Organizational Change Managing the Human Side Free Essay Example, 3250 words

Many writers and the majority of organization practitioners have opted for a materialistic variable approach rather than anthropological or holistic view of the culture. Devis (2007) mentioned that each aspect of organizational culture is an important environmental condition affecting the system and its subsystem. Kotler and Schlesinger (2005) mentioned that organizational change efforts run into some form of human resistance. It is further important to mention that though the managers are aware of the change process, few of them still resist and take time to assess the change situation. Parochial self-interest, misunderstanding, and lack of trust, different assessment by different people in the organization, low tolerance for change due to degradation and lack of development in skills are some of the reasons that create hurdle in the change process. The argument of Peter Drucker (cited in Kotler and Schlesinger 2005, p. 44) makes it clear that manager s inability to change their attitudes and behavior though they understand the need for change, but offer resistance to change, is the major obstacle for organizational growth. Agocs (1997) mentioned that individuals resist change because of habit or inertia, fear of the unknown, absence of skills required after the change, and fear of losing power whereas organizations resist change because of inertia, sunk costs, scarce resources, threats to the power base of the old dominant coalition, values and beliefs, conformity to norms, and inability to perceive alternatives. We will write a custom essay sample on Organizational Change: Managing the Human Side or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now As mentioned earlier by APQC (1999) above, increased competition, globalization, mergers and acquisitions, alliances and various workforce departments create an environment demanding a greater need for organizational culture. Senge et al (cited in Cameron and Green, (2004, p. 135) argues that it is not possible for one or two leaders at the top management and shall be held responsible for envisaging and tackling the enormous range of challenges that need to be faced while approaching the fundamental change and instead claims that communities should be developed among interdependent leaders across organizations.