Managing Organisational Change in a Post-Bureaucratic Era - Literature review Example

Managing Organisational Change in a Post-Bureaucratic Era Student name Course name Institution Date of submission Student Number Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Unprecedented change levels characterise post-bureaucratic era 4 Necessity for change management strategies 5 Change management in the post-bureaucratic era 7 Lewin’s three-step model 7 Emergent theories 8 Contingency Theory 9 Environment 10 Size 11 Technology 11 Conclusion 12 References 13 Introduction The post-bureaucratic era is characterised by a mix of democratic (non-bureaucratic) principles and autocratic (bureaucratic) principles. Bureaucratic organisational structures prevailed during the last century. In the modern-day, or 21st century, organisations, bureaucracy has been superseded by a blend between democratic and autocratic leadership to ensure a perfect fit with the changing organisational environments (Josserand et al. 2006). The concepts of post-bureaucracy are also centred on having peer-based teamwork controls or participatory organisational structures rather than mechanistic or hierarchical structures (Josserand et al. 2006). What this simply means is that during the bureaucratic era, employees were expected to be obedient subjects while the modern organisations have undergone a shift from the traditional bureaucratic modalities to embrace structures where centralised approaches to management of change take place (Rego et al. 2012). This second approach, in my view, reflects the approaches that prevail in the post-bureaucratic era. It is based on this brief background that I seek to present my reflections on managing organisational change in the post-bureaucratic era. Most of the pieces of reflection emanate from a demonstrated understanding of the key concepts and theories that relate to managing organisational change, as learnt during the course unit in addition to knowledge gathered from relevant, current academic literature. My underlying argument is that in the post-bureaucratic era, organisational performance is contingent on effective management of change, which is also contingent on situational variables, such as technology, organisational size, and the environment. Since the variables for change in the modern-day organisations vary across organisations, the responses used by organisational leaders should vary depending on specific situations their organisations face. Unprecedented change levels characterise post-bureaucratic era Some scholars, such as Josserand et al. (2006) have associated bureaucracy with "red-tape" and inefficiency. What I conclude from this is that the bureaucratic era was obsessed with rule-based structures, which led to a lack of enthusiasm on the part of employees. In turn, this led to organisations that provide poor customer service, as well as the ones that were resistant to change (Pieterse et al. 2012). Such trends are unfit for the modern-day organisations. In the post-bureaucratic era, I believe that the business environment has become more dynamic due to globalisation and organisations must not resist change. In fact, some scholars, such as Josserand et al. (2006) advocated for bureaucracies in circumstances where many standardised operations are required. However, I argue that such conditions have become a rarity in the modern-day business world, as organisations have been forced to become increasingly flexible in order to adapt to the changing business conditions. A review of the literature on globalisation also reveals that two enormous changes have resulted. These include greater diversification at the workplace where women participation has increased and second, the growth of international labour movement, which advocate for equality between men and women at the workplace (Burnes et al. 2011). In Australia, for instance, a huge skilled workforce is drawn from abroad to cater for the skills shortages. This also adds to the diversity of the workforce. Globalisation has also brought about the fast adoption of technology in organisations. Indeed, with the rapid advancement in technology, the common change initiatives that have appeared to top the list include installing new technology. Additional change initiatives that have appeared to dominate include changing the corporate culture, restructuring, and downsizing. Based on this background, it is critical to argue that during the post-bureaucratic era, no organisation can be said to be immune to change. Change is, therefore, a necessity. Still, from the course concepts, I learnt that despite the need for change in the post-bureaucratic era, survival is not mandatory and that organisational leaders need to be constantly vigilant regarding the context of their organisations. Necessity for change management strategies I believe that because of rapid globalisation and unprecedented changes, organisational leaders need to be specifically attentive to changes in the environments that their organisations operate. Additionally, they also need to be conversant with how to apply suitable organisational changes that their employees can embrace (Balasubramanian & Lee 2008). Despite this, I believe that effective organisational changes are unheard off. In fact, some statistics from global surveys have suggested that one-third of organisational change efforts can be said to be successful. It is one critical lesson I picked in Week 2. It also reflects Clegg’s et al. (2011) argument that changing routines, processes, services, practices and developing new ones is tricky for most organisations, as they tend to adhere to their traditional formats, as well as the formats they are already conversant with. In brief, they find innovation, which should characterise the post-bureaucratic era, as tricky. In the post-bureaucratic era, I believe that change is both evolutionary and incrementally. Additionally, change is characterised by radically and revolutionary discontinuous periods. I observe that change, processes, and continuity are interlinked. Therefore, rather than consider the stages of change in the post-bureaucratic era, I believe that organisational leaders need to see processes as changing in patterns because of the interaction of culture, history, as well as political processes. In fact, the prevailing changes that characterise the post-bureaucratic era, such as greater diversity in the workplace and quality, are linked to the interaction of culture, history, as well as political processes. Still, organisational change in the post-bureaucratic era does not just require effective position and maintenance of the prevailing symbols and myths, which are of vital significance. The organisational leadership should be entrusted with the task of attaining such positioning. The organisational leaders need to be strategic and focused to make sure they do not lose the central focus (Beer & Nohria 2000). Change and innovation are, therefore, vital for modern-day organisations. I derive this conclusion from Clegg’s et al. (2011) argument that innovation in the organisational processes or products leads to change, which enables an organisation to position itself competitively. The concept of change is, however, wide. Opinions on change also vary. According to Clegg et al. (2011), four types of change exist: (a) dialectical, (b) life cycle, (c) teleological and (d) evolutionary. Lifecycle change consists of the different phases of maturation and growth of an organisation. Dialectical changes result from the tensions, interaction, and contradictions of social relations. Evolutionary changes consist of changes, such as those that are developed to handle sustainability issues, such as dealing with environmental issues. Lastly, teleological change results from strategic vision (Armenakis & Harris 2009). Change management in the post-bureaucratic era Lewin’s three-step model An influential perspective in understanding what the organisational leaders should do in change management is the model of ‘planned approaches’ suggested by Lewin (1952, in Barnard and Stoll 2010) who argues that change should take a three-stage process: (a) unfreezing current behaviour, (b) transforming to the new behaviour, and (c) refreezing the new behaviour. Lewin’s model is crucial for understanding the organisational change process. I must, however, contend that the three-step was particularly relevant during the bureaucratic process, specifically since it is rooted in the belief that organisations act under constant situations. My argument is based on the assumption that post-bureaucratic organisations do not act under constant conditions. Indeed, because of the prevailing high economic pressures, and the evolution of political priorities that prevail in the post-bureaucratic era, it is clear that organisational change has gained increased significance. Still, effective change requires going through complex processes, whose impacts on the organisation remain uncertain unless the change processes are effectively managed (Brown 2012). Additionally, dynamic technological development, along with rapid growth of knowledge workforce and the changing work practices mean that change has become a pervasive feature of the life of post-bureaucratic organisations. In my view, this only shows that Lewin’s three-step theory is at odds with how organisational change should be managed in the post-bureaucratic era, as it requires use of top-down management approaches that were predominantly applied in the bureaucratic era. Indeed, most approaches that apply in the post-bureaucratic era used for analysis of organisational change tend to conflicts Lewin's approach unfreezing/freezing (Buono 2009). Indeed, the idea of unfreezing/freezing is significantly problematic as organisations are usually in motion or dynamic due to globalisation. While they respond to singular designs, they usually emanate from a range of directions and pressures in spite of the idea that management change agents may be capable of exercising adequate control capacity. Emergent theories Because of the limits of Lewin’s model, an alternative theory that can apply to ensure planned organisational change is the ‘emergent approach’. The emergent approach to organisational change perceives change as being rapid and erratic, and hence change cannot be managed using a top-down approaches. Rather, change is viewed as consisting of learning processes, where the organisations respond to both the external and internal environmental changes. A clear assumption that I can identify as making up emergent theories is that for organisational leaders to respond to change. They have to have a deep insight into the organisation, its strategies, structures, culture, and people. This allows managers to select appropriate change approaches, as well as determine barriers to change. From reviewing the literature, I conclude that emergent approach is not free from criticism, as their application to unique organisational contexts can be brought to question. Because of the likely limit of emergent approach in managing change, some researchers have suggested the contingency or situational approach (Armenakis & Harris 2009). Contingency Theory According to the Contingency approaches, organisational performance is contingent on situational variables. Therefore, since the variables for change in the modern-day organisations vary across organisations, the responses used by organisational leaders should vary depending on specific situations their organisations face. The contingency theory is a situational theory rooted in matching up organisational leaders to specific organisational situations (Browning 2007). According to the theory, the effectiveness of the leader is dependent on how the leadership style fits a specific organisational context and its environment. Although models like the situation theory hypothesise that different organisational situations demand different leadership styles, the contingency theory is centred on seeking leaders with the right styles, which can match the current situations that prevail in the post-bureaucratic era. An underlying assumption for reaching this conclusion is that leaders would find it tricky to change their leadership styles to suit particular organisational context than it is to change the leader based on the current situations. This assumption is also promoted by Browning (2007). According to Browning (2007), contingency theory relies on three essential factors: task structure, position power, and leader-member relations. The leader has to create a group structure that gauges leader-member relations to determine whether it is negative or positive. Put differently, it gauges whether it is an unfavourable leader-member relation that is characterised by friction or distrust or a favourable one that is characterised by cooperation and trust. Additionally, a favourable situation is one where the leader structures the task. This gives more control to the leader, as there is clarity about what the employees should do to manage change. At the same time, completion of tasks is measurable and demonstrated clearly. According to Cakir (2011), the contingencies that relate to organisational structure in the bureaucratic era include technology, size, environment, and strategy. In managing change emanating from these variables, the Contingency theory assumes that each of them facilitates the existence of particular features in the structure. In my view, since the Contingency Theory postulates that there has to be a fit between the organisational content and the leadership style, when organisational structure a leader uses have the features that favour the development of these variables, then it implies there is a fit. Taking Browning’s (2007) statement into perspective, I agree that such a fit is intended to increase organisational performance. Environment In respect to the environment, the rate of market and technological change within the environment an organisation operates is a significant factor and determines whether the organisational structure should be participatory (organic) or hierarchical (mechanistic). In the bureaucratic era, hierarchical structures prevailed (Cakir 2011). Managing change in the post-bureaucratic era within the perspective of Contingency Theory demands that there has to be a fit. Typically, mechanistic structures are those where organisational tasks are split into specialised roles, and where leaders assign roles based on the subordinates’ knowledge and expertise. In participatory structures, the members of the organisation collaborate in ad hoc ways. In this regard, having fit mechanistic structures ensures stable environments since hierarchies tend to be more proficient in routine operations where top-down models of management are inherent. On the other hand, participatory structures are suitable for unstable environments since knowledge is required from the lower organisational levels (Cakir 2011). This characterises the form of change management and leadership that fits the post-bureaucratic era, as situations are unpredictable and erratic and require the participation of each one. Size An organisation’s size affects the level of bureaucracy within the organisation. According to Cakir (2011), bureaucratic structures are suitable for large organisations since administration and operations tend to be repetitive. In such circumstances, the rule-based decision-making procedures bring about cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Non-bureaucratic structures, according to Cakir (2011), are suitable for the small organisation. Still, based on my knowledge that post-bureaucratic are fast adopting less bureaucratic structures, in spite of the fact that they face painful transition, I argue that the erratic nature of modern organisations due to unpredictable economic situations and work structures require a structure that is less bureaucratic. In which case, bureaucratic structures would characterise the bureaucratic era. Therefore, in the post-bureaucratic era, which is characterised by hybridity, the bureaucratic structure should be blended with non-bureaucratic, which are centralised, to find the perfect fit. Technology According to Cakir (2011), the mechanistic structure is suitable for routine technological processes while the participatory structure is suitable for non-routine processes. Cakir (2011) suggested two classical models in Contingency Theory: policy determinism model and the contingency determinism model. The policy determinism model is anchored in the conception that an organisation’s structural adaptation is determined by the policies determined by the dominant group along with the minimal effects of contingencies. The dominant group, in this case, has power over the organisation and the policies they create are aimed at ensuring a fit between the organisation’s and the contingencies. On the other hand, the contingency determinism model asserts that an organisation’s structural adaptation emanates from the pressures that certain contingencies exert. In this case, the contingency factors determine the organisational structure directly and inequitably. While both of these models are relevant, on reflection, the post-bureaucratic era is characterised by hybridity. It is also less rule-based. In which case, the policy determinism model would not effectively manage technological change in the post-bureaucratic era, where rapid technological change occurs erratically. In other words, managing technological change is determined by the pressure certain contingencies exert. Still, some rules to guide technological adoption, to avoid chaos or waste of funds by adopting the wrong technologies are critical. Hence, having a mix of policy determinism model and the contingency determinism model to bring about a hybrid structure is in my view critical. Conclusion In the post-bureaucratic era, organisational performance depends on effective management of change, which is also depends on situational variables, such as technology, organisational size, and the environment. Therefore, since the variables for change in the modern-day organisations vary across organisations, the responses used by organisational leaders should vary depending on specific situations their organisations face. In managing change emanating from these variables, the Contingency theory assumes that each of them facilitates the existence of particular features in the structure. To conclude, the Contingency theory offers the most effective approach to change management than Lewin’s three-step approach. This is since effective change requires going through complex processes, whose impacts on the organisation remain uncertain unless the change processes are effectively managed. Contingency Theory postulates that there has to be a fit between the organisational content and the leadership style, when organisational structure a leader uses has the features that favour the development of these variables, then it implies there is a fit. References Armenakis, A & Harris, S 2009, "Reflections: Our Journey in Organizational Change Research and Practice," Journal of Change Management vol 9 no 2, 127-142 Balasubramanian, N & Lee, J 2008, "Firm Age and Innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, vol 17 no 5, pp. 1019 Beer, M & Nohria, N 2000, “Cracking the code of change,” Harvard Business Review, vol 78, no 3, pp. 133-141 Barnard, M & Stoll, N 2010, “Organisational Change Management: A rapid literature review,” Centre for Understanding Behaviour Change Short Policy Report No. 10/01 2010 Buono, A 2009, Building Organizational Change Capacity, Management Consulting Division International Conference, Vienna, Austria Burnes, B, et al, 2011, “Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values,” Journal of Change Management, vol11 , Iss 2 Brown, B 2012,"Leading complex change with post-conventional consciousness", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol 25 Iss 4 pp. 560 – 575 Browning, B 2007, "Leadership in Desperate Times: An Analysis of Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage through the Lens of Leadership Theory," Advances in Developing Human Resources vol 9, pp.183-198 Cakir, A 2007, Applying Contingency Theory to International Organizations: The Case of European Integration, viewed 28 May 2015, Pieterse, J Caniels, M & Homan, T 2012, “Professional discourses and resistance to change,” Journal of Organizational Change Management vol 25 no6, 798-818 Rego, A, Sousa, F, Marques, C & Cunha, M 2012, “Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity,” Journal of Business Research, vol 65, no 3, pp. 429-437 Josserand, E, Teo, S & Clegg, S 2006, "From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: the difficulties of transition", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol 19 Iss 1 pp. 54 – 64 Krishnan, V 2012,"Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as mediator", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 33 Iss, 6 pp. 550 – 563 Read More