How Organizations Change toward a High-Reliability Culture - Essay Example

How Organizations Change Towards a High Reliability Culture How Organizations Change Toward a High Reliability Culture Introduction Currently, enterprises are facing a drastically changing external environment. Factors such as changes in customer demands, market competition, and technological innovation depicts that modern enterprises are situated in a dynamic changing era. Thus, it forces enterprises to make significant changes. Failure to make change the enterprises are likely to fall. However, several enterprises fail in implementing change because they lack the understanding that organizational change is based on cultural shift. Reliability influences cultural change. Besides, enterprises are geared towards achieving high reliability culture. In a high reliability organization, there is psychological inertia, thinking inertia and behavioral habits of most employees (Verweij, 2011). Thus, any organizational change has to consider encouraging cultural reliability. The essay tends to study how organizations change toward a high reliability culture, that is, a culture that has systems in place that enables organization to accomplish its goals and avoid catastrophic errors. High reliability organizations A high reliability organization is an institution that has succeeded in avoiding catastrophes in an ecosystem where accidents are expected because of complexity and risk factors. Besides, it refers to the internal efficient management mechanism and investigation on early warning mechanism of safety (Stacey, 2011). Reliability culture entails the use of behavioral science theory of human beings to plan, organize, distribute, lead and control their behaviors to increase the safety and reliability of organizations. High reliability organizations mainly focus on risk management that originates from organizational demand on risk mitigation model (Von, 2008). The risk reduction model applies to organizations in which certain changes can create catastrophes. The risk mitigation model masters the complexity and risk factors in organizations effectively. For instance, the model applies to aviation and aerospace fields, aircraft control system, nuclear power plant, medical industry and fire protection sector. In an analysis of high-risk organizations, the continuous increase of complexity of operation system and interdependence among each part increases (Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, 2011). Organizations with high risk and complexity, the failure of a system would influence the functions of other sections that may cause further catastrophes. Under such background, it is necessary to study how to mitigate risk in high reliability organizations. Therefore, organizations often change to avoid the perils associated with accidents to enhance reliability. High reliability organizations have the following features: first, they do not major on the previous success but instead focus on the future. They are sensitive to their failures and mistakes hence they find solutions to challenges. Second, they respect the ideas of frontline staffs. When employees hold different ideas for one matter, high reliability organizations listen to the ideas of front-line personnel because they are vigilant and proficient in the work practices (Fitzory, Hulbert & Ghobadian, 2012). Third, they find answers in sudden accidents to prevent losing overall thinking ability. Fourth, they actively deal with complexity. Enterprises often face unpredictable and complex conditions hence managers are trained to conduct business and significantly distinguish products and services (Burns, 2009). Most enterprises only pay attention to products, however, customers are also concerned with quality service provision. For instance, HP advocates Experience Economy and e-commerce service, which play important roles in increasing the overall performance of the company hence inducing the reliability culture. Some scholars (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007) introduced an example that fire department used incidents commanding system to deal with emergencies. The results depicted that incidents commanding system increase the flexibility of organizations through structural mechanization and recognition management tools. Other scholars used the questionnaire to do research on San Benandino City CA Fire Department (SBFD) and pointed out that SBFD can enhance the efficiency and safety of emergent operation through introducing the concept of SBFD. Based on the above research results, the scholars proposed the following comments for an organization to change toward a high reliability culture. First, as an organization, SBFD should find methods to introduce the concept of reliability into its operation environment. Thus, both managers and employees have to accept the training of the theory of high reliability culture (Ford, Ford & Amelio, 2008). Second, it should develop an official target system. Third, it should motivate employees in an organization to identify potential mistakes. Fourth, high-level trust is significant for a reward system. Sixth, it should follow the decision made by employees who are proficient and experienced. Seventh, it should advocate and support an environment that undertake multiple. Eighth, the plan should focus on establishing unpredictable events rather than eliminating them, that is, the aim of high reliability organizations is not to eliminate mistakes or accidents. The theory of high reliability organization argues that it is impossible to predict and become ready for every emergency (Grant, 2012). Thus, it emphasizes the use of Strategies to make fast and effective adjustments in a fast changing environment. Evaluation and discussion of how organizations change toward a high reliability culture A high reliability culture is significant for an organization because it enhances effective and efficient accomplishing of goals and avoids potentially catastrophic errors. Organizations change towards high reliability culture in various ways. First, organizations need to be sensitive to operations to achieve reliability culture. Organizational staff should be constantly aware of how system and processes affect the institutions. Employees pay close attention to activities and maintain awareness to what is or is not working. No assumptions are paid. The steady concentration on processes leads to observations that inform new operational initiatives and decision-making. Therefore, organizations become transparent towards being highly reliable. Leaders drive organizational awareness and through data sharing and communication. To achieve high reliability culture, organizations become reluctant to accept simple explanations for problems. Rational and broad excuses are attractive when processes do not work well. High reliability culture resists simplifications. Leaders thus constantly seek information that challenges their beliefs as to why problems exist. Therefore, organizations dig into their metrics, compare data and question explanation that seem reasonable to promote reliability culture. Organizations try to have a preoccupation with failure to initiate the high reliability culture. Employees at every level are encouraged to think of ways their work activities might break down. Employees should share their concerns for potential failures that help create best practices across departments. High reliability institutions de-stigmatize failure and encourage employees to create near misses and focus on processes and safeguards work. In undertaking the reliability culture, organizations lead employees to see that success is achievable and borrow best practices from successful operations. Organizations change towards high reliability culture by deferring to expertise. Leaders need to listen to people who have the most skilled knowledge of the task. In most instances, employees might not have the most seniority but they are still motivated to voice their grievances, ideas and input regardless of hierarchy. Listening to staff by leaders and supervisors about processes and operations within the organization enables the institution to develop a culture of high reliability. Leaders ought to complement their staffs for input to make them better. Organizations adopt ‘no meeting time zones’ so that managers can supervise and receive feedback from employees and other staff hence enhancing high reliability culture within the workplace. In addition, organizations become resilient to achieve the high reliability culture. Leaders should be prepared for how to respond to failures or challenges and progressively find new solutions. Organizations may experience numerous failures but it is their resilience and find problem solving that prevent catastrophes. Effective leadership evaluation enables an organization to develop and maintain a high reliability culture. Besides, characteristics and reliability culture makes an organization to change as followers: first, it is to get ready for organizational change toward a high reliability culture. Cultural inertia, the ability to accept new issues and the anxiety for future uncertainties, creates an obstacle to making a change in high reliability organizations. Thus, it is necessary for high reliability organizations to make full ready for making a change in such organizations, which is divided into the following four contents. The first content is to determine the vision of organizational change. The initial work for making an organizational change toward a high reliability culture is to determine the vision of organizational change. It mainly includes determine the total target of change, get the support of middle-level managers and get an approval of top managers (Fugate, Kinieki & Prussia, 2008). Organizational change needs specific department and employees to implement, thus, it needs to build the team of organizational change. Such team should include a leader and some employees. Subsequently, it is to make the plan of organizational change in high reliability culture (Jorg, Georg & Jochen, 2009). Such a plan should include the work contents, process arrangements, responsibility division, budgets and predictable targets. Next, decision makers of the organizations approve the plan. To make employees own full psychological preparation for an organizational change in high reliability organization, the organization should tell employees about the urgency of the change (Morden, 2012). In many instances, the sense of urgency can make employers change employees’ resistance to support for making change in high reliability organizations. Once essential employees believe that high reliability organizations should make change, these organizations would form internal driving force for making change, which can further be helpful to get success in making change (Newell et al., 2009). Therefore, the agency enhances change toward high reliability culture. Second, opportunities are created to make organizational change in high reliability organization, which mainly includes the analysis of external environment, identification of customers’ demands and determine the orientation of organizational change. In the aspect of the analysis of external environment of high reliability organizations, it can be seen as follows: any organization cannot survive in isolation, but survive and develop in special economic and social environment (Tidd & Bessant, 2009). Changes in the economic environment and social environment are the primary driving forces of organizational changes in high reliability organizations. Thus, looking for the opportunity of organizational change should start from the analysis of external environment of high reliability organizations. The external environment of high reliability organizations is divided into a macro environment and microenvironment. Macro environment entails political environment, economic environment, social environment and technological environment (Burns, 2004). Political environment relates to national political systems, policies and regulations, international relations and political conditions. Economic environment mainly indicates economic system and economic structure, macroeconomic policies, economic conditions and competitive conditions. Social environment includes social structure, social habits, religions and values, behavioral standards and lifestyles, cultural education level and population size and geographic distribution (Belbin, 2010). Technological environment includes the technological level, the development trend and development speed of technology, national technological system, and national technological policies. In the aspect of the identification of customers’ demands of high reliability organizations, it can be portrayed as follows: customers are the final users of the products or services and one of the most important factors in microenvironment of high reliability organizations (Stacey, 2011). Thus, high reliability organizations should use a series of methods and tools to collect the data relates to customers, which includes customers’ characteristics, customers’ preferences, customers’ satisfaction level and customers’ expectations. Therefore, the environments make an organization to have a reliability culture. The major orientations of organizational change of high reliability organizations are divided into the following three kinds: it is flattening, which indicates to enlarge management scope and reduce management levels. Its major advantages are as follows: reduce management cost significantly, be helpful to develop employees’ potential, increase employees’ sense of responsibility, increase the initiation of employees, short the distance between superiors and subordinates and increase the efficiency of decision-making (Von, 2008). Subsequently, its miniaturization that indicates minimizing organizations through outsourcing non-core businesses to outside organizations and concentrate on their core businesses. Next, its flexibility, which depicts focusing employees with different knowledge and abilities together to complete some special task for some time. Then, its virtualization, which indicates that owing to mobile office, scattered labor force and family work have become new work styles, many organizational members are distributed outside of an organizational system. Finally, it is networked, which mainly expresses in following parts: collectivized operation, more close of organizations, chain orientation of operational ways, networked of internal organization and networking of information transmission. Third, it is the diagnosis of organizational problems of high reliability organizations, which includes the analysis of internal environment, the diagnosis of current organizational structure and the identification of the benchmarking of organizational change. The contents of the analysis of internal environment of high reliability organizations include the operational strategy and targets, corporate brand and organizational culture, organizational system and policies. It also involves human resources conditions, financial conditions, research and development ability, equipment and facilities, market competitive positions of products and marketing knowledge. In the aspect of the diagnosis of current organizational structure, it is to make an overall analysis of organizational structure of high reliability organizations to identify existing problems. In general, organizational structure should suit the operational environment of organizations. If market environment, technological development, and customer demand change, the current organizational structure of high reliability organizations would no longer suit the changed operation environment, which would further reduce the efficiency of such organizations. Thus, it is necessary for make diagnosis for high reliability organizations in following parts: first, its functional vacancy. With the change of external operation environment of high reliability organizations, the current functions of an organization would be incapable of covering the new operational activities of organizations. Second, it is the change of functional importance. With market development, customers’ demands for products and services are changing, which would change the significance of some functions (Stacey, 2011). Third, it is the change of operational mechanism. With the change of market demands, the relations among functions, information transmissions, and decision-making ways would all change. In the aspect of identifying the benchmarking of organizational change, it is significant for high reliability organizations to find their scopes between benchmarking in making and improving organizational change Fourth, it is the design of the scheme of organizational change of high reliability organizations, which includes the following four contents. Determining the overall idea of organizational change, designing new organizational form, re-defining job responsibilities and constructing new operational mechanism. In the aspect of determining the overall idea of organizational change, it depicted as follows: fine adjustment, planned transformation, forced transformation and improvement (Morden, 2012). Design of new organizational forms involves the overall idea of organizational change and the existing problems of the high reliability organizations. In addition, organizational staff expresses new ideas. In the aspect of re-defining job responsibilities, it determines the job descriptions of each new positions based on new organizational forms. Constructing new operational mechanism involves fixing activities of each function, systematic functions, and operational philosophy, according to new organizational form. Finally, the implementation of the changed scheme influences organizational change towards reliability culture, which includes the adjustment of organizational structure that allow employees be in place and operates with the new organizational system. It would change the current benefits pattern of high reliability organizations when implementing organizational changes (Von, 2008). Thus, organizations would face resistances from many aspects, such as individual resistance and organizational resistance. If high reliability organizations cannot deal with these resistances, it would cause the instability of organizations. Thus, organizations should take effective solutions to deal with the stability effectively. On the contrary, organizations should overcome resistances to carry out organizational change. High reliability organizations should unify ideas and form common sense to control the instability of organizations as small as possible and ensure the smooth operation of organizational change. Conclusion It is significantly evident on how organizations change toward a high reliability culture as depicted above. A reliability culture is a healthy organizational environment or practice, and most organizations are geared towards obtaining it. A high reliability organization is significant example of an institution that has reliability culture. Such an organization succeeds in avoiding catastrophes in an environment where normal accidents exist. In a bid to change towards high reliability culture, an organization significantly sensitizes its operations, pays critical attention to problems, listen to qualified personnel, and often remain resilient or restlessness. Besides, high reliability organization refers to the internal effective management mechanism and investigation on early warning mechanism of safety. High reliability organizations mainly focus on risk management, which origins from organizational demand on risk mitigation model. The essay portrays critical evaluation on how organizations change toward a high reliability culture. It is depicted as follows: get ready for organizational change toward a high reliability culture, and find the opportunities to make the change in high reliability organization. Diagnosis of organizational problem, the design of the scheme of change of high reliability organizations, and the implementation of the changed scheme of high reliability organizations also creates a high reliability culture in an organization. Word count: 2767 References Belbin, R. M. (2010) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail, Third edition, Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th edn, Harlow:Prentice Hall. Burnes, B. (2009) Managing Change: a strategic approach to organisational dynamics, 5th edn, Harlow: Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Fitzroy, P., Hulbert, J. and Ghobadian, A. (2012) Strategic Management: The Challenge of Creating Value, London: Routledge. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & Amelio, A. D. (2008) ‘Resistance to change: the rest of the story’, Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp.362-377. Fugate, M., Kinieki, A.J. & Prussia, G. E. (2008) ‘Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspective and models’, Personal Psychology, 61(1), pp.1-36. Grant, R.M., Jordan, J., (2012) Foundations of Strategy, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D.A. (2007) Organizational Behavior: An Introductory Text, 6th Edition, Harlow: Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2011) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 9th Edn, Harlow: Prentice Hall. Jorg S., Georg S. and Jochen K. (2009) ‘Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), pp.689-709. Morden, T. (2012) Principles of Strategic Management, 3 edn, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing LTD. Newell, S., Robertson, M. Scarborough, H. and Swan, A.J. (2009).Managing Knowledge Work and Innovation, London: Palgrave. Stacey, R. (2011) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: the challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, London: Pearson Education. Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009).Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, London: Wiley. Verweij, M. (2011) Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Von, S. B. (2008) Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Wiley: West Sussex. Read More