Definition Pierce et al (2002) states that the movement by an organisation to a future and preferred state from its current state is referred to as organisational change. According to Catalyst (2012), “Organisational change refers to strategies for change management and the means by which organisations can most effectively implement and sustain efforts to create inclusive workplaces.” Possible Catalysts for Change According to Jones (2004), a response to a current crisis situation or a reaction to an ever-changing environment results to organisational change from a passive viewpoint. Also, a trigger by a progressive manager can result to organisational change from an active perspective. Haveman, Russo and Meyer (2001) stated a transfer of executive power in particular portrays change in an organisation. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) suggested that the following theories can lead to organisational change: dialectical theory, teleological theory and life-cycle theory. Through a continuous process of goal-setting, execution, evaluation, and restructuring, organisational change is an atte...
Institutionalize Change in Organisational Culture – One important question is when does the process end. The successful culmination of change process is when the objectives of that process become a part of the daily organisational culture. When the next generation of management takes over, the objectives should be a part of the whole organisation and not just a single process or department.
S, Rawat 2001, Organisational Change and Forces Prompting Change, Academic Paper Review, Shovoong viewed on 2nd April 2011, on http://imgs.shvoongstatic.com/images/2011/_v_070420111027/scp.PNG">
Change is an inevitable part of life involving individuals and organizations. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a significant organizational change. The analysis will explore the change, the reason behind the change, key players, the timeframe, the outcomes, leadership strategies, mistakes made by key players and suggestions to alleviate the mistakes.
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.
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).
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.
Organizational changes are constant in both the public and private sector. Some changes are small and easily managed and others are large scale vision changes. With organization-wide changes, such as a redirection in the organizations vision, strong creative leaders are needed to ensure the vision is sold to the employees and that the change is implemented smoothly. The Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) has recently changed visions to strengthen the way we create long term public safety. This change in mission and vision statements was a smooth process but has not been implemented without its share of issues.
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.
Introduction Change as a word; how we see it or use it in our daily lives; means to transform or convert, move something from its original state to something new or different - for better or worse. But in an organization, what is change? Change in organizations could be on a small scale or a large one, and could include anything like mergers & acquisitions, new product developments, technological interventions, restructuring, people leaving or joining and many more. Changes could be caused due to internal factors, or external factors such as the environment. The environment evolves over time and organizations need to be able to cope up with this. '
Why do organizations change? With time goes by, rapid development of science and technology had led us to a world full of competitions. Change and stay alert to keep up with the current trend is essential asset to survive in this aggressive global economy. As the framework indicated by Pettigrew, there are two key context factors makes a great deal of effects on the reason for companies to change. Those are outer context and Inner context. Outer context could refer to the surrounding environment around the firm and the global economics status, etc. Inner context could be downsizing, restructuring the Gestalt, or the problem with coherent design archetype. Under the stress of the outer and inner context, forces or triggers will bring out the revolution. Change can be seen in a short term way and also in a long term way. Short term change could be a sudden, discontinuous and frame-breaking rupture which has an impact on the whole organisation, or new forms of management ad structure of the firm itself, or the breakthrough created by the major innovations or even can refers to the impact of new product and new market opportunities. Normally, financial crisis will be an initiative as a trigger to revolution. At first of the revolution, there would probably already has small changes in normal management and structure. As a long term way to apply the change, change agents are needed to do an ongoing, continuous and gradual progression or give some simpler initiatives such as improvements to existing products and product range.
Socialization is an important aspect for any organization which affects other aspects like productive behaviour, making new recruits feel like ‘home’ and many others.
Understanding the structure of an organization plays a vital role in laying the blueprint for how a company will be managed and organized. It provides a well-defined framework that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each employee in a particular company. It shows how each employee interacts and works one another in achieving the goals of a company. In other words, organizational structure is a reflection of the working relationships that govern the workflow of the company. It has a profound effect on a company’s structural dimensions, which includes formalization, specialization, hierarchy and centralization.
Jane Jacobs once said, “People must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other.” In some respects, I agree with Jane Jacobs’ quote, but in other ways, I do not. As a member of society, I cannot control what other people do, nor can I entirely stop them from doing certain things. However, I can stand up for what is right and try to correct or stop those actions. If I see an injustice happening, I believe that, as long as it is not a safety risk, it is my responsibility to stand up and help the people in need, regardless of who they are or if you know them. To me, being an agent of social change means that I need to stand up for what is right and help in any ways I can to make the word
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...
In relation to social transformation I have gathered materials that focusses on programs provided for ‘refugees’ living in New Zealand. The purpose of my findings are based on the societies support for ‘refugees’ in terms of human security and directions of life before settling in their new destination. There are stories about ‘refugees’ that need to be shared and stories that need to be forgotten, because it can produce controversy within the society or the universe. But where can these ‘refugees’ go if the place they call home is unsafe or too risky for the lives of their families and for themselves. It’s hard enough to migrate into a new country, but it is devastating for refugees who have experienced the loss of homes and loved ones.