The researcher suggests that both good leadership and good management are an essential to successful organisational growth and development if an organisation has any chance of surviving and competing in the business world today.
Leadership can be viewed as the macro-organisational policies that define an organisation’s vision of change, the transformation strategy, and the evaluation and redefinition of change.
Management can be defined as the organisational policies that involve the implementation of change including such as, for example, human resource training programs, new hiring, and incentives and motivation policies.
Good leadership is important to organisation change and growth. Transformational or change leaders identify the need for change, articulate a vision of change, create guiding coalitions that can help introduce and implement the change, identify the obstacles to change. Good devises would change strategies that can lead to the realisation of organisational goals and the building of new organisational intelligence to support effective decision-making.
A manager should be able to determine what should be changed, when considering what should be changed in their organisation factors should be looked at:
People: Attitudes, leadership skills, communication, and all other charactorstics of the employees within the organisation.
Structural: Organizational controls such as policies and procedures.
Technological: Types of equipment or process, that exists organisations members in the performance of their jobs.
Strategic change is viewed by Hinings and Greenwood (1988) as a transformational, entailing fundamental reorientation, as opposed to more routine adoption intended to solve essentially operational problems. An example of strategic change can be found in the public sector, where democratic changes have demanded that UK local authorities have to give more attention to the care of the elderly as a result of increasing numbers of longer living people.
What are the difficulties and consequences?
The researcher wishes too look at why people find it difficult to accept change and therefore resist. Managing change is all about change process and mainly generally how too manage people. Effect change depends on changing values systems and beliefs, culture of people working in the organisation. According to (Watson, 1969; Zaltman & Duncan 1977) suggest the reasons for resistance to change due to an individual be faced. The researcher would suggest that this could be due to lack of communication between management and workforces, it could be said that another reason would be the fear of the unknown. It could be also not deliberate, not safe management and controlled. People have needs for a degree of stability or security; change does create the unknown and this could create anxiety. It can cause a sense of autonomy or self-control. People could loss their jobs, it could result in people losing status. It could also result in the dissolution of an established working group. The researcher understands why people would possibility resist change, so some ways it is quite understandable why sometimes people do resist. Change and resistance to it is an organisation life is very important. There are a tendency for people to resist changing owing to perceptions that change can lead to unrest. People gain some form of comfort and routine from what has known as ‘Status Quo’ The existing status quo is conceptualised as a dynamic in which forces resisting change and forces pushing for change have found a balance. In order to shift the balance (in the favor of change), the situation needs to be "unfrozen" (Lewin 1951). In other words, people have to be rocked out of their comfortable existence, so they will be alerted to the need for change.
The researcher would suggest that this could be due to lack of communication between management and workforces, it could be said that another reason would be the fear of the unknown.
However the researcher has found that people do actually resist changing then there could be benefits:
A consensus of opinion began to develop which suggested that resistance should not be approached in an adversarial way as it can play a useful role in organizational change efforts.
Resistance as an ally. Resistance can play a useful role in organizational change certainly stands juxtaposed to a traditional mindset that would view it as nothing more than an obstacle. However a variety of authors subscribe to this view and believe that resistance can assist the change effort.
It is a fallacy to consider change itself inherently good. Change can only be evaluated through its consequences and these cannot be known until sufficient time has elapsed.
- Resistance can help to balance the pressure of the internal and external environments encouraging change against the need for stability and constancy.
- Resistance may encourage management to re-examine change proposals, making sure that there are appreciate.
The researcher suggests that in this way employees operate as a check and balance that management properly plans for change.
It can also help identify specific problems where change is likely to cause differcults; management could then take corrective action before serious problems develop. In today's increasingly uncertainly, competitive and fast moving world, companies must rely more and more on individuals to come up with ideas, to develop creative responses and push for changes before opportunities disappear or minor.
The researcher would suggest that there are many ways of reducing resistance in areas such as education, training, better communication, an increase of participation and involvement with employees. Management should be able to offer support about any worries about change and could offer incentives. The researcher would suggest that more employee involvement be seen as successive. If changes are taken, employees will have to develop new skills. Involving staff in any of the strategic changes in new organisational and management forms…learner and flatter management structures, decentralised cost and innovation centres…enlarged and more generic roles team working, flexibility and informality responsive back line to the front line staff so on (Hoggett, 1987).
Many organizational participants are only vaguely aware that changes are taking place and the ambiguity surrounding these changes provides a fertile ground for rumours, anxiety and ultimately resistance (Jick, 1993, pp. 192-201).
The primary objective or the motivation of change in an organisation would be “how” people in the organisation will react to change. Employees play a vital role in an organisation so with this in mind there would be learning, which is of great consequence. In an organisation learning has become very valuable. So in turn, the researcher would suggest that the employees of the organisation need to believe firmly in the organisation if any change can be agreed.
An implication of resistance problems would be to motivate changes in behavior of individuals. The researcher would suggest ways of consistence with both short-term goals and long term organisational strategies. Management must be able to look at steps to help in someway implicating change within an organisation by looking at action to motivate. The best ways to avoid resistance to change are, also the best ways to assure that people are motivated to support the change effort. Involving people from the beginning, clearly explaining the reasons for the change, having a clear strategy, direction, and vision, and respecting the viewpoints of other people are all parts of the process. Using strategic measurement can also be a way of building support.
The researcher found that the first step would to look at the current situation of the organisation, if the organisation’s employees are happy with the state of play it would be very difficult to actually adjust to any change. The second step would be that of participation in any change, this would create more in the way of motivation. Management needs to be able to persuade staff of the necessity for change. It is an important factor in change management would able employees to voice problems and concerns in the way of communication. This type of information gained can be used to enhance the effectiveness of any changes made by management. This would help with motivation that would be better for any implemented change.
A third step would be according (Vroom, 1964; Lawler 1973) is too build in rewards for the behavior that is “desired both during the transition state and the future of the organisation.
Theory of change management
The researcher has looked at Kurt Lewin’s theory (referred as Lewin-Schein model, Aldog and Sterns, 1991) Lewin the researcher believed that learning and successful implementation of change has been interwoven, Kurt Lewin conceived of change as modification of those forces keeping a system's behavior stable. When the forces striving to maintain the “status quo” and the forces pushing for change are about equal, current behaviors are maintained in what Lewin called a state of "quasi-stationary equilibrium.” Lewin then suggested that by modifying those forces less tension would be created. Therefore, it would be easier for organizations to follow the three-step framework for understanding organizational change. His three steps could be a driving force that operates for change.
The initial stage is titled the unfreezing stage. Throughout this process, information can be shown which will demonstrate discrepancies between behaviors desired by organization members and those behaviors currently exhibited. In other words, this is the stage in which employees can be influenced to engage in change activities. Unfreezing an organisation will reduce any resistance (Gray and Starke 1988). Once negatives have been reduced then the organisation must be able to look at implementing of change and then go to a final stage of refreezing. Second, throughout the moving process, the behavior of the organization, department, or individual is shifted to a new level. This shift involves the intervention of new behaviors, values, and attitudes through changes in organizational structures and processes. Third, during the refreezing stage, the organization is stabilized at a new equilibrium (Cummings, 23). Lewin (1951) his theory is more commonly known as “force field analysis” which relates to resistance. Lewin conceives of resisting forces as a direct counter balance to forces for change. The researcher suggests that Lewins model is easiest to understand.
Conclusion
Since the 1970’s a change has taken place, the business environment has become increasely volatile and pace of change has increased and managers theses days have found that the environment they face has also increased, as a consequences to change there is more analysis of the external environment.
The researcher has found that change is needed to be able to succeed in today’s world. Change can be seen as a good thing however it could be also seen as a danger to people who do not understand the concept. The problem that organisations could face is that of such problems that that of resistance. Effecting transformational change has been well documented (e.g. Plant, 1987; Carnall, 1991; Wilson, 1992). Among the most common of reasons for resisting change. Why resist? It could be argued that within culture especially in Britain, there is an innate rule which follows the line of “ if it works, why change it” Looking at other cultures such as the United States of America where ambition and success are the foundations of society. It is apparent that we in this country do have had to start coming into relation to change. We still live with an “old school” and “old boys networks” highly resistant to change. The researcher believes that the problem could stem from that of bad communications between the employer and the employee. The researcher does believe that good leadership and management to help an organisation in his growth and development. If management use such an approachment where they give employees better roles in involvement of the organisation and its running. If development of employees were approached it would enable them to fulfil potential both for the individual and the organisation. The researcher believes if both management and employees in the running of the organisation. It would improve commitments and motivation and the ability to deliver change in a good way.
The researcher believes that employee involvement would lead to more possible success in both the running of the organisation with such positive motivations factors as the employees would feel as part of the organisation in any change taken. It could be said that any new skills undertaken by employees would also develop with correct training and confidence and understanding would show instead of the resistance that can actually happen.
Reference:
Adair J (1997) Effective communications Pan Books, London
Adair J (1997) Effective Leadership Masterclass Pan Books, London
Barnes C (1993) Management in the Public Sector Chapman & Hall London
Carnall, C (1990) Managing change in organisations Prentice Hall, London
Cowling, A (1996) Strategic Human Resource Management Routledge, London
Dawson S (1996) Analysing Organisations Macmillan, Cambridge
Denison D (1990) Corporate Culture and Organisational Effectiveness
Wileys & Sons, Chichester
Gabriel, Y (2000) Organising & Organisations Sage, London
Hesselbean F (2000) The organisation of the future Jossey-Bass San Francisno
Joyce P (2000) Strategy in the Public Sector- A Guide to Effective Change Management
Wiley, Chichester
King N (1995) Innovation and change in organisations Routledge London
Mabey. C (1993) Managing change Open University, London
Parker (2000) Organisational Culture and Identity Sage, London
Reeves T (1994) Managers effectively-developing yourself Butterworth
Oxford
Internet sources
Organisations & Consultancy @ Onepine-Kurt Lewin