Appropriateness of Alternative Methodologies for Different Organizational Configurations - Coursework Example

Change in organisations Introduction Organisations are usually created with a purpose. One of the major purposes of organisation is to make a profit.For this to be achieved, several factors have to be put in place. Such factors might include restructuring, product innovation, mergers or even downsizing. All these are dynamics that an organisation must go through so as to survive this changing world (Bakke 1959, p. 6). This paper will discuss various changes that an organisation may take so as to remain competitive. Organisation The word organisation can have several definitions. It can be defined as a system incorporating a set of sub-systems. These sub-systems are an interrelated set of activities which are executed to meet the goals of the organisation (Luthans 1985, p. 22). Hicks and Gullet (1975 p. 14) defines an organisation as a specific design of structure, people, duties and procedures. Structure explains the form of departments, the pecking order and committees. The structure influences the organisations competence and effectiveness. People refer to the abilities, attitudes and social relations of the employees of the organisation. Duties or tasks refer to the goals of the employees and the organisation. Procedures refer to the methodical approach used to perform tasks. Organisational structure thus refers to the institutional arrangements and mechanisms for mobilizing resources i.e. physical, financial, information and human resources at all levels of the organization. Organisation has been defined differently by numerous people. However, all definitions generally contain these five common features: Composed of individuals and groups of individuals Oriented towards achieving common goals Differential functions Intended rational coordination Continuity through time. Change Change can be said to be situations and events that occur in an organisation that have an effect in the way it operates (Huse and Bowditch 1973, p. 57). The effects can be positive or negative. There is need for organisations to embrace changes so that they can stay ahead of their competition. Several factors may necessitate change but this will be discussed later on in the paper. The phrase “organisational change” is about a major change in the organisation which might include issues like reorganization or adding up a new product or service (Gortner, Mahler and Nicholson 1987, p. 63). This is in contrast to smaller changes such as implementing a new computer procedure. Organisational change can look like such a vague occurrence but it is helpful especially if you can think of change in terms of a variety of dimensions. Organisation models The Entrepreneurial model Mintzberg (1974, p. 106) states that this kind of model is usually common in organisations that offer services and they are characterised by: They view risk as a normal occurrence. Are always willing to accept change. Change drives them. Organisations that offer services, either large or small scale, often view taking risks as the core of their business. True to their word, the service industry is very dynamic and only those willing to go the extra mile usually survive (Drucker 1954, p. 67). The service industry includes services like internet services, communication services and business processing and outsourcing. The Bureaucratic model Hellriegel and Slocum (1973, p. 110) states that the bureaucratic model is usually found in large organisations and those who have well defined conditions. The basic elements of a bureaucratic organisation are: The use of standard methods and procedures for performing work. High degree of control to ensure standard performance. Two types of bureaucracies have been identified. They are the standard bureaucracy and professional bureaucracy. Standard bureaucracy is based on competent performance of consistent routine work. Professional bureaucracy depends on efficient performance of standardised but difficult work thus requiring a higher level of specialised skills. The composition of standard bureaucracy is based on functions, large technical staff and numerous mid-level managers. In contrast, professional bureaucracy has a small number of mid-level managers (Katz and Kahn 1978, p. 57). The Adhocratic model The adhocratic model can also be called free form or organic organisation model. This type of model puts emphasis on managerial styles which are not dependant upon formal structures (Locke 1968, p. 114). The adhocratic model is well suited for complex and non-standard work and relies on informal structures. It is said that the adhocratic model is flexible, adaptive and well organised around special problems to be solved by a group of persons consisting of experts with diverse professional skills. The so called experts have a decision making authority and other powers. The adhocratic model is usually small with a nonspecific hierarchy. Nystrom and Starbuck (1981, p. 98) claim that this type of model is suitable for high technology and high growth organisations where an arranged and inflexible structure may be a handicap. Reasons/Why organisations need to change Pasmore (1988, p. 102) explains that these events or situations that necessitate change in organisations are called driving forces and are of two kinds mainly, internal driving forces and external driving forces. Internal driving forces are those that occur within an organization and usually under the organizations control while external driving forces are not under the control of the organization. External driving forces can be summarized with the acronym PESTEL, which simply stands for political factors, economical factors, social factors, technological factors, environmental factors and legal factors. Internal driving forces explained by Koontz, Donnell and Weihrich (1980, p. 109) include human resource factors (working conditions, job satisfaction, remunerations and job promotions), managerial decisions/behaviour, change in goals and objectives of the organisation, change in policies, change in processes and organizational structure. Forms of change Change in organisations can be carried out in either of the two ways below. The first is top-down change. This is the change that originates or starts from the top management going downwards. It is also called leader driven change. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, p. 120) says that the bottom-up or middle-out change starts from subordinates or middle level managers going upwards to top management. It is also called community driven change. Change process According to Robbins (1989, p. 79), the initial step in the process of changing an organisation is to unfreeze the existing circumstances or status quo. The status quo is considered the equilibrium state. Unfreezing is needed so as to overcome the strains of personal resistance and group compliance. Unfreezing can be achieved by the use of three methods. First, the driving forces that direct behaviour away from the existing condition or status quo should be increased. Second, the restraining forces that affect the movement negatively from the existing equilibrium should be decreased. Third, try and look out for a combination of the two methods listed above. Some actions that can assist in the unfreezing step include: motivating participants by preparing them for the change, building trust and recognition for the need for organisational change and actively participating in recognizing problems and come up with solutions within a group. The second step in the process of organisational change is action or movement (Robbins 1989, p. 81). In this step, it is necessary to move the intended system to a new level of equilibrium. Several actions that can assist in this action or movement step include: persuading members of the organisation to agree that the status quo is not of benefit to them and encouraging them to view the problem from a fresh point of view, work collectively on a quest for new, relevant information and attach the views of the group to well-respected, powerful leaders that also support the change. The third step of organisational change model is refreezing. This third step needs to take place only after the change has been put into practice in order for it to be sustained or “stick” over time. It is highly likely that the change will be short lived and the members of the organisation will go back to their old equilibrium or behaviours if this step is not taken. It is the actual incorporation of the new values into the organisation’s values and traditions. The main purpose of refreezing is to make stable the new equilibrium resulting from the change by balancing both the driving and restraining forces. An example of one action that can be used to employ the third step is to reinforce new patterns and institutionalise them through informal and formal mechanisms including systems, policies and procedures (Robbins 1989, p. 85). Approaches to change Change is unavoidable for any organisation that is operating today. Different types of change may require different implementation strategies so that the change can be said to be successfully. They also require diverse plans to effectively gain employee acceptance and commitment of the change (Tosi, Rizzo and Carroll 1986, p. 107). The major types of change that occur frequently in organisations are unplanned versus planned change, remedial versus developmental change, transformational versus incremental change and organization-wide versus subsystem change. Various theories and information has been advanced on how to effectively implement organisational changes. The most important step is determining which approach to employ in order to overcome resistance from employees. Organisation-wide versus subsystem change Simply stated, organisation-wide change has an impact on the whole organisation while subsystem change is piece meal change. Examples of organisation-wide change might be collaborations, merging or “rightsizing” or a major restructuring (Woodward 1965, p. 71). It is a must that all organisations should undertake organisation-wide changes so as to progress to a different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organisation to one that has firm and planned progression. Experts claim that successful organisational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another instance of organisation-wide change. Examples of organisational change in a subsystem might include addition or elimination of a product or service, restructuring of a certain unit or department and implementation of a new procedure of delivering products or services. Transformational versus incremental change Transformational change can also be referred to as radical, fundamental or quantum change. Examples of transformational change might include changing an organization’s configuration and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical configuration to down-top-, hierarchical configuration. Another example is process re-engineering. Examples of incremental change include continuous enhancement as a quality management process or applying of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times organisations may experience incremental change and its leaders may not identify the change as such (Albrecht 1983, p. 154). Remedial versus developmental change Remedial changes helps to rectify current situations or problems e.g. to increase the performance of a product or the whole organization, reduce exhaustion in the workplace, help the organisation to become more proactive than reactive or address budget shortfalls. Remedial projects seem more focused and urgent since they address current, major problems or situations (Sherwin 1976, p. 157). It is easier to establish the success of these projects since the problem is solved or not. Developmental change helps to make a successful circumstance even more successful, for example, expand the quantity of customers served or double the production of successful products or services. Developmental projects may seem more general and unclear than remedial, depending on how exact goals are and how important it is for employees to achieve those goals (Fayol 1949, p. 159). Unplanned versus planned change Unplanned change occurs because of a major, sudden shocker to the organisation which was not anticipated and causes its employees to respond in a highly reactive and confused fashion. Unplanned change might take place when the chief executive officer of the organisation suddenly leaves, considerable public relations problems arise, poor product or service performance or other disruptive situations occur (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, p. 139). Planned change usually occurs when the management of the organisation recognize the need for change and they end up coming with a plan to achieve the change. Planned change occurs with successful execution of strategic plans or plans for restructuring (French and Raven 1959, p. 141). It should be noted that planned change, even though it is based on a proactive and well-done plan, often it does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change is likely to occur in more of a messy and disruptive fashion than expected. Conclusion Understanding clearly the reasons for organisational change and sharing in the vision of the organisation’s management can help lessen some of the resistance to change. Employees will naturally oppose change but are more likely to accept the new system if they view top management as keeping them up to date and supporting them throughout the process. Employees will look for a validation for the execution of this major change. The top management should be prepared to involve employees in all the phases of the changing process. References Albrecht, K 1983, Organization Development, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Anderson, C. R 1988, Management: Skills, Functions and Organization Performance, Allyn and Bacon. New York. Bakke, W.E 1959, Modern Organization Theory, John Wiley, New York. Drucker, P.F 1954, The Practice of Management, Harper, New York. Fayol, H 1949, General and Industrial Management, Pitman, London. French, J.R, & Raven, B 1959, Studies in Social Power, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI. Gortner, H, Mahler, J, & Nicholson, J 1987. Organization Theory, Dorsey Press, Reading. Hellriegel, D, & Slocum J.W 1973, Organization theory: a contingency approach. Business Horizons. Hicks, G.H, & Gullet, C.R 1975, Organizations: Theory and Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York. Huse, E.F, & Bowditch, J.L 1973, Behavior in Organizations, Addison-Wesley, The Philippines. Katz, D, & Kahn, R 1978, The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley, New York. Koontz, M, ODonnell, C, & Weihrich, H 1980, Management, McGraw-Hill, New York. Lawrence, P.R, & Lorsch, J.W 1967, Differentiation and incorporation of complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, June: 1-47. Leavitt, H.J 1962, New Perspectives in Organization Research, John Wiley, New York. Lippitt, R, Watson, J and Westley, B 1958, The Dynamics of Planned Change, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Locke, E.A. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, May: 157-89. Luthans, F 1985, Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Milgram, S 1974, Obedience to Authority, Harper & Row, New York. Mintzberg, H 1981, Organization design: fashion or fit. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb: p. 103-116. Nystrom, P.C, & Starbuck, W.H 1981, Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pasmore, W.A 1988, Designing Effective Organizations, John Wiley, New York. Robbins, S.P 1989, Organization Behaviour. Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi. Roethlisberger, F.J, & Dickson, J.W 1943, Management and the Worker, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Sherwin, D.S 1976, Management of objectives. Harvard Business Review, May-June: p. 149- 160. Tosi, H.L, Rizzo, J.R, & Carroll, S 1986, Managing Organizational Behavior, Pitman, New York. Weber, M 1947, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, New York. Woodward, J 1965, Industrial Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More