What is Organizational Change?
Every organization will go through change at some point during its lifespan. Organizational change can be defined as going through a transformation. When referring to organizational change, we frequently talk about changing circumstances that place individuals and organizations in constant states of flux (Zalabak, 2006).
Organizational change occurs when business strategies or major sections of an organization are altered. It can be forced when there is a change in management or leadership positions, or it can occur naturally as an organization evolves and strives to keep up with social and technological advancements.
Change is a somewhat ambiguous concept. It is one of the few constants that should always be expected. Planned organizational change typically is the responsibility of the leaders of an organization. These leaders are often in management positions and the main facilitators of an organization’s culture.
Communication is one of the key elements when dealing with change. It is increasingly common for organizations to employ specialists whose primary function is to deal with organizational communications developments, such as change.
Why Organizational Change is Necessary
Change is one of the only constants we can expect in this world. No organization that remains static and refuses to evolve will survive long. These organizations that get stuck in procedural or managerial ruts are often not long-lived. However, many organizations naturally evolve and adapt to environmental needs.
Organizational change can be brought on by any number of things. Some of the most common are: Change in leadership or upper-management, adapting to meet consumer needs, and technological advancements (Miller, 2011).
A change in leadership can cause drastic change within an organization because the leaders of an organization are often the main facilitators of culture. An organization’s culture and identity can make drastic shifts as it attempts to adapt to a new way of functioning. When dealing with organizational change brought on by a change of leadership, clear communication is the most important thing. Through clear communication, those in a leadership position can put any fears, doubts, and uncertainties to rest. As the organization adapts, the members of the organization will be at ease knowing the thoughts and plans of the new leaders.
Organizations are often forced to adapt to an evolving world and shift the very focus of the organization. For example, with the advent of air travel, transatlantic ocean liner companies that provided overseas passage by ship were faced with a major challenge to their service. The firms that defined themselves as transportation companies did not survive, whereas those that interpreted their business more broadly and ambiguously as entertainment went on to develop leisure cruise businesses (Eisenberg, 2011).
Technological advancements force change on organizations perhaps more than any other variable. An organization that is still operating on floppy disks and Dos is probably not operating anymore. There are thousands of documented cases of organizations that embraced or ignored change brought on by technological advancement because we are living in an age of constant technological change. Technological advancements also have a great affected on how an organization communicate. Today’s burgeoning communication technology represents changes that allow organizations to learn more, more quickly, than ever before.
Embracing Change
An organization that has a strong history of embracing change is Apple. Once a struggling computer company, Apple embraced the trend of personal portable electronics and is now a leader in the entire entertainment industry. In fact, it can be argued that Apple is one of the prime facilitators of change in technology.
Apple first introduced the iPod in October 2001. The product originally wasn’t much different than other portable MP3 players. However, bolstered by strong sales, by 2006 Apple had introduced the Video iPod which allowed consumers to take all types of media with them wherever they went. Further development of the iPod was greatly influenced by the introduction of the iPhone, which led to the current generation of iPod, the iPod Touch.
Apple, once a struggling computer company offering a lackluster user experience, was suddenly a leader in the entire field of electronics. Why? Because they embraced change.
Rejecting Change
Much has been said about the Eastman Kodak Company and its rejection to changing technologies. In 1975, one of Kodak’s engineers, Steve Sasson, worked on a project for 11 months to create the first digital camera. They continued to work extensively on digital and patented numerous technologies, many of which are built into the digital cameras of today. Their fatal error of judgment was that the company feared that the digital cameras would cannibalize its major film business and management, and according to one past Kodak executive they “ensured that digital stayed in the closet”.
The company eventually showcased it first digital camera, the DC40, in 1995, years before others would get into the digital game. However, they were so steeped in films and the cannibalization of films that they did not capitalize on their first mover advantage. Other companies such as Nikon, Sony and Canon quickly filled the niche, and by the time Kodak finally decided to rev up its digital effort in 2001 with its Easy Share line, it was seen as a lagging new comer to the market. Kodak, while putting out competent products, was always following feature trends, never leading them. Once the leading name in photography, Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2012.
Here was a company who was digitally light years ahead of the competition, and now struggling to even stay on par with the market.
Models of change
There are models of organizational change that consider “natural” ways in which organizations and groups of organizations change with the ebb and flow of institutional life and industry history (Miller, 2011). The “natural” life cycle of an organization might include a start-up phase in which the organization develops a market and creates systems and procedures, a growth phase in which client relationships are developed and the size of the organization grows, a steady “harvest” phase in which the company serves existing clients, and a decay stage in which the organization’s services become less relevant. It is in this final change that the future of the organization will be decided. Either they will embrace change and work to keep relevance in its market or they will reject change and eventually fold or be bought out.
Other models of organizational change look at situations in which there is a planned change. Oftentimes, organizations are confronted with problems in the environment or with internal contingencies that suggest that current ways of doing things are not effective. In these cases, many organizations will begin a purposeful process of change over time. This change over time may involve a process in which the organization explores the need for change and possible solutions, plans for how that change is to be instituted, implements the change and disseminates information about the change, and then integrates those changes into the day-to-day operations of the organization.
Oftentimes, there can be unintended consequences of planned change, especially because the senior managers who initiate the change might have very different ideas about the change than the employees who implement the change. Given the complicated nature of communication within each of these groups and the sometimes limited interaction between top management and employees, even a meticulously planned change can have unanticipated outcomes. Eisenberg (2011) suggested employing a level of strategic ambiguity to facilitate change in order to allow people the interpretive room to change their activities while appearing to keep those activities consistent.
Any planned change will involve a number of different types of change, such as: change in individual behavior, organizational processes, strategic direction, etc. These various levels of change can be accomplished through a variety of methods. Furthermore, because of the interdependencies among task, structure, culture, and strategy, no change process will be straightforward (Miller, 2011).
Reactions to Change
Because organizations are both cultural and political systems inhabited by thinking and feeling human beings, it is critical to look at how employees might react to and influence the organizational change process.
Members within an organization possess knowledge structures that define individual and collective beliefs about how organizations should work and how change should occur. In organizational change processes, these knowledge structures may be either confirmed or disrupted, leading to tensions in the change process that must be effectively managed by those in leadership positions, often through developing a sense of connection between organizational members and the change process.
Common problems identified in the change process include: Lack of management support, Top managers forcing change, Inconsistent action by key managers, Unrealistic expectations, Lack of meaningful participation, Poor communication, Purpose of program was not clear, Responsibility for change not properly identified (Miller, 2011). These problems can be solved, or averted entirely, through clear communication. Any uncertainty or uneasiness brought on by change can result in unnecessary stress on the part of employees in the organization. Any attempt to work with change needs to take into consideration those individual and organizational defense mechanisms against anxiety that structure and form managerial and organizational responses to change. One of the most straightforward ways to deal with this uncertainty and the anxiety it provokes is through communication and the provision of information.
Communication Strategies during Change
The reactions to organizational change all point to the importance of communication in the organizational change process. For those involved in planned organizational change, there are a great many choices that must be made about communication during the change process.
Most significant organizational changes are accompanied by a specific communication strategy. A communication strategy is the general plan for disseminating information and soliciting input during organizational change. A communication strategy is the explanation for organizational change, the approach for gathering input about the change, the approach for gathering input about the change, and the methods for disseminating change outcomes (Zalabak, 2006).
It is important to point out that a variety of communication media can be used when communicating with employees and people outside the organization during planned organizational change. In some cases, sit down one-on-one meetings are essential, while other changes can be handled through a mass email.
Leaders of an organization can employ a variety of different communication techniques when facilitating change. Strategies ranging from showering employees with all kinds of information in the hope that employees will be able to sort out significant and insignificant information, to withholding as much information as possible, especially when confronted with questions or rumors have been employed. The method that works best is entirely dependent on the management and culture of the organizations.
References
Daniels, T., Spiker, B., & Papa, M. (1997). Perspectives on organizational communication (4th ed.). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill.
Eisenberg, E., & Goodall, H. (2011). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (6th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Miller, K. (2011). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (Kindle ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.
Zalabak, P. (2006). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
Hayden Coombs 