Organisation change is the process of changing the structure, strategies, culture or any method of carrying out processes(Sharma, 2018). Every organisation has to experience change, some changes are planned and within the organisation control while the other changes are due to unforeseen events. Since change is inevitable, it is important for the change to be managed. Some of the organizations adapt the reactive approach towards the various forces of change, and they are able to manage organisation successfully, while the others are unsuccessful in managing the change(Sharma, 2018). This is because the managers are unable to pass various challenges faced and thus the businesses fail. The following essay consists of examples of changes like strategy, structure, behaviour, process and cultural and have been mentioned with relevant examples.
Organisation change is the alteration in one or more elements of the organisation’s structure, processes or goods. It impacts on the way an employee performs their roles and in the working situation, structure and organisational environment. Organisational change is a continuous process and it is the transformation in an organisation towards a preferred stage. Organisational change can occur unplanned which are the changes in any of the elements of the external environment eg: political, technological social, customers, suppliers etc which the change may also be planned which is from a deliberate decision by the manager which is to progress the organisation to work towards a specific goal or to adapt to the current environment.
A change can be mission, strategic, structural, technological or behavioural which will improve output and efficiency. An overall organisation wide change is a large scale transformation that affects the whole company. It can be a form of resizing, restructure or collaboration. This type of changes are long term and need to be carried out with very well planning to avoid any kinds of disruption (Song, X. (2009)).
A very famous example of a change in strategy is the kodak company and its inability to change. Until the 1990s kodak was one of the most valuable brands which accounted for 85% of the camera sales in cameras(Munir & Phillips, 2005). Starting 2000, the speed of the digital shift began and kodak was unable to move into the digital world("Kodak and its inability to change: a tale for many", 2018). The company faced technical challenges and fierce competitors. Kodak did not take take decisive action to combat such challenges and making poor strategic decisions, failing to keep up with the digital revolution(Munir & Phillips, 2005). Previously the company was build on a culture of innovation and change but these innovators were buried in the hierarchy and did not have enough volume to be heard("Kodak and its inability to change: a tale for many", 2018). This resulted in their inability to comply with the changes in the market and the company fell back and hit rock bottom.Although organisational change is not easy, but it is very vital for survival (Song, X. (2009)).
Another challenge an organisation faces when the organisation fails to enter cultural complacency. Organisation culture is based on engagement events or programs which builds a strong culture and foundation of the entire organisation (Gabriel, 2015). Most leaders of the successful organisation learn from experience of mentors and works on exceling to reinforce their unique culture and manage the organisation with clarity. While on the other hand many organisations fail to adapt to the changing environment and change in organisational culture and fails(Gabriel, 2015). An important example of this is a flourishing company, which was the dominant force in the mobile industry in the mid 1990s. Nokia, which was the leading force and concentrated almost entirely on providing products what its customers wanted("Cultural Complacency, Nokia, And The Urgency of Change Management", 2018). Nokia was a global brand and believed that its products were good enough to retain its customers for a long time, since it had done so much for the mobile market. The management failed to realise that in the modern world, the market drives the product and not the other way around("Cultural Complacency, Nokia, And The Urgency of Change Management", 2018). They had become complacent about its market dominance and the loyal customer base, while Apple managed an innovative upstart and developed smartphones(Laamanen, Lamberg & Vaara, 2016). Apple reached out to the existing and potential customers and discover their needs. This resulted in an intensence competition and after 2012 nokia faced a rapid decline in sales and by mid June, Nokia announced the closure of facilities and massive job cuts(Laamanen, Lamberg & Vaara, 2016). Nokia missed a major change in the markey and the customers shifted from traditional mobile phones to smartphone. The business was very product led, rather than customer led and overly bureaucratic. It followed a wrong culture which led to its failure.
The next type of major change is the changing structure of organisations. The structure is a formal design within the company which determines the relationships and information flows within the company. The organisational structure plays a large role in shaping the company culture and some companies find it necessary to change the organisational structure to remain competitive in the market(Mosadeghrad & Ansarian, 2014). The modern businesses follow a less hierarchical system and involves more participation of all employees in decision making(Mosadeghrad & Ansarian, 2014). Organisation culture consists of shared set of goals and values interlocked by clear communication practices, attitudes and assumptions and all the elements are set together to reinforce a strong system(Mosadeghrad & Ansarian, 2014). This inevitable change includes reallocation of productive resources among sectors of the organisation. One popular example of this is Shell. In 2004 shell was facing an oil reserve crises which had a significant effect on its share prices and the chairman, jeroen believed that in order to survive, the company had to go through intense structural change. It started to redesign most of its deepwater oil platforms and gas projects to simplify them. This continued when van beurden tried to push shell towards a renewable energy and sell electricity but they eventually failed. This is because the energy market is changing faster than expected and the competitive fuels have massive decreasing costs. It was a massive scale program and for it to be successful everyone had to adapt to the new proces(Mosadeghrad & Ansarian, 2014). A major reason for this change to occur successfully was in the barrier of communication. Since the decision making process for shell got delegated and the leaders were challenged in implementing policies since they had distanced themself. Shell tried to redeem itself and is in a healthier position recently, and the result is seen in its continuous efforts of ongoing changes. The bottomline is that the organizational culture change is like changing thr personality of a human being which should be carried out with proper strategy and patience.
Another example of a successful company who couldn't successfully implement organisational change is of hewlett packard company("Nokia and Hewlett-Packard struggle to remain innovative", 2011). HP was once famous for its strong culture as it shaped several generations and had been successful under many different leaders. They faced heavy challenges in carrying out the business processes and during the late 2015, HP decided split into two companies, HP enterprise which owned the computing system assets and HP inc. which got the imaging and printing businesses(Smolaks, 2018). This decision was made so they can leverage on the strength of one company in the key areas, this would also enable cost savings which would result in business efficiencies. Both the new companies had to reestablish their cultures and align them with strategy and structure best for the business("Case Analysis Hewlett-Packard: Culture in Changing Times | Hewlett Packard | Mergers And Acquisitions", 2018). The senior management attempted the gradual change of culture and had to lay off staff due to the change towards more technology oriented, this lead to low staff morale and poor business performances. Changing the processes was a large scale challenge for hp management since they have to attempt to make changes in practices, attitudes, provide training and reinforce the new system("Case Analysis Hewlett-Packard: Culture in Changing Times | Hewlett Packard | Mergers And Acquisitions", 2018). This redesigning of processes involved the coordination of each employee. The hp managers had to reveal new approaches to make sure it's well understood. HP managers were forced to acquire the right resources which include their employees. Each employee possess a unique set of skills which can benefits the organisation as a whole. Furthermore the processes evolves over time since its deeply linked to the history and development. These split of the company helped to cut down the inefficient processes and update the relevant process, making sure less resources are wasted and the product/service quality increases("Nokia and Hewlett-Packard struggle to remain innovative", 2011). The winners of today's market are those who are able to apply technology in their processes and accelerate journey for its customers as hewlett packard enterprise attempts to do according to Whiteman.
Since the world is changing in new and dramatic ways, every industry faces intense challenges. An important type of such challenge is the changing organisation behaviours. This is a type of perceived change in an organisation which is related to individual employee behaviour (Schalk, R. & Campbell, J. W., (1998)). Successful companies often have special practices that trains its employees to be open to changes. But sometimes the organisation change is faced by the resistance from its employees. This resistance is because the change is not welcomed by the employees. If the resistance is not overcome, the change attempt will fail and will result in loss of time and energy. For example the traditional London taxi drivers were prospering until now. The traditional taxis have set their place in the urban transportation but the taxi industry has recently been taken over by Uber (Bouquet, C., & Renault, C. (2014)). the traditional taxi drivers were the prisoners of the system and were unable to catch up with the fast changing technologies and consumer expectations. They preferred more stability and are stuck in denial. There are the shortcomings of the traditional taxis why the companies like Uber are prospering. The traditional taxi companies were resisting the change towards modern technology and they were not innovative (Bouquet, C., & Renault, C. (2014)). Any change in the general environment necessitates a change in the organisation itself. Traditional london taxis would be able to survive if they are adaptive rather than reactive and there is minimal wasted resources(Renault, 2018). The organisation should integrate new ideas to develop new and better ways of carrying out tasks. This is organisational learning and plays a key element in developing a strategy for change. The resistance is usually due to the lack of trust between the managers and employees as they fear change(Renault, 2018). The change threatens habits and security, so it is important for the management to develop trust with employees and educate them to be more adaptive and regarding the benefits of the change. This will prepare them with confidence and strength when the organisation moves through the crises of change.
According to recent research by Jon Armstrong (2017), most organisations fail due to inadequate management communication and poor collaboration which is because of incomplete understanding of business opportunities. In concluding it is seen that the change is inevitable and thus it should be accepted and it is the job for the management to develop proper strategies to overcome various barriers and challenges following the change(Sharma, 2018). These strategies should acknowledge and anticipate interaction of structure technology and employees which will result in greater organisational effectiveness.