The Role of Management in Organizational Change
Posted 1 year, 4 months ago at 8:26 pm. 0 comments
An organization can be defined as a group of people who are interrelated and rely on one another to pursue and achieve a common goal. At one point in time or another, the common goal will be organizational change. After all, change is inevitable. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum, and therefore, are left with the choice to adapt to the environment, try to change it, or fail (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Organizations are likely to change due to internal factors such as poor performance or external factors such as changes in technology (Tushman & Anderson, 1986; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). Change efforts can be considered planned, a deliberate try to improve functioning probably in reaction to the poor performance factor or unplanned more of an adaptive response that is probably due to something outside the organization (Porras & Robertson, 1992). Regardless of the reason, the role of management in times of change is very important.
Management and Organizational Change: The Role of Middle Management
Managers have a strong role in changing an organization, such as advocating for transformations, distributing knowledge about a possible change effort, and being examples of the culture and values of the organization.
One of the ways that managers can impact employees is through social capital. Social capital is the goodwill available to an individual in the organization and is focused on relationships and the information available to the employee (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Managers can impact social change beyond just advocating interactions among employees; they can also try to bridge the gap by bringing social networks together and try to facilitate the collective goals of the company by bonding with employees through the exchange of information and trust (Adler & Kwon, 2002). The interactions that take place between employees and management go beyond just the idea of social capital. Interactions can also be used to change organizational sensemaking through changing cognitive schemata. Just as managers have an important role in providing knowledge to employees through social capital, they also have a role in implementing changes by helping to evolve the notions of employees during strategic change.
Maitlis (2005) defines sensemaking as actions that organization members take during turbulent times in order to maintain understandings and enable collective action. Sensemaking, thus, is a social process where constructions of reality take place through accounts. Informal conversations between management and employees can have a powerful affect on the feelings of change that take place. Though upper management may have a role in shaping the vision of a company, middle management interactions with workers are critical for enforcing change and are not completely influenced from above. It is clear that the support of middle management is needed to persuade change ideas from resentment to cooperation (Balogun & Johnson, 2004).
The question then becomes how managers might go about changing the minds of employees within the company because this is essential to any change initiative. What we want to do is align the assumptive world views of employees with that of management. If employees are not on board with a decision, disaster can take place as in the AT&T/Western Electric example in the Werther (2003). When the companies wanted to shift to making cheaper phones, the employees resisted the change because it was a complete shift in the culture and pride of the company. Allowing employees a voice in the decision making process would probably have helped create strategic change because successful organizations usually spend some time looking at options and gathering information before establishing a direction (Nutt, 1999). Managers need to allow employee input when trying to select the best possible path to change.
Management and Organizational Change: The Role of Upper Management
Top Management Teams (TMT) are important for creating strategic organizational change because they are responsible for the vision and direction of a company. TMTs can use their relationships with other companies, the government, or even the media to help push their change agenda in the environment, but ultimately, it is important that they create change through working with the employees in the organization. A CEO could do this in many ways, but one easy way is by adopting a collective orientation. CEOs with a collective orientation, one that is based beyond personal interests and puts the goals of the organization first, is likely to create a situation where employees are more likely to go along with collective action because they believe it is best for everyone (see Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005 for more on this collective orientation). Top management should create a sense that all people in the organization are considered equal. Symbolic changes can help employees to be more open and trusting of the vision set forth by management.
A “How-To” Management Guide: Strategies that Work
This section focuses on those strategies managers can take to ensure effective change. The best summary comes from Porras and Robertson (1992) when looking at common behavioral changes in successful change interventions. For all employees in a change process, the most successful things were to be open in communications, collaborate with others, take responsibility, maintain a shared vision, solve problems effectively, support and respect others, facilitate interactions, inquire, and experiment. For managers, in addition to what was mentioned generating participation, leading the vision, functioning strategically, promoting information flow, and developing others are also important things to consider. Obviously a shared vision is important in an organization to be successful, but creating that vision is not necessarily as easy as people may think. Many organizations fail to be specific and systematic about their goals and the vision never translates into change.
Creating a successful vision requires input from multiple sources and collaboration. When employees have a say in the change process, they are more likely to adopt the vision than when the change is imposed. Interactions between people are also key in an organizational change. The interactions socially construct the sensemaking that takes place between employees and managers. Managers have to present a change effort in a way that is open, fair, and honest, so employees don’t resent the change.
Another way to ensure that successful change is through the adoption of an abundance approach according to Cameron and Levine (2006). Working to one’s highest potential is likely to lead to success. If organizations want to affect change they should focus on positive energy as people are likely to be drawn to it according to the heliotropic effect. It is manifested as the Pygmalion effect in that people respond to the expectations of others. If you require high standards of achievement for a change outcome, it is likely that you will get it as difference in performance can be accounted for by the expectations set forth.
Managers should avoid talking negatively about a change effort in front of their employees as what they say will influence how employees react to a change. They should also avoid the idea that the change will take care of itself. Although people do not what a change forced on them, setting objectives was very successful to guide future development according to Nutt (1999). Managers need to intervene in the process by creating new norms and focusing on improving when needed. Managers should also avoid focusing on a single, imposed solution to the problem, as multiple perspectives and voice are important. Often, these imposed solutions are used for practical reasons because they may be a practice of other organizations, but many times implementing something from another source and trying to make it work in a new situation may be very difficult. Also, implementing a directive such as an edict or trying to persuade employees will not work and should be replaced with participation by all stakeholders (Nutt, 1999).
If we examine change efforts of management in terms of power, it is much more effective for managers to be seen as having expert rather than coercive power based on the French and Raven (1959) model. Imposing an edict is similar to coercive power in that the demands are likely to go along with consequences. If you give people a chance to have some development in the process people would be more likely to respect their manager rather than feel as though they are forced to comply with them. Change is likely to be most affected when organizations ask for consultation from the employees or use an inspirational appeal.
Ultimately, it rests in the hands of management to create change in an organization.
