Learning logs for reflection and synthesis of course material

Learning Log: Reflections

Culture

Culture can refer to many different aspects of human life that affect personal and professional relationships. We usually think of culture in terms of nationality: the Japanese culture, for example, is said to emphasize personal relationships and interconnectedness more than individualistic American culture. Cultures are often classified as more 'high context' or more 'low context' in orientation. In 'high context' cultures, inside knowledge, the relative position of someone on a leadership hierarchy and an awareness of the 'double meaning' of certain gestures is more important, than in a low context culture in which 'what you say is what you mean,' such as in the U.S.

Learning about different cultural perspectives and worldviews has made me more mindful about contextualizing my own. I have also noticed that even within nations, culture may vary -- a company located in an urban environment, versus one located in a rural area, may have a different approach to business because of the pace of life, background of employees, and assumptions of how it is acceptable for employees interact with one another.

Triggers for change

Change can be stimulated within organizations for a variety of reasons, but one of the most common recent motivators of widespread organizational change is changes in technology. The modern global marketplace and the 24/7 workday has been largely fueled by the development of electronic communication and ecommerce. Even small companies may have suppliers and customers from all over the world.

Changes in the macro economic environment can stimulate the need for change. During a recession, companies must often slash prices, and cut operating costs (including labor costs) to make a profit. New regulations can stimulate the need for change. The recent food safety bill and modifications of nutrition guidelines can necessitate radical overhauls for companies that manufacture certain products.

Changes can occur due to shifts in the business' life cycle (McNamara 1999). A company may change from a small, privately-owned LLC to a publically-traded company, for example, with a new board of directors and shareholders demanding a profit. Merging with a new company, particularly a company with a profoundly different organizational culture, standard operating procedures, and product than the original organization can also stimulate the need for change. The employees of a freewheeling creative company used to a relatively laissez-faire method of leadership may feel resentful when incorporated into a larger and more formal organizational structure. Companies may decide to adopt new managerial systems such as Total Quality Management (TQM) or methods of production, such as Just-in-Time manufacturing (JIT), which can also create sweeping organizational changes.

Change

Change is inevitable -- yet so is change resistance, or the seemingly natural, human tendency to 'push back' against the possibility of organizational change. It has often been observed that, when confronted with change, people go through a kind of 'grieving' process. First there is denial of the need for change followed by anger ("why is this happening to us"), bargaining, depression, and acceptance. People may first deny that change is necessary, despite considerable objective evidence that it is required. This is followed by anger at the perceived change instigator (such as the manager or new company leader); bargaining (such as negotiating a more lengthy change process, or minimizing the changes); depression (which may manifest itself as stasis or foot-dragging), and finally acceptance (Kubler-Ross & Kessler 2010).

To overcome change resistance requires convincing all involved personnel of the need for change, having a change 'plan,' and anticipating both resistance and difficulties. People resist change out of fear, incomprehension, and also because of a desire to protect their interests, even if these conflict with the goals and needs of the larger organization. To move forward requires all organizational actors to focus on the 'forest' as well as the trees. There will always be obstacles and difficulties, initially, and the promised payoff of change must outweigh the initial negatives experienced along the way.

Organizational change

Communication is the most effective way to minimize resistance. As soon as change is proposed, the change sponsors should solicit input from the most involved organizational actors. Getting people who are influential within the organization on the 'change bandwagon' is essential. Once the particulars of the change plan are decided upon, the plan should be adhered to as much as is feasible, and even when there is a deviation the reason for a delay should be reported rather than concealed. Unexplained delays and alterations in the plan simply create more justification for resistance.

On one hand, to encourage people to buy into change, people must have a sense of a larger mission and the 'big picture' reasons that justify change. On the other hand, there must be specificity regarding the practical aspects of change. The plan must be clear and feasible. People who comply with the step-by-step process of the change plan should be rewarded. Employees who resist should not be ignored, but specifically sought out and persuaded in an active fashion, before change resistors become a unified and organized faction.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture can be just as distinctive as national culture. According to the Yale researcher Jeffrey Sonnenfeld four distinct types of organizational culture exist, based upon the expectations, values, heroes, and explicit and implicit rules of the organization. An 'academy' culture, like a large, private university or hospital, values loyalty and specific skills, and promotes individuals based upon professional accomplishments and seniority (McNamara 2000). The stability of the job environment is designed to nurture employee skills. In contrast, the freewheeling environment of a 'baseball team' culture means that employees, while talented, are expected to perform at a high level, or else they will be quickly shed. There are high rewards for excellence, but also swift punishments for those who fail to measure up to a certain benchmark. A sales-based organization is a good example of a baseball culture type-organization (McNamara 2000).