Critically Examine the Arguments for and Against Deliberately Trying to Change Organizations

Assessed Essay OC4 Critic completelyy examine the arguments for and against purposely trying to motley organizations Introduction Before we begin to explore whether it is a worthwhile put to work to seek to permute an g each overning body through with(predicate) and through a think nestle we must first begin with a interpretation of our terms. W put on might we mean(a) by delibe tread, switch and an presidential term To do so depart servicing us explore under what circumstances think lurch may be worthwhile or even possible. Huczynski & Buchanan (1991) define organizations as kind arrangements for the assureled mental transition of collective goals.This definition fits well those who would propose a delibe reckon deviate onset as it suggests an element of control of the organisation is possible. It withal pictures the organisation as a separate entity whose goal is to control and that at that place is agreement by the members on what these goals should be. Th e fits with the roots of Organisational Development that the cognitive operation of the organisation can be enhanced by exerting control in some way over the structures, cognitive processes and individuals that make up the organisation.Some would take in as issue except with the concept of the organisation as a seperate entity Morgan (1986) organizations atomic number 18 complex and paradoxical phenomena that can be understood in assorted ways thus variety of the organisation is a ofttimes more complex issue. In Morgans view, the idea that we can identify the elements that make up the organisation, in the same way that you might dismantle a machine, does non allow for the complexity that exists. As our view of the organisation affects our perspective our definition of the type of transform we atomic number 18 examining will also affect the domain of our investigation.Schein (1969) defines variety as the initiation of new patterns of action, belief and attitudes amon g substantial segments of the nation. Change is something that is started by some iodine (a shift agent), but does not inescapably inquire to involve every atomic number 53. For Schein, transport is deep rooted in that it goes beyond the surface level veer of process and goes to the core of behaviour beliefs and attitudes. Lippett (1973) economic consumptions a broader definition any fancyned or unplotted alteration to the attitude quo.We will explore whether, using such a broad definition, the planned get along might be more suitable to particular conditions. Our final examination term in need of definition is deliberate interpolate. fording & Ford (1995) define this as when a qualifying agent deliberately and consciously sets out to establish conditions and circumstances that atomic number 18 different from what they ar now and wherefore accomplishes that through some set or serial publication of actions and interventions either singularly or in collaboration wi th other lot. thence deliberate neuter involves intent that distinguishes it from multifariousness which is not consciously produced and alternatively occurs as a series of side effects, accidents or out of the blue(predicate) consequences of actions. The Arguments for Deliberate Change 1. Performance is enhanced by the controlled introduction of transfer quite an than allowing it to happen haphazardly. It is worth noting that the classical sexual climax, from which this argument derives, was developed during a period when the management get down was fairly reactive and adhoc.The scientific mount to management was an court to gain order and efficiency. Fayol (1949), suggested the role of mangers is to plan, organise, command, co-ordinate and control. Critics of the approach would attack the concept of leadership portrayed by Fayol and others e. g. Collins who speaks of take 5 leaders who are more servants than charismatic controllers those who would look in the mirror w hen performance dips and praise their team for the successes achieved. Those who would act more as facilitators than controllers. there is also wider admonition of the notion that planned transfer is wide for organisations per se. This seems to be a notion that permeates much of OD literature, that individuals need to be controlled for channelise to be effective.. Croch et al challenges the view that because leaders see odd turbulence they act as a buffer to the organisation to play down this by resistance, denial or inaction. Leaders are inherently obstructionist in their stance. Burnes & Stalker (1961) found that sooner than act as a blocker to replace leaders seized the opportunity to initiate action.Thus one could struggle that preferably than needing to control individual action it may be more assign to allow individuals the freedom to seize the opportunities that prevail slightly them. one could also question the view that planned change is more effective than unpl anned change. Studies examining the success of transformations dumbfound suggested that 66% of organisations fail in their change efforts (Sturdy 7 Grey (2003) 2. Change now takes place at an ever accelerating rate, if managers do not plan how to deal with change there is a danger that the organisation will be driven by vagaries of its environment.Some critics would question the notion that change is as rapid and all pervasive as some writers would suggest. Weick (1985) would vie that the turbulence is only created in the perception of those who create the turbulence rather than by the events themselves. One could argue that rather than planned change by chance there is a chatter for planned stability. Individuals may be getting tired of the changes that are impose upon them and rather seek stability in their environment.Some would argue change has always been with us, others would argue that stability is equally as prevalent. The notion that change is a given is strengthened on Darwinian concept that all things evolve in a common way to arrive at ameliorate circumstances. 3. think change is the most effective way to deliver the performance as organisations need long term strategicalal plans to enable them to attain the results they require. This build from a top down view of the organisation head by a group of rational individuals who make finiss for the good of the organsiation and its members.Taylor (1911) and his scientific view of management the work of everyman is fully planned out by management supported the concept of leaders as rational decision makers, fully able to plan every task of the workers who in tour s implicate carried out the tasks assigned to them. John Harvey-Jones and would support this managerialist position by building a picture of the hero manager fully heart-to-heart of implementing any change they see fit. The argument also portrays the change process itself as rational capable of being controlled e. g.Leighs (1988) who identifies a list of upcountry and external triggers to change that can enable the control to take place. Pettigrew (1985) criticises the approach for taking an acontextual, atheoretical and aprocessual stance organisations are not this independent entity that the writers suggest. Clegg (1990) suggests organisations are embedded in a ne devilrk of wider social relationships. Organisations dont just reside in an environment they are part of its fabric. Thus even if the leaders have the skills the control of the complexity would be beyond them.There is also criticism aimed at the assumption that planned change results in the intended outcomes. Grevenhoest et al (2003) The outcome of the change process is oftentimes different from what was planned and new projects are often started before introductory ones have finished properly Other studies have questioned the success rate of planned change in achieving their initial goals. What would be the success rate of unplanned change? How much change takes place as a reaction of internal and external forces rather than through some strategic planning process? 3.Planned change enables the change agent and those implementing the change to take into account a range of issues that would not otherwise be included. Although this may be true it does not necessarily follow that this promoter they are able to influence or control these factors. The argument, by bring ining a scientific approach assumes that by identifying the issues the individuals then have the skills and ability to garble the issues to make the change more effective. such capacity, even if it is possible, presumes highly innovative skills. Would the individuals possess such skills? . Planned change enables leaders of the change to ensure that the changes are introduced in such a way that they are authoritative by the individuals within the organisation. Ford & Ford (1995) point to the provide of parley in driving change. everything, including pr evailing conditions and circumstances, is seen as created by and in discourse in the absence of communication there is no intentional change. Such communications follow fairly simple patterns and the drivers of change can use different types of conversation to make the changes happen.At a more big Level Lewin (1951) placed the individual in the group to which they belong which forms the individuals perceptions, feelings and actions. He maintained the emplacement quo is held together by various field forces which, when identify could be strengthened or diminished to bring about the inevitable change. By unfreezing the status quo, then moving to the new claim and in the long run re freezing the changes become effective. These concepts seem to adopt a rather simplified view of individual behaviour and of the change process itself. They imply change can be mapped as a set of stages hat individuals go through and which can then be planned and controlled, e. g. by the use of commun ication techniques. Bandura (1986) questions this simplistic approach to individual behaviour and instead proposes a social cognitive view people are uncomplete driven by inner forces nor automatically shaped and controlled by external stimulibehaviour, cognitive and other personal forces and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants of each other. Arguments against Planned Change Burnes and Salauroo (1995) aim four criticisms at the planned change approach 1.Much of OD on which it is based was designed for top-down, autocratic rule based organisations, which operated in a predictable and persistent environment. Such a picture of the organisation is one that the management Gurus of the 1980s and 1990s fought against (Peters & Waterman, Kanter) arguing instead for an organisation that was bottom up, that was built around team working rather than hierarchy. Involving matrix management and elongate spans of control rather than vast hierarchical structures to exer cises control over the workers. dexterous (2001) now argues that such vast hierarchical organisations will be some in numbers and instead the workforce will be epitomised by fleas living in some symbiotic relationship but over whom the large organisations have midget control. Thus one should not attempt to apply the principles to a business environment that undergoes constant change and whose watchwords are consultation and facilitation rather than authority and control. However to suggest that all organisations have moved away from a top down, autocratic stance is perhaps a little naive.Many may advocate a consultative approach but it is still the board of directors who make the strategic decisions. There is also the argument highlighted previously that the notion of rapid continual change is one of perception rather than concrete reality. 2. The focus of planned change tends to be on incremental change, taking place through a series of defined and controllable phases (Lewin) an d so it is unable to incorporate groundwork transformational change (Schein) Planned change involves detailed diagnosis of the issues, action and then evaluation before further action and evaluation in an reiterative cycle.It recognises change needs to be self-sustaining. Quinn (1980) draws a picture of the executive who seeks out, through various channels, a range of data before proactively taking travel to implant support, form coalitions, and constantly re evaluate the steering of the organisation as he moved it gradually in the didactics he seeks. Such planned change, could be very costly and ride intensive. Payne & Reddins study of a major change at a tobacco factory calculated the cost as 25-person manager long time of OD.Is such a cost justified in light of the explore that suggests much of the changes would prove ineffective? In the case of rapid, radical change a coercive approach might be more appropriate than the planned approach. Does change really take place in s uch a controlled, phased way? Are change agents able to introduce change in such a controlled way? What about the role of power and politics? Buchanan & Badham suggested that politics is a reality and by necessity change agents have to get involved otherwise the changes are likely to fail.However, would the change agent have the skills to engage in such behaviour successfully? If the change involves culture change, difficulties start at the analysis stage as culture is difficult to define therefore how can you then plan to make changes? Where would the start and end point be and how would you evaluate the differences? 3. Planned change makes the assumption that there is common agreement between all parties and that they all have a willingness and interest in making the changes.It seems to adopt a unitarist approach to change that suggests organisations are essentially co operative, that little conflict exists amongst the members on the overall aims of the organisation. Both the plur alist and radical schools would argue much conflict exists in reality. The radical school might go as outlying(prenominal) as to suggest that the workers need protection from management, as the drivers of the 2 groups are completely different. Certainly the planned approach seems to view the managers as rational, altruistic individuals who always act for the good of the organisation and its members.Bowman C. (1999) suggests that changes to the status quo tend to emerge from action and rarely come from strategic analysis. It is far better then for changes to take place as a watercourse of decisions over time than agreeing some common vision of the outcomes intended by the changes. The Marxist view would challenge this by suggesting that as their focus is on increasing profits, by necessity that involves the exploitation of the members of the organisation. 4.The planned approach assumes the approach is suitable for all organisations. Pettigrew & Whipp (1991) instead suggest that no such universal rules exist and leading change actually involves a flow of actions that need to be appropriate to the context rather then working through some recipe for success as is suggested by some texts e. g. Leighs (1988) telling change twenty ways to make it happen Pettigrew (1985) criticises the approach for concentrating on change episodes rather than the processual dynamics of changing.Few have undertaken longitudinal studies to explore the process of change which would enable you to place the changes in the context within which they occur For Pettigrew it is these structures and contexts which give the changes form, meaning and dynamic. He also criticises planned change for assuming managers work to achieve an end state that is knowable and achievable whereas change is a complex process that doesnt occur in bite size chunks. You need to explore the process of changing and not just the change itself.This is perhaps rather a harsh criticism, as it was not suggested that th e approach would suit all situations at all times. In fact the focus is very much on incremental change however even here critics question the grassroots tenets of the approach built on the idea that change takes place as a steady flow of incremental changes towards a common goal. Gersick (1991) suggests a punctuated equilibrium paradigm through which to view change to challenge the view that individual systems develop along the same path.Gersick proposes the notion of periods of equilibrium punctuated by revolutionary periods that cause upheaval in the change process rather than some gradual incremental step to the end goal. van de Van & Poole (1995) suggest that rather than take the one shoe fits all approach we need to look at the different perspectives through which writers view change and explore where they are inter related. One could also argue that the planned approach to change suggests that conflict needs to be eliminated and organisations need to make for a smooth tran sition from one state to another.The notion goes rear end to the notion that change occurs in phases and the concept that individuals reaction hen approach with change is to attempt to block it. There has also been much criticism of the planned approach in that, although it attempts to tackle how to implement change when it comes to peculiar(prenominal) guidance the writers provide little substance. Recipes for success do exist however they are very general in their approach e. g.The planned approach seems to view change as episodic, the result being that it takes the view that the organisation exists in a stable environment which is interrupted by periods of change which need to be controlled to ensure a smooth transition from one state to another and recreate the stability. The role of the change agent is to create the change by focusing on leverage points that will help ensure any conflict is resolved. It is possible however to take a different perspective Weick & Quinn (1999) Organisations are not specific entities but social processes, which are emergent and constantly changing rather than inert.Change instead of punctuated equilibrium is a pattern of endless incremental modifications that is driven by a range of internal and external forces. As such rather than using a set recipe for success the individuals involved in the change need a vast range of skills to enable them to accommodate to the forces affecting them. Change is not an end state but a process that is cyclical. The role of the change agent is to facilitate rather than create, to redirect the change that already takes place rather than create change.However Weick and Quinn argue that because episodic change examines change at the macro level and consecutive change at the micro level it is possible to reconcile the two approaches. Change is a mixture of reactive and proactive modifications, guided by purposes at hand, rather than an intermittent interruption of periods of convergence. C ollins (1998) change and continuity are not alternative objective states. Because they are typically coexistentwhat constitutes change or continuity is perspective dependentOne could ask the question Do managers need to learn how to manage change or enhance stability and learn to manage continuity if they trust to survive? References Armenakis, A. A. and Bedeian A. G. (1999) organisational Change a Review of Theory and question in the 1990s. ledger of focusing 25 (3) 293-315. Bandura, A. 1986 Social Foundations of thought and work on a social cognitive surmisal. Bowman, C. (1999) Action Led strategy and managerial self-confidence. Journal of Managerial psychology 7/8 555-568. Buchanan, D. and Badham, R (1999) government and organizational change the lived experience.Human Relations 52 (5) 609-629. Burnes, B. 2000 Managing change a strategic approach to organisational dynamics. Collins, D. (1998) Organizational Change Sociological Perspectives. Doolin, B. (2003) Narratives o f Change Discourse, engineering and Organization Organization 10 (4). Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. (1995) The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. 20 (3) 541-570. Francis. H and Sinclair. J. (2003) A processual analysis of HRM-based change. Organization 10 (4) 685-700. Gersick, C. J. G. 1991) Revolutionary change theories a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. honorary society of steering Review 16 (1) 10-36. Gravenhorst, K. M. B. Werkman, R. A. & Boonstra. J. J. (2003) The change capacity of Organisations general assessment and Five Configurations. Applied Psychology 52 (1) 83-105. Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R. (1996) Understanding radical Organizational Change Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of counseling Review 21 (4) 1022-1054. Hardy, C. (1996) Understanding Power bringing about strategic change.British Journal of Management 7 (special issue)S3-S16. Hoskings, D. M. and Anderson, N 1992 Organizational change and innovation Psychological perspectives and practices in Europe. Petigrew, A. and Whipp, R,1993 Managing Change for competitive success. Pettigrew et al (2001) perusing Organizational Change and development Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal 44 (4) 697-713 Quinn, J. B. (1980) Managing strategic change. Sloan Management Review 21 (4) 67-86. Rajagopalan, N. and Spreitzer, G. M. 1996 Toward a theory of strategic change a multi-lens perspective and integrative framework.Academy of Management Review 22 (1) 48-79. Sturdy, A. and Grey , C. (2003) Beneath and Beyond organizational change management exploring alternatives 10 (4) 651-662. Tsoukas, H. (1998) Chaos, complexity and organization theory Organization 5 (3) 291-313. Van de Van A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 20 (3) 510-540. Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. (1999) Organizational change and development. Annu al Review of Psychology 50 361-386. Weick K. E. (2000) Emergent Change as a universal in organizations in Breaking the code