Change programs effected in any organization or business are supposed to make a difference and in most cases, a positive change. Such programs are aimed at increasing worker efficiency, higher productivity, increased sales, and numerous other factors that work in achieving an organization’s short and long term objectives. In spite of the fact that change programs are supposed to bring development in organizations, many employees and managers seem to resist change and prefer normal operations (Grenny, Patterson, Maxfield, McMillan & Switzler, 2013). Change programs at times create fear among employees as they have to be braced with whatever is bound to happen. Some feel their employment positions are threatened whereas others are not ready for the new challenge ahead of them. Change is bound to propel an organization forward although in some cases the said change does little to trigger a forward move. The research paper analyzes the article ‘Why Change Programs do not Produce Change,’ by Russell Eisenstat, Bert Spector, and Michael Beer, with specific review to organizational development as a result of change.
Review of the Article
Many change programs do not work as they are guided by theories of change that are primarily flawed. Eisenstat, et al (1990) notes that the most common beliefs suggest the place to commence is with attitudes and knowledge of individuals. The author’s believe that changes in attitudes, as suggested by various theories, may result in organizational development. The fallacy of programmatic change model contends like change is similar to a conversion experience. For instance, at the point when individuals accept religion, alterations in their behavior are certain to follow. Eisenstat, et al (1990) writes that this is a theory that sets the process of change exactly backward. The article suggests that personal behavior is personally shaped by the organizational responsibilities that people undertake. Further, the authors point out that the most efficient method to change behavior, hence, is to put individuals into new organizational perspectives, which poses new responsibilities, roles, and relationships on them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This leads to situation that in some sense, ‘coerces’ new behaviors and attitudes on people. Assumptions about change are challenges that should be evaluated according to three interrelated factors essential for corporate revitalization. Teamwork or coordination, as depicted by the article, is particularly essential if a company is to reveal and act on cost, product development opportunities, and cost. Eisenstat, et al (1990) remarks that the sale and production of innovative, low-cost products, and high quality are dependent on close cooperation among product designs, marketing, and manufacturing departments, in addition to management and labor. Extreme levels of commitment are critical for the initiative, cooperation, and effort that coordinate action demands. The authors further state that new competencies, for instance, knowhow of the company as a whole, interpersonal and analytical skill, are essential if people are to understand how to solve a problem as a group.
In the case that one of these methods are missing, the change process will collapse. Most companywide change programs problem is they address one, or a few of organizational change factors. Some companies change the methods in which operations are conducted but fail to equip their workers’ with the necessary skills and attitudes. On a similar ground, programs of training might target competence, but rarely change an organization’s coordination patterns. In the case that one program fails to work, the article notes that senior managers, for example, the chief executive officer at United States Financial, often attempt another, instigating a swift progression of programs (Grenny, Patterson, Maxfield, McMillan & Switzler, 2013). However, this procedure only serves to exacerbate the problem. As much as they are designed to cover everything and everyone, programs end up covering nothing and nobody effectively. The programs are so standardized and general that they do not address the day to day realities of particular units. Many of this change programs also inhibit the credibility of change endeavors. Even as managers consent the potential value of a specific program for others to solve a manufacturing issue, they may encounter another more pressing issues, for instance, new product development.
Implications and Recommendations
Change programs might lead to increased efficiency of operations as well as getting the best out of employees. Organizations avoid the disadvantages of programmatic change by emphasizing on task alignment, such as reorganizing employee responsibilities, roles, and relationships, to solve particular business problems. Experts recommend that task alignment is the easiest in small units, a department, plant, or business units, where tasks and goals are effectively defined (Anderson, 2015). The major problem for corporate change is how to improve task-aligned change over many diverse segments. The article recommends that by helping individuals develop a shared verdict of what is wrong in a company, and what is to be improved, a manager mobilizes the preliminary commitment that is imperative to commence the process of change. Furthermore, managers are encouraged to develop a shared vision of how to manage and organize for competitiveness.
When a central group of individuals is dedicated to a specific analysis of the problem, managers have the responsibility of leading employees to achieve a task-aligned vision of the company that defines new responsibilities and roles. The new arrangements will synchronize the flow of information and operate across codependent functions at all departments of the company. Because the arrangements do not alter formal systems and structures like compensation and titles, they are bound to receive less resistance. Eisenstat, et al (1990) notes it is essential to foster consensus for the new vision, aptitude to implement it, and cohesion to accompany it. After an organization has defined new responsibilities and roles, individuals need to develop the competencies to make the new setup operational. Essentially, the very existence of the groups with new accountabilities and goals will force learning. Managers should note that change in relationships, responsibilities, and roles foster new attitudes and skills. Changed configurations of coordination will also heighten employee participation, information sharing, and collaboration. Furthermore, the article notes that it is critical to spread revitalization to all segments with brushing it off the top.
Applications to Case Example
Change programs can be used to institutionalize revitalization through formal systems, policies, and structures. There comes a situation when managers should consider how to effect change for the process to continue even after they have shifted on to other responsibilities. To change a whole organization, the processes of change described in the article must be used over and over again, in many plants, departments, divisions, and branches. Orchestrating this organizational change method is the preliminary responsibility of senior management. Attaining success in such endeavors entails a delicate balance (Anderson, 2015). With no overt efforts by top management to endorse conditions for change in personal units, only a few divisions or plants will try change, and those that do might remain isolated. Therefore, this article presents some of the steps managers need to implement if they are to successfully manage change in an organization. Managers need to encourage employees accept change, and this can be done through training and motivation. Finally, change is essential if a company needs to attain success in the long term.
References
Anderson, D.L (2015). Organizational Development: The process of leading organizational change . University of Denver, SAGE Publications, Third Edition.
Eisenstat. R., Spector, B., & Beer, M. (1990). Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change. Organizational Culture. Harvard Business Review.
Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Influencer: The new science of leading change. Second Edition.
