Obstacles to Change Management at Crisis - Literature review Example

MANAGING ORGANIZATIONS IN TIMES OF CRISIS By (Name of Student) Student ID Number Subject Code Due Date 1. Introduction Transformational leadership can be defined as leadership approach that brings change in social systems and followers lives. It creates positive and valuable change in the adaptors with the main objective of developing them into leaders. Transformational leadership promotes the motivation, performance and morale of followers through various mechanisms. These mechanisms include; persons sense of belonging and self to specific collective identity and mission of an organization. Transformation leadership entails being a followers’ role model, inspiring them, influencing them to take full ownership and greater responsibilities in their work and understanding their strengths and weaknesses. This will enable the leader to align each and every individual to tasks that maximize their performance (Hall et al 2002). According to Hall et al. (2002), transformational leadership can be termed as a process whereby; followers and leaders help one another to increase their motivation and morale. The author suggested two concepts, 1) transactional leadership and 2) transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is whereby a leader does not struggle with cultural change in a given organization but instead they adopt and work in the prescribed existing culture. Transformational leadership redesigns the followers values and perceptions, changes their aspirations and expectations. It is not based on “give and take” perception but on a leader’s personality, ability to portray admirable examples, traits, virtues and vision on challenging and applicable goals and/or objectives (McCleskey, 2014). Elements of Transformational Leadership a) Individualized consideration Individualized consideration is determined by the degree in which a leader is able to attend to each and every follower’s expectations and needs. The leader ought to act as a coach or mentor to the follower, he/she should keenly listen to followers’ needs and concerns, the leader should show great concern for the followers and always keep any conversation and communication open. b) Intellectual stimulation This is the degree in which a leader is able to challenge assumptions, solicits his/her followers’ ideas and takes risks. Followers tend to be encouraged and stimulated by these kind of leaders, since they likely nature people with the ability to think independently. For these type of leaders, unexpected circumstances are viewed as learning opportunities. In this leadership, followers tend to ask questions, get answers and figure out the best ways of executing allocated tasks. c) Inspirational motivation Inspirational motivation can be measured as the degree in which a leader articulates a mission and vision that appeals and inspires the followers. Inspirational and motivated leaders challenge followers by setting high standards as well as communicating optimistically about the followers’ future goals and finally elaborate the meaning of tasks at hand. d) Idealized influence Transformation leadership demands that a leader should be of high moral and ethical behaviour, gain respect, instils pride and trust (Hayes 2010). Transformational leadership positivity over other theories McCleskey (2014) states that transformational theory is viewed as relation-oriented leadership due to the fact that it is inspirational, people focused, intellectually stimulating and persuasive. This is an edge over other theories like situational and contingency. While transformational leadership is viewed as above, the latter are viewed as task-oriented leadership. The theories mainly emphasize on exchange between followers and leaders in regard to work performance and task completion. Contingent and situational theories are more concerned with the end result other than inter-joining workers welfare and task completion for greater outcome. Furthermore, transformational leadership is focused on evaluating individual differences and leadership behaviour. This focus enhances communication, interaction and operational bond between the followers and the leader. This kind of interaction enables the leader to comfortably manage and enhance followers’ performances. On the other hand transactional, contingent and situational leadership theories have their focus on the leadership behaviour while excluding individuals’ differences and leadership traits (McCleskey 2014). Verkerk(1990) revealed that transformational leadership theory encompasses universal approach to leadership. It is applicable in different contexts and situations hence fitting a wide range of different cultures. In contrast to the above stated, contingent and situational leadership theories only advocate for the correct leadership styles and behaviours for a present situation that is facing an organization. Lastly, transformational leadership is applicable to group or one-on-one situations, leaders and followers are “transformed” in order to enhance job performance of a group or as an individual hence enabling an organization to be highly productive and successful. This aspect cannot be realized by other leadership theories like; contingent and situational since they focus on task completion other than teamwork to accomplish organizational goals (Verkerk 1990). Innovation can be defined as the ability to come up with new ideas to solve a situation. The concept of innovation has been a priority for organizations. Operations in the intense global technological advancement and competition have made innovation to be a sole source of gaining competitive advantage over competitors. Change processes are extremely necessary in the verge of maximizing innovations and to adopt new realities. Two critical factors that drive change itself are management and leadership. Present organizations face new approach to universal globalization that involve theoretically infinite level of hazards and competition. Changes are constant issues in a contemporary organization that require an innovative approach to navigate through to success. Innovation largely represents an introduction of new ideas or things and the approach one uses to effectively utilize them to bring benefits to an organization. This innovations can be applicable in fields of; systems, markets, goods production, processes as well as cultural behaviour (McCleskey 2014). Goffin (2010) indicated that, innovation is an introduction of different, improved or totally new ways of currying out activities. It can also be termed as a successful contribution of the new ideas to an organization and its social environments. The author further employed the 4Ps model to analyse the effectiveness of innovation on organizational management. The 4Ps took into account innovation in terms of production (what the organization does), process (how it is done), position (target customers) and paradigm (how the process is framed). The strategies employed by an organization in the process of introducing innovation imply functional, cultural and technical aspects. Therefore, innovation does not evolve around one area of the organization’s management (Goffin 2010). Tidd (2009) understood that change is the outcome of innovation that is planned in advance of the change itself. Indicating on effectiveness and efficiency of change management and innovation involves support. This can be achieved by getting people on the side of the initiated change which the author perceived as not easily achievable (Tidd 2009). This study is a reflective of a case study on an Italian institution which has students on “certain (x)” universities and studying “certain” courses. The data collection method was through direct or one-on-one interviews and peripheral observation. This study is based on the foundation of the eight-stage Kotter’s model. Kotter’s began with observing failure in change by creating a sort of error mechanism that tends to rectify incurred errors in the systematic ways; first he begun by establishing some sense of urgency through criticism of possible crises and reality. He then followed by creating a reliable guiding coalition of managers and leaders who will work with the team and members of the change agent. Consequently, he designed and directed vision and strategies which effect change process effectively (Popa 2010). The process then assumed communication of the change vision in a manner that was evenly and across all platforms. As the process continued, he initiated empowerment of individuals and worked towards fulfilment of the intended vision, encountering foreseen obstacles and creatively taking risks. Creation of attainable short term goals was of concern and the awarding of individuals who attain the set goals and lastly, he consolidated the gains and build new change perspectives through promoting people’s effort and appreciation of the new innovated and adopted system (Buchanan 1992). Obstacles to Change Management The success of change management is more often associated with achieving business goals; however, change management success should also include optimal human capital adjustment to the new environment. In this case, successful change means that employees are able to work harmoniously and productively in changed work environment. One of the factors that undermine success in change initiatives is lack of understanding by employees on changes, resulting in lack of employees’ participation in implementation of desired changes. Ash (2009) advises change managers to enhance communication in implementation of changes. Change managers should outline the reasons for implementing change, the processes or initiatives to be taken and the consequences for non compliance. Ash (2009) foresees that the use of effective communication planning strategy can be used to overcome resistance. Andrews, Cameron and Harris (2008) observe that change management can be successfully implemented if change managers do the following: i. Documenting the objectives to be realized through successful implementation of changes. ii. Designing structures, processes and procedures to be used by the stakeholders in implementing changes. iii. Enhancing communication channels to train and encourage employees to participate in implementing the desired changes. iv. Aligning the organization’s structure to support change. Change management scholars agree that managers who fail to impose changes on employees are likely to face resistance (Harris, 2008)). Kotter (1998) highlights that resistance to change is caused by the employees unwillingness to modify behaviors and structures. Resistance is consequently manifested in the form of denial, idealization and rationalization. Hiatt and Creasey (2003) observe that change management is affected by the two distinct spectrums that managers and employees perceive change management. The two views are organizational change management and individual change management. Griffins and Moorhead (2011) argue that Individual sources of resistance to change are entrenched in the fundamental human attributes such as perception and desires. Various investigators have established six factors behind the individual resistance to change. They include social factors, lack of awareness, fear of unknown, economic factors, security as well as habit. With respect to social factors, individual may resist change because of fear of what other people will think. Workers may be tempted to have the conviction that change has the potential to hurt their image, make them look different or leads to exclusion from the group. For instance, a worker who accepts to bide by the workplace rules identified by the management may be mocked by their fellow workers who explicitly disobey the stipulated rules. Burke, Lake and Paine (2008) contend that habit can make an individual resist change. This is attributed to the fact that it is easier for an employee to perform the same job every day (if steps followed are the same) as opposed to perform a different job every day with distinct steps. Learning the whole new job with different steps can make the job difficult. Majority of individual prefer to do the same job every day and as such, any introduction of new job by management may ignite individual resistant to change. With reference to lack of awareness, an individual may not recognize a change due to perceptual limitations such as selective attention or absence of attention. In terms of security, some workers prefer the security and comfort of carrying out the activities of the job in the same old manner. They achieve a sense of safety and constancy from discerning that certain things remain similar in spite of the entire change happening in their surroundings. Individual who have a strong conviction that their security is hampered by a change are more likely to resist change as opposed to those individuals who feel less threatened. Griffins and Moorhead (2011) affirms that the fear of unknown may make an individual to resist change. Some individual fear whatever thing that look unfamiliar to them. Alterations with respect to job duties as well as reporting relationship has the potential to cause anxiety to some workers within an organization. Majority of workers become acquainted with job activities and create a cordial relationship with their bosses within an organization. In many cases, this relationship has played an integral role in assisting an organization to realize its objectives and to have a competitive advantage (Smollan, 2011). Any interruption from this established cordial relationship may have the potential to create fear and anxiety and as a result it can negatively affect the morale of workers. Economic factors, as pointed out by Griffins (2008) can make an individual to resist change. For instance, change may threaten workers’ stable salaries. Employees may worry that the introduction of change will have the potential to negatively affect their paychecks, make their job obsolete, or minimize their chances of getting improved pay in the future. According to Cummings and Worley (2009), various investigators have over the last years created numerous models that attempts to outline the different steps involved in the change process. One of the earliest models to be developed is referred to as the Lewin Model. However, it is worth noting that all-inclusive model is increasingly becoming utilized in the current intricate environment. Lewin Kurtin (an organization theorist) argues that every change that takes place within an organization demands steps (Cameron & Green, 2004). The initial step in the change process is referred to as unfreezing whereby all the people who are likely to be affected by the anticipated change must be led to be acquainted with the necessity of change. After this step, the change itself is adopted. The final step is known as refreezing which entails sustaining and strengthening the adopted change in order for it become part of the an organization system. The all-encompassing approach to change revolves around taking a systematic view and defines a sequence of certain phases that usually results to accomplished change. This comprehensive model is demonstrated in figure 3. In this model, the initial step is to acknowledge the need for change. Organizational employee complaints may trigger hasty change .Other triggers include labour strikes, slumps in sales, court injunction or turnover/productivity decline. As indicated by Griffins (2008), recognition may entail the awareness of the organizational manager that change in specific domain is unavoidable. For instance, top management officials may be conscious of the common frequency of firm’s change carried out by various firms and acknowledge that their firm should follow similar steps in order to remain competitive (Moran & Brightman, 2001). The instant stimulus may be attributed to the outcome of prediction highlighting new market prospective, an opportunity to attain and take full advantage on emerging technology and the buildup of cash surplus for potential investment. Organizational managers may as well instigate change in the present scenario because signals hint that it will be indispensable in the near future. Mariana and Violeta (2011) opine that is the responsibility of the managers within an organization to set goals for the change. Some of the potential goals include establishing investment opportunities, settling a strike, boosting the morale of workers, entering new market and enhancing market share. The third step revolves around diagnosing the drivers of change. For instance, turnover may be as a result of workers dissatisfaction, incompetent supervisors, poor working conditions or low pay. Despite the fact that turnover may be the instant stimulus for change, organizational managers must apprehend its root in order to effectively make the correct change. Another critical is the selection of a suitable change technique that will achieve the projected objectives. For instance, if the factor that causes turnover is attributed to low pay, then a new reward might be required. On the other hand, if it is caused incompetent supervision, then there is the need to call for interpersonal skills training. Afterwards, organizational managers must plan on how to implement the proposed change. Some of the factors to take into consideration before adopting the change include costs of implementing the intended change and its impacts on various domains of the firm (Burke et al., 2008). The last two steps encompass actual implementation and assessment and follow ups. List of Reference Hoy, Wayne K. & Miskel, Cecil G 2005 Educational Administration: Theory, Research and practice 7th Edition –New York: McGraw –Hill Co. McCleskey, J.A., 2014. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), p.117. Popa, I.L., Preda, G. and Boldea, M., 2010. A Theoretical Approach of the Concept of Innovation. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, (1), pp.151-156. West M, Borrill C, Dawson J, Brodbeck F, Shapiro D, Haward B 2003. Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leader shQ., (14):393–410. Tidd J, Bessant J.2009 Managing Innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change. 4th ed.Chichester: Wiley; Goffin K, Mitchell R 2010. Innovation management: strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan;. 1-40 Ref and Notes: 370-372 p. Hayes J. 2010; The Theory and Practice of change management. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave; Buchanan D, Boddy D1992. The expertise of the change agent. London: Prentice Hall; Voiculet, A., Belu, N., Parpandel, D.E. and Rizea, I.C., 2010. The impact of external environment on organizational development strategy. Rosenzweig, P.M. and Singh, J.V., 1991. Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management review, 16(2), pp.340-361. Verkerk, P., 1990. Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness: background and recent developments. Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology. Peretomode, O., 2012. Situational and contingency theories of leadership: Are they the same. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), pp.13-17. Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. and Kepner, K., 2002. Transformational leadership: The transformation of managers and associates. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Northouse, P.G., 2012. Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage. Hesselbein, F., and P.M. Cohen. 1999. Leader to Leader, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Amabile T. 1997, Motivating Creativity in Organizations. Calif Manage Rev.; 40(1) Read More