LITERATURE REVIEW
When the organizational restructuring is done properly it will lead your organization to give maximum organizational performance.
In a research article of William McKinley and Andreas Georg they explored two consequences of organizational restructuring that are usually unforeseen by managers and they are, at organizational restructuring level of producing cognitive order for top executives, while at the environmental level the consequence of environmental instability. Both feed back to promote further organizational restructuring, making restructuring a self-interest sphere.
Most of the business press and intellectual writing on this phenomenon are restricted to restructuring's anticipated financial and strategic consequences. Following Merton's (1936), Rogers' (1995), and Tenner's (1996) distinctions between foreseen and unforeseen consequences, but William and Andreas focused on some less transparent consequences of restructuring that they believe are unanticipated by most managers. They proposed that organizational restructuring in an unstable environment generates a sense of cognitive order for top executives but it is not shared by their subordinates, who are prone to perceive organizational restructuring and as a result it becomes a source of cognitive disorder and leads the employees to betrayal. The environmental instability produced by large-scale organizational restructuring stimulates executive perceptions of environmental instability and, thence, additional restructuring.
In a research article on organizational performance the authors David Parker and Keith Hartley says that they went through the study of 10 organizations in the U.K. which underwent changes in their organizations. Their focus of ...
... middle of paper ...
...: Cornell University, School of Industrial & Labor Relations Stable retrieved on:20th April, 10 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038608 Accessed: 30/12/2009 02:26
• http://www.restructuringfilePages%20from%20Chapter%203%20-%20The%20impact%20of%20change%20on%20people%20(2).pdf)
• http://www.restructuringHelpingYourOrganizationRestructure. (n.d) pdf
• http://www.restructuringJBAM_7_3_1_Organizational_Commitment.pdf
• http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1030446.html
• http://www.Healthcare Restructuring The Impact of Job Change Vol_ 14 No_ 1 2001 Nursing Leadership (CJNL) Longwoods Publishing.mht
• E:araTHESIS WORK estructuringImprove Your Business Organizational Restructuring.mht May 08, 2006
• http://www.articlesbase.com/organizational-articles/organizational-restructuring-management-analysis-945103.html
Sloane. A. A., Witney, F. (2010). LABOR RELATIONS (13th editions). Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ
Reynolds, Lloyd G. and Stanley H. Masters and Colletta H. Moser. Labor Economics and Labor Relations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Cox, A., Bok, D. C., Gorman, R. A., & Finkin, M. W. (2011). Labor law cases and materials. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Thompson Reuters/Foundation Press.
Within nature, any form of species focus on selection and adaptation towards their environment to better themselves; organizations to utilize this idea as a metaphor to personify the organization-environment theory of population ecology underlining any organization functions as a living or dying species. Primarily, population ecology reflects both a rationalist and naturalist perspectives. Population ecology echoes rationalist theory because power is frequently controlled by those in superior positions due to their experiences within the organization (Taylor 25). Also, population ecology is natural because it denies specificity and predictability due to the organization’s dependence of the fluctuation of environmental resources (Sutton 1/20/11). Ultimately for any organization to adapt and change the future of the establishment, it is necessary for workers in a dominant and higher position to ruminate any strategies and environmental opportunities and threats (Hannan 930). Henry Yang, as UCSB’s chancellor, ...
Achieving organizational change that produces real results is not just a managerial challenge; it is also a cognitive challenge. As Peter Senge stated in an article on leadership "deep organizational change requires a change in people. Redrawing the lines and boxes in your org chart without addressing the way people within the organization interact may be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" (1996). Leaders find it easier to address tasks rather than the complex dynamics of human interactions. The outcome of which is a focus on the short-term and local not the longer-term and global results from change.
Sovie, M. D., & Jawad, A. F. (2001, December). Hospital restructuring and its impact on outcomes. nursing staff regulations are premature. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(12), 588-600. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com
If the organization succeeds then the employees also succeeds. Employees must see the bigger picture and must feel that they are part of the organization and not just a one man show.
Faced with changing markets and higher competition, more and more firms are struggling to reestablish their dominance, keep market share, and in some cases, ensure their survival. Many have come to understand that the key to competitive success is to transform the way they function. They are reducing reliance on managerial authority, formal rules and procedures, and narrow divisions of work. In effect, companies are moving from the hierarchical and bureaucratic model of organization that has defined corporations since World War II to what can be called the task-driven organization where what has to be done governs who works with whom and who leads. But while senior managers understand the necessity of change to cope with new competitive realities, they often misunderstand what it takes to bring it about.
Organizational change is a very big risk for organizations. The process of change can be very difficult for employees as well as the leaders implementing the changes. The changes are usually planned to improve the company. However, sometimes change can destroy a company when things don’t go as planned. From a change in management to a change in the company structure, or way of doing daily task, organizations must carefully execute the process of change and use change strategies that will ensure success.
Spinks, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Nursing Leadership. The Changing Workforce, Workplace and Nature of Work: Implications for Health Human Resource Management, 20(3), 26-41.
Organizational structure can be defined as the “formal arrangement of jobs within an organization” (Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 185). Having a defined and unified structure helps employees work more efficiently. Jacques Kemp, former CEO of ING Insurance Asia/Pacific, realized this need early on in his role. The company had been performing well and recently acquired another insurance company to become “one of the largest life insurance companies in Asia-Pacific” (Schotter, 2006, p. 4). However, Kemp’s proactive personality led him to seek out ways to achieve more efficient coordination between the regional office and business units (Robbins & Coulter, 2009). Kemp noticed that “most business unit managers did not even know the current corporate standards” and he began searching for a way to manage the managers (Schotter, 2006, p. 5). ING Insurance Asia/Pacific’s organizational structure was mechanistic and fairly well structured, but for a company that had recently been involved in a major acquisition and was divided across 12 geographically dispersed markets there was a great need to tweak this structure to unify the company (Schotter, 2006). If I had been in Kemp’s position as CEO, I would have made modifications to the organizational chain of command, formalized business processes, and used technology to stimulate collaboration amongst the region to help this company overcome organizational design challenges.
The contemporary business environment is dynamic, ever-changing and increasingly competitive. Their is potential for success, but even more for failure. Businesses are heavily influenced by the changing organisational environment and this intern creates much uncertainty for managers and organisations. With increasing uncertainty in the external environment, the more important it is that managers engage in continual planning. (Robbins 2012 p. 32) Businesses must be flexible and evolve in accordance with their external environment.
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.
Holley, William H, Kenneth M. Jennings, and Roger S. Wolters. The Labor Relations Process. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
It is apparent that the only thing constant in business is change. Organizational change is often an overwhelming challenge for business leaders, managers and employees alike. The need for change may be the result of market shifts, economic environment, technology advancements or changing work force skill-set demands. Today Organizational change occurs for reasons that originate external to the organization (Chandler, 1996: Hannan & Freeman, 1984), as well as internal to the organization (Baker 1990: Prechel 1994). Thus, External constraints, internal constraints, resource dependency and increasingly growing competitive markets force organizations to change in order to maximize economic potential. Although organizational changes are usually a response in reaction to an event, companies and leaders should still expect to encounter issues. Organizations need to be more proactive and contingent on how to handle the problems that will inevitably come about. This will make the process of organizational change go smoothly as well as reduce resistance through proper management techniques. Resource dependency argues that both environmental and organizational constraints impact organizational change (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003).