Different Perspectives On Change Within Organisations - Case Study Example

Different Perspectives On Change Within Organisations 1. Introduction One of the key priorities of organizations worldwide is the increase of their competitiveness towards their rivals. Various methods and strategies are used in order for the above target to be achieved. On the other hand, the failures that periodically appear in various organizational operations cause delays in the successful completion of a firm’s projects. Plans of changes need to be available ensuring the appropriate alternation of organizational policies so that they can become more effective – either in the short or the long term. However, the forms of change as part of the organizational activity are not standardized; they are likely to be differentiated under the influence of the internal and external organizational environment and the business goals and vision. The different perspectives on change within organizations are critically discussed in this paper. Emphasis is given on the reasons of this phenomenon but also on the role of the members of organization in the potential expansion of the problem. It is concluded that change, as an element of the organizational environment is unavoidable; in fact, in many cases, organizational change is quite necessary in order to enhance the organizational performance. However, the development of extensive disputes in regard to the change management practices used within organizations could result to severe organizational crisis. 2. Change in modern organizations 2.1 Description of organizational change In the context of organizational environment, the term change is used in order to describe a wide range of issues (activities and ideas); in certain cases, the above term is combined with other terms in order to make its role clear; an indicative example is term ‘consistency of change’ (Bradford et al. 2005, p.196), a term used in order to show that the suggestions included in the plan of change which is currently in progress are likely to be applicable in the long term, i.e. they would not be updated for quite a long period of time. Regarding the role of change in modern organizations, it is noted that currently the term change is used in order to reflect the transformation of organizational characteristics like ‘culture, values, norms and technology’ (Bradford et al. 2005, p.196). Another important characteristic of organizational change is that it is likely to be promoted within each organization using different techniques; an indicative example is the ‘unfreeze-change-refreeze model’ (Holbeche 2006, p.234) which is based on the principle that in order for a plan of change to be successfully implemented within a particular organization it would be necessary to delete primarily the mechanisms which prevent the development of change within the organization, then the change can be implemented and the deleted mechanisms could be re-established – or, alternatively, new ones could be established taking into consideration the changes in the organizational operations because of the implementation of the relevant plan of change. At this point, reference could be made to the study of Weick and Quinn (1999) who referred to ‘the episodic change – the change which occurs at specific points of time – and the continuous change – a process which is likely to take place continuously’ (Anderson 2009, 62) – or at least, at such frequency that there can be no issue of episodic change. In terms of the time of its implementation, a plan of change need to be carefully reviewed; this issue is highlighted in the study of Holbeche (2006) where it is noted that if changes are not introduced on time within a particular organization, i.e. immediately when relevant organizational needs are identified, then this delay would result to the need for major changes in the future (Holbeche 2006, 5); in other words, organizational changes cannot be avoided; they can be only delayed. One of the key requirements of organizational change is the support of relevant plans by the members of the organization; however, in case that the views in regard to the modes of change necessary for a specific organization are highly differentiated, then severe delays could be caused to the change process. Jacobs (1994) that organizational change would not be attempted without ensuring the consent of the members of the organization; in a different case, the risk for the failure of the attempted plan of change is high. The support of plans of change by the members of the organization would result to the following benefit: emergent organizational problems would be appropriately addressed by introducing relevant changed – since there is the agreement of all members of the organization to promote the relevant plan, then no risk of delay in the plan’s implementation would exist (Jacobs 1994, 356); under these terms, plans of changes that could meet the requirements of any organizational problem would be introduced in a quite short period of time – in fact, provision could exist in the firm’s strategic framework for real time strategic change plans, i.e. plans of change that could run automatically in case that a specific organizational problem appears (Jacobs 1994, 356). 2.2 Perspectives on change within organizations In order to explain why different perspectives on change exist in modern organizations it is necessary to understand the perspectives on change, which are likely to be developed in organizations worldwide. In case that differentiations are identified among these perspectives, appropriate justifications can be used in order to explain the specific phenomenon – taking into consideration the fact that organization change is a term that can be related to different priorities and aims – as it can also be derived by the description of this term as presented in section 2.1 above. At this point, the role of the members of the organization (for instance, employees, executives, CEO) in the success of the changes attempted within a particular organization should be highlighted – reference is made to the role of each particular member of the organization as part of the organizational environment. Within organizations the perspectives on change are likely to be differentiated – in accordance with the issue addressed each time – for instance, there is ‘the content perspective’ (Burke 2010, 189), which refers to the policy/structure/idea that needs to be changed responding to the question ‘what to change’ (Burke 2010, 189); moreover, there is ‘the prosess perspective’ (Burke 2010, 189) which refers to the process that needs to be adopted in order for the required plan of change to be successfully implemented. The above perspectives on change are expected to be differentiated in accordance with the following criteria: a) the structure of the organization – reference is made to the organizational hierarchy and the distribution of tasks; in this context, in organizations which are highly bureaucratic, the perspectives on change are expected to be rather negative compared to those organizations where innovation and employee participation in strategic decisions are highly promoted; in the organizations of the last category, the development of changes within the organization is not likely to face resistance, b) the availability of resources; in organizations where the resources – referring mostly to employees and technology – available for the realization of the plans of change are not adequate, the perspectives on change would focus on the ‘process’ part of the relevant plans, i.e. they would focus on potential existence of processes which can be supported by existing organizational resources, c) the relevant practices of the competitors and d) the personal perceptions and the background of the persons involved – meaning the employees, CEO and all firm’s associates who are likely to be involved in many organizational projects becoming part of the organizational environment. On the other hand, the perspectives on change within organizations are expected to be differentiated in accordance with the following criterion: whether the change has occurred necessarily, i.e. it has resulted because of an event in the external organizational environment or it was planned; within a particular organization the term ‘planned change’ is used in order to show ‘a plan of change which has been designed (prepared) by the members of the above organization’ (Cummings et al. 2008, p.23); the above researchers note that, most commonly, the term change within organizations is related to the planned change – as explained above. From another point of view, a clear distinction should be made between the changes imposed by the market – which are expressed as ‘demand for change’ (Bradford et al. 2005, 81) and those changes that are promoted across a particular organization in order for the organization to make appropriate use of an opportunity appeared in the local or the international market (Bradford et al. 2005, 81). The plan of change of the first category is obligatory where the one mentioned in the second category is optional; the firm’s managers can decide whether they would be willing to invest on the proposed plan of change. It should be noted that the development of change within organization is not always welcomed; this is an issue, which has been extensively examined in the literature in terms of its effects on organizational performance. Towards this direction, it has been supported that each organization should be structured in advance in such way so that it can be open to changes; this means that organizational culture and ethics would allow changes – up to a limit – so that there would be no chance for opposing forces (referring to the forces that resist to the attempted changes) to be developed (Holbeche 2006, 234). On the other hand, the development of ‘a balance between the forces that support the change and those that resist to the change’ (Holbeche 2006, 234); the above suggestion is included in a framework also known as the ‘force field analysis framework’ of Lewis (as presented in Holbeche 2006, 234). 2.3 Reasons for the existence of different perspectives on change within organizations The perspectives on change – as explained above – show a variety of differences and contradictions. Many reasons would be identified for justifying the particular phenomenon: a) the views and perceptions of the members of organizations worldwide cannot be quite similar; in fact, they are likely to be differentiated under the influence of the following factors: a1) the personal experiences of each person, a2) his educational and social background, a3) his social environment – referring mostly to family and friends; b) it is possible that each time reference is made to a different part/ need of the organization; the perspectives on change will be different in accordance with the need addressed for instance, the introduce of changes which will make the promotion of employees easier would have the support of the employees while a plan of change aiming to increase the firm’s profitability by decreasing the firm’s employees – i.e. by reducing the costs of the organization’s operations would lead to strong turbulences within the organization; this would be a plan of change that it could not be not accepted by the member of the organization. In the literature, the development of differences in regard to the perspectives on change has been explained using different approaches; in accordance with Holbeche (2006) it is possible that different views are developed among the team members of a particular organization in regard to a series of attempted changes; it is noted that the above differences usually result from ‘political sensitivities between the top team members’ (Holbeche 2006, 234); in this way, the discussion on the changes required within the organization is not developed under the fear that the climate of cooperation and communication between the top team members will be severely deteriorate. On the other hand, the conditions in the internal organizational environment need to favour the introduction of plans of change; this view is promoted through the study of Yaeger et al. (2006) where emphasis is given on the appropriateness of a change process for the organization in which the particular initiative is attempted; reference is also made to the theory of Harzing and Hofstede (1996) who supported that organizations which operate in different countries are likely to present different level of performance in regard to their organizational change projects; the example of Scandinavian countries is mentioned by the above researchers as an indication of the fact mentioned above. In firms operating in the Scandinavian countries ‘the low power distance, low uncertainty and the high feminine values result to low resistance to change’ (Harzing and Hofstede, 1996, in Yaeger et al. 2006, 62). In accordance with the above view, the perspectives on change within organizations are influenced by the cultural and social characteristics in which each organization operates. The existence of differences regarding the perspectives on change within organizations would be explained by referring to the characteristics of the plans of change – as initiated in most organizations worldwide: in this context, it is possible that changes are planned or unplanned, they can refer only ‘to modifications of existing organizational practices rather than introducing totally new practices - first – order and second – order changes accordingly (Anderson 2009, 61); there are also changes which are based on the perception of the organization as a system – in opposition with other changes which refer to the organization ‘from a social construction perspective’ (Anderson 2009, 61); the above approaches and criteria, if used, lead to different perspectives on changes within organizations. Burke et al. (2008) use a similar approach for justifying the existence of different perspectives on change within organizations; in accordance with the above researchers, organizational processes change gradually but continuously following the principles of the nature where everything is continuously changed (Burke et al. 2008, 144). However, in the case of organizational change, there is, additionally, the following issue: apart from the change that occurs gradually there is also the change that occurs suddenly (Burke et al. 2008, 144); the latter can be the result of an unexpected event in the external organizational environment – taking into consideration the fact that within organization there are provisions for any potential emergent situation, so unexpected events – for organizations – can exist only in the external organizational environment. In the above case, the differences in the perspectives on change within organizations would be explained by referring to the different structure and characteristics of the internal and the external organizational environment; the conditions of the former can be highly estimated – helping to the introduction of appropriate risk management practices; on the other hand, the external organizational environment cannot be precisely evaluated in advance; effective measures in regard to emergent events cannot be taken. On the other hand, Yaeger et al. (2006) note that the differences in the perspectives on change within organizations are resulted because of the different views among employees regarding the management of daily organizational operations. The above view introduces a different description of the internal organizational environment – as Burke et al. (2008) above; in accordance with Yaeger et al. (2006) the internal organizational environment is neither stable nor easy to be understood and evaluated – mostly because of the existence of continuous conflicts among the members of the organization. Through the specific point of view, the differences in the perspectives on change would be limited by promoting communication and cooperation among employees in various organizational departments. 3. Conclusion The examination of the elements of change as part of modern organizations has led to the conclusion that the conditions under which change is promoted across organizations are not standardized; each firm is likely to establish its own set of rules regarding the implementation of changes related to various organizational activities. On the other hand, it has been made clear that organizational change cannot be easily controlled; apart from the fact that organizational change can be external – resulted from the environment – or planned, there are also other facts that can justify the difficulties in controlling changes within organizations. These facts have been analytically presented above. Emphasis has been given on the role of the members of the organization in the successful implementation of plans of change within their organization; however, it has been proved that the members of each organization can highly affect the level of acceptance of change within the specific organization. In accordance with the above, the existence of different perspectives on change within organizations would be regarded as the rule rather than the exception. In any case, change is an indispensable part of organizational environment; when plans of change are to be implemented within a specific organization it would be useful to study in advance the needs and the potentials/ resources of the above organization making sure that there would be no severe obstacles to the completion of the procedure. Of course, the potential existence of different perspectives on the changes attempted would not be avoided; however, it would be necessary to take a series of relevant measures in advance ensuring that the differences in the perspectives on change within the particular organization will not cause severe delays in the development of the relevant projects. The active support of employees would be quite valuable for the success of the above initiative. References Anderson, D. (2009) Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change. SAGE Bradford, D., Burke, W. (2005) Reinventing organization development: new approaches to change in organizations. John Wiley and Sons Burke, W. (2010) Organization Change: Theory and Practice. SAGE Burke, W., Lake, D., Paine, J. (2008) Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader. John Wiley and Sons Cummings, T., Worley, C. (2008) Organization development & change. Cengage Learning Holbeche, L. (2006) Understanding change: theory, implementation and success. Butterworth-Heinemann Holbeche, L. (2005) The high performance organization: creating dynamic stability and sustainable success. Butterworth-Heinemann Jacobs, R. (1994) Real time strategic change: how to involve an entire organization in fast and far-reaching change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Yaeger, T., Sorensen, P. (2009) Strategic organization development: managing change for success. IAP Yaeger, T., Head, T., Sorensen, P. (2006) Global Organization Development - Managing Unprecedented Change. IAP Read More