Organizational Change in the Public Capstone Project

Pages: 20 (6104 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 20  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Business - Management


These eight factors affect the outcome of results of change organizational levels during the change process.

This discussion also considers each factor as potentially leading to the successful implementation of change or improving implementation process. Conclusively, in spite of what some researchers might view as the coherent nature of these determinants and suggestions (Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002).

Factor 1: Need for change

It is the role of managerial leaders to authenticate and convincingly address the need for change. Research shows that the discharge of intended change usually requires that leaders confirm the need for change and plead with other members of the organization and significant external stakeholders that it is indispensable (Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). The process of persuading with other members of the need for change often starts with developing a convincing vision for it. A vision offers a picture or reflection of the future that is simple to communicate and that organizational members find interesting (Middlemist & Hitt, 1988).

Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!
It offers general direction for the change process and works as the basis from which to create specific approaches for arriving at a future final state. Some study on private organizations illustrates that it is simpler to persuade individuals of the need for change when leaders develop a vision that provides the hope of liberation from anxiety or distress. Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002, even propose establishing discontent with the modern well-being in order to get organization members to accept change. To induce the organization of the need for and desirability of change and to commence the process of "unfreezing" the organization, Abramson & Paul, (2001 propose applying efficient written and oral communication and forms of vigorous involvement among employees.

TOPIC: Capstone Project on Organizational Change in the Public Assignment

The public-management literature holds proof of the significance of determining the requirement for change and convincingly conveying it through an enduring process of exchange with numerous stakeholders and participants (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001, assert that successful discharge of new schemes relies on top management's capacity to spread information about the change and induce employees of the exigency of change. Abramson & Paul, (2001) illustrates how efficient local government managers substantiate the need for change through "listening and learning" and then convey those needs in directions that develop support for change.

Research studies have also noted public sector leaders' endeavors to take advantage of mandates and political opportunity, and external influences to confirm and convey the need for change (Richards & Rodriguez, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Factor 2: implement a Plan for change

Managerial leaders must create a course of action or approach for executing change. Alluring the organization members of the need for change is apparently inadequate to bring about real change. There must be new transformation into a course of action or approach with objectives and a plan for accomplishing it (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). This approach functions as a road map for the organization by providing direction on how to reach at the ideal end state, discovering challenges, and proposing steps for surmounting over those challenges.

As Abramson & Paul, (2001) suggest, the essential components of the vision should follow an approach essential for accomplishing that vision so that the change does not fragment into a set of disparate and mystifying directives and activities.

Two aspects of a course of action that seems vital for organizational change in the public sector comprise the precision or degree of specificity of the approach and the degree to which the approach rests on implementation theories. Policy implementation analysts confirm the significance of apparent, specific policy objectives and rational causal thinking about the connection between the inventiveness that requires implementations and the preferred outcomes (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Specific objectives assist make certain that the steps implemented in the field match with the proper policy by restraining the ability of implementing officials to change the policy objectives and providing a standard of responsibility. As Abramson & Paul, (2001) and Wallin (1997) affirmed, policy uncertainty can cause confusion, making public managers to reinterpret the policy and execute it in a style that brings about few of the changes that policy makers planned (Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Finally, a command for change based on both cognitive and motivation theories assists eradicate contradictory or conflicting directives that can underestimates endeavors to implement change. Wise, (2002), indicates how he and others advocating for major organizational changes developed an apparent, well-conceived and organized plan for the change process.

Factor 3: create political internal environment for Change

Managerial leaders have an obligation of building change and decrease resistance to it through extensive involvement in the change strategy and other means. Those that strive for key organizational changes typically confirm that triumphant leaders acknowledge that change comprises a political process of creating and fostering support from key stakeholders and organizational members. Mostly those in organizations refuse to give in to change for diverse reasons (Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, 2001; Carnall, 1995; Berman & XiaoHu, 2000) -- for instance some thoughts for change are rather ill conceived, unfounded, or pose negative impact to organization members.

Even after embracing a well-justified and well-planned change idea, nevertheless, leaders must create internal support and overcome resistance. Researchers observe that a predicament, a shock or even a strong external challenge to the organization can assist decrease resistance to change. Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, (1995) illustrates that because organizational members are highly adjustable to steadily rising conditions, a shock or stimulus of considerable degree is typically necessary for them to embrace change as predictable.

In a related vein, Kotter cautions managers against the risk of disregarding the involvement of organizational members in implementing change (Kotter, 1995). Van de Ven observed in some of the successful cases cited in organizational change that poor leadership can result to poor change management practices (Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, 1995). For many years, social scientists supports the significance of efficient and ethical involvement, in addition to other means, in promoting group and organizational change and in reducing resistance to it (Denis, and Ann, 2001).

More recently, researchers have further diversified numerous approaches of reducing resistance to change. Wise, (2002), illustrates different approaches that managers can utilize to cut down resistance to change. They include threats and pressures from internal and external environment among others. With the exclusion of threats and pressures whose outcome is counterproductive effects and further augment resistance, he cites that these strategies can be efficient at reducing resistance to change (Denis and Ann, 2001).

The extent of engagement is also significant. Extensive participation in the change process is possibly the most commonly recognized strategy to surmounting over resistance to change (Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, 1995). Numerous researchers whose core focus lies on private organizations asserts that planned change needs broad engagement by members at organization levels during all steps of implementation process (Robertson, and Sonal, 1995, Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, 2004; Denis, and Ann, 2001). The literature shows that engaging organizational members assists decrease challenges that bars change. This is possible through developing psychological ownership, encouraging the spread of significant information, and promoting employee response for enhancing the change in the process of implementation.

As Wallin, (1997) cites engaging organizational members in the steps of change can help minimize this kind of defiance. Wise, (2002), for instance, gives an account about continued process of meetings with all types of stakeholders to see that change occurs (Robertson, and Sonal, 1995, Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, 2004; Denis, and Ann, 2001). Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole (1995) too, illustrate how empowering organizational members plays a prime role in change management. Surprisingly, Christopher, and Guy Peters, (2004) assert that individuals should refrain from misjudging change resistance.

Several employees accepted reforms, and their endorsement requires liberation. Endorsing Schein's point, Robertson, and Sonal, (1995), Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, (2004) and Denis, and Ann, (2001), proposes that success may require involvement components for instance, delegating decision making to middle management and empowering workers implement changes. They cited, however, that top management still must play a significant function by supporting and rewarding modernization and showing support for the change. Successful implementation of organizational change, hence, often symbolizes a hybrid combining components of lower-level involvement and guidance from top management.

Even extensive engagement, however, does not require great efforts in order accept change, rather the, members require mutual agreement and embrace change (Carnall, 1995). Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, (2001); Carnall, (1995); Berman & XiaoHu, (2000), recommend that involvement ought to be extensive and cover all facets of… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (20 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Organizational Development and Change Essay

Organization Change as a Result of Outsourcing and Strategic Alliances Term Paper

Coping With Organizational Change Research Paper

Organizational Change Project Analysis Term Paper

Dealing Effectively With Organizational Change Research Proposal

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Organizational Change in the Public" Capstone Project in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Organizational Change in the Public.  (2013, April 15).  Retrieved September 23, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Organizational Change in the Public."  15 April 2013.  Web.  23 September 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Organizational Change in the Public."  April 15, 2013.  Accessed September 23, 2021.