The systems contingency model asserts that there is no superlative way through which decisions in an organization can be made (Clegg, 2013). Instead, decisions made are determined by the internal and external environment of the company (Chegg, 2013). In this context of the subject company, it is evident that a success in the gap in its internal and external environment is presented by the absence of competent and informed employees. Although the company has seen development over the past decade, the antiquated software systems and the expansion of the business internationally calls for a need for change that is defined by the challenges faced by the organization.
Difference Between A Learning And Traditional Organization
For one, a traditional organization is one which utilizes a top-down approach where decisions are made by the top management and effected on the employees (Woerkom & Poell, 2010). In a traditional organization, decisions are made by the top management and are immediately applied to those who are in the lower hierarchies of management with their views being given little or no consideration. On another hand, decisions in a learning organization are made collectively where even those lower in the organization’s hierarchy have a say regarding how the company is run. To achieve this, a learning organization encourages innovation among its employees and ensures that its employees are proactively involved in making decisions, being creative and solving problems while on the contrary, a traditional organization diminishes creativity and employees work on given instructions strictly (Woerkom & Poell, 2010).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stage of Woolner’s 5-Stage Model The Company Is In
By now, the company should seek to be a learning rather than a traditional organization. Woolner’s 5-stage model consists of: forming, developing, the mature organization, adapting organization, and learning organization. Notably, the company in question has developed a lot over the past decade as depicted in its sales growth from $1 million to $100 million. Regarding the third stage, the mature organization in Woolner’s 5-stage model, it entails an understanding that employees have to learn to conform to the training structures and seek to conduct internal training (Huili, Shanshan & Yanping, 2014). The company in context has recognized the need for conducting training to have its employees adapt to the expanding organization and to learn how to use new software. In this regard, it is apparent that the company is a mature organization judging by Woooner’s 5-stage model.
How Senge’s Five Disciplines Would Be Used To Create A Learning Organization
Senge (2006) offers five disciplines that should be incorporated in a learning organization: First is to share vision (Senge, 2006). The company should take time early enough to create a vision that works for all stakeholders. Regarding the second discipline of creating mental models, one should foster a set of mindsets and values that will be identified with the company (Gerrard, Vivi & Booto, 2015). Third, it is essential to ensure personal mastery where the leaders in the organization use factors such as reframing and reflections to encourage development in and outside of the teams. Team learning which is characterized by “thinking together” will help to ensure collective development. Last, Senge (2006) proposes systems thinking which means that the company should embark more on creating maps that will ensure that decisions are made systematically rather than randomly.
End Result And Nature of Change To Switch From Traditional To Learning Organization
It is important to note that the company is doing well concerning growth as seen with the increased sales from $1 million to $100 million over a decade. The evolution quadrant in Balogun and Hailey’s model seeks to implement change gradually through interrelated initiatives (Qamar & Mehmood, n.d). By implementing the evolution quadrant, the company will benefit as its growth rate will be even better but the top down structure will be gradually changed and implemented to facilitate a learning organization.
How Action Research Model Can Be Applied To Change Process
The first step of the action research model entails identifying the problem or opportunity (Willis & Edwards, 2014). This implies that the company should go out of its way to identify key factors that call for development. As it is noted in the case, study, employee training, and software development are examples of what have been pinpointed. Regarding the second step of the action research model which requires that one consults with a change management specialist (Willis & Edwards, 2014), the company should resort to one or if none is available, an organizational development specialist would do. The third and fourth steps of the action research model involve collecting data and forming a preliminary diagnosis consecutively. Regarding the former, the company should collect data in the internal and external environment to understand the key challenges. Also, forming a preliminary diagnosis involves confirming threats and opportunities in the company.
Innovation Strategies That The Organization Could Use
An innovative leadership tends to be more adept at it recognizes innovation among employees and goes on to reward it to ensure development. In this respect, innovative leadership stands to be the first innovation strategy that an organization can use. An innovative leadership will oversee more development because employees have a chance to be creative and in solving problems. Another innovative strategy stands in being unique regarding products produced and relations in the company (Brem, Maier & Wimschneider, 2016). The company in this scenario can encourage originality among its employees. By being original, the employees will be ready to innovate products and ways through which the company can use to identify itself as being unique.
Kotter’s Four Steps of Change Management And Their Application
Establishing a sense of urgency: The first step gets employees out of their comfort zones and seeks change (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2016). In the company, the management can conduct talks that will help to reveal that a lack of innovation at work is clearly a threat.
Creating a guiding coalition: A team that includes members drawn from all the departments in the company meant to drive the change process.
Developing a vision and strategy. The team could work towards creating a vision and strategy that will help to achieve the desired outcome.
Communicating the change vision: A meeting is called to communicate the identified vision to all the employees and other stakeholders.
Application of Five Pillars of Sustainable Change That Could Sustain Learning Organization
The five pillars of sustainable change are leadership, strategy, culture, structure, and systems (Woerkom & Poell, 2010).
Leadership: The leadership should be good enough to encourage innovation, feedback, and develop an environment that ensures mutual benefits in the organization (Woerkom & Poell, 2010 Woerkom & Poell, 2010). With this, employees and other stakeholders will be in a better position to accept sustainable change and ensure its development.
Strategy: The strategy involves incorporating methods that will lead to achieving strategic objectives. This ensures that the goals of the change are achieved. (Woerkom & Poell, 2010).
Culture: Fostering a culture that conforms to the change management system is vital to ensuring sustainable change (Woerkom & Poell, 2010).
Structure: The structures in the organization should complement the change efforts that were put in. For instance, the company used in this case should ensure that employees have a chance to implement what they learn in training in the workplace.
Systems: The systems should equally support change. For sustainable change to be ensured, the company should be privy enough to provide that various systems such as those of decision making and reporting feedback conform to the changed organization (Woerkom & Poell, 2010).
References
Brem , A., Maier , M. & Wimschneider , C. (2016). Competitive advantage through innovation: the case of Nespresso. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(1), pp. 133-148.
Clegg, B. & Wan, Y. (2013). Managing enterprises and ERP systems: A contingency model for the enterprization of operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 33(11/12), pp. 1458-1489.
Gérard, P., Vivi, K. & Booto, E. J. (2015). Peter Senge's learning organization: A critical view and the addition of some new concepts to actualize theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict , 19(3).
Huili, Y., Shanshan, W. & Yanping, M. (2014). The impact of building a learning organization on firm performance: An empirical analysis based on software company in Shanghai Pudong Software Park in China. International Business and Management , 8(1), pp. 10-14.
Kotter, J. & Rathgeber, H. (2016). Our iceberg is melting: Changing and succeeding under any conditions. New York: Penguin Random House.
Qamar, B. & Mehmood, S. (n.d). In the quest of a new model of strategic change. International Journal of Management & Organizational Studies , 1(1), pp. 7-12.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization . New York: Doubleday.
Willis, J. W. & Edwards, C. (2014). Action research: Models, methods, and examples . Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Woerkom, M. V. & Poell, R. (2010). Workplace learning: concepts, measurement and application . Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
