QHCusa.org 2013
Historical points of organizational change
The
intent of this application is to select three historical perspectives that show case organizational change
and compare the similarity and their differences. A brief analysis will further define evolutionary and revolutionary change theories within an organizational culture. In
support, a brief review of my professional or personal experience at an
organization and whether or not a change in behaviors was accepted. The three historical perspectives for this
review for organizational change include, Historical
Perspectives on Emotion Management,
Status Competition and Power Play, Organizational Control and Historical
Perspective on Nonprofit Organizations. Each of the personal development strategies
will promote interpersonal beliefs which are needed to propel the organizations
current and future initiatives.
Three historical perspectives from our first historical perspective is on
organizations change and is derived from Mastenbroek (2013, para. 6, 8)
theories on emotion
management, status competition and power play that requires emotional intelligence
when addressing the barriers that may remain unaddressed
(para. 6). This path of resistance may
promote a causal ripple effect within a divided organization and thereby,
threaten the intended cultural belief system that is cohesive to the vision for
organization change.
Our
second choice is the Historical Perspective
on Organizational Control theory by Dunbar and Statler (nd, p. 30) which support the process
paradigm theory on logic and consequences. Together, fosters a belief system
from the hierarchies of leadership engagement for the control of the
organizations path for behavior change. This control is not about power as a
way to lead others but, behavior change that is needed to manage over time such
as, the organization on process improvement at various levels that achieve on target
efficiency and the approach to effective task performances within the
organizations culture (p.30).
Our
third choice is the Historical Perspective on Nonprofit Organizations. Unlike for profit organizations the behaviors
are a tad bit different of those who choose to seek a career in a not for
profit environment versus a for profit career environment. The behaviors at the
nonprofit sectors are unique in nature and are linked to behaviors on serving
the communities best interest and not the organization or individualized best
interests. This notion is true because of those who chose this career path are which
are those who sacrifice individual career benefits such as, reduced wages which
is a challenge to attract talent for the public good.
Dobkin
(2004, p.18) advocate that in order for formal institutions such as, our government
and local businesses to function together efficiently there must be an ongoing
change in the political and culture environment that link education and
citizenship that is now the causal relationship which is responsible for the
1.5 million types of not for profit organizations that serve our communities
best interests (p.18). These not for profit areas include a diverse work group
of tax exempt organizations for religious entities and private organizations
that serve the public best interest such as, the Multiple Sclerosis Society
(MS) and educational districts.
Similarities and differences between the Historical Perspective
on Nonprofit Organizations and the
Emotion Management, Status Competition and Power Play, and Organizational
Control offer similar passion traits with regard to the success of
individual cultural behaviors that include, leadership engagement behaviors that drive the
organizations cultural beliefs, however, there is a sense of urgency among the
not for profit consortium's which rely on various government grants and from both,
the private donations from community support and donor partnerships which is
the sole funding sources to run a not for profit cost centers. Other than a for
profit organization that rely on a team of cohorts to sell a service or product
for a profit to fund their cost centers, together, leadership engagement and
personal development are one in the same and should encourage a positive approach
to behavior change momentum.
Conclusions from comparison comes by way of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) (2011, para.4) which
is one example of appreciation among the needed leadership and continuity among
teams that is responsible for driving awareness to motivate a needed value from
volunteers that will address the health disparities among the MS chronically
ill populations, moreover, awareness for the overwhelming need for policy
change, which is a behavior change theory needed for a positive health related
quality of life environment of those who suffer from this MS disease which is
an undiscovered cure and those family caregiver who support them (para. 4).
These behavior skills promote interpersonal momentum
that is manifested through leadership and team building skill sets that enhance
problem-solving and negotiating skills, coaching and support and empathy that
is conducive to constructive feedback abilities for a balanced cultural belief
system such as, emotion intelligence and the eradication of power play
ideologies that promote behavior division (para. 8).
Example of evolutionary and revolutionary change
“Evolutionary change is gradual, steady behavior and occurs over time where
revolutionary change involves, a transformation in major areas of
organizational culture in a short period of time” (Walden, 2013). One example
of both evolutionary and revolutionary change in an organization in which I
have professional and personally experience is when I was employed at a local
food distribution center that merged with a national food distributorship.
The
evolutionary example in which I was experienced to when the original
hierarchies before the merger were being filtered out over time and were replaced
by their new leadership personnel in key positions. This
evolutionary example affected 22
staff upper staff members over a 14 month time line.
At this cross road,
this revolutionary movement changed the
environment within a weeks’ time where there were daily staff meetings that
covered their new vision that suddenly changed the cultural behaviors which
transformed the current culture overnight.
Change
accepted and adopted at the beginning was smooth when the merger took place even
thou there were dozens of employees at the mid to lower levels that refused to
change to the new direction when they rolled out their new vision. However,
over this 14 month course, some had left the organization or were let go
because of their lack of ability to conform to the new organizations
directives. This revolutionary approach over night was a culture shock because,
the original organization which by the way, employed over 600 employees and
there were some who had been with the organization over 30 plus years and did
not want conform.
Reflecting
back, I believe this revolutionary approach at the 14 month mark overnight was
a mistake because, this approach caused tremendous conflict and trust barriers
that promoted a culture of us against them attitude over a six month period. In
my opinion, this was due to their inconsistent actions versus what the new
organization was promising that no changes would take place. Suddenly, toward
the end of the 14 month course of organizational change is where they started
letting upper management go and were very aggressive with discipline, an
autocratic culture this organization was no used to. Certainly, this was not a multifaceted
approach to leadership engagement that is central to a culture of ongoing
personal development strategies that promote a positive interpersonal beliefs system
which is needed to propel the organizations current and future initiatives and
especially, when dozens of staff members walked of the job leaving the rest to
struggle with unrealistic performance expectations.
References:
Dobkin, H. P. (2004). Historical
perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit
leadership and Management. p.7-28.
Dunbar, R.L.M., Statler, M. (nd). A
historical perspective on organizational control. New York University.
Mastenbroek, W. (2013).
Organizational behavior in historical perspective. Retrieved from http://www.managementsite.com/content/articles/491/491.asp#Changing%20balances%20of%20power%20and%20informalization
The National Multiple Sclerosis
Society, NMSS. (2011). Donor appreciation. Retrieved from http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/mig/annual-volunteer-awards/index.aspx
Walden. (2013). Two key
perspectives: Application Assignment. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_2643450_1%26url%3D
