UNPACKING CONTINUITY AND CHANG AS A PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Organizational Transformation Questions & Answers

We have abundant evidence to suggest that organizational transformations occur through a process of continuity and change rather than disruptive upheaval. In this study, we identify the mechanisms that characterize the process and how they impact upon the organization’s potential to achieve the intended transformation. Based on an in-depth qualitative study of change in three case firms, we make three observations. First, in response to change initiatives the more strongly competing values for continuity and change are expressed, the stronger the simultaneous forces pushing back and pushing for the change, which generates an energy that propels the process of transformation. Energy permeates through the emotions that are provoked. Second, when the energy that develops through the expression of competing values is channeled into awareness-building, it compels actors to confront and debate contradictory perspectives which pave the way for a mutual exploration of change initiatives. On the other hand, when the energy is suppressed leading to awareness-blocking, there is no debate and the tussle between competing values intensifies as though in competition. Third, mutual exploration shapes continuity and change to unfurl as a synthesizing pattern, while competition between competing values invokes a polarizing pattern. A synthesizing pattern creates greater potential for the organization to reach the intended transformation than a polarizing one does. We found that when there is weak expression of competing values, little energy is generated to fuel the transformation, but it tends to stir up a preemptive defensiveness from those tending towards continuity in prevailing values. Continuity and change Management just drift along with little movement away from the status quo.
Introduction- Organizational change and the process by which it occurs continue to be of relevance and interest to both academics and practitioners. One area that has attracted considerable debate is whether organizational transformations that entail a fundamental shift in the core elements of structures, systems, strategy, values and culture (e.g., Nadler and Tushman, 1989; Miller and Friesen, 1984) occur in a revolutionary way or an evolutionary way. Revolutionary and evolutionary change differs on the scale and pace of upheaval and adjustment. Revolutionary change happens swiftly and affects virtually all parts of the organization simultaneously, whereas evolutionary change occurs slowly and gradually (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996). There has been mounting evidence that transformational change can and does occur more evolutionarily through a process of both continuity and change rather than that of rapid indiscriminate upheaval (e.g., Amis et al., 2004; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Child and Smith, 1987; Cooper et al., 1996; Pettigrew, 1987; Pettigrew et al., 1992). Speed and rapidity are not a prerequisite; rather organizations can transform in a gradual and elongated manner (Ford and Ford, 1994; Greenwood and Hinings, 1996; Plowman et al., 2007). Continuity and change as a process of organizational transformation have been supported by studies in a variety of sectors, which signals its importance. We do not understand much about the mechanisms that underlie and shape how these two opposing forces evolve together. More specifically, how do we differentiate one process of continuity and change from another? What is it about managing these contradictory forces that could shape the unfolding process differently and in turn have a differential impact on the organization’s potential of achieving the attempted transformation?
Revolutionary change and evolutionary change have been the dominant and often competing perspectives to describe the scale and pace with which a process of transformation occurs. A revolutionary change perspective is echoed in the punctuated equilibrium model wherein the process of change unfolds as two distinct phases: an early phase of dramatic upheaval, followed by a period of convergence (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). Almost simultaneously, scholars began to question whether this may not be the only trajectory followed. Child and Smith (1987), in a study of transformational change at Cadbury’s, found “interleaves of change and continuity” involving a combination of managerial receptivity to new ideas with a deeply embedded set of practices that lay at the firm’s historic core. The Greenwood and Hinings (1988) theory of tracks departed from the punctuated equilibrium process and explicated multiple paths of evolution more akin to the notion of continuity and change. Cooper et al. (1996) showed how a change in law firms occurred evolutionarily through a layering of old and new organizational elements. Mintzberg et al. (1998) suggested that the punctuated equilibrium trajectory might apply, say, to large mass-production organizations, while innovative organizations might follow a more balanced trajectory of stability and change. Eisenhardt (2000, p. 703) confirmed that the punctuated equilibrium model conceptualizes change as a quantum leap from one frozen state to the next, but such a view is being superseded by a more evolutionary or continuous view of organizational transformations.

Get the complete information about to set up the goal of an Organizational Transformation management process in the organizational sphere from Assignment Task. Also, read about the management Case Study Help and Marketing Management process of organizational transformation.

These studies demonstrated that organizational transformations could occur evolutionarily through a process of continuity and change. However, a framework to facilitate a systematic understanding of how continuity and change as an evolutionary process drive organizational transformation is not sufficiently developed. Continuity and change are inherently paradoxical d elements that seem logical in isolation but irrational when appearing simultaneously (Lewis, 2000). Some scholars have been conceptually sharpening a paradoxical lens to understand organizational processes, but those theoretical insights have not been systematically applied to continuity and change processes. Both theoretically and empirically we know little about how a process embracing such contradiction and seeming polarity is managed to drive an organization toward an intended transformation. Our study provides an integrated understanding of how continuity and change mutually evolve by identifying mechanisms that differentiate one process from another and have different consequences for the potential of achieving the intended transformation.
We conduct a longitudinal comparative analysis of three case firms in the legal industry. We demonstrate that a process of continuity and change is one that may evolve differently; displaying different characteristics, with implications for the organization’s potential to achieve an intended transformation. We develop a theoretical model identifying specific mechanisms that influence how continuity and change evolve together toward the intended transformations and provide managerial implications of our findings. The study illuminates four characteristics of the process. First, in response to change initiatives the more strongly competing values for continuity and change are expressed, the stronger the simultaneous forces pushing back and pushing for the change, which generates an energy that fuels the process of transformation. The energy permeates through the emotions provoked. Second, when the energy that develops through the expression of competing values is channeled through a space of awareness-building, it compels actors to confront and debate contradictory perspectives which pave the way for mutual exploration of change initiatives.
On the other hand, when the energy is suppressed blocking opportunity for awareness-building (awareness-blocking), there is no debate, and the struggle between competing values intensifies as though in competition. Third, mutual exploration shapes continuity and change to unfurl as a synthesizing pattern while competition between competing values invokes a polarizing pattern. A synthesizing pattern creates greater potential for the organization to reach the intended transformation than does a polarizing pattern of continuity and change. Fourth, when competing values are weakly expressed little energy is generated to fuel the transformation, but it tends to stir up a preemptive defensiveness from those tending towards continuity.

Theoretical Framework

Continuity and Change as a Process of Organizational Transformation

Several studies confirm that organizational transformations occur evolutionarily through a process of continuity and change. Pettigrew (1987) illustrated the coexistence of change and continuity in ICI as deep-seated cultural and political rationalities or core beliefs set in motion forces of bureaucratic momentum that reinforced continuity over change. Managers had to build a climate receptive to change actively, and use contextual events to point out the enabling opportunity created by changes in the outer context and to reinforce the notions that proposed changes represented continuity with past values and practices. Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995, p. 107) found that firms did not achieve fast adaptation through product innovation by “wrenching, infrequent change punctuating long periods of inertia.” Instead, they observed that innovation was achieved through changes that were not disruptive and detrimental to the organization……………………………………………………….
Place an order with us to get a customized paper similar to this or any related topic. NB: The assignment will be done from scratch and it
will be 100% original

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"