9.5 Degree of Change

Pages 323 through 327 discusses the dimensions of change.  I think that the degree of change can sometimes be the biggest factor.  As the book points out, first-order changes happen almost every single day and most people find a way to deal with it.  First-order changes are expected and people find it easier to adapt.  Second-order changes such as lay-offs are much more difficult for people to handle because they are unexpected.  Second-order changes can disrupt the system and create uncertainty, which makes it harder for employees to adapt to.  Of course, there will always be those who resist change regardless of the degree of seriousness.  

Although change does not have to be negative, it is sometimes perceived as negative initially until the benefits are seen.  We were recently told at work that there would be some changes in our budget due to the economy.  Our company takes its employees on a ski trip every January and this trip has been cancelled for 2009.  This change has been extremely difficult for most of us to accept.  Although this is probably the best decision for the company in the long run, it's being met with resistance.

9.4 Making organizational change a success...

On page 328, there is a discussion on what makes organizational change successful. This section highlights the importance of looking at the initial goals of the change and the unintended consequences. At the company I work for, there had previously not been an HR department. This year a new HR department has been implemented with 3 or 4 new employees and it has not been a big success so far. I think one of the major problems is that the intended goals of establishing an HR department were not communicated properly. Before the HR department, there were several employees that took care of the HR functions and now these employees feel like their responsibilities have been taken away. Their morale has been low and there has been some feelings of resentment. I think some of this could have been predicted and handled better, instead of the poor way in which it is being handled right now. There have been other unintended consequences and most of company has been showing resistance to these changes. Although it may be too early to judge the success of this change, so far it has not been going well because goals and consequences were not properly assessed or communicated.

9.3 Technology changes everything...

I never knew an organization existed just to teach those above the age of 55 how to use computers -- that's great! Box 11.3 discusses the changes that the organization SeniorNet must cope with. Any change in society affects organizations and people and everyone must make adjustments. I think ever since technology took over, all organizations and people have been forced to rapidly adjust and adapt to all these new technologies. Technology has changed many things in organizations; employees and managers alike must be open to these changes. There are still people that insist on doing things the "old-fashioned way" and it's not beneficial for the organization because there are more efficient ways of doing things now. For example, one of my co-workers still insists on filing everything as hardcopy papers instead of scanning and saving. It's a waste of time to go through her files and dig out documents. So I think in cases like this, companies should step in and make a rule and insist that the new method be adopted.

9.2 Managing Conflict

I really like how our authors emphasize that there is no one best style for managing conflict on page 291.  This is very true and it highlights the importance of a manager being able to adapt to the situation.  I think managers that approach every situation with the same style and outlook will run into trouble.  It is especially important that when there is conflict, the manager is able to adjust to the situation and use the appropriate approach to deal with the situation.  Box 10.7 shows five basic styles for managing conflict and a manager may have had to use every one of these styles at some point in their careers.  I think a successful manager should be able to identify the type of conflict and use the appropriate approach.  I see managers trying to use power and authority when they are faced with difficult situations and this may not always be the best approach.

9.1 Context of Conflict

The discussion on page 286 and 287 highlights that the context in which we experience conflict influences how we deal with it.  The authors discuss the differences between high-context and low-context cultures and how this can create conflict if people are not aware of these differences.  Organizational cultures also determine how we deal with conflict and I can understand how this.  For example, in the company I work for everyone is very formal and we are not encouraged to openly talk about our problems.  If a conflict does arise, it's more likely to be ignored or the more senior person would get his/her way.  However, many of my friends who work for different companies will openly talk about their problems or voice their opinions to anybody in the organization.  I don't know which way is better, both have their pros and cons.  In my organization, we don't really deal with awkward situations and conflict because everything is resolved through power.  This way of resolving problems is not the best way and only results in a false consensus.

8.5 Control through technology

There have been quite a few blogs already regarding the use of technology to monitor and control employees and chapter 9 mentions this as well. I agree that organizations should have control and should monitor their employees to some extent. I know when I am at work, I usually have my personal email open and I occasionally take breaks and surf the net, read news, chat, pay bills, etc. I also make phone calls and gossip with fellow workers. Likewise, when I am at home I still check my work email and if there are urgent requests I do those at home as well. Organizations should know that this is normal and expected. It's impossible for an employee to work for 8-10 hours a days without doing something personal. After all everyone has lives outside of work! If organizations want employees that are completely dedicated and are willing to put in a lot of hours then these organizations should be willing to trust their employees and accept that they will be doing personal things at work. I feel that monitoring key strokes, recording phone conversations, using cameras, etc. are violating. All that matters in the end is that the work gets done!

8.4 Too much control...

Whenever my boss gives me a task she insists on explaining exactly how I should complete it and when I should complete.  She also sets a deadline and sends a reminder and checks in with me several times.  I find that this is extremely annoying because often her way of doing things is different from mine and I think it takes the learning aspect out of it.  I would prefer to be given a task with a little explanation and try doing it myself and ask questions if I get stuck.  I think this an example of being overly controlling and not allowing for employee growth.  I often feel like I am not able express my creative ideas or try new things because my bosses ways are so rigid.  Even worse is that this leadership style damages the organization as well, because employees will not be innovative or motivated.

In looking at Box 9.8, I think this system of control is bureaucratic.  The supervision is rigid and does not allow for creativity.  I think that a concertive system of control would be more beneficial and allow for more employee involvement.

8.3 Power

Often people think that those at the top of the organizational hierarchy have all the power; this is not always the case.  It's not always obvious but I have experienced this in my last job.  To most people, it would appear as though the VP of our department had all the power and made all the decisions, but the truth was that the manager beneath her influenced most of the decisions.  This manager was very persuasive and knew exactly how to get her way.  This is an example of how the "who" of power isn't always evident.  Many people in our department didn't even realize who was making all the decisions.  If there were any problems, top level management assumed it was the fault of the VP.  

8.2 When teamwork doesn't work...

One of the biggest problems in teams is that often certain members do not pull their own weight. This can put considerable stress on the rest of the team and they will start to feel negative towards those who are not doing their part.  I have experienced this in classes at SJSU and it can be very frustrating and as a result the entire team suffers.  Another problem in teams is that sometimes certain members try to do too much and do not let each team member handle their tasks on their own.  This also results in feelings of negativity and will not benefit the team as a whole.  Sometimes these problems can be solved through open and honest communication, but sometimes it just doesn't work.  I think this is the most frustrating thing -- when despite communicating with someone that perhaps their actions are harmful to the team, they do not make an effort to change.

8.1 Supervision in teams

The discussion on page 228 seemed interesting to me because I think there is some confusion as to what a manager's or supervisor's role in a team is.  Often organizational groups are referred to as teams but there is still and manager or supervisor in a "commanding and controlling" role.  This could be because the group is incorrectly labelled as a team or because the facilitator, as the the text calls it, is unclear or unwilling to make the adjustment and assume a less controlling role.  This can be a problem because the purpose for creating the team would be lost.  I think there is some difficulty in switching to more team-based structures as managers feel confused over their role because of the drastic change.  It can be difficult for the manager to let go and actually let team members deal with and participate in more areas of the process.  

In this way, I think team structures are better for organizations because it encourages more participation.  Team members will likely work together better and member will feel like they can take more ownership over their tasks because they are more involved.  Teams also allow for more learning because processes are less controlled.  

7.5 Too much emphasis on the leader?

Box 7.1 on page 178 discusses how the blame or credit almost always goes to the leader of the organization.  This is somewhat frustrating because it is not possible to attribute the entire success or failure to one person.  Although leadership is extremely important and can make a big difference in an organization, the leader cannot do it on his/her own.  A good leader will inspire, motivate, transform, etc. but the entire success of failure should not go to the leader alone.  I think in many cultures, especially the U.S., we put too emphasis on the leader and forget that there is an entire organization that deserves credit or blame as well.  For example, a new CEO may step in and make a strategic change, but it is still up to the rest of the organization to implement this change successfully.  We often forget about the "team effort" that occurs in all organizations and place all the focus and importance on one person -- the leader.

7.4 Are corporate leaders villains?

I found the discussion in Box 7.10 on page 196 to be extremely interesting.  When it comes down to it business can be ugly, and some of the most successful CEO's have had to do some horrible things to keep the company profitable.  As the text mentions, some leaders are hired solely to downsize companies, which can lead to thousands of people being laid off.  This is certainly not heroic!  I would think that no one would classify them in the same category as Gandhi, King, etc.  I agree with the text in that these leaders do transform organizations and often eventually lead it to success, but the focus is always on money and profits.  I think this is what makes corporate leaders different from some of the greatest leaders ever. 

7.3 My definition of leadership...

Many people mistakenly assume that if they have power and authority they are exhibiting leadership.  Often those in these roles where they have power are not really leaders.  I think of leadership as inspiring, motivating and bringing out the best in people consistently over a period of time.  I think a real leader would be someone people look up to and someone who leads by example.  I sometimes look at people in high positions and hope that I never turn out like them. Page 182 discusses the blur between authority, power and leadership.  Leadership does not have to happen at the "top" of an organization; leadership can exhibited by anyone...

7.2 Favoritism

Chapter 6 discusses a lot about relationships and page 153 specifically highlights how sometimes the superior - subordinate relationship can turn into a close friendship.  The text also highlights that the superior should be careful not to exhibit any favoritism.  In my experiences so far, I have found that this is almost impossible for the boss to not be partial towards his/her friends.  I also see employees that are extremely close to the boss take advantage of this relationship and abuse it.  So in this case, the blended relationship might be good for the superior and the subordinate, but it can create feelings of hostility amongst everyone else.  

7.1 Labels

Box 6.4 discusses how organizations have different label such as employees, customers, team, colleague, etc. to describe people.  These labels are intended to create a certain feeling for or within that person.  These labels also bring to attention the person's relationship, and maybe even importance, to the organization.  I have noticed that many retailers now label their customers as "guests."  This label indicates that those employees are to treat customers with even more hospitality and care.  But whether these labels are really useful in making a difference is another story.  I wonder if making the change from calling someone a "guest" as oppose to "customer" changes the service they receive.  So although it may be valuable to make these types of changes, organizations actually need to do more than just re-labeling to enforce the idea.

6.5 Another marketing technique

Companies often try to project this image of being completely committed to their customers and hsving customer service as their number one priority.  After reading Box 5.8 on page 128, I couldn't help laughing because the excerpts sounded so fake.  I think that there are many employees out there that are focused on their company's goals and strive to provide the best customer service, but most often this is not the case.  Further, I think that stories such as those presented in Box 5.8 make it difficult for the reader to take them seriously because they don't sound "real or genuine."  I doubt that this is the actual "voice of the employee."  While it's possible that American Airlines provides excellent customer service, I don't think these stories help illustrate this.  It's just another marketing technique to try and present the organization as having a certain desired image.

6.4 Telecommuting

Telecommuting can make it more difficult for employees to identify with their organizations. Box 5.2 specifically discusses this topic. As we have read already, organizations are comprised of people and their different cultures, the work environment, the organization's goals and values, etc. It is difficult for those who are not physically present in the workplace to get a feel for all these things and as a result they end up being more detached. I think it will be interesting to see as telecommuting becomes more prominent, how individuals identify with their organizations. There are some people that telecommute almost 100% of the time. These people would have a much more difficult time identifying with their company. On the flip side, companies would have to work harder to motivate these employees and create loyalty.

6.3 Identification

On page 112, the authors discuss how organizations seek to extend the corporate community beyond the workplace to increase identification with their employees.  In my organization, for example, we have a fully stocked kitchen, catered meals daily, a gym, and basically anything else you can think of.  It's like home and it's actually easier for most of us to stay at work all day, eat dinner and then go home.  Since our organization provides us with all these luxuries it's difficult for any of us to complain, when in reality we are doing more work and staying longer hours because it's so convenient.  I think that this is a good example of how organizations try to build strong bonds with their employees and increase identification.  In some ways we feel loyal to our organization because they take care of us and provide everything we need to work comfortably.  

6.2 The Informal Side

Although most organizations have some structure, rules, guidelines, etc., there is an informal side to organizations as well.  Box 4.8 on page 97 discusses this informal aspect of organizations and mentions its importance.  I think that this informal side is extremely important to the culture of the organization as it brings people closer together and encourages unity and friendship.  Lots of things go on in organizations such as: people become friends, people become enemies, rumors are spread, etc.  Some of these things are good and some are bad but are essential to the culture because without it the organization would be boring and have no personality.  Every year, for example, we have an offsite meeting.  Although it's intended to discuss the companies goals and is usually packed with meetings, we still go out and drink at night.  This informal activity is the most valuable portion of the entire offsite as it's the only way to get to know the people you work with.  People in organizations often have lunch together and don't discuss work at all.  It's much easier to work effectively with people once you get to know them.