Managing Organisational Change - Case Study Example

 Managing Organisational Change Nothing is permanent except change. The validity of this cardinal truth is no more confined to the crumpling pages of some esoteric text pertaining to some Eastern metaphysical philosophy. Infact, the change has become the unavoidable destiny of the 21st century. Businesses and organisations are more then ever feeling the pressures and challenges being put forward by rapid changes in almost all the spheres of corporate world. The way companies communicate, gather and analyse data, manage their human resources, meet competition, market their products, audit their accounts, administer their manufacturing facilities is totally different from the way it was done just a decade ago. The scope of this already demanding situation is further aggravated by the ensuing technological revolutions that are unleashing ground breaking changes at a rapid pace. The source of such a change traces its origins to both within and outside the organisations. External social, economic and technological changes push the organisations and institutions into an adaptive mode. The resulting pressure ultimately percolates down to the individual employees that alters or motivates to alter the basic aspects of the concerned individuals’ overall personality and style of communication (Burnes, 2000, p.258-259). Now if such a competitive scenario is further analysed in the context of the universal economic integration that is the direct outcome of globalization, one comes to the conclusion that it is next to impossible for the organisations and businesses to survive without a proactive initiative on the part of their individual employees in favour of change (Ollinger, 2006, p.1). A fast evolving and metamorphosing global economy demands every individual to be an instrument of change. Off course such a change can only be meaningful if it is well managed and positive in its outlook. The query that deserves one’s utmost attention is that are the organisations able to adapt to change in a smooth and easy way? Does change automatically moulds the organisations in its natural course or does it require to be meticulously managed? There is no dearth of theoreticians who believe that organisations are naturally malleable to change and somehow manage to adapt to the unfolding circumstances on their own (Thompson, 1967, p.35). However, there does exist a school of somewhat cautious thinkers who hold that there exists a sense of inertia within the organisations, the magnitude of which may vary from one organisation to other, that makes them somewhat inflexible and if left unmanaged may turn out to be eventually hazardous (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Realistically speaking, organisational change is often a double edged sword that may prove to be either disruptive or adaptive in its outcome (Haveman, 1992, p.48-75). Usually it often gets very difficult for organisations to accept change and the initial reaction is always marked by a spontaneous or deliberate resistance. The framework of almost all the organisations often rests on certain institutional or technical structures built over time that often turn out to be the very source of such resistance (Granovetter, 1985, p.481-510). The astonishing fact is that such structures do not directly oppose any sort of change within the organisations, at least at an obvious level. The ultimate resistance more then often comes from the members or the employees in the organisations who can be considered to be the eventual outcome or the final by product of such structures (Coch, & French, 1948, p.512-532). Infact such institutional or technical structures insidiously oppose the change in the sense that even when the change is accepted and advocated by some members of the organisation, the pre-established official protocols and sanctimonious organizational rules make it difficult to actualize the requisite alterations on an urgent and priority basis (Stinchcombe, 1965, 142-193). A viable conclusion that can safely be drawn is that there exist both external and internal constraints within the organisations that many a times make it very difficult to manage change. The billion dollar question is that despite all this resistance, why “we face more change rather then less”? A simple and plausible answer to this dilemma is that the greater the extent of inertia within an organization, the greater is the perceived impact of change experienced by the individuals within it (Delacroix, & Swaminathan, 1991, p.631-661). The very resistance to change magnifies the magnitude of change felt by the individuals within an organization. Organizational routines are the one major factor that impedes the adaptation to change within the organizations (Nelson, & Winter, 1982). “Routines refer to the repetitive patterns of activity by organizational members, both individuals and groups (Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993, p.1).” Over the time these routines get well entrenched within the organizational framework and within the consciousness of the employees and members and by themselves become the primary defining factors within the organizations. Gradually but steadily, with the passage of time, these routines become synonymous for productivity and competency and any breach in these routines necessitated by change is perceived as a loss of competency and efficiency by the employees. The more addictive an organization gets to these routines, the greater is the perceived impact of change felt by it. The organizations have always been exposed to change since the dawn of civilization. As expected, the pace of this change has been exponentially accelerated by the phenomenon called globalization that is peculiarly marked by an enhanced global trade, an increased clout and sway of multinational corporations and the facilitation of hassle free communication marked by the IT revolution (Hart, 2004, p.1). In the long run, the well being of any organization is determined by its employees. Thus the welfare of employees, decentralization of power centres and global socialization fostered by globalization and the current telecommunication technology has become the primary generators of change within the local markets all around the world (Ahis, 2001, p.2). The transnational foray by the organizations into the global markets fostered by globalization has exposed the local economies placed in various pockets of the globe to a dire need for continuous improvement and change, urgency for alteration in the management styles, adaptation to a global clientele and unification of cultures. The world has shrunk to a global village inhabited by many local economies vying for resources and power. In that context, globalization may be considered to be a primary driver of change at local level. According to John Kotter, a distinguished professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, globalization has pushed the local economies throughout the world to adapt to change by inculcating in them a sense of urgency and a dire need to forge global coalitions (1996). The economies all over the world have awakened to the necessity of developing a vision of change and to empower the employees by delegating to them ample powers and responsibilities to handle fast changing market scenarios. The networked environment in today’s global scenario has provided the markets and economies that were isolated till now, an access to talent, opportunities and advantages they desperately yearned for (Feng, 2005, p.2) Australia has already started to gear up for a shift towards sustainability in the contemporary global environment driven by competition. Infact, last year ARIES (Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability) embarked on an Industry Sustainability Project funded by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (Ecos, 2006). This study emphatically emphasized on the need for a successful change for sustainability by harbouring a shared vision by the organizations and stressed on critical thinking and adopting a systematic approach to meet global competition. The organisations in Australia have started evolving to the concept of change management and continuous adjustments are being made to adapt to new global realities. A recent and relevant example is the major restructuring by the Australian Council to play a greater leadership role in the arts sector (O’Malley, 2004, p.1). Major changes are being wrought into the Australian industrial relations and labour law (Kelly, 2003, p.2). Stress is being paid by the industry in Australia to develop a new vision for Australian Human Resource Management. In the existing business environment where the major economic changes and technological innovations at the global level are unleashing unprecedented changes, it has become imperative for the organizations to be open to change and to develop relevant management styles and technological solutions to meet this unavoidable challenge. Change or perish is the theme of the hour. Both the inbuilt and external impediments to change must be dealt with on a priority basis. Procedures and techniques such as the decentralization of power and the empowerment of employees by the delegation of authority and responsibilities, which have been proven to be successful at other places, must be incorporated within the striving businesses and companies. The highly competitive business scenario ushered in by rapid globalization calls for a commitment on the part of individual employees within the organizations to be open to change. The urgency for change needs to be accepted at all levels within the organizations that aspire to sustain themselves in the times to come. Total Words: 1500 References A ‘How to’ guide to sustainability for business. (2006). Ecos. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-159487497.html Ahis, B. (2001). Organisational Behaviour: A Model for Cultural Change. Industrial Management. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www. highbeam.com/DocPrint.aspx?DocId=1G1:78364198 Amburgey, T.H., Kelly, D. & Barnett, W.P. (1993). Resetting the clock: the dynamics of organisational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/ DcoPrint.aspx?DocId=1G1:14153122 Burnes, B. (2000). Change management: Strategies for Australian organisations . Sydney: Allen & Unwin Coch, L. & French, J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations. 1: 512-532 Delacroix, J. & Swaminathan, A. (1991). Cosmetic, speculative and adaptive organisational change in the wine industry: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 631-661 Feng, Y. (2005). Institutional Change and Globalization. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/DocPrint.aspx?DocId=1G1:133492647 Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 91: 481-510 Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. (1997). Structural inertia and organizational change . American Sociological Review. 49: 149-164 Hart, J.L. (2004). Organisational communication in a age of globalization: Issues , Reflections, Practices. Business Communication Quarterly. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/DocPrint.aspx?DocId=1G1: 117449784 Haveman, H.A. (1992). Between a Rock and a hard place: Organisational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 37: 48-75 Kelly, R. (2003). Human Resource Management in Australia. International Journal of Employment Studies. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http;// www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151608783.html Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press Nelson, R.R. &Winter, G.W. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. MA: Belknop Ollinger, C. (2006). How we work now: Wholesale workplace changes wrought by globalization lead to “human capital” crises; knowledge workers found on plant floor. Manufacturing Business Technology. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/DocPrint.aspx?DocId=1G1: 143241638 O’Malley, S. (2004). Australian Council announces major restructure. AAP General News. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http:www.highbeam.com /doc/1P1-10323383.html Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organisations: 142-193. Chicago: Rand Mcnally Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organisations in Action. New York: McGraw Hill Read More