Challenges and obstacles

Discuss about the Managing Organization and Leading People for Group Dynamics.

In any given organization, change programmes are essential if they want to address the issues that the organization faces. The team leaders or managers of an organization are responsible for change programmes. The programmes should focus on areas of conflict, address the needs of every employee in the organization and bridge the gap that exists in the company especially between the employees and employers.

When coming up with these change programmes, the managers need to factor in the implications for individuals, groups, and sections within an organization. The success of the company will highly depend on the impact that these changes cause. Questions that the manager needs to ask are: are the change programmes encouraging good group dynamics? Are the areas of conflict resolved? What is the impact on the organization?

Organizational change is when the organization decides to change some aspects of it such as its structure, culture and even strategy so that they can achieve their primary goal.

In my workplace, the organizational culture was very poor and did not encourage employees to be creative or innovative. The culture was that of hierarchy where us employees only did what we were asked for. We were not allowed to do anything out of jurisdiction and if one did it was regarded as a sign of being rude and disrespectful. Our managers believed in the top-down form of management where they were the leaders, and the employees had to take whatever task assigned to them (Kuusela, Keil and Maula 2017).

All that was expected of us as employees were to carry out the task on time and produce results. There was no personal relationship between the employees or the managers and the employees. With time the manager realized that the organizational culture did not encourage teamwork and the employees lacked good group dynamics. There was too much control in the organization, and most of my fellow workmates did not like this. We were rarely motivated to work, and there was also no encouragement for accomplishing tasks (Kaufman 2017).

The manager then decided to install change programmes to address the issue of poor group dynamics. However, the change programmes that he established were not effective at all. Once again, the manager did not consult us, employees, to know what we wanted or what we thought needs to change. The manager was too proud to ask and made the change programmes alone. In the end, the change programmes did not cause any change in the organizational culture. We were still not able to work as a team, and there was no motivation in the workplace (Kelly, Hegarty, Barry, Dyer and Horgan 2018). 

Work environment

When the manager came up with the change programmes, we as employees faced a lot of problems and obstacles. First, there was no communication between the manager and the employees for the change programmes. This did not help with the change in the culture at the workplace. As employees, we felt that our input was not needed and therefore we felt excluded in the change process. As much as we wanted to partake in the change programmes, we did not view them as being useful because they did not have our voice (Renz and Herman 2016).

Second, it was challenging to adjust to the new change programmes. Also not having a personal relationship with the manager hindered this and made it even more difficult. We found that the change programmes did not apply to us and were way out of reach. For instance, the manager decided that the employees would always present their work progress to the manager at each stage. However, this was tasking as it was difficult and most of the times the manager was away on business trips. This new strategy also did not do anything in helping the employees work together (Nilsen 2015).

Third, the change programme did not encourage employees to be creative and innovative. Our work culture was doing what we were told and this continued even after the change programme. For instance, the manager scheduled a meeting every Friday to discuss our progress and work-related issues. However during the sessions only team leaders were allowed to speak, and the employees could not share their ideas or views (Plume, Page and Garelick 2018).

Lastly, the employees were resistant to change. This was mainly because they were not involved in the change process and thus they thought that the change programmes would not apply to them. We did not see the need to come up with additional strategies and policies if the work environment and the organizational structures did not change.

The work environment also did not help in the organizational change. This is because the work environment is very strict and focuses on the rules that the organization has set. Due to this the environment does not encourage teamwork and being creative and innovative. The workmates focus on finishing tasks on time as that is what is expected of them (Haffar, Al-Karaghouli and Ghoneim 2014).

The change programmes that were installed also did not help because the work environment did not change. The changes did not consider the working environment as a factor that will affect it. As much as they wanted to change the organizational culture, the work environment did not change and this needed to be rectified.

Organizational culture

As mentioned earlier, the corporate culture was that of hierarchy. In this culture, the employees have to follow the rules and complete tasks as assigned. The employees become highly reliable to the management system and without it are unable to work.

In this case study, the culture does not encourage the employees to be innovative or creative. It requires them to follow instructions strictly. The culture also does not promote teamwork because the employees have no personal relationships with each other and therefore are not able to work as a team.

The attitude of the employees towards the work is not based on passion. This reflects in their behavior at work as well. The culture causes them not to engage with other employees, and also they do not help each other in accomplishing tasks because it is not as part of their instructions (Dixon 2017).

Change theories that relate to this

Kurt Lewin developed this theory. In this theory, it suggests that there are two forces that an organization faces. One force is for change, and the other force is resistant to change. These forces usually arise from the way an organization operates from the culture to the environment and the strategies (Hornstein 2015).

In this case study, both forces played a part in the organizational changes. The force for change was influenced by the lack of teamwork and poor group dynamics in the organization. This caused the manager to make changes in the organization so that teamwork and good group dynamics could be instilled. Other forces that prompted the change programmes in this study is the lack of motivation among the employees as well as the lack of innovation and creativity.

On the other hand, the organization was faced with forces that made it resistant to change. One of the forces was the reliability of the employees to the management system. The employees were highly dependent on rules and instructions, and therefore there was no need for change when they are performing their tasks. The work environment is also another force that resisted the change (Farmer 2017).

This theory focuses on the people in an organization. For organizational changes to take effect, the organizational development has to be considered. In this study, the manager did not consider the organizational development when making the changes. An organization is made of the people (its employees), and they play an essential role in the overall success of the company.

Change theories that relate to this

Therefore managers need to consider their employees when making changes. This includes factors such as their behaviors their abilities, their perceptions and their cultures as well. In the organizational development theory, it encourages companies to have a culture of collaboration by creating transparency between the employees and the employers. This way the employees can trust their employees and the changes made are for the better (Espedal 2017).

This study relates to the organizational development theory in that the manager wants to change the organizational culture to that which encourages teamwork and good group dynamics. The manager wants the employees to not be highly reliable in the management system but preferably one where they can accomplish tasks on their own (Fitzgerald 2017).

A friend of mine working for another organization was continually complaining how she was sexually harassed at work by her fellow workmates including her manager. I asked her to report this to the HR at her workplace so that it would stop. She reported the incident to the HR, and at first, the workmates were warned including the manager.

However, the situation got worse as it extended outside work since they were not in the organization premises. This took a toll on her as she was stressed all the time and this reflected in her work output. She was not motivated to accomplish tasks and just finished them because she was required to (Certo 2018).

Luckily we were able to find other employees that were in her position. The females had reported the incident severally to the HR, but nothing had been done so far.  After many reporting, the HR department promised to make some changes for example change in management because they did not tolerate such work behavior. The harassing had made my friend unable to work effectively, and she rarely liked being at work. She was always complaining about work and was never motivated. Finally, the organization decided to make changes in the management as well as the policies of the company (Yousef 2017).

Some of the policies that were changed were that the company had zero tolerance for sexual harassment and any employer or employee found harassing a fellow employee will be fired effective immediately. Also, the organization instilled some change programmes where the employees had to attend sexual harassment seminars at the office every two weeks. The seminars were compulsory for everyone and aimed at ensuring that such behaviors would not continue at work (Cameron and Green 2015).

In this case study, the female employees faced a lot of challenges and obstacles before the change in the management system and the policies. First, we see that the employee was sexually harassed at work not only by the manager but as well as her workmates. It was challenging to her to work in such situation and more often than not she dreaded going to work. In this instance, the harassment was an obstacle to her working effectively and producing her best output (Ward 2018).

Second, even after reporting the incident to the HR and the managers and workmates being warned the issue got worse by extending out of work. This was a challenge as it was not affecting her workplace output but as well as her life. It was causing her stress, and she was not motivated at all to work in her organization. Having to deal with all these other issues was an obstacle to her doing her work at the organization (Burke 2017).

Another challenge that is evident in the case study is that such behavior was adamant in the organization and most females had experienced it. After sharing the employee that was harassed realized that she was not alone. The other women said that they had reported, but nothing had been done. This was a challenge as they had to work despite the issues that they were facing (Bergström, Styhre and Thilander, 2014).

The work environment in this case study was not suitable especially for the female workers. They were sexually harassed at work and at the same time expected to work effectively and produce results. We can say that the work environment was not conducive to working due to the obstacles that were present. This took a toll on the female employees as some of them were stressed and this reflected in their work output (Shah, Irani and Sharif 2017).

Their external environment was not also conducive. This is because the harassment continued outside work as long as it was not on the work premises. This also reflected in their work output as they did not put in much effort because they were stressed with what was going on in their external environment (Brunsson and Olsen 2018).

The culture in this organization was that of teamwork and had the characteristics of a clan. The employees see themselves as a family, and this is evident in the instance where the female employees that were sexually harassed were able to share with each other their incidents and report it to the HR. The employees can work together in both good times and bad times because they consider themselves as a family (Benn, Edwards and Williams, 2014).

Change theories that relate to this

Kotter’s eight-step process theory

This theory was developed by Kotter in (1995). The theory has eight steps that are used for effective organizational change that ensures one meets their goals. These eight steps are

1. In this step the crisis or conflicts and their urgency in an organization are identified. In this study the issue was harassment and it was very urgent because more than one of the employees was facing it.
2. This is followed by forming a coalition of people that will affect the change. Also the strategies for the vision are developed. The coalition formed in the study is the HR department as they are the persons that had the power to affect the change.
3. Here a vision that will cause the intended change is established. The vision in this study is to end sexual harassment.
4. The created vision is then communicated to the organization as well as the new strategies. In this instance the organization communicated to the employees what they intended to achieve which was to end sexual harassment and some of the new strategies that will accomplish this. For example they made it mandatory for the employees to attend sexual harassment seminars.
5. The employees are then encouraged to act on the change and this is done by the removal of obstacles that hinder the change and also changing structures and systems that hinder the change. In the case study the management is changed as they did not stop sexual harassment (Maheshwari, S. and Vohra 2015).
6. Here, the organization creates short-term wins and those employees that achieve this are rewarded.
7. More change is encouraged in the organization by changing the structures and policies through persons with the power.
8. Finally, the organisation develops new approaches that will lead to its overall success by looking at the employee behaviors. In this study the organization will have to ensure that the new management system is effective and is achieving the desired goal (Batras, Duff and Smith 2016).

This theory focuses on four layers of change, and these are:

Identifying the crisis and the triggers to the issues. For instance, in this study, why are the employers being sexually harassed.

Creating a vision that aims at solving the problems or the issues. E.g., in this study, the organization changes the management system and establishes seminars that speak on sexual harassment in the workplace.

Ensuring that there is support in the organization for the changes made. For instance the HR encouraging anyone to come forward if they feel the changes are not effective.

Finally, ensuring that the changes are effective in maintaining them and where necessary making more changes. For instance, in this study, there is punishment for anyone that does not abide by the set policies.

Any organization that wants to affect change in their organization needs to consider some factors before making the changes. These are

Communication: Ensure that there is communication between the employers and the staff. Communication is an essential part of change. It is important that the employers allow the staff members to communicate their problems and issues. This will allow for effective change programmes.

Work environment: the work environment is very important if an organization wants to create change. Most of the times, the work environment influences the behaviors, attitudes and the output of workers in the organization. Therefore when the company wants to create change programmes, they need to consider the workplace environment and how it will impact on the changes (Aarons, Ehrhart, Farahnak and Hurlburt, 2015).

The work environment also goes toe in toe with the external environment. The external environment in a company is also critical when making changes in the company. The work environment needs to be one whereby the changes made in terms of the policies and strategies can be applied and lead to the desired goal. Thus ensure that the external environment is suitable for the changes.

Organizational culture: the culture in the organization plays a significant role in the success of the organization. A culture that encourages innovation and creation has more independent workers that can work without supervision. Therefore always look at the culture when making organizational changes. The changes may require staff members to be independent, and they are not used to it. Thus the changes will not be sufficient (Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015). 

Conclusions

Organizational change is when a company decides to change some aspects of it because it is not resulting in the desired goals. These aspects may be such as the culture, the behaviors, and the work ethics. For organizational change to be effective, it must have communication and consider factors such as the work environment, the external environment as well as the culture. To sum up, change programmes are aimed at ensuring that effective changes are made to the policies and strategies of an organization to achieve the desired goal or solve the problem that is being faced.

References

Aarons, G.A., Ehrhart, M.G., Farahnak, L.R. and Hurlburt, M.S., 2015. Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Implementation Science, 10(1), p.11.

Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T., 2015. Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp.234-262.

Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S., 2015. Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge.

Anderson, D.L., 2016. Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Sage Publications.

Batras, D., Duff, C. and Smith, B.J., 2016. Organizational change theory: implications for health promotion practice. Health promotion international, 31(1), pp.231-241.

Benn, S., Edwards, M. and Williams, T., 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge.

Bergström, O., Styhre, A. and Thilander, P., 2014. Paradoxifying organizational change: Cynicism and resistance in the Swedish Armed Forces. Journal of Change Management, 14(3), pp.384-404.

Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J.P., 2018. The Reforming organization: making sense of administrative change. Routledge.

Burke, W.W., 2017. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools, and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.

Certo, S.C., 2018. Supervision: Concepts and skill-building. McGraw-Hill Education.

Dixon, N.M., 2017. The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. Routledge.

Espedal, B., 2017. Understanding how balancing autonomy and power might occur in leading organizational change. European Management Journal, 35(2), pp.155-163.

Farmer, N., 2017. The invisible organization: How informal networks can lead organizational change. Routledge.

Fitzgerald, L., 2017. Theories of Organizational Change: Transformational Change as a Developed Theory?. In Challenging Perspectives on Organizational Change in Health Care (pp. 19-46). Routledge.

Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W. and Ghoneim, A., 2014. An empirical investigation of the influence of organizational culture on individual readiness for change in Syrian manufacturing organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1), pp.5-22.

Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp.291-298.

Kaufman, H., 2017. The limits of organizational change. Routledge.

Kelly, P., Hegarty, J., Barry, J., Dyer, K.R. and Horgan, A., 2018. The relationship between staff perceptions of organizational readiness to change and client outcomes in substance misuse treatment programmes: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Use, 23(3), pp.223-239.

Kuusela, P., Keil, T. and Maula, M., 2017. Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource?consuming vs. resource?freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), pp.1101-1120.

Maheshwari, S. and Vohra, V., 2015. Identifying critical HR practices impacting employee perception and commitment during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(5), pp.872-894.

Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S. and Guthrie, J., 2017. Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise. The British Accounting Review, 49(4), pp.399-412.

Nilsen, P., 2015. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), p.53.

Plume, R., Page, A. and Garelick, H., 2018. Responding to the risk of reducing resources: development of a framework for future change programmes in environmental health services. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.c

Renz, D.O., and Herman R.D. eds., 2016. The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. John Wiley & Sons.

Shah, N., Irani, Z. and Sharif, A.M., 2017. Big data in an HR context: Exploring organizational change readiness, employee attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 70, pp.366-378.

Ward, M.K., 2018. Robert A. Snyder. The social cognitive neuroscience of leading organizational change: TiER 1 performance solutions’ guide for managers and consultant. New York: Routledge, 2016, 214 pages, $160.00 hardcover. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), pp.137-140.

Yousef, D.A., 2017. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a study in the local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), pp.77-88.