3. (a) 3. There are several forms of intervention that an organization can use i

Question

3. (a) 3. There are several forms of intervention that an organization can use in ensuring the success of bringing change. Describe any Two (2) forms of change agents that an organization can rely when implementing change. (10 marks) (b) "See To ensure the successful implementation of organizational change, managers need to address TWO (2) major categories: individual resistance and organizational resistance. Using an organization that you are familiar with as an example, describe what these Two (2) factors mean. (10 marks)

Explanation / Answer

Intervention basically refers to an intended activity to bring change in the organization and the consequent activities within the organization.

The intervention can be brought by an external consultant who acts in consultation with the client members. A member with in the organization, acting as the in-house consultant can also make the intervention. The organization itself could plan the intervention without employing either an internal or external consultant.

Where does an intervention take place ? An intervention can take place at the task, process, and system levels and their interface or at any hierarchy levels of an organization.

Specific reasons for intervention could be :

• To provide feedback about task, individual, team and other aspects of organizational dynamics.

• To provide awareness of changing norms, to confront and deal with issues constructively

• To develop positive attitudes openness and improve interaction among people,

• To educate employees, improve theire knowledge and skills

• To bring constructive and desirable changes to improve individual and organizational performance.

Two forms of intervention that an organizations can use to bring about change:

A) Person focused intervention

These focus on individuals, and can be achieved through different ways:

Role focused intervention:

These aim at bringing / improving the compatibility between a job incumbent and the role demands and expectations associated with his / her job.

Role analysis: Role analysis is a structured exercise to provide

• Why the role exists?- the rationale

• What the role is supposed to achieve ?

• How the role contributes to the achievement of the group/department/unit goals ?

• How the goal is related to other roles in the department and in the organization.

Role Analysis Techniques (RAT) has been developed by Dayal (1969) for redefining the managerial roles in an organization. The techniques as followed has the following steps (Pareek, 1998)

Analysis of the role by the occupant as to the main function of the role, its location in the organogram, why it should be there – or its relevance in the organization, and how does it contribute to organizational goals

Discussion by the group as to what does the role occupant expect from the other roles in their role set in order to arrive at a consensus.

Building the consensus regarding the expectations of other roles in the role set fro the role occupant.

Developing of role profile by the role occupants of their roles, classifying what are the prescribed and discretionary elements of the role, the obligation of one role to another in the role set and the expectation of this role from the others in its set.

Role Efficacy Lab : Role Efficacy refers to the psychological factor underlying role effectiveness and the potential effectiveness of an individual occupying a particular role or the potential effectiveness of a role. Role Efficacy Lab (REL) used to develop work commitment.

REL is a short process oriented programme aimed at :

Sharing of thoughts and of individual as well as group commitments with the top managemtn.

Get moral support and reinforcement form the top management, and

Providing an opportunity for the top management to examine why certain expectations are unrealistic or unattainable, and suggest their won action plans taking to account other suggestions.

Force Field Analysis : Force field analysis is a management technique developed by Kurt Lewin for diagnosing situations. It is useful when planning and implementing a change management programe and also in ‘team building’ efforts

Any change implies movement-movement towards something or away from something.

Force field analysis enables listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces for and against a proposed change. The analysis includes identifying the driving forces- which give change momentum, and restraining forces- which inhibit change. Force field analysis helps us to look at the big picture by analyzing all of the forces impacting the change and weighing the pros and cons. By knowing the pros and cons, we can develop strategies to reduce the impact of the opposing forces and strengthen the supporting forces.

B) Personal, interpersonal and group process intervention :

The central theme of these interventions is learning through an examination of underlying process. In Process consultation, which is generic to OD intervention, the focus is exclusively on the diagnosis and management of personal, interpersonal, and group processes. Third-party peacemaking focuses on interpersonal conflict and the dynamics of cooperation and competition among groups. Sensitivity training typically yields learning’s about self, interpersonal relations, and group dynamics. Transactional analysis (TA) can be a form of psychotherapy. TA has also been used as a technique for team building. Behaviour modeling is a training technique designed to increase the effectiveness of the problematic interpersonal situations. Life-and career planning interventions are less process oriented than the other interventions and reflect more a systematic approach to a substantive area.

Process Consultation Intervention : Process Consultation (PC) is a method for intervening in an ongoing system. In this approach, a skilled third party (consultant) works with the individuals and groups to help them learn about human and social processes and learn to solve problems that stems from process events. This is an often used approach by many OD consultants and practitioners.

The process consultant helps our organization to solve its problems by making it aware of organizational processes, of the consequences of these processes and of the mechanisms by which they can be changed. It is to enable the organization to address its problems by itself.

In this the consultant works with the organization, in work teams and helps them to develop the skill necessary to diagnose and solve the process problems that arise. The organizational processes that are important to be dealt with, include- communications, clarifying the roles and functions of group members, group problem solving and decision making, group norms and group growth, leadership and authority, and inter-group cooperation and competition.

Sensitivity Training Laboratories : A T-group is an unstructured., agenda less group session for about 10 to 12 members. A professional “trainer” acts as a catalyst and facilitator. The data for discussion arises from the interaction of the group members as they strive to create a viable society for themselves. What are discussed and analysed etc are the actions, reactions, interactions and feelings arising out of the member interactions. Conceptual material relating to interpersonal relations, individual personality theory, and group dynamics also form a part of the program. The ‘group experiences’ form the fulcrum of learning.

This T-group is a powerful learning laboratory facilitates learning more about oneself as a person, learning how other reacts to one’s behaviour, and learning about the dynamics of group formation, group norms and group growth. It assists to improve one’s interpersonal skills.

These insights are coupled with growth of skills in diagnosing and taking more effective interpersonal and group actions that provide the participants the basic skills necessary for more competent action taking up in the organization.

One of the most well-documented findings from studies of individuals and organizational behaviour is that organizations and their members resist change. In a sense, this is positive. It provides a degree of stability and predictability to behaviour. If there were not some resistance, organizational behaviour would take on characteristics of chaotic randomness

A) Individual resistance to changes

Individual sources of resistance to change reside in basic human characteristics such as perceptions, personalities, and needs. The following summarizes five reasons why individuals may resist change:

Habit

Human beings are creatures of habit. When confronted with change, this tendency to respond in our accustomed ways becomes a source of resistance.

Security

People with a high need for security are likely to resist change because it threatens their feelings of safety. When Sears announces it is laying off 50,000 people or Ford introduces new robotic equipment, many employees at these firms may fear that their jobs are in jeopardy.

Economic

Changes in job tasks or established work routines also can arouse economic fears if people are concerned that they won’t be able to perform the new tasks or routines to their previous standards, especially when pay is closely tied to productivity.

Fear of the Unknown

Changes substitute ambiguity and uncertainty for the known. Employees in organizations hold the same dislike for uncertainty. If, for example, the introduction of TQM means production workers will have to learn statistical process control techniques, some may fear they will be unable to do so. They may, therefore, develop a negative attitude toward TQM or behave

Selective Information Processing I

Individuals shape their world through their perceptions. They selectively process information in order to keep their perceptions intact. They hear what they want to hear. They ignore information that challenges the world they have created. To return to the production workers who are faced with the introduction of TQM, they may ignore the arguments their bosses make an explaining why a knowledge of statistics is necessary or the potential benefits the change will provide them.

B. Organizational Resistance

Organizations, by their very nature, are conservative. They active resist change

Following are major sources of organizational resistance:

Structural Inertia

Organizations have built-in mechanisms to produce stability. For example, the selection process systematically selects certain people in and certain people out. Training and other socialization techniques reinforce specific role requirements and skills. Formalization provides job descriptions, rules, and procedures for employees to follow. The people who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit; they are then shaped and directed to behave in certain ways. When an organization is confronted with change, this structural inertia acts as a counterbalance to sustain stability.

Limited Focus of Change

Organizations are made up of a number of interdependent subsystems. For example, if management changes the technological processes without simultaneously modifying the organization’s structure to match, the change in technology is not likely to be accepted. So limited changes in subsystems tend to get nullified by the larger system.

Group Inertia

Even if individuals want to change their behaviour, group norms may act as a constraint. An individual union member, for instance, may be willing to accept changes in his job suggested by management. But if union norms dictate resisting any unilateral change made by management, he is likely to resist.

Threat to Expertise

Changes in organizational patterns may threaten the expertise of specialized groups. The introduction of decentralized personal computers, which allow managers to gain access to information directly from a company’s mainframe, is an example of a change that was strongly resisted by many information systems departments in the early 1980s. Why? Because decentralized end-user computing was a threat to the specialized skills held by those in the centralized information systems departments.

Threat to Established Power Relationships

Any redistribution of decision-making authority can threaten longest established power relationships within the organization. The introduction of participative decision making or self-managed work teams is the kind of change that is often seen as threatening by supervisors and middle managers.

Threat to Established Resource Allocations

Those groups in the organization that control sizable resources often see change as a threat. They tend to be content with the way things are. Will the change, for instance, mean a reduction in their budgets or a cut in their staff size? Those that most benefit from the current allocation of resources often feel threatened by changes that may affect future allocations.

Example of Organizational Change – General Motors

General Motors (GM) grew from a small organization into a corporate giant within a couple of decades. However, this golden era couldn’t last forever and with Toyota’s emergence in the market, great deal of GM’s profitability and market share was taken by them which lead its sales graph to decline. In order to maintain stability within the company such as operating costs, wages and other expense GM received loan from Canadian and American government (Government of Canada, 2009) Additionally, the economic recession in late 2000’s contributed to its bankruptcy, eventually GM was even forced to close down several brands and sell it out to China based company (Muoio & Kirschenbaum, 2000). The U.S. government then took over 60% control of GM, and taxpayers began bailing them out of bankruptcy. Given this situation GM was forced to change and restructure, to gain back the market share and profitability. In addition to this other factors also played a major role in implementing the need for change. GM paid higher wage cost to employees compared to Toyota as GM had an agreement with trade union and also GM manufacturing plants were supposed to run at 80% capacity minimum whether being used or not which played a major role in leading the company to bankruptcy.

Drivers of change for General Motors

GM’s external forces of change were the new emergence of competition (auto manufacturers from Japan and Europe) in the global marketplace; GM failed to respond to competition and it resulted in significant losses in their market share.

The financial crisis of 2008-2010 had a huge impact on GM. They used to manufacture big cars Giant that are very fuel consuming, although those cars were really attractive because they made 15-20% profit margin on an SUV as compared to 3% or less on a car but as the financial crisis begun the fuel prices went up and the demand for large trucks and SUVs dropped significantly and with it the sales of GM whereas other organizations such as Toyota with its smaller cars benefited.

Internal Force for change was the need for cost-cutting, the UAW (United Auto Workers) union was criticized for imposing high wage costs on GM. GM was paying its employees on average $74 per hour compared to Toyota $44 an hour. Secondly, GM was compelled to run its plants at 80% minimum capacity whether they needed to or not./

Another reason was payments made to retired workers. Earlier, GM used to provide health care benefits and generous pension funds to their employees. However, once they could no longer afford these payments, investors were not as happy with the choice.

Cultural problem was another major reason for change, there was delay in decision making, and the management had no sense of urgency to change. GM was in a bureaucratic mess, it became more focused on numbers than the quality products.

GM Change process and Resistance by Stakeholders

The initial change made at GM was cutting pay of employees which created a major problem. It achieved the target of cost cutting up to 15 billion but this cost-cutting strategy impacted its employees and customers eventually were unsatisfied. Cost-cutting wasn’t the only means for survival from bankruptcy and saving money, GM also decided to change its cultural structure in different ways. Firstly, GM promoted centralizations of functions (like consolidating its purchasing offices from 25 to 1 in the U.S) and removed any redundant process. Then they replaced their product and automotive strategy board with an 8-man decision team reporting directly to the CEO in order to boost decisions. GM wanted to give its employees greater accountability and responsibility on the same model as Toyota.

Some criticized the top down approach of GM and said that GM has a long history of mistrust towards its employees (contrary to Toyota). It meant that if GM wanted its change initiative to be successful, they needed to empower their employees the way Toyota did, where workers played an active part in the process.

Following are the ways in which the change management took place at GM :

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.