Ob Case: Humanized Robots? Essay

Definition Of Project The intent of the proposal is to address the case brought forward to our organization concerning “The Young Change Agents,” at Price Waterhouse (PW) who later merged with Coopers & Lybrand. It is my understanding that the platform to address the need for change in the organization plummeted with three young pioneers (Shaw, Middleburg and Sgaralgli) recognized a need for change. Prior to Shaw and Middleburg arrival to PWC, they had an opportunity to work in a well-known student organization AIESEC. In their tenure at AIESEC life was different, as Shaw recalled while operating as the president of the national organization in New Zealand division; he recognized that AIESEC focused on developing his leadership skills by focusing on such programs as skills, attitudes, values and cultural understanding. Furthermore, he noted that his transition to PwC led to a lower echelon, and it was difficult to transition from the president to a staff member. PwC also had a high spending budget for stationery compared to New Zealand AIESEC. Moreover, the technology was not up to par for such a large cooperation. (Jick & Peiperl, p. 463) Shaw and Middleburg later partnered with Sgaralgi to fight the deficiencies that they saw in PwC. They created a force that focused on overhauling the existing values at PwC. They approached each situation, manager and employee one step at a time. Expecting nothing in return, but only to share their message on the new

Robots for people: Do we really need them? Introduction: Scientific progress makes huge milestones toward developing new advanced technologies which are more and more present in human lives. Today robots replace people in many spheres such as health care, security and military, industry, education, entertainment and science. Role of robots becomes more significant because they are able to do the job which people are not able to perform well. Sometimes people are too lazy to do some routine work, due to such situation those tasks could be delegated to machines. People’s life become more technology based what makes demand for efficient robots larger. Engineers say that today robots look like machines, but in near future robots will have

Sika Nsiah-Poku INTB 1203 Case 5: Family Business Succession in Asia (Richard Ivey School of Business) Characteristics of a typical Asian Family firm. The Wang Group exhibits many characteristics of a typical Asian family firm. Their kinship relationship, succession plan, business continuity and family members hire are all similar. The Wang Group

• Resistance to change: Within an organisation there are employees that do not accept the reality that the cultural and social structure of their workplace is transforming. The “we have done it this way” approach inhibits progress and discourages new concepts and ideas.

The ways changes are implemented within a company can influence the results (Kotter, 1995). Over the years, many theoretical models have been developed. They are useful as they are a starting ground for rapidly implementing change with a positive result and can help reducing employees’ resistance (Petrescu, 2010). This section will discuss and analyzes various of the model currently used for manage change, employees resistance and its results.

Organizations age, and grow seeking specific goals, while the organization constructs and reconstructs a number of these organizations develop negative habits, and processes adapting to changing circumstances. History and today’s society has recognized that change is necessary to meet the ever-changing needs of the individuals and the environment. Today changes are necessary to retain a competitive lead, or factors based on the economy. Change has never been an easy process as resistance is always present, with impediments existing at all levels from the organization as a whole down to individual staff members. The responsibility lies with the senior managers to recognize the source and build a plan to remedy the resistance before it

Resistance to Change In many cases, resistance to change is viewed and analyzed from the managerial perspective (Schultz & Schultz, 2004). From the managerial point of view, resistance to change is considered as a cause to the delay in the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals. Hence managers are aware of the effects of the resistance to change, such as wastage of time. As a result, change projects are introduced earlier than the actual time, so that by the time the management can mobilize consensus on the proposed change, the ideal time for the commencement of the project is fulfilled. Hayes (2002) outlines other ways of managing change, such as coercion, manipulation and dialogue with the employees. At this point, it is also necessary to realize that change is not only a property of the employees but also an aspect common with the middle level managers. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1999), such managers are reprimanded, transferred to given higher positions in order to allow the change process to take its course. In some cases, employees who resist change were sacked such as shown below.

The second factor responsible for resistance is the costs inherent to the change. The validity of this point is hinged on the view that employees have personal interests that they always seek to protect. As far as this factor is concerned, the ability of the workers to support change is dependent on the impact it will have on the employee interests. The changes that subvert the interests of the employees would be resisted, while the kinds that complement them would be warmly welcome. According to Fabia McLean Bourda (2016), it is always important for the decision-makers to strive and strike a balance between the interests of the employees and those of the organizations. This step can be actually achieved by engaging employees in the decisions regarding the needed change, yet is an effective way of understanding the employee concerns.

1. Identify the key elements of the resistance to change described in this situation. To identify the key elements of the resistanceto change described in this situation, one may make use of the six Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger.[1]The model prevents, minimizes or descreases resistance to change in organizations. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that why people resist change, three of which are applicable to this case:

As organizations face change they may have to deal with resistance from employees. Change is often resisted by employees, the reasons typically are fearful of the unfamiliar, fear of loss or fear of disaster, as well as behavior and political reasons. Therefore, it is vital that managers mitigate employee frustration to ensure a business remains effective in its task or duties. Managers must learn the necessary skills to make the change easier by using employee participation, organizational communication, workplace empathy and support.

Resistance to Change In many cases, resistance to change is viewed and analyzed from the managerial perspective (Schultz & Schultz, 2004). From the managerial point of view, resistance to change is considered as a cause to the delay in the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals. Hence managers are aware of the effects of the resistance to change, such as wastage of time. As a result, change projects are introduced earlier than the actual time, so that by the time the management can mobilize consensus on the proposed change, the ideal time for the commencement of the project is fulfilled. Hayes (2002) outlines other ways of managing change, such as coercion, manipulation and dialogue with the employees. At this point, it is also necessary to realize that change is not only a property of the employees but also an aspect common with the middle level managers. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1999), such managers are reprimanded, transferred to given higher positions in order to allow the change process to take its course. In some cases, employees who resist change were sacked such as shown below.

Organizational Change and Resistance Intervention Honor Student University of Somewhere Organizational Change and Resistance Intervention Growth within any organization brings about a certain amount of change, and this can be unsettling to some individuals who have grown accustomed to a certain way of doing things, as well as a feeling of being overwhelmed with

Introduction Organizations are under tremendous pressure to change; these forces come from the competition, the market and consumers (Clardy, 2013). These pressures require more than just increasing work flow; change needs to be introduced. It is therefore important for organization to continually change if there were to grow or even remain in the competition. Burke & Church (1992), state that change has a great impact on organization, with results highly dependent on the management’s ability and skills to support the affected areas and employees. This is especially important because, the concept or idea of change has always been considered as dangerous by employees. However, it is an inevitable phenomenon as organizations must always change in order to survive. According to Bareil (2013), this resistance to change is regarding as one of the main reasons organizations fail to implement change. Change agents are used in order to mitigate the resistance that occurs in organizations. They are able to identity reasons why employees resist change, create and implement strategies to support the change. This paper is going to identify the several reasons why the employees at ABS Corporation may resist the change. Recommendations will be provided as to how resistance can be managed to ensure that the organization’s deliverables are attained.

While sitting in a leadership meeting discussing future organizational needs and ideas to enhance the service delivery system, it happens. It is almost inevitable that it will, and it does. The person to your left says, “No one likes change; they will resist.” Next, the electric shock is felt by those in the room who disagree with this perceived perception. Simply put, not everyone has the same view point when it comes to change. However, our society has clearly fostered a fearful response to the unknown and it is an ongoing management issue in the workplace.

In order to diagnose the true cause of resistance to change, it is necessary to obtain an understanding in the people behind it. Usually, management has a tendency to neglect or ignore the human dimension when implementing change. They only focus on the technical aspects, not recognizing or understanding how the human element influences the success or failure of change. Change requires the participation of the people in the organization who first need to change themselves before organizational change can succeed (Bovey and Hede, 2001).When implementing change, management thus needs to be aware of the ways in which personal issues can impact on an employee’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour. Diagnosing employee resistance when implementing change is therefore an important task that sometimes requires one to go beyond the outward aspects