A New Organizational Paradigm - Essay Example

Running Head A New Organizational Paradigm A New Organizational Paradigm At the beginning of the 21st century, organizations are changed influenced by internal demands and external requirements, technological innovations and new economic paradigms. The new environment demands that organization will be able to grow and acquire new knowledge, change and reframe its main functions. The proposed paradigm for a company is based on a system approach, technology and knowledge management. The organization chosen for analysis is a service company, Bell Group Inc. The population of this company consists of 87 employees. The population is diverse in terms of cultural and social backgrounds. 30% of all employees are Americans and 70 % of employees come form different cultures. The Bell group is specialized in hotel and resort services. It is expected that technology and knowledge will be the main issues changing the world over the next 5 yeas. The new organization paradigm will be based on innovative technologies and introduction of knowledge management initiatives. Current Design The division of horal and reports is based on traditional centralized structure. In order to keep control over the assets that are invested into these new business alliances, Bell Group establishes a hierarchical structure of formal control for them. This depends on the significance of the alliance and the potential danger associated with losing key internal resources. Control is an important factor which helps to integrator tasks across teams and has the potential for redesigning the entire organization in terms of job descriptions or promotion schemes, management frequently lacks the commitment to change the entire control structure of the organization. Thus, personal change was a crucial element of learning and organizational change. The potential lies in a reduction of the number of middle managers or a change in the authority structure. It is, however, only when the full potential of technology has been realized that organizational structure changes become more visible. It may therefore take time to notice the long-term effect of increased technology use on organizational design (Bolman and Deal 2003). The greater the degree of specialization, the greater the tendency to concentrate on individual functions while losing sight of overall federal objectives. Thus, conflicts arise among group, functional, and territorial politicians, even though all are preoccupied with the same policy and strategies. Today, decentralization of decision making varies among departments and employees (Hesselbein et al`1997). Proposed Re-Design It is supposed that technology has a great impact on organization, its development, growth opportunities and performance. Information processing activities of organizational members are changing, since access to new technologies is leading to a change in behavior. Given the uncertain influence of technology on core managerial activities, the relationship between technology and organizations needs to be addressed, since the use of these technologies mediates and contributes to the changing character of organizations (Bolman and Deal 2003). In the Bell Group, technology can facilitate the establishment of interorganizational ties, yet success depends on the inherent business necessities of such ties, and top management’s commitment to making them work. Since knowledge workers become accessible to a number of legally independent organizations, they are assets to a wider community, making them a valuable resource to be protected. In order to keep control over the assets that are invested into these new business alliances, organizations may establish a hierarchical structure of formal control for them (Jones, 2007). In the Bell Group, learning and knowledge creation cannot exist in a vacuum. In learning the emotional and social as well as the cognitive context is important. Employees can benefit from interaction with others through dialogue and interaction (Jones, 2007). Although the integration of tasks across teams has the potential for redesigning the entire organization in terms of job descriptions or promotion schemes, management frequently lacks the commitment to change the entire control structure of the organization. It may take time to realize the potential of integrating tasks through teams. The potential may lie in a reduction of the number of middle managers or a change in the authority structure. It is, however, only when the full potential of technology has been realized that organizational structure changes become more visible (Bolman and Deal 2003). Technology can facilitate the establishment of interorganizational ties, yet success depends on the inherent business necessities of such ties, and top management’s commitment to making them work. Since knowledge workers become accessible to a number of legally independent organizations, they are assets to a wider community, making them a valuable resource to be protected. New technology implementation could be described in terms of one or more individual learning curves in that the implementation team members, as well as the factory-floor users, accumulated knowledge about the new technology (Scott and Davis 2007). However, of greater interest from the corporate viewpoint are two overall organizational learning, each of which describes the aggregate corporate experience across a number of implementations: (1) a technical learning describing the cumulative knowledge about the technical aspects of implementing a particular technology (including additions that aid in aligning the technology with existing equipment or systems) and (2) an organizational learning describing the cumulative knowledge about the management of organizational issues (changes in user skills, procedures, performance criteria) raised by a particular technology (Jones, 2007). It is supposed that the stature will bee changed to decentralized one. It will give more autonomy to divisions and inspire employees. Decentralized power has a broader structure and permits greater individual freedom. In them, decision making is closer to markets and central control is less formalized. Centralization leads to greater rigidity and more formalized central control (Bolman and Deal 2003). In the Bell Group, continuous learning by knowledge workers leads to the questioning of established communication technology patterns of use and norms, and thereby enables a change in the collective knowledge structure. Such changes lead to a revision of knowledge use, and thereby have an impact on institutionalized communication patterns, and eventually on the organizational structure itself. Feedback loops exist between knowledge choice and organizational design in such a way that both influence each other, constantly changing the communication patterns and design dimensions of the organization. It is top management’s responsibility to encourage knowledge workers to take this first step. It is easier for managers to create this willingness in a crisis situation, as organization members are aware of the danger of failure, so they may be more ready to accept new practices within the organization at such a time (Katz and Kahn 1978). Information acquisition is the process by which information is obtained from the environment and added to the collective stock of knowledge within the organization. Information distribution involves sharing information sources among organizational members as it is needed or can be applied. Information interpretation refers to the process of establishing a shared understanding based on distributed information. Storing information plays a critical role in organizational learning, since socially accepted past experiences need to be accumulated for future (Katz and Kahn 1978). When managers observe the environment, they often find that external information cues are ambiguous. This ambiguity may be a result of diverse interpretations by different organizational members, or it may be due to the inability of individuals to make sense of confusing information. As a result of ambiguity, managers are unsure about the consequences of that observation on organizational action. In order to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the information, there is a need to develop minimal shared interpretations in order to produce organized action (Tiwane 1999). This may be achieved by negotiating a solution based on accumulated experience in order to establish mutual understanding. A major difference between uncertainty and ambiguity is the required information-processing response. Acquiring additional information through the process of search reduces uncertainty. Exchanging individual constructions of reality among organizational members to enact a solution jointly reduces ambiguity. Organizational members resolve disagreements based on ambiguity to arrive at a shared understanding. Thus, to reduce ambiguity, individuals within the organization have to define information jointly. IT techniques vary in their capacity to reduce uncertainty or ambiguity (Hesselbein et al`1997). Workers have to go through a learning process before becoming proficient at using a channel for communication. A critical mass of users needs to have developed the knowledge base necessary to communicate richly before a particular channel can be used effectively within the organization. Through ongoing exchange of information, where individuals seek support for their ideas and accept the ideas of others, cognitive perceptions are exchanged, leading to shared knowledge. Thus the perception of increased levels of mutual influence leads to increased levels of shared knowledge (Kuhn, 1996). The model makes specific reference to the existence of enabling and constraining forces, and thereby acknowledges the existence of opposing forces. These determine the degree to which knowledge workers and the organizational context influence the outcome of learning. Enabling forces help in fulfilling the intentions of top management, while constraining forces work in the opposite direction (Bolman and Deal 2003). Expected Outcomes One reason for this is that once new technical knowledge is acquired, it can usually be embodied in a readily transferable form. The smoothness and slope of the corporate technical learning curve depend on two factors: (1) how well learning about the particular technology is transmitted from site to site and (2) how representative of later sites the first ones that influence developers design decisions are (Newell et al 2002). Although technology has been found to have the potential to change organizational behavior by decreasing response time, by speeding up information processing and altering the time and place of work, there are unavoidable second-order effects that may constrain learning. These effects relate to the increased dependence on technology, the stimulation of unanticipated responses from competitors or customers, or the need to manage a more complex organization. These may hinder learning taking place. Although technology has been found to have the potential to change organizational behavior by decreasing response time, by speeding up information processing and altering the time and place of work, there are unavoidable second-order effects that may constrain learning. These effects relate to the increased dependence on technology, the stimulation of unanticipated responses from competitors or customers, or the need to manage a more complex organization. Another constraint for learning arises from the failure to use IT technology effectively at an early stage (Newell et al 2002). This is related to the pressure for immediate success. Since organizations are faced constantly with external pressure, organizational members find it difficult to spare the extra time, energy and resources to identify the problems inhibiting the effective use of IT technology. In addition, established patterns of use in the early period of introduction are difficult to revise, as organizational members adapt themselves quickly to their new IT technologies. In the service system, once functions have become habitual or automatic, organizational members resist changes to technology use. Although the new technology may have initially been intended to lead to more information distribution, evaluations may lead to an adaptation of expectations regarding actual achievements or the capability for them, thereby lowering the standard set. Once the initial enthusiasm of organizational members for the new technology has waned, it becomes difficult to adjust the technology (Hesselbein et al`1997). Knowledge management influenced organizational learning and helps employees to share information and acquire new skills. The most obvious support for knowledge workers involves training programs designed to help them to understand their own preferences and styles, and how these either help or interfere with their choices. This is important, since learning preferences can influence the information that knowledge workers rely on for decision-making and may therefore have an impact on decision-making outcomes. Organizations learn when they increase their knowledge of action–outcome relationships by obtaining information that they recognize as being potentially useful. Learning processes vary in their capacity to reduce uncertainty or ambiguity. Therefore, learning needs to be matched with the type of information-processing task in order to enable organizational learning. The proposed framework of matching learning processes to knowledge has implications for media users, top managers and communication technology architects (Tiwane 1999). Viewing knowledge management as an enabler of learning allows media users – knowledge workers – to make more informed decisions about the appropriate use for various learning tasks. Studying the type of learning task before selecting a medium ought to lead to an improvement in a knowledge worker’s performance by finding an appropriate match between medium and information task (. If top managers view knowledge as an enabler of learning, they have to develop the necessary vision to create an organizational context conducive to information-sharing through new communication technology (Hesselbein et al`1997). Since reorientation contexts are characterized by the desire to ‘do things differently’, increased communication technology use may result in substantial modifications of the organizational knowledge base. In these situations, communication technology has a greater chance of making a profound impact more quickly. Situations of reorientation essentially create a higher level of willingness to use communication technology for the purpose of learning. In these circumstances, knowledge workers appropriate the technology according to their needs and given. The underlying idea is that communication technology is created and changed by human action, yet it is also used by people to accomplish organizational aims. Knowledge workers may, for example, decide to use group support systems for the purpose of generating ideas, yet refuse to use these for overcoming conflicts (Tiwane 1999). Conclusion The new parading will help the Bell Group to change and meet economic and social challenges. The advantage of this framework is that it decomposes the overall learning phenomenon into a number of smaller and more observable processes. Although these processes are distributed over time and space, this classification makes the learning construct more readily identifiable. The constituent processes of learning help to isolate problems for which practical solutions can be found. To understand the nature of information processing, which is at the heart of learning, it is necessary to examine its origins. Research within the field of organization theory and communication suggests that there are two influences on information processing: uncertainty and ambiguity. With increasing levels of uncertainty, organizational members process more information. Uncertainty is the difference between the amount of information required to perform a task and the amount of information already possessed by the organization. Organizations acquire more data in order to reduce uncertainty. In contrast to uncertainty, ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple and conflicting interpretations about a situation within the organization. When managers observe the environment, they often find that external information cues are ambiguous. This ambiguity may be a result of diverse interpretations by different organizational members, or it may be due to the inability of individuals to make sense of confusing information. As a result of ambiguity, managers are unsure about the consequences of that observation on organizational action. In order to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the information, there is a need to develop minimal shared interpretations in order to produce organized action. This may be achieved by negotiating a solution based on accumulated experience in order to establish mutual understanding. A major difference between uncertainty and ambiguity is the required information-processing response. Acquiring additional information through the process of search reduces uncertainty. Exchanging individual constructions of reality among organizational members to enact a solution jointly reduces ambiguity. Organizational members resolve disagreements based on ambiguity to arrive at a shared understanding. Thus, to reduce ambiguity, individuals within the organization have to define information jointly. The degree to which these cognitive repositories serve learning depends on the interconnectedness, integration and trust of individuals within the organization. The proposed paradigm for the Bell group can be viewed as a development tool that is capable of capturing and making better use of both explicit and tacit knowledge. Yet, it has to be supported by the organizational infrastructure to be functional. Top managers have to develop the necessary vision to create an organizational context conducive to information-sharing through new patterns of learning. Ultimately, knowledge workers have to understand the idea of using knowledge for the purpose of learning, or the desired result cannot be accomplished. This understanding will help them to govern ignorance and become their own governors armed with the power of knowledge. References Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (1997), The organization of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jones, G.R. (2007), Organizational theory, design, and change (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kuhn, T. S. (1996), The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. AVAILABLE IN PRINT VERSION ONLY! Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. (2002), Managing Knowledge Work, Palgrave, London. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007), Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tiwane, A. (1999), Knowledge Management Toolkit, The: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System. Pearson Education; Pap/Cdr edition. Read More