Organizational Change Issues - Essay Example

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction Change is an occurrence that is inevitable. Organizations also change all the time. Organizational change involves making a transition from the existing state to a desired state in the future. Initiatives of change in organizations frequently arise when companies face a challenge. However, in some cases organizations change under the motivation of a progressive leader who recognizes a new venture or idea that is to be exploited. The contemporary business environment however demands organizations to experience change almost at a constant level if they are to survive. This paper seeks to examine the causes of organizational change. In addition, the paper will evaluate whether organizational change is necessarily good. The essay will mainly be grounded on the analysis of various articles that examine the concept of organizational change. The causes of organizational change Organizational change can be instigated by a number of factors. Dunphy and Stace (1988) disclose that environmental forces are one of the major causes of organizational change. Normally, the environment produces various conditions that force organizations to transit. Dunphy and Stace (1988) provide an example of the mid 1970 up to the 1980’s which was characterized by environments producing a state of decrease in growth and stability of many western industrial economies. The period was also referred to as the age of discontinuity. In order to have a competitive advantage in the market, organizations were forced to change. Environmental forces therefore demand for changes in management process, corporate culture and the total structure of the organization. Ginsberg and Abrahamson (1991) also support the assertion that environmental forces influence organizational change. As the environment continues to become increasingly complex and turbulent, innovation becomes increasingly significant in order to prevent obsolete practices and products. Organizations therefore tend to increase their experimental behavior through initiatives such as new product development, in order to deal with the changes in the business environment. What is evident from the findings of the two studies is that environmental forces greatly influence change within organizations. The meaning that can be derived from the studies by Dunphy and Stace (1988) and Ginsberg and Abrahamson (1991) is the fact that organizations do not operate in a vacuum, but rather they operate within the environment which is bound to be affected by change, therefore change in organizations has to take place. For instance, a recent practical example that influenced change in many organizations was the recent 2008-2009 financial crisis which affected many organizations and thus forcing them to adopt change. Organizational change is also instigated by the need to adopt the right culture. The perspective that the right culture enhances commercial performance and success of a business is one of the propelling factors that influence the need to adopt a right culture. Spicer, (2011) highlights that; organizations attempt to develop cultural change essentially when involved in acquisitions and mergers. Mergers for instance require cultural compatibility as a critical factor for success. Thus the two cultures have to be integrated, as opposed to having one organization being dominant over the other. Evidence, however indicate that such integration of culture is usually highly problematic, and cultural clashes and problems usually lead to the failure of the mergers. Mergers therefore, represent situations in which the possibility for cultural change is high, however in order for this to take place effectively, organizations are required to identity and understand the existing cultural differences and articulated the newly desired culture. Consequently, organizational change has to take place in order to adopt the right culture for the newly developed organization. Spicer, (2011) propose that some of the changes to be implemented in order to adopt the right culture include ; bringing in the best people from both sides who have the knowledge of making things happens . Also, leaders and managers that are selected should be able to reinforce the direction and nature of the new culture. It can be stated that Spicer, (2011) view point that organizational change is influenced by the need to adopt the right culture is evidently true. By studying mergers as a point of reference, the author brings out the importance of having cultural compatibility and the right culture. Therefore, when the two organizations come together, despite the existing differences in culture, there is need change to for take place, in order to have the right culture in the newly formed organization. According to Ginsberg and Abrahamson (1991) change agents within and outside the organization also have the potential to influence organizational change. Within the organization, new members of the top management have the capability to influence strategic change. They do this by nurturing the emergence of new frames of references between strategic managers that makes them see the need for a shift / modification in strategy. Also, new members of the top management from other organization, hierarchical levels and industries can influence the exiting top management with new viewpoints that disclose the apparent need for change and the direction of the change. Outside the organizations change agents such as management consultants also instigate change. In the recent years, studies have begun to evaluate how management consultants influence the evolution and creation of new schema or perspectives among strategic decision makers. The studies have disclosed that management consultants normally challenge the cognitive order that exists in the organization. This is basically because they state the obvious, ask foolish questions then doubt everything taking place in the organization. By doing so, the members of the organization are able to see the need for change. By marshaling new jargon and conceptualizations, consultants normally act as fashion setters who develop new frames of reference that aim at persuading the top management recognize the need of shifting from the old strategic orientation to a new one (Ginsberg and Abrahamson , 1991). The idea propagated by Ginsberg and Abrahamson (1991) contributes to discussions of organizations change which highlight that change in organizations is usually instigated by people. Without the initiative of people, both the leaders and even people outside the organization, change cannot take place. Downsizing is another factor that influences the occurrence of organizational change. Sahdev, (2004) conducted a study on revisiting the survivor syndrome: the role of leadership in implementing downsizing. In the study Sahdev, (2004) examines the strategic reasons why organizations conduct downsizing. Downsizing which is the reduction in the size of employees was mainly witnessed in in the 1908s which saw the beginning of new forms of organizations which evolved as a result of enhancement in technology, global competitive pressures and a customer driven market. The rise of these organizations pushed many firms towards examining their structures, processes and the number of employees. Today, downsizing has become the norm with core focus on services and products. Some of the positive results of downsizing have been reported to include smoother and faster decision making, an increase in entrepreneurship, lower overheads and less bureaucracy. The study by Sahdev, (2004) discloses that downsizing is mainly geared towards bringing about change in the organization. Analysis of whether organizational change is necessarily good It can be argued that organizational change is necessarily good. One of basic influential factor that depicts the necessity for organizational change is grounded on the need to adapt to environmental forces. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) for instance cite a 1973 conference board where thirteen eminent authorities were asked to speculate about significant problems that management face. One of the strongest themes that arose from the conference was the concern about the ability of organizations to respond to the environment. Also one of the reports from the conference disclosed that acceleration in the rate of changes in the environment will result to an increasing need for organizations to reorganize themselves. Although reorganization is often feared, nevertheless change is inevitable. What is evident from the findings of this article is that organizational change is necessarily good. Also, it can be argued that organizational change is necessary good based on the fact that it is a remedy towards the success of an organization. The objective of any organization is actually aimed at attaining success. A number of factors influence success. Yet again these factors cannot be implemented without organizational change. For instance; Ginsberg and Abrahamson (1991) in their study on; Champions of Change and Strategic Shifts: the Role of Internal and External Change Advocates', reveal that one factor that contributes to the success of an organization is the type of strategies adopted by the business. Many organizations usually strive to develop change in their strategic orientation by shifting the manner in which they deal with their competitors, how they develop new products and the manner in which they provide their services and products. Additionally, the study by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) also highlight that the strategic choices of the top management greatly influence the success of the organization. The contested meanings contained within the study by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) is that although change is a necessary aspect in enhancing the success of an organization, it can be hard to implement essentially due to resistance to change. A new order of handling things is usually more difficult to undertake and success is more doubtful. Nevertheless, a critical factor that has been raised from the two studies is that, in order for success to be attained change has to take place. This therefore makes organizational change an aspect that is necessarily good. On the other hand it can be argued that organizational change is not necessarily good. This can majorly be supported by the perspective of Burnes and Jackson (2011) who argue that one of the most remarkable features of organizational change effort is their low success rate. According to Burnes and Jackson (2011) substantial evidence exists to prove that 70% of all change initiatives end up in failure. The two scholars cite that the failure of change initiatives usually arises from the absence of alignment between the members of the organization undergoing change and the value system of the change intervention. The perspective propagated by Burnes and Jackson (2011) can be interpreted to imply that there is actually no need for organizations to venture in change initiatives if the basic outcome is failure. Thus, it can be stated that organizational change is not necessarily good if failure is the most likely outcome. Organizational change is not necessarily good based on the fact that managing change can be a complex undertaking. Palmer and Dunford (2002) in their article; 'Who Says Change Can Be Managed? Positions, Perspectives and Problematic', reflect on the question of whether change is manageable. The two scholars analyze six views of managing change in order to examine their effectiveness in managing change. The views include; directing, caretaking, navigating, nurturing, interpreting, interpreting and coaching. The findings of the study does not provide a clear or precise direction towards how effective change can be managed or even the most effective model or imagine of managing change. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) also brings the notion that organizational change is usually subjected to failure due to resistance to change by people in the organization. Resistance to change also makes it difficult for change to be effectively managed, thus leading to failure. The findings of the articles disclose the fact that although organizations may have the desire to implement change, managing the change can actually be a difficult task. As a result, if change is not effectively managed then it is bound to fail. This therefore leads to the assertion that organizational change is not necessarily good. Conclusion The above discussion has examined various causes of organizational change. Some of the causes highlighted include; environmental forces, the need to adopt the right culture, change agents within and outside the organization and downsizing. The paper also evaluated whether organizational change is necessarily good. Some of the factors highlighted to back the fact that organizational culture is necessarily good include; the fact that it can enhances the success of an organization and also it assist organizations to adopt to change in the environment. On the other hand, the paper also identified the factors that make organizational change to not be a necessary good process. Some of the factors identified; include the fact that most change initiatives tend to fail and also the fact that the process is usually a complex process essentially when it comes to managing change. In conclusion, it can be stated that based on the fact that change is an inevitable occurrence, whether it is good or not, organizations have to be subjected to change. References Burnes, B. and Jackson, P, 2011, ‘Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values’, Journal of Change Management, 11(2): 133-162. Dunphy, D. and D. Stace , 1988, 'Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned Organizational Change: Beyond the O.D. Model'. Organization Studies. 9(3): 317-334) Ginsberg, A. and E. Abrahamson , 1991, 'Champions of Change and Strategic Shifts: the Role of Internal and External Change Advocates'. Journal of Management Studies. 28 Kotter, J. and L. Schlesinger , 1979, 'Choosing Strategies for Change'. Harvard Business Review. 57(March-April): 106-114. Palmer, I. and R. Dunford , 2002, 'Who Says Change Can Be Managed? Positions, Perspectives and Problematics'. Strategic Change. 11(5): 243-251. Spicer, D, 2011, ‘Changing Culture: A Case Study of a Merger Using Cognitive Mapping’. Journal of Change Management, 11(2): 245–264. (2): 173-90. Sahdev, K. (2004). Revisiting the survivor syndrome: the role of leadership in implementing downsizing. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 13(2): 165-196. Read More