Chapter 11: Managing Organizational Change-A multiple Perspective Approach- Thir

Question

Chapter 11: Managing Organizational Change-A multiple Perspective Approach- Third Edition

The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disaster

Chapter 11 Sustaiing Change versus Initiative Decay 363 Redesign Roles Organizational change, particularly where new structures, processes, and technologies are involved, often leads to the redesign of existing roles and to the creation of new ones. However, these role changes may be a critical dimension of the process, and not just a product of change. Michael Beer et al. (1990) argue that most change programs do not work because they focus on attempts to change attitudes and beliefs by introducing new perspectives. The assumption that underpins this approach, that changes in behavior will follow changes in attitudes, is in their view fundamentally flawed. The causal arrow, they suggest, runs in the opposite direction. Behavior is influenced by the context in which people find themselves-by their responsibilities, behaviors, relationships, and roles. In short, first redesign roles, which require new new form Sustainability is not guaranteed by this approach, but it is significantly encourage Redesign Reward Systems and attitude change will then follow. It is difficult to revert to past behavior witha al role definition, which is one of a network of similarly redesigned roles Beer and Nohria (2000, p. 267) also observe, "There are virtually no fundamental changes her (1995, p. 122) in organizations that do not also involve some changes in the reward syst one consequence of redesigning roles and responsibilities. Anne Fis the example of Integra Financial, a $14 billion (in assets) bank holding company that was formed through a merger. In order to reinforce the company's commitment to ork initiative, management implemented a carefully designed evaluation and reward system, "to discourage hot-dogging, grandstanding, filibustering, and other ego games" and to ensure that "the best team players get the goodies." Fisher (1995, p. 122) also notes, "One thing that you can count on: Whatever gets rewarded wil get done." This also means that whatever is not rewarded (such as pre-change working practices) will not get done. Changing the reward system can thus contribute significantly to sustainability by a teamw removing the financial motivation to return to old behaviors Rewards should also include public recognition of behaviors that are consistent with e desired change: this both reinforces individual behavior and sends strong signals to others. The opposite also applies: management failure to respond to behavior that is in th ram. Lack of action direct opposition to the change undermines the credibility of the prog in this respect can increase rapidly the rate of initiative decay. The organization's pay system can thus support or derail a change initiative Link Selection to Change Objectives Staff selection, and promotion processes, can be subtle but powerful wa to embed and sustain assumptions and values-to change and to organiza ys in which tion's culture. As with the rewards system, appointments and promotions, particularly to key and influential roles, have symbolic significance in signalling appointment during the change process can quickly derail all the implementation work itment" systems, which seek to select staff whose motives t. A single ropriate seni whether top management really support a change, or r that has already been undertaken n, a number of orga ha char Wi o support organization ted s-based recrui ng to ac Fo upport what rgai

Explanation / Answer

Redesign role and walk the talk could have been most useful to NASA after Challenger disaster. Redesigning roles and reducing the hierarchy structure to near flat structure could have helped in promoting better communication between the quality testing engineers and the managers who take critical decisions with regards to safety. The managers and leaders emphasized on quality while speaking to media but eventually while designing the structure of the shuttle, overall cost of the project was given priority rather than safety leading to Columbia disaster. The engineer aware of the fault in the shuttle but ignored it due to the previous success with the same fault. The redesign of the roles could have prevented the mishap as few of the assumptions could have been made redundant.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

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