Organizational change is one of the turning points in the development of any organization. According to Lewis (2011), “change can serve as means to address many important challenges such as those related to policy, governance, rule of law, philosophy, and distribution of information, rights, and resources” (p. 12). At times, change is necessary for addressing past failures and improving the quality of learning and achievement in an organizational environment (Lewis, 2011).
Even the most successful organizations need to change, in order to sustain their achievements and positive results in the long run. At a glance, Microsoft does not seem to be a good example of organizational change: the company has become so successful that no change is needed. In reality, after the latest reorganization, Microsoft still faces numerous challenges related to customer involvement and employee engagement, which present a serious barrier to innovativeness and creativity in the software market.
Proposing a Change Initiative
As mentioned earlier, Microsoft has recently undergone massive structural reorganization. The initiative was developed and implemented with the goal of enhancing the quality of business performance, productivity, and innovative development results. The change was based on a strong belief that it would enable Microsoft to innovate, create, and promote quality products with greater speed and efficiency (Hanft, 2013). Unfortunately, even the most successful reorganization cannot create favorable opportunities for the subsequent prioritization of customer involvement and employee engagement needs.
Microsoft is an open system, which interacts with the environment and uses environmental feedback as a source of information and guidance in organizational decision making. In the words of Amadoh (2008), the open systems theory can hardly be helpful in achieving and maintaining a reasonable balance of effective consumer involvement and employee engagement. Microsoft needs to change the patterns of its cooperation with customers and employees to ensure that none of the stakeholders feels discriminated or lacks effective involvement in product development.
Stakeholders
Apparently, employees and customers are the two most important groups of stakeholders, who will be affected by the proposed change. As of now, Microsoft has enough opportunities and instruments to maintain two-way communication with customers. Lundkvist and Yakhlef (2004) suggest that conversational models facilitate consumer involvement in idea generation and creative product development. However, not all employees may welcome the inclusion of customers at the earlier stages of product development and design.
Many employees seek empowerment to communicate their ideas and have them translated into products and services. Simultaneously, once an appropriate balance is established, both employees and customers will benefit from it. While employees will see the company’s profits grow due to better products and higher sales, customers will be more likely to stay loyal to Microsoft, as they see their ideas being transformed into convenient and affordable products. The community as a stakeholder will also benefit from the proposed change initiative, as the organization will become more profitable, socially responsible, and sensitive to the needs of customers.
Support and Resistance
Change never goes without resistance. Such resistance can manifest in a variety of forms, but it is one of the greatest barriers to productive change. Distorted perceptions of change and its need, misbalanced expectations of change outcomes, and the poor understanding of the change process greatly contribute to the difficulties encountered by organizations on their way to positive change (Val & Fuentes, 2003). The two stakeholders who are likely to support the proposed change are customers and community representatives.
While customers expect to become more active participants in organizational decision making, community representatives hope that customer involvement will make the company more sensitive and responsive to community needs. Resistance is likely to emerge on the side of employees and managers, who are not willing to give up their current position and power to customers. Such resistance may come from two sources. First, employees may develop a misperception of change as the force, which deprives them of their decision making powers (Val & Fuentes, 2003). Second, because employees at Microsoft receive numerous benefits for their creativity and decision making, they may be poorly motivated to initiate any such change (Val & Fuentes, 2003).
One of the best recommendations to overcome resistance is through effective communication between leaders, customers, and employees. A general meeting devoted to the change initiative could bring all parties together and give them some space for expressing their concerns and asking the most painful questions. Leadership support will play a huge role in how the change initiative is implemented. Both employees and customers must see that leaders at Microsoft are ready to develop and promote the dialogue with all parties and stakeholders.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Microsoft is one of the most successful companies in the global software market. However, even the most successful businesses are not secured from failures. The proposed initiative is aimed to achieve and maintain a reasonable balance of employee engagement and customer involvement in organizational decision making and product development. Microsoft must be ready to deal with and overcome resistance to change.
References
Amagoh, F. (2008). Perspectives on organizational change: Systems and complexity theories. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1-14.
Hanft, A. (2013). Microsoft’s massive reorganization – All structure, no culture. Web.
Lewis, L.K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Philadelphia, PA: John Wiley & Sons.
Lundkvist, A. & Yakhlef, A. (2004). Customer involvement in new service development: A conversational approach. Managing Service Quality, 14(2), 249-257.
Val, M.P. & Fuentes, C.M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.