The Leadership of Change - Assignment Example

Question One: Personality Clash

Personality clash at the workplace is quite dangerous. An assumption of personality clash at the job place can cause significant challenges at the workplace relationship among the employees. It has to be known that incidences of personality clash are always avoidable and can be stopped from taking place. However, if they are neglected and left unattended to, they can lead to great psychological stress, problems of anxiety, depression and strained relationships among those involved at the workplace (Briner, 1999). When relationships are strained at the workplace and such cases are not managed well to end them, they spread and cause a hostile atmosphere at the entire workplace making it quite unsuitable for working. It is the reason managers of organizations do not have to assume any case of personality clash. Moreover, personality clash can be avoided if correct measures are put in place (Vaccaro, 1988). If the personality clash at the workplace is assumed, it can cause huge breakdown of working relations among employees within a department hence destroy the cohesiveness as well as productivity of the entire company.

Today, there is an increasing awareness that the success of any given company relies on the overall healthy and happy working relations among employees. People have started acknowledging the fact that without stopping personality clash at the workplace, business performance may suffer greatly. Therefore, organizations are coming up with strategies aimed at ensuring the organization spots such personality clash cases quite in advance in order to proactively address the situation before it gets worse. Realizing the early signs of personality clash may be difficult for the management of a given organization, keen and psychologically talented leaders can be able to spot a conflict in advance. The most challenging thing is that while there are those personality clashes that may become public confrontations or even arguments in the open, some are just in form of a cold war that requires skilled management to realize and stop before getting worse. Symptoms of such subtle personality clashes include withdrawal of one worker from a colleague, falling motivation in people at the4 workplace and minimal social interactions.

It has to be mentioned that getting to know the origin of a personality clash is the very first step towards resolving a conflict among workers. Causes of personality clash include differences in the way people approach given task at the workplace as well as gender and social differences among the employees. Moreover, disagreements in the way people view a given debate may also spark off personality clashes. With the establishment of the root cause of a conflict, the management should then find ways of getting a win-win solution, where both parties in the clash get satisfied with the solution reached.

The work of spotting and stopping personality clashes is purely one that belongs to the management of the organization. It is incumbent on the managers of a given organization to realize it early and investigate the underlying details before ultimately resolving it. This may maintain the necessary unity required at the company.

Question Two: Breaching Experiment

The breaching experiment is a social psychology tool, which tries to evaluate the people’s observation of social norms that are not written. The technique has now found much relevance in the fields of sociology and psychology. It helps psychologists to teach about the strength of social norms as well as conformity (Rafalovich, 2006). It is a common technique in the business world, where managers are using it to teach their employees the importance of adhering to the norms and culture of the organization in which they work.

Normally, breaching experiments are properly planned and conscious breaks of a regular social norm. In conducting this research, somebody does the break in social norms and records the response of the people who witness the breach (Rafalovich, 2006). It has to be noted that the response that people give to the breach is the most important part of this experiment. In the event the breach is conducted well hence compromising the social norm, the response of people normally gives the method by which they make sense of the unusual behavior or even how they counter the conduct (Rafalovich, 2006). One has to be keen to observe the fact that small and happy breaches cause laughter, confusion as well as curiosity. For the case of serious breaches, the response may be anxiety and anger.

Despite the fact that breaching experiments do break the norms of a given society, they do not leave a traumatic mark on those who witness these exercises. It has to be explained that the response that they give is just part of their healing process (Rafalovich, 2006). In an unconscious manner, the witnesses normally rationalize the breach for them to be able to keep a sense of stable social system. Although the norm is breached, it is quite repairable (Rafalovich, 2006). Moreover, the breaching experiment has another role of testing the conduct the kind of behavior that is acceptable as a social norm (Rafalovich, 2006). It is also important to note that since social norms depend on the culture of a given society, a breach done in one country does not have any effect in another nation (Crabtree, 2004).

The same case can be taken for organizations and the breaching experiment can be done in any organization by the management with a healthy interest in knowing the social psychological workings operations of the staff members (Rafalovich, 2006). After knowing the psychological working of employees through the breaching experiment, the management is able to have a better understanding of the workers hence can develop more relevant strategies of dealing with them (Rafalovich, 2006). The management is also able to understand what the employees like and this can enable the development of more customized incentives for the workers since the leadership of the organization then understands kind of things that they love.

It is true that some behaviors perceptions are very hard to change once they become historically part of a group of people (Rafalovich, 2006). However, once they are known through the breaching experiment, one can start developing ways of ensuring the perceptions are shifted. One way could through persuasion to the workers.

Question Three: Organizational Change

Force Field Analysis

The Force Field Analysis is a decision-making tool that managers can use tine the management of change. The technique assists a person to make a decision through the analysis of the supporters and opponents of transformation within an organization. It also enables a person to give the reasoning for their decision (Lewin, 1946). With the Force Field Analysis tool, the management intending to introduce transformation in the company can be able to identify the forces that are behind the change (Lewin, 1946). After this identification, the management can then choose to go ahead and implement the change by strengthening its supporters while weakening those who are against it at the same time.

Before change takes place in an organization, the force field is always in equilibrium between the two opposing sides, that is, the supporters of transformation and its opponents (Emmrich et al., 2015). This equilibrium is what Lewin, the author of this theory, referred to as the quasi-stationary social equilibrium. In order to have effective change, the existing equilibrium has to be destroyed in the favor of the forces that support transformation (Lewin, 1946). This can only be done through addition of the conditions that support the change by reduction of the strength of the resisting forces. According to Kurt Lewin, whenever the forces that support transformation are more than the push against the change, then the organization can realize the transformation in needed.

The Force Field Analysis can be applied in companies when initiating change. In organizations, plans for change do not receive the support of all stakeholders. There are those that will always want the status quo to prevail (Lewin, 1946). This tool offers the management the approach it can use to ensure its transformation agenda is realized. The company can be able to achieve the required change if managers ensure that they weaken the opposing forces while strengthening the supportive side (Lewin, 1946). A tool has much relevance in development of the change strategy of an organization.

Diagram: https://www.mindtools.com/media/Diagrams/Force-Field-Analysis-ExampleLARGE.jpg.

Weick & Quinn

Weick & Quinn classified organizational changes into classes known as episodic, discontinuous and intermittent. There is also the continuous, evolving and the incremental change. The tow scholars gave a comparison between two forms of changes, the episodic and the continuous (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Therefore, it already evident that while the force field analysis of change gives a strategy of having the transformation take effect, the Weick & Quinn model simply gives an analysis of the forms of changes that are in organizations so that people can be able to understand the kind of transformation that they need. According to the Weick & Quinn model, the episodic changes are always assumed to take place at a time of divergence, when the company is undergoing a transition from the equilibrium condition (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Continuous change, on the other hand, is ongoing, always evolving and cumulative. With the continuous kind of change, transformation takes place constantly and frequently without any planning. A company can select the kind of change it needs and make it part of the norms of the organization.

Question Six: Change

a). Change Agents

Bearing in mind the many challenges that the process of change has in an organization, agents of change are very special and important people. Their function is to ensure that the process of change is well executed and implemented properly so that nothing is left to chance. Change agents are leaders who implement transformation in an organization (Hall & Hord, 2006). They have specific capabilities and characteristics that make them to be suitable for implementing the process of a change for any given organization. The agent’s capabilities and characteristics determine the success of the change project in a company. It must be known that not all leaders of change have the requisite characteristics and traits to make them good agents of transformation in organizations. Moreover, various change projects demand different capabilities and characteristics in the leaders of the initiatives.

An agent of change must be a person who accepts the need for change. It is not always just about knowledge of this need for change, but also must be a person who is ready to articulate the importance of the change project and defend it fiercely in the face of dissenting opinions and resistance (Bennis, 2000). They must be able to communicate about the change in the entire organization and convince others to join the supporting side. Such a change agent has to be creative in terms of making an open and receptive environment. Change agents are people who are able to provide small transformation initiatives with a clear roadmap for the entire company.

Another characteristic of a change agent is that they are able skillfully identify the advantage points for transformation in the operation processes and work habits in the organization. These people can initiate change at the local level. They see change opportunities in every situation within the organization (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Change agents can translate the vision and mission statements of the company into the context of a particular transformation initiative. They then make this initiative popular in the entire company.

Agents of change must be able to manage complex transformation projects. It must be understood that the business changes of this century are quite dynamic and complex. They require a leader who I dynamic also and can manage complex situations (Umar, 2015). The agent has to be one who understands the cultural dynamics of the existing state of the organization. All these are features of a good change agent.

b). My Style of Influencing Change

My style of influencing change is based on getting the people affected to embrace the initiative first. I always understand that without getting the support of the majority of those to be affected by the transformation, the change initiative may fail to be implemented successfully. Therefore, I always ensure I have their support and commitment so that the project can be successful and with minimal resistance. What draws back the implementation of change is always the resistance of the dissenting individuals within the organization. Therefore, if this dissenting group is weakened I always know that the project will go through smoothly with the backing of the majority (Fullan, 1996).

Question Eight: Google Company

Google Company passes as a very responsible business organization because of very many reasons. The company is responsible because it cares about the plight of the people who enable it to make profits. Google is one of the few companies that are able to give back to the society. Moreover, it has been ranked as the best organization to work for. All these accolades do not just come to any company (Jarvis, 2011). Google Company thinks of the plight of employees as part of its priority. Moreover, the company also ensures all stakeholders are satisfied with the services they get.

The major reason for settling on Google as a responsible business corporation is that the company takes ideas of employees as very important. Within the company, several e-mail lists are dedicated to debate of various matters affecting the workers. For the case of customers, Google has a platform where users can submit their comments and ideas. What is so important is that the company makes sure all these comments are read and responded to appropriately (Jarvis, 2011). The ideas submitted are then rated on a scale in order to get the greatest ideas, which are then included in the company’s decision making discussions. The management of the company is required to pay very close attention to issues that are raised by employees and the customers. The suggestions as well as opinions of the employees are held as very important to the company and considered as a key driver of the development agenda of the organization.

It is very rare to find a management that involves workers in its decision making process. At Google, employees and even other stakeholders have an equal opportunity of taking part in the decision-making process of the organization. For instance, before the company releases a new product into the market, workers are given the chance to test it and give back their feedback on its effectiveness (Jarvis, 2011). All these aspects of the company make it to pass as a very responsible business organization. There are those that may say Google has been involved in a number of unhealthy competition activities, but in general, the organization is one of the most responsible business organizations (Jarvis, 2011).

Reference List

Bennis, W., 2000. Leadership of change. Breaking the code of change, 113-121.

Briner, R. B., 1999. The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 323-346.

Burnes, B., & By, R. T., 2012. Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of business ethics, 108(2), 239-252.

Crabtree, A., 2004. Design in the absence of practice: breaching experiments. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 59-68). ACM.

Emmrich, M., Schneiderbauer, M., Huber, F., Weymouth, A. J., Okabayashi, N., & Giessibl, F. J., 2015. Force Field Analysis Suggests a Lowering of Diffusion Barriers in Atomic Manipulation Due to Presence of STM Tip. Physical review letters, 114(14), 146101.

Fullan, M., 1996. Leadership for change. In International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 701-722). Springer Netherlands.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M., 2006. Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.

Jarvis, J., 2011. What would Google do? Reverse-engineering the fastest growing company in the history of the world. Harper Business.

Lewin, K., 1946. Force field analysis. The 1973 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, 111-13.

Rafalovich, A., 2006. Making sociology relevant: the assignment and application of breaching experiments. Teaching Sociology, 34(2), 156-163.

Sloane, P., 2014. How to use force field analysis for change management. Internetpräsenz von Destination Innovation.

Umar, A. M., 2015. Leadership and Change. Leadership.

Vaccaro, A. J., 1988. Personality clash. Personnel Administrator.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K., 2011. Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58-74.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E., 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 361-386.