Organizational change is one subject that has attracted diverse perspectives throughout historical epochs. These points of view are instrumental to the changes that are being witnessed in contemporary organizations. The following standpoints are the focus of this study to clarify the similarities and the differences that ensue from the assorted stances (Burke, 1935).
Scientific management took center stage during the industrial revolution. Fredrick Taylor in his study compared an organization to a machine and therefore human beings were seen as instruments of production. The main propellers of this theory were the engineers and the economists. As a prerequisite to the successful attainment of the theory, he focused on scientific training and selection of the workers as well as procedures that portray a perfect match of technology to foster production.
Researchers from Harvard Business School among them Elton Mayo carried out a famous study called Hawthorne which formed one of the historical perspectives of an organization. In their study, they focused on the psychological needs of the worker as one of the dynamics that boost production through the promotion of their morale. The study further argues that the worker’s freedom through job autonomy catapults the peace of the worker (Hickman, 2010).
The sociotechnical approach of organizational change argues that systems; social and technical are independent. The workers are given the freedom to coordinate themselves; taking shifts and interchanging responsibility with minimum supervision. This led to increased productivity though the number of accidents increased. In summary, this portrayed a close relationship between the social facets of the employees and the technical aspects of the task to be handled (Burke, 1935).
These perspectives of organization background are different in the approach for instance while scientific insist on production, Hawthorne studies steer the welfare of the worker. On the other hand, the Sociotechnical approach has its main interest in the relationship between the technical aspects of the tasks to be handled and the freedom of the workers. The three perspectives however are similar in the sense that the main objective was to increase the productivity of the organization irrespective of the sundry nature of the approach. Moreover, the systems or the mannerism in which the worker’s welfare is gathered for were readjusted in all the three cases and therefore signifying change (Wilson, 2005).
The Toronto University Hospital Department of Psychiatry underwent evolutionary and revolutionary changes in the early 1990s to better serve the interests of the patients. The revolutionary change was orchestrated by the top management trickling down with the main objective of cutting the expenditure and increasing control over the activities of the hospital. On the other hand, evolutionary change was initiated by the leadership but this was fulfilled through the empowerment of the employees. The leadership provided the training, resources, and authority to the worker to carry out the change (Shulman, 1996).
The evolutionary change was very successful in effecting the change as opposed to revolutionary. The main reason for this change is the empowerment of the workers to own up to the change and thus making it rapid courtesy of its broad base. Moreover, sabotage was sidelined since the employees saw it as their initiative consequently passionately championing it.
References
Burke, W. W. (1935). Organization change: theory and practice. New Delhi: Sage publications.
Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Shulman, M. R. (1996). The Experience of a University Hospital Department of Psychiatry. Revolutionary Versus Evolutionary Change: , 2 (1), 53-55.
Wilson, R. J. (2005). Dilemmas in classroom assessment: and what to do about them. San Francisco: Portage & Main Press.
Zorn, C. D. (2008). Aphorisms and Thoughts of Napoleon Bonaparte. United Kingdom: TJ International Ltd.