Challenges to Organizational Development Faced by External Practitioners - Coursework Example

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Introduction Organizational development can be defined as a process of inculcating change in an organization through utilization of appropriate behavioral science techniques. Organizational change can be achieved by the help of an external or internal change agent who is tasked with the duty of ensuring that there is coherence in how the systems run in the organization in terms of processes, strategies, human resources and the corporate culture. The change agent is also expected to develop better solutions to the organizational problems to replace the ineffective ones whilst bolstering the existing ones that are functional and beneficial to the company (Donald, 2011). The change agent is finally expected to come up with an organizational system that is able to be dynamic enough to cope with the changing external and internal factors connected to the sustainability of the company. Therefore organizational development should be an activity designed to achieve sustained organizational performance. Organizational development can only be achieved through the collaboration between the change agent and the organization’s people. It is critical that a favorable environment is achieved between the change agent and host institution for the success of the organizational development. A choice of whether to get an external or internal practitioner is largely advised by the prospect of a good relationship between the institution and the agent (Schein, 2002). And so a question begs, is there one best approach appropriate to foster a good relationship between the two concerned parties? Building a case for change Structures How an organization is structured greatly influences the effectiveness of the organization and how it is capable of developing in the future in terms of aspects like internal growth in profitability and increased capacity. It is important that the structures are modified in such a way that they will be able to be flexible enough to accommodate the changes that the external practitioner is hoping to achieve Ford, Ford and McNamara (2002). On their part the management of the organization concerned should ensure they reduce bureaucratic tendencies in the system so that the organizational development program can be a successful one. The external organizational change agent should take time to understand the institutional structures in the organization and recommend changes he will deem necessary for the process to be a successful one. According to Ford et al (2002), He or she has to bear in mind that organizations have structures that have been in use for long periods of time and it might not be an easy task to overhaul the structures as it would be to modify certain aspects and adapt to some. Organizational purpose An organization should have a clearly defined purpose of why it exists, its mission, vision and goals to bee achieved in the future. It is vital that the staff members understand this purpose and are ready to support the organization in their different capacities within the organization (Donald, 2011). If incase the employees don’t clearly understand what is their collective responsibility in achieving the common goal and purpose set by the organization, then organizational development will be difficult to achieve, an external practitioner is therefore tasked to ensure that the people of the organization understand the purpose that their organization seeks to achieve before he rolls out the organizational development program (Caldwell, 2003). Relationships The working relationships between departments and people that perform different tasks in the organization are also considered whenever organizational change is desired. According to Greenberg & Baron (2002), there should be coherence in between the departments and the people working in an organization if at all there should be any progress in the growth of the organization and its sustainability in the face of changing times and dynamic operating environments. As such the external practitioner is tasked with ensuring that this coherence between departments and individuals is achieved if at all the organizational development is to be achieved. Whenever people in an organization work as a team then it is easy to reach their goals than when they all pursue different objectives which might not necessarily be directed to the benefit of the company in the long run in terms of organizational development (Greenberg & Baron, 2002). It is vital that the change agent gets to encourage a good relationship between the departments and people to ensure that his/ her work is achieved effectively and efficiently. Reward systems Reward systems and promotional procedures are essential in boosting morale of the workers in the organization and at the same time encourage a culture of continuous improvement amongst the workers which will eventually benefit the organization in adapting to new challenges in the future and ensure perpetuity of the organization as intended by the management (Gareth 2007, Schein, 2002). The external practitioner should therefore be concerned on how the reward system is structured and whether it will hamper his efforts to achieve organizational development when he is working with the staff members in the organization. He should basically evaluate equality in the system and effectiveness achieved by the system. A case in point is where there is general discontentment in an organization concerning feelings of unfair promotion where the deserving candidates for promotion are not considered whereas the undeserving but well connected individuals easily scale the corporate ladder within the organization. It is difficult to achieve organizational development when you have such kind of a scenario in an organization as the discontent will not be optimistic of the changes and can stifle your efforts as a negative counter behavior in response to the biasness in the rewards system of the organization. Personal development of each and every individual in the company is important to ensure that everybody plays his expected role in pushing the development agenda of the organization. An organization should not view it as an additional expense to develop their staff members but should rather give an opportunity to everybody to develop and whenever possible facilitate the actual individual development. An external change agent should ensure that policies are put in place to ensure sustained growth and future adaptability of the staff in an organization to changing situations (Caldwell, 2003). Challenges to organizational development faced by external practitioners Misrepresentation of information External practitioners to organizational development are faced with a dilemma of reporting what the management of the client organization wants to here. This means that the practitioner can as a matter of fact post the wrong results of what he has achieved with the organization departments to please the management (Jabri, 2004). This is a big challenge in balancing between the values of honesty on one part and posting positive results to the organization on the other hand whilst convincing the organization that the process is moving towards the right direction. It is a conflict between the personal values of the practitioner as an individual and the dominant culture of the organization that is not ready to receive negative results regarding its people and processes. Technical capability Organizational development is more of a humanistic approach where the external practitioner seeks to empower then people in an organization to go about their business in the organization by themselves rather than rely on a single leader to guide them to the goals and aspirations of the organization (Cheung & Holbeche 2011). To achieve this, the external practitioner has to use some methods that might be unconventional and unprofessional to the company but he can be able to understand the people and the system that way and decide on a course of action to take. The organization might be favoring a technically qualified individual to use some scientific tools to diagnose a problem in the organization and come up with a structured solution having followed the strict guidelines of the scientific tools (Cheung & Holbeche 2011). However this is not achievable as reflected by the two differing views and therefore poses a challenge to the external change agent whether to stick to his unorthodox way of achieving organizational development and risk loosing the contract or go by the organization’s expectations and convince the organization he has the prerequisite technical skills and will apply them appropriately through out the course of the organizational development program. Resistance from influential organization’s figures In many organizations the culture is defined by a system that is conservative and so rigid to accommodate any radical change be it negative of positive. This culture is useful as the guiding policies of the company have to be followed however it can also impact negatively on organizational performance in the long run Ford et al (2002). The custodians of the bureaucratic system are usually senior managers who can have an influence on the decisions made by the organization’s top decision maker. If the external organizational development practitioner comes up with a radical idea he hopes will transform the organization for the better, the senior managers might resist this change due to self interests or just a biased view of the idea. The problem is they will communicate the same to top management and stifle the efforts made by the external practitioner Rothwell, Starvros & Sullivan (2009). It is challenging since the senior managers are at a position in which they can be easily believed more than the external practitioner. So there arises a problem of how the practitioner will be able to bring the managers on his side without using unethical practices such as bribery. Changing rules Some organizations are defined by very strict and bureaucratic systems that are to be followed by each and every member of the organization. The problem is the rules could be hindering individual development of the staff members and creativity within the organization. According to Cummings & Chistopher (2009), the result is a company that is boggled up in rules that strangle the company from the inside and makes it to be less competitive in the long run since innovation and creativity is what ensure sustainable growth of any organization. Now this poses a challenge to the external practitioner who feels that the rules have to be relaxed in order to create an environment that encourages new ideas to be tested. This is against the organizational culture of the client and could put the change agent into direct conflict with the management. Convincing the management that they need to restructure the system is difficult and in many instances the practitioner will find it difficult to revolutionize the order of doing things in the organization (Cummings & Chistopher, 2009). In light of the above understanding of the organizational development and the challenges that face the external change agent in developing and implementing the organizational development program, it can be concluded that there is just one best approach of ensuring that there is a good and fruitful relationship between the client organization and the external practitioner. The approach can be achieved only by the client organization being accommodative enough to review objectively the ideas the external practitioner thinks can transform the organization. However, it is important that the organization’s management seeks services from an experienced and skilled practitioner who will be able to analyze all aspects of the organization including the interests of the stakeholders and have them in view when developing the organizational development program. The organizations management should work hand in hand with the practitioner to ensure the interest of the company are considered and they are aware of all critical decisions to be made. References *Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and McNamara, R.T. (2002). 'Resistance and the background conversations of change', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 15, #2 * Caldwell, R. (2003). 'Change leaders and change managers: different or complementary?', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 24, no. 5/6, p9. 285-293. Retrieved *Jabri, M. (2004). 'Team feedback based on dialogue: Implications for change management', The Journal of Management Development, vol. 23, no. 2 *Schein, E.h, (2002) Process consultation: its role in organizational development. Addiison-Wesly Publishing Company *Greenberg, J. Baron, R. (2002) Behavior in organizations, Prenhall *Gareth, R.J, (2007) Organizational Theory, Design and change, Pearson International Edition, [PDF] available online at http://sutlib2.sut.ac.th/sut_contents/H113085.pdf [Accessed on 17/ Nov/ 2012) Donald, L.A, (2011) Organizational development: The process of leading organizational change, SAGE Publishers *Cheung, M.Y, Holbeche, L. (2011) Organisational Development: A practitioner’s Guide for OD and HR, Kogan Page Publishers *Cummings, T.G, Christopher G.W, (2009) Organizational Development & Change, Cengage Learning *Rothwell ,j.W, Starvros, J.M, Sullivan, R.L, (2009) Practising Organization development : A Guide for Leading change, John Wiley & Sons Read More