Introduction
Organisational change is currently
one of major domains of organisational research, and the study of organisational
change has become one of the major aspects in being able and helping to measure
the organisation performance; efficiency and effectiveness. The effective
organisation must be able to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges,
adaptability and responsiveness are essential to survive and thrive.
Today’s organisations are
experiencing change like never before as a result of global competition which
had created uncertainty for the organisations. Therefore business world
organisations face unprecedented changes as the response to the internal and
external challenges for emerging technology and market forces.
A number of studies suggest that
middle managers play a key role in change implementation. It can be argued that
the effective planning and management of change require careful consideration
of the impact of structure change on middle managerial work roles and work
satisfaction levels – to maintain their resistance, and maximise their
commitment to the containing and accelerating pace of change within the organisation.
Therefore it’s important to
understand the extent to which these formal changes in management systems and
role prescriptions have resulted in change in work behaviour and job
satisfaction experienced by personnel. It is thus essential, when attempting to
assess the impact of formally espoused changes within an organisation, to
examine the extent to which, and the way in which, managers have adapted new
forms of work behaviour in accordance with the new managerial role perceptions.
The Organizations
Culture is an important factor in
understanding an organisation, because for any organisation to operate
effectively it must for some extent have a general set of beliefs and
assumptions. Because understanding the term of the culture metaphor helps organisations
to be aware of how employees are thinking about the organisation phenomena, and
to recognize how different attitudes, value and beliefs affect the workplace.
Though, it can be said that the
basic assumption, values and norms drive practices and behaviours. Hence when a
culture is created it becomes a driving force for the shape and scope of the
organisation. Any organisation, may it be profit oriented or not-for-profit,
the most vital asset is its employees. And for these organisations to maximize
their assets, they should manage the employees’ working condition with
intelligence and efficiency (Ulrich 1998).
They must be allowed to be involved in making work-related decisions to
further enhance the organisational structure (Delaney & Huselid 1996).
Furthermore, the structure of tasks
among the employees strengthens the organisational performance (
According to Barbeschi (2002), the
process of making an organisation is simultaneously the growth and maintenance
of relationships among individuals who are working towards a common goal and
the actual accomplishment of tasks, individually and collectively. In any
organisation, there exist two dimensions (Barbeschi 2002). The technical dimension includes
elements that are generally visible but hard to decipher like the control
systems (recruitment mechanisms, administrative rules and procedures, etc.),
structures (departments and divisions and physical facilities), and techniques
and procedures (performance, working methods).
The cultural/political dimension is
more intangible and strategic in nature. It includes rituals and myths, symbols
and games. Due to the common behaviour, an internal integration within the
organization is developed. In a sense, all cultural learning reflects the
original values of individuals and their sense of what ought to be as distinct
from what is.
Likewise, people's thoughts,
feelings, and actions affect the organizations in which they work. The central
problems in organisational behaviour are influenced by changes in organizations
themselves (Goodman & Whetten 1997). Contemporary organizations are
changing, and the field of organizational behaviour is changing with them
(Miles & Creed 1995).
Description of the Processes
Given the challenges of managing
complexity and internal resistance to change, the task of managers during the
implementation of change can be very difficult indeed. Where significant change
is involved, effective management is required. The challenge to understanding
management becomes one of identifying effective management behavior in the
context of the organizational turbulence stirred up in the change process. In
order to cope with and manage the challenges posed by organisational change,
managers at any level should perform a variety of roles.
Mintzberg
(1973) states that a role is a set
of certain behavioral rules associated with a concrete organization or post. He
also noted that roles does not exist in isolation, by means of every manager
they are mutually dependent and interconnected in such a manner that they
permit to depict the nature of managerial activities taking into consideration
the grade of managers and the specificity of production procedures (Mintzberg
1979).
The interpersonal roles are primarily
concerned with interpersonal relationships while the informational roles are
concerned with the information aspects of managerial work. On the other hand,
the unique access to information places the manager at the center of
organizational decision-making.
Organizational Change
Organisational
change can and has been classified in various ways, the approaches to change
can be distinguished by their concentration on individual, group and
organisation wide issues (Burnes 1996). This leads to two main approaches of
change management: planned change and emergent change (Burnes 1996). As the market becomes increasingly globalise,
change becomes more pervasive, and businesses are now entering into a new phase
in which sustainable business performance is perceived. There is no doubt that the flow of capital
and economic activity around the globe is extremely powerful and increasing,
and business need to adapt for those changes to survive. Thus there is considerable disagreement
regarding the most appropriate approach to change, according to Burnes (1996)
neither planned approach or emergent approach is suitable for all change
situations. Thus there are several
methods that can help analyse organisational change.
Doherty and
Horne (2002) suggest four types of changes (see Table 1) that help to shape the
way public and private organisations operates. These organisations argue that
most changes have been driven by technological factors which have a strong
influence on other environmental factors i.e. economic, political and social
factors.
Table: 1 : Types of
Change
|
Speed |
LITTLE |
BIG |
|
SLOW |
Emergent |
Transitional |
|
FAST |
Incremental |
Transformations |
Source:
(Doherty and Horne 2002, p32)
Fundamental organisational change
represents discontinuity as described by Gundy’s third type of change
“discontinuous change” (in Senior 2002). It is a long-term, complex and
uncertain notion inasmuch as an organisation’s culture is the amalgamation of
its people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. The notion of managing
organisational change consists of five major areas that need to be heeded
whenever any change is considered in an organisation: organisational culture,
change models, change strategies, The Cultural Web, and resources and
competitive advantage (Ellis & William 1998)
Change normally arises from an
organisation’s corporate culture’s misfits with the external environment of
which can cause difficulties or even prevent a change of external focus to take
place. Change by drastic action, a
revolutionary change or what described by Senior (2002) as “frame-breaking
change” is discontinuous and often forced on the organisation or mandated by
top management. A phenomenon that occurs suddenly but more often than not
requires time, commitment and the patience to endure (Meyerson 2001), is a
necessary condition for a fundamental attempt for strategic change (Ellis and
Williams 1995).
Duphy and Stace (in Senior 2002)
categorised change in 4 types: (1) Fine Tuning: ongoing process; (2)
Incremental Adjustment: distinct
modifications but not radical change; (3) Modular Transformation: Radical
change focus on subparts of the organisation; and (4) Corporate Transformation:
revolutionary change thought-out the whole organisation.
Another
classification suggests two distinct fundamental process of change: planned
change and emergent change (Senior 2002).
Planned change is commonly considered as the process suggested by
Organisation Development (OD) (Cummings & Worley 2001). There are three
major theories of planned change a) Lewin’s change model b) action resource
model and C) contemporary action research.
Moreover the planned approach
initiates form inside the organisation to deal with environmental demands and
the change process is sequential (Burnes 1996). Whereas emergent change stemmed
from continuous improvement and learning organisation theory. This approach
initiates opportunity in ongoing activity within the organisation and it is
seen as driven by “bottom-up” process (Burnes 1996).
However the two approaches appear
to have some striking similarities (Burnes 1996). The distinction between them
is not cut-off (Senior 2002) and both approaches share common difficulties. The
planned change assumes organisation that operates in stable environment (Burnes
1996). It heavily focuses on management view or the “single view” (Senior
2002). On the other hand, the emergent approach assumes organisation that
operates in turbulent environment. This approach has a little control over its
environment (see Figure 1).
Roles and Perspectives of the Key
Players
Effective implementation and
management of significant organizational change is an elusive process. The
sheer complexity of organizational systems can often lead to unpredictable and
detrimental outcomes. For example, in his book on managing strategic change,
Tichy (1983) likened organizations to a rope containing three primary strands:
a technical, a political, and a cultural strand. The many fibers that make up
these larger strands add to the overall complexity of the system. Tichy (1983)
suggests that when significant change occurs within organizational systems, if
it is not managed properly, the organization itself, like a rope, can unravel.
Furthermore, it has long been recognized that change is often met with considerable
resistance from within the changing organization (Lewin, 1947; Kotter and
Schlesinger, 1979). Thus, in addition to the complexity involved in managing
organizational change, various opposing elements within the organization will
frequently work against the change attempt, actually inviting failure rather
than promoting success.
Given the challenges of managing
complexity and internal resistance to change, the task of the top executive
during the implementation of change can be very difficult indeed. Where
significant change in involved, effective leadership, in the sense of the
classic distinction between "managers" who pursue maintenance and
"leaders" who embrace and facilitate the "new," seems to be
required (Zaleznick, 1977). Understanding leadership in this context, though,
is quite difficult, at least in part because managers enact their own beliefs
about leadership, and action coming from these beliefs may or may not
contribute to the success of a change effort. The challenge to understanding executive
leadership becomes one of identifying effective leadership behavior in the
context of the organizational turbulence stirred up in the change process, and
distinguishing that behavior from any preconceived theories of effective
leadership held either by the executive leader or the researcher.
Moreover, in Leading at the Edge of
Chaos, Conner (1998) contends that what is required to manage torrential change
today is a menu of change-leadership styles. Based upon two decades of
research, he has isolated six distinct leadership styles related to change:
Anti- change, Rational, Panacea, Bolt-on, Integrated, and Continuous. Concurrently,
each leadership styles "represents a unique set of perceptions, attitudes,
and behaviors regarding how organizational disruption should be addressed"
(Conner, 1998, p. 148).
Conner (1998) argues that for
leaders and students of the change process, each style postures a pivotal
lesson. For example, the "key lesson for the Anti- change leader is how to
avoid as many fluctuations as possible." In tandem, the Rational leader is
"focused on how to contain change with logic and linear execution."
For the Panacea leader, the "solution to disruption problems is found
within such things as communication and motivational training." Similarly,
the "Bolt-on leader is trying to learn how to regain a sense of control by
attaching change management techniques to projects on a discretionary
basis." Meanwhile, the Integrated leader is "searching for ways to
use the structure and discipline of Human Due Diligence as individual change
projects are addressed." Finally, the Continuous leader is attempting to
leverage agility into a strategic asset "to increase adaptation capacity
and reduce unnecessary implementation demands" (p.186).
In collaboration, Conner (1998)
would assert that this menu of leadership styles must be viewed in relationship
to the "two basic types of change that leaders address within
organizational settings. First-order change is incremental in nature and
reflects movement that is more or less already taking place. Second-order change
is nonlinear in nature and reflects movement that is fundamentally different
from anything seen before within the existing framework" (pp. 148-49).
Pointedly, first-order change is common to the first four leadership styles
"which pursue change (if at all) by extrapolating from past
experience" (Conner, 1998, p. 149). In contrast, "second-order change
requires shifting context; it represents a substantial variation in substance
and form that discontinues whatever stability existed before" (Conner,
1998, p. 149) Thus, it is common to the last two change - leadership styles:
Integrated and Continuous.
Critical Analysis and Evaluation
A leader recognises that
organisations must continually adapt to meet changing needs and circumstance.
The astute leader will anticipate and see opportunities for change instead of
sticking to a situation that is no longer working. She will also ensure that
the change will further the mission and aims of the organisation. There should
be a balanced approach between maintaining the status quo, which may be working
quite well, and innovation, which involves flexibility as well as a degree of
risk.
Management in conditions of
uncertainty and change requires understanding the process and the effects of change
in organisations. This knowledge underpins the skills of leaders who are
implementing change. Jorde Bloom et al. (1991) identify the components of the
organisational system as the external environment, people, structure,
processes, culture, and outcomes. Change in one component will affect another.
External change may affect structure or staffing or funding. Internal change,
such as a new staff member, may affect the program or the culture of the
centre. Outcomes will show how positive or negative the change has been. A
leader must be
able to consider the balance of the
pieces that make up the big picture.
Jorde Bloom believes that lasting change
must involve people, structure,
and processes.
Good management of change requires
development of strategies that recognise and support the needs of those who
must implement the change. They must be able to take ownership and make it
work. Change involves people in thinking about their work and themselves in new
ways--hopefully in more positive and effective ways. To achieve this, the
leader must make the aims and values of the organisation clear to the staff.
She provides the vision, and the encouragement and support to strive for the change.
Learning is an integral part of the
change process. Leaders need to plan for the necessary learning that change
entails. In the language of the national competency standards, people in change
situations may need to learn new skills and knowledge, to behave and think
differently, and adjust their attitudes. Greenman (1987) points out that `if
learning resulted easily in change, we would all be thin, fit, relaxed, active
listeners; our parachutes would be packed and we would be generally delightful
souls' (p.4). In fact, learning to adapt to change requires persistence and
support. The elements of competence are good strategies for guiding staff
through change with an emphasis on motivation, communication and participation.
Time and stress management are essential skills in managing change. Time
management is enhanced by prioritising tasks and delegating appropriately. The
stress of change may result in feelings of ambiguity about roles and
responsibilities. Staff may feel overloaded as they try to adjust to the change.
Role conflict may result from sudden change when new expectations have not been
clarified and different expectations come from a variety of sources.
Understanding the causes of stress and striving for balance and control, will
be able to aid in effectively managing stress and its effects.
Conclusions and Lessons Personal
Learnt
Upon the implementation of change,
managers from different departments should become aware of their roles: their
roles are not confined within the walls of their office. The new organisation
requires managers to have multiple roles to improve the company unit’s pr4oductivity
and efficiency.
Adapting
to the new organisational environment is a source of ongoing tension and energy
in recent organisational change research. Many organisations are already
adjusting to the new environment. The challenge is to gain acceptance of
continuous change throughout the organisation so that the new organisation will
be able to carry out positive cultural environment.
Typically there are strong resistances to change, as employees are
afraid of the unknown. Many employees think things are already just fine and do
not understand the need for change. There are those who are inherently cynical
about change; they feel that there are no effective means to accomplish major organizational
change. Another reason why organisational change is very difficult to manage is
because it often goes against the very values held dear by members in the
organisation. That's why there is indeed a need to address changes in the
culture of the organisation, including changes in members' values and beliefs
and in the way they enact these values and beliefs.
Successful change must involve first line and middle management who
initially instigate the change by being visionary, persuasive and consistent. A
change agent role is usually responsible to translate the vision to a realistic
plan and carry out the plan. Change is usually best carried out as a team-wide
effort. Further, communications about the change should be frequent and with
all organization members. The best approach to address resistances is through
increased and sustained communications and education. A plan should be
developed and communicated. Forums should be held for organization members to
express their ideas for the plan. They should be able to express their concerns
and frustrations as well.
Moreover, the author recommends that managers should be aware of the
nature of their organisational culture in order for them to determine what
aspects of the organisation need to be evaluated. It is also very important to
understand the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that prevalent in the working
environment. In successfully coping and managing changes, managers should
broaden their roles.
Bibliography,
Sources and References
Barbeschi, M.(
2002), Organizational culture of the OPCW Secretariat. Disarmament Forum, 4, 46-53.
Bloom,
Jorde, Sheerer, P. & Britz, J.
(1991) Blueprint for Action: Achieving Centre-based Change through Staff
Development.
Burnes, B. (1996),
Managing Change, 2nd Ed.
Conner, D.
R. (1998) Leading at the edge of chaos.
Cummings,
T.G. Worley C.G. (2001), Essential of
Organization Development and Change.
Delaney,
J.T., and Huselid, M.A. (1996), The
Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational
Performance,
Doherty,
T.L. and Horne, T. (2002), Managing
Public Services.
Dunphy D. (1996),
Organizational change in corporate setting. Human
Relation, 49(5), 541-52
Ellis, T and
Williams, D. (1995), International
Business Strategy Prentice Hall.
Goodman P.
S. & Whetten D. A.( 1997), Fifty
years of organizational behavior from multiple perspectives. In A Half
Century of Challenge and Change in Employment Relations, ed. M Nenfeld, J
McKelvey.
Greenman, J.
(1987) Some things to keep in mind while trying to change the world, general
motors or your child care program. Child Care Information Exchange, May, 3-7.
Kotter, J.P.
and Schlesinger,
Lewin, K.
(1947) "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp.
5-41
Meyerson,
D.E. (2001), Radical Change the
Miles, R. E.
and, Creed, W. E. D. (1995), Organizational
forms and managerial philosophies. In Research in Organizational Behavior,
ed. LL Cummings, BM Staw, 17:333-72.
Mintzberg, H.
(1973), The nature of managerial work.
Mintzberg,
H. (1979), The structuring of
organizations: A synthesis of the research.
Rainey,
H.G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999), Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of
a Theory of Effective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, pp1-32.
Senior, B. (2002), Organisational Change, 2nd Ed.
Zaleznick,
A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders; Are They Different?" Harvard
Business Review, May-June pp. 67-78.
No comments:
Post a Comment