their potential in committing to performing for the company. In my opinion, any change that is being enacted in an organization for the purpose of improving its services to the persons whom it serves is proper. In enacting such a change, there ought to be a smooth transition between the old systems of doing things to the new way of doing things. A thorough understanding on the environment surrounding the conditions of the organization should be done before deciding the model to use while enacting the change. Moreover, the model used should be able to cater for all the parties involved when the change comes about. Since organization change is something new, there is possibility of goal of change shifting from the intended one. Strategic control measures that periodically evaluate the progress of the change strategy should further is put in place. Communication is very important to the implementation of the quality management process (Argysis, 1994). All the participants need to communicate in order to bring success in the organization change. Top leadership and the management should be willing to appreciate the junior workers point of view and integrate these views in implementing of the change strategy. Appreciating all the participants point of view makes them to feel being part of the process which will definitely motivate them to give out their best. In conclusion, whenever an organization is challenged to make changes in its organization, it requires doing them with the interest of the customers coming first. Quality management implementation requires that at the end of the organization change, better values are observed within the operation of the organization and better services offered to the customers. Transition from the current state to the desired state should be done as smooth as possible (Jaffe & Scott, 1999). Human element is the main driver of the change and therefore ultimate care should be taken to ensure that at all levels, this element is satisfied during and at the end of organizational change. Willingness of the organization, implementable plan, commitment and availability of proficiency and skills are the major drivers of the organization change in an industry. Many theories have been developed to help in making decisions of change and formulation the procedures to be followed in implementing the change. All of them emphases on the need to having proper plan and management structure to oversee the entire process. References Argysis, C. (1994). On organizational learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Beck, R. & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bergquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy: Insights and strategies for improving leadership in collegiate organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Perseus . Butterfield, B. S (Ed.). (1998). Process and organizational redesign: Leading change in college and universities. Washington, D.C.: The College and University Personnel Association. Burke, W. (1995). Organizational change: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(2), 158-171. Chang, R. Y. (1994). Mastering change management: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Connor, D. R. (1998). Leading at the edge of chaos: How to create the nimble organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dannemiller, K. S., James, S. & Tolchinsky P. D., (2000) Collaborating for change: Whole scale change. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler. Eckel, P. D., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). En route to transformation. On Change: Occasional  Paper, no. 1. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education. Fletcher, B., Bell, A., Buttery, J., & Whittaker, M. (1992). 50 Activities for achieving change. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.  Fossum, L. B. (1989). Understanding organizational change. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp.  Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   Gelinas, M. V. & James, R. G. (1998). Collaborative change: Improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-bass/Peiffer. Green, M. F. (1997). Leadership and institutional change: A comparative view. Higher Educational Management, 9(2), 135-146. Hiam, A. W., (Ed.). (1997). The portable conference on change management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.  Holman, P. & Devane, T, (Eds.). (1999). The change handbook: Group methods for shaping the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Jaffe, D. T. & Scott, C. D. (1999). Getting your organization to change: A guide for putting your strategy into action. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp. Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kelley, D. & Conner, D. R. (1979). The emotional cycle of change. In J. E. Jones and J. W. Pfeiffer, (Eds). The 1979 annual handbook for group facilitators. (82-102). San Diego: University Associates. Kezar, A. J. (1991). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28 (4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nutt, P. C. (1992). Managing planned change. New York Macmillian.  Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk it: A guide for leading change.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Schein, E. H. (1969). The mechanisms of change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin, Ed.) The planning of change, (98 – 107). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.   Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 2-21.  Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540. Read More