Organizational change and the effect of cultural change on employee motivation
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №12 - 2020
Amani Abdul Qader (Kabul, Afghanistan), Kazakh-American Free University, Kazakhstan
Novitskaya Yuliya, Kazakh-American Free University, Kazakhstan
Madiyarova Elvira, D. Serikbayev East-Kazakhstan State Technical University, Kazakhstan
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
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
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
- Developing a vision,
- Building Consensus,
- Identifying barriers
- Walking the talk,
- Creating an overall
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
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.
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.
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].
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.
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
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),
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №12 - 2020