Theoretical foundations of change management and organizational implementation

Chaos theory states that change represents a contemporary corporate model which is best suited to the advanced corporations of the current era. The theory understands the fact that change is unavoidable, but that forecasting its trajectory and time is hard (Taneja, 2013). Mergers, acquisitions, governmental takeovers and liquidations, which are ever more frequently observed, all support chaos theory premises. Akin to chemistry, organizational change may be classified as organic (flowing from an existing process) or inorganic (entirely different) (Wong, 2016).

A Discussion That Assesses the Factors That Contribute to The Organic Evolution of Change

Just like in the case of living beings, an effective institution realizes the important aspect that the totality is always greater than its individual components' sum, that diverse areas must undergo organic growth and change, and that diverse groups must develop and adjust at their own pace (Oner, Benson, & Beser, 2014). As organic evolution necessitates a different way of thinking and acting, corporate executives and leaders are expected to identify corporate change needs and foster positive attitudes among people, towards ongoing improvements (Hughes, 2007). Organic growth necessitates assessment of factors balancing the internal corporate community's needs with individual needs, understanding both present and past, and making predictions for the organization's future. Drivers of constructive organic change mold strategy for guiding the future, in addition to adapting strategies depending on micro- and macro- level environmental concerns. At the time of accessing organic change factor, managers must assess individuals and time dynamics, in addition to corporate and environmental concerns. Change will be organic, ongoing, and successful when managers entrench the notion of organizational change as a behavioral standard and continuous process to be methodically applied in routine organizational practice (Molineux, 2013). Micro-level organic change is a reflection of people's unique experiences in execution, opposition, attitudes, organizational trust, and psychology (Mangundjaya, 2015). Meanwhile, organic macro-level corporate climates are multifaceted and disorganized adaptive structures. Hence, organic change necessitates a methodical developmental strategy, and ought to incorporate key corporate parameters such as the individuals, corporate philosophy, structure, competences, business models, operational processes, and services/products, which focus on long- as well as short-term development. This way, change-related routine activities and attitudes get organically and thoroughly entrenched in the company's culture (Live, 2016).

Mintzburg and Huy (2003) describe institutional change as an endless phenomenon characterized by a sudden or methodical dynamic rhythm, whether forced upon the organization or cultivating rebuilding (i.e., organic). No one method exists that would work for all circumstances, and all executives must be daring and identify the instrument or approach that would suit their distinctive skill set, in addition to the unique skill set of the team and the overall company. Growing organic companies realize the increased significance of constant innovation, coordination of energies, and ongoing management of uncertainty and change (Oner et al., 2014). Incremental new product/service development constitutes the most organic and quickest means to attaining constant growth and success (Durmusoglu, Calantone, & Mcnally, 2013). Furthermore, corporations can use constant innovation for producing fairly long-term growth spurts (Durmusoglu et al., 2013). Efficient change relies increasingly on the efficient application of informal change processes stemming from routine activities, and evaluation of change drivers (Hughes, 2007; Live, 2016).

A discussion of how to formulate strategic development approaches and to identify models and interventions of change leadership

At the outset, every business will be in its entrepreneurial phase. Process development will be underway, and corporate processes will be flexible and adaptable in nature (Parker, 2010). With stability of interdependencies upon arrival at a higher developmental stage, the processes that have led to organizational success now make the company process-focused. Parker (2010) states that process development during an organization's expansion may move two different ways. That is, they may be of a process-enabling nature, improving business operations and facilitating accommodation of the development, merger, or expansion. Meanwhile, process-inhibiting changes are those that, although required, offer no help to the company but rather, may end up hampering its operations (Wong, 2016).

The application of chaos theory for explaining strategic institutional development reveals that strategic growth can only be strengthened with the emergence of order from chaos, prior to the introduction of changes; this corresponds to Parker's (2010) entrepreneurial stage of individual processes. Choosing and implementing a framework helps determine change-related leadership interventions. Without proper analysis and implementation of a suitable model, identifying required changes and directing them becomes hard. Numerous intervention approaches may be implemented on the basis of the model applied (e.g., chaos theory, for ascertaining the need to effect organizational change) (Taneja, 2013). The 5-forces model of Porter, which differs from the seven-step model proposed by Parker, represents a strategic technique of management that guides corporate executives.

A discussion and evaluation of the leadership and management skills necessary to implement a model of continuous change that facilitates organizational adaptation and ensures follower commitment

For effectively applying strategic management, the leadership approach adopted proves vital. The transformational model of leadership covers a majority of the attributes required in a strategic manager. According to Bass (1993), the transformational leadership approach is an improvement to the conventional transactional leadership style, incorporating the added traits of encouragement and influence. Bass (1993) identified idealized influence as the first among four major traits defining a manager capable of having an exceptional influence on subordinates owing to the manner and nature of the manager's personality, depicted via his/her work. Transformational leaders' second key characteristic was individualized consideration -- the personal bond forged by such managers with their subordinates, characterized by recognition and support of subordinates' individual contributions. Lastly, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation were two attributes logically supporting one another. They form the qualities of a charming, although not an inevitably flamboyant, transformational leader. Additionally, they indicate a personal bond with subordinates. Intellectual stimulation, defined as a presentation of novel ideas or a comprehensive pursuit and improvement of existing knowledge, can function as the basis to facilitating sound leadership influence and development, which ensues in a close relationship. The manager's personality needs to be sufficiently appealing for subordinates to take part voluntarily in the leader-follower relationship (Taneja, et al., 2013).

The term 'management skills' refers to practical leadership ability application with regard to who performs what function and when. While a transactional approach to leadership illustrates managerial skills, management and leadership, while utilized interchangeably, often do not involve identical skills. The 'management-by-exception' approach, wherein all persons receive rewards appropriate to their perceived individual contribution, rather than under a team, often forms part of the transactional leadership approach (Bass, 1993). In the course of corporate change, leadership as well as managerial skills are put to use in resolving the resultant conflict typically associated with transformation in a conventional organization following a transactional leadership style (Bass, 1993). One advantage of adopting transformational leadership is a minimization of employees' contending for rank and control (Bass, 1993).

Managers and subordinates in a company obtain power from organizational processes. Even in case of process-inhibiting processes, its change is unlikely until some external force surfaces, which brings about power hierarchy-based change (Parker, 2010). In the course of acquisitions, two or more firms' cultures assimilate under a single roof. However, the acquiring corporation lacks the experience needed to pull different firms together, thereby failing at achieving the full potential of a merger. Unquestionably, newly-acquired companies will be in diverse process development stages (Parker, 2010). Organizational change may succeed and deliver a satisfactory result from any level. According to Taneja (2013), a key reason for adopting a transformational leadership approach is: providing a personal bond and intellectual stimulation, for ensuring employees commit to corporate change.

A discussion of how to gather and analyze data to determine the most efficacious timing of change

Quality requirement examinations need to be performed for organizations to acquire a basis for recommendations. It is necessary to have information of expected resources and industry standards at hand. Needs evaluation procedures should be designed, appraised, communicated, and discussed before making any recommendation. Even tried and tested analyses methods like SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) prove valuable in data collection. Change data is normally analyzed using modern-day technology. More complex analyses may be performed at low costs, and data may be updated constantly for use in the future (Wong, 2016).

While several individuals with stakes in an organization may display hostile attitudes towards any proposed change, a failure to implement it at the right time may prove detrimental to the business. Internal stakeholders may have a narrow view of the changes necessary. Some processes' structure will be process-limiting, although the processes are important in the organization's opinion (Parker, 2010). Effective timing derived from available information and implemented using suitable strategic management techniques will be able to guarantee change through effective methods.

Conclusion

The phase of change within a company brings with it immense opportunities. Organic change, whether in the form of expected growth from a small to medium to large organization, or from takeover by the government to independence, or from liquidation to reinstitution, which advances from chaos theory expectations at different points for a firm, may be successfully implemented. Transformational leadership is the best approach (Bass, 1993); nevertheless, other approaches to leadership can also effectively navigate change. Numerous alternatives surface after the data collection and analysis phases, for shaping change direction as well as identifying who will implement change and become the new leaders in the reformed organizational power structure.

References

Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121. Retrieved July 10, 2013

Durmusoglu, S., Calantone, R., & Mcnally, R. (2013). Ordered to innovate: A longitudinal examination of the early periods of a new product development process implementation in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 712-731.

Hughes, M. (2007). The tools and techniques of change management. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), p 37 -- 49.7

Huy, Q. N. & Mintzberg, H. (2003). The Rhythm of Change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 79-84.

Live, T. (2016). Theoretical foundations for organic change (part 2 of 5). Retrieved September 3, 2016, from http://www.tomlive2.com/leadership-theoretical-foundations-for-organic-change-part-2-of-5/

Mangundjaya, W. H. (2015). People or trust in building commitment to change? Journal of Developing Areas, 49(5), 67-78.

Molineux, J. (2013). Enabling organizational cultural change using systemic strategic human resource management -- a longitudinal case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1588-1612. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.723022.

Oner, M. A., Benson, C., & Beser, S. G. (2014). Linking Organizational Change Management and Organizational Foresight. Strategic Change, 23(3-4), 185-203. doi:10.1002/jsc.1970:

Parker, C. (2010). On becoming a process-enabled organization: How to seed a culture of quality in a post acquisition environment. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 29(2), 26-39.

Taneja. P. H. (2013). Strategic management in an era of paradigmatic chaos: Lessons for managers. International Journal of Management, 30(1), 112-126

Wong, A. (2016). Theoretical foundations of change. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/12390357/Theoretical_Foundations_of_Change