One is incremental change and the other is transformational change. Change should not be done for the sake of change but it is a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.
By far the most sort of change in organizations is incremental change. There are some arguably views that it is beneficial for the nature of change in an organization to be incremental. Incremental change will build on the skills, routines and beliefs of those in the organization, so that change is efficient and likely to win their commitment. (Johnson &Scholes 2002). Incremental change focus on 'doing things better' through a process of continuous tinkering, adaptation and modification. Change in these periods builds on what has already been accomplished and has the flavors of continuous improvement.
B) Transformational change
For transformational change, it is regarded mostly as fundamental, dramatic and large scale. It involves changing one or more assumptions in the organizational paradigm and with it the values of the organization. Transformational change could be seen as a means of marking out current thinking and practice as novel and different. It involves a break with the past, a step function change rather than an extrapolation of past patterns of change and development. The change is about generating success where previously there as failure as well as changing beliefs and values regarding the organization's future. So transformational change involves doing things differently rather than doing things better, it might even mean doing different things
C) The Comparison of Main Characteristics of these two types of Change
The two types of change have their own characteristics (refer to diagram 1), it is easy to identify that there are two distinguished differences between them:
Incremental change is "bottom-up" process. It is originated by the people most intimately connected with the organization's processes, offers and customers. It will tend to be reactive, which a short time horizon
Transformation change is "top-down" process. It initiated and imposed by the top team. It associated with leadership rather than operational management.
Incremental change does not require paradigm (the way organization, thinking & operation) change. It doesn't lead to a change in the implicit underlying assumptions of the organizational paradigm.
Transformational change requires paradigm change. The organization will do things very differently compared with before.
Differences between incremental and transformational
The concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program and so on. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc…
The paper tells that along with the entry into the 21st century, change and how it can be implemented successfully has emerged as the most important concern for organizational leaders and entrepreneurs. Change has been occurring at all places with increasing complexity and speed. A substantial extent of the future success of organizations depends on how successfully leaders can lead the change process in organizations.
The scope of this paper will be to focus nature of the relations between an organization’s surroundings and management practices of that organization’s internal activities, processes, and systems. It will focus on the key issues arising from the management of change in an organization.
The case of Chiba international deals with challenges faced by Japan companies to adapt to American workforce and their culture. The general manager ken Morikawa and the American personnel manager are finding the ways in which another Japanese company in California has manage to integrate the cultures of the workforce.
In the contemporary environment of competitive business, expanding business must understand the changing socio-cultural background of the country, where one needs to establish the business interests. Dowling et al (1999) argue that Chinese socio-political and cultural environment is complex, especially as Chinese nationalism remains key obstacle for foreign firms and poses serious challenge to their IHRM.
turing to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and
VET) sector have a very critical role to play in enhancing societal capabilities ingenuity, and skills required by a wide range of Australian Enterprises. It can also play a very crucial role in resolving some societal concerns with regard to workforce planning.