Innovation in organizational structure - Essay Example

Introduction: Innovation or change in organizational structure has become a very important field of study. A number of case studies have been conducted, empirical models have been made, appreciative analyses formal theories have also been developed. Innovation can be described as a process of creating value, which can be resulted from changing the composition of a set of variables describing any particular system, or to be said more clearly innovation is an outcome of the process that brings about a number of changes in a set of variables. A number of theories and models have been developed which describe the process of innovation and change in organization. For the time being focus will be placed on four important theories or models including Lewin’s model of change, action research model, Shewhart’s cycle , and finally model of appreciative inquiry. At the end of this paper an comparison would be made considering the McGregor theory of X and Y. (Miner, 2005). Four important models of innovation and change: First of all Lewin’s model of change will be discussed. Then focus will be turned on , action research model, Shewhart’s cycle , and model of appreciative inquiry, respectively. Lewin’s model of change: Lewin talked about three stages of change that are still the basis of many approaches regarding innovation in many organization. These stages are unfreeze, transition and refreeze. People generally exhibit a tendency of seeking a context in which they can feel safe and a sense of control. they try to establish themselves by attaching their sense of identity to their environment. This develops a comfortable stasis from which any alternatives, even those which may offer significant benefit, will cause enormous discomfort. Therefore, whenever we talk about future, it seldom seems to be enough to move them from this frozen state and huge effort is required to unfreeze them and get them moving. This is usually done by ‘push methods’ to get them moving, and then ‘pull methods’ is used to keep them going. The term change ready refers to those people who are unfrozen and ready to take the next step. Some people are found to come ready for change whilst others take a longer time to let go of their comfortable current realities. (Schein, 1992) Now let us move onto the second stage. An important part of Lewins model is that he described change as a journey rather than a simple step. It is not necessary that the journey would be simple, the person may need to go through several complicated stages, he may have to face several misunderstanding before he gets to the other side. A classic catch in change can be described as a phenomenon where leaders spend months on their own personal journeys and then expect everyone else to cross the gap in a single leap. Transitioning phase is time consuming. Leadership is often considered to be important and when changes occur in whole organizations, it is quite likely that the one-eyed person is the king. In the phase of transition ,some form of training, counseling or other psychological support can often be proved to be very helpful. This stage seems to be hard for the individual, and often it is found that the hardest part is to start. Even when a person is unfrozen and ready for change, that first step can be very scary. Transition can , however, also be a pleasant phase where people become comfortable in temporary situations where they are not answerable for the hazards of any normal work and where talking about change may be substituted for real action. (Schein, 1992) Now, after passing the transition phase, the final goal is to refreeze by establishing the new form of stability. In reality, refreezing seems to be a bit slow process. the reason is that transitions, in most of the occasion, does not stop cleanly. Refreezing, however, go more in fits and starts with a long tail of bits and pieces. These can be good as well as bad. In modern type of organizations, this stage is often rather uncertain since very often the next change may well be found to be around the next corner. If this is so, then what is often encouraged is more of a state of slushiness where freezing is never really achieved. This, however, seems to be dangerous. The danger with this that many organizations have found people to fall into a state of change shock, particularly where they work at a low level of efficiency. (Schein, 1992) Action research model: It is a reflective process of progressive problem solving. In this process a person in an organisation works with others members of that organisation as a team or as part of a community of practice for improving the way the organisation addresses issues and solve problems. Larger organizations or institutions can also undertake action research for making innovative strategies, practices, and improving knowledge of the environments within which they operate. Action research is very often described as a cyclical process of change where the cycle starts with a number of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent. The chief components of this stage are a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. This stage can be defined as the input phase, in which the client becomes aware of unidentified problems, realizes the need of outside help for effecting changes, and seeks information from the consultant regarding the process of problem diagnosis. Then starts the second stage which can be described as the action, or transformation, phase. In this stage a number of actions relating to processes of learning and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization is undertaken . In this stage action-planning activity is carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. The third stage, on the other hand is the output, or results phase in which actual changes in behavior take place resulting from corrective action steps that follow the second stage. Data gathering is again done from the client system for determining and making necessary adjustments in learning activities where minor adjustments are made in via Feedback mechanism and major adjustments and reevaluations would return to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the program. (Lewin, 1946) The action-research model generally follows Lewins repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also reflects similarities with other aspects of Lewins general model of change. For example, the planning stage can be described as a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness, the action stage as a period of changing or trying out new forms of behavior in an attempt to understand and cope with the systems problems and the results stage as a period of refreezing, in which newer forms of behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the systems problem-solving behavior. Action research is generally problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. In this process data are not simply used to compile a written report but they are actually fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent work jointly for identifying and ranking specific problems, for devising methods of finding their real causes, and to develop plans for coping with them practically. Scientific method that includes data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results is an integral part of this process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the clients system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for introducinbg changes. (Lewin, 1946) Shewhart Cycle or PDSA: It can be described as an problem-solving process involving four statges. It is generally used in quality control. A fundamental principle of PDSA (plan-do-study-act), is iteration, that is, once an hypothesis is negated, executing the cycle again will extend the knowledge further. Repeating the PDSA cycle can bring organisation closer to its goal, usually a goal of making perfect operation and output. Today rate of change or rate of improvement is considered to be the principal competitive factor. Model of PDSA allows for major jumps or breakthroughs in performance as well as frequent small improvements in performance. In the United States it is generally found that a PDSA approach of innovation or change is typically associated with a large project involving sufficient amount of peoples time, and thus managers exhibit their desire to see large breakthrough improvements for justifying the effort they have expended. However, PDSA can be applied to all sorts of projects and improvement activities. (Miner, 2005). Model of Appreciative Inquiry (AI): Model of Appreciative Inquiry can be decribed as an organizational development process or philosophy that involves individuals within an organizational system in the process of renewal, change and focused performance. The process of Appreciative Inquiry was initially adopted from work done by earlier theorists and practitioners, and then it was further developed by David Cooperrider of Case Western Reserve University. It is now widely used in the evaluation of organizational development strategy , for the implementation of changes or innovation and the implementation of organizational effectiveness tactics. Appreciative Inquiry is a 4-stage proceedure focusing on discover- The identification of organizational processes thatexhibit good performance ,dream- the envisioning of processes that can be expected to work efficiently in the future, design- adopting plans and prioritizing processes that would work well, and finally destiny or deliver- The execution of the proposed design. The basic idea behind this appreciative inquiry process is to build organizations around what works, rather than trying to fix what doesnt. It is quite different from the problem solving processes. Instead of placing its emphasis on idebtifying what is wrong, AI puts is focus on how to create more of what is already working in an efficient way. The approach encourages significant the contribution of individuals with an aim to augment trust and organizational association. This process aims at creating meaning by drawing from stories of concrete successes and lends itself to cross-industrial social activities. This method seems to be enjoyable and natural to many managers, who are often found to as sociable people. (Barrett, 1995) Conclusion: Now it is possible to make a comparison betwwen McGragor theory X and Y and these four theories. McGregors theory X management assumes employees to be inherently lazy and therefore, needed closesupervision. According to this theory, employees exhibit little ambition without an attractive incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. On the other hand theory Y assumes employees to be ambitious, self-motivated, eager to accept greater responsibility, and exercise self-control, self-direction, autonomy and empowerment. Similarities can be found between theory X and Lewin’s change model and action research model where employees have to be pushed to move forward by the leaders for adopting changes. And the last two of the four methods show some similarities with theory Y where employees take part in the process of innovation willingly and with lot of energy and built sufficient trust and bond among themselves and with leaders to work together for bringing changes. (Miner, 2005). References 1. Barrett, F. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organizational Dynamics Vol. 24. 36-49. 2. Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. The journal of social issues. 2(4): 34-46 3. Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. 4. Schein, E. H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2d. Ed. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass. Read More