Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 12 page Study Guide was uploaded by Experthelper Notetaker on Saturday November 14, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 15 views.
Reviews for bus610 wk6
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/14/15
RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 1 Organizational Change Alexander Rodgers BUS610: Organizational Behavior (MAB1134A) 26 September 2011 Gary Shelton RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 2 Organizational Change Introduction The case study is about a company named “DelSol” which was formed in 2009 and then achieved the highest growth but afterward the company started to decline. The main reason of this decline was that the company was relying on only one customer. One day the customer decided to withdraw his capital. The property of DelSol was owned by someone privately in the era of 1970 to 2000. At that time there was not any unit which could suggest the industrial site for the company. In 2010, the company was purchased by National Services Company (NSC). The company faced a lot of problems and administration issues which are discussed below. This paper describes the organizational change in DelSol. It also identifies the key stakeholders involved and the impact the change would have on them. It describes the change management approach and recommended action steps I would advise for minimizing adverse impact on the organization and its people. Thesis Statement Organizational change may have problems and administration issues while implementing, but after successful implementation it brings good results. Discussion Every situation is the result of the interaction of variables that make up a force field and determine the current reality. The force field analysis is a technique applicable to problematic social situations which are not perceived as static but in constant motion generated by the forces that influence them. RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 3 The apparent stability of the force field is sustained by a precarious balance between driving forces and restraining forces. The aim is to assess the impact that may cause the proposed solutions. The force field is visible or invisible power, active or passive, tangible or intangible, and is a result which can be pressed to make changes and introduce new strengths. The discipline is excellent because it allows assessing whether the solution is feasible because if there is overwhelming factors such as lack of budget, a proposal to include it as an indispensable factor will surely fail. The consideration of all factors can generate a better strategy (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). The initial model is to define the current status of the force field to compare them with the ideal that one would like to achieve. Then carefully separate the driving forces considering restricting people, systems, norms, attitudes, prejudices, materials, measured by arrows of varying size located from the top down or bottomup until the horizontal axis, and determine the current situation. The drawing force field is assimilated into the visual diagnosis of the problem and the techniques used are: a) reduce or remove a restraining force b) increase and / or add a driving force c) Transform a restraining force in a driving force (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 4 Set Inc. was facing so many changes in the organization at the time when change manager was appointed. The main reason of the change was the recruitment of the operational staff without any formal procedures and the interviews. This was the main reason of the error due to which the field manager thought of changing the staff as the proper training was not held. Another reason of change was the authoritative issues in the administration and the finance department. The department head was the wife of managing director of the company and she used to behave with the staff in a very polite way. Afterward, her attitude changed and this resulted in creating a gap between her and the staff. Also, the proper training was not given to the staff and the system management (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 5 Another reason for the change was that the company had no resource in the marketing and media department. This was a major lacking faced by the company. The regulations of the company were also not introduced properly and there wasn’t any site for the company’s operations. These were the changes that DelSol was facing at the time the change manager was appointed. Change Management Approach In the analysis of organizational development it is necessary to have a good agent of change, which is a person who intentionally acts on the environment, in order to facilitate or promote the implementation of the projected change. In this regard, Roger Tessier (1973), says that any person or system that contributes through direct or indirect support to the implementation of change is a change agent. The theory would be helpful for the change manager of DelSol inc. as this theory helps him in understanding the basic concepts about managing change in the organization. Thus, this theory suggests the DelSol change manager that in order to bring the change, he should first adopt the new technologies in the company. These technologies can be helpful in bringing the positive impact on the company. Another thing is that the change manager should look at the rules and procedures of the company and should check that whether these procedures are of any worth or not? If these procedures are not good for the company, than the company should change its policies and procedures. The manager of the DelSol Inc. can adopt the different changes in the company. The first thing is that he should develop a plan for training and development. He should conduct training in the organization which should help the staff in their proper development. The further changes RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 6 should be made in tender of the existing bid. According to the manager, the whole tender should be changed rather just making amendments in it. Recommended Action Steps In the organizational change field, there is no broad and widely accepted organizational change model (Porras & Robertson, 2002). Researchers and practitioners have failed to reach consensus on which model is the most effective one to make successful organizational change. Therefore, instead of using a single change model in our research, we had better identify several change models that are relatively wellcited in the field, study their common steps and integrate them to create an integrated change model. The change management model selected in this paper is “Model of organizational change Kurt Lewin”. Kurt Lewin (1947) identified three stages of change (change management): 1. "Unfreezing"; 2. "Movement"; 3. "Freeze". "Thawing" is a stage where the actions of the manager are aimed at getting people to recognize the need for change. "Thawing" is a stage when you should allow people to experience a legitimate pride in doing business in a familiar way, as well as to demonstrate recognition of their past achievements. People should be provided with sufficient support and personal safety, so they decided to take part in risky chance of a change. The second phase is the movement, or the practical implementation of the changes, which require careful planning and wise management. RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 7 According to Lewin, the final step is to "freeze" when we establish new norms of behavior. At this stage, changes may be required in systems of control. For example, if the change was to shift to outpatient care and treatment at home, it would be a mistake to continue to assess the performance of inpatient treatment facilities on the percentage of occupied beds. Step 1: "Defrost" "Thawing" may be sudden and unplanned. For example, an unexpected local disaster may force the public to doubt the wellestablished order of things. Same is the case in the DelSol Inc. that an unexpected loss forced the company to make the changes in the organization. It can occur at the individual level. "Thawing" can be carried out at the group level and can be the result of informal conversations, in comparisons with colleagues from other organizations or conflict of interests between the various professions. It may also be the result of external influences emanating from individual patients or organizations such as professional associations of doctors RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 8 or specialty. However, the manager decided to implement the changes, can not wait until there will be similar to "defrosting" of the event. He should seek ways of intervening to improve the current situation, identify possible sources of resistance to proposed changes and find ways to overcome this resistance. John Kotter and LA Schlesinger (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) identified the following three broad main reasons why people may resist change: misunderstanding and lack of trust; differences in the assessment of the situation; low level of readiness to change, and also: the influence of peers; fatigue from the change; previous bad experience changes. These authors also describe methods for overcoming resistance to change: clarification and communication; involvement; assistance and support; negotiations and agreements; Manipulation and cooperation; RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 9 implicit or explicit coercion. Step 2: "Movement" Movement is the second phase of a threestage model of change, namely: the practical implementation of changes. Cotter, and Schlesinger considered widespread mistake that managers attempt to implement the changes without a carefully developed plan. For the successful implementation of changes, it is not enough to have a good idea and inspire its participants in the process. For this you need a strategy for change, agreed with the main features of the situation. John Kotter and LA Schlesinger, describe the range of strategies to change from the fast pace to slow. Rapid changes include: detailed planning; small number of participants; crackdown. The slow changes include: the absence of a detailed plan; large number of participants; weakening the resistance. Key situational variables are: strength and nature of the expected resistance; the balance of power between you and potential opponents of changes; availability of data needed for planning and resources required to implement the changes; RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 10 level of shortterm risks to the current activities and the survival of the organization. As the authors note, however good the work was performed at the choice of strategy and tactics change, the implementation phase will happen something unexpected. This model can be applicable to suggest the change manager of DelSol Inc. This paper suggests that he should first adopt the stage of unfreezing which means that at this stage he should adopt some temporary change methodologies. Afterwards, if the changes are good for the company then the manager should adopt them permanently and should go on with these changes. Impact Of Change On Key Stakeholders Facing rapid changes in the external environment, organizations need to change constantly for their survival and success. As a result, change becomes an everpresent feature of organizational life, both at operational and strategic levels (Burnes, 2004). Under these circumstances, studying how to implement organizational changes becomes an important subject across business, engineering, and environmental management. There are many different definitions on organizational change, but they all carry the connotation of “changing how an organization functions or performs”. For instance, “Organizational change is the revision of established work routines, the revision of existing patterns of communication, the reshuffling of work groups, or the hiring of new employees” (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1986). “Organizational change alters how an organization functions, changes who its members and leaders are, what form it takes, or how it allocates it resources” (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1986). “The intention of any organizational change is to move the organization from its current state to a more ‘Desirable RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 11 State’” (Aldrich, 2009). “Organizational change can be defined as new ways of organizing and working in an organization” (Dawson, 2003). The change can have both the positive and the negative impact on the performance of people in the workplace. It can be positive in the sense that if the employees find it good for them or if they think that this change is helpful for them, then this would increase their motivational level and will help in increasing their performance. Take the example of change in the reward system. Let’s suppose that the change manager changes the reward or incentive system of the organisation. If this system is good for the staff and they find it attractive then their motivational level will increase and as a result their performance will increase too. This can also be negative or may lead to a decreasing performance of the staff in the sense that if the employees do not find the change good for them they will get demotivated. This demotivation will result in the decrease of their performance. For example if the working conditions or the environment changes and employees do not like this environment then they will not be comfortable in their work and in return their productivity will decrease. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be said that minimizing adverse impact of change on the organization and its people any company (like DelSol) can enjoy best results. Therefore it is right to say that organizational change may have problems and the administration issues while implementing but after successful implementation, it brings good results. RUNNING HEAD: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 12 Reference Aldrich, H. (2009). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, pp.12119. Burnes, B. (2006). No such thing as . . . a “one best way” to manage organizational change, Management Decision, 34(10), 11–18. Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience of people at work. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.1298. Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behaviour Key concepts, skills & best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGrawHill Irwin. Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1986). Organization: Text, Cases, and Readings on the Management of Organization Design and Change. 2nd ed. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin. Lewin, K. (1999). “The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader”, American Psychological Association (APA). Porras, J. & Robertson, P. (1992). Organisation development: In Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (eds M. Dunnette & L. Hough). London: Consulting Psychologists Press. pp. 719 822
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'