Many people will approach change in a business environment with pre-conceived anxiety and worries. However, this does not always need to be the case – many employers are using new strategies and tactics to promote business change in a positive light – methods such as empowerment, Kaizen production, and bottom-up change are becoming evermore popular with large companies. First though, I want to examine why workplace change is such a worry for so many staff. The underlying reason for worries about change is the reluctance to give-up the established organisational culture of a particular department or business – in a sense “the way we do things around here”. This organisation culture may have been established for years, and developed as time, processes and resources have moved it along – although it may sound silly, an organisation culture can be very personal for some members of staff who may have helped develop it, or had to work with-it for a number of years.
You might not really be unhappy about the industry or your style of work. It might just be the organisation or the team that doesn’t suit you. you could end up being happy doing what you are doing now but by changing the company or taking a small break from it all – there are tons of routes to explore if you find yourself unhappy at work. So, if you find yourself unhappy at work, analyse carefully what the reason is. Don’t start swapping careers until you’ve thought about other ways of making your work seem more exciting and
Downsizing changes are usually caused by external competitive forces, whereas other changes to work operations emerge as a result of shifting forces within the organization. Many management analysts feel that political forces prevent adapting to this increasing rate of change and therefore become reactive organizations reacting drastically after problems come to light—preventing improvement in the original direction. TQM is a concept that would appear to be a foundation of developing an idealistic representation of business organizations, however, because of cultural issues, bussiness methodologies, and globalization, TQM remains as more of a “buzz word” than a system.
The people who make up that organization tend to prefer familiarity and stability; making the shift to an entirely new paradigm takes more effort than staying the current course. Even motivated staff can find themselves on uncertain footing when sweeping changes affect their organization's stability. New modes of thought, new skill-sets and new routines take time to instill. Metamorphosis is a potentially uncomfortable process. Four elements govern how successfully a sweeping change is implemented: How those directing the changes impart the goals and vision behind those changes to the rest of the organizational structure.
Introduction Organisational change happens when a company desire to make a move from its current state to some desired future state. Although many organisations and their leaders desire lasting, meaningful change, few are capable of achieving it. A combination of a complex set of skills is required to make the change happen successfully. ‘’The study of change is subservient to the proliferation of academic theories and practical solutions, many of which claims to possess the organisational change panacea and yet frequently are at odds.’’ (Donaldson, 1995). Change is constant - Benjamin Disraeli.
Change is important to the survival of an organization and according to history there are many examples in which organizations are no longer in business due to the failure of change. In order for an organization to be successful at change, the employees must have understanding of the change because the resistance that is presented by the employees is due to the fear of the unknown. The employees’ resistance to change depends on how they comprehend it and how well they are prepared to handle it (Hamric, Spross, and Hanson, 2005). Since in the late 90’s through the early 2000's, companies benefited from increasing revenues, outside resources, and expansion of their facilities and staff. In contrast, during 2004 they labored through reduction of 401k contributions, substantial layoffs, poor economic performance, and facility closures, which all resulted from a decrease in staff morale.
The lack of it could cause downsizing because of payroll issues. Technology is always changing, and some companies do not have the time or money to update their equipment. This will result in losing some customers, and without customers there is no inflow of money. Also with the changing technology comes more competition. Many new companies are trying to break into the business barriers.
According to Floyd and Wooldridge (2013), many organisations across the world prefer to use middle management to implement a strategic change. Guth and MacMillan (2011) posit, “it is well known that middle managers’ hold great importance as they act simultaneously as change recipients; absorbing change and as change implementers; applying change.” However, middle managers see the introduction of strategic change as obsolete, terming it, “The death of middle management.” There are various reasons why middle managers resist change. To start with, middle managers resist strategic change due to increased workload. According to Piderit (2012), aspects such as “larger workloads”, “replacement of permanent by temporary contracts”, “increased insecurity and surveillance”, and “a decline in lifetime employment” creates pressure at work and this brings about emotional dissension, tension, anxiety and uncertainty at work. Uncertainty creates fear for middle managers since they feel their positions are at risk, thereby resisting strategic change
For some, the thought of getting these theories considered for authenticity and their usefulness can and do range from reasonable questions to disregard as some people can and do struggle and debate over just the idea of new or improved ideas(Miles, McKenny, Short, Davis, Wu). As I read through the article, I began to develop an understanding of and appreciation for the history background of why the use of the management and organization theory is very useful. It became clear to me that while management and organization theorists also are aware that the times are changing and they need to change significantly their method of thought. While a lot of the business planning outlook plans has become shorter, an aggressive pressure is on the rise. This is leading to a... ... middle of paper ... ... that it is necessary for theorist, researchers and authors to come to a decision on the possible outcome on the development of a solid and majority approved thought process to drive organizational theory and research to its full potential (Miles, McKenny, Short, Davis, Wu).
With this change have come new demands, expectations, and opportunities for employers. Everyone deals with these demands differently, affecting the employee’s quality of life and job satisfaction. Though the job and office types and locations have changed over the years the need for job satisfaction has not. In today’s economy the job is not as stable as it used to be. One must be prepared for changes in the future.