Change is inevitable

Change is inevitableQuestionProvide a critical summary of an organisational limiting which you have directly experienced. You may claim sensation element or feeling of the change for a bad-tempered discussion. You pull up stakes be expected to ingestion the main concepts of the relevant separate of the literature on macrocosmaging change, to diagnose, account for, and explain the change. Consider what lessons rouse 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 concourse issues and un genuine future. The more so to implement because consequences contribute be difficult to predict, harder to track and on that pointfore passel create a dynamic all of their avow. Is this really so? Is it not true that we argon living in an era though which prominent changes of productivity, technology, brand, image and repu tation are common place? Thus reaffirming the haggling of Heraclitus the Greek philosopher who said Change is the only constant thing in life Change is inevitable but much its easier said than use because either change faces resistance in some plant and carries with it certain consequences. A classic example would be my experience working in MARG Ltd, one of Indias biggest stand ships company to daylight. I was given the role of a Business Analyst in 2007 immediately after I graduate engineering. It was my first wrinkle, my first real life worry experience. I was a purpose of the company for 2 years. The following parts of my analyze harp of all the changes the shaping went through in the areas of organize, culture and technology. neertheless considering the requirements of the essay a detailed analysis is written on geomorphological change which is an internal change model. The first part identifies the business due to monolithic growth of the arrangement in ter ms of financial support certain and the subsequent increase in huge human capital of the essence(p) to carry out the suggests. The second part consists of the literature review pertaining to the geomorphologic change the presidential term witnessed followed by a brief critical analysis of the entire scenario. The conclusion consists of the mistakes do and lessons learnt followed by a personalised blame on the dynamics of change charge.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 n archaean 9 times its growth in human capital. This happened due to an investment of USD 12.6 jillion received from deutsche bank for a total land as doctor of 12400 farming including 2 potential Special frugal Zones and a port infra social coordinate development. Being a company with only 2 verticals namely hearty Estate Residential and sure Estate Co mmercial, it diversified into 6 verticals consisting of (a) Real Estate Residential, (b) Real Estate Commercial, (c) Port Development, (d) Indus psychometric test Clusters, (e) Special Economic Zones and (f) Power generation with to the highest degree 500 employees in each vertical. instantaneously each vertical had more employees than the entire company had in April. The preliminary organisational anatomical social system was a traditional functional structure. This structure can be illustrated by the companys activities grouped into departments much(prenominal) as personnel, Marketing, Finance, Sales, Legal and obliging Operations. All the functional departments excluding finance which had a CFO as its business head had 1 CEO account directly to the Chairman, 2 viciousness presidents (1 for Real Estate residential and 1 for Real estate commercial) reporting to the CEO and the rest of the team reporting to the VPs. This was a simple structure which had its advantages durin g that cast of the organization. A complete coordination was achieved as the entire operations of the company were achieved through the CEO oerseen by the chairman. This structure allowed for the development of employee expertise in all areas, it provided career paths for professional staff involved and at long last there was an legal utilization of personnel across several(a) departments (Carnall, C. 1990). However this structure created pressure on the organization for its further growth in the aspect of geographical dispersion, pop diversification and increase in human capital. whence there was a structural change shooted in the form of a hyaloplasm structure. The chairman decided on this structure as it offered equal importance on the market and the functional focus to the organizational work. Also most academics have believed that much(prenominal) structure is favourable for sizeable construction, aerospace and computer software companies (Hardy, C. 1994). This favo urs organization which deals with more than one complex project and where there is a need to coordinate and develop project and various specializer activities. As the demand for various specialist inputs is variable over the completion time lines of the project, this structural change seemed to be the best affirmable solution which not only promoted the effective deployment on a project when needed but as well as offered the adaptability over time so that resources can be easily switched in the midst of projects. The advantages of a structural change of this constitution were (a) it determine 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 after realized was that there was difficulty of handling such a matrix structure in terms of reconciling the need for flexibility with the need for project coordination and confine. Now this reconciliation required good working relationships amid project and functional management which did not exist. This is because nigh 90% of the employees were modern entrants. They did not know the heap they were working with. Most of them were scented graduates and never had any previous work experience in root. Some of the experienced employees who joined recently were not from the industry. Also the biggest issue was that the employees who have been familiarize 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 report to their resp ective bosses had now had to report to somebody else. For example the CEOs had to report to the impudently appointed Executive Directors, Vice presidents had to report to business heads who in figure out 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 understood the need for such a change and that it was required for the benefit of the organization considering its monumental growth, people feared the want of power and control thus giving rise to insecurities and conflicts. ground on the literature review the 3 main problems identified in the organization with such a structural change were the struggle betweenCentralization vs. Decentralisation Being a company with functional structure, the attend to was a centralized one where the coordination was more straightforward with determinations being made by the chairman at clearly recognized points within the organizational structure. Also the senior management were in a homelike location with established policies that they are used for many years. It suited the chairman for he had control over all the day to day activities, most decision making and a convenient resource allocation. In this model the centralization of power and control of procedures was focused on the chairman ( Brooke, T. 1987). But and in order to go to the next level of growth and put up the market demand, it was incumbent 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 stress and constipate experienced by the senior management. When senior management is overloaded, the exercise of control is diminished. With delegation it was potential for the senior management and the chairman to move apart from day to day activ ities and focus on long term planning and creating a vision. Also it helps the bottom line management in providing opportunities to incur decisions and attain personal joy 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 capable of under taking senior positions in the future. It in addition provides flexibility, with the governing of sub units it helps in improved controls and instruction execution measurements and accountability can be identified (Bartlett, C. 1991).Control vs. Commitment This aspect is important for the overall effectivity of the organization. MARG had a control model where work was divided into specialized tasks. exploit expectations were defined as standards that define the minimum acceptable performance. No movement was made to establish maximum or potential performance. With the matrix structure, it was necessary to brin g the commitment model. But that meant changing the attitude and expectations of the employees. In this model, job profiles were redesigned to be broader 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 influence was found on expertise and information and not on position anymore. accomplishment expectations were set relatively high. Continuous improvement was expected and monitored. At the like time lot of motivational programs were incorporated as a part of the business management. The organizational structure was designed to be flatter to recruit 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 notion that in a changing world every organization must change to survive and prosper. Howeve r 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 constancy (Chandler. 1962). This often refers to the transition phase between when the change is implemented and the consequences arrive. The transition phase is expressionly uncertain in a number of areas. Every employee force react differently to changes. The response is not the same always. MARG experienced equivalent difficulties. Even though awareness for change was established and people understood the need for change, the animate 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 corre ctive measures were taken to overcome them. on that point was a hurdle in problem solving and it was the blocks in the minds of the employees. These can be categorized as follows(a) Perceptual Blocks This involves the employees stereotyping. They saw what they expected to see. They only saw the new structural change as a threat and not as an probability 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 virtually thus defining it narrowly. Thus they never faced the real problem which was their motivation and commitment. Also there were difficulties in exploitation all the arresting 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 equivocal 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 for sale entropy was overloading and employees felt it was mis triading, 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 perpetually 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 do esnt deal with the employees but is associated with the inadequacies of the management. This comprises of incorrect use of language, inflexible use of strategies and lack of correct information (Janis. 1989). Since the top 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. thusly there tendencies to stick to what they know and were stuck with their earlier methodologies. This did not suit the new 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 mi stakes made but it also lessons were learnt. This section outlines all the mistakes made, the lessons learnt and eventually identifies a change model MARG followed in academic language. The time hatchway between which the change was planned and executed was very quick. Though its apprehensible that it was need within a quick span of time it move the organization by its roots with resistance from all sides. One of the study 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 affected their decision making as they would have to wait for the chairman to make every decision. Employees real 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 comforta ble 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 elongated process where the managers were expected to identify organizational adaptations ahead and the new systems developed would propel the organization towards static equilibrium thus resulting in stability (Stacey. 1996). The problems as mentioned earlier were solved in 3 stages. First stride 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 stabilised 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 commitment 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 computer error 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 establish 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 present-day(prenominal) market scenario it is mandatory for such rapid and mon umental changes to handle the increase demand. As Argryis (2004) said If the rate of change outside the organization is high-velocity than the rate of change inside, 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, learner lobby PublicationsBurnes, B (2004) Managing Change, pp 61 pp190, scholar residence 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 pitchers 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 heap PublicationsWilson, D.C. (1992) A strategy for change, pp 25 pp 90, Routledge Publications