While the authors contend through cited research that the rational for formalizing organizational hierarchy can in various structural contexts be effective, they revert back to the triad factors of strategy, systems and structures to continually make their point regarding how change must be systemic. They don't see change as an add-on; rather it must emanate out of the culture of an organization to be successful (Oxman, Smith, 2003).
In the article Memo to: CEOs (Simons, Mintzberg, Basu, 2002) the authors mix metaphor and meaning to communicate in a direct, blunt style ot CEOs regarding how they need to lead their companies not as figureheads, but as actual leaders. The entire article resonates with how critical it is for CEOs to see their businesses as continually improving, adding in key functions and requirements over time but still staying focused on broader objectives. The call to leadership is also consistently shown throughout the analysis, with the authors consistently exposing myths and commonly held misbeliefs about leadership and management (Simons, Mintzberg, Basu, 2002). If the entire memo would be re-written in a single form, it would tell CEOs to quit believing in the paradigms in the past and begin to embrace those of the future. The memo also calls out fallacies of thinking that leaders can go it alone, and points to the need for leadership to concentrate more on empowering and enabling workers to attain growth while also accomplishing tasks for their jobs (Simons, Mintzberg, Basu, 2002).
Summary of Comparable Concepts Across Papers
All of these papers are unified on the need for leaders to be more facilitative of change, and less blind or oblivious to it (Simons, Mintzberg,...
All four analyses also point to the detrimental effects of layoffs and show how they cause significant disruption to companies over time
(Cascio, 1993) (Beer, Eisenstat, Spector, 1990). All authors also show that it is not the framework that matters most, regardless of how intricate and complex
(Beer, Eisenstat, Spector, 1990) or relatively simple (Oxman, Smith, 2003) but the infusion of trust and transformational leadership that matters most (Simons, Mintzberg, Basu, 2002). Finally, all papers point squarely at the CEO and senior management as the most critical teams in the change management process, and the navigating of companies to become more efficient and market-driven over time (Beer, Eisenstat, Spector, 1990).
Challenges of Managing Change
Change is extremely difficult because it pushes employees and everyone affected by it to entirely new levels of trust and transparency. In uncertain, turbulent economic times, this can be extremely difficult for any employee to appreciate or risk their trust on (Cascio, 1993). Change also requires employers to be completely willing to share the good and the bad about a given program or initiative, making it very clear to those affected how it will change their lives.
References
Beer, M. Eisenstat, R.A., and B. Spector, 1990. Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review.68(6) 158-166.
Cascio W.F. 1993 Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive 7(1) 95-104.
Oxman, J. And Smith, B, 2003. The Limits of Structural Change, Sloan Management Review. 77-82.
Simons, R.…
