The phenomenon called change is not new. It has been part of our lives and our organization for a long time. The environment in which organization comes to life, grow mature and die.
Change is natural and this is buttressed by the elementary saying that the only constant thing in life is change. Change is a process which is rarely contained by functional or specialist boundaries. Change in one part of an organization invariably affects invariably people and processes in another part.
To change something implies altering it, varying or modifying it in some way. Organization change, or adapt, what they want to achieve and how they wish to achieve it. Some organizations change mainly in response to external circumstances (reactive change); other change principally because they have decided to change (proactive). Some organizations are conservative in outlook, seeking little in the way of change, others are entrepreneurial in outlook, ever seeking new opportunities and new challenges. Some organizations are constructed (even restricted!) so that change, i.e. adaptation, is a show and difficult process, others are designed with an in-built flexibility, enabling adaptation to take place regularly and relatively easily.
Organizations seek over-higher performance while implementing new technologies, streamlining employment and simplifying system and processes. The contemporary organization certainly needs to cope with both external and internal changes in the environment and among its employees. The static or totally reactive organization will have a difficult time surviving in a changing society.
The contemporary organization certainly needs to cope with both external and internal changes in the environment and among its employees. The static or totally reactive organization will have a difficult time surviving in a changing society.
Managers are criticized for emphasizing short-term, quick-fix solution to organizational problems. When applied to organizational change, this approach is doomed from the start. Quick-fix solutions do not really solve underlying problems, and they have little staying power. Researchers and managers alike have thus tried to identify effective ways to manage the change process.
What is your understanding of “Organizational change? Organizational change can be viewed from different scholars based on their perspective of the phenomenon.
According to G.A Cole, and Phil Kelly in their book, Management Theory and Practice (Seventh edition), organization change concerns the alteration or organizational components (such as the mission, strategy, goal, structure, processes, system, technology and people) to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the organization. Change may take place in any part and at any level of organization.
To Kimberly viewed organizational change from the analogy of life cycle of organizations. The use of this biological metaphor though imperfect; sensitizes us to the fact that organization do not go along in the same state for eternity. Organizations are born, grow, and decline, sometime they re-awaken, and sometime they disappeared.
According to Robert Kreitner and Angelo Kinicki, in their book Organizational Behavior gave a useful three-way typology of change namely: Adaptive, Innovative, and Radically change. This typology is generic because it relates to all sorts of change, including both administrative and technological changes.
To Kanter, organizational change can be seen from an internal perspective, constantly shifting coalitions and factions.
When we think of organization change, we may think of significant change aimed at making the organization more effective such as merger, acquisitions, buyout, downsizing, restructuring, the launch of new products and the outsourcing of major organizational activities. Example of smaller (effiency based) change include: departmental reorganizations, the implementation of new technologies and systems. The primary needs for change derive from the need for alignment between the organizations internal and external environments.
Change can be triggered by any number of external and internal factors. External triggers may include:
-Changes in demand for the organizations products or services.
-Threatening tactics of competitors
Failure of key supplier to meet the organizations requirements.
-Development of new technologies now available for application.
-Political changes.
-Arrival of a newcomer with a competing product or service.
-Merger of the business with another.
-Takeover of the business by a more powerful enterprise.
An important point concerning these external triggers is that some are less predictable than others, and therefore less open to planned (i.e. proactive) change. Internal triggers, which should, in theory, be more predictable indicators of change, include the following:
-Need to deploy people (the human resources) where they are most effective.
-Need to improve standards/systems for dealing with suppliers.
-Need to respond to the development of new products/services.
-Need to improve the quality of products/services.
-Need to improve productive efficiency/make better use of resources.
-Effort to introduce cultural changes
Planned changes in strategy.
Adaptive change is lowest in complexity, cost, and uncertainty. It involves reimplementation of a change in the same organizational unit at a later time or imitation of a similar change by a different unit. Innovative changes fall midway continuum of complexity, cost, and certainty. An experiment with flexible work schedules by an organization qualifies as an innovative change if it entails modifying the way other firms in the industry already use it. Unfamiliarity, and hence great uncertainty, makes fear of change a problem with innovative changes.
At the high end of the continuum of complexity, cost, and uncertainty are radically innovative changes. Changes of this sort are the most difficult to implement and tend to be the most threatening to managerial confidence and employee job security. At the same time, however, radically changes potentially realize the greatest benefits.
Having established the need for change, change initiators then consider whether the organization is in fact ready for change. Kurt Lewin, the social psychologist whose most theories of organizational change originated from his landmark work.
Lewin developed a three-stage model of planned change which explained how to initiate, manage, and stabilize the change process. The three stages are Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing. Many change agents use force-field analysis as an analytical tool to understand the dynamic of change.
It is important to highlight the assumptions underlying Lewins model:
-The change process involves learning something new, as well as discontinuing current attitudes, behaviour, or organization practices.
-Change will not occur unless there is a motivation to change. This is often the most difficult part of the change process.
-People are the hub of all organizational changes. Any change, whether in terms of structure, group process, reward systems, or job design, requires individuals to change.
-Resistance to change is found even when the goals of change are highly desirable.
-Effective change requires reinforcing new behaviours, attitudes, and organizational practices.
Rotarian TM Akeem Gbadamosi, M.Sc Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management.
Chief Executive Officer, First-Goldmine Consulting (An Human Resource Management and Development Services Firm) and Convener, Centre for Human Resource Emancipation (C4HRE)- (An NGO focusing on SDG 8- Decent Job and Economy Growth).
HR Consulting Nigeria's Blog 