Reference no: EM132219914
WRITE A RESPONSE TO THIS ENTRY
Changing an organization’s culture first vs letting the organizational structure change occur naturally as a result of change is a great discussion that provides several pros and cons on each side. Change is necessary for any organization to stay competitive. The type of change and the way it is implemented could be the catalyst that shoots the company into the stratosphere or burns it to the ground. Deciding how to implement change is probably one of a manager’s toughest decisions
When a manager institutes a change vision he may want to change the organization’s culture first. This big change is a great way to let people know that upper management is serious about the change. Also, I think the sooner people see change happening the more likely they will be to contribute. If they don’t see upper management contributing, they may decide to ‘drag their feet’ feeling that they are the only ones required to change. The Journal of Business Economics and Management stresses how important trying something radical is in todays world saying, “The world is going to be too tough and competitors too ingenious as companies are shaken loose from traditional ways of conducting business. Therefore, the old principles no longer work in the age of Globalization” ( Markovic,2008).
On the other side some people don’t like a dramatic change. If you let the organizational structure change occur naturally as a result of the change you are implementing you may receive less harsh resentment. Some people, especially the individuals who have been employed at your organization for years may resent the change and not understand why it needs to happen. If this worked years ago and is still working why do we need to change? In an article in Procedia, they talk about the importance of an organizations culture saying, “organizational culture creates a ‘collective identity’, so that employees know ‘how they do things’ and ‘how to get the job done’” (Bingöl, Sener, & Cevik, 2013). In the case of just letting the organization’s culture change over time they may not see the drastic change and be able to conform more easily and receptively.
When I think of this argument I think of the story of the frog in the pot. In the story a chef is trying to cook a frog and drops the live frog in a pot of boiling water (the side of changing the culture first). When the frog hits the boiling water, he hops out and runs off ruining the meal. In the other instance the chef puts the frog in a cold pot of water and slowly turns up the water (letting change occur naturally). The frog does not notice the change until it is too late and the chef presents a perfect meal. To me, this is a perfect example of which side of the argument to choose. I believe that people, at their core, don’t like change and if you can implement your change without ‘dropping someone in boiling water’, your change strategy will have a greater chance of success.
Either choice could work. Like I said in my opening paragraph there are pros and cons to each side. I think the decision on which option you choose should be on a case by case basis. What works for one organization won’t always work for every other organization. Also, a lot depends on your work force. You could have two of the same companies and implement the same change strategy, but one could succeed and one could fail based on how your people function. All this being said I believe that the slow, painless change would work more often than not.