Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Change Is Never Easy
One of the hardest things for any company to accomplish is graceful change. This is true for at least several reasons. The first is that change is psychologically difficult: Letting go of the known for the unknown, even when the unknown is likely to be a good deal better, can seem fraught with numerous perils. The other major reason that change can be so difficult for companies and other large organizations is that group enterprises require a relatively high level of stability and predictability to thrive. Even an organization that is composed of highly skilled, intelligent, and flexible people cannot change as quickly as can a single individual. This is simply too much inertia in the system and too many specific relational dynamics that have to be shifted for change to occur as quickly as can be the case with an individual.
That said, it remains the case that organizations do have to change, sometimes relatively quickly and often quite dramatically. How effectively they are able to do so depends...
This paper examines some of the dramatic changes that occurred at CMIG and how the company and its leaders acted and reacted during a merger and the consequent shifting of personnel, priorities, and resources.
CMIG, like any other business (or organization) facing change, experienced a certain amount of inertia. In organizational terms, inertia can be analyzed in the following way, according to Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett (1993). Organizations can be assessed as belonging to either a flexible framework or an inflexible one, but a more productive analytical model should combine the two. These researchers defined the concept of "the structural inertia model" as existing in organizations conceived of "as structured systems of routines embedded in a network of interactions with the external environment."
However, this research…
However, this research does not stop at the idea that inertia exists as a powerful force in organizations; rather, after acknowledging the power of inertia, the authors moved past this idea (which does not account for the real and successful changes that can and do occur in a number of organizations) to incorporate "theories of organizational learning and innovation not found in the original formulation of structural inertia. The result is a broader model of inertia and momentum in organizations."
In other words, any sophisticated analysis of change must be able to account for the ways in which organizations resist change in the name of stability but also how they are able to overcome this inertia and actually effect change. One of the most important aspects of this piece of research -- and a strength that was in fact exhibited by CMIG -- is that organizations tend to resist change not out of weakness but because stability (which can here be seen as the counterpart to change) is valued by so many different stakeholders:
Hannan and Freeman's (1984) structural inertia theory offers a model of the process of organizational change that includes both internal and external constraints on organizational change. The first part of their argument addressed the probability of organizational change. They argued that organizations exist because they are able to perform with reliability and, if questioned, to account rationally for their actions. Reliability and accountability are high when organizational goals are institutionalized and patterns of organizational activity are routinized, but institutionalization and routinization also generate strong pressures against organizational change. Thus, the very characteristics that give an organization stability also generate resistance to change and reduce the probability of change. The second part of their argument dealt with the effect of organizational change on survival. They argued that because both internal and external stakeholders prefer organizations that exhibit reliable performance and because change disrupts both internal routines and external linkages, organizational change is hazardous. (Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993).
Organizational Change Change anywhere is never easy, in fact most people in an organization usually have a difficult adjustment when it comes to that. However, it is a process that cannot be avoided, it must happen. An organization may have no other choice but to change. When this occurs, it is important to make sure that the employees are all on the same page and that this change is good and
Divorce as an experience is never easy for anyone, not the adults and especially not the children, on which the effects of divorce can take a serious toll. However, there are some factors that play a significant role in determining the impact of that experience for the child. Age, the way the entire procedure of divorce is handled, how mature parents have behaved throughout it, how the environment of
Change Management After recession, many employers expected their employees to inject more hours into work than they did before the recession. This trend is expected to continue in the near future because employers believe that working extra hours increase productivity. This can however, be dangerous in the long run because it affects employee well being and retention (Lepore, 2011). Organizations that pressurize their employees to work extra hours to increase productivity
The change leader should feel confident about the change if decision criteria are driven by impartial and objective considerations and his position is based on organizational, mission, vision and strategies. Then leader should try to convince all employees on objective and factual grounds while also taking care of their emotional issues. If leaders do not behave well and control their own emotions then employee morale gets affected. "Most executives
In that sense, Wilkoff (1995, as cited by Weick & Quinn, 1999) reports on her attempts to intervene between two companies that had fused together in an unsuccessful mergence. The actors of the various companies persistently disagreed due to cultural differences in mindset, whereupon the consultant, recognizing this, changed her strategy. She began meeting with each actor separately and explaining the other's performance from his or her particular cultural assumptions.
Change Improving Hospice Urinary Infection Rates: An Analysis of Foley Catheter Use in a Hospice Setting Change is a necessary part of any organization. One critical area that demands change in hospice nursing is overzealous use of Foley catheters. Often these instruments are used when not medically necessary despite their leading to urinary tract infections and antibiotic resistance. In order to change the culture of nursing regarding Foley Catheters, an analysis of