Australia：Discussion on Organizational Change and Stability代
Discussion on Organizational Change and Stability
IntroductionAustralia：Discussion on Organizational Change and Stability代寫
In a fast-changing society, successful organizational change is critical for an organization to make the proper adjustment and therefore to survive. This fact is particularly true of business organizations which are driven by profits. However, it is noticed that successful organizational change is relatively rare if the total number of bankrupted companies is taken into account (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). Academia has made great efforts to search for reasons for such failure and corresponding strategies to deal with such challenges in change management. For instance, it is argued that the practice of organizational change is not easy to succeed “because management systems are designed, and people are rewarded for stability” (Lawler & Worley, 2006: 11). This paper first investigates both the advantages and disadvantages of stability within an organization; relevant researches in this section imply that management system (which is mainly reflected in organizational structure) and employee incentive programs do have incentives to maintain stability and act according to routines. Later, this paper point out that there might be some other reasons, such as mismanagement of organizational change, which lead to unsuccessful change; meanwhile, the manageability of such organizational change is also taken into account.
Stability and the Growth of an Organization
The Positive Impacts of StabilityThough it is well acknowledged that companies should have quick responses to the fast-changing market, companies also need a certain level of stability to ensure the success of change; this proper degree of stability justifies the existence of certain management systems and employee incentive programs which base on the principle of stability. For instance, scholars point out that in a hierarchical organization, a reasonable decision is usually a collective product, which involves a wide range of departmental cooperation, as well as a complex feedback system between managers and subordinates (Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2003). In other words, stable relationship between departments is beneficial to lay a solid and broad ground for making a wise and successful decision. In addition, there is an increasing popularity of the sustainable organizational growth, which inherently supports a proper degree of organizational stability (Chinta & Kloppenborg, 2010). In a word, stability allows a company to maximize the positive impacts of collective intelligence, and meanwhile it has become a goal and a means towards sustainable organizational growth. In this sense, the design of a management system found a reasonable ground for its tendency to be stable.
For employees in a company, they also need a certain degree of stability, and get rewards for it. Stability of an organization provides both psychological satisfaction and social recognition for employees (Leana & Barry 2000). In a relatively stable organization, it is relatively easy for employees to establish their reliable social relationships. Therefore, they have an incentive to seek stability. In addition, in many manufacturing companies’ employee rewarding programs, they have shown a tendency to promote stability because they want to promote standardization. For instance, the implementation of top-down total quality management (TQM) in the manufacturing process aims to ensure that the quality of the ultimate product is stable, and that the product itself is standardized (Beer, 2003). Payment policies in such system must reward those who have reached this goal. Therefore, employees can enjoy various kinds of benefits from stability in an organization or in the producing process.
The Negative Impacts of StabilityYet unintended promotion of stability might lead to a failure in organizational change and therefore an inferior long-term performance. Sometimes stability might kill the innovation plan. In order to have a “democratic” decision, managers in different departments need to stabilize this decision making process (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). Thus, to launch a new recruitment project, for instance, the human resource department, the financial department, and finally perhaps the executive department should approve this plan before its formal implementation. Under this situation, the effectiveness of an innovation decision might decrease; or worse, this plan might be killed because of the disapproval of a single department. Besides, organizational change, whether successful or not, is exposed both the organization and its staff to uncertainty, which is not preferable compared with stability and predictability (Leana & Barry, 2000). In a stable environment, a company is used to unchanged staffs, which might lead to a biased justification of the current or future situation when organizational change is imperative. In this sense, stability might make organizational vulnerable to organizational changes.
The Manageability of Organizational Change
The Inner Contradiction within Organizational ChangeEven though the aforementioned resistance did not exist, organizational change is difficult to succeed because of the inherent contradiction in what is called change-oriented organizational culture. Organizational culture is changing all the time because culture itself is developing. Feldman (2000) argues that though organizational routines are often perceived as stable, they also have the potential to promote organizational change, especially when the element of participant is involved. As time goes by, participants might offer suggestions for the amendment of a specific plan or policy. They are willing to do this because they can make an existing plan or policy much more easy and comfortable for themselves. However, such change might be incremental rather than revolutionary. Participants (both managers and employees) might not even perceive these differences. Thus, organizational change and routines (which stand for stability) are interrelated. This inner contradiction within organizational change indicates that while changes happen every moment, these changes also show adherence to its original state. If poeple judge organizational change from this perspective, they might see that the incentive programs and the organizational structure which reward stability are not a cause for a failure of organizational change, but a demonstration of such failure.
The Manageability of Organizational ChangeEven in an organization which has a change oriented culture, organizational change is not necessarily success for the following two reasons. First, additional factors might hinder the plan of organizational change from success. For instance, TQM programs are usually fail to create sustained change in organizations because of a gap between the manager’s vision and organizational subunits’ understandings (Beer, 2003). This statement means that even if there exists a change-oriented culture, organizational change is likely to fail due to the poor communications within an organization. Besides, it is argued that “hard” issues such as the feasibility of the change plan and the level of staff commitment, play a much more important role than “soft” issues such as culture and motivation (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). Nonetheless, organizations tend to focus on the soft issues when managing change, and this fact also contributes to its failure. If the example of TQM only points out the difficulty in managing organizational change, then the following statement directly challenges the manageability of such managerial innovation. Some researchers argue that organizational changes are normal rather than exceptional as they are thought before (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Therefore, there is no such thing as failure in organizational change. Based on these considerations, to some extent, it is unfair to blame the organizational structure or the incentive programs for the failure of organizational change, for even if these mechanisms allow for changes, there might exist other managerial difficulties which stop a successful change. What’s worse, though people talk a lot about the change oriented culture, they should remember that once a culture is formed, it has a tendency to stay in stability. Therefore, whether there exists “successful organizational change”
ConclusionAustralia：Discussion on Organizational Change and Stability代寫
In conclusion, organizations in today’s business world are opening to organizational change, which is seen as a way to stay competitive in a changing market. However, it is shown that unsuccessful organizational changes are the routine while successful ones are exceptions. This paper partly agrees to the statement that management design and employee reward programs are to be blamed for these failures, because all these designs have incentive to promote stability. For instance, sometimes an organization seeks an excellent performance in stability and rewards its employees in the same way; individuals also seek the avoidance of uncertainty in stability. However, this paper also identifies some other issues which might lead to failed organizational change. Mismanagement of organizational change (including ineffective communications), for instance, is accountable for numerous failures in critical organizations. More importantly, even if this process is properly managed, the manageability of successful organizational change is under question. For one thing, even organizational change contains routines; for another, even stable routines contain stimulus for organizational change. In this sense, the relationship between stability and organizational change is complex and deserves studying.
ReferencesAustralia：Discussion on Organizational Change and Stability代寫
Becker, M.C., 2005. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), p.775-791.
Beer, M., 2003. Why total quality management programs do not persist: The role of management quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation. Decision Sciences, 34(4), p.623-642.
Chinta, R. & Kloppenborg, T.J., 2010. Projects and processes for sustainable organizational growth. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), p.22-28.
Feldman, M.S., 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), p.611-629.
Leana, C.R. & Barry, B., 2000. Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), p.753-759.
Rivkin, J.W. & Siggelkow, N., 2003. Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), p.290-311
Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P. & Jackson, A., 2005. The hard side of change management. Harvard business review, 83(10), p.108-118, 158.
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R., 2002. On Organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), p.567-582.