How organization change affect a company As a multidisciplinary practice that has evolved as a result of scholarly research, Organizational Change

Management should begin with a systematic diagnosis of the current situation in order to determine both the need for change and the capability to change. The objectives, content, and process of change should all be specified as part of a Change Management plan. Change Management processes may include creative marketing to enable communication between change audiences, but also deep social understanding about leaderships styles and group dynamics. As a visible track on transformation projects, Organizational Change Management aligns groups expectations, communicates, integrates teams and manages people training. It makes use of performance metrics, such as financial results, operational efficiency, leadership commitment, communication effectiveness, and the perceived need for change to design appropriate strategies, in order to avoid change failures or solve troubled change projects. Successful change management is more likely to occur if the following are included:[citation needed] 1. Benefits management and realization to define measurable stakeholder aims, create a business case for their achievement (which should be continuously updated), and monitor assumptions, risks, dependencies, costs, return on investment, dis-benefits and cultural issues affecting the progress of the associated work. 2. Effective Communications that informs various stakeholders of the reasons for the change (why?), the benefits of successful implementation (what is in it for us, and you) as well as the details of the change (when? where? who is involved? how much will it cost? etc.). 3. Devise an effective education, training and/or skills upgrading scheme for the organization. 4. Counter resistance from the employees of companies and align them to overall strategic direction of the organization. 5. Provide personal counseling (if required) to alleviate any change related fears. 6. Monitoring of the implementation and fine-tuning as required.

Culture Organizational culture is the collective behaviour of people that are part of an organization, it is also formed by the organization values, visions, norms, working language, systems, and symbols, it includes beliefs and habits.[1] It is also the pattern of such collective behaviours and assumptions that are taught to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and feeling.[2] Organizational culture affect the way people and groups interact with each other, with clients, and with stakeholders. [3] Ravasi and Schultz (2006) state that organizational culture is a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various situations. At the same time although a company may have "own unique culture", in larger organizations, there is a diverse and sometimes conflicting cultures that co-exist due to different characteristics of the management team.[4] The organizational culture may also have negative and positive aspects.[4] Schein (2009), Deal & Kennedy (2000), Kotter (1992) and many others state that organizations often have very differing cultures as well as subcultures.

Internal It is not only the changes in external factors, which may necessitate organizational changes; any change in organizations internal factors may also necessitate changes. Such a change is required because of two reasons: changes in managerial personnel and deficiency in existing organizational practices.

Changes in the managerial personnel: Besides environmental changes there is a change in managerial personnel. Old managers are replaced by new mangers, which necessitated because of retirement, promotion, transfer or dismissal. Each new manager brings his own ideas and way of working in the organization. The relationships, more in the organization. The relationships, more particularly informal ones, changes because of changes in managerial personnel. Moreover, attitude of the personnel change even though there is no changes in them. The result in that an organization has to change accordingly. Deficiency in Existing organization: Sometimes, changes are necessary because of deficiency in the present organizational arrangement ad process. These deficiencies may be in the form of unmanageable span of management, large number of managerial levels, lack in co-ordination between various departments, obstacles in communication, multiplicity of committees, lack of uniformity in policy decisions, lack of cooperation between the line and staff, and so on. Beside these internal factors, there are two more internal factors that give rise to organizational changes. Nature of the work force: The nature of work force has changed over a passage of time. Different work values have been expressed by different generations. Workers who are in the age group of 50 plus value loyalty to their employers. Workers in their mid thirties to forties are loyal to themselves only. The youngest generation of workers is loyal to their career. The profile of the workforce is also changing fast. The new generation of workers has better educational; they place greater emphasis on human values and questions authority of managers. Their behavior has also become very complex and leading them towards organizational goals is a challenge for the managers. The employee turnover is also very high which again put strain on the management. To avoid developing inertia: In many cases, organizational changes take place just to avoid developing inertia or inflexibility. Conscious manager take into account this view of organization that organization should be dynamic because any single method is not the best tool of management every time. Thus, changes are incorporated so that the personnel develop liking for change and there is no unnecessary resistance when major change in the organization are brought about.

Culture represents the beliefs, ideologies, policies, practices of an organization. It gives the employees a sense of direction and also controls the way they behave with each other. The work culture brings all the employees on a common platform and unites them at the workplace. There are several factors which affect the organization culture:

The first and the foremost factor affecting culture is the individual working with the organization. The employees in their own way contribute to the culture of the workplace. The attitudes, mentalities, interests, perception and even the thought process of the employees affect the organization culture. Example - Organizations which hire individuals from army or defence background tend to follow a strict culture where all the employees abide by the set guidelines and policies. The employees are hardly late to work. It is the mindset of the employees which forms the culture of the place. Organizations with majority of youngsters encourage healthy competition at the workplace and employees are always on the toes to perform better than the fellow workers.

The sex of the employee also affects the organization culture. Organizations where male employees dominate the female counterparts follow a culture where late sitting is a normal feature. The male employees are more aggressive than the females who instead would be caring and softhearted. The nature of the business also affects the culture of the organization. Stock broking industries, financial services, banking industry are all dependent on external factors like demand and supply, market cap, earning per share and so on. When the market crashes, these industries have no other option than to terminate the employees and eventually affect the culture of the place. Market fluctuations lead to unrest, tensions and severely demotivate the individuals. The management also feels helpless when circumstances can be controlled by none. Individuals are unsure about their career as well as growth in such organizations. The culture of the organization is also affected by its goals and objectives. The strategies and procedures designed to achieve the targets of the organization also contribute to its culture. Individuals working with government organizations adhere to the set guidelines but do not follow a procedure of feedback thus forming its culture. Fast paced industries like advertising, event management companies expect the employees to be attentive, aggressive and hyper active.

The clients and the external parties to some extent also affect the work culture of the place. Organizations catering to UK and US Clients have no other option but to work in shifts to match their timings, thus forming the culture. The management and its style of handling the employees also affect the culture of the workplace. There are certain organizations where the management allows the employees to take their own decisions and let them participate in strategy making. In such a culture, employees get attached to

their management and look forward to a long term association with the organization. The management must respect the employees to avoid a culture where the employees just work for money and nothing else. They treat the organization as a mere source of earning money and look for a change in a short span of time

Who can change your organization culture As a manager, you may have the power to change your organizations policies with the stroke of a pen. And you may have the ability to hire, fire, promote and demote people with relatively little effort. But changing an entrenched culture is the toughest task you will face. To do so, you must win the hearts and minds of the people you work with, and that takes both cunning and persuasion. In their book Blue Ocean Strategy, W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne cite four hurdles that face a manager trying to institute broad change in an organization. The first is cognitive people must have some understanding of why the change in strategy or in culture is needed. The second is limited resources inevitably, changing an organization will require shifting resources away from some areas and towards others. The third hurdle is motivation ultimately, workers have to want to make the change. And the final hurdle is institutional politics. They quote one manager who complains: In our organization, you get shot down before you stand up. To overcome those hurdles, they suggest a tipping point approach to management. First of all, recognizing you wont be able to convert everyone at once, start with people who have disproportionate influence in the organization. Get them committed to the change, or, failing that, get them out. And once they are committed to change, shine a spotlight on their accomplishments, so others get the message. Second, instead of just lecturing on the need for change, look for ways to get people to experience the harsh realities that make it necessary. Mr. Kim and Ms. Mauborgne tell the story of New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who in the 1990s made his top brass including himself ride the subways day and night, to understand why frightened New Yorkers had come to call it the Electric Sewer. Other companies have taken a similar approach, requiring managers to take calls from disgruntled customers. Third, look for ways to redistribute resources toward hot spots activities that require few resources but result in large change and away from cold spots or areas with large resource demands, but relatively low impact. Finally, Mr. Kim and Ms. Mauborgne advocate appointing a consigliere a highly respected insider, who knows who is fighting you, who is supporting you, and what you need to do to build coalitions and devise strategies for change. All leaders run the risk of losing touch with whats really happening underneath them. A good consigliere can go a long way toward solving that problem. A few more general ideas: If you want to stimulate creativity in the workplace, evaluate your companys personnel structure. Managers typically tap only a small portion of workers creative capabilities. Identify employees strengths and consider creating new groups with a tailored mix of talents. If you have a project, create a task force. Mix employees with different experience levels: Younger team members may provide energy and

optimism; veterans may provide insight from past experience. Want a different spin on brainstorming? Consider creating a plant-packed green room or exterior garden where workers can spend an hour a week with nothing but a blank pad and pencil. Encourage innovation through an egalitarian culture, flexible schedules, few meetings and interdisciplinary project teams. Employees want to feel trusted. One way to foster that is by allowing people to work at home sometimes. Other times, just changing the office set-up helps spur innovation. To encourage teamwork, eliminate exclusive-looking private office suites and assign everyone work stations in close proximity to jump-start communication. Consider using the extra space to create office amenities, like a better break room or an office gym.

Steps for changing culture Managing Change Managing change has become the silver bullet in seeking the final component of successfully managing strategy, process, people and culture in most modern organizations. More and more, staying competitive in the face of demographic trends, technological innovations, and globalization requires organizations to change at much higher rates than ever before. Few people will argue with this statement, but fewer still will say their organization does a good job at managing those changes. Managing change well is a continuous and ongoing combination of art and science that assures alignment of an organizations strategies, structures, and processes. A growing number of companies are undertaking the kinds of organizational changes needed to survive and prosper in todays environment. They are streamlining themselves and thereby becoming more nimble and responsive to external demands. They are involving employees in key decisions and paying for performance rather than for time. They are taking initiative in innovating and managing change, rather than simply reacting to what has already happened. Leading Change However, in our experience, we have also noticed an unsettling forgetfulness among managers regarding the principles of good change management. Trendy fads designed to produce quick fixes are accompanied by decreased awareness of the tools and techniques of change management that have proven effective in the past. Our purpose in this article, the second in a series on the subject of change management [see Sherman article, Vol. 8, Issue 1], is to join the makeover trend by revisiting and reinforcing some of these basic principles and freshening them up a bit. We discuss what we consider to be six practical aspects of any change process and describe how three successful companiesJP Morgan Chases Global Investor Services Division (GIS), American Healthways, and Microsofthave applied these principles. 1. Do no harm. In the medical profession, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm to their patients. One of the most important principles in organization change is similar. Implementing change poorly is often worse than not implementing change at all. Poor implementation poisons peoples attitude toward change and creates problems in the future. The best defense against doing no harm is to take a holistic approach. Too often, and with the best of intentions, managers change one facet of the organization without regard for the whole system. Many organizations need to develop better peripheral vision or whole systems thinking in recognition that all parts of the organization are connected directly or indirectly and that tinkering with one component exerts tension on other parts. Implementing a new information system or restructuring a business without, for example, examining the human implications of such changes increases the likelihood that the change will be unsuccessful, unsupported, and damaging. Such change efforts are incomplete and create tension that consequently drags down the

momentum of other systems, processes, and people changes, and so ultimately suppress results. Moreover, a sense of judgment often accompanies the need for change, as if whatever people are doing now is inadequate. One executive we worked with, referring to an upcoming change, said, Lets tear apart and deconstruct the organization and everything that went before. Then we can come up with something better to replace it. This attitude sent an inappropriate signal to the employees that their current way of working was inferior. It cast a veil of negativity across the organization. JP Morgan Chases GIS division is a global currency brokerage that enables its investment firm client base to make international buy/sell transactions at optimum price points. Despite competition from a variety of domestic and international firms, GIS had maintained its pre-eminence through ongoing investments in technology and an increasing emphasis on the delivery of value-added products to its institutional investors. President Richard Fama and his senior management team decided that a business as usual attitude in a fast growing market would be a foundation for corporate extinction. Therefore, they decided to develop a new strategy, realizing they would have to invest more time, energy, and resources into implementing and aligning the strategy with their systems, processes, and culture than they had invested in the strategy development. The team also realized they would have to implement the new strategy in a way that would build on past success to meet the challenges of the future. More importantly, they recognized that the way they changed was as important as the change itself. They had to ensure that the change made people and the organization better off. 2. All change involves personal choice. Any organizational change is preceded by personal change. Senior managers too often spend time at off-site meetings arguing over the need for change, forging new ideas, and creating strategic initiatives. After such meetings, they issue memoranda to the organization and assume that everyone will see the brilliance of their decisions, drop what they are doing, and perform in new ways without so much as a question or concern. However, people dont work that way, and it is insulting to assume otherwise. Change is more often resisted than supported in organizations because people rarely are given the chance to understand the reason for the change. No one bothers to explain to them the why. And few organizations spend time thinking about Whats in it for the organization member? That is, individuals must believe that it is in their own best interest to do things differently. At American Healthways, rated for the second year as Fortunes fastest growing small business as a provider of proactive disease management services, the shift from a traditional structure to a process-based structure depended vitally on CEO Ben Leedles deep and profound belief that the old way wasnt going to work for the future. But his own conviction wasnt enough to transform the business structure. With the help of his HR vice president Rita Sailer and internal OD consultant Chris Cigarran, a series of task forces was created involving a variety of people from different functions in the organization. These task forces witnessed Leedles personal

commitment and were allowed to challenge and address the issues at a deeper level, thus engendering their own commitment to the change. At JP Morgan Chase GIS, the goal for Richard Fama was a commitment to inspire his senior team to get beyond their own business unit agendas and work toward fulfilling goals and aspirations that were bigger than the goals of each of the units individually. One by one, the senior team committed to the larger task. Through a series of team and individual coaching experiences, they decided their mission was not only to influence the way things happen at GIS, but also to affect the way things happen in the financial services industry. At the same time, Fama began a process of informal skip level meetings with employees in which he could engage them in determining why and how the new strategy would benefit them as well as the company. 3. The relationship between change and performance is not instantaneous. As far as human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as instantaneous transformation. As a result, asking an organization to change (or telling the people in the organization to change) without giving them resources to do so is a fools errand. Turning the organization on a dime or pulling the organization through a knothole are metaphors that do no justice to the process of change. Worse, such wrenching procedures can create cynical attitudes among employees. In our respective practices, we have not known of a single person who on one day could drop a set of behaviors that served customers or added value and on the next day could perform perfectly a new set of value-adding behaviors. Change involves time and the opportunity to learn, and learning is often inefficient. So dont expect performance improvement too quickly. Morgan McCall, author of High Flyers, maintains that employees, given good guidance, still need to be able to mess up. Ken Murrell, a professor of organization change at the University of West Florida, is fond of noting that football teams get to practice six days to prepare for one day of performance, whereas organizations are expected to perform every minute of every day. Where is the opportunity to practice the new behaviors required for organization change? GIS adopted a series of twelve bold goals that would signify successful strategy implementation. GIS management set a three-year time line for this effort and urged all work teams and individuals, through investment in training and performance coaching, to be clear regarding which of the twelve goals any one of their efforts was impacting. They further encouraged experimentation and trial and errorthis for a banking culture that previously had spent much time re-checking the checker and covering bases to relieve blame for error. To GIS surprise, at the two-year mark, Morgan Chase GIS had met or exceeded nine of the twelve goals due to its focus on these goals, tolerance of the varied number of ways to reach them, and investment in adequate resources to prepare employees to reach them. 4. Connect change to business strategy. Change for changes sake is a recipe for failure. The notion of If its not broke, break it and improve anyway is a waste of scarce and valuable resources. Change

should only be pursued in the context of a clear goal, be it personal, group, organizational, or societal. There is value in consistency, and changing before you have to or changing to be a part of the latest fad lowers morale and increases cynicism in the workplace. Microsoft routinely changes its structure. Approximately every six months, the organization goes through an exercise aimed at improving the relationships between various operating groups or between sales and marketing subsidiaries and the corporate office. The organization members have come to expect these structural changes and will commit to them only to the extent that the changes yield short-term results. Consequently, ongoing problems remain unsolved, organization commitment is weak, and then the structure is changed again. Under the guise of Lets just try it, an educational organization evaluated all middle managers and made compensation adjustments according to the size of their programs or organizations without regard to performance, the value added to the schools purpose or reputation, or the differences in organizational purpose and structure. For managers whose compensation was cut, morale plummeted as they suffered through a year of doing the same work for less money. In the following year, pay cuts were restored by 50 percent with little explanation. The cost of reduced organizational trust resulting from a lets just try it approach is not estimable. Organizations contemplating change must be sure that organization members understand the strategy and that any contemplated change must align with and support that strategy. In addition, change leaders must consistently communicate the proposed change within the context of the business needs so that employees will see a connection between their own personal effort and the impact of their effort on ultimate business results. 5. Involvement breeds commitment. Few principles in the management of change are as well documented or understood as the idea that involvement breeds commitment, yet organizations continue to ignore this principle. In the U.S., where individualism reigns supreme, managers who do not involve their workers in decisions that affect them run the risk of stalled change efforts. But it takes too long, is the most common complaint and source of resistance to the involvement imperative. To that we respond, And what is the cost of failed implementation because you went too fast? During our research at Microsoft, we heard one manager get it right when he said, Managers consistently overestimate how fast they have to move and what needs to be done in the short run and underestimate what can be done in the long run. The lesson is that involving people in change decisions provides improved estimates of time tables, expectations, and commitment. At American Healthways, one of the first things CEO Ben Leedle did was commission a task force of people across the organization to study the organizations existing structure and to recommend alternatives. By involving key people in the analysis, Leedle extended his own personal commitment into the organization. The task force members themselves became convinced of the need for change and evangelized the effort throughout the organization.

At GIS, intact work groups met throughout the company to discuss how implementing the new strategy with its twelve goals would impact the way they did their work. This activity spurred additional conversations between work groups, and the conversations became departmental and global. During our work with GIS, one of the senior officers observed, There have been a thousand little victories because somebody has reached out to a colleague or work group that they wouldnt have trusted previously, to work together and to make something happen. It is happening out there on a day-to-day basis, in the most remote corners of the organization. That is awfully powerful. 6. Any good change effort results in increased capacity to face change in the future. It is one thing to install a change, but it is a quite different notion to implement change in such a way that the organization is more capable of managing change in the future. For example, the road to more information intensive organizations is paved with attempts to deploy enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. In some cases, the best that can be said about an ERP system is that the organization has a functioning information system. In most cases, however, the CFO is unable to say there was any return on investment (ROI) attached to the deployment. In almost every case, the organization is left no wiser regarding how or why the deployment succeeded or failed. The organization has therefore learned nothing about change management except to call in a consultant for help. At American Healthways, the task forces that debated, decided, and designed the new organization structure were operated in such a way that each member had a better understanding of the process of change. Periodically, the task forces paused from doing the work to reflect on how the work was going, what they had learned about implementing change, and how they would do things differently in the future. As a result, they were able to conduct much of the implementation themselves. Compared to organizations that have made similar changes, American Healthways external consulting expense was a fraction of the cost, and their reliance on their own internal resources to implement the change was greater and more effective. Similarly, by the time Richard Fama retired from JP Morgan GIS, the organization had created a way to work across its boundaries and deal with the continuous cycles of change in the global financial services market. The new head of GIS, Tom Swayne, saw the power of this organization to continuously implement the changes thrust upon it and became an advocate of this organizations strengths, ultimately leveraging GIS to create a more competitive brand in the financial services industry

Managing change for a small business

As small businesses grow and evolve, they experience many forms of change, according to the online management resource the Free Management Library. Whether the change is because of growth, a shift in business focus or turnover in the management team, small business owners must understand the different methods for managing that change to survive.

Be Prepared
One method for managing change in an organization is to be prepared through constant evaluation of the company. The management team needs to continually evaluate sales data, changes in the marketplace and activity by the competition to be able to anticipate change. When a company can see change coming as a result of its own diligence, that keeps confidence in company management high and maintains morale throughout the change process.

Communicate Constantly
The Free Management Library points out that change is easier to implement when there is open communication between management and employees. A small business has the ability to facilitate communication through all levels of the company, and that communication structure should be utilized to manage change. Keep employees informed of the conditions that may cause a change in your organization, and update the staff on what sorts of changes company management is considering. When employees understand what causes change, it helps to break down resistance to that change.

A Written Plan
A written plan is one of the more effective methods for managing change. When a plan is ready to be put into effect, put it in writing so that everyone can see it and so that company resources can be allocated to it properly. A written plan also helps employees to understand what parts of the business are immune to the change, and that introduces a level of stability that can make managing the change easier.

Learn to Flow with Change

There are certain things that can be controlled when it comes to change. For example, a schedule on when certain changes will take effect and who is involved is something management can control. But outside factors, such as moves by the competition or shifts in the marketplace, can be out of management's control. The best way to manage change is not to panic. The company needs to flow with the change and alter its plans accordingly. Analyze a change as thoroughly as possible before implementing it, and then implement change in phases. That way, if something changes, you only have to adjust the phase you are in as opposed to the entire plan.

Managing change for a large business

Large organizations can only survive in a highly competitive environment if they have the resilience to effectively deal with change, whether coming from within the company or from the outside. The impact of nonsmoking legislation on places of business is used as an example of such change as this program explains how Club Med on Lindeman Island, Australia, effectively retooled itself to comply with the law. Topics covered include driving forces and restraining forces, the importance of strong leadership and open communication during a period of change, potential resistance from employees and external stakeholders, the benefits of hiring a change agent, and the use of key performance indicators to help define and evaluate progress during a change. Viewable/printable educational resources are available online.

Conclusion
Today, teams and organizations face rapid change like never before. Globalization has increased the markets and opportunities for more growth and revenue. However, increasingly diverse markets have a wide variety of needs and expectations that must be understood if they are to become strong customers and collaborators. Concurrently, scrutiny of stakeholders has increased as some executives have been convicted of illegal actions in their companies, and the compensation of executives seems to be increasing while wages of others seems to be decreasing or leveling off. Thus, the ability to manage change, while continuing to meet the needs of stakeholders, is a very important skill required by today's leaders and managers