Introduction Change is the only constant in life. And therefore it should be understood as part of a continuing work in progress that calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing voices, and works with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of messy reality (Graetz, F. & Smith, A., 2010). In this submission I try to show that organizational change is majorly based on the environment surrounding it much more than the desire of the members or change agents working in that organization. This view diverts from that of Lippitt, (1958) who suggests that implementing planned organizational changes successfully depends on premeditated interventions intended to modify the functioning of an organization. It also diverts from the traditional approaches to organizational change that generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition (Collis, 1998). In this discussion therefore, comparison made between the different philosophies of change and I try to show that successful change implantation largely depends on an organizations appreciation of what goes on around it rather than what they have planned as a strategic direction. Environmental factor for change Organizations operate in a turbulent environment that forces them to change even against their will to do so. Every organization has a fair prediction of its future that is why they all spend time and resources to put in place strategic plans. More often they get challenged not to follow these plans because they fail to appreciate that change is a natural phenomenon which is intimately entwined with continuity and that change-continuity continuum is what defines organ... ... middle of paper ... ...American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (June 2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management 10(2), 135–154. Gray, J. (2009) Bound for Rio. AFR Magazine, 28 November, 27-31 Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational Change (New York: The FreePress). Meyer, H.-D. and Rowan, B. (2006) The New Institutionalism in Education (Albury: SUNY Press). Newman, J. (2012). An organisational change management framework for sustainability. Greener Management International, 57, 65–75. Van de Ven, A. and Drazin, R (1985) The concept of fit in contingency theory, in: L. Cummings and B. Staw (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 333–365 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Williams, R. (2008) The big South African, Good Weekend, July 26, 18–24.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Spector, B. (2013). Implementing organizational change: theory into practice. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ
Kegan, R. & L. Laskow Lahey. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Change is a fundamental element of individuals, groups and all sorts of organizations. As it is the case for individuals, groups and societies, where change is a continuous process, composed of an indefinite amount of smaller sub-changes that vary in effect and length, and is affected by all sorts of aspects and events, many of which cyclic are anticipated ones. It is also the case for organizations, where change occurs repeatedly during the life cycle of organizations. Yet change in organizations is not as anticipated nor as predictable, with unexpected internal and external variables and political forces that can further complicate the management of change (Andriopoulos, C. and P. Dawson, 2009), which is by itself, the focus of many scholars in their pursuit to shed light on and facilitate the change process (Kotter 1996; Levin 1947; et al).
Nowadays, organizational change has a serious implication for the survival of an organization (Furst & Cable, 2008). Change is critical, necessary, and has becomes a key factor to win the game.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Burke, W. W. (2014). Organization change: Theory and practice, 4 edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lawton, P. (1995). Initiating and managing change in your organization. The Management Accounting Magazine , 69 (n.7).
When organizational change proves necessary, all people at all levels of the organization should address change as a “how,” “what,” and “why” problem in order for the change to be sustained over time.
The idea of change is the most constant factor in business today and organisational change therefore plays a crucial role in this highly dynamic environment. It is defined as a company that is going through a transformation and is in a progressive step towards improving their existing capabilities. Organisational change is important as managers need to continue to commit and deliver today but must also think of changes that lie ahead tomorrow. This is a difficult task because management systems are design, and people are rewarded for stability. These two main factors will be discussed with reasons as to why organisational change is necessary for survival, but on the other hand why it is difficult to accomplish.
One of the first scholars to describe the process of organizational change was Lewin (1974). He described change as a three-stage process that consists of unfreezing, moving and freezing stage. During the unfreezing stage the organizations become motivated to change by some event or objective. The moving stage is like implementation when the organization actually makes the necessary change. Furthermore the freezing stage is reached when the change becomes permanent. Organizational change has also...
However, Lewin’s central model centres on unfreezing, effecting change and then refreezing, starting from the status quo, then moving things and then continuing with the new status quo (Green, 2007). Kotter’s change model focuses on establishing urgency, guiding coalition, developing strategy, communication, empowerment, short-term wins, consolidation of gains to produce and anchor new changes (Sabri et al, 2007). Kotter does not engage with the complexity of organisational systems and potential clashing, he sees change being systematic, architectural, political and doesn’t engage strongly with the less deterministic metaphors in the latter steps (Smith et al, 2015). However, Kotter does highlight the importance of communicating the vision and keeping the communication high throughout the process although this starts with a burst of energy and in later stages its followed by delegation and distance (Cameron and green, 2009). Lewin’s change model focuses on people with the collaboration, contribution creating a force field approach to change including the power holders socially, culturally and behaviourally to drive change (Smith et al, 2015). However, Lewin’s approach ignores the metaphor of groups of people only willing to change if there is a need to do so, the model is more of a planning tool rather than an organisational development process (Cameron and green,
The world is constantly changing in many different ways. Whether it is technological or cultural change is present and inevitable. Organizations are not exempt from change. As a matter of fact, organizations have to change with the world and society in order to be successful. Organizations have to constantly incorporate change in order to have a competitive advantage and satisfy their customers. Organizations use change in order to learn and grow. However, change is not something that can happen in an organization overnight. It has to be thought through and planned. The General Model of Planned Change focuses on what processes are used by the organization to implement change. In the General Model of Planned Change, four steps are used in order to complete the process of change. Entering and Contracting, Diagnosing, Planning and Implementing, and Evaluating and Institutionalizing are the four steps used in order to complete the process of change in an organization. The diagnostic process is one of the most important activities in OD(Cummings, 2009, p. 30).
Organisations as machines, political systems, organisms, and flux and transformation are particularly common assumptions that are often used by managers, writers and consultants to make sense of how organizational change works. In reality most organizations use combinations of approaches to tackle change and not just one of the above, however these provide useful insights into the process of organizational change (Cameron and Green, 2012). This essay will try to make sense out of these assumptions to understand what organisational change is. By doing so, insights will be drawn on how organizational change can be managed and led.