Organizational change and the effect of cultural change on employee motivation

The literature about organizational change tends to be classified into two main categories, one that emphasizes organizational efficiency and the other which emphasizes social change. Within these two groupings, the desired outcome is emphasized rather than creating a clear understanding of the dynamics of organizational change. It's speculated that this is due to market forces which have made improving organizational efficiency a lucrative enterprise. Another argument which less dominates but is significant of the opinion that the market is interested in achieving social change generating a need for this type of literature. In reviewing this literature, it's believed that selling books and other services are over-emphasized.

The literature which focuses on achieving organizational efficiency bases its assumptions on the work of Kurt Lewin. Kurt Lewin recommended a 'force field' analysis model to know organizational change. Field analysis proposes that a corporation is usually during a state of equilibrium. There are two forces which maintain organizational stability: driving forces and restraining forces. The driving forces are those elements of the organization which make a desired organizational change easy. Keeping the organization in equilibrium are the restraining forces. The organization will remain static if the two mentioned forces remain equal. Change occurs when one of these two forces becomes stronger than the opposite (disequilibrium). Once the change has occurred, the organization reverts to a replacement state of equilibrium which reflects the specified change.

To logically conclude, Lewin's model prophesies that an intervention which reinforces the driving forces or weakens the restraining forces will result in the desired change. Intervention strategies are different from one author to another, but they contain similar elements. Basic elements of a formula based organizational change strategy are classified as follow:

- Determining the need to change,

- Developing a vision,

- Building Consensus,

- Identifying barriers to implementation,

- Walking the talk,

- Creating an overall change strategy,

- Implementing and Evaluation.

First theory

Based on the information retrieved from Gateway Information Services, a New York consulting firm, the reason that 70% of all change programs fail is employee resistance. Given the poor success record of varied intervention strategies, it's reasonable to significantly question their validity because it relates to understanding the dynamics of organizational change. If intervention strategies are suspected, it also reasonably questions the organizational change theory which directly supports these interventions. Lewin's model of organizational change includes two basic ideas. The first is that an organization's original state is static or unchanging. Lewin explains this state as being "frozen". When the organization is during a state of change, it's malleable or it "thaws" then reverts to a static or "frozen" state. The second is that corporations are often successfully divided into two groups: one, that wants and accepts change and one, which opposes change. It's even gravely doubted that either concept has much basis in actual organizations.

The second course of the literature related to organizational change mainly focuses on social change. In contradiction to Lewin based interventions, this part of the literature does not need the support of an organization's management. It often pretends that the active opposition of those in power are expected by change agents

This perspective of an organization is more competitive and offers better insight as to how the change is implemented by an organization. In order to function effectively, an organization requires elements such as power and leadership, social control, management, authority, cultural change and vision. Each of these elements is prioritized based on the organization's overall mission. It is necessary to understand that the priority of each of these elements is not static but shift as the need arises. Change occurs through the action of a visionary; visionary by nature, or by definition, hold views different from the organization as a whole.

Second theory

Based on what Rosabeth Kanter has done, it seems that regardless of what an individual is within the organization they feel, a minimum of to a point, that they're powerless to change the organization. This, of course, might be a matter of assumption. The people at lower level certainly don't see the people at the highest as being powerless. Yet the people at the highest acknowledge all the trimmings related to power but don't experience the ability to substantially influence the organization. The people that are within the middle share the view of power from both the highest and therefore the bottom simultaneously. It's felt that it's reasonable to conclude that an understanding of organizational change recognizes all of those viewpoints as a facet of reality. The approach during this study is to look at the particular data of the concerned organization, i.e., British Council Afghanistan, and study the causality within the light of conflicting arguments for more realistic and context-specific results.

Third theory

In any firm, some people encourage change and some individuals want the status quo. And the two groups might be equal in their force as shown in below figure Force field theory Kurt Lewin developed the force field theory, which shows how forces for and against change balance and how the organization is balanced at any time, between these two opposing forces. When these forces stay in balance, the organizations are in a state of inertia and the change doesn't occur. To let the change happen in the organization, managers must adopt a change strategy to maximize the forces for change, reduce the resistance to change, or do both simultaneously.

As it's shown in the figure, at p1 the organization is in the state of inertia as the forces for and against changes are in balance. However, managers have determined that the organization should strive to achieve a performance level of p2. To let this happen, managers must increase the forces for change (as longer arrows demonstrate), reduce resistance to change (as demonstrated by the shorter arrows), or do both. If this successfully happened in any one of these strategies, the organization will reach the desired performance level of p2.

Fourth theory

Some researches treat change because of the context for other causal processes. They do not absorb the change but instead see the change as the frame around which other phenomena occur. The main aim of those studies is to improve and test cause-effect relationships within a changing context or to check theories of individual units' reactions to vary in higher-level units. As an example of this sort of research, a study has been done on how individual hospitals answer changes in institutional practices within the medical field by [1, p. 10 2].

Fifth theory

Several variations of studies of organizational change and innovation follow the variance method. For sure, the most common kind of variance study treats changes as a variable such as the rate of innovation (Rogers, 2004), or depth of change (Harrison, 1970). These researches aim to illustrate and/or expect the occurrence and magnitude of change or the effects of change on other variables. The methods applied in these studies range from the relatively straightforward laboratory [1, p. 10] and research [1, p. 10] schemes to sophisticated time series and event history models [1, p. 10].

Change denotes to any alteration that happens in a total word environment. In General, people are accustomed to a well-settled way of life and any difference on or deviation from that life may be called a change. The organizational change includes disequilibrium in the situation and environment in which the people and the group exist. Organizations are, of course, learning to tackle with the devastating rate of internal and external changes which support some fundamental changes in management philosophy and organizational change. Organizational changes are the nature and interest of employees, attitude, technological and environmental changes related to an organization and changes in rules and regulations affecting the organization.

Francis and Sinclair echo, "organizational change is an ongoing process of social construction that comprises spiral patterns of discursive change and restructuring of collective meanings". Based on research organization and organization development, "organizational change is the implementation of new methods and technologies intended to realign an organization with the changing demands of its business environment or to capitalize on business opportunities". As Van de Ven and Poole states, organizational change was expressed as an organizational entity. The entity can be a persons' job, a workgroup, an organizational strategy, a program, a product, or the overall organization.

REFERENCES

1. Scott P. M & Van de Ven, A.H. (2004). Organizational change and innovation. (First ed.). Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016: Oxford University Press.

2. Jpc, T. (2008). JPC Training and Consulting. Retrieved 28, April 2020, from http://www.jpc-training.com/change/review.htm

3. Vercueil, J, C, (2001). The relationship between certain personality characteristics, job satisfaction and personnel turnover in a highly special industrial organization. (5 Edition).Rand Africans University, Johannesburg.

4. Mullins, L.A. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

5. Herzberg, B. F. Mausner, B.B. Snyderman. (1993). The Motivation to Work. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

6. Lewin, K. (2016). Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of innovation and knowledge, 123(3),

7. Kenther, R.M. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: how companies experience it and how leaders guide it. (1st ed.). United State: A Division of Simon & Schuster INC.

8. Harrison, R.1970 "Choosing the depth of organizational intervention". Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 6: 182-202.

9. Rogers, E. (2004) Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.

10. Francis, H. & Sinclair, J. (2003). A Processual Analysis of HRM-Based Change. SAGE journals UK, 10(4), 685-706.