Organizational change (transformation) is a process many organizations engage in to improve performance. According to Clanon (2013), organizations attempting to improve performance through a combination of strategies, which include “accelerating innovation, operating more efficiently, containing costs, becoming more agile, focusing on the customer, and improving employee morale” (p.12). Despite these strategies, many organizations often fall short of their goals and are unable to facilitate long-lasting organizational transformation.
Contextual Reasoning for Transformation
According to Cameron and Quinn (2011), organizations must respond rapidly to changes in their external environments if they wish to survive. Organizations have to embrace change to increase organizational effectiveness and break the desire to remain status quo. According to Wareing (2013), organizations should focus on organizational development and effectiveness. In 1991, the Center for Organizational Learning (COL) formed at the MIT Sloan School of Management (Clanon, 2013). According to Clanon (2013), the COL members focused on “building learning capabilities in intact teams, developing new organizational learning infrastructures, transforming assumptions and practices of executive leadership, and developing internal learning communities” (p. 14). These strategies proved to be effective approaches for implementing lasting organizational transformation. in addition, these strategies, according to Clanon (2013), resulted in Ford’s Electrical and Fuel Handling Division and Harley Davidson, experiencing successful, lasting organizational transformations.
Contextual Strategies for Transformation
Developing an effective organizational transformation plan requires the organization to examine why the transformation should be undertaken. Any number of external factors can drive organizational transformation. These factors include managing the presence of high barriers. Cameron and Quinn (2011), indicate organizations must consider their specific market arena to determine if their services or products are unique. Having a unique product or service creates obstacles for competing organizations. These obstacles, according to Cameron and Quinn (2011), develop because of the high costs of producing a product or service, the product or service requiring special technology, or the product containing proprietary knowledge. Organizations must also examine how common is their product or service. If competitors can duplicate an organization's products or services, the organization must find a way to make their products or services standout to remain competitive in their market arena. In addition to remaining competitive organizations, also need to examine the size of the market they control. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011), controlling a large market share contributes to the success of the organization by allowing the organization to capitalize on economies of scale and efficiencies. Along with the market share, organizations must also examine their level of bargaining power. If the organization has, low levels of bargaining power with buyers, suppliers, and consumers it will be hard for the organization to remain competitive in its market arena. Cameron and Quinn (2011), further state organizations should also examine the level of rivalry among competitors. The competition among competitors results in the improvement of an organization's respective position in the market arena. High levels of competition in an organizations market arena can also be beneficial and increase performance.
Incremental Transformation
Incremental change strategies according to Collins and Hill (1998) should not solely be production-oriented. Organizational change initiatives should also focus on transforming the organization’s culture. According to Ramakrishnan (2013), many businesses have failed to meet their transformation objectives or sustain any transformation gains due to their lack of focus on the organization’s culture. Collins and Hill (1998) in a study of three organizations implementing total quality management (TQM) and business process re-engineering (BPR) found they focused on changing existing cultures as part of their organizational transformation. The three organizations focused on changing their existing cultures, according to Collins and Hill (1998), to increase competition, reduce cost, and increase productivity.
Incremental change strategies, however, may not fully meet all of an organization's transformational need. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011), without a change in organizational culture, organizations will not achieve enduring improvements in organizational performance. Changes in organizational culture result in improved values, innovative thinking, changes in management styles, and new problem-solving approaches. Cameron and Quinn (2011) state without an alteration of fundamental goals, values, and expectations, change will not endure.
Reactive Transformation
Specific events within organizations prompt the implementation of reactive change strategies. For example, several Denver Sheriff Deputies engaged in inappropriate conduct and resulted in a change within the Denver Sheriff Office’s leadership. According to Skellern (2014), violence against inmates, drug and alcohol use, and cover-up led to Denver Sheriff Gary Wilson resigning. Following the resignation of Denver Sheriff Gary Wilson, Governor Hancock appointed Division Chief Elias Diggins as interim Sheriff (Skellern, 2014). Interim Chief Diggins now has the responsibility of developing and implementing organizational transformation to eliminate inappropriate behavior by deputies. Interim Chief Diggins will also have to develop plans to change the agency’s culture to ensure lasting transformational change. According to Skellern (2014), Diggins will begin assessing the Sheriff Department day-to-day operations to determine which recommended changes were implemented. Once the evaluation is complete, Diggins will have to develop further plans for transformational change.
Anticipatory Transformation
Anticipatory organizational transformation occurs when an organization makes changes proactively. Bass (2014), states in organizational behavior, proactivity means anticipatory behavior, taking control of situations and initiating actions to make changes. Organizations take proactive approaches in advance of future situations, so they are not simply responding to an event that has occurred already. Bass (2014), states, for example, “a company that takes a proactive stance would recall a faulty line of products rather than them wait for customers to complain and deal with the issues down the road." An organization adopting a proactive approach will need to change their approach, so the same strategies are not repeated. According to Bass (2014), organizations adopting a proactive approach changed their tactics, assess current conditions as they develop and then develop new processes to meet the new conditions. Bass (2014), further states if the organization implements proactive strategies, they will have to examine past performance and analyze those results on a frequent basis. An example of a proactive approach can be seen by examining the Toro Company, Exmark Manufacturing, and Dixon industries Inc. The Toro Company, Exmark Manufacturing, and Dixon Industries Inc. collectively recalled 62,000 faulty commercial riding mowers through a recall campaign to proactively fix or replace the faulty units already in the market (Bass, 2014).
Conclusion
Organizational transformation is a process many organizations employ to improve their overall performance. Organizations, as a result, employ a variety of strategies to implement organizational transformation. The strategies employed by organizations include strategic, incremental, reactive, and anticipatory strategies. Organizational transformation challenges organizational leaders to determine how their organization will improve its effectiveness. Organizational transformation, in addition, is a never-ending process that requires leaders to strive for change continually.
References
Bass, B. (2014). Examples of organizations that use proactive stances. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-organizations-use-proactive-stances-19368.html
Cameron, R. E., & Quinn, K. S. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Clanon, J. (2013). Organizational transformation from the inside out: Reinventing the mit center for organizational learning. Reflections, 12(4), 12-24. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=91705235&site=eds-live&scope=site
Collins, L. K., & Hill, F. M. (1998). Leveraging organizational transformation through incremental and radical approaches to change. Total Quality Management, 9(4/5), S30-s34. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=874889&site=eds-live&scope=site
Ramakrishnan, S. (2013). Vital missing link in organizational transformation. Industrial Management, 55(1), 8-9. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=85162033&site=eds-live&scope=site
Skillern, T. (2014). Denver sheriff gary wilson steps down - cbs denver. from http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/hancock-to-announce-changes-to-denvers-sheriff-department/
Wareing, T. (2013). Organizational effectiveness empowers agency transformation. Policy & Practice (19426828), 71(3), 3-36. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=88151876&site=eds-live&scope=site
To put it simply, no, the structure of an organization should not change quickly. Now, to change the structure of an organization varies depending on the organization's size, the organization's current structure, and the organization's new target structure, but still, the answer is no.
Now, a small organization with a fairly flat structure or a structure that has few levels within in it's organization could make a rather quick change to their organizational structure, because they face fewer barriers and processes. A smaller organization would also have fewer employees to question or oppose the restructuring, making the process run smoother and more quickly.
However, a large organization, like a national or multinational company with thousands of employees, hundreds of offices, disparate structures throughout their offices, will have a slow organizational change, for many reasons.
Larger companies will have to find a structure that works for all their offices (if they are looking for a one size fits all structure) or two or three structures (if they have offices in different cultural climates or offices that are of different sizes where one organizational style would fit their larger headquarter-type offices and one would fit their smaller satellite offices).
Once the target structure for the organization has been chosen there has to planning and scheduling for the transition. What is a reasonable deadline? What are the major milestones we need to meet and when? What tasks/steps are needed to help us to reach those milestones? Who is responsible for the completion of the required tasks/steps? What metrics will we use to measure the completion/success of each task? These questions and so many more are required just to plan a solid, effective schedule for the restructuring.
Then, after planning, employees of the organization must be alerted to the restructuring. This announcement of the new structure needs to come well before the start of the implementation of the new structure. Employees should have proper notice, as many details about the restructuring as possible (especially those details that will directly affect the employee's department or position).
Employees should also be given an outlet to use when they have questions or concerns about the restructuring, whether this be a project coordinator or champion that they are able go and talk to and have their questions answered and concerns heard, a survey or complaints forum that is reviewed and responded to, or even just their manager who has all pertinent information relating to the organization's restructuring.
Any concerns or questions that are being voiced repeatedly by numerous employees and/or across various organizations should be adequately addressed before the restructuring rolls out.
Finally, once the restructuring has started, proper procedures and the agreed upon schedule need to be followed and employees need to receive continued support and updates throughout the restructuring. By keeping employees in the loop, there will be less resistance to the restructuring and fewer misunderstandings will arise from the restructuring.
So in short, restructuring can happen quickly, and in very few and specific cases (i.e. a small organization with no real structure to start with and a poorly defined target structure and schedule), that might work. However, as you can see from the process outlined above, restructuring is a very serious and delicate operation that needs adequate time, careful consideration, input from various departments and positions, and a detailed and delicate handling for the proper and positive outcome.
The structure of an organization defines the hierarchy, or chain of command within the organization, based on, for instance, the job functions of its employees or the product types offered. It is visually represented via an organizational chart, which explains the duties, responsibilities, and relationships between employees working in the organization.
An organization can want to change due to various reasons, for instance, acquisition of new partners, change in product lines, business expansion, new target markets or even entrance of new competitors in the market.
The structure of an organization as such depends on the requirements and objectives of the business. However, changes in organizational structure further depend on the type of structure in place. For instance, businesses that specialize in a core product whose specifications rarely change can make use of a functional structure where employees are grouped together according to their specific skills or functions. However, this type of structure does not allow quick changes to its operations. It reacts slowly to new emerging opportunities, unlike, say, the flat organizational structure, mostly found in small startups, where there is easier communication due to fewer layers of management, hence increased flexibility. Consider another case involving a big business that is spread over multiple locations and engaged in a field where market needs are constantly changing. Because of the size of the business and its dynamic nature, the functional structure wouldn’t suit it, neither would the flat one, as the business requires functional units that can allow employee specialization in given areas. A possible structure would be the matrix one, which offers flexibility and some qualities of a functional structure too.
We can, therefore, say that structural changes in an organization should be expected. However, these changes mostly take place gradually over a given period of time. Depending on the structure already in place, changes can be either fast or slow as different structures respond differently to changes. Some structures, such as the functional structure, are less dynamic and take longer to adapt to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment