One set of authors state that “An organisation’s ability to manage change will have a significant effect on its performance and prosperity” (Graetz. F., et al, 2006, p2 in Grates F. et al, 2006, Managing Organisational Change, John Wiley & Sons, Australia), whereas another author claims that few corporate change efforts have ever been successful (Kotter, J.P., 2005, ‘Why Transformational Change Efforts Fail’, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995, pp 59-67). Discuss these two statements and build an argument that explains this apparent contradiction with regard to relevant organizational behavioural theory.
In my opinion, the statements presented above do not contradict one another, in fact the two statements presented support the need for successful organizational change and the need for concerted effort in implementing the change. In almost every case, the basic goal has been has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment. Change is an organizational need, at one time or other and management needs rigorous support in achieving positive change outcomes.
I want to look in detail the change management theory and practice including Transformational Change, The Tools and Techniques used for Change Management, Transforming Organisations for Organic Growth, Cultural Revitalisation and Behavioural Responses to Change and the successful strategies for the change management and why they fail?. I want to study the success stories in public sector and their change management practices used and then study how the change management is working in delivering Whole of Government initiatives in the Australian Public Service (APS) and find out what is working and what is not?
Graetz (2002) assumes that change is a normal part of business life and an organization's ability to manage change will have a significant effect on its performance and prosperity. Since change is initiated by the conception of its need, an inaccurate perception in the first instance can preclude a change attempt from success. Change can also fail as a consequence of a lack of motivation held by organizational members. Problems can also occur during the implementation of change. Change also can be complicated and ultimately obstructed by other problems associated by organisatinal dimensions such as leadership inaction and uncertainty, embedded ways of working that are difficult to change without replacing the bulk of employees, the difficulty of coordinating a large group of people to all behave differently at the same time, a lack of resources, knowledge or capabilities to make change, incomplete or inadequate training and cynicism about the intelligence usefulness of intended change in the first place. Change can go wrong for reasons associated with human psychology, engrained systems and institutionalized ideas as well as conflicting cultural standards. These dimensions interact, and even counteract each other, in ways that sometimes makes finding the real obstacle to change quite difficult.
Graetz (2002) uses a comprehensive topology of the following ten organizational perspectives as a framework for managing organizational change: 1) The biological perspective – ecological, organic and evolutionary 2) The rational perspective – directed and planned
1) The institutional perspective – determined by institutional (industry) pressure 2) The resource perspective – determined by access to resources 3) The contingency perspective – every situation is different, fit between environment, structure and size 4) The psychological perspective – embedded in ‘minds’ of those affected 5) The political perspective – conflict and power based 6) The cultural perspective – determined by entrenched values 7) The systems perspective – interconnected with all aspects of organisation 8)...