英语论文网

(Fox-wolfgramm, Boal and Hunt (1998); Sastry (1997); Gresov, Haveman and Oliva (1993); Haveman (1992); Huff, Huff and Thomas (1992); Kelly and Amburgey (1991); Damanpour (1991); Meyer, Brooks and Goes (1990)) and six empirical works that had examined affective and behavioural reactions to change (McHugh (1997); Wahlstedt and Edling (1997); Orlikowski (1996); Beer and Eisenstat (1996); Mossholder, Settoon, Harris and Armenakis (1995); Schweiger and DeNisi (1991)).

In all these researches, the overarching reasons put forth for failure of change attempts includes adoption of inappropriate strategic orientation method, lack of agreement or fit between content, context and process considerations in the change process, factors that underlie an organization’s long-term relationship to its external environment as well as conditions existing in an organization’s external and internal environments. These reason are consistent with both prevailing organizational change theories like systems theory and existing literature on organizational change dynamics such as Kotter (1990), Kotter and Schlesinger (1979).

In relation to behavioural reactions to change, Armenakis and Bedeian’s conclusion is that resistance to change is often manifested in reduced commitment, loss of job satisfaction and cynicism and less frequently, depression, anxiety and exhaustion. Interestingly, however, not one of these researches mentioned or alluded to power struggles and politics as a reason for unsuccessful organizational change neither was it identified as a factor at the heart of the success or otherwise of organizational changes in all the empirical works that Armenakis and his colleague reviewed.

Going further, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990) in their article titled “Why Change programs don’t produce Change” argued that faced with changing markets and tougher competition, more and more companies initiates change to help them compete effectively. However, these changes do not produce the desired results because most change programs are guided by a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed. Changes are often initiated from the management level rather than at the grassroots because of the common belief that altering organizational structure and culture will effect changes in employee behaviour.

In essence, this means that those changes do not succeed because management alter the company’s structure and systems and expect employees’ behavior to change. The authors argue that change will not only happen, it will also be sustained when change efforts attempt to alter employees roles and responsibilities first. A sustained change in workers practices, attitudes and behavior will naturally happen when employees are thrust into new organizational context which imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them and this will ultimately result in long-term alteration of corporate structure and culture. So Beer et al posits that organizational change will succeed if the approach to change is based on task alignment, starting at the periphery of the organization and moving steadily towards the corporate core.

Beer at al further highlighted six factors that enhances the success of the change process. They include (1) mobilizing commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problem, (2) developing a shared vision on how to organize and manage for co本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。