Organization Change Management School of Business Case Study

Question: Discuss about theOrganization Change Management for School of Business Case Study. Answer: Introduction Organizations operate in an ever changing environment which is prone to variations(Samuel, 2013). This calls for organization change management as per the dynamics of the organization environment to survive the turbulences of change. However, the anticipated change may be difficult to attain if all the obstacles have not been eliminated(Li, 2005). Again, if the change is realized may not prosper to the objectives of the change if the peoples short term wins are not converted into long term wins. Therefore, the management should ensure that all the stakeholders interests are put into consideration before implementing change. Alternatively, the purpose and the goals of the change should be explained to the organization employees to ensure that they align their interests with the core objectives of the change(Pieterse, Marjolein, Homan, 2012). This should be supplemented with the preparation for the change to avoid the anxiety and other consequences of change. If the above-addressed is sues ignore the realized change may be full of problems and challenges. Business School case study in Australian University is the perfect example of the challenges and the problems which may face the organization if is to fully prepared to change. Although the organization structure changed, employees seem not to have gone through the process. From the scenario of Business School, it is clear that the management focused on the change of the organization structures rather the employees. According to they are people who undergoes the process of change but not the organization structures. Case Background The management problems of the Business School originates from merging three departments in the university. The university resolved to integrate the Department of Economics, Accounting and Finance and Management Studies. Upon the merging of the three departments, the Business School has resulted in the problems and challenges majorly rooted in the employees. Even though the school business is termed as one organization, the three departments seem to work separately. The division in the organization has resulted to each department working to meet its objective other than that of the School of Business. For example, the Department of Economics seems to enjoy the benefits generated by Management Studies Department. On the other side, Accounting and Finance Department seem to focus on the core objective of the school of business and thus it has majorly focused on quality cheating and research to enhance the reputation of the organization. Again, despite the fact the Management Studies De partment is working very hard for the school of business, it seems to develop some resistance. This is because it feels that its efforts are being used to benefit other departments such as Economics and Accounting and Finance. Case Analysis From the case background, it has come out, even though the three departments have merged each department seems to work separately. It is clear that the management did not prepare the employees to undergo the process of change. Again, the school of business to have not set the clear objectives that all the employees should aim to achieve. Instead, the management seems to have just created the structure. It failed to understand that the employees are the ones who should be subjected to change instead of the organizational structure. The effective and successful process of change should focus on changing the mindset of the people(Diefenbach, 2006). This ensures that the organizational culture which serves as the biggest obstacle is eliminated and the new targeted behavior is adopted. However, the school of business seems to have not been prepared to engage in the process of change. As a result, this had to the realization of change that is full challenges and problems that seem to be bi g obstacles to achieving the objectives of change. Problem Identification/Case Issues The critical aspect of the process of change is to identify the problems that are causing the need for change(Suresh, 2001). This aspect requires the management to carry out the deep and extensive diagnosis of the organization condition to determine the issues that may be arising. This is achieved by scanning both the organization internal and external environment(By, 2012). From the internal analysis of the school of business, it is quite clear that there are critical issues that need to be addressed. The following case issues are arising. First, the Department economics seems to still its culture it adopted in the last ten years. It is underperforming and thus it has hampered the realization of the school of business objectives. Second, Management Studies Department feels that its efforts are being utilized by other departments especially the Department of Economics. Third, the school of business has not established the core objectives which all the employees under the school of bu siness should aim to achieve. Instead, each department seems to focus on its goals, and their targets are only confined to the departments. Therefore, it is evident that the school of business lacks the aspect of working as a team and thus some problems need to be addressed to keep the organization on the right track. Problem Analysis and Justification The problems analysis in the school of business clearly indicates that there is a gap between the present state of affairs and the future goals of the organization. The analysis of the current problems facing an organization offers an opportunity for the managers to establishment the strategies of dealing with the problem(Kotter, 2007). Alternatively, it leads to justification of the issue at the hand to all the stakeholders that the change is needed(Heeks, 2006). For the school of business, it seems to lose focus on its roadmap for achieving the organization goals. Even though some departments such as Accounting and Finance are keenly focused on research which is the key goal of the school, it is doing it separately. The analysis portrays that the school of business lagging behind because of the lack of team spirit as well as the failure of some employees to drop the old culture and adopt the new culture under the umbrella of the school of business. Alternatively, the department of economics seems to suffer from the deficit which may be highly attributable to the high salary to the employees under this segment as well as the lack of research to enhance its department reputation to increase the number of enrolment. Therefore, it is highly justifiable that the school of business should undergo the process of change if it is to realize its core objectives of research and the deficit facing the school of economics. Alternative Solutions The solving of the organizational problem requires the manager to come with various courses of actions(G, 2010). The managers analyses and evaluates the various methods of getting rid of the problem and thus goes for the best one after each strategy benefits and costs(Donald, Cooper, Pamela, 2011). This report suggests that the solutions to the anticipated change should be more focused on the people rather than the change of the organizational structure. First, the management should consider revising high salary paid to the employees under the department of the economics. This is because this seems to be one of the major element causing the problems especially in the department of management studies. Again, the workers at the department of economics are no longer performers as before. Therefore, the solution of salary review should be based on compensating economics department employees based on the performance. Second, the management should set the overall objectives that link all the other goals of each objective. Fourth, the hardworking employees in the departments of Accounting and Finance and Management Studies should be motivated for their continued excellent performance. Recommendations It has come out clearly that the school of business is experiencing a significant number of problems hence calling for the need of change. This report recommends that all the organization should people should be taken through the process of change. Based on the alternative solutions offered by the report, this paper recommends that school of the business should adopt the following. Reduce the amount salary paid to the employees under the department of economics. This will help to resolve the internal and silent conflict within the school of business. Second, the organization should be the school of business goal which will accommodate all other goals within the organization. Fourth, the hardworking employees should be motivated through promotion and increased competition. However, despite the basic competition, all other employees should be recognized based on their performance. Implementation Kotter (1995) argued that organization change can be implemented by observing eight step change model. The eight steps suggested by Kotter include the creation of need for change; coming up with change management team; establishing the change vision; ensuring that the organization key stakeholders are informed about the anticipated change; getting rid of any obstacles which may prevent the change from happening; develop short-term wins and finally integrate the aspect of change in the organization culture. Similarly, the school of business should follow this steps if it easy to establish effective and successful change. However, note that for change to effective it must be implemented in the short term, medium and long term phases. Short Term Implementation This phase puts emphasis on the immediate achievement of the short-term goals (Bennett Segerberg, 2012). In support Al-Haddad Kotnour (2015) acknowledged that short-term implementation is helpful in creating a path for both immediate and long-term implementation. The School of Business can undertake short-term implementation by changing the compensation system within the organization. Medium Implementation Medium implementation aims to test the peoples adoption to change (Amagoh, 2008). This is because the change is inclined within the people and thus they cannot be coerced to conform to the targeted change. The medium implementation of the School of Business should be focused on a period of one year. The management should focus on achieving the integration of the organization objectives into one objective. Long Term Implementation Once the change has successfully gone through the first two stages, it is an indication that the people have already accepted the change. The school of business should thus implement all the elements of change, and they are included in the organization culture. This means that the organization will incorporate the changes in its activities and operations. Conclusion Organizational change management is a critical aspect of any organization and should be taken with due care. This is because if it is not well implemented will result to people reverting to the old behavior. Therefore, instead of realization effective change, the results will be wastage of organizational resources. Even though the school of business was as a result of change for merging the three departments, it seems it had not achieved the final objective, and it was still in the process of change. The initiators of the change seemed not have a clear objective when they brought together the three departments. As a result, the anticipated change has resulted in the widespread problems. References Al-Haddad, S., Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. Amagoh, F. (2008). Perspectives on Organizational Change: Systems and Complexity Theories. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1-14. Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication Society, 15(5), 739-768. By, R. (2012). Organisational Change Management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380. Diefenbach, T. (2006). Competing Perceptions and Business Models of Senior Managers in a Higher Education Institution. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change, Management, 3(2), 12-49. Donald, R., Cooper, Pamela, S. S. (2011). Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. John G. (2010). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 31-49. Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing e-government: An international text. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67. Kotter, J. (2007). 'LeadingChange. HarvardBusinessReview, 85(1), 96à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ 103. Li, L. (2005). The Effects of Trust and Shared Vision on Inward Knowledge Transfer In Subsidiaries Intra and Inter-Organizational Relationships. International Business Review, 14(5), 23-49. Pieterse, J. H., Marjolein, C. J., Homan, T. (2012). Professional discourses and resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(6), 798 - 818. Samuel, K. (2013). The Effects of Change Management in an Organisation: A Case Study of National University of Rwanda (NUR). Wyno Journal of Management Business Studies, 1(1), 1-18. Suresh, H. (2001). Change Management Must for todays Organization. Coimbatore: Think Business Networks Pvt. Ltd.