S.R.

M UNIVERSITY
HARYANA

INTRODUCE AND
MANAGE
ORGANISATIONAL
CHANGES
SUBMITTED BY

HARIOM [BBA LLB-45415210007]

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR MRS. RASHI MALIK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude
to my PROFESSOR MRS. RASHI MALIK who gave me
the golden opportunity to do this assignment on the
topic “INTRODUCE AND MANAGE ORGANISATIONAL
CHANGES”, which was completed with a lot of research
which in turn helped me gain knowledge about many
facts.
Secondly I would also like to thank my friends who
helped me a lot in finalizing this assignment within
the limited time frame.
HARIOM [BBA LLB-45415210007]
 INDEX
1.INTRODUCTION
2.AREAS OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGES
3.RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
4.TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING CHANGES
EFFECTIVELY
5.IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE
6.WHAT IS OB?
7.HISTORY
8.ACADEMIC FOCUSES
9.OB IN PRACTICE
10.STEPS TOMANAGE ORGANISATIONAL
CHANGES
11.CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
Organizational change occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some
desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing
change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the
organization while simultaneously maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort.

Today's business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are
to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology
force businesses to respond in order to survive. Such changes may be relatively minor—as in the
case of installing a new software program—or quite major—as in the case of refocusing an overall
marketing strategy, fighting off a hostile takeover, or transforming a company in the face of
persistent foreign competition.

Organizational change initiatives often arise out of problems faced by a company. In some cases,
however, companies change under the impetus of enlightened leaders who first recognize and then
exploit new potentials dormant in the organization or its circumstances. Some observers, more
soberly, label this a "performance gap" which able management is inspired to close.

But organizational change is also resisted and—in the opinion of its promoters—fails. The failure
may be due to the manner in which change has been visualized, announced, and implemented or
because internal resistance to it builds. Employees, in other words, sabotage those changes they
view as antithetical to their own interests.

AREAS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Students of organizational change identify areas of change in order to analyze them. Daniel
Wischnevsky and Fariborz Daman, for example, writing in Journal of Managerial Issues, single out
strategy, structure, and organizational power. Others add technology or the corporate population
("people"). All of these areas, of course, are related; companies often must institute changes in all
areas when they attempt to make changes in one. The first area, strategic change, can take place on
a large scale—for example, when a company shifts its resources to enter a new line of business—or
on a small scale—for example, when a company makes productivity improvements in order to
reduce costs. There are three basic stages for a company making a strategic change: 1) realizing that
the current strategy is no longer suitable for the company's situation; 2) establishing a vision for the
company's future direction; and 3) implementing the change and setting up new systems to support
it.

Technological changes are often introduced as components of larger strategic changes, although
they sometimes take place on their own. An important aspect of changing technology is determining
who in the organization will be threatened by the change. To be successful, a technology change
must be incorporated into the company's overall systems, and a management structure must be
created to support it. Structural changes can also occur due to strategic changes—as in the case
where a company decides to acquire another business and must integrate it—as well as due to
operational changes or changes in managerial style. For example, a company that wished to
implement more participative decision making might need to change its hierarchical structure.

People changes can become necessary due to other changes, or sometimes companies simply seek
to change workers' attitudes and behaviors in order to increase their effectiveness or to stimulate
individual or team creative-ness. Almost always people changes are the most difficult and important
part of the overall change process. The science of organization development was created to deal
with changing people on the job through techniques such as education and training, team building,
and career planning.

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
A manager trying to implement a change, no matter how small, should expect to encounter some
resistance from within the organization. Resistance to change is normal; people cling to habits and
to the status quo. To be sure, managerial actions can minimize or arouse resistance. People must be
motivated to shake off old habits. This must take place in stages rather than abruptly so that
"managed change" takes on the character of "natural change." In addition to normal inertia,
organization change introduces anxieties about the future. If the future after the change comes to
be perceived positively, resistance will be less.

Education and communication are therefore key ingredients in minimizing negative reactions.
Employees can be informed about both the nature of the change and the logic behind it before it
takes place through reports, memos, group presentations, or individual discussions. Another
important component of overcoming resistance is inviting employee participation and involvement
in both the design and implementation phases of the change effort. Organized forms of facilitation
and support can be deployed. Managers can ensure that employees will have the resources to bring
the change about; managers can make themselves available to provide explanations and to minimize
stress arising in many scores of situations.

Some companies manage to overcome resistance to change through negotiation and rewards. They
offer employees concrete incentives to ensure their cooperation. Other companies resort to
manipulation, or using subtle tactics such as giving a resistance leader a prominent position in the
change effort. A final option is coercion, which involves punishing people who resist or using force to
ensure their cooperation. Although this method can be useful when speed is of the essence, it can
have lingering negative effects on the company. Of course, no method is appropriate to every
situation, and a number of different methods may be combined as needed.
TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING CHANGE
EFFECTIVELY
Managing change effectively requires moving the organization from its current state to a future
desired state at minimal cost to the organization. Key steps in that process are:

Understanding the current state of the organization. This involves identifying problems the company
faces, assigning a level of importance to each one, and assessing the kinds of changes needed to
solve the problems.

Competently envisioning and laying out the desired future state of the organization. This involves
picturing the ideal situation for the company after the change is implemented, conveying this vision
clearly to everyone involved in the change effort, and designing a means of transition to the new
state. An important part of the transition should be maintaining some sort of stability; some things—
such as the company's overall mission or key personnel—should remain constant in the midst of
turmoil to help reduce people's anxiety.

Implementing the change in an orderly manner.

This involves managing the transition effectively. It might be helpful to draw up a plan, allocate
resources, and appoint a key person to take charge of the change process. The company's leaders
should try to generate enthusiasm for the change by sharing their goals and vision and acting as role
models. In some cases, it may be useful to try for small victories first in order to pave the way for
later successes.

Change is natural, of course. Proactive management of change to optimize future adaptability is

invariably a more creative way of dealing with the dynamisms of industrial transformation than
letting them happen willy-nilly. That process will succeed better with the help of the the company's
human resources than without

What is 'Organizational Behaviour - OB'

Organizational behavior (OB) is the study of the way people interact within groups. Normally this
study is applied in an attempt to create more efficient business organizations. The central idea of the
study of organizational behavior is that a scientific approach can be applied to the management of
workers. Organizational behavior theories are used for human resource purposes to maximize the
output from individual group members.
BREAKING DOWN 'Organizational Behavior - OB'
There are a variety of different models and philosophies of organizational behavior. Areas of
research include improving job performance, increasing job satisfaction, promoting innovation and
encouraging leadership. In order to achieve the desired results, managers may adopt different
tactics, including reorganizing groups, modifying compensation structures and changing the way
performance is evaluated.

History
While Organizational Behavior as a field of academic study wasn’t fully recognized by the American
Psychological Association until the 1970’s, it’s roots go back to the late 1920’s when the Hawthorne
Electric Company set up a series of experiments designed to discern how changes in environment
and design changed the productivity of their employees.

Their various studies, conducted between the years of 1924 and 1933, were broad and meticulously
measured over large periods of time. The studies included the effect of various types of breaks (lots
of small breaks, a few long ones, etc.) on productivity, productivity in isolation, and productivity in
varying levels of light. The most famous finding resulting from the of the Hawthorne Studies is what
is now called the Hawthorne Effect, the change in behavior of a test subject when they know they’re
being observed.

To focus on that one finding, some have argued, is to ignore a wider set of studies that would
become credited for the development of organizational behavior as a field of study and the human
resources profession as we now know it. The idea of looking scientifically at behavior and
productivity in the workplace with the goal of increasing the amount and quality of work an
employee can get done, along with the idea that workers were not interchangeable resources but
were instead unique in terms of their psychology and potential fit with a company. These ideas were
radically new when Hawthorne first began the studies, and they helped create a field of study and an
entire professional field.

Organizational behavior has focused on various different topics of study. In part because of the
second world war, during the 1940’s the field focused on logistics and management science. During
this period the emphasis was on using mathematical modeling and statistical analysis to find the
best answers for complex problems. Studies by the Carnegie – or freshwater – School economics in
the 1950’s and 1960’s furthered these rationalist approaches to decision making problems.

In the 1970’s, theories of contingency and institutions, as well as organizational ecology, resource
dependence, and bounded rationality came to the fore as the field focused more on quantitative
research. These findings and sets of theories helped organizations better understand how to
improve business structure and decision making.
Since the 1970’s, a good deal of the work being done in the field of organizational behavior has been
on cultural components of organizations, including topics such as race, class, gender roles, and
cultural relativism and their roles on group building and productivity. These studies, a part of a shift
in focus in the field towards qualitative research, and among other things, take into account the
ways in which identity and background can inform decision making.

Academic Focuses
Academic Programs focusing on organizational behavior are usually found in business schools, and
schools of social work and psychology. They draw from the fields of anthropology, ethnography, and
leadership studies and use quantitative, qualitative, and computer models as methods to explore
and test ideas. Depending on the program one can study specific topics within organizational
behavior, or broader fields.

The topics covered by Micro OB include cognition, decision making, learning, motivation,
negotiation, impressions, group process, stereotyping, and power and influence.

Macro OB covers organizations as social systems, dynamics of change, markets, relationships

between organizations and their environments, as well as identity in organizational process, how
social movements influence markets, and the power of social networks.

OB In Practice
Findings from organizational behavior’s body of research can be used by executives and Human
Relations professionals better understand a business’ culture, how that culture may facilitate or
hinder productivity and employee retention, and how to best evaluate candidates skill set and
personality during the hiring process.

The application of theory and knowledge from the field of organizational behavior can be broken
down into sections of Personality, Job Satisfaction and Reward Management, Leadership, Authority,
Power, and Politics. There is rarely one correct way to asses the right way to manage any of these
things, but OB research can provide a set of guidelines and topics to follow.

Personality, essentially a series patterned behavior, plays a large role in the way a person interacts
with groups and produces work. Knowing a person’s personality, either through a series of tests, or
through conversation can give a better idea of whether they’re a fit for the environment they’d be
hired into, and how best to motivate that person.

Theories around job satisfaction vary widely, but some argue that a satisfying job consists of a solid
reward system, compelling work, good supervisors, and satisfactory working conditions.

Leadership, what it looks like and where it is derived from is a rich topic of debate and study within
the field of organizational behavior. When one views it connected to management, it can be either
broad, focused, centralized or de-centralized, decision-oriented, intrinsic in a person’s personality or
a result of a place of authority.
Power, authority, and politics all operate inter-dependently in a workplace. Understanding the
appropriate ways, as agreed upon by a workplace rules and general ethical guidelines, in which
these elements are exhibited and used are key components to running a cohesive business.

STEPS TO MANAGE ORGANISATIONAL

CHANGES
1
Be intentional about the changes you make
If you initiate change just for the sake of change, it will be challenging for you to get support from
your leaders, employees, and clients. Have a good reason for each change and be able to explain
those reasons clearly to your organization.

Keep your whole organization in mind. It is easy to think about making a change in one department
without realizing the effects it will have on all the others. Explore all the potential consequences of
organizational change before announcing it.

Get feedback from leaders in the organization, as well as from others outside of the company.
Different perspectives will help you make a well-informed decision.

Make role changes for a specific purpose. Organizational change often leads to an adjustment in
roles and responsibilities. People are moved from one department to another or from one location
to another. Do your best to handle these changes sensitively and intentionally

2
Get the support of those in your organization.
This is vital to helping your organization transition and move forward with the changes you would
like to implement. The more you can engage and include those in your organization, the better.

Explain the reasoning behind organizational changes instead of just announcing the change itself.
People are more likely to support you if they understand why you made a particular decision.

Start with the senior leadership team. If your leaders do not support you, it will be difficult to get the
support from the rest of the organization.

Include all employees. Everyone on staff needs to be committed to the new vision, mission, or
whatever the change might be. Work to earn their support and dedication. Invite employees to help
formulate the wording of the new vision statement.
3
Communicate openly as much as possible.
Inform employees of changes before they hear it from somewhere else. Utilize company email, all-
staff meetings, newsletters, or whatever form of communication is most beneficial for the news you
are sharing.

Share major changes face to face and then follow up with an email. This makes your announcement
more personal. It also gives employees a chance to ask questions or clear up any confusion.

Communicate early and often. Keep employees informed throughout all aspects of your
organizational change so they can be on your side when the change actually takes place.

Encourage feedback. Give employees the opportunity to ask questions or provide suggestions as
your organization moves toward change.

4
Acknowledge the process of change.
Change takes place in several stages. There are also different emotions attached to the idea of
organizational change.

Some workers will immediately accept announced changes, while others may deny the need for it,
prolong the change itself, or actively resist it. As your company encounters change, keep an eye on
how employees are responding.

Do not expect behavior to change all at once. It will take time for your employees to get used to
doing things differently. Do what you can to support them during the transition
5
Model a positive response to the organizational
change.
Employees often take the lead from their supervisors. Set the example by displaying a positive
attitude about upcoming changes, supporting your own leaders, and helping your team make
changes. If you have any disagreements about potential changes, keep that within the leadership
team.

CONCLUSION
Whenever we wanted to make a transition in current to some desired future state and
implementing those plans can be called as managing organisational changes. So that the
cost to organisation and employ resistance will be minimize to maximize the effectivenenss
of the change effort. Organisational changes have to be arised only when company face
problems and considered themselves as they are behind the other companies in the market
.Some times these organisational changes changes fails in some companies due to their
employees and leaders who have not that much clibre to implement the changes in their
company and sometimes it succeeds under impetus of enlightened leaders who first
recognise and then exploit new potentials dormat in organisation.

New strategies are made for organisations productivity improvement in order to reduce
cost by these following steps: 1) realizing that the current strategy is no longer suitable for
the company's situation; 2) establishing a vision for the company's future direction; and
3) implementing the change and setting up new systems to support it.

Technological changes are the most larger strategic changes because through technological
changes the old employees who don’t know about the new techniques have to suffer and
they have to remove for the welfare of the company that’s why they did not want any
technological changes in their company .To be a successful change the change must be
incorporatd in all over the company,s system.

Every organisational change must be done for a good reason and it should also not affect
any other department in the same company. All the other leaders should understand first
then implementation of that change will be good for the company welfare. . We should
Give employees the opportunity to ask questions or provide suggestions as your
organization moves toward change. All the Employees often take the lead from their
supervisors. Firstly we should Set the example by displaying a positive attitude about
upcoming changes, supporting your own leaders, and helping your team make changes. If
any employee have disagreements about potential changes,then then answers should be
given to his questions then only we can implement the new changes.

If all the employees are satisfied with the changes to be done in the company then the
changes should be implement as earlier as it could be so that the company will not suffer in
the market and earn more and more profits .But if the company does not wants a change
then there should not be done a change otherwise the company will suffer due to fastly
changes and the employees will not cope up with that change and it will be harmful for the
growth of company and make the make the company name decrease in market .SO we have
to make changes in company only when needed and should also be done by the
hardworking leaders under their observations so they can handle the suitations if positive or
negative and it also have to be done if it is suitable for the company growth then only the
changes will help the company and make them profits .