Change is inevitable

Change is requiredQuestionProvide a critical analysis of an organisational ex transfer which you have now experienced. You may select one(a) element or aspect of the variegate for a particular discussion. You will be expected to use the main concepts of the applicable parts of the literature on managing change, to diagnose, account for, and explain the change. Con berthr what lessons can be learnt from that initiative on the strengths and weaknesses of programmatic approaches to change.IntroductionEveryone says change is difficult. It is difficult to conceive because one must inevitably deal with mountain issues and un received future. The more so to implement because consequences can be difficult to predict, harder to track and therefore can crap a dynamic all of their own. Is this really so? Is it not true that we atomic subr tabuine 18 living in an era though which dramatic changes of productivity, technology, brand, image and study are common place? Thus reaffirming th e words of Heraclitus the Greek philosopher who said Change is the exactly constant thing in life Change is inevitable but often its easier said than implemented because every change faces resistance in some form and carries with it certain consequences. A classic example would be my experience working in MARG Ltd, one of Indias biggest infra social organization company today. I was tip overn the role of a Business Analyst in 2007 immediately by and by I graduated engineering. It was my first job, my first real life business experience. I was a part of the company for 2 years. The following parts of my prove consist of all the changes the judicature went through in the areas of structure, culture and technology. However considering the requirements of the essay a detailed analysis is written on structural change which is an internal change model. The first part identifies the problem due to monumental growth of the organization in terms of financial support received and the po sterior increase in huge adult male capital required to carry out the projects. The second part consists of the literature review pertaining to the structural change the organization witnessed followed by a brief critical analysis of the entire scenario. The conclusion consists of the mistakes made and lessons learnt followed by a personal reflection on the dynamics of change management.In April 2007 MARG Ltd consisted of 400 employees. By October 2007, the organization grew to 3250 employees with multiple branches exploding in 7 different cities throughout India. That is nearly 9 times its growth in man capital. This happened due to an investment of USD 12.6 million received from deutsche bank for a total land asset of 12400 acres including 2 potential Special Economic Zones and a port infrastructure development. Being a company with only 2 verticals namely Real Estate Residential and Real Estate Commercial, it diversified into 6 verticals consisting of (a) Real Estate Residentia l, (b) Real Estate Commercial, (c) Port Development, (d) Industrial Clusters, (e) Special Economic Zones and (f) Power generation with almost 500 employees in each vertical. straightway each vertical had more employees than the entire company had in April. The earlier organizational structure was a traditional functional structure. This structure can be illustrated by the companys activities grouped into departments such as personnel, Marketing, Finance, Sales, Legal and Civil Operations. All the functional departments excluding finance which had a CFO as its business head had 1 CEO wrap uping directly to the Chairman, 2 Vice presidents (1 for Real Estate residential and 1 for Real estate commercial) reporting to the CEO and the rest of the police squad reporting to the VPs. This was a simple structure which had its advantages during that phase of the organization. A complete coordination was achieved as the entire operations of the company were achieved through the CEO overseen by the chairman. This structure allowed for the development of employee expertise in all areas, it provided course paths for professional staff involved and finally there was an effective utilization of personnel across miscellaneous departments (Carnall, C. 1990). However this structure created pressure on the organization for its further growth in the aspect of geographical dispersion, project diversification and increase in human capital. Hence there was a structural change regarded in the form of a matrix structure. The chairman decided on this structure as it offered equal importance on the merchandise and the functional focus to the organizational work. Also most academics have believed that such structure is favourable for large construction, aerospace and information sufficeing system software companies (Hardy, C. 1994). This favours organization which deals with more than one complex project and where there is a motive to coordinate and develop project and various s pecialist activities. As the demand for various specialist in draw ups is variable over the completion time lines of the project, this structural change seemed to be the best possible solution which not only promoted the effective deployment on a project when needed but also offered the adaptability over time so that resources can be easily switched mingled with projects. The advantages of a structural change of this nature were (a) it identified the project management structures, (b) provided accountability for the project, (c) allowed development of cohesive and effective teams of specialists working towards the objectives of a key project, (d) provided for the professional and career development of specialist staff, (e) and most importantly they provided for the flexible use of specialist staff (Carnall, C. 1990).However every choice carries with it certain consequences and uncertainties. The consequences on the negative side which were later realized was that there was difficul ty of handling such a matrix structure in terms of reconciling the need for flexibility with the need for project coordination and control. Now this reconciliation required good working relationships among project and functional management which did not exist. This is because about 90% of the employees were fresh entrants. They did not know the state they were working with. Most of them were fresh graduates and neer had any previous work experience in infrastructure. Some of the experienced employees who joined belatedly were not from the industry. Also the biggest issue was that the employees who have been present since the start of the organization felt threatened with the implementation of the new structure as this does not give them the accessibility they had before with their Chairman. The people who had reported to their respective bosses had now had to report to somebody else. For example the CEOs had to report to the newly appointed Executive Directors, Vice presidents h ad to report to business heads who in turn had to report to the CEOs. The entire working relationships and comfort zones of various employees were disrupted by the new structural change. Though people mum the need for such a change and that it was required for the benefit of the organization considering its monumental growth, people idolatryed the loss of power and control thus giving deck up to insecurities and conflicts.Based on the literature review the 3 main problems identified in the organization with such a structural change were the struggle betweenCentralization vs. Decentralization Being a company with functional structure, the process was a centralized one where the coordination was more straightforward with decisions being made by the chairman at clearly recognized points within the organizational structure. Also the senior management were in a comfortable position with established policies that they are use for many a(prenominal) years. It checked the chairman for he had control over all the day to day activities, most decision making and a comfortable resource allocation. In this model the centralization of power and control of procedures was focused on the chairman ( Brooke, T. 1987). But however in order to go to the succeeding(prenominal) level of growth and meet the market demand, it was necessary for the organization to be decentralized. With 6 verticals and a man power of 3250 this seemed to be the sensible choice. With as many as 27 projects spread over 6 verticals, delegation was the key factor in meeting objectives. Delegation can reduce the amount of tenseness and overload experienced by the senior management. When senior management is overloaded, the exercise of control is diminished. With delegation it was possible for the senior management and the chairman to move extraneous from day to day activities and focus on long term inventning and creating a vision. Also it helps the bottom line management in providing opportunities to make decisions and get wind personal satisfaction by matching their personal goals with that of the organization. It assists the management development in widening the on job skills of managers and prepares number of people who are up to(p) of undertaking senior positions in the future. It also provides flexibility, with the establishment of sub units it helps in improved controls and achievement measurements and accountability can be identified (Bartlett, C. 1991).Control vs. committal This aspect is important for the overall effectiveness of the organization. MARG had a control model where work was divided into specialized tasks. Performance expectations were defined as standards that define the negligible acceptable performance. No attempt was made to establish maximum or potential performance. With the matrix structure, it was necessary to bring the commitment model. But that meant changing the military posture and expectations of the employees. In this model, job pro files were redesigned to be bighearteder and teams rather than individuals and the each business unit was held accountable for performance. This also involved that people rely on shared goals for coordination work out was based on expertise and information and not on position anymore. Performance expectations were set relatively high. Continuous improvement was expected and monitored. At the selfsame(prenominal) time lot of motivatingal programs were incorporated as a part of the business management. The organizational structure was designed to be flatter to enhance performance and commitment (Walton. 1987). This gave birth to reward policies, open door policies and performance management systems. This also seemed to enhance employee management relations.Change vs. Stability Its a common arbitrariness that in a changing world every organization must change to survive and prosper. However while this happens its also mandatory to deploy people to produce goods and services to the market as usual, even if we are demanding extra effort from them as they experience change. This is where it is essential that a balance is maintained between change and stability (Chandler. 1962). This often refers to the transition phase between when the change is implemented and the consequences arrive. The transition phase is normally uncertain in a number of areas. Every employee might react differently to changes. The response is not the same always. MARG experienced similar difficulties. Even though awareness for change was established and people understood the need for change, the existing employees couldnt handle a shift in their normal routine and they had give up on their control and power. To bring about a structural change and yet retain the harmony and employee satisfaction seemed to be a challenge for the company.Even though the problem was identified and the disciplinal measures were taken to overcome them. There was a hurdle in problem solving and it was the block s in the minds of the employees. These can be categorized as follows(a) Perceptual Blocks This involves the employees stereotyping. They proverb what they expected to see. They only saw the new structural change as a threat and not as an opportunity to increase their performance or making use of the opportunities to go up the corporate ladder. There were tendencies to delimit the problem area too closely thus defining it narrowly. Thus they never faced the real problem which was their motivation and commitment. Also there were difficulties in using all the sensory inputs (Adams. 1987). The employees felt that they were overloaded with information on changing structures and the reason for it. With fresh job descriptions and new recruitment there were lot of things happening in the organization and the employees couldnt use all the information for their benefit.(b) Emotional Blocks This involves fear of taking risk, incapacity to tolerate ambiguity and employees preference to judging rather than generating ideas (Olsen. 1986). The existing employees were afraid to take risks and execute the expected tasks for they feared redundancy and felt unstable that if they failed somebody else in the company would take their place and felt loss of appreciation also as a possible outcome. The matrix structure was put in place quickly and it carried with it certain complexities. The available data was overloading and employees felt it was misleading, full of opinions and had different values. In trying to analyze the available data, they missed out on promising opportunities and self development. Finally they were constantly judging the ideas and solutions put forward by the new members and the new bosses. This lead to early rejection of ideas in their minds resulting in organizational objectives not being met.(c) Cognitive Blocks This aspect doesnt deal with the employees but is associated with the inadequacies of the management. This comprises of incorrect use of languag e, inflexible use of strategies and lack of correct information (Janis. 1989). Since the meridian management were from different backgrounds and industries they were using incorrect languages which portrayed a completely different picture for an infrastructure company. Most senior professional come from a comfortable and set environment which had established process, systems and protocols. Also most of them come from traditional companies. Hence there tendencies to stick to what they know and were stuck with their earlier methodologies. This did not suit the current of MARG as it was still in its transition phase and in early phase of establishing fresh policies and process.In spite of the challenges faced, continued focus resulted in establishing a firm matrix structure with all the employees aligned to the objectives of the organization. There were numerous mistakes made but it also lessons were learnt. This section outlines all the mistakes made, the lessons learnt and finally i dentifies a change model MARG followed in academic language. The time gap between which the change was planned and executed was very quick. Though its understandable that it was need within a quick span of time it shook the organization by its roots with resistance from all sides. One of the major mistakes was that the chairman being used to getting himself involved in the day to day activities continued to do that even with the new matrix structure and this resulted in the displeasure of CEOs, Executive directors and VPs. This impact their decision making as they would have to wait for the chairman to make every decision. Employees developed their own negative perceptions of structural change and criticized every plan and ideas without thinking about its benefits. MARG followed a clinical approach earlier where the set limited employees and the comfortable environment made it efficient for success through a psychological contract between the employees and the chairman (Bell. 1995) . Employees security was established through personal relationships. However with the new structure it was necessary to adopt a unidimensional approach. In this approach change was implemented as a linear process where the managers were expected to identify organizational adaptations ahead and the new systems developed would touch off the organization towards static equilibrium thus resulting in stability (Stacey. 1996). The problems as mentioned earlier were solved in 3 stages. First step was unfreezing. Creating awareness among employees for the need of change and the benefits it would bring not only to the organization but also to the employees. Then comes the step moving. Here new ideas are tested and existing process is revamped. This is followed by refreezing where new behaviours, skills and attitudes are stabilized and commitment to change is achieved (Lewin. 1997). The last step was done in 4 stages. First was the conceptualizing process then the motivation process, the co mmitment process and finally the implementation and evaluation phase (Kotter. 1988). As a result the organization was able to produce the following after a series of trial and actus reus method (a) established a sense of urgency for change. (b) Created a guiding coalition. (c) Developed a vision and strategy. (d) Communicated the changed vision. (e) Empowered employees for broad based action. (f) Generated short term wins. (g) Anchored new changes in future (Kotter 1996). All this was possible by working through the blocks and with a series of trial and error method the expected result was obtained. Though the price for such a change was key employees and CEOs resigning, with the objectives being met it was a lesson learnt for future transformational change. In the current market scenario it is mandatory for such rapid and monumental changes to handle the increasing demand. As Argryis (2004) said If the rate of change outside the organization is faster than the rate of change insid e, the end result is nigh. Hence such rapid monumental changes are needed and every change will always carry with it certain uncertainties and challenges. But thats the only way for organizational development.BibliographyAdams, J.L. (1987) Conceptual Blockbusting, pp 18 pp 43, Penguin PublicationsArgryis, C. (2004) Double Loop learning and organizational change, pp 104, Wiley PublicationsBartlett, C.A. (1989) The critical path to change, pp 57 pp 79, Prentice sign PublicationsBurnes, B (2004) Managing Change, pp 61 pp190, Prentice Hall PublicationsCarnall, C. (1990) Managing Change in Organizations, pp 14 18, pp 120 -pp 142, Prentice Hall PublicationsChandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure, pp 97 180, MIT PublicationsDawson, P. (2003) Organizational Change, pp 43- pp 54, Routledge PublicationsFrench, W.L (1995) Organizational Development, pp 55 pp 90, Prentice Hall PublicationsHardy, C (1994) Managing Strategic Action, pp 290 pp 320, Sage PublicationsJanis, I.L. (1989), Dynamics of Change management, pp 119 -pp 123, Mc Graw mound PublicationsKotter, J.P (1996) Leading Change, pp 55 64, Harvard Business School PressLewin, K. (1997) The cognitive and behavioural elements of organizational change, pp 210 pp 241, Sage PublicationsStacey, R (1996) strategic Management and Organizational dynamics, pp 199 207, Prentice Hall PublicationsOlsen, S. (1986). Strategic Control and Organizational Design, pp 145 pp 151, Mc Graw Hill PublicationsWilson, D.C. (1992) A strategy for change, pp 25 pp 90, Routledge Publications