Rev CO: Org Change

ORGL CHANGE IS THE MUTUAL CHANGE OF PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR AS WELL AS CHANGE IN VARIOUS OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS STRUCTURE, GOALS, MISSION, OUTCOMES, ETC.

Orgl change is just one type of social change: see Orgs & Social Change

Orgl change can & does occur, but it is an intricate & laborious process

Orgl change is said to be intentional when someone ( any orgl actor ) consciously tries to change the org

The process of intentional orgl change is called orgl development

Org change is said to be evolutionary or natural when the org changes w/o the intention of any org actor

When org change occurs, the type or category of the org may change or one or more components of the org may change

The ideographic approach to examining org change offers a detailed analysis of meanings that soc actors attach to situations, orgs, envs & seeing that these meanings should be stated in their own words

The nomothetic approach to examining org change offers hypotheses testing w/ the sci meth & the use of sys research methods

In both the ideographic & the nomothetic approach to examining org change, the research obtains data from key informants & from the gen members of the org & outsiders in it's immediate org env

A COMMON TYPE OF ORG CHANGE IS STRUCTURAL CHANGE, FROM FOR EXAMPLE, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP TO A CORP, ETC.

SEVEN examples of the type of the org changing from one fundamental structure to another include:

1. a sole proprietorship incorporating to become a corporation

2. Weber's analysis of the transformation of a charismatic org to a bureaucracy

3. a totalitarian org to a democratic org or vice versa

4. a social group formalizing to become a formal org like a business or charity

5. Scott's analysis of the transformation of a rational to natural or open orgs

6. the changing of the boundaries of an org leading to orgl growth or decline

7. a change in the level of networking of an org leading to orgl change

ORG CHANGE OCCURS BOTH IN REACTION TO THE ENV & BY USING THE ENV AS A RESOURCE

Org change occurs w/in a broad context including the env of other orgs, econ, political, & soc patterns & changes, & the change efforts of the orgs themselves

Thus org change occurs as the result of an orgl actor, as the result of natural processes, or as the result of env factors

At times orgl change flows nearly automatically while at other times orgl change is forced on an unwilling org

Kimberly, Miles, ( K & M ) & Associates, 1980, examine the "life cycle" of orgs

For K & M, orgs are born, grow, & decline & sometimes they reawaken & sometimes they disappear

For K & M, investors try to determine the phase of an org, preferring growth over decline

For K & M, orgs can change in form irrespective of the life cycle

Hage, 1980, defines org change as "the alteration & transformation of the form so as to survive better in the environment"

ORG CHANGE OCCURS AS THE ORG CHANGES ITS GOALS, AS GOALS 'NATURALLY EVOLVE' AS GOALS BECOME OUTDATED BY THE ENV, AS GOALS EXPAND, ETC.

Org goals should be clearly considered when addressing org change which delineates btwn planned & spontaneous org change

Org survival is the ultimate test of an org

But some argue that this should not be the goal, rather a more task oriented goal should dominate & if that task is complete, the org should disband

Orgl change is based on environmental pressure & internal pressure, including goals

McKelvey, 1982, argues that most changes are due to external (allogenic) forces as opposed to internal (autogenic) forces

Thompson, 1967, emphasizes internal or goal directed forces such as managers actions under conditions of rationality

Benson, 1977, sees org change as developing dialectically

Organizational Change Potential

THE ORG CHANGE PROCESS HAS THE STAGES OF CONCEPTION, BIRTH & FOUNDING, TRANSFORMATION, INNOVATION, DEATH

a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings

c. Orgl Transformation
     Stasis
     Growth
     Decline

Population Ecology

d. Orgl Innovation

e. Orgl Death

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizations & Social Change

External
Links

There are THREE perspectives on social change, the nominalist perspective, the realist perspective, & the pragmatist perspective

For the nominalist, reality is constructed thru indiv cognition which is to say that the world is artificial creation formed in people's minds

For the realist, the world ext to the indiv is a real world made of hard tangible, relatively immutable structures

Soc change agents are pragmatists, using praxis as a tool for change

See Also: The TVA Official Website

A (un)favorable outcome for an org can lead to changes in society

Intentional Social Change

Often an orgs' goal is social change as seen in
- the US revolution
- abolition & the Civil War
- the suffrage mvmt
- WW2 where soc change occurred at the hands of the military & the govt
- the civil rights mvmt
- the anti Vietnam war mvmt
- the env mvmt
- the Bolsheviks, Russian Rev
- McDonalds & the advent of fast food
- changes in fin mgt
- changes in higher ed

Social forecasting

Orgs must generate/reap support from soc at large

Social Forecasting is major area of study in sociology today where the researcher predicts the causes & effects of asocial change

Bus leaders, politicians, soc activists, etc. find it difficult determine when an idea's time has come

Like people, generally orgs become more conservative over time

Almost all "radical" orgs or social change orgs become more conservative as they mature such as is seen in:

- Lipset's study of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)

- the Bolsheviks transformation into "The Communist Party" in Russia

- Bill Gates & Steven Jobs creating Microsoft & Apple

Intentional or Unintentional effects of orgl change include:

- changing membership patterns or women going to wk

- wider stock ownership

- patterns of wk including longer/shorter hrs & the assembly line vs hi tech methods of prod

- transforming wk to reward ind thinking, initiative, etc., which has an impact on personalities, attitudes, values

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Evolution

External
Links

- Project: Orgl Evolution

Link

- Video: Lou Dobbs on the Power of NGOs May 4, 2004 3:47

Link

ORGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME, DEVELOPING AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PRIOR ORGL STAGES & OTHER SOCIETAL FACTORS SUCH AS CULTURE, POLITICS, ETC.

Orgs have evolved over time

The structure of each type of organization today is affected by its socio historical origins

The times of emergence for orgl formations are the time at which the org emerged as a relatively autonomous entity

Almost all of the organizational formations listed below existed earlier, nested w/in another org

Historical Era

OVERVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF ORGS

1. Geologic Era

2. Pre Human
Evolutionary Era

1. PEER GROUPS ARE PEOPLE OF THE SAME OR EQUAL RANK W/ REGARD TO ANY NUMBER OF QUALS

Peer groups develop as the practice of social cooperation evolves in the context of a competitive evolutionary dynamic

The family / clan was the first human formation/organization to evolve after peer grouping

3. Hunter Gatherer Era

Our ancestors lived together in small hunter gatherer tribes, & spanned most of the globe

1.5 mm BC - 10K BC

2. FAMILY / CLAN: A FAMILY IS PARENTS & THEIR CHILDREN, POSSIBLY W/ SEVERAL GENERATIONS; A CLAN IS GROUPS OF FAMILIES

The family / clan is the first human formation/organization

The family is the oldest & most important organization

Religion, military, charity, & the company/enterprise developed almost simultaneously w/in the clan

The orgs of the clan, religion, the military, charity, & the company/enterprise were all one org w/in the clan that developed as separate entities later in history

Internal Links	4. Pre Empire Era	"The dawn of civilization" occurs around 10,000 BC in Northeast Africa & the Middle East	External Links
	10 K BC - 3 K BC	3. RELIGIOUS ORGS ARE STRUCTURED TO BRING THE DEVOUT TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE THEIR WORSHIP GOALS
		Religious leaders were often closely tied to the city state govt, but also frequently to the military
		Thus, as civilization advanced, the govt, the military, & religion became the nexus of social power
		4. THE ECONOMY IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH AIMS TO CREATE PRODUCTION & / OR WEALTH
		The workplace, company, or enterprise develop
		As civilization began, the social structure of work was predominately, marginally, supra subsistence herding & agriculture
		Work first developed as the family business
		In early HG society, work could only produce subsistence level existence, precluding slavery or assistance to the weak, old, or infirm
		5. GOVT IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH ADMINISTERS WHAT THE PEOPLE DETERMINE TO BE THE PUBLIC DUTY OF THE STATE
		CITY STATE: While the tribal system is the first form of govt, the city state is, while still marginally linked to the family social structure, primarily independent of the tribal system
		Babylon, etc.
		Religion, military, charity, the company/enterprise, & the city state all emerged as relatively autonomous entities almost simultaneously w/ the dawn of civilization
		6. THE MILITARY IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH DEFENDS THE PEOPLE & / OR THE STATE
		The military remained wholly integrated w/ the city state govt & there was practically no separation among many of the early social structures
		7. CHARITY IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH FORMED TO ASSIST NEEDY PEOPLE
		Charity began in wholly integrated in religious orgs, but became separate during the period of the early industrial revolution
	5. Early Empire Era	The first important empires are formed in Sumeria Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.
	3 K BC - 200 BC	The primary forms of authority / organization in early civilization were based on charisma & tradition, but the first rational organizational structure also emerges, the bureaucracy
		BUREAUCRACY: Bureaucracy emerges, to eventually evolve, during the early Industrial Revolution, into the most important form of organization since the family
		THE STATE: Some city states grow to become what would be recognized today as nation states
	6. Roman Era	Social tolerance becomes a state policy, fostering growth of the empire
	200 BC - 500 AD	Leisure & recreation become a major part of Roman society, but fall w/ the Roman Empire, not to be seen again until the mid Ind Age
		Limited forms of democracy develop & fall will the Roman Empire
	7. Middle Ages	After the "fall of the Roman Empire," the "Dark Ages" begin in the West, while the Mideast continues modern development
	500 - 1300	8. EDUCATION IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH FORMED TO EDUCATE PEOPLE
		Private education is, at first, only for the wealthy & for women primarily is concerned w/ etiquette while public education develops in the Industrial Age
		9. THE MEDIA IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH FORMED TO EXPLORE & PUBLISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS INFO, ESP THE NEWS
		A limited print media in the form of newspapers develops & continues to slowly develop as technology allows & as the middle class gains enough disposable wealth to purchase it
		The media & private education were at first, only for the elites
		In the late Mid Ages or Early Indl Age, the instits of ed & the media began to become available to an emergent middle class
		THE CORPORATION: Early corps were closely held by groups of wealthy investors
		Example: The Dutch Trading Co
	8. Early Industrial Age	The "proto factory" develops
	1300 to 1700	The division of labor, intellectual property, guilds, monopolization, wage labor, profit, capitalism, all become important developments
	9. Industrial Age	The "Industrial Revolution" & "Globalization" begin, catalyzing the development of the corp
	1700 to present	PUBLIC EDUCATION: Public ed becomes available to the mid class, but at first women, some religions, non whites, etc. were excluded
		Public ed begins during the indl age
		Widespread public education for the mid class begins in the US & Europe & spreads around the world
		SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Social movements develop during the Industrial Age
		Early soc mvmt include the democratic revolutions & the labor mvmt
		Contemporary social movements include the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the anti war movement, the environmental movement, & many more
		10. LEISURE & RECREATION IS A SYSTEM OF ORGS WHICH PROVIDES RECREATION FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR SPARE TIME
		Leisure & recreation become part of everyday life for the middle class, & thus become available for the middle class, fostering a new dynamic sector of the economy

Internal Links	10. Era of Global Capitalism	The effects of the Industrial Revolution & Globalization have become pervasive & substantial around the globe	External Links
	1910 to present	MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS ARE THOSE ORGS CONSISTING OF SEVERAL PEOPLE, LEGALLY EMPOWERED TO ACT AS ONE, TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, GENERALLY THROUGHOUT MANY NATIONS
		While early forms of the multinational corp existed centuries earlier, the truly multinational form developed in the West in the early 1900s
		UN
		The League of Nations first developed after WW 1
		The UN developed after WW 2
		GLOBAL REGULATORY STRUCTURES ARE THOSE AGENCIES FORMED BY SEVERAL NATIONS, & / OR THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY WHICH ARE EMPOWERED TO GOVERN ACCORDING TO AGREED UPON RULES
		Global regulatory structures developed after WW 2
		Examples of global regulatory structures include the World Bank, the IMF, GATT, etc.
		Network / charity / social orgs develop as an evolution of social mvmts
		NGO stands for non governmental organization
		Examples of NGOs which have a global influence include everything from OPEC to the Red Cross, to Amnesty International, to the Sierra Club
	11. Post Industrial Age	The first industrial nations experience "deindustrialization" & move to service & high tech economies
	1970 to present	TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS ARE THOSE ORGS THAT ARE EVEN MORE GLOBALIZED THAN MULTINATIONAL CORPS
		Transnational corporations are those that have globalized & that have totally integrated into the system of an international division of labor
		Examples of transnational corporations include GE, GM, IBM, Toyota, BP, etc.
		TRADING BLOCKS ARE NATIONS WHICH AGREE TO HAVE FREE TRADE OR LITTLE TRADE RESTRICTION
		In the 1990s the many trading blocks such as NAFTA, EU, ASEAN developed
		SUPRANATIONAL CORPORATIONS ARE THE MOST GLOBALIZED FORM OF CORPS, WHICH OFTEN HAVE NO TIES TO ANY NATION
		Supranational corporations are those that have all the globalized features of the transnational corporation, but have lost any national allegiances & culture
		All transnational corporations are evolving into supranational corporations because of the structure of the global economy
		An example of a supranational corporation is Fox
	12. The Future	THE POSSIBILITY OF WORLD GOVT IS ONLY BEGINNING AS SEEN IN A FEW GLOBAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
		Most organizational experts believe some type of world govt will evolve in the future
		Orgl experts vary widely on the extent to which they believe supranational corps & orgs, NGOs, the UN & other forms of globalized organizations will continue to gain power & dominate the everyday life of humanity
		THE ORIGINS OF FORMAL ORGS ARE ANCIENT BUT IT IS ONLY IN THE LAST FEW CENTURIES THAT THEY HAVE BEGUN TO DOMINATE SOCIETY, ESP IN THE FORM OF CORPS
		The origins of formal orgs date back thousands of years & their development spans all of human history
		The efficiency of early formal orgs was limited
		In early formal orgs, people lacked the technology to travel over large distances, to communicate quickly, & to collect & store information on a large scale
		Preindustrial societies usually have a traditional character which often results in opposition to the rationalization of orgs & other spheres of society
		See Also: Weber: A Comparison of Charismatic, Traditional, & Rational Authority
		Tradition, according to Max Weber, is sentiments & beliefs about the world passed from generation to generation
		Weber pointed out that the modern worldview is rationality, deliberate, matter of fact calculation of the most efficient means to accomplish a particular task
		The rise of the “organizational society” rests on what Weber termed the rationalization of society, the historical change from tradition to rationality as the dominant mode of human thought
		The transition from traditional to rational mode of thought on the societal level lays the groundwork for the orgl structure called bureaucracy

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Change Potential

External
Links

ORGS CONSTANTLY CHANGE, YET ARE CONSERVATIVE & RESIST CHANGE, PEOPLE & BRANCHES OF ORGS STRUGGLE OVER CHANGE, MUSTERING RESOURCES TO EITHER SUPPORT OR RESIST CHANGE

Link

Child & Kieser, 1981, believe orgs are constantly changing because of external conditions & internal factors

Orgs by their nature are conservative, i.e. resist orgl change

Even those orgs that promote societal change experience resistance to orgl change

Hedberg, 1981, notes that orgs change because people are constantly learning & unlearning from their actions

The org is the stage on which the action of learning & unlearning occurs

On the other hand, Staw, 1982, argues that individuals get locked into courses of action, & their commitment to actions escalate when they have invested previous effort

People defend their actions & turf by continuing the previous course of action

Informal standard operating procedures (SOPs) are difficult to change

Powerful coalitions exist which will block change if it is not in their interest

Hannan & Freeman, 1984, see personnel as a force of inertia

They note that personnel are usually hired based on reliability & accountability & not on their ability to change

Though sometimes change agents are hired as seen in the informal title, "the hatchet man"

Orgs will remain the same because the same type of people do the hiring & they hire the same type of people to fill positions

Pfeffer, 1983, sees personnel composition or orgl demography as affecting org change potential through org policies w/ regard to compensation, promotion

For Pfeffer, envl factors such as the rate of growth of the industry are also important in affecting orgl change potential

Orgl demographics affect change since it impacts succession & power differences

KAUFMAN POSITS INTERNAL FACTORS THAT LEAD ORGS TO RESIST CHANGE, INCLUDING THE DESIRE TO STAY W/ THE FAMILIAR, SELFISHNESS, INABILITY, BLINDERS
KAUFMAN POSITS EXTERNAL, SYSTEMIC OBSTACLES TO CHANGE, INCLUDING: SUNK COSTS, OFFICIAL CONSTRAINTS, INTERORG AGREEMENTS, LACK OF RESOURCES

For Kaufman, 1971, org change may be good or bad but it is confronted by strong forces holding it in check circumscribing the org's capacity to react, sometimes w/ dire results

For Kaufman there are internal orgl factors that lead orgs to resist orgl change including:

a. the collective benefits of stability or familiarity w/ existing patterns: it is often easier to stay w/ the familiar, even when we know that path is failing, than it is the change

b. calculated opposition to change occurs because members may have altruistic or selfish motives

c. the inability to change: lack of knowledge, willingness, etc.

d. mental blinders

Kaufman, 1971, identifies external, systemic obstacles to orgl change, including:

a. Sunk costs or investments in the status quo

b. Accumulation of official constraints on behavior in the form of informal customs

c. Interorganizational agreements prevent change because it may upset parts of the org's network

d. Orgs may not have the resources required for change

KATZ & KAHN SEE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ORGL CHANGE RESISTANCE, INCLUDING: OVER DETERMINATION, LOCAL DETERMINISM, INERTIA, THREATEN GRPS, THREATEN POWER, THREATEN REWARDS

Katz & Kahn, 1978, see SIX factors that contribute to orgl change resistance, including that:

Link

1. orgs are "over determined" because there are multiple mechanisms to ensure stability

2. orgs error in assuming local determinism or believing that changes can be isolated, or that they may be nullified by another part of the org

3. individual & group inertia or the force of habit are very powerful

4. orgs change can threaten groups such as those who may no longer be needed

5. orgs change can threaten the established power system, i.e. mgt. sees power shifting

6. orgs change can threaten the allocation of rewards, profits, etc.

Top

Examples: Child & Kieser, 1981, believe orgs are constantly changing because of external conditions & internal factors
Competition, innovation, public demand, govt policy changes, methods, output changes
Internal factors:
Mgrs & others may seek, not maintenance but change,
to promote growth, their own power, improved benefits, etc.
External factors:

Top

Examples: a. Orgs are "over determined" because there are multiple mechanisms to ensure stability
Personnel selection, training, reward system

Internal Links

Top

Outline on the Organizational Change Process

External Links

PERSONNEL TURNOVER IS ONE MAJOR FACTOR THAT ENGENDERS ORGL CHANGE

There are multiple explanations of orgl change

Kaufman, 1971, developed the personnel turnover model of orgl change

Despite the best selection & training, successive generations of personnel are not clones & they therefore enter new personnel dynamics into the org

Affirmative action practices have altered the racial & gender demographics of some orgs

While many theorists continue to debate whether bringing women & minorities into the workplace have changed anything, most practitioners, workers, & mgrs concur that this has indeed changed the culture & operation of the modern workplace

Tolbert & Zucker, 1983, examined civil service reforms in city govts which reduced nepotism, tested applicants etc. & found that orgs changed at a rate that was determined by the external factor of how fast the reforms were institutionalized into law

Biggart, 1997, examined the Post Office & found that orgs can resist change as proposed by forces outside the org

In relation to the interest groups w/in the org struggle, some support the change, & some oppose it

ORGS CHANGE AS THEY AGE / MATURE & GO THROUGH 'LIFE CYCLES'

The orgl change cycle has stages, including:
a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings
c. Transformations
       Stasis
       Growth
       Decline
d. Innovation/ Reformulation
e. Death

A. ORGL CONCEPTION OCCURS WHEN IDEA CHAMPIONS ENVISION THE ORG

Idea champions often must find a market, need, client, etc. & bring together capital investment, mgt. know how, labor, etc.

B. ORGL BIRTH & FOUNDINGS OCCUR WHEN THE ACTUAL ORG IS LAUNCHED, OPENED, BEGUN OR STARTED UP

Delacroix & Carroll, 1983, define orgl birth as the "creation of an operating entity that acquires inputs from suppliers & provides outputs to a given public, such as customers, clients, patients, etc."

The social env of orgs affects their rates of birth

Orgl births may take place through a legislative action as in when govt orgs are born

Stinchcombe, 1965, made the seminal discovery that org env's impact the numbers, types, etc. of orgs that are born

Pennings, 1982, found that metropolitan areas foster industrial firms

Marrett, 1980, found that the existing density of women's societies affected the further growth of orgs

Delacroix & Carroll, 1983, found that political turbulence affected newspapers' births

Carroll & Huo, 1986, found that political turbulence is a part of the institutional env or value system in which newspapers are embedded

The Institutional Env affect both foundings & failings of orgs because it is this env that provides the resources

Preexisting orgs serve as sources of legitimation & domain definition (Wiewel & Hunter, 1985)

Hannan & Freeman, 1987, found that Am. labor unions founding rate varies w/ the number of other union foundings

The social env of orgs affects their futures

Kimberly, 1979, found that the env at the founding & the characteristics of the founder affected the structure of the org

Founders are key players for adopting strategies appropriate for the env

C. ORGL TRANSFORMATION

Population ecology

D. ORGL INNOVATION

E. ORGL DEATH

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Transformations

External
Links

The orgl change cycle has multiple stages that orgs many encounter
a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings
c. Transformations
       Stasis
       Growth
       Decline
d. Reformulation
        Innovation
e. Death

The norm is that orgs change or go through transformation

However some orgs appear to exist is stasis: i.e. a condition of little or no change

There are strong forces w/in many orgs that promote stability & implement maintenance

Change threatens the status quo, but is welcomed by some

Many times orgs remain relatively the same rate while their env change around them, putting pressure on them for change or death

The most likely orgl trans is death, & new orgs, govt & private, have a high death rate

New orgs are usually small & suffer a liability of newness

Population ecology theory is useful in explaining org transformations

Child & Kieser, 1981, believe orgs can take FOUR steps to safeguard an org's position in the env, such as:

a. secure the benefits of growth

b. enhance competitive power or public approval through efficiency & rationalization or through technology

c. establish a secure domain through the negotiation of a field of activity or niche

d. respond flexibly to external change

Some population ecologists believe that agreements among orgs to lessen competition weakens the validity of their model

However some theorists believe that cooperation w/in an env is relatively common

Orgs make agreements w/ constituents such as workers, customers, communities, suppliers, competitors, vendors, the govt, etc.

Movement into new areas such as a major change in strategy, structure, process, etc. is a common orgl transformation

Carroll & Hannon, 1989, note that env's vary in their density, i.e. in how much they impact an org

Thus org change occurs as a result of internal or external forces

Kimberly & Quinn note that some org change is not related to the env but to internal pressure

Entrepreneurialism involves unprogrammed recombination of preexisting elements of reality (Peterson, 1981)

March, 1981, notes that orgl change frequently happens by accident, env forces, rationality

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Innovation

External
Links

- Project: Orgl Innovation

Link

The org change cycle has stages
a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings
c. Transformations
       Stasis
       Growth
       Decline
d. Innovation/ Reformulation
e. Death

An orgl innovation differs from an orgl transformation in that it may affect only a part of the org

An innovation is a departure from existing practices or technologies & represents a significant departure from the state of the art at the time it appears (Kimberly, 1981)

Much of the analysis of innovation focuses on technology, but any other feature of an org amy also be the seat of an innovation: administration, personnel hire procedures, etc.

A radical innovation is a significant departure from previous practices

Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973, suggest THREE forms of innovation, including programmed innovation, non programmed innovation, & distressed innovation

a. Programmed innovation is planned

b. Non programmed innovation occurs when there is "slack" in the org & resources are available to be applied to innovations

c. Distressed innovation is that which is forced on the org often as a result of a crisis from w/in the org or from the env

Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973, suggest NINETEEN factors on which orgl innovation is based, and/or hopes to achieve, including

a. controlling orgl cost

Orgl costs generally are accounted for in econ terms; however, some analyses are starting to integrate social costs into the mix

b. the maximization of return on investment (ROI), which is a common financial indicator

c. the maximization of efficiency

d. controlling of risk & uncertainty, allowing for the reduction of delays & accidents

e. increasing communication allowing for increased innovation & efficiency

f. enhancing compatibility allowing the smoothing of the work process among orgl units

g. managing complexity to match the need for complexity

h. managing scientific status so that R & D translates into info that serves orgl goals

i. increasing perceived relative advantages

j. increasing perceived absolute advantage

k. recognizing & point of origins so that internal innovations are more likely to be accepted, & so that the points of origin can be rewarded & fosters

l. coordinating timing so that innovations, processes, etc. are synchronous

m. making the status quo ante a possible end state because reversibility increases the likelihood an innovation will be accepted

n. commitment to the attitudes & behaviors toward the innovation

Participation in the decision to innovate increases commitment of all orgl actors

o. enhancing interpersonal relations because if an innovation is not disruptive to personnel or Labor, it is more likely to be accepted

p. managing the publicity & the vs. secretiveness of an innovation so that orgl actors who are not affected by the innovation are aware of that, & those that are affected have the necessary amt of into

q. managing gatekeepers, aka the power brokers, which the innovation must pass through, because the more the gatekeepers accept, the more likely the innovation is to be accepted

r. increasing the susceptibility to successive modification of the innovation because the more modifiable the innovation, the more likely the innovation is to be accepted

s. increasing gateway capacity since the adoption of one innovation may increase the capacity for other innovations

t. increasing gateway innovation since the adoption of one innovation may act as a gateway for other innovations

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Death

External Links

The org change process has stages
a. Conception
b. Births & Foundings
c. Transformations
       Stasis
       Growth
       Decline
d. Innovation/ Reformulation
e. Death

Org's death includes businesses going out of business, some mergers, & some transformations

Orgl death is (going out of business) often is preceded by decline

Cameron, et al, 1987, define decline as a condition in which substantial, absolute decrease in any org's resource base occurs

Weitzel & Jonsson, 1989, suggest FIVE stages of orgl decline, including blindness, inaction, faulty action, crisis, & dissolution

See Figure 9-1: Widening Performance Gap in the Decline Process

a. Orgs that are blind to the signs of decline are more likely to experience orgl death

b. Inaction in the face of decline results when the org recognizes the need for change but takes no action

Inaction in the face of decline is probably the most common response to decline & those orgs that successfully reverse this trend are the most likely to prosper

c. Faulty action is taken but it is inappropriate because determining the cause of decline is difficult, or because the solution is not simple

d. Crisis may or may not occur & can occur as an internal crisis, e.g. low sales, or an external crisis, e.g. cannot secure funding

e. Dissolution occurs when the org has no viable solutions left

Hambrick & D'Aveni, 1988, see decline as a downward spiral as the result of slack & poor performance, followed by extreme & vacillating strategies that lead to further problems

See Figure 8-2: Orgl Decline as a Downward Spiral

Orgl death can result from being too successful as in a takeover or merger

Starbuck & Nystrom, 1981, found regular social traditions around orgl death such as parties, picnics, etc.

Orgl death can be long, painful, & leave scars on survivors as a result of unpaid debt, disgraced employees, unemployment, broken dreams, etc.

Orgl longevity should also be taken into account

Orgs survive hundreds, even thousands of years as seen in the orgs of the Catholic Church, Hinduism, etc., Standard Oil, JP Morgan, Mercedes, Hapsburgs of Austria, etc.

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Professionalism & Organizational Change

External
Links

- Project: 'New Orgs' & Organizational Change

Link

SOCIETY & THE ORGS THAT COMPRISE IT ARE IN A PERIOD OF CONSTANT, RAPID CHANGE

For Kanter, Stein & Dick, the only constant in orgs is orgl change

Society & orgs have exp a tidal wave of org change from bureaucracy to the flexible org

The old generalizations about orgs as stable, stagnant, behemoths are no longer accurate because orgs today have more temp wkrs, more part time wkrs, & more contracted wk

Today, centralization & hierarchy are dysfunctional while decentralization & networks are functional

The new org is characterized as having:

- flexibility

- adaptability to change

- few levels of hierarchy

- loose boundaries among functions & units

- sensitivity & responsiveness to the env

- concern w/ stakeholders such as wkrs, communities, customers, suppliers, shareholders, & others

- the ability to empower people to be entrepreneurial

- the ability to help people gain skill & "employability"

Thus, for K, D, & S, the new org is in a continual state of change, experiencing all the processes, complexities, & effects of change

Thus the new org is an org consisting largely of professionals who have prof, collegial, relationships w/ each other that mix both admin & work tasks

The new prof org is in sharp contrast to hierarchical bureaucracies where wkrs are highly constrained

NEW ORGS OPERATE MORE AS NETWORKS THAN STABLE STRUCTURES

New changing orgs are seen as networks which experience a continuous flow of production, people, & other networked orgs

New, changing orgs are bundles of activities w/ common elements that allow activities & people to be grouped & treated as an entity

In new, changing orgs activities shift, new or diff units or people are included in activities clusters & thus what is identified as the org also shifts

In new, changing orgs, membership, composition & ownership & goals are constantly changing

In new, changing orgs, projects rather than positions are central

In new, changing orgs, bonds btwn actors are more meaningful & ongoing

LEADING THE NEW, CHANGING ORG IS LIKE STEERING A SHIP

Orgs are always in motion

In new, changing orgs, central direction results from past events, the env, strategies embraced by org's dominant coalition, by org character, & by the activities clusters in org may or may not be in sync w/ this direction

NEW, CHANGING ORGS HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE SET OF PROBLEMS INCLUDING AGENCY, COORDINATION, IMPLEMENTATION, DELEGATION, & OTHERS

The new, changing orgs have:

- an agency problem where the ownership of authority & responsibility, & who is acting in whose interest is not clear

- a coordination problem where even coordinated actions don't always produce intended results

- an implementation problem where things just don't get done

- a delegation problem where some people delegate too much, & some not enough

Problems occur in new, changing orgs because they consist of multiple stakeholders carrying out multiple but overlapping activities

THE FACTORS LEADING TO THE NEW CHANGING ORG INCLUDE: GLOBALISM, TECHNOLOGY, STAKEHOLDERS, PROFESSIONALS, & OTHERS

The factors leading to the new, changing org include:

a. global econ competition

b. techl change

c. the rise of stakeholder pwr

d. professionalization

The authority over the new, changing org comes from many sources & directions & through many pathways rather than "down" a "chain of command"

Authority in the new changing org has greater limits than it did in the old org

In the new, changing org, intentional "strategic" acts are only one form of action

Because there are are multiple strategists in the new, changing org; the orgl purpose becomes problematic & debatable

THE BONDS / CONNECTIONS THAT MAKE ORGS ARE DIFFERENT FOR OLD & NEW ORGS IN CUSTOMER / CLIENT TYPE, ABILITY TO CHANGE, STASIS, INTERORG RELATIONS, & OTHERS

Link

The Table on the Comparison of Orgl Ties in Old & New Orgs shows that the bonds / connections that make orgs work are different for old & new orgs

It is important to note that the differences btwn old & new orgs is not absolute, it is a matter of degree as seen in the fact that action possibilities as in mkt transactions are neither completely open in the new, changing or nor completely closed in a bur

In the new, changing org, there is a great variety of relationships of the indiv to the org

In the new, changing org, some roles are defined by place in hierarchy (or in several hierarchies), others are defined by ability to mobilize resources, others by the ability to dev commitment

In the new, changing org, rewards may be social, psycl, or econ

In the new, changing org, activity sets are minimally institutionalized

For the new, changing or, network theory or soc mvmt theory may be more relevant to orgs than bur theory

Orgs must use momentum built from a coalition of interests & a network of activities w/in a momentum bearing structure

THE 'NEW ORG' IS IN FLUX, MANAGED BY WKRS / PROFESSIONALS, WHO SET THEIR OWN GOALS, ARE NETWORKED

The implications of the new, changing org for action are that

a. change is always occurring

b. change may not be guided by org leaders

c. change may be inconsistent w/ the goals of principle stakeholders

d. mgrs who control / guide must be aware of the nature of networks so they are able to form / wk thru coalitions to induce multiple activities & interests to coalesce around the org's momentum

FOR 'OLD ORGS,' THEY HAD MANY SOP'S THAT ALLOWED THEM TO MAINTAIN STABILITY SUCH AS CONCENTRATION, CLOSED MKTS, TECH, COMMITMENT OF WKRS, STAKEHOLDERS, ETC.

Before the new profl, flexible org, the stability of yesteryear was achieved by

1. a unified motion from a coalescence of interest & activities in an env of adequate relative consistency & certainty

2. abundant resources

3. few competitors

4. geographically confined competition

5. protected mkts

6. standardized tech

7. understood tech

8. viewing indiv & grp ambition as a constraint

9. people accepting what they have

10. few disasters or sys failure, which if they do occur are accepted fatalistically

11. clear & acceptable commitments to stakeholders

12. adequately aligned interests

GM in the 50s & 60s was very stable

Stability today departs from old conditions to the new global econ where motion becomes apparent & change takes center stage

Stability becomes responding to change, harnessing change, creating change, & managing change

	THE ENV OF THE 'NEW ORG' IS ONE W/ SCARCE RESOURCES, NEW TECH, UNCOMMITTED WKRS, MGRS, ET AL, CRISES, ETC.
	Today in a climate of instability / change:
	1. resources are scarcer
	2. resources are more difficult to obtain
	3. new tech arises constantly
	4. indiv & grp ambition is given free reign
	5. crises are common; assumed to be solvable
	6. commitments of customers, wkrs, & other stakeholders are fragile & short lived
	In the new, changing org, uncertainty in decision making is more prevalent
	In the new, changing org, mgrs spend time, effort & $$ getting info to make decisions w/ info that is uncertain, incomplete, inaccurate, but mgrs must act anyway
	We look back at history to consider what can or might be & we see multiple possibilities, not a single inevitable ending
	Multiple possibility theory is well suited to org theory because history gives a coherent, orderly inevitable sheen to events
	For people in the action, the choices are far less clear, options less structure, results more mixed, rationales more arguable
	It is still up to people to act, & do more than predict the future, to invent it
	In the new, changing org, there is a participatory gap btwn the declared participatory mgt style & what is actually practiced
	In K, D, & S they report that Collins, Ross, and Ross (1989) found that 485 mgrs from 59 firms had total support for participatory mgt, but most di not install such sys's, blaming a lack of opportunity
	In the new, changing org, to pursue change
	1. know the sources of orgl success such as the things that /\ reliability, etc.
	2. such as the success factors in orgl change
	CHANGE OCCURS TODAY GENERALLY EITHER IN QUICK, BOLD STROKES, OR BY THE LONG MARCH
	Bold strokes (BSt) are big strategic decisions such as major econ initiatives such as e.g. buying a firm, closing a plant, or allocating crit resources
	Long marches (LM) are operational initiatives which combine several divisions, which have a transitional qual on customer relations which enhance orgl effectiveness
Link	The Table Comparing the Time frames of BSts & LMs shows that BSts & LMs vary in many important orgl dimensions
	Responsibility of bold strokes & long marches varies in that
	- BSts can be mandated by up mgt or a few people
	- LMs requires personal support of many people & cannot be mandated in practice
	Change at Ford under Donald Petersen in 80's used both Bld Ss & LMs
	At Ford, BSts were implemented in styling which shifted toward the Euro look of Taurus & Mercury Sable, & was a huge success & changed look of all Am autos
	At Ford, the LM was developed under the strategies of Quality is Job 1, participatory mgt, & reduced cycle time
	At Ford, it appears that today that the BSts succeeded while the LM failed
	LM succeeded at Xerox through the visible commitment & top mgt attn to ground level operations
	The characteristics of the firm & leaders are imp in determining whether BSts or LMs will succeed
	Orgs develop dispositions toward dealing w/ problems & these dev into habits
	Habits must be supported by the org character, mechanisms, standards, procedures

Top

Table on the Comparison of Orgl Bonds / Connections in Old & New Orgs

Type of Org >
Type of Connection \/

Old org

New, changing org

Customer / Client Type

mkt oriented

meaningful

Ability to Change

rigid

flexible

Stasis

immutable

ongoing

Interorgl Relations

none / independent

many / networked

The Table on the Comparison of Orgl Ties in Old & New Orgs shows that the bonds / connections that make orgs work are different for old & new orgs

Top

Table Comparing the Actions of Bold Strokes & Long Marches

Bold strokes

Long marches

Time frame

Fast

Slow

Locus of action

Decisions @ top

Initiatives throughout

Leader control

Hi: Can command results

Lo: Can initiate but not command

Initial results

Clear acts, impact

Unclear acts, impact

Later results

Erratic

Dependable

Culture impact

Habits unchanged

Habits can change

The Table Comparing the Actions of Bold Strokes & Long Marches shows that BSts & LMs vary in many important orgl dimensions

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Characteristics & Organizational Change

External
Links

Hage & Aiken, 1970, found SEVEN orgl characteristics which enhance innovation including:

a. professional training

b. decentralization

c. a low level of formalization

d. a low level of the stratification of rewards

e. a low emphasis on volume

f. a low emphasis on efficiency

g. a high level of job satisfaction

Hage, 1980, adds that cosmopolitan professionals & a dominant coalition in support of innovation will enhance innovation

Moch & Morse, 1977, find that innovation is related to org size, specialization, differentiation, & decentralization

They focus on the values of lower level dec mkrs, whose perspectives & interest must be compatible w/ the innovation

Baldridge & Burnham, 1975, believe that orgl characteristics are more important to innovation than orgl attitudes

Hage & Dewar, 1973, argue the opposite, that the values of the elites are more imp than the structural characteristics

Corwin, 1973, found that the econ conditions & the internal politics of the org affected how the innovations were accepted-- through a power struggle

Daft & Becker, 1978, found that innovations increases as incentives from the env increase because of a growth env

Manns & March, 1978, found that adversity also increases innovation, w/ weak orgs requiring more innovation

Successful innovation requires different orgl arrangements for each stage

Decentralization might be more effective in the initiation stage of orgl change

Centralization is more important in relation to the implementation stage or orgl change

Govt policies can encourage or discourage innovation (Hall, 1981)

Holden, 1980, clearly demonstrates that Japanese govt policies on such factors as taxes, trade, tariff, regulations, etc., are better coordinated & more conducive to innovation

Weick, 1979, views orgs as constantly changing & recognizes factors such as size & technology, but sees orgs as more "enacting" entities placing greater emphasis on the perceptions & interpretations of individuals

Weick emphasizes that constantly shifting constructions of reality mean that the org is fluid

Hall sees the org as less fluid because of structural factors, power arrangement, limitations of the env, etc.

The End

Top