of Organizational Theory and Critique
of Organizational Theory and Critique
Innovationsand Change Management
Kipperset al. (2014)assertthat changeis the only constant and inevitable factor in organizationalmanagement. The article is a systematic review of articles to showthe process of change and the corresponding outcomes relative totheories of change. From the article, it is clear that studies havenot adequately looked at the role of theories in implementation ofchange this makes the theories irrelevant. Change management inpublic organizations is complex and should be pinned to theoreticalapplication. The lack of insights on processes involved results fromstudies focusing on predictable change events ignoring the changingprocesses, outcomes, contexts and contents of public sector. However,in the private segment of the business divide, change is good as itcomes with discomfort, discontent, and dissatisfaction but ultimatelyyields results (Kippers et al., 2014). This brings new perspectiveswhen it comes to change processes and attempts to fill the gap in thetransitioning theories of change to application.
Thearticle has done well to highlight the nature of change inorganizations. This emphasizes on the impact of change and itsrelated theories on core organizational standards. Questions shouldbe asked about this expectation would organizations in differentenvironments implement change in the same way, do the theories ofchange respond to varying organizational context, how can one relatethe outcomes of change and theories? The article seemstobe concerned about what organizations are not doing but ignoring thefact that theories of change could be obsolete in the global context.Today, companies respond to the rapid market changes and technologieswithin the framework of the conditions given (Beer, 2000). This factis also supported byVan der Voet (2014) who said that theconcept of “no free lunch” in economics in the production theoryargue that every input must be viable enough to produce the muchneeded output, human resource included. This means that theories haveso little to offer unless they are suited to changing times.
Inhis article, “Leadorganizational change by creating dissatisfaction and realigning theorganization with new competitive realities”, Beer (2000) assertsthatbusiness world whether in the public or in the private sector, shouldalways review the organizational needs and requirements for them tobe at par with the rest of the world. To elaborate this point, hecites the example of rise and fall of Apple Inc. as the leading brandto show the dangers involved in mismanaging change in organizations.Apple Inc. grew because all the industry needed was technology,user-friendliness and new design and decline due to failure toaccommodate new competitive realities that emerged. Clearly, allentities and enterprises are competing at a global level and the teamof executives must mobilize energy for change by being dissatisfiedwith the status quo. The article shows that in the contemporaryworld, organizations are an open system influenced by externalfactors. Organizational design, the environment, strategic tasks,people selected and behavior of the leaders are key terms. Changes inthe environment and other variable disturb the equilibrium. Byaligning towards the equilibrium, a persistent culture will develop.
Beer(2000) intelligently acknowledges that the dissatisfaction andrestlessness in the industry may be the impetus for change and thatmany questions come up from the role of organizational behaviors.This argument is a contradiction of Kippers et al.’s (2014)assertion that a lack of application of theory is to blame for woesof most businesses. To Kippers et al. (2014), theory must inform theleadership processes and account for outcome. Beer (2000) is able toshow that the changing market conditions, uncertainty and innovationscontribute a great deal to success of organizations. The main area ofcritique is based on the use of private companies as success stories.The conditions of management in private firms are different fromthose in public companies. Realigning the company’s operations andfunctioning of the entity is one of the most delicate things businessexecutives and the board could engage. It is argued that the workerswould feel as if they are being subjected to torture and bullyingwith which the new systems come with (Beer, 2000). This is supportedby Denhardt, Denhardt, and Aristigueta (2002) who say that there ishigh likelihood of resistance of the systems rejecting the new ways.The article ignores the fact that while implementing change andinnovation, to achieve results, human beings are dehumanized if thisis done constantly. This has forced policy makers to go back to thedrawing board and review the policies in ways that seek to balanceorganizational cultures, new technologies and preferences ofemployees.
Inthe book “Managing Human Behavior in Public and Non-ProfitOrganizations,” Denhardt, Denhardt, and Aristigueta (2002) proposethat new requirements and demandsinthe workplaces has become of great interest to the employers today.The key words in the selected chapters include organizational change,managing conflicts, and resistance to change. The authors regardhuman capital as one of the most mutable asset any organization hasas it is the only communicating organ of the enterprise. They assertthat employees should be treated with dignity while introducing anyform of change for the commitment to service and to value additionfor the whole company to be realized. Most employees resist changebecause of the way it is fronted to them. The management should besensitive when introducing change at organizational and personallevel. Though the manager must respond in a firm manner, they shouldbe open to dialogue and be ready to concede space for employees’opinions.
Clearly,the employees are regarded as the internal stakeholders where theyare enthusiastic. There self-driving make organizations successful.This implies that the prosperity of a business is collective whilethe individual effort is recognized as it is as important as the oneoffered by the executive. The policy makers at organizational levelshould endeavor to ensure that human capital and workforce isproperly motivated and involved in decision making process of theorganization (Denhardt, Denhardt, and Aristigueta, 2002). Policiesabout change should be geared towards making decision making processfully inclusive through brainstorming and idea fronting. That wouldmake the employees more enthusiastic when they know that their ideasand opinions are considered for implementations.
Abusiness entity or a public organization should have a well carvedchange management strategy. In the article “TheEffectiveness and Specificity of Change Management in a PublicOrganization: Transformational Leadership and a BureaucraticOrganizational Structure”by Van Der Voet (2014) hinges change management strategies on thetype of leadership. Whereas transformative leader contributes toseamless change, direct supervision if implemented in this leadershipstyle is an impediment to planned processes of change. The studylooks at change management strategies in private sectors and seeks toextent such strategies to public sector. The context of publicorganization makes it a unique field of study in change managementwith many studies concluding that implementing change in publicsector is complex and difficult. The article aims to address theeffectiveness and specificity of change management in public sector.It is found that type of leadership plays an important role. Ideally, an enterprise should have a chief executive for a maximum ofeight years in the writer’s opinion as beyond that they would haverun out of ideas. Van Der Voet (2014) asserts that transformation isthe only way through which bureaucracy is simplified and lessfrustrations realized by those who would love to do business with anorganization. It is further felt that any executive that comes intoan organization and does not give better terms to all stakeholdersboth internal and external has no reason for being in leadership.
Thepublic policy is affected in the sense that bureaucratic leadershipand processes frustrates the new team leaders and should be done awaywith. There are hypothetical cartels in organizations which see andfeel change as a threat(Denhardt, Denhardt, & Aristigueta, 2012).This means that the buck is not just with managers employees alsobare responsibility in case leadership fails. The book agrees withBeer(2000) on the fact that conflictssuppress innovations and therefore organizations will be unable tomeet their full potential. The article correctly identifies the typeof leadership as the problem leading to failure of organizations tomeet its targets as this is validated by research and evidence onchange and leadership. It is hypothesized that the first one year ofany business executive and team leader is usually meant forrestructuring, storming and forming as there are radical changes (VanDer Voet, 2014). This fact implies that the changes are usually meantto help the executives to achieve the results they promised thebusiness owners when joining the company.
Inthe four articles, the general argument is that during implementationof change, there is high resistance where the old order fights back,but with time the business stabilizes with new structures in place.Theory has failed to address major dilemmas facing organizations inmanagement of change. Instead, organizations are influenced byinternal and external factors that are mutable. The arguments arecompelling as the writers identifies new technology, reviewed code ofconduct, and new job description and targets as crucial areas ofchange.
Beer,M. (2000). Lead organizational change by creating dissatisfaction andrealigning the
organizationwith new competitive realities. Handbookof principles of organizational
Denhardt,R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2012). Managinghuman behavior in
publicand nonprofit organizations.Sage Publications.
Kuipers,B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Vander Voet, J. (2014). The
managementof change in public organizations: A literature review. Public
Vander Voet, J. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of changemanagement in a public
organization:Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizationalstructure.