The implementation of changes within organizations is one of the tasks that attract the close attention of many scholars and business administrators who want to make sure that the companies remain competitive for a long time. This paper is aimed at examining four articles that can illustrate the challenges associated with the introduction of new practices. To a great extent, they show that in many cases, conventional patterns of organizational change prove to be inapplicable to various businesses. Additionally, the authors throw light on the factors that can contribute to the successful adoption of change. Moreover, these sources highlight the ethical pitfalls which are related to the transformation of companies. Overall, these articles can be evaluated from both theoretical and practical perspectives. To a great extent, the ideas expressed by researchers can have significant implications for various stakeholders, especially scholars and managers. These are the main issues that should be discussed more closely.
It is possible to refer to the article written by Raymond Caldwell (2005) who notes that the centralized implementation of changes has proved to be rather ineffective because in many cases, this approach can be based on several false premises. For instance, this approach implies that there is a central agency that has to guide the adoption of new policies (Caldwell, 2005, p. 98). Furthermore, this scholar notes that in many cases, organizations can be regarded as the set of loosely connected networks (Caldwell, 2005, p. 85). Additionally, these units do not follow the same patterns of change. Apart from that, the author discusses different theories explaining the process of change. To a great extent, the arguments put forward by Raymond Caldwell are supported by other scholars who note centralized control of change does not always produce positive results (Laszlo & Laugel, 2012). Moreover, practitioners also identify these difficulties while trying to introduce new practices. This article can be interesting from a scholarly perspective. In particular, researchers can test theoretical assumptions outlined by Raymond Caldwell. For example, one can examine whether the process of change is linear or non-linear. In turn, practitioners should bear in mind that the existing theoretical frameworks may not be applicable to various organizations. Nevertheless, these difficulties do not imply that employees are incompetent or unwilling to embrace change. Moreover, they should empower workers in order to encourage their initiatives. This is one of the pitfalls that they should avoid; otherwise, their workplace activities will prove ineffective.
Additionally, researchers pay attention to the importance of communication as one of the factors influencing the implementation of change. The messages of the managers should have such attributes as transparency and persuasiveness. Moreover, senior executives should motivate workers (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). This argument is supported by researchers and business administrators who believe that new practices are more likely to be embraced if the benefits of these policies are properly explained (Laszlo & Laugel, 2012). This is one of the main assumptions that underlie the ideas expressed by Achilles Armenakis and Stanley Harris in their article (2012). Overall, the article written by these authors is beneficial for scholars because they can identify one of the main independent variables that profoundly affect the outcomes of organizational change. This is why this study should be taken into account by people who examine this question from an academic perspective. Additionally, this article can have implications for practitioners who should focus on their communication style in order to gain the support of workers. If they can clearly articulate the need for change, their initiatives can be readily accepted by colleagues. This is one of the details that can be distinguished.
Apart from that, one can consider the study carried out by Carl Rhodes, Alison Pullen, and Stweward Clegg (2009) studying the narratives of employees who are affected by the change. In particular, sometimes these people can focus on the necessity for adopting new practices and procedures, but at the same time, they can overlook the ethical aspects of new policies. This article is based on the premise that people can act uncritically if they try to emphasize their belonging to the majority. Overall, this phenomenon has also been discussed by researchers who pay attention to such a problem as groupthink (Griffin & Moorhead, 2013). Similarly, this behavior has been observed by business administrators who recognize the importance of ethics and social responsibility within companies. This article can be of great benefit to managers who should consider various viewpoints in order to understand the strengths and weaknesses of new policies. They must not overlook the ethical dimensions of their work. In turn, this study can serve as a starting point for scholars who may examine how the ethical values of workers evolve due to organizational changes. These issues are also explored by Nic Beech, Stacy MacPhail, and Christine Coupland (2009) who lay stress on the need for studying multiple narratives of organizational change. In this way, one can better understand the challenges associated with the introduction of new policies or workplace procedures.
Additionally, such scholars as Jeffrey Ford and Laurie Ford (1994) note that organizational responses change depending on the attitudes and viewpoints of people. These authors examine different lines of reasoning that people can follow while evaluating change (Ford & Ford, 1994). For example, one can speak about formal logic, trialectics, and dialectics (Ford & Ford, 1994). Scholars may consider this article in order to identify a set of factors influencing change. Similarly, business administrators should understand how workers can perceive change. Therefore, these people should learn more about a person’s behavior in the workplace in order to implement change effectively.
To a great extent, the authors rely on the assumption that some people can perceive change as a problem that has to be overcome. In contrast, other individuals accept change as a part of the workplace environment. This viewpoint can be accepted because people differ in terms of how they respond to change. This article can assist researchers in identifying the reasons why some people cannot accept innovative practices. Additionally, managers may use this source in order to change workers’ attitudes towards new policies. Yet, one should remember that the authors do not intend to provide clear-cut recommendations for practitioners. These are the limitations that can be identified.
On the whole, the articles that have been examined demonstrate that the implementation of change can depend on a set of factors. In particular, one can distinguish such elements as the degree to which decision-making is centralized, the communication between managers and workers, and the perceptions of stakeholders involved in the implementation of change. The articles that have been examined should be considered by people who may act as researchers and managers. These are the main details that can be singled out.
Armenakis, A., & Harris, S. (2002) Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169–183.
Beech, N., MacPhail, S., & Coupland, C. (2009). Anti-dialogic positioning in change stories: Bank robbers, saviours, and peons. Organization, 16 (3), 335-352.
Caldwell, R. (2005). Things fall apart? Discourses on agency and change in organizations. Human Relations, 58 (1), 83-114.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 756-785.
Griffin, R., & Moorhead, G. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. New York, NY: Cengage Learning
Laszlo, C., & Laugel, J. (2012). Large-Scale Organizational Change. New York, NY: Routledge
Rhodes, C., Pullen, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2010). ‘If I should fall from grace…’: Stories of change and organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 91 (4), 535-551.