Monday, September 30, 2019
Organisational Business Practices Essay
Organization is a principle of life. We seek the help of organizations to meet our day to day requirements such as to feeding, clothing, educating entertaining, protecting etc. However, organizations are not contemporary creations. Modern society has more organizations which are fulfilling a larger category of societal and personal needs. Organizations are so encompassing in the modern life that it is sometimes easy to overlook that each may be regarded as an entity with a specific contribution and specific goals. Organization is a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons in order to achieve a common goal. It is a system of four major internal interacting components such as: task, people, technology and structure. Organizations are said to be open systems. A number of metaphors can be used to think and explain about the nature of organization. There are eight archetypical metaphors of organization: Machines, Organisms, Brains, Cultures, Political Systems, Psychic Prisons, Flux and Transformation, Instruments of Domination. General Discussion Document: Director of Marketing is proposing to introduce a new process of sales at Superior Sales Corporation for which there will be changes as per the present set up. Staff are likely to resist the change hence some suggestions are placed to reduce the resistance. Organization Structure: Functional superiority can only be achieved if there is enough reliability and focus within each business unit. Elites are those specialized organizational units with closeness to power and having superior capability. Their functions signify a particular organizationÃ¢â¬â¢s typical capability. It is, important that more than one such elite function exist. They need to be complementary so as to make sure that they serve as a check on another. Pluralist are those essential forces that play a important role in decision making. The tension that is created amongst these forces stimulates thoughts and lead to self-improvement and competitiveness, Elite functions bring main strengths to an organization, but must assist with the whole to attain shared results. The stronger and more competent the elites are, the more difficult it is to achieve cross-functional teamwork. The organizationÃ¢â¬â¢s challenge is therefore to ensure that these functions are on a par with that of competition, but at the same time they need to ensure that they respond to market demands by cutting across these functional compartments. Organization Cultures: Organizations are mini-societies that have their own distinctive patterns of culture. Culture is a modern concept used in a social sense to refer broadly to civilization and social system. Its increasing use within the social sciences has led to definitions of varying generality, which develop in a host of ways. Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. There is a growing literature of relevance how organization can be understood as a cultural phenomenon. It is valuable to understand the relationship between culture and industrialization. The greatest strength of this metaphor is that it shows how organizations rests in shared systems of meaning, values, ideologies, beliefs and other social practices that ultimately shape and guide organized action. Reactive and Proactive Changes: Forces for change arise out of an organizationÃ¢â¬â¢s interaction with elements in its external or internal environment. The action of competitors, suppliers, government units or public groups may have substantial impacts on change. Social and cultural factors such as life styles, values or beliefs also lead to important changes. Forces of change may also arise from within an organization depending upon different phases of growth or demands made by different interest groups. Reactive changes occur when these forces make it necessary for a change to be implemented. Proactive change takes place when some forces to change lead an organization to conclude that a particular change is desirable and goes about in initiating the change in a planned manner. The difference between reactive and proactive changes corresponds to that between reflexive behavior and purposive behavior. Reactive change, like reflexive behavior, involves a limited part of the system whereas proactive change and purposive behavior coordinate the parts of the system as a whole. Organizational change has noted that many participants respond with dogged resistance to altering the status quo. In the industrial phenomenon workers have at times sought, in extremely violent fashion, to block the introduction of new technology. Supervisors and lower level managers have balked at large scale projects in job redesign and job enrichment; even low level employees, the presumed beneficiaries of such projects, have fought such changes. Senior managers have fought pitched battles against realignment of corporate structure. Even the proposal by a course coordinator to adopt a different style of presenting the report is capable of touching off a frenzy of defensive tactics to resist change. Such behavior may be either overt or covert. Overt resistance may take the form of employees deliberately failing to do the things necessary for successful change or simply being unenthusiastic about the change. The absence of overt resistance does not mean that resistance is not present, as resistance may be hidden from direct observation. Covert resistance can be more detrimental to change than open resistance because it is harder to identify and eliminate. There are at least two sets of factors which explain the process of resistance. One set relates to the personality and the other relates to the social system. Decreasing the Resistance: Managers who have been responsible for implementation have developed personal perspective consisting of assumption and strong feelings about how change should be introduced. These philosophies fall into two camps, either tops-down or bottoms-up. The Tops-down Strategy: The advocates of this strategy believe that, in general, people resist changes and require direction and structure for their well being as well as to work efficiently and effectively. The basic psychological contract between employees and management, it is assumed, is one in which the employee provides work, effort and commitment and expects in return pay, benefits, and a clear definition of what is expected to be done. It follows that it is the managementÃ¢â¬â¢s responsibility to design the changes it deems appropriate and to implement these thoroughly but quickly by directives from the top. The Bottoms-up Strategy The advocates of this approach profess what to them is a more enlightened view of human nature. They argue that people welcome change and the opportunity to contribute to their own productivity, especially if the change gives them more variety in their work and more autonomy. These managers assume people have a psychological contract which includes an expectation that they be involved in designing change as well as in implementing it. Commitment to change, they say, follows from involvement in the total change process and is essential to successful implementation.