" Management"
INTRODUCTION
“The only thing constant in this world is change”. Every one knows that. We can see change everywhere. From the river who once slowly carved the Grand Canyon. To the sudden and devastating effects of a volcanic eruption.
Everybody may not know this, or not notice this, but every change has a plan. From the development of a tiny seed to a gigantic sycamore tree. To a river changing its course.
A lot of people may not know it, but every change, alteration, conversion, or evolution has a plan. However gradual or sudden they may be. Change is not just one phase, it is a series of events, a process unfolding one by one.
Beer, (1990) believe the same is true about an organizational change.
Organizational change usually refers to organization-wide change. It is different from smaller changes such as hiring a new person, or modifying a certain program. Organization-wide change includes a change in mission of the organization, restructuring operations, new technologies, mergers and major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, and other changes that affects the whole organization. Experts refer to it as organizational transformation. And often, this term means a fundamental and radical reorientation in the organization operations.
Organizational change is a strategy to accomplish an organizational goal. Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, such as cuts in funding, addressing major new markets or clients, the need for dramatic increases in productivity or services, and the like. Commonly, organizations undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their organizational life cycle. Also, transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Organizational change is also synonymous with change management and organizational development. Change management is the process of developing a planned approach to change in an organization. Mostly, its main objective is to maximize the collective efforts of all people involved in the change and minimize the risk of failure of implementing the change. Change management mainly deals with the human aspect of change, and is often related to industrial psychology
Meanwhile, organization development (OD), as defined by , is an organizational-wide planned effort which is managed from the top to increase organizational effectiveness and health, through planned interventions in the organization’s processes using behavioral-science knowledge and principles.
According to , organization development is a complex strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges. ( 1998)
While emphasizes that organizational development is not just "anything done to better an organization". For him, it is a definite change process designed to bring about a definite end result involving organizational reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis. ( 1998)
ORANIZATIONALCHANGE
The organizational change model according to (in press) has three elements. These are: a commitment to change; producing change; and maintaining change. This essay focuses only on the first two elements, specifically examining catalysts for the change process and processes and factors involved in organizational change. Maintenance of change is crucial in the long run, this article only limits itself to issues in the initiation stages of the change process, since our sample organization is a community employment service, and organizational change still remains not common for most service delivery systems.
A Commitment to Change:
The Importance of Mission and Values
Change is driven by personal and organizational mission and values. The underlying catalyst is often an individual or group of individuals who decide that the organization is not properly meeting the needs of the individuals it serves through current services, and needs to do things differently (, 1991; , 1992).
This is common result of a new management being brought into the organization ( 1991), and relates to the often-cited need for strong leadership that sets organizational values and direction, and maintains a clear focus on the goal of the organization ( 1997), , 1992). Though there is disagreement on whether values clarification precedes role realignment or vice-versa (, , 1990) there is a broad unanimity in varied literature that agrees that mission and values are crucial in organizational changes (, 1995; 1992; 1996; , 1993).
Those in the human services field view those in the business world as solely motivated by financial considerations. But it is interestingly, profit business literature emphasizes do strongly emphasize the need for strong values. As (1992) had stated, "For the organization to perform to a high standard, its members must believe that what it is doing is, in the last analysis, the one contribution to community and society on which all others depend" (p. 98).
Economic Factors
In most profit businesses, organizational changes are brought about by economic and competitive forces. In service delivery organizations, economic forces are also seen as main catalyst for organizational change from sheltered to community employment ( , 1998). Such economic forces take the form of either internal agency financial instability, or public agency threats to cut funding.
Empowering and Supporting Staff
Insecurity and loss of control are endemic to organizational change. To overcome this (1989) recommends giving staff more control over their professional lives, with extra rewards based on measurable results and chances to learn new skills. While (1991) posits that organizations need to be supportive in dealing with the emotional stress of change. And (1997) emphasizes how important the commitment and values of staff are to the organizational change process, and how staff and agency needs must be met simultaneously.
Producing Change:
Change requires creating a sense of urgency. This is because the environment of the organization whether internal or external is constantly changing. The organization should always be on its feet when this changes occurs
Creating a meaningful systemic change and organizational redirection has always been the problem of both profit businesses and service delivery organizations (, 1994; , 1993; , 1990; , 1995; 1996; 1987). Organizational change is a complex process that unleashes forces whose course cannot be predicted accurately. In reorganization, the process and outcomes are not always clear, and decisions cannot just be held within known bounds ( 1996; ( , 1989). This is why it is impossible to completely plan or predict a change process ( 1989; , 1992). Some pieces of any strategic planning analysis must, be accepted as unknown or uncontrollable.
Clear quantifiable goals
For an organization to create an effective change, one must define the desired outcomes of that change. The more specific the outcomes one requires, the easier it is to measure progress, problems, and success.
A mission statement that is not contradictory to the goals an organization is often more crucial to the change process than spending too much time on fine-tuning the exact words. Ergo, a community rehabilitation provider that has a mission statement that says, “To maximize contract sales or minimize risks to consumers” would find conflict between those goals and encouraging community employment.
Internal and External Forces in Change Process
(1991) and (1993) emphasizes the need for coordinated, systematic efforts in organizational change, with involvement of a variety of internal and external constituencies. While (1998) stresses the need to nurture consensus.
(1993) posit that the change process must focus on both strategy and organization, structure and behavior, analysis and emotion, internal organizational arrangements, and the context in which the organization operates.
CASE STUDY
Mass Bay Employment Services (MBES)
The Community Adjustment Program (CAP) in the South Boston was a small day treatment program only serving 30 adults with severe and persistent mental illness operated by a large nonprofit residential and day service provider. The program provided an array of services, including case management and advocacy, a range of social and clinical psychotherapeutic groups, and sub-contract or sheltered workshop work.
Their funding agency, is the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), was interested in developing more community employment services. The building that housed the program was in poor condition and they are in need of moving into a better location. In 1995, opportunities for employment were still highly prioritized because of second account comments gathered from annual consumer satisfaction surveys. In the same year, the decision was made by the administration to close the CAP program. Existing resources were to be redeployed and converted into an employment program. And current clients would be transferred to a workshop, Gill Rehab, also run by their parent agency. MBES would serve consumers from the former CAP program, clients from Gill, as well as new referrals.
They hired a new director to oversee the closing of CAP and the development of MBES. Staff had concerns about the closing of the program, particularly on the impact the change would have on clients, some of whom had been attending the program as long as 18 years. Even though the staffs were well informed, they were not involved in the decision to close the program. All staff was assured to have jobs, but still, there was uncertainty regarding what their new jobs would entail and where the new program would be located.
After the move, the first two months were spent assisting consumers in settling into Gill and setting up the MBES services. Working conditions were less than optimal for employees. Because of the bad working conditions brought about by the move. But this did not stop the staff of MBES from making changes until improved results happen.
MBES, with a staff of four, which includes the director, started accepting its first referrals in 1996. In the first 12 months of the program, 100 individuals were referred to the program and 50 individuals got jobs in the community. A total of 73 job placements. Of the 30 consumers transferred from CAP to Gill, 29 made the transition. Seven of the 50 individuals who got jobs were former CAP consumers.
Summary Discussion
Before changing attitudes and beliefs, the staff needs to feel respected for what they have done in the past, and feel respected by being main participants in the process of change. Here at MBES, the director helped the staff set new goals while still being respectful of the old program. Also, the new director had to rely on the current staff to teach her about the program and consumers, making the change a group effort. The experience of MBES highlights difficulties of changing staffs, acknowledging the sense of loss that occurs during organizational change, and the importance of collaboration and teamwork.
Even though the MBES’s lack of institutional support, it was allowed to operate independently and the individual staff had freedom and discretion in how they should do their jobs. Regardless of the obstacles of lack of space, privacy, inadequate telephones, and being housed in a psychiatric in-patient facility, the rate and number of job placements made in the initial 12 months of the program was better than many existing employment services in the area that served this population.
In addition to this, management took steps to keep MBES staff free from the day-to-day functioning of the workshop and the day program as well as agency politics to develop good work group.
CONCLUSION
Commonly, there is an always strong resistance when it comes to change. A lot of people are afraid of the unknown. Many people think the present status quo is already just fine and don't see the need for change. While others doubt there are effective means to accomplish major organizational change.
Often, organization-wide change often goes against the very values held by members in the organization. Some of the changes may go against how members believe things should be done. That's why many organizational-change literatures discuss the need for the changes in the culture of the organization, including changes values and beliefs of its members.
Successful change starts from top management, these includes the board and chief executive. And usually there's a champion who initially start the change by being visionary, persuasive and consistent.
Being the change agent role, one is responsible in translating the vision into a realistic plan and carry out that plan. Change is best carried out as a team effort. An open communication about the change should be frequent with all organization members. And to sustain the change, the structure of the organization itself should be modified, these includes changing strategic plans, policies and procedures.
To best address resistances on the changes, there should be increased and sustained communications and education through out the entire organization. An example is the leader meeting with all managers and staff to explain the reasons for the change, how it will be carried out and where one can go for additional information. A plan, when developed should always be communicated. Plans do change. That’s why one should always update everybody that the plan has changed and why. Holding a forum is one way of communicating the change. And also, this will let the members to express their ideas about the plan. They should be able to express their concerns and frustrations as well.
The decision to close the CAP program and replace it with MBES was made without input from staff or clients. Initial staff inclusion will decrease the hostility of the staff regarding the change in the agency and how the change was handled. Seeking input and opinions before changes are made, and then addressing concerns as best as possible before, during, and after the changes are very important.
REFERENCES:
0 comments:
Post a Comment