Managing Organisations and Change Management - Essay Example

Managing Organisations Managers and psychology Studies on organisational behaviour are known to take an interdisciplinary approach. Other than integrating psychological theories, they synthesize theories from other fields of study. According to Burnes (2004), sociology would give the social concept of the system; anthropology would be important in defining culture in various ways, including organisational culture; conflict management, decision making and power would be better analysed through the studies of political science; engineering would define work flow, job design and ergonomics; medicine would help an organisation handle stress and health and safety at workplace; and economics would provide theories applicable in labour market dynamics and productivity. Managers, even the highly educated would always be seeking for universal, simple management solutions which do not exist because the contingency theory defines each situation need with its unique approach (Pettus, Kor & Mahoney 2009). According to Searle (2003), organisational psychology employs scientifically-based principles in psychology and research methods in the identification and solving of problems at work places. It aims at giving managers the insights into understanding and measuring human behaviour so as to improve employee satisfaction, increase the ability of managers to identify and promote best performers and make the working conditions better. These would be achieved through creation of tests and understanding the evaluation of human factors. According to the expectancy theory, one of the motivation psychological theories, the first step towards the attainment of superior performance from an employee would be through expectancy which describes the level to which an employee perceives that application of sufficient effort would yield successful achievement in a task (Searle 2003). In the second step, referred to as instrumentality, the employee’s concern would be whether successful achievement in a task would yield rewards. Finally, the employees’ value of the reward would also be considered. As a matter of fact, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, CIPD (2005) points out at the equity theory which suggests that an employee would always compare oneself to other employees according to the contributions made and the reward received. Maslow also contributed to this discussion by defining the work environment and motivational effects where the scholar argued that several critical needs would be fulfilled through work, giving the hierarchy of these needs (Luthans et al. 2008). There has been an increase in recognition of people in delivering the objectives of a business enterprise. CIPD (2005) identifies the psychological contract as an important aspect in modern organisations, which has been defined as “the perceptions of the employee and employer, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other” (2005, p.2). The willingness of managers to adopt people management practices greatly influence the psychological contract. This would be indicated in the sense of trust and fairness in employees and the belief that managers would deliver on the agreement between them. A positive psychological contract would enhance commitment and satisfaction among employees. Traditionally, psychological contracts would offer job security to employees in return for commitment. Nowadays, managers would be expected to offer fair treatment and pay, development and raining. This means that employers no longer offer job security which has negatively affected employee commitment. The focus has now shifted to reward packages, job satisfaction and employability. Managers need to ensure that the pay and conditions offered attract and retain workers. On the other hand, employees need to feel fairness in payment. There should also be the opportunity for workers to develop personally and advance in their careers. It is the mandate of managers to offer a balance between employees’ personal lives and work. Therefore, organisational psychology is an important aspect in appreciating work’s ever changing nature and the effect it has on people in an organisation. It helps people understand and effectively interact with each other at work. For any business to achieve success people are an essential ingredient and psychology on organisations offers insights on the human side of management and work in general. Nonetheless, managers face major setbacks when applying psychological theories in organisations. One of the widely cited problems would be that managers and employees could get personal with their issues at the expense of promoting the objectives of an organisation (CIPD 2005). Handling human behaviour is quite complex because in as much as they could be inherent, they could also be learnt. Changes in human behaviour pose a great challenge to managers. Change management Buchanan and Badham quote a scholar in organisational change management, Niccolo Machiavelli, in his renowned quote that “there is nothing more dangerous, or doubtful of success, than to attempt to initiate a new order of things” (2008, p.215). Change is the only constant in organisations today. Whether private or public, organisations would face changes in their nature of work, technology and finance, organisational structure, marketing and the workforce among other areas. In all the changes, employees would be considered as the key drivers of business. The ability of adding value to business lies with human capital. Therefore, organisations would always seek to have the most from this resource. Sometimes change could be deliberate as a result of conscious reasoning followed by implementation. Burnes (2004) refers to such change as planned. On the other hand, change could be spontaneous and unplanned, referred to as emergent change. Change could turn out to be emergent rather than planned when: managers make decisions not related to the change that emerges or when external factors like economy, political climate and competition and internal features like uncertainty, distribution knowledge and relative power of interest groups cause change to occur in a manner beyond the control of managers. Change management involves application of systematic methods that would ensure organisational change follows a guided plan, conducted cost effectively and completed within a specified time frame with the desired results being achieved (Ray & Chakrabarti 2006). Change would not be a result chance and therefore the science of managing change. The discipline of change management aims at increasing the capability of organisations to adapt and adopt emerging ways of doing business. It has removed the traditional notion that change could be managed using ad hoc methods with the aid of experience. The Force-Field analysis by Lewin in 1951 indicates that change results from the impact of driving forces upon restraining forces (Pol 2009). At any particular time, organisations would experience forces that push for change, referred to as driving forces and those that hinder change, referred to as restraining forces. Should these forces offset one another, then and equilibrium and status quo would be achieved. Some managers would increase the driving force so as to attain change. Caution should be taken as this could destabilise the system and result in negative consequences. Others would increase the driving forces in the short run and in the long run reduce the retraining forces. Whatever the strategy, both forces should be critically analysed so as to understand the change situation. Resistance to change Change could face criticisms and rejection from a section of resistant persons in an organisation. Resistance to change has been widely accepted by researchers in organisational behaviour as an inevitable response to major changes (Searle 2003). Organisational resistance to change refers to behaviour intended to protect one from the consequence of real or perceived change and could be systematic or behavioural. Systemic resistance could be a result of organisational culture, organisational design, fixed investments or resource limitations. On the other hand, behavioural resistance could be a result of individuals in the organisation or collective resistance by managers sharing common tasks or power centres in the organisation. Luthans et al. (2008) noted that resistance to change could occur at any stage of change process, whether at the start or implementation. Resistance to change could be articulated to poor communication where key decision makers do not pass information in detail to the other members of the team. Some factions of the organisation would also want to advance their personal agenda and would therefore resist change. When people are made to feel excluded from major decisions in an organisation, they would tend to resist change. Lack of trust among team players or between the managers and other members of staff could trigger resistance to change. In order to minimise behavioural resistance to change, Buchanan and Badham (2008) propose several key areas to address. In case where information is scanty or inaccurate, education and communication would be the best approach. In case the change initiators do not have the necessary information to design change and where their power to resist is considerable, participation and involvement would be paramount. Where people need to adjust to problems, facilitation and support would be needed. Negotiation and agreement would be used where some people stand to lose in the change implementation and such people have considerable power to resist. In case managers try other tactics and they fail to work or they prove to be costly, manipulation and co-option could be employed. Finally, if the change initiators have considerable power and the speed is essential, managers could be forced to use explicit and implicit coercion. Models of change management Various models have been suggested for managing change. ADKAR is a model that would propel change management teams to focus on specific business results. ADKAR is an acronym for awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement. An organisation needs to be aware of why change would be needed. It should then desire to support and actively participate in the change. The change drivers should have knowledge on how to change the organisation and should also have the ability to implement the new behaviour and skills that would result henceforth. The managers should finally be prepared to reinforce or sustain the change. These five building blocks would be associated with the traditional change related activities. At awareness stage for instance, analysis and communication would be very critical. At the knowledge block, training and education become key components (Pol 2009). In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin developed a change management model that continues to be practiced even in modern organisations (Pol 2009). The Lewin’s three-step model involves unfreezing, transition and refreezing. Unfreezing would have the forces that maintain the status quo dismantled. During the transition step, new values, attitudes and behaviours would be developed through development techniques and organisational structure. Lastly, the new values would be crystallised and people in the organisation own it. John Kotter developed an eight step model that would lead to success in change management. Pettus, Kor and Mahoney (2009) analyse these steps and observe that the first four steps involve unfreezing, the next three constitute transition and the last step involves refreezing. The first step according to Kotter is to establish a sense of urgency (Pol 2009). This would call for managers to analyse the market and identify competitive realities so as to determine the crises, any potential crises and major opportunities. The second step would entail forming a powerful guiding coalition group where the manager would assemble a team of people with adequate authority and energy to lead the change effort. A clear vision would then be created and simply expressed, followed by development of strategies for achievement of the vision. The vision should then be communicated and employees taught new behaviours. The fifth step would call for managers to empower others to act on the vision. This would be followed by planning for short term wins and creating them. Here, performance improvements would be calculated and employees involved would be rewarded. The improvements would then be consolidated and more change produced. This will entail use of high sense of credibility to change structures, systems and policies that hinder the achievement of the vision. Finally, the new approaches would be institutionalised, together with the development of structures for leadership and succession. Conclusion Change management should not be considered as a mechanical process. Managers should be equipped with adequate knowledge on how to handle change adequately in their respective organisations. Poor change management skills could make resistance to change a complex phenomenon which could cause outright rebellion among employees and paralyse business activities. Whenever an organisation undertakes to make changes, it should be communicated to all participants and all of them should be engaged. Change remains the only constant in organisations and what determines the success of an organisation is on how managers would handle it. References Buchanan, DA & Badham, RJ 2008, Power, Politics and Organisational Change, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London. Burnes, B 2004, Managing Change: a Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th ed., Financial Times Prentice Hall. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2005, Managing Change: The Role of The Psychological Contract. Broadway, London. Luthans, F, Norman, SM, Avolio, BJ & Avey, JB 2008, ‘The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital in the Supportive Organisational Climate – Employee Performance Relationship’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 29, pp. 219 - 238 Pettus, M, Kor, Y & Mahoney, JT 2009, ‘A Theory of Change in Turbulent Environments: The Sequencing of Dynamic Capabilities Following Industry Deregulation’, International Journal of Strategic Change Management, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 186-212. Pol, P van de 2009, Managing Change, Complexity and Context, UNDP, Bangladesh. Ray, S & Chakrabarti, A 2006, ‘Strategic change of firms in response to economic liberalization in an emerging market economy’, International Journal of Strategic Change Management, Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20-39. Searle, B 2003, Research and Practice in Organisational Psychology and HR Management, Macquarie University Read More