ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

 

 INTRODUCTION

According to Pattanayak (2012), change is inevitable for every organisation to be healthy and productive while organisational development as a generic term embraces a wide range of intervention strategies in both structural and social processes of an organisation. Organisational development programmes are packaged to drive organisational change agenda. 

The changes, however, are aimed at the individual, group and total organisational development, driven at improving overall performance and effectiveness. Organisational development (OD) is a strategic long-term effort, led and supported by top management to specifically improve the organisation’s visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes through ongoing collaborative management or organisational culture.

MEANING OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

Organisational change is a radical transformation in the functioning of organisational processes. It involves reshaping the organisation’s structure, culture, processes and other design elements, and can be characterized as both systemic and sometimes revolutionary because the entire nature of the organisation is altered significantly and fundamentally. 

Countries like Nigeria have witnessed such radical transformations first in the 1970s when the indigenization decree of 1976 was being implemented by the administration of Murtala Mohammed-Olusegun Obasanjo, by which time erstwhile foreign companies are being transformed into indigenous organisations and in later years when processes of privatization and commercialization of governmental organisations were taking place. Such semantics as reorganisation, restructuring, reengineering, downsizing, rationalization, rightsizing, outsources are associated with organisational change in one way or the other.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

The relationship between OC and OD is to the extent that in organisations that will manage change effectively, change becomes the driving force that perpetuates future success and growth. This is because change becomes an opportunity for increasing efficiency. OD is systematic OC.

TYPES OF CHANGE

What can a manager change, aside from him/herself? He/she can change three things; the structure, the technology and the people.

i.     Changing the Structure. This means reworking or redesigning the work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, the span of control, centralization, formalization, job redesign or actual structural design.

ii.     Changing Technology. The work processes, methods and equipment are the focus of change.

iii.     Changing People. The culture, attitudes, expectations, perceptions and behaviour of individuals and groups are the focus of change.

3.4      THEORIES OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

Theories or models provide an explanatory framework for the relationship between variables. The theories discussed below give direction for the implementation of change programmes by organisations. The change theories are those of Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippit, Jeanne Watson and Bruce Wesley, Burk-Litwin and Fagen and the Systems Theory.

Kurt Lewin’s Model. He, in the 1940s, introduced a model for the proper management of an effective change process. Successful change can be planned and the change process was viewed as composing three steps; unfreezing old behaviour; that is, the status quo, change to a new state; that is, the new behaviour and refreezing to make the new behaviour permanent.

i.     Unfreezing stage. During this stage preparation, motivation and readiness are created among people to change old behaviour through the creation of discomfort or lack of confirmation which may cause guilt or anxiety. The change agent has to make provision for a psychological safety net while adjusting to the new behaviour. On the whole unfreezing is to move out of the equilibrium state by increasing the driving forces and decreasing the restraining forces.

ii.     Moving stage. The client is assisted to see things, judge them, feel them, and react to them differently based on a new point of view using new role models, mentors and by creating environmental scanning or new and relevant information.

iii.     Refreezing stage. The new behaviour is institutionalized in the people’s personality, attitudes by use of a reward system that is focused on the new behaviour.

Ronald Lippit, Jeanne Watson and Bruce Wesley’s Change Model

Expanding Lewin’s model, they expanded the three stages into a seven-stage model representing the consulting process as follows:

i.     Phase 1: Developing a need for change

ii.     Phase 2: Developing a changing relationship

iii.     Phase 3: Clarifying the client’s systems problem

iv.      Phase 4: Examining alternative routes and goals

v.        Phase 5: Transforming intentions into actual change efforts

vi.     Phase 6: Generalizing and stabilizing change

vii.     Phase 7: Achieving a terminal relationship with clients.

These steps are logically laid out in achieving OD in organisations by consultants.

Burk-Litwin’s Model of Organisational Change

The model is about how to create first and second-order change. The first order change occurs with some fundamental characters remaining the same, whereas in the second-order change the nature of the organisation is fundamentally and substantially altered leading to crucial organisational transformation. This model identifies two key aspects of the organisation the culture and the climate. Organisational climate is viewed as people’s perceptions and attitudes about the organisation that is easy to change, while organisational culture is deep-seated assumptions, values and beliefs that are enduring, unconscious and difficult to change. 

Using this model OD interventions are directed towards structure, management practices and systems in the first-order change and in the second-order change interventions are targeted at the organisation's vision, mission, strategy, leadership and culture leading to enduring and fundamental change. Another aspect of this model is the distinction it makes between transactional and transformational leadership styles. Whereas transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their self-interest for the good of the organisation, transactional leaders guide and motivate followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying their roles and task requirements.

Fagen’s Systems Theory

According to Fagen, a system is a set of objects, together with the relationships between the objects and between their attributes. Systems denote interdependencies and interconnectedness and interrelatedness among elements in the set that constitutes an identifiable whole or gestalt. 

Source: French & Bell (1999), adapted

A system operates within the context of an environment. Every system has a distinct boundary. An open system interacts, has goals and purpose and interacts with (influence and is influenced) by the enveloping environment. The need for change can therefore be driven by internal or external processes; that is when there is a need to realign the input, transformational and output processes. Since outputs are often in terms of goods and services, the customers provide useful feedback that can recommend changes in internal processes. Equally, evaluation of the connectivity among inputs, transformation and outputs can lead to the initiation of change.

SOURCES OF CHANGE

Organisational change is triggered by the need to respond to new challenges or opportunities presented by the external and internal environment, or in anticipation of the need to cope with potential future problems. The need for reorganisation arising as a result of growth or decline may be a major impetus for change. The basic underlining objectives in general terms are:

• Modifying the behavioural patterns of members of the organisation
• Improving the ability of the organisation to cope with changes in its environment.

Organisational Change can be traced to factors external or internal to the organisation. 

External Sources

Market forces: Financial pressure, Competition
Legislation: Quota control, local content, workers charter, discrimination, etc
Tax Structures: Value-added, National Insurance, etc
New Technology: New process equipment, new computer technology, new information/ data Management Process, etc
Political: World politics, national politics, organisational politics

Internal Sources: 

Profitability: Product research, Knowledge, skills and aptitudes of senior managers, reduction of staff, takeovers/mergers, improved production facilities, etc
Reorganisation: restructuring, re-engineering, Downsizing, outsourcing, etc
Conflict: interdepartmental, people, union and management, etc
Changes in culture/social environment: Change in job roles, conditions of employment, culture and attitudes, etc

Organisational change can stem according to Mullins (2007) from „a window for change‟ and issues such as:

1. A general sense that the organisation could perform better,
2. The need to improve organisation flexibility, quality or to develop a new customer base,
3. A sense that skill and abilities of people are under-utilized,
4. The need to introduce new technology or working practices,
5. Workers feeling over-controlled by supervision or by the process or jobs seen as boring and routine,
6. Concerns about ineffective communications or poor performance indicators
7. Fractious relationships between managers and the managed

Organisational Development Techniques

Source: Robbins & coulter (2007)

The goal of OD is to stabilise the new system to achieve more effective interpersonal work relationships and the techniques used are important to achieving this goal. The techniques are:

i.      Team Building. Create the type of activities that help team members learn how each member thinks and works.

ii.     Inter-group Development. Intergroup development involves changing the attitudes, stereotypes, and perceptions that workgroups have about each other.

iii.     Process Consultation. The outside consultant helps managers to understand how interpersonal processes are affecting the way work is being done.

iv.     Survey Feedback. This means putting in place a technique for assessing attitudes and perceptions, identifying discrepancies in these, and resolving the differences by using survey information in feedback groups.

v.    Sensitivity Training. Have in place a method of changing behaviour through unstructured group interaction.

 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Resistance to change - or the thought of the implication of the change - appears common because it brings with it what may be described as ‘psychological shock’, which makes people to be naturally wary of change. It may also be said that a grossly inadequate and despondent situation, such as the threat to the very survival of the organisation, the inability of organisation to meet contractual obligations like payment of wages, overhead and customers and threats to jobs can bring about a clamour for change. 

In 2014, the recurrent terrorist attacks by Boko Haram in North-Eastern Nigeria, kidnapping and general state of insecurity and perceived helplessness of the government to live up to its responsibilities of protection of lives and properties brought at the political level a rousing clamour for change. Change can bring about positive or negative outcomes. Despite potential positive outcomes, change is often resisted for a number of individual and organisational related reasons:

1.    Individual resistance. Individual resistance to change may be a result of the following:

i.      Selective perception. Peoples’ interpretation of stimuli presents a unique picture and image of their real world. But perception is selective and can lead to a biased view of the change being introduced; especially the intention and purpose of the proposed change. Trade unions are often sceptical of changes originating from management, especially where the view exists that managers cannot be trusted.

ii.    Habit. People tend to respond to novel albeit innovative situations in an established or accustomed manner. Habits serve as a sort of comfort and security, rendering decision making easy. Flexible or reduction in work hours may be resisted except there is a guarantee that there will be no loss of pay.

iii.    Inconvenience or loss of freedom. If the proposed change is viewed as likely to prove inconvenient, make life difficult, reduce freedom of action or result in increased control, it may be resisted.

iv.     Economic implication. People are likely to resist change that will bring about, directly or otherwise, a drop in livelihood. An increase in work at the same pay level, the threat to job security and other vested interests are easily resisted.

v.       Security in the past. Some find a sense of security in the carefully laid out past. They do not like the present and the future to toss them out in the cold or increase the likelihood of needing new knowledge and skills to cope with challenges posed by change.

vi.    The need to cover up. People who had a history of clandestine activities, who may be displaced by the new epoch brought by the change being introduced will work against the current of change for purpose of self­preservation. This has been the commonest obstacle to the change agenda of Buhari’s fight against corruption and has been described in the expression if you fight corruption, corruption will fight back.

vii.     Fear of the unknown. Changes that confront people with elements of the unknown, in which the future is not clearly demarcated, can generate anxiety or fear. Since OC always come with some degree of uncertainty, there is bound to be resistance.

2.      Organisational resistance. Although an organisation has to adapt to changing internal and external conditions, there goes with the changes certain measures of apprehension about the operation of the new structure, processes, policies and procedures, and people’s response to the changes. Some of the reasons for organisational resistance to change are:

i.      Organisation culture. Culture develops over time, and once settled and done, it is difficult to dislodge existing and pervasive ways of life. ‘This is how things are done around here is not easily dispensed with. Also when the new culture being engendered is perceived as inflexible, ineffective and ‘inferior’ to the old practice, it will breed the seeds of resistance.

ii.    Maintaining stability. Large scale organisations pay attention to maintaining stability and predictability. This is actually the need for formal structure, division of labour, established rules, methods of work and all other regimented and sedimented aspects of work. The more bureaucratic/mechanistic an organisation is, the greater the resistance to change; in other words, organic structures are easily adaptable to changes.

iii.    Investment in resources. Change comes with costs; often time large amount of resources need to be committed. Assets such as buildings, machines and equipment and people cannot be easily altered.

iv.     Past contracts or agreements. Organisations enter into contracts and agreements which cannot be dispensed with without consequent legal challenges, until their tenure expires. Contracts and agreements can limit the extent of changes that can be embarked upon by an organisation.

v.       Threats to power and influence. Fear of loss of influence or erosion of authority arises if proposed change meant that hierarchies may be delayered leading to loss of position and authority or span of control, managers who will be affected will work to resist such changes. The fear of losing both political and expert power is real among managers.

CONCLUSION

Organisational development is given birth in the course of organisational change. Change is a constant dimension of organisational life and can be disruptive to the normal ways of doing things. For many reasons, change is resisted chiefly because of the inability to effectively communicate to allay the fears, deal with misconceptions and overcome resistance using appropriate developmental strategies. This is the main challenge of modern managers; how to implement OC and OD processes at minimum costs, resistance to greater organisational outcomes.