IGNOU MBA MS-25 Solved Assignments July-2010
IGNOU MBA MS-25 Solved Assignments July-2010
MS-25: Managing Change in Organizations
ASSIGNMENT JULY 2010
Course Code : MS-25
Course Title : Managing Change in Organization
Assignment Code : 25/TMA/SEM-II/2010
Coverage : All Blocks
Attempt All the Questions.
1. Briefly discuss the relevance of change in organizations and describe the factors contributing to change.
Solution: Although many factors ultimately contribute to the changing patterns of work, organizational theorists point to two key drivers:
* Increasing pressures on organizations to be more competitive, agile, and customer focused—to be a "lean enterprise."
* Communication and information technology breakthroughs, especially mobile technologies and the Internet that enable work to be separated from time and space.
Changes in Organizational Focus: What does it Mean to be Lean?
The lean enterprise principles enabled many organizations to respond more rapidly to the marketplace by reducing cycle time, developing mass customization processes, and supporting continual change and innovation.
Creating the Lean Machine: Changes in Organizational Structure and Relationships. Adopting lean principles and lean thinking has led to numerous changes in organizational structure to improve the efficiency of internal processes, with a goal of eliminating waste and defining customer value. These changes have been supported and enabled by transformations in information and communications technology, especially the Internet and mobile computing and communication devices.
Key organizational changes include:
* Reduced hierarchical structure—Hierarchies are cumbersome and cannot respond quickly to changing market demands, such as pressures for reduced cycle time and continuous innovation. Hierarchies are being replaced by cross unit organizational groupings with fewer layers and more decentralized decision making.
* Blurred boundaries—As organizations become more laterally structured, boundaries begin to breakdown as different parts of the organization need to work more effectively together. Boundaries between departments as well as between job categories (manager, professional, technical) become looser and there is a greater need for task and knowledge sharing.
* Teams as basic building blocks—The move toward a team-based organizational structure results from pressures to make rapid decisions, to reduce inefficiencies, and to continually improve work processes.
* New management perspective—Workers are no longer managed to comply with rules and orders, but rather to be committed to organizational goals and mission. The blurring of boundaries also affects organizational roles. As employees gain more decision authority and latitude, managers become more social supporters and coaches rather than commanders.
* Continuous change—Organizations are expected to continue the cycles of reflection and reorganization. However, changes may be both large and small and are likely to be interspersed with periods of stability. Kling and Zmuidzinas identify three types of change—"metamorphosis" (far reaching, fundamental change), "migration" (shifts toward a new form), and "elaboration" (changes that enhance some aspect of work).
How Work is Changing for Individuals and Groups
Over the past two decades, a new pattern of work is emerging as the knowledge economy realizes the full potential of both new technologies and new organizational models. The changes fall into the following domains:
* Cognitive competence
* Social and interactive competence
* The new "psychological contract" between employees and employers
* Changes in process and place
Although these domains are discussed separately, they overlap. We briefly discuss the overlaps, where they exist, and point to the benefits and concerns the new work patterns present for workers and managers.
Cognitive Competence. Cognitive workers are expected to be more functionally and cognitively fluid and able to work across many kinds of tasks and situations. The broader span of work, brought about by changes in organizational structure, also creates new demands, including:
* Increased complexity of work—Workers need to know more, not only to do their jobs and tasks, but also to work effectively with others on teams. Many knowledge-based tasks require sound analytical and judgment skills to carry out work that is more novel, extemporaneous, and context based, with few rules and structured ways of working. Although demand for high cognitive skills are especially prominent in professional, technical, and managerial jobs, even administrative tasks require more independent decision making and operational decision making.
* Continuous competency development—Not only do workers need to keep their technology skills up to date, they need to be continuous learners in their knowledge fields and to also be more conversant with business strategy. Time to read and attend training classes is no longer a perquisite of only a few, it is essential for all workers.
* Different ways of thinking—Rosabeth Kantor argues that cross-functional and cross boundary teams require "kaleidoscope thinking," the ability to see alternative angles and perspectives and to create new patterns of thinking that propel innovation. Workers also need to be able to synthesize disparate ideas in order to make the cognitive leaps that underlie innovation.
Cognitive Overload Changes in Organization:
Vastly increased access to information has made work both easier and more difficult. The ease comes from ability to rapidly locate and download information from diverse web sites. The difficulty comes with the need to consume and make sense of new information in a timely fashion. Information overload, coupled with time pressures and increased work complexity, lead to what psychologists call "cognitive overload syndrome (COS)." Symptoms of COS include stress, inability to concentrate, multitasking, task switching, and a tendency to focus on what is easy to do quickly rather than what is important.
Social and Interactive Competence In a 2001 report on the changing nature of work, the National Research Council called attention to the importance of relational and interactive aspects of work. As collaboration and collective activity become more prevalent, workers need well-developed social skills—what the report calls "emotional labor."
Good social skills are necessary for:
* Team work and collaboration—Conflict resolution and negotiation skills are essential to collaborative work. Conflicts often occur about group goals, work methods, assignments, workloads, and recognition. Team members with good conflict and negotiation skills are better equipped to deal openly with problems, to listen and understand different perspectives, and to resolve issues in mutually beneficial ways.
* Relationship development and networking—Sharing important information, fulfilling promises, willingness to be influenced, and listening are building blocks of reciprocity and the development of trust. When workers trust one another, they are more committed to attaining mutual goals, more likely to help one another through difficulties, and more willing to share and develop new ideas.
* Learning and growth—Many organizations strive to be learning centers—to create conditions in which employees learn not only through formal training but through relationships with coworkers. Learning relationships build on joint problem solving, insight sharing, learning from mistakes, and working closely together to aid transmission of tacit knowledge. Learning also develops from mentoring relationships between newcomers and those with experience and organizational know-how.
Social change in organization:
In a collaborative work setting, the fate of individuals is inextricably bound to collective success. Dependence on others for one's own success is often uncomfortable. As Susan Mohrman and Susan Cohen write in a chapter from The Changing Nature of Work: "We have been socialized to value individual responsibility and individual achievement, and feel discomfort with the thought of relying on others."Comments about the fear of not having individual efforts recognized are common in the literature on team work.
Social and relationship development also take time and effort. Understanding coworkers' perspectives and "thought worlds" requires time spent listening, integrating, and synthesizing. For those workers recognized as both knowledgeable and approachable, the demands of interaction may be especially high.
The Psychological Changes in Organization.
As work changes, so does the nature of the relationships between employees and employers. In the new work context, the informal, "psychological contract" between workers and employers—what each expects of the other—focuses on competency development, continuous training, and work/life balance. In contrast, the old psychological contract was all about job security and steady advancement within the firm. As already discussed, few workers expect, or desire, lifelong employment in a single firm.As job security declines, many management scientists see clouds on the horizon, including:
* Corporate indifference—Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmin, in The Support Economy, describe a new individualism among U.S. workers. These new individuals are invested in "psychological self determination." They desire participation, expression, identity, and quality of life—all values which are espoused by organizations, but largely ignored in practice as organizations continue to focus on reducing fixed labor costs.
* Reduced loyalty and commitment—With little expectation for advancement, workers feel less committed to organizational goals and more committed to their own learning and development. The knowledge and technological skills that employees bring with them to the workplace are transportable and are not lost when a new job is taken.
* Increased time burdens—Years of downsizing and outsourcing have produced what Lesie Perlow calls a "time famine"—the feeling of having too much to do and too little time to do it. In order to keep up with workloads, many workers are spending longer hours at work, according to reports by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Center for Workforce Development.
* Flexible work arrangements do not keep up with employee preferences—The Work Trends 2000 report found that 74% of workers were not allowed flexible hours and work arrangements (such as telecommuting). Those with flex hours have limited freedom regarding when and where to work. The vast majority of workers have to commit to a specific day to work at home or a specific day to take off if they work four10-hour days.
The Changing Workplace in Organization:
The changing workplace is driven by the organizational issues described above and enabled by technologies that support mobility and easy access to information. These pressures and opportunities, however, have not resulted in a specific new workplace model. Many models and ideas exist concurrently, with designs depending upon the organization, its work practices, culture, and customers. Table 1 highlights key drivers, solutions, and potential issues raised by the solution.
===============================================================
2. Discuss the importance of cultural change and its process in an organization. Briefly describe how cultural change was managed successfully with reference to an organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are referring to.
Solution: Leaders of organizations sometimes are able to overcome their own cultural biases and to recognize that elements of their own organization's culture are dysfunctional for survival and growth in a changing environment. They may feel that they do not have the time to let evolution occur naturally, or that evolution is heading the organization in the wrong direction. In this situation one can observe leaders doing a number of different things, usually in combination, to produce the desired-cultural changes:
1) Unfreezing the present system by highlighting the threats to the organization if no change occurs, and, at the same time, encouraging the organization by showing that change is possible and desirable;
2) Articulating and promulgating a new direction and a new set of assumptions that they regard as more appropriate;
3) Providing a clear and consistent role model that is predicated on new cultural assumptions;
4) Filling key positions in the organization with new incumbents who hold the new assumptions either because they are hybrids or mutants of the old culture, or are brought in from the outside;
5) Systematically rewarding the adoption of new assumptions and punishing adherence to the old assumptions;
6) Seducing or coercing organization members into adopting new behaviors that are more consistent with new assumptions, often by introducing new technologies that force behavior change, for example computers and other elements of information technology;
7) Creating visible scandals to discredit sacred cows, exploding myths that preserve dysfunctional traditions, and in other ways symbolically destroying the artifacts associated with undesirable assumptions;
Creating new emotionally charged rituals and developing new symbols and artifacts around the new assumptions to be embraced, using the embedding mechanisms previously described. Such cultural change efforts are generally more characteristic of "mid-life" organizations that have become complacent and ill adapted to rapidly changing environmental conditions. The fact that such organizations have strong subcultures aids the change process in that one can draw the new leaders from those subcultures that most represent the direction in which the organization needs to go.
In cases where organizations become extremely maladapted one sees more severe change efforts in the form of destroying the group that is the primary cultural carrier and reconstructing it around new people, thereby allowing a new learning process to
occur and a new culture to form. When organizations go bankrupt or are turned over to "turnaround managers" one often sees such extreme measures. What is important to note about such cases is that they invariably involve the replacement of large numbers of people. It is not easy for individuals to give up assumptions that have provided stability and meaning in their life.
===============================================================
3. What is ‘Turnaround Management’? Describe how turnaround was used to bring change in an organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are referring to.
Solution: Turnaround management is a process that involves establishing accountability, conducting diagnostic analyses, setting up an information system, preparing action plans, taking action, and evaluating results. The need for turnarounds is, in part, attributable to factors such as increased competition, overinvestment in technology, more knowledgeable shareholders, and a willingness to gamble on the part of managers This need often is felt most in the small business sector, which is particularly distressing because small firms contribute so much to our economy. For the purposes of this article, a small business is defined as a company with fewer than 100 employees and sales of less than $5millon. Such companies comprise] 97 percent of all enterprises in the United States and employ more than 58 percent of the labor force . Between 1976 and 1986, small firms created more than three million new jobs. However, despite these accolades, all is not rosy in the small business sector.
The failure rate among small firm is high, although the exact rate is not known. Some researchers suggest that 67 percent of new businesses fail within four years. Others state that nearly one-half of startups fail within 18 months. Furthermore, although an extensive review of the literature has produced little information concerning turnaround strategies for small firms, a common theme has been detected. There are many turnaround used in the organization
(1) propose a typology for categorizing causes of small business failure, (2) propose a set of generic approaches to counteract the causes of failure identified within the typology, and (3) provide examples of how the generic approaches translate into specific actions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a majority of businesses have failed because of internal factors affected by managerial action and discipline. Examples include failure to control operational costs and failure to analyze financial statements. In fact, the literature indicates few business failures can be attributed to competion and other outside (external) forces (e.g., national, regional, or industrial economic downturn).
PROPOSED TYPOLOGY
The 24 factors identified through the literature search can be analyzed from a number of different perspectives. Some of the obvious typologies include categorizing factors by: (1) business functions such as finance, marketing, and human resources; (2) whether they originate internally or externally, (3) whether they are strategic or operational (short- or long-term) in nature, and (4) whether they are within or outside of the firm's control. A simple yet elegant way to capture the value of all these perspectives was to develop a 2 x 2 matrix (see figure 1).
The vertical axis of the "Environment/Response" matrix divides the factors based on whether they are part of a firm's internal environment (under management's control) or its external environment (beyond management's control). The horizontal axis distinguishes among the factors based on whether they are administrative or strategic in nature. Administrative factors include short-term operational activities, such as scheduling procedures, managing employees, and analyzing reports. Strategic factors include long-term tasks such as planning. At first glance, it is apparent that a majority of the factors fall within the Internal-Administrative Cell.
There are a number of demographic factors–such as owner's education, age, gender, and race–that seem also to be related to the survival or failure of a firm. Older, non-minority, male entrepreneurs with four years or more of college education seem to be associated with surviving firms (Cooper, Dunkelberg, and Woo 1989). Although important, these demographic factors were not included in the analysis of factors contributing to small firm failure, because the focus in this article is on approaches small firms can take to avoid failure. For the most part, these demographic factors cannot be changed.
===============================================================
4. Explain the concept of organizational diagnosis. Describe any two methods of diagnosis and its benefits and limitations.
Solution: The organizational diagnosis is one of the key competencies of Human Resources and the knowledge of the organizational diagnosis is extremely important for the successful HR Business Partnering. The organizational diagnosis is extremely important as the organizations faces new challenges in the global world. The organizational diagnosis helps to identify the most robust organizational systems and organizational processes and recommends the improvements as the organization increases its capability to reach the strategic goals. Organizational Diagnosis is an effective ways of looking at an organization to determine gaps between current and desired performance and how it can achieve its goals. In recent years organizational diagnosis has evolved from a technique used as part of the organizational development process to a major technique in its own right. Effective diagnosis should be an organic process in that as you start to look at an organization and its structures and what it does and does not do, change starts, as change progress so does the 'now' performance and as such the diagnosis process also needs to re-start.
The BIR methodology looks at taking a 'snapshot' in time in a way which is quick and relatively unobtrusive. This allows decisions to me made, plans developed and actions implemented rapidly… Then using the benchmarking facility another snapshot of the organization can be made and new plans developed. A bit like the old story of "how do you eat an elephant? … one bite at a time. Developing an organization is no different. With each iteration of a diagnostic process so new changes are identified and prioritized. This not only keeps the development process alive – it makes it "the way we do business here". All too often in organizational diagnostics and development we focus on the 'new' and 'interesting' aspects of what we do. It is however vital that we periodically bring ourselves back to the basics…
The purpose of the organization is essentially a vehicle for producing profits for its owners. Or delivering valued services to its clients in not for profits. To meet the goals and get the best return on investment (ROI), the owners of a company employ managers who are responsible for setting performance objectives and reaching then through the appropriate use of a number of resources such as people, equipment, machinery etc.The purpose of a diagnosis is to identify problems facing the organization and to determine their causes so that management can plan solutions. An organizational diagnosis process is a powerful consciousness raising activity in its own right, its main usefulness lies in the action that it induces.
* Orientation
* Goal setting
* Data gathering
* Analysis/ Interpretation
* Feedback
* Action Planning
* Implementation
* Monitoring/ Measure
* Evaluation
Method of organizational diagnosis
The focus of organizational diagnostics will be different in a range of situations, for example diagnosis for development or improvement will be different from diagnosis for remedial or problem solving, although the methodologies may be similar. While the diagnostic tools may well be similar, the application and outputs can be very different.
Kurt Lewin is said to have played a key role in the early development of organization development as we understand it today. As early as the 1940s, Lewin experimented with a change process which was collaborative in nature and involved himself as consultant and a client group. The process was based on a three-step approach of planning, taking action, and measuring results. This was the beginning of what has become known as action research. This is a fundamental part of Organizational development. Later Lewin participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or T-groups when after his death in 1947, his associates in the field continued to develop survey-research methods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD as developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories (US) and in growing numbers of universities and private consulting firms across the world.
The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the important forces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here and now" (Gestalt) experience as a member of an ongoing training group (T Group). Such groups usually meet without a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from their spontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems of leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such a group. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practice such skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members.
Initially the approach was practiced in stranger groups, or groups composed of individuals from different organizations, situations, and backgrounds. Over time a major difficulty developed, however, in transferring knowledge gained from these stranger labs to the actual situation back home. This required a transfer between two different organizational cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the T-group (or training group) and the give-and-take of the organizational environment with its traditional values. This led the early pioneers in this type of learning to begin to apply it to family groups, that is groups located within an organization. From this shift in the locale of the training site and the realization that culture was an important factor in influencing group members (along with some other developments in the behavioral sciences) emerged the concept of organization development.
==============================================================
5. Why do individuals resist change? Explain with suitable examples. Briefly discuss how resistance to change is managed in an organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are referring to.
Solution: Individual resist change that it’s because they haven’t recognized themselves as part of a greater whole at work yet. They are disconnected from the greater whole, and they are putting their individual self and needs first (or those of their own team/department/division), because that’s what matters most to them. Do savvy arguments, logic, data, spreadsheets, graphs, and pie charts–brought forth by another individual or formal team–make these individuals change? Not in my experience. However, I’ve witnessed self-organizing work groups demonstrate to themselves and many nearby others that they are all part of a greater whole. Not because of what they said, but because of what they are. The possibilities their simple existence demonstrates. Once people experience these possibilities for themselves, they begin to believe there is a greater whole that matters and can begin to recognize themselves as such. What they thought they were (and did, and needed, as individuals) no longer makes sense, so they change. Changes in the economy and the business environment have forced some organizations to change the way they do business. Whether we like it or not, managers and supervisors are the ones who have to implement the changes. In addition to the more traditional skills we possess as supervisors, it is critical that we understand our role as leaders, or change agents, in these rapidly changing times. Unfortunately, all employees do not respond to change with the attitude, “Fantastic: another organizational change, and I’m excited to be a part of it!” Given that change is here to stay, why do some people seem to dig in their heels and resist it at all costs? The following 10 reasons best describe why some people have a tough time changing their mindsets and behavior:
1. Fear of failure
Resistance to change may be rooted in fear. During periods of change, some employees may feel the need to cling to the past because it was a more secure, predictable time. If what they did in the past worked well for them, they may resist changing their behavior out of fear that they will not achieve as much in the future.
2. Creatures of habit
Doing things in the same routine, predictable manner is comfortable. Asking people to change the way they operate or think is asking them to move outside their comfort zone.
3. No obvious need
Some employees may see a change only from the perspective of the impact it has on them and their particular jobs. Not seeing the big picture, they may fail to recognize the positive impact of the change on the organization as a whole. Thus, they may find the change disruptive and totally unnecessary.
4. Loss of control
Familiar routines help employees develop a sense of control over their work environment. Being asked to change the way they operate may make employees feel powerless and confused.
5. Concern about support system
Employees operating within predictable routines know their support system will back them up during challenging times. Changing the organizational structures may shake their confidence in their support system. They may worry about working for a new supervisor, with new employees or on unfamiliar projects because they fear that if they try and fail, there will be no one there to support them.
6. Closed minded
Some employees seem to have the attitude, “Please don’t confuse me with any facts or supporting documentation about this change–I’ve already made up my mind!” Employees with this attitude approach the change process with their minds firmly made up, muttering, “No way!” during discussions and explanations of the future.
7. Unwillingness to learn
Some employees, hesitant to try new routines, express an unwillingness to learn anything new. They may say, “I already know all that I need to know.” Like resistant employees who have already made up their minds that the change won’t be productive, employees reluctant to learn something new impede the organization’s growth and adaptation to change. They also hinder their own personal growth and development.
8. Fear that the new way may not be better
If things have been going well, some employees may resist change because they fear that the change will not result in improvement. Focusing only on their part of the operation, they fail to realize that change is needed in order for the organization to stay competitive. They may resist forward movement because they are satisfied with the way things are going. Their current status is quite sufficient, and they wish to maintain business as usual.
9. Fear of the unknown
Employees may resist change simply because it is something unfamiliar. Not knowing much about the specifics of the change, they may imagine a worst case scenario, which can be very scary. They let fear of the unknown become their rationale for not giving the change a chance. These employees may acknowledge that a problem exists and agree that a change might improve it. However, they worry that the proposed change might actually make things worse! Their fear causes them to place roadblocks in the movement toward change.
10. Fear of personal impact
Viewing change from a personal standpoint, some employees may respond by asking how the change will benefit them directly. Will it make their job easier? Will they have to work harder? Will the change put their job security in jeopardy? Will the change force them to work with different people or learn a new job.
=============================================================================================================================================================THE END========================
