Describe about the Organizational Change Management for Organization Development Intervention.
Organizational change management indicates to the ‘modifications’ that occur in a company when the company needs changes in terms of its finance or revenue, structure or operational processes. Organizational change cannot be a regular or a process for a certain time period rather an uncertain period of time whether prolonged or short (Benn, Dunphy, and Griffiths 2013). However, theoretically organizational change draws from the sociological, managerial, or most importantly psychological field. Organizational change theistically is, as Paul J. Kohtes mentions,” Each company or organisation is a vital organism with a heart, soul and identity all of its own. It can be shaped and modified, but cannot be bent without causing damage. At its most effective, change management draws life from the authentic values at the core of the company and its leadership.” (Tang 2010). Nevertheless, organizational change includes a number of change drivers as agents of the ‘modifications’ on which the successful implementation of the changes are dependant. Such drivers include economic conditions, consumer demands (creating or increasing), policies (organizational or governmental), environment, economics etc.
The following essay though a number of systematic stages tends to identify the problems and needs of an organizational change in the South Australia University and serially analyzing the theories and methods tends to identify the ways in which organizational change can be applied to bring a holistic change in the academic and economic growth of the university.
The following case concerns with the academic and structural growth as well as a lack of revenue generating in South Australia University. The economics, accounts and finance, and Management studies departments were merged in order to create a whole school. However, the school was established with a small financial deficit which with time increased to $200k with the economics department having an annual deficit of $750k.with a minute analysis the results that has come out is that every department have some problems prolonged or little. However, at the administrative ground there have been many deficits. The earlier management style has been much inappropriate and inconsistent in terms of running an entire business school. The only management was to relate with the three departmental heads on a one-to-one basis. Moreover, the only business school administrative committee the University has at present times is the learning and teaching committee. However, the schools review of the university on grounds of quality and teaching, as has been rated six months ago, is below average.
However, subjecting the problems to minute analysis it has been found that first and most importantly the teams in spite of being a University as a whole does not work in coordination with the other teams. That leads to a problem of communication and collaboration in the atmosphere. However, there have been problems in individual departments as well. The problems need to be analyzed and examined minutely to come to a conclusive result in order to develop sustainable change in the university in terms of revenue and academic as well as structural growth.
The problems are needed to be identified individually in each department in terms of general overview, teaching and research. However, the problem of collaborating or communicating is acute in the department of Economics. The department has an unrealistically high opinion about themselves. This has prevented them further from involving into any of the other department’s activity which would have been important in the academic growth of the University. Many of the distinguished scholars have already left the department which can be termed as another problem rather deficit on grounds of experience. Moreover, the teachers, leaving two, have failed to come up with any significant research publish. The teachers are more committed towards teaching a small group, though their part of contribution in improving teaching quality and students support has been nil.
The Accounting and Finance and Management studies department contains comparatively mild problems and a moderate approach towards improving the teaching quality and students support. Collaboration and communication have been some of them. However, the department of Accounting and finance puts more focus on the research than the learning experience. That might be termed as a problem in terms of priority. The department of Management studies nevertheless, have followed a much consistent approach towards growth and only problem can be bring out from the department is the lack of creativity and initiatives for further development of the students. Eventually this has been a common problem to all the departments, which has seemed to stunt the growth of the academic quality.
Administrative grounds have been in much problem too. It is still this present day that the academic departments have to do much administrative work for the only administrative department is the learning and teaching committee. The lack of capable support staff has been ignored over the time. Creativity has been a regular problem in terms of the learning outcomes as well.
Problem Analysis and Justification:
The academic problem has been evidently acute in the department of Economics. The teachers have been committed to teaching a small group which cannot not be conductive of a good learning atmosphere for a University must consist of a number of students. Therefore, if the number of students is increased which will be important in terms of growth academically and economically the department’s quality of education and teaching might get even low. That will disrupt the growth of the institution (Blackmore and Sachs 2012). At the same time the mentality of the teachers will prove to be preventing them for collaborating and associating with the other departments. That might stunt the creativity and holistic growth of the institution. Since, the teachers are highly opinionated about themselves any change to the department, be it for the growth of the University, might face protest or non cooperation from their end (Vakola, Armenakis and Oreg 2013). In a University comprising of three different department non cooperation from any department can be expensive in terms of change, however growth it may ensure. At the same time the department lacks productivity in terms of research and publishing it as well. Since the department has already lost the experience and more qualified senior teachers, the department lacks the guidance and suggestions of experience which is further affecting the fruitful results of the department. The rate of enrolling students therefore has gone down in the last three years; starting from 15 to 9 ending in 8 in the last year. The decreasing number of students might affect the teachers’ positivity as well.
The departments of Accounting and Finance and Management Studies have comparatively moderate problems and can be changed. The departments contain good teaching quality and research outcomes. The only problem the Accounting and Finance department has is that the Head of the Department puts much importance towards the research than the teaching and learning. Therefore, there is a problem regarding priorities. Since as teachers they cannot be consumed by their personal gains but need to focus on the students as well. The priorities towards the research are a hindrance towards the holistic development of the University (Tang 2010).
The Management Studies department lacks the creativity which is important is training and learning. The lack of creativity has introduced stagnation in the growth (Cummings and Worley 2014). Creativity and inventive attitude in approach ensure a good learning outcome for students. However apart from this the Department of management Studies have been a successful one.
Apart from the departmental deficits, the administrational and structural deficit contributes much towards the decreasing quality of the University. The teachers need to do much of the administrational duties as well which hampers their morale as well as their importance towards students. In any organization administration plays the basic role in development. Therefore in the University the poor administrational and structural issues are not only decreasing the quality of the university but also causing a deficit in the annual financial report (Schubert and Yang 2016).
The most important solution in present times to bring up then standards and qualities of the university is to bring a holistic change in the organizational approach and most importantly in terms of the departments the change needs to be psychological. The ability of the teachers cannot be doubted and all of them are qualified enough but they must be approached to change the way they work. It is as Emily laws on and Colin Price mentions, the success of an organizational change depends on request if and approaching the hundreds and thousands of the employees to change their way of conducting their work, a transformation concerned people will accept on, y of they can be convinced and approached to change their perspective about their jobs (Psychology Today 2016).
The department of Economics must be the first to be applied the organizational change. The department is facing a rapid decrease in students and revenue therefore the department will demand much time to focus on. First their high opinions about themselves needs to be changed and they must be collaborated with the d other departments of the university. At the same time experienced senior teachers must be included in the teaching program in order to bring in the suggestion of experience which the department lacks. When getting acquainted with the other departments the Economics Department must be able to give the opinion of them to the other departments at same time will be able to get new suggestions and feedbacks from them to improve the department as well. Feedback from students must be taken into account about their expectation and how they wish the department to fulfill it. The organizational change plan must be made taking these suggestions into consideration.
At the same time the Management Studies department must be made creative. For that the department can be introduced to several other roams of the other universities or the department can be the host for creative programs where other universities can join. Courses can be introduced keeping in mind the creative purpose and suggestions from the other universities can be taken into account. The University being only three years old the suggestions and opinions of the much experienced universities about creativity will be helpful for the he department.
New support staff must be introduced for the administrative procedures like admission, examining, timetabling etc. This would give the teacher much time to concentrate on the students as well as their research.
The teachers must be approached to prioritize the students in campus than their personal research. Recommendations:
First and most importantly it is recommended to create an organizational change plan keeping in focus the student feedbacks and the other department’s feedbacks.
The departments must collaborate and cooperate with each other. For that frequent interactions are recommended. Event and programs must be arranged for different departments where the other departments must present (Amaral, Jones and Karseth 2013).
In case of the Economics department, some new and senior teachers must be incorporated in the teaching program that can lead and give opinions from their experience to improve the department, at the same time their experience will guide the junior teachers in their research program.
For the management department creative courses must be introduced to teach the students to think out of convention and inspire students to be creative in their approach.
The implementation of the plans is expected to be fluid and fast. And for that all the departments must be included in the plan. The university recently has organized events and programs for individual departments were the presence of other department must be compulsory. And in the end of each event, the departments require to give their feedback and suggestion to the host department for further improvement. Thus in Management department the students will be able to learn through creativity from the accounting and Economics department both of which are fruitful and interconnected in management studies at the same time a collaboration and means of communication will get to take place. The suggestions and recommendations has helped the university much to improve (Aarons et al 2013).
At the same time students are asked to give their feedbacks regarding their classroom studies and guidance provided depending on which steps have been taken to improve the classroom atmosphere.
Therefore, to conclude it must be said that the plan for organizational change tends to change the psychological, structural and economic approach of an organization. In case of the university as well the change theory bring out changes that has in the long run been fruitful for the University and help the University in achieving their desired location as one of the reputed Universities in Australia.
Aarons, G.A., Ehrhart, M.G., Farahnak, L.R. and Hurlburt, M., 2013. Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): A mixed-method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Amaral, A., Jones, G.A. and Karseth, B. eds., 2013. Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.
Battilana, J. and Casciaro, T., 2012. Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), pp.381-398.
Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R., 2013. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. routledge.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A., 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge.
Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J., 2012. Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change. Suny Press.
Burke, W.W., 2013. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Carter, M.Z., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Mossholder, K.W., 2013. Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), pp.942-958.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning.
Klewes, J. and Langen, R. eds., 2008. Change 2.0: Beyond organisational transformation. Springer Science & Business Media.
Oreg, S., Michel, A. and By, R.T. eds., 2013. The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Psychology Today. (2016). The Psychology of Organizational Change. [online] Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/the-psychology-organizational-change [Accessed 26 Sep. 2016].
Schubert, T. and Yang, G., 2016. Institutional change and the optimal size of universities. Scientometrics, 108(3), pp.1129-1153.
Tang, S., 2010. A general theory of institutional change. Routledge.
Vakola, M., Armenakis, A. and Oreg, S., 2013. Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee's Perspective, pp.95-122.