Managing People at Work - Assignment Example

Organisational change and stress management (Insert Name of the Student) (Insert Name of the Instructor) (Insert Name of the Course) (Insert Code of the Course) (Insert Submission Date) Introduction Organisational change gives stress to the employees as it mostly involves change in their normal working patterns. The change can be environmental, organisational structure change, competitive change, interpersonal or professional (Martin, 2005). The stress can hamper an organisations performance through employee withdrawal and reluctance to change. The stress therefore needs to be well managed. Hussey (2000) suggests that communication and training can reduce such stress. There ought to be effective communication between the managers and the employees whereby the change is explained beforehand and the need for it shown explicitly. Once the employees are aware of it, then training should follow to ensure that all are in sync with the intended change objective. This paper will explore the organisational change at Housing Industry Association in Australia that had significant effect on two employees; Deborah and Melinda. It examines Deborah’s reactions, Melinda’s actions, possible stressors for organisational members and how the organisation’s national and organisational culture’s influenced the situation. Q1 There are several reasons that may explain Deborah’s action towards Melinda. According to Hussey (2000), how people react to organisational change is caused by breach of the psychological contract, real threats, imposed change, lack of faith in those making the change, a belief that something has been overlooked, and misalignment of the head and the heart. In any written job contract, there is an unwritten implied psychological contract that lays out what the employee expects to gain from the job and what the organisation expects of them. According to Deborah, having worked at HIA for fifteen years as the office manager implied that she was entitled to several benefits that come with a high position, experience and loyalty. She would take an extra hour for lunch and also arrive late in the morning which was habitual over the years (Tee & Ashkanasy, 2008). Deborah felt that the change would lead to her loss of these implied benefits which is a breach of her psychological contract. To her, she is bound to loss an essential part of her job and thus resistance was inevitable. Deborah was also under the illusion that having been there for 15 years and gaining the experience that comes with it, she was entitled to the promotion as opposed to Melinda who had only worked for two years. Her experience was an important part that was overlooked. Therefore, Melinda was a supposedly real threat to her position. The fear of change however misinterpreted was bound to cause resistance. This fear was made worse by Melinda’s refusal to let Deborah continue with her routine working hours. Such fear brings uncertainty since she is not sure of the actions that Melinda would take if she refused to oblige by the new rules. Also, Melinda had been her subordinate for two years and her promotion meant that Deborah would be under her. These reasons may explain why she reacted that way towards Melinda. However, these reasons were not justified. Melinda went out of her way to make Deborah comfortable. She scheduled a private meeting with Deborah to discuss the new changes that was not fruitful. Deborah was also clearly disrespecting the company’s working hour policy by coming late to work and taking an extra hour for lunch (Tee & Ashkanasy, 2008). This is unacceptable regardless of seniority. Q2 With reference to Kottler and Schlesinger’s contingency model Melinda should have used facilitation and support, and negotiation and agreement (Martin, 2005). Facilitation and support best works where an individual resists change due to the problem of adjustment that is the case with Deborah. This approach gives an individual allowance to accept the change and grow one’s confidence. First and foremost, since David informed Melinda of the promotion in private after the staff meeting, Melinda should have taken the initiative to inform her team. A group meeting should be the first priority so that the team can anticipate the change and also view it as an open process. The email from David to other staff members should be an affirmation to the briefing and not an ice breaker as was the case. In the meeting, Melinda should lay out her job description and that of the various teams as well. She should clearly show what changes will take effect with reference to the style and content. Melinda should also ask the team’s expectations about the new structural change and job descriptions. This helps ease the tension and it would help show Deborah that the change is not personal. It would help Deborah view the change as affecting various departments and not hers solely. The private meeting with Deborah should then be a follow up for negotiation and agreement. Negotiation helps solve the problem where there is transitional difficulty through agreement (Martin, 2005). Melinda should acknowledge that Deborah has worked for the organisation for 15 years and there are habits she has acquired in the process however inappropriate they are. When Deborah asked to retain her flexible time schedule, Melinda should not have denied it explicitly. Melinda should seek to negotiate agreement for the transition explaining clearly to Deborah why her current schedule may impact the organisation negatively. She should then give Deborah options whether to sacrifice her morning lateness, extra lunch time or leaving the office earlier. For example, Melinda should ask Deborah to report to work an hour earlier so as to compensate for her leaving office early to pick up her kids. This way, Deborah still leaves the office early but is also able to meet her scheduled working hours. It is a win-win situation for both parties. Q3 The organisational change at HIA was initiated at the managerial level otherwise if it involved the employees, David would not have sent emails to explain the new change. When organisational change decisions are made at the managerial level, the employees receive the burden of coping with the change and implementing the new changes (Klaner, By, & Diefenbach, 2011). Therefore, organisational change is more stressful for the team members compared to the team leaders. In the HIA case, the employees have to cope with the change in reporting order. Deborah is now a team member under Melinda’s leadership and is evidenced from her reaction there is much stress on her than on Melinda. The stress is more aggregated since she was not involved in the change process. This is just a sample reflection of the stress that employees have to put up with as a result of exclusion in the change process decision making. The employees also have to cope with the in-fighting that results from Melinda and Deborah. The subordinates are caught in a situation that is beyond their control yet they are expected to perform better in spite of the in-fighting. Since Deborah is the manager of the office department her reluctance to perform will impact her subordinates negatively. They are likely to form a negative attitude towards Melinda as well and the negativity may have a direct relationship to the performance of the group. According to Klaner, By, & Diefenbach (2011) negative emotions among employees leads to deviant and disengagement behaviour which impedes positive outcome. The employees are also expected to work long hours for the next three months as they provide the management support (Tee and Ashkanasy, 2008). This radical change in the working hours is also a possible stressor. The employees are expected to adapt fast into the new structure as well as meet organisational goals over a short period of time that may lead to burnout. The change should have been more transitional than abrupt and rather than three months the employees should be given at least six months. Training on the new roles or job descriptions is sufficient to ensure that the change is taken positively by the employees. In HIA’s case, the change is not only on the employees’ roles but also the new management structure. Therefore, the management should devise a more elaborate transition program to reduce cases of burnout that usually slow performance. Q4 The Housing Industry Association national hierarchical culture played part in influencing the stand-off between Deborah and Melinda. The association has offices in all capital centres around the country (Tee & Ashkanasay, 2008). From the case study, it is evident that the executive director David has decision making powers over the directors of any centre across the country. David made the decision to promote Melinda yet he was from Brisbane and Melinda works at the Canberra centre. This may imply that he was not very conversant with the employees at Canberra centre otherwise he should have considered Deborah’s experience of fifteen years. The change would have been less dramatic if Deborah was given the promotion instead. In addition suppose the leadership was decentralised, Deborah would not be used to having her way in working hours. The organisational culture influenced the situation too. An efficient managerial structure should ensure that over the years the managers are rotated. Linneluecke & Griffiths (2010) cite organisational culture as the core reason as to why organisations fail to implement change programs. He explains that although an organisation may have all necessities to induce change, failure occurs due to the culture remaining same. Rotation not only gives the managers vast experience in all the company’s departments but it also lessens the stress involved with a change in leadership since it is expected. Fifteen years is a long time for Deborah to still be at the same position. The stagnation had influenced Deborah’s laxity and may have downplayed David’s decision to choose her over Melinda. There also seems to be less strict governance. Deborah simply asked David to transfer her to another department and the transfer was granted. Failure to get along with a colleague is not a good reason for transfer especially in this case where Deborah’s ego seems to override her work. Melinda should have been given absolute authority over all the departments but transferring Deborah because of personal disagreement is undermining Melinda’s authority as a leader. Conclusion Stress due to organisational change is inevitable as it is human nature to desist change. People are more inclined to stay put especially in a large organisation such as Housing Industry Association where management may not be very strict. Deborah and Melinda’s case is a perfect example of what may happen when an organisation does not rotate its staff nor involve them in the change process decision making. Deborah felt threatened considering she was to be under a colleague who had just worked for two years in the organisation yet she had worked for fifteen years. This is a natural reaction though it took Deborah too long to accept the change and eventually she had to look for transfer to fit in with the adjustment. References Hussey, D. E. (2000). How to manage organisational change. London: Kegan Page Publishers. Klaner, P., By, R.T., & Diefenbach, T. (2011). Employee emotions during organisational change- towards a new research agenda. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27, 332-340. Martin, J. (2005). Organisational behaviour and management. London: Thomson Learning. Linneluecke, M.K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organisational culture. Journal of World Business, 45, 357-366. Tee, E.Y. T., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2008). Change and stress management at HIA. In Robbins, S.P., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Waters-Marsh, T. (2008). Organisational behaviour. (6th ed., pp. 531-532). Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Read More