Organizational Concept Worksheet - Essay Example

The theoretical concepts that can be identified from the chapters include: the concepts of Organisational Change, Resistance to Change, Employee Feedback, Employee Rewarding, and Employee MotivationOrganisational ChangeNew ideas in an organisation always emerge from a set of conditions in which old ideas no longer seem to work. When this is the case, there always would be a need for change. This notion to discard old ideas and usher new ones into an organisation probably led Schumpeter (in Mintzberg et al, 1998) to describe organisational change as a process of creative destruction.

But Robinson (2001) reckons that an organisation’s culture, process layout & strategy, and resource configuration weave a corporate immune system that mounts some resistance to this creative destruction. So it can be understood that when new operational processes are implemented in an organisation, it constitutes a process of change. Such changes could border on the purchase of new plant and machinery, training of new employees on how to carry out new tasks This confirms findings from previous research (Bolman and Deal,1999) that two thirds of organisational change efforts meet resistance that make them to bypass the intended goals.

An even dismal figure is revealed by Carr et al (in Smith, 2003) that only 10 percent of orgainsations actually succeeded in institutionalising a new management style or corporate vision , with 90 percent facing vigorous challenges. Such trend has frequently prompted researchers to investigate the challenges to implementing change in an organisation.Resistance to ChangeResistance to change usually comes when employees in that organisation take a contrary stance to a new operating system that needs to be implemented.

One of the greatest challenges (resistance) to implementing systemic change has been identified to be the difficulty to dismantle an existent corporate culture. This corporate culture, as seen by Mintzberg et al (1998) is a shared commitment to beliefs that encourages consistency in an organisation’s behaviour and way of doing things, thereby discouraging changes in strategy. The above view gives support to the work of Kotter and Heskett (see Smith, 2003) who note organisations that have been successful in the past may persist in their cultural values even though these values inhibit the organisation from adapting to a changing business environment.

The persistence in cultural values, according to Lorsch (see Mintzberg, 1998) acts as a prism that blinds managers to opportunities resulting from changing external conditions. Corporate culture therefore implants a system whereby the organisation develops the tendency to adhere to beliefs that have worked in the past, though they may not be working at the time the change is about to be implemented. For instance, a company that has had the historic culture of low cost production to offer its products at low prices may experience a decline in sales because radical technology has enabled a competitor to introduce a totally new product into the market.

Going by the Positioning School of thought (Mintzberg et al, 1998) a strategic reaction to the move by this competitor could be investment in research and development efforts to introduce a new product too, or working for a remarkable innovation to the existing product to maintain a competitive edge in the market. However this culture of low pricing would likely see the company lowering prices even more, and fending off change efforts aimed at introducing a new product. Lowering prices and still selling may be so strong enough that top managers are blind to see that an ever-changing business climate has rendered low cost production and lower pricing obsolete platforms for competitive advantage.

Feed Back to Improve PerformanceMost project-based organisations carry out their activities in small batches of projects (Gardiner, 2005) which take the form of short- and long-term plans. Such plans are often change efforts that seek to redefine the scope and direction of the organisation. The short-term plans usually span a period of four to five years while the long-term plans span a period of ten years or more. Whereas some changes based on short-term plans succeed, Smith (2003) rightly pointed out that the longer the change process the most likely things would go wrong.

Kotter and Heskett (see Smith, 2003) blame the likelihood of change not succeeding on the fact that the longevity of the change may lead to a poor reporting and feedback system. This poor feedback system results in itself to poor communication. In the same vein, the bureaucratic structure set-up by the corporate culture makes it difficult for sponsors of change to provide feedback by communicating a compelling need for change over a period of time as long as ten years or more. This failure to communicate provides an atmosphere for negative factors that inhibit change such that resources are diverted to other priorities or unrealistic schedules.

Employee RewardingEmployee rewarding can better be understood in the context of a company that allows for the spirit of intrepreneurship to thrive. Intrepreneurship refers to the feat of allowing employees to show creativity and carry out in-house ventures that are rewarding to the company. When employees show such creativity like how Ad Fry developed the Post-It note at 3M, they are rewarded for their hard work at the end of the year or just after the ground-breaking intrepreneurship skills. Antoncic & Hisrich (2003) share the opinion that intrapreneurship is entrepreneurship within an existing organisation.

Their view gets support from the work of Luchsinger & Bagby (1987) who reckon that intrapreneurship is associated with ventures that are generated within an ongoing organisation, so that entrepreneurial behaviour can be re-established and duly rewarded within these organisations (Kolchin & Hyclak, 1987). In all, intrapreneurship’s broadest definaton is entrepreneurship within an existing organisation. Employee MotivationEmployee motivation in an organisational setting has long received the attention of researchers like Victor Vroom (1964).

As Vroom found out the clue to understand how employees should be motivated to carry out their work lies in knowing the work attitude of the workers. This was the foundation of McGregor’s (date) theories X and Y. In every organisation, it is seen that some workers are inherently lazy and want to always work under close supervision, while other workers are duty conscious. So management must make a strategic move or incentives to motivate the lazy workers to improve on their output and performance, while making similar moves to motivate the high performing workers to increase their performance and output the more.

Determining the size and timing of this motivation package could seem to be a source of problem between the two sets of workers.BibliographyAntoncic, B., and Hisrich, R.D., 2000. Intrapreneurship Modelling in Transition Economies: A Comparison of Slovenia and the United States. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 21-40.Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E., 1999. Steps to Keep Change Efforts Heading in the Right Direction. The Journal for Quality and Participation 22(3).Gardiner, P.D., 2005.

Project Management. A Strategic Planning Approach. Palgrave Macmillan.Kolchin, M.G., and Hyclak, T.J., 1987. The Case of the Traditional Intrapreneur. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 25(3), 14-18.Luchsinger, V., and Bagby, D.R., 1987. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship: Behaviors, Comparisons, and Contrasts. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 10-13.Mintzberg et al, 1998. Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management Prentice Hall.Robinson, M., 2001.

The Ten Commandments of Intrapreneurs. New Zealand Management, 48(11), 95-98.Smith, M.E., 2003. Changing an Organisations’s Culture: Correlates of Success and Failure. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 24(5/6).