Types of organizational change
- Details
- Hits: 11341
Types of organizational change
Dramatic change
A leader can initiate dramatic change in an organization when there is a crisis or abnormal opportunities. For example, the organization can reduce production costs, restructure its organization, reposition its strategies, and change the mindsets of its workers. The managers of the organization only go for the dramatic change when they are confident that everyone would welcome the initiative. However, the organizational community usually responds with some resistance.
Systematic change
In comparison with dramatic change, the leadership has a greater focus and constructs the changes more watchfully. Order usually characterizes systematic change, and the management attempts the change after extensive planning and insightful considerations. For instance, the organization can improve the quality of its processes, reprogram its activities, benchmark its performance, and plan strategically. Usually, staff teams and experts in planning and development have the responsibility to undertake systematic changes.
Organic change
As opposed to formal leadership, which features dramatic change and specialty that characterizes systematic change, fragmentation and anarchy characterizes this type of change. The organic form of change arises as a challenge to organizational leadership. Dramatic changes may happen after initiating organic changes, but at the same time, the organization might risk chaos. Cross-purposes and competition over scarce available resources among workgroups often infuse the organic organizational change. That might lead to such groups going for competencies that are not compatible or benefiting the overall goals of the organization. An intelligent manager can also initiate organic change by the institutionalization of respect for the adjustment.
Essay 2
In the new public interest model, it is good to serve citizens and not "customers for several reasons. Firstly, the Public Interest Model describes organizational regulation as the protection of the public interest using the finest feasible granting of scarce resources for the sole and collective goods. Overseeing means the utilization of legitimate instruments for the execution of socio-economic strategic objectives. For instance, a law can dictate social and economic regulations to enhance efficiency in the allocation of resources, or ensure income distribution is just and fair. In modern organizations, the assumption is that the market coordinates the distribution of scarce resources. Theoretically, there is an optimal allocation of supplies, but the organizations in practice do not frequently comply with these conditions. The distribution of resources is not superlative, and better alternative methods like government regulation are necessary to improve the allocation.
On the authority of the Public interest model, the best instrument to overcome the downside of unhealthy competition, lopsided market operations, lost markets, and unfortunate market results is through government regulation.
The government regulation can help better allocate the resources through facilitation, maintenance, and imitation of market operations and ensure there is maximum respect for freedom of contract and individual rights to the property.
The public interest model thus is partly welfare economics. It highlights that regulation of resource distribution should make the most of social welfare after sufficient cost/benefit analysis of whether the cost in improving the allocation of resources in the market exceeds the increase in social wellbeing.
The flaws with the public interest model regard its ambiguity and incompetence to ascertain the progress of the public interest. One of the issues with this model is the various speculations that arise concerning how copious regulation is most advantageous. Another problem with the public interest model is the difficulty the legislature encounters in ensuring the regulator is representing the best interest of the public and not its interest.
Essay 3
After reading my textbook, I have realized that modern organizations are experiencing the best moments in the history of works because of the advancement in technology and easy access to information, which is giving them a great sense of ethics and values. In the past, high wages and benefits were the primary motivators for job seekers, but today job seekers are apt for organizations with great cultures. Therefore, organizations must offer their employees belongingness and a mission to fulfill remarkable goals. The absence of culture in the 21st Century makes any organization unsustainable.
According to Collins, the Essential Elements for Building Great Public Organizations include the purpose of the organization, which the organization must outline using a strong mission statement. Community is another essential element, which represents the sense of ownership to a group of individuals sharing similar values and goals. Camaraderie entrenches in communities with mutual trust and friendship not only among coworkers but also between the organization and the external environment. Organizations must also establish effective communication as an element in Building Great Public culture. As opposed to how people consider effective communication as a common practice, after reading my textbook, a better meaning has surfaced. For an organization to own effective communication, it must be consistent in processes and invest time understanding workers’ personalities and their communication dynamics. Last yet importantly, among the elements for Building Great Public Organizations is good leadership. The organization leader must regularly push the mission and standards of the organization. None of the other components would thrive in ineffective leadership. Therefore, leadership must possess unquestionable integrity and compassion. The leader must prove authenticity in all processes, remain clear on the organizational expectations, and care for the followers.