Evolution and revolution as organizations grow

In today 's economy, change is all-pervasive in organizations. It happens consistently, and frequently at fast speed. Since the change has turned into an ordinary piece of hierarchical motion, workers who oppose change can really cripple an organization. Resistance is an inescapable reaction to any real change. People actually race to guard the norm on the off chance that they feel their security or status is undermined. Folger and Skarlicki (1999) claim that "authoritative change can create doubt and resistance in workers, making it once in a while troublesome or difficult to actualize hierarchical enhancements" (FOLGER, 1999). If the administration does not comprehend, acknowledge and attempt to work with resistance, it can

His 15-year experimental restructuring of Semco transformed a traditional, paternalistic company environment into a very radical workspace, where there is no human resource function and 60% of top management positions became redundant (Lloyd, 1994). Semler’s most distinctive change was employee empowerment and participative leadership. Hiring is undertaken by the workers themselves, who decide on their own salary, bonuses, working hours and goals.  Semler believes that employees should deliver a final result and empowers them accordingly towards this goal. He unequivocally rejects the pyramidal structure that bears the notion of company procedures, outlining in every detail how employees should behave in every contingency. At Semco, labour unions train everybody how to read the financial statements of the company and workers participate collectively on the company’s big decisions (e.g. moving premises or buying another firm). Employee involvement at Semco is also reflected in 360-degree appraisal procedures held every six months, as well as in rotating job titles and job enrichment procedures, which offer workers a broader view of the company (Vanderburg, 2004).

(Varelas, 2005)Managers and employees also have the capability to initiate and influence organizational change. (McNamara, 2006) Managers who want to incorporate improvements in the organization have the power to authoritatively initiate change. (McNamara, 2006) However, it can be sometimes difficult for managers or employees to influence change in an organization based off leadership alone. (McNamara, 2006) The power of influence in organizations rests with those who are held in high regards concerning expertise and merit by their peers and/or co-workers. (McNamara, 2006) Therefore, employees often times hold more influential power than managers in this case.

The idea of change can alarm any system and lead to unexpected reactions from the members associated with the system. As the change begins to be implemented, these uncertainties intensify and can lead to crisis. This phenomenon becomes even more crucial when the system involves an organization with leaders and those members with non-managerial responsibilities.

The past decade has been wrought with crises on both a domestic and international scale. It has been marked by a glut of organizational crises including natural disasters, technology disruption, and acts of terrorism, scandals, and financial mismanagement.

Nowadays managers and supervisor can be the greatest ally for change teams. As to development of the company, the importance of managers is obvious to the company. Getting managers and supervisors on board and taking the lead in supporting employee change is crucial. As the manager topic is mentioned this report is going to focus on explaining the concept of Managerial Escalator (Rees and Porter, 2008). In this report, two managers have been interviewed and discuss their progression into management and managerial responsibilities and the extent to which their current managerial activity fits with the concept of Managerial Escalator. Base on the terminology of the case study, comparison and contrast of both managers with respect to their managing style will be analyzed. At last, reasonable and information-based on academic

I think at the end of the day change has to come from top-down because everything has to go through the top. I work in a grocery store Murray's Save A Lot and Murrays is shutting their doors on 9/21/2016 so that Save A Lot can take over. The lower line worker has been complaining about how the store should operate becasue of the dedicated customers and workers. The methology way that the middle manager who took charge of the restructure of the new store did a great job peroforming a System Thinking so that eveyone was on way page.

The failure of a newly promoted leader to perform effectively is another critical issue that was raised in the article. The author went on to explain that the problem maybe a weakness in the strategy that affected the personnel changes and staffing should be seen as a window of opportunity other than a burden.

When discussing adapting to change management the organization must consider implementation of core competencies that are new and innovative. These challenges faced by the organizations require agility and a shift in strategic congruence that strengthens market adaptation. As business strategies transition, capabilities within functional departments must evolve as operational strategies are implemented.

Organic structures are flexible and decentralized and communication lines are more fluid and flexible (David et al., 2013). Employee job descriptions are broader and employees are asked to perform duties based on the specific needs of the organization. Organic structures tend to be related to higher levels of job satisfaction on the part of employees. These structures are conducive to entrepreneurial behavior, continuous improvement and innovativeness.

At Komtek, there was a lack of trust for a long time; there was a separation between the floor workers and the supervisors. The two sides weren’t always on same page when it came to negotiations. Since there was distrust in the company, KomTek decided to give responsibility not only in the supervisors, but the floor workers’ as well. The supervisors decided to put trust in their workers and give them higher-up responsibilities; the floor workers showed visiting customer’s around and answered their questions, instead of the supervisors. KomTek had management stop making all of the decisions and shifted the responsibility to the workers on the shop floor to make decisions. Essentially, KomTek paid little attention to titles and more attention

Historically, the Industrial Revolution was a critical time in the formation of early rational organisation (Smelser, 2013). To begin with; work was moving from self-employment in the homestead to migration of a workforce to a centralised workplace whereby the building, tools and technologies were owned and controlled by capitalists (Ibid). The aim of the capitalists was to increase productivity and the output through utilising this new concept of an employed workforce whilst trying to maintain a relatively low level of expenditure in order to maximise profits, however, this inevitably required ever improving technologies, incentives for employees and methods of control as they moved from the flexibility that they previously enjoyed, to working a set schedule as arranged by their superiors (ibid). Consequently commanding and controlling each individual employee became a very real consideration with the everincreasing magnitude of the industrial workspace; something essentially needed to be done as it was becoming impractical and arguably impossible for the owners of businesses to manage their workforce and maintain order (King and Lawley, 2013). A result of this was the integration of a managerial structure within organisations.

http://adh.sagepub.com The Evolution of Organization Development at Cornell University: Strategies for Improving Performance and Building Capacity

Another main problem is how to break down the resistance to change from stubborn employees. Business may miss the point that it is the people who develop the idea to change who are the most enthusiastic about it. Senior executives aren 't more adaptable than lower level employees. The real problem is that ownership is at the top.

The impact of failures to introduce effective change can also be high: loss of market position, removal of senior management, loss of stakeholder credibility, loss of key employees.