Understanding and Facilitating Organization Change in the 21st Century - Essay Example

Name Instructor Course Date Integrated Work project Change can be defined as an action which brings about something new or introduces a new way in which an organization works. For change to be said to have occurred there must be evidence that a stable situation has been disturbed. Moreover, there must be new adaptations an an organization puts in place to meet the new demand. Examples of change are withdrawal or abrupt resignation of chief executive officer of a company, an organization’s investment facing a natural calamity like earthquake leading to loss of equipment and facilities. There is no single organization which remains static throughout its lifetime. Once in a while every organization experiences certain changes which are either called for or not. Change can be manmade or natural, desired/desirable or undesired/undesirable depending on the time it occurs and the circumstances which brought about its occurrence. Usually organizations begin from a central point with the idea of one person who introduces it to a few of his friends. As an organization takes root, there arises the need to make some realignment to ensure that it is able to meet rising demands and needs. There are possibilities that an organization’s products and services will attract more people than it initially targeted. As such it becomes necessary to adjust as necessary so as to expand and make more products and services to satisfy the demand. This is what organizations which target to supply their products and goods in the global market usually go through. The demand for change is even higher when a company is dealing in a business line that is already occupied globally (Adrianna 52). The organization in such case must do appropriate strategic planning so that it achieves a competitive lead over others. The motivation behind organizational change is usually profit making and service delivery. This depends if the organization is for profit or not for profit. In these times when there are uncertain economic every organization, every organization strives to ensure it is capable of withstanding economic turbulences now that the world has become a global village and any slight change in the economy of great economies can affect any business anywhere on the world. Change can occur once or takes a long duration to be accomplished. In case of things which are so central to the life of organization especially on key personnel, management will act so fast to bring aboard new employees to help run the organization. Change takes time before it can have an impact or before an evaluation can release reliable results. There is need for patience in waiting for a change to take effect. The duration can even be longer when a change is being introduced by a new employee like a chief executive officer where all other employees or majority have been in the organization for a long period of time. In such cases a new employee must learn to be patient and do all possible within their means to address the difficulties and bring the other employees to buy the new ideas before any change can be felt or fruits for that change to be experienced (Denise 520). However, it is important that unnecessary bureaucracies be eliminated in order to ensure that decisions are made as fast as possible and implemented so that an organization doesn’t lose profit making opportunities. This is especially important in times of crisis. However, in most cases change, the Big Bang theory cannot be used to explain change since it is always a process which needs time and potential resources. While policies within an organization can be very easy to change, changing the culture can be very changing. Managers must understand that people’s practices are very complex and changing them requires a behavioral component and they must be thus willing to incorporate such view. This might require convincing people to see the necessity for the change being introduced. It might be necessary to organize for sensitization forums and feedback sessions for all employees for them to learn about the changes which are about to be introduced. Sometimes, there might not be enough resources within your reach with which to bring about. People always associate changes with loss of employment. Due to job insecurity people might resist change no matter how efficient it is. These fears must be settled early enough and any other concerned addressed well to avoid unnecessary resistance. Managers should also consider motivating the workers enough to play their roles in the overall process of change. Due consideration must be given to politics within an organization which might jeopardize good intentions. The duration a change takes to be effective also depends on whether the change is affecting the whole organization or a small section like a department; and the size of an organization. Large scale organization wide changes take so long to be effective especially in large organizations. Once all these factors and many others as may come up during consultation, are put in place it is very much possible for a change to be implemented and take effect fast enough for fruits to be experienced by all. Nothing should stop managers from doing anything that they know beyond doubt will enable an organization achieve its targets and beyond (Alan, 2013). The organization change to be discussed in this paper occurred in Eureko. This is an insurance company which operates in Netherlands and has several branches and sales outlets in different parts of the world. In Netherlands it is recognized as the largest provider of both life and non life insurance policies. Within Europe, it has a presence in seven countries. The company decided to adopt a new name, Achmea in a bid to ensure that its structure is simplified to promote performance and excellence. The change of name did not have any negative impact in the way the company conducts its business internationally. Instead the change is aimed at bringing together all its operations and thus strengthens operations globally so that more resources can be invested in expanding the business and providing services which can meet the demands and interests of customers. This is also important in gaining a competitive advantage against its rivals in the insurance market. The new brand will facilitate the company as it will unite the business under one policy within European Union. This will make the company operate as one group easily in all members of the Union. The company’s new name has also come with a cooperative element something which is desirable among investors interested with organizations which want to conduct their businesses in a sustainable manner that committed to close engagement with communities where they operate. There is increasing evidence that consumers want their organizations to engage in the life of societies within which they operate. Very fundamental to this change is the connection of this name to key characteristics like honest, upright, sincere and competent with which this name is associated with this name. This will make it easier for both internal and external customers to easily identify themselves with the organization’s core values. This will also emphasize the cooperative tools of the organization. This is a power brand that is very strong in Netherlands thus its use will make it easier to gain interests of many people in the country. However this new brand doesn’t take effect in Turkey and Romania since in these countries Eureko has a strong position in the market which might be affected negatively as it may bring confusion among consumers (Zeist, 2012). Prior to this change, the company had a major shift in the division of health whereby public, voluntary and private systems were fused into one. This became a major challenge for the organization in the year 2006. It was a totally new system whereby private insurers were involved in the running of national health insurance program instead of having their own programs. It was kind of a nightmare for the organization in dropping all its health policies in favor of this new one. It affected their clients who had already been used with their own private policies and there were uncertainty in terms of cost and future opportunities or losses at a time when many insurance companies dropped health policies due to government demands. The company also had a choice to exit from the health insurance policies as other business colleagues had done but instead the company decided to reorganize itself and continue to adopt the new insurance system with the hope of acquiring a great share in the market with time. The management decided to take that action and move in with strong assurance that there were so many losses awaiting for them especially in the first year before they will finally decide to continue with business or not. The company heavily relied on its non life policies to be able to have enough capital to operate health programs for three years. It was in 2008 that the company’s health program began to shoot up to the level of non life policies. This is a powerful example of visionary leadership that moves forward in a path that seems so dark to majority of the people moving forward with assurance that your efforts and resources will one day bring fruits. Under the leadership of Jeroen Van Breda Vriesman, who is the company’s executive member of the board representing the health wing of the company, the company for the last five years has had a lot to smile having taken root in health insurance as well as its non life policies. Getting the right people for the right people is indeed important in determining the success of any enterprise. There is also need for team work as well as willingness to take investment risks especially in the insurance market. The change of name was brought about by the need to take up a brand name which has so many connections in the market within Europe as well as introducing a few structural alignments to make the company stand better chances in running insurance business globally. There was also the internal pressure from customers of the company who felt it was important for the company to declare its position as far as corporate engagement is concerned. It became necessary for the company to also come up with a brand that will make it operate on a single policy platform to enable them take up opportunities which arose out of the expansion and strengthening of European Union. Therefore this new name was done in order to bring about some desired change of oneness and popularity in the insurance market. On the other hand the adoption of a national health insurance policy was purely a response to the government’s new policy on insurance where only one insurance policy was to be allowed in the country. While other companies chose to deal with non health policies alone, Achmea chose to drop its earlier health policies in favor of the new one whose effects there were yet to witness since it had not been implemented before. This became a very big challenge as well as an opportunity. While the cost of running a nationwide policy would be high on the company especially when subscribers are so few, the company chose to enter into competition with other players with the hope of ensuring that it will utilize its commercial strategies and get as many people as possible in order to have enough financial resources to run the program on its own without depending on non life policy programs. Unlike the introduction of a new name for the company, this adoption of national health policy was purely external. Had the government not introduced its new policy, the company would have continued to operate its own health policies. As many insurance companies exited from health program, it gave Achmea a great opportunity to take up a large share of the market in terms of numbers. The company being expert in commercial aspects of any transaction adopted so fast and within a period of three years, life programs were at the same level with non life counter parts (Novelli 32). The most appropriate person who could give accurate information as to the motivation behind the step the company took when other colleagues opted out is the man who was in the organization at that time and who was closely involved with the change intervention. In this case this man is none other than Jeroen Van Breda Vriesman, who was the head of the health program and an executive board member of the company. Achmea relied on his wise counsel and left with him the responsibility of leading the company through the uncertain conditions of the new program and believed that he had whatever it takes to make it fruitful at the end of the days of unpredictability. Other executive have reasons to smile and admire him for enduring the pressure of a likely failure of taking a risk where other companies had safely walked out. As they witness the fruits of courage, they are sure his vision can always be relied upon to direct the company in the next phase of development to ensure that it has an appealing taste globally. While it is not appropriate to take risks in life, in the insurance world risk is unavoidable and it can be for the positive or negative reasons. Individuals and organizations must be ready to take risks in investment especially when taking new products which have not been tried before and whose success or failure is unlikely to be predicted. Jeroen was very key in introducing this line of thought and the intervention took place in his department and he was left the role of oversight on its progress with frequent reports to the board of executive members and general management and shareholders in the company. He was also the leader of change management team which was responsible for introducing and implementing the intervention. In most cases he worked actively with fellow employees in his department to strategize on the best approaches they could use to ensure they succeed in bringing many people to trust them in managing their health insurance premiums. With his team they quickly responded to observed changes in such a manner they took advantage of them to favor the progress of the policy (Robinson 250). The actual procedure which implemented in order to reach a desired end is what is referred to as change intervention. In this case the change desired change is to ensure that the new national health policy is adopted by as many people as possible and that the company as many of these people as possible willing to give their premiums to them for management. It might be necessary for the company management to introduce rates which are as low as possible to attract many people and develop payment procedures which are convenient to specific category of people. It has already been well explained that the rationale for the adoption of the national health policy was the fact that it became a government requirement in the health insurance programs. There were both internal and external drivers for this change. The legislation by the government to implement this policy made it compulsory for every person to be insured against health risks. This provided a good motivation for the company to obtain high revenue as the number of subscribers was expected to be high. Externally there was the pressure to quit like other insurance partners and from the government to adhere to the policy guidelines. Despite uncertainties which were unforeseen, the company strategically chose to move forward and implement the policy with a strong motivation of reaping much at the end of the implementation and establishment period. In adopting any change it is important that challenges expected be exhaustively addressed and mechanisms be put in place to ensure that any risks which might arise due to such actions do not put to waste resources and efforts invested so far. When Jeroen took up the task of leading Achmea into the national health policy he was well aware of the challenges of unavoidable losses and making the insurance program bring about high quality in health care as perceived by the law makers. The company adjusted itself to ensure the other policy programs are stepped up in order to have enough revenue to accommodate the new program. There was thorough training on new approaches of performance to obtain more profits. The company also had to get experts from consultant firms to advise them on best strategies. Although there were difficulties in changing mindsets of some of the long serving employees in the organization, with the help of experts it was made possible. There was close team work especially in coming up with the vision and competencies of the new health division. Despite growing amidst several difficulties, the program is very much effective as the premiums are rising from year to year. Management has become efficient as the running costs are decreasing from year to year. There is also general customer satisfaction in the way their health care financing needs are met by the company anytime need arises. Every organization must go through some change in its lifetime. It is important that management be well prepared to meet challenges which might require rapid decisions in order to ensure an organization meets its obligations to its employees and the customers being served. Achmea’s bold step to adopt a national health insurance policy remains a lesson for all to accept on the need to take risks carefully and turn them to great investment opportunities. Works Cited Adrianna, Kezar. “Understanding and Facilitating Organization Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations,” Ashe-Eric Higher Education Report 28.4(2001): pp. 45-57. Print. Denise, Rousseau and Snehal, Tijoriwala. “What’s a Good Reason to Change? Motivated Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Psychology 84.4(1999): pp 514 – 528. Print. Robinson, L. and Rousseau, M. “Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(1994): pp. 245-259. Print. Novelli, Kirkman and Shapiro L. “Effective implementation of organizational change: An organizational justice perspective,” In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior 2(1995): pp. 15-36. Print. Alan, Murray. How to Change Your Organization’s Culture. The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management. Web. 2013. Zeist. Eureko Renamed to Achmea. Web. 2012 Lawler, Edward and Christopher, Worley. “Winning Support for Organizational Change: Designing employee reward systems that keep on working,” Ivey Business Journal Online. March-April 2006. Schraeder, Mike, Paul, Swamidass, and Rodger Morrison. “Employee Involvement, Attitudes and Reactions to Technology Changes,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2006. Wischenvsky, Daniel and Fariborz Damanpour. “Organizational Transformation and Performance: An examination of three perspectives,” Journal of Managerial Issues 2006. Read More