Introduction
Organizational change takes place when a firm makes some shift from its present state to some preferred future state. Successful organizational change usually requires planning as well as the implementation of the transformation in a manner that is likely to evoke minimum employee resistance in addition to bestowing minimum cost constraint on the firm. Businesses today require that firms undergo continuous change in order to stay afloat in the business waters.
Such factors as rapid technological advancements or market globalization impose the urge for the firms to undergo change in a continual fashion so as to survive (Kuriger, 2004). Organizational change usually erupts from the difficulties faced by the company or the firm.
However, some firms change under the impulsion of its visionary leaders who begin by recognizing and then exploiting the emerging potentials in the firm. Organizational change that is not properly organized is usually fought by the employees, leading to its failure. Organizational change occurs for instance when a firm changes its general success strategy, adds or does away with a main practice or plans to do a variation in its nature of operation.
Philosophical approaches
There are two main various towards organizational change. The two main ones that are by their nature opposing, to one another are: the mechanistic and the humanistic approach.
Mechanistic philosophy
This conservative organizational change framework depicts the firm as a set of evidently defined parts (departments) which are stitched together by the official rules and the subsisting relationships.
In this approach, the executives or the management tend to oversee the co-ordination as well as originating and controlling of organizational change plans. Therefore a mechanistic approach towards institutional change is an approach in which the managers plan the needed change then they put it into effect without the involvement of the employees.
Constraints as well as problems that impede the achievement of the perceived goals are envisaged as technical difficulties of which technical solutions are sought. There is heavy reliance on the hierarchical structure of the organization to effect organizational change. In the much idealized form of this approach, the commands are issued from the top toward the employees who are down in the organizational hierarchy.
Organizations that use this type of approach are usually less adaptive to changes in their environment and least responsive to innovations. They also show hierarchical differentiation accompanied with many levels in their command chain, power concentration by the top executives and also the decision-making mandate finds solace only in the hands of the central management crew.
The proponents of this conventional principle argue that it has economic advantages while implementing organizational change during periods of relative stability (Smith, Graetz, 2011).
When firms decide to apply this philosophy, there calls for horizontal and vertical pecking order arrangements as well as differentiation so as to process the organizational change workflow. Differentiation reduces the incidences of contact and movement of the flow of information. As the hierarchy divides the flow of work, communication becomes hard (Richardson, 2005).
The formalization in the control systems when using this philosophy has negative effects on achievement of effective organizational change. This philosophy has a limitation in the theory of organizational change as it creativity stifling in addition to evoking a dissident sub-culture which weakens the ability of the firm to attain such change (Handy, 1985).
The humanistic philosophy
While the mechanistic approach towards organizational change assumes a top-down version, the humanistic approach takes an up-stream model. This philosophy inculcates the views and opinions of the workers in the process of organizational change, therefore there is usually a low employee resistance and efficiency when drafting and effecting organizational change.
This philosophy view organizations as having behaviors as well as personalities. This philosophy is based on a normative posture that people in their own capacity are ends and those interferences to revolutionize the organizations and the people, are not free of value (Leavitt, Pondy & Boje, 1989).
The mechanistic school of thought have criticized this approach citing that it is too squashy and too workers-oriented, but on the other hand, the humanistic consultants stress on impartiality to the participants of the organizational change (Argris, 1986). There is no reliance on the hierarchical structure of the firm when instituting the organizational change; it is easier to obtain relationships of trust as well as honesty.
When these are achieved, communication on the other hand is refurbished. Once good communication has been attained, issues of rumors, paranoia, phobia as well as misperception fade away. The culmination of these events leads to more honesty and trust. The outcome of this virtuous circle is a high synergy firm that is least resistant to organizational change.
Conclusion
Leaders as well as managers are on constant pressure to continually make efforts so as to achieve successful along with significant organizational change because this role is inherent in the management theory.
This therefore calls for a well structuring of the correct and appropriate method or philosophy to use as a channel to affect these organizational changes. The mechanistic approaches to organizational change is deemed suitable for the recurrent management changes which includes adjustments in terms of goals, structure, personnel, and strategy as well as control systems.
While organizations that apply mechanistic approach to organizational change are more responsive to administrative innovations with respect to management accounting as well as internal auditing, the humanistic approach is more adaptive towards NPD-new product developments in addition to changes in the management of sales. Generally, most firms today apply the humanistic philosophy in instituting organizational change as it counters the resistance by employees and instills motivation on the workforce.
Works Cited
Argris, Chris. Strategy, change and defensive routines. London: Pitman, 1986.
Handy, Charles. Understanding organizations (3rd Ed). London: Penguin, 1985.
Kuriger, Craig. Organizational Change: case studies in the real world. Florida: Universal, 2004.
Leavitt, Harold, Pondy, Louis & Boje, David. Readings in Managerial Psychology. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989.
Richardson, Kurt. Managing Organizational Complexity: theory and practice. Michigan: IAP, 2005.
Smith Aaron, & Graetz, Fiona. Philosophies of Organizational Change. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar publishing, 2011.