International Organizational Change - Essay Example

Rough Draft….., International Organizational Change Determined by Organization’s Culture and Not Material Relationship with Its Member s Introduction International Organizations (IOs) have for the longest time been blamed for being remotely partisan in its dealings. Different states and the international community at large have been subjected to varied response from the IOs when it comes to solving international crisis and challenges. The bipartisan approach embraced by IOs has been closely linked to the material relationship with the member states or otherwise thought to be encrypted and intertwined with the organizations’ culture. This paper seeks to unwind the deadlock and come up with a comprehensive and detailed report on this unending discussion. One of the most remarkable international organizations, The United Nations (UN) has been used time and again as an example when it comes to unjustifiable problem solving based on biasness. Former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan once said that the twenty first century challenges could not have been solved were it not for the International Organizations. This by far seems true from a crisis solving point of view but a keen and in-depth scrutiny suggests otherwise. The impact of the UN on war-torn countries can never be ignored, least on the African states. Conflicts and disputes arising from political tussle have been on the rise in the recent times. Inter states confrontations based on vested interests have been witnessed across the globe, an example being the attack on Iran by the United States on the grounds of nuclear weapon manufacturing. What seems to be dumbfounding is the approach taken by the organization when providing solutions to these problems. The outstanding feature seems to be the materialistic gains aimed at by the members states. Perhaps theories of international relations can shade some light on this matter. Realism which seems to be the most prominent and widely applied theory .it suggests that nation states are the core players when it comes to international politics. Each state takes its own stand when it comes to solving issues having their interests closely guarded. The nations subscribing to this kind of relations have it that systems are run without a central point of authority. This has in turn been concluded that politics at the international level is just a tussle for power between countries with selfish interests under the same organization. Different member states fight for survival and sovereignty as pretence come to the fore as unity in decision making. International politics have been evident in the peace keeping missions headed by the UN. Imperialism and non-partisan approach has been grossly violated before and it seems to be there to stay. Vivid examples of realism can be cited in many peace keeping operations including; 1. The impartial way of keeping peace shown by the Canadians in the UN peacekeeping mission having the Greeks who were armed together with turkey nationals in Cyprus back in the ‘70s.This was later called renounced as ‘obsolete’ because of the unfair treatment from the Canadian soldiers. 2. Dispatching of over 10000 UN soldiers to Haiti in the year 2004 to dethrone the then newly elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide who had been voted in by the majority of Haitians. This was based on chapter VII of the UN charter. This was used to determine that ‘the situation constituted of a threat or breach of peace’ in the country. This was a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Haitian state as the citizens had the right to elect whoever they seemed fit for presidency. Clearly there was a reason as to why the president had to be overthrown. Exploitation could not have been any clearer in this case. 3. The peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Several serious complaints were made about the soldiers sent there where most of them were from the Asian countries. These troops were not well trained and had no proper equipment to combat the rebels who were killing the civilians. In addition, the soldiers had a major language barrier when interacting with the locals since the soldiers could not understand the local language. Critics even had it that the support the UN gave the government had hidden motive. These examples show the dark side of the UN missions in conflict resolutions. Canada, the U.S and the U.K have the greatest influence on the undertakings of the organization. Any interventions taken by the UN must be beneficial to these three major states. The attack of Afghanistan by the U.S has been criticized and condemned but less has been witnessed as a response from the ‘peacekeeping’ organization. Civilians have been subjected to endless attacks as the U.S seeks to destroy a seemingly powerful state with major impact on international politics. International Organizational Change Determined by Organization’s Culture and Not Material Relationship with Its Member States For any change to take place in an organization there have to be catalysts fueling it and pushing it forward. These are our drivers for change. We need to look into these catalysts behind the change, the factors surrounding it and what to expect in the encounter while seeking to implement it (Lipman-Blumen 2000). To achieve this, we have used a prospective approach in our project. This is a newly formulated plan that is meant to bring a totally new change in order to solve an already existing problem. They create a roll-out strategy and formulate a compelling and integrated story as to why the change is needed (Anderson and Anderson 3). To do this we need to come up with the question, what internal and external factors are influencing the organization or part of the organization where we are situating our change. The drivers are Environmental Forces, stating that the environment surrounding the business will always bring an effect in any way there happens to be an interaction with it. These are the dynamics of the larger context within which the organizations and people operate (Ricky 2005). They are the visible factors facing the organization from every front. They are the platform on which the entire project is hinged upon (Hendry 1996). These forces include the social where we will look at how the change is perceived by those affected by it, whether they will embrace the change and how it will affect their normal operations; there is the political and governmental force which will address the influence of the authorities on the proposed change. Some organizational changes need government licensing and authentication (McCallum 1997). The other driver is the marketplace requirements for success. These include customer’s requirement and the response necessary in meeting the requirements, product and service needs, and speed of delivery, quality, innovation and customer service. The target market of the organization is the focus here (Strebel 1996). What the customers want is speedy delivery of services, innovative products that will significantly change their lives with excellent and unrivalled customer service that will give them an attachment to the products we offer. Any of the changes observed to be taking place under the force of marketplace requirements are the result of changes in environmental forces (Anderson and Anderson 3). The other driver is the business imperatives. These outlines what the company needs to do on the strategic front to be successful. The requirements of our customers are changing every passing day. For these needs to be met there is need to come up with a workforce that can deliver the same results in a dynamic environment. This basically means that the employees who are to provide these services and products have to be dynamic in their skills. A self-driven and motivated employee provides the basis and foundation of an organization’s success (Straub 2007). Organizational imperatives are the driver. For any change to be implemented, there must be some things that will have to change; either totally or partially, but to change, they must. To achieve strategic business goals, there have to be an accommodation for the necessary organization structures. The dynamism of the management in embracing change is also crucial to an efficient change implementation process (Ronald 1994). Furthermore, leader and employee behavior driver is also significant. The collective behavior of both the employees and the management creates and expresses a company’s culture. The other driver is leader and employee mindset. The people who are currently present in the company are the custodians and the man power needed to power the project; be they in management or otherwise, a shift in mindset will be of crucial importance if there has to be any chance of progress in carrying out the much needed change (Bateman and Zeitham 1990). Everyone has a mindset and at times this is normally a stumbling block in terms of change execution. At times it is just a different view from what the rest see or think, other times it is an assumption, but the bottom line is that this has to change at some point if there will be any chance of progress. Mindset change in employees is often required for them to understand the rationale for the changes being asked of them (Moran and Brightman 2001). Cultural Imperatives is the most significant driver in international organizational change. This looks at the cultural mindset of the organization’s existing employees; how we perceive the way we run our daily affairs and how much interruption they can accommodate. From the perspective of change management, there is always the cultural lock-in mentality found in many international organizations (Kotler 1994). It is defined as “the inability to change the corporate culture in the face of clear market threats” that results from “the gradual stiffening of the invisible architecture of the corporation, and the ossification of its decision-making abilities, control systems and mental models” (Quinn 21). These cultural imperatives and mindsets in the employees as well as in the management will have to be dealt with to prevent them becoming an obstacle in change management and implementation. International Organizational Change Determined by Organization’s Culture International organizations are culturally diversified in that its employees are from different cultures; the organization is working hard to be at the top being in a very competitive industry. This change is brought on board to help the organization to achieve its set goals and objectives. With increased levels of globalization and technological changes, the organization is forced to embark on change in order to survive. To install new systems in the organization, there is need to change the technology and train the staff on the new system. Also because of globalization, the organization staff is trained on managing a diversified environment that can cope with a wide range of competition. According to Bateman and Zeitham (1999), organizations are faced with high rates of change from frustrating large number of sources. They have divided these organizational pressures into two; i.e. inside pressure which come from the employees at low levels and top managers; and outside pressures which comes from changes in technological, legal, competitive and economic environments. Change initiatives in this kind of organization arise because of the problems being faced by the organization (Wattwood 2000). These problems come from the above mentioned pressures. This is why the organization requires a visionary and transformational leader who can trace out the problems quickly whenever they occur. However, organization do not necessarily implement to change because of problems but also when there are opportunities that can help it move a step a head (Paxson 2001). Whenever performance gap is identified in the organization, it is automatic that changes will take place to help in closing the gap. Bateman and Zeitham (1999) describes performance gap as the difference between the organization’s actual performance and the performance of which it’s capable. Once this gap is recognized, change is considered the best solution as it helps the organization to improve on its performance to an expected higher level. Organizational change effort mostly fails because of encountering employee residence. Bibliography Anderson, A. L. and Anderson, D. 2002, Identifying the Drivers of Your Change. Being First, Inc., Bumes B 2004 "Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal", Journal of Management Studies, 41:6. Bateman, T S. and Zeitham C. P. 1990, “Management: Function and Strategy,” Irwin, Homewood, IL. Hendry, C. 1996, “Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory,” Human Relations, vol. 48, no. 5, pp.621-41. Kotler, P. 1994, Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation, Control. Prentice Hall International, Inc. Moran, J W and Brightman, B K 2001, ‘Leading organizational change’, Career Development International, 6(2), pp. 111–118. McCallum, J S 1997, “The Face behind Change,” Ivey Business Quarterly, vol.62, pp.73-75. Lipman-Blumen, J. 2000, "Connective Leadership: Managing in a Changing World." (New York: Oxford University Press. Paxson, D. A. 2001, Introduction to real R&D options. R&D Management, 31, 2. Ricky W. G. 2005, Management. Boston: Houghton Millan Company. Robert E. Q. 1996, Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within. Josey-Bass Publisher, Ronald A. H. 1994, Leadership Without Easy Answers. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Straub, T. 2007. Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A comprehensive analysis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag (DUV), Gabler Edition Wissenschaft Strebel, P. 1996, “Why Do Employees Resist Change?” Harvard Business Review, vol 74, Issue 3, p. 86. Wattwood, B. 2000. “Managing Organizational Change,” Retrieved October 1, 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED407017.pdf. Read More