Organizational change Assignment 2

Organizationalchange Assignment 2

Summary

Theorganization’s changes are a crucial concept in the management oforganizations. Based on the three articles, changes in organizationsdynamism is internal and are affected by the external environment. Inaddition, the authors have demonstrated that some models of changeare inadequate. All the authors agree that there are a lot oforganizational change styles. The organization can adopt certainstrategies to realize the desired changes.

Accordingto his research Dunpy (1993), proposed a contingency model ofimplementing change. He claimed that managers and the change agentsmust differentiate their change strategies as per the givenenvironment. Just like many other contingency theories, there is noperfect or option for all situations but adoption of adaptationsgives way to the best choices. The best suggestion for management ofchange should be based on the change status that is needed to bringthe organization back into comfort with the external environment andthe kind of leadership involved to acquire the degree of change.

Inregard to various scale of changes, the model identified by Dunpyare fine tuning, increases in adjustment, transformation of modeland transformation of corporate. Fine-tuning is the process ofintroducing small modifications in order optimize and improve theoutcome. Incise in adjustment is the increase in change when variouscomponents of an organization separately and increasingly deal with agiven problem with one objective at ago model transformation is theorganizational change to the various parts of the organizationinstead of the whole company, while corporate transformation refersto changes of whole of the organization. The above changes mayinclude changes in the organizational structure, change orreformation of the mission.

Interms of styles of change, styles incorporated include collaboration,consultation, direction and coercive styles of change. According tothis approach, collaborative, consultative, directive and coercivestyles of change including fine tuning, increase in adjustment, modeltransformation and transformation of corporate scale of changes mustbe in agreement to the company’s needs. These styles of changefits into four majorly practiced programs of change, these aretransition developments, transitions on task-focused programs,charismatic transformation and turn-around.

Inorder to determine the differences between contingent and universalapproaches to corporate changes, a research of13 organization wasundertaken. By using Dunpy Stace, contingency model of changes inorganizational strategies, it developed measures of puttingorganizations within the model. The results indicated that universalmodels of change are inadequate. Of concern was the traditionalorganizational development model, which is not representative on howorganizations changes are made.

Thetraditional organizational development describes the increase inchange with combination of participatory management style however,the organizations in the study acquired transformation change by useof directive style. The organizational development style is similarto prescriptive model in that various change strategies led tosuccessful financial performance.

Accordingto Nadler and Tushman (1989) in their article has provided importantunderstanding into changes of large-scale organizations. The authorshave described basic concepts of organization change. They haveexplained an approach used to differentiate various types oforganization change. Nadler and Tushman argue that successfulorganization working in tough conditions is able to develop andeffectively implement anticipated strategic changes. These are theframe-bending organizational changes, which are termed asreorientation and are intense and system-wide changes developed as aresult of crisis or changes in environment.

Nadlerand Tushman have identified activities that are frame-bending orcharacterize and organization reorientation. The principles ofreorientations have been organized into four dimensions thoseinitiating change, contents of change, those leading the change andthe achievement of change.

Thereare two elements involved in organizational change, these arepolitics and pathology. All companies or organizations arepolitically constituted and changes occurs both individually and bygroups.

Bysourcing his views on anthropology, Sathe ( 1983) has developed a wayof perceiving corporate culture that enables change useful whendealing with the problems of the management. He demonstrated that bydifferentiating behavior and culture and looking both simultaneously,it is likely to see clearly why culture can be regarded as bothliability and asset and why it includes powerfully on organizationallife.

Accordingto Sathe, there are some cultures, which are not powerful. He haspresented approaches for alleviating culture problems andunderstanding strengths and some implications for management.Realizing that a culture that is resistant to change is had to beinfluenced, he mad suggestions for getting rid of such mismatches andfor better management so that a new comer to an organization won’tbe shocked. He then explains how culture misfits can be understoodand managed well and how to deviate from the culture of anorganization when it is required.

Thisarticle has focused on how culture can provide insights on theunderstanding of and dealing of management situations. Theindividual’s beliefs and values represent common assumptionsguiding the organizational opera tons and thinking. In addition,influence is subtle, since the employees are not acquainted withtheir basic beliefs and values until these beliefs and values arechallenged, broken or violated.

Thedifference between culture non-conformity and behavior non-conformitycan be looked at while entering or deviating from the culture. Themain problem with managers is to improve the benefits of culturewhile being alert to dangers of initiating a culture that is nottuned with the needs of the employees, business, and organization.Knowledgeable leaders avoids culture problems by adopting selectivenon-conformity in the organizations and deviation from culture whenneed arise.

References

DunphyD. and Stace, D. 1993. The strategic management of corporate change.Human Relations,46(8), 905 â 920.

Nadler,D.A. and Tushman, M.L. 1989. Organizational Framebending: principlesfor managing reorientation. Academyof Management Executive,3(3), 194-204.

Sathe,V. 1983. Implications of Corporate Culture. A Managerâs guide toaction. OrganizationalDynamics,5 -23.