A Role of Harmonic and Ethical Inner Corporative Relationships - Literature review Example

Faith and Leading Change In a modern business arena, an ongoing competition makes managers to lead their organizations through some serious changes, at least from time to time. These changes may come in need on different levels: from individuals’ change, to department changes, and to changes in a whole organization which is the most challenging for managers and leaders. For a successful leading change, except the importance of a careful planning, modern researches admit a key role of employees’ belief in what they are doing (Chewning, 1995) (Kotter, 2007). Organizations were viewed by managers as systems only until the later 20th century when with the growth of corporations and weight of social communication, to understand organization as a social construction became crucial. Within a general leading change model, presented by Lewin in terms “unfreezing – moving – and refreezing”, other more complicated models were developed. Already Nadler and Tushman had “included job satisfaction and stress… as products of the work environment” (Anderson, 2015). More recent models only strengthen the attention on corporations’ inner relationships. In the Burke-Litwin model of organizational change, a general interdependence within organization is highlighted. A leading change appears to be depended on social components of organization. “What employees believe is the central purpose of the organization”, it defines strategy and mission; leaders’ behavior “provides and encourage actions of others”; the “collective current impression, vision of the task” define employees’ expectations and feelings; motivation determines behavioral tendencies and reasons actions of workers (Anderson, 2015). Studding common mistakes on leading changes John P. Kotter says, there are some common pitfalls on social relationships (2007). Already from the beginning, it’s crucial to motivate employees. “Without motivation, people won’t help, and the effort goes nowhere” (Kotter, 2007). Executive staff is first to be motivated, otherwise change won’t work on lower organizational levels. Then, a “guiding coalition” should be grown, meaning a number of motivated employees should increase (Kotter, 2007). More and more workers should share a new vision. In most successful cases a guiding coalition is formed by workers from several levels, despite that heads and executives prevail. Kotter explains, “If the existing hierarchy were working well, there would be no need for a major transformation” (2007). Motivation and sharing a new vision are two things left to tie people together. Within a guiding coalition, a “sense of urgency” is important (Kotter, 2007). Firstly, coalition should share values and goals within itself, and then a new vision should be explained to employees. A new vision is a clear idea. “In failed transformations, you often find plenty of plans, directives, and programs but no vision” (Kotter, 2007). Kotter provides an example of company, where manager had failed a leading change. When Kotter asked him to describe a new vision, manager had provided him with a long lecture. “Buried in his answer were the basic elements of a sound vision” (Kotter, 2007). Yet, for successful transformation a new vision should be understandable and shared by whole organization. Another company had failed a transformation because decisions were allowed to make to a manager who hadn’t changed his beliefs and behavior according to new vision. “He allowed human resource systems to remain intact even when they were clearly inconsistent with the new ideals” (Kotter, 2007). As the result, lower-managers lose faith in a new vision. Then other employees started to consider an idea of change to be a lie. While another company had succeeded because of “walk the talk” practice. Firstly, they talked to other personnel about how work done by individuals fits and influences a general picture of change. Regularly, they talked about how employees’ behavior undermines a new vision. Q&A was also a regular practice. Old routine company “newsletters turned into lively articles about the vision” (Kotter, 2007). A new vision was widely broadcasted and explained. According to Richard C. Chewning, a religious ethics should enter the business and determine social relationships. “Business is, after all, an institutionalization of God’s intention for us to work and serve each other” (Chewning, 1990). God has spoken His Words about every sphere of human life, and thus, business relationships may be determined by God’s Words (Chewning, 1995). Especially, Christian ethics may be helpful during a leading change, because it’s time of general confusion and a process of believe. Employees’ vision of own work shouldn’t be underestimated: beliefs determine actions of each individual human on work, as they determine every social system. “Ideas and motivations do impact the way that business is done” (Tenn, 2004). Chewing points, that “God puts a high value on harmony and unity” (1995). As it was said, “For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city”, a leader should talk to other employees and provide them with a true vision on transformation in times of frustration (Acts 18:10). A good leader never leaves workers confused, but firstly, a leader him/ herself should establish a true vision on a future change. Chewning admits, “The competition on a market may drive away from biblical principles… Personal goals can also influence important corporate strategic decisions” (1990). There are temptations in business, like greed for power and money. Thus, to be sure about how ethical and reasonable a change is, Chewning propose to examine them through the Scripture. Otherwise, unethical decisions will lead to a general confusion and ruination of harmonic social relationships in organizational. Yet, according to Kotter’s studies, employees’ social connections and their deep motivation and believe in what they’re doing is the true change driving force (2007). In the light of the above said, I can conclude that a role of harmonic and ethical inner corporative relationships is crucial for leading change. In times of the frustration, which transformation naturally causes, it’s important not to leave employees disorientated. A new corporative vision should be clarified to all workers and commonly shared within an organization. For managers to develop a harmonic and ethical new vision, it’s important to accord it with God’s Laws. References Anderson, D. L. (2015). Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change. SAGE Publishing. Chewning, R. C. (1990). Business through the Eyes of Faith. 1st Ed. HarperOne Publishing. Chewning, R. C. (1995). The challenge: to impregnate business teaching with biblical integrity. JBIB. Retrieved from http://www.cbfa.org/jbib_95.pdf Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail/ar/1 Paul at Corinth (1995). In New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/nasb/acts/18.htm Tenn, J. (2014). Conference challenges business community to take faith into workplace. Union University News. Retrieved from http://www.uu.edu/news/release.cfm?ID=709 Read More