49
Story Telling & Organizational Change 1 Using Storytelling as a Communication Tool for Organizational Change By [Your official name] MA [Uni!ersity] "year# BS [uni!ersity] "year# [$ame of %rogram] [$ame of Uni!ersity 'nstitution] [(ast month of )uarter you %lan to gra*uate] +,1-

APA 6th Edition.docx

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Story Telling & Organizational Change 1

Using Storytelling as a Communication Tool for Organizational ChangeBy[Your official name]

MA, [University], (year)BS, [university], (year)

[Name of program]

[Name of University/Institution]Story Telling & Organizational Change iii

[Last month of quarter you plan to graduate] 2014Table of ContentsCHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW1About The Company1Mission1Vision1Recent Strategy of the company2Change in Strategy3Introduction4Organizational Change8Organizational Development11Targets of Organizational Change13Planning for Organizational Change14Process of Organizational Change16Strategies for Implementing Organizational Change17Resistance to Change19Individual Resistance19Organizational Resistance to Change21Successful Methods For Addressing Resistance to Change22Different Types of Change25Planned vs. Unplanned Change26Continuous vs. Episodic change26Different Models of Organizational Change27Lewins Three-Step Model:27Kotters Model30Shields Model36Creating the Organizational Transition Plan for future37Step 137Step 238Step 338Step 438Step538Chapter Summary39References42

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWAbout The CompanyABC Company is a global leader in home and professional appliances. The companymanufactures more than 40 million products and its products are marketed in nearly everycountry across the globe.ABC company manufactures appliances across all major categoriesincluding cooking, dishwashers, refrigeration, fabric care, water filtration and garageorganization..The company focuses on modernization that is thoughtfully designed, based onextensive consumer insight to meet the demands of consumers and professionals. The aspect which differentiates company ABC is their commitment to develop strong brands that surpass customer satisfaction. Across the globe the consumers of Company ABC trust its products and services in making their life simpler. All efforts are made to build supreme levels of loyalty to products through enduring relationships with customers.Mission The mission of the company defines its focus and what different efforts they do to create value. The company speaks to be a company of people fascinated with creating loyal customers. From every contact, across every job the company establishes supreme customer loyalty.VisionEvery house.. Everywhere..with Performance, Pride and PassionThe vision of the company underlines that every home is their sphere of influence, every consumer and consumer activity is an opportunity for them. This vision stimulates the passion the company acquires for their customers enforcing themselves to offer solutions to effectively meet the demands of the customers. Pride in their work and on each other Passion for establishing supreme customer loyalty for their products and services Performance which motivates and rewards investors with high profits.ValueThe values of ABC Company are stable and they describe the way in which their employees are expected to behave and carryout the business all over the world.RespectThe company strongly emphasizes on establishing trust among its employees and values the contributions and capabilities of each employee.IntegrityThe company prefers to conduct all aspects of its business with honor and its chief principal underlines that there is no right way to practice a wrong action.Team workThe company recognizes the importance of team work in achieving exceptional outcomes and it realizes that pride results in working in team.Spirit of Winning The company prefers to create an organizational culture that facilitates employees and teams to attain and take pride in exceptional outcomes and moreover instigates the Spirit of Winning in all of its employees.Recent Strategy of the companyAt present Company ABC is committed to their value-creation strategy that focuses on cost, productivity, quality, consumer value and innovation. They continue to enhance their global operating platform to make sure that best quality and cost effective appliances are being manufactured globally. They plan strategies to maximize the benefits of their worldwide network of resources which stands supreme in the industry. They are creating better and more innovative appliances that certainly enhance the life style of their customers. They have build customer centers that facilitate their consumers concerns Change in StrategyRecently the company has hired a chief executive officer from North America who is responsible for designing a significant strategy change in the consumer contact center. The strategy for change is aimed to transform the consumer contact center into consumer engagement center. The new consumer engagement center will focus more on the entire product life cycle instead of focusing on warranty issues. The aim of this transition is to focus on developing long-lasting consumer relationships to grow aftermarket sales .This transition is a significant strategy change for ABC Company.

IntroductionChange is a constant and it is a thread woven in our professional and personal lives. The process of change occur in all aspect of our lives, it can take place in the physical environment we are surrounded with ,in international and national events, in the organizational structure, in socioeconomic and political issues and their remedies and in social and cultural norms and values. In the context of business or organization, change is referred to the speed with which the industry and trade has augmented immensely over a time period and new and innovative services or products are being launched on regular basis. Seeing that the world is becoming more multifaceted plus more and more unified, changes apparently do not affect people much. Therefore changes more often take place randomly and frequently. This demands the organizations to improve their capabilities in order to effectively meet and manage the changes which in turn enhance their level of competency. The world in which we live is subjected to continuous change, changes have been and are being made regularly. In the year 2006, Fleming and Senior put forward a depiction about the prospect future and in what ways it will influence people and their enthusiasm to accept changes. According to Fleming and Senior, the future organizations will comprise of less number of management layers that will in turn incorporate fewer employees working together. However reduction in the number of employees will result in a greater pressure level that will force the employees to work harder and for longer time duration. They also assumed that there might be potential changes in the working pattern of a workplace. For a specific organization there will be more than one work place and a larger population of employees will be expected to continue their duties from home. The characteristics of employees will also change, since the birth rate in future is expected to decrease and consequently the population of old people will raise. As a result the number of average age people in an organization will increase. The characteristics of employees skill are also expected to alter in future. This change will demand the employees to become more skilled while their education period. The rise in demand in new skill will be certainly due to continuous advancement in technologies and rise competency level. According to both the researches, due to expected changes in future, the employees will get more job opportunities and the self-employment rate will also increase. Since most of the employees in future will be of average age, therefore improvements in pension schemes will be necessary (Senior, Fleming, 2006).At present, majority of the organizations across the globe function under escalating demands for change. Due to high competition, technological advancement ,increase in customer demands and globalization the market has drastically changed(Harenstam et al., 2004).This rapidity in change requires the organizations to change their organizational behavior and policies so that they can effective become accustomed with the shifts in the market in (Nonas, 2005).On the other hand Beer and Nohria(2000) argue that high pace changes in development programs and projects disappointing usually results in disappointing results. For any organization in order to effectively manage the change, the change competency should increase. Change competency is defined as the capability of an organization to effectively manage the changes in the environment and to be competent enough to become the pat of this continuous process. Change competence is also referred to the selection of appropriate change strategy that go in line with the company and the experience of its employees regarding the change process (Beer, Nohria ,2000).Societal changes, political tends, consumer buying habits, economic climates, management policy or structure, employment levels and financial resources all affect an organizations ability to change (Buckner, Wakefield, 2006). However, change is dynamic, constant, and alarming for some organizations. Despite the expectations members of leadership have of an organization, the organizations ability to reach those goals many times depend on how well the organization responds to change (Buckner,Wakefield, 2006).According to Svanberg (2007) the leadership management of an organization plays a significant role in managing turbulent environments at the time of change process(Svanberg ,2007).The fundamental responsibility of leadership management is to convey the goals and vision according to the change. He argued that employees generally can work harder due to increased in pressure but in order to enhance the effectiveness of their work, it is imperative to acknowledge them about why they are required to do so and what are aims and objectives behind it. Moreover he also specifies that it is significant for the person in charge to carry through with the change and remain patient since positive outcomes do not come at once. In the recent times there is a significant increase in the interest of the leadership management regarding the influence a culture has on the ability to learn and change. Understanding planned and development change or organizational learning is not possible without taking into consideration culture as a fundamental source of resistance to change.(Schein, 1992).The culture has a huge impact on the process of change whilst the culture every time wins the race against strategy. This is due to the fact that a modified strategy will not result in the required change unless the effective changes in culture are not being made accordingly. The leadership management cannot simply execute organizational changes only by the means of systems and structures. They need to focus on their current organizational culture and determine whether or not their existing culture is adaptive to change, if not they to form new and stronger basis of unity (Hirschhorn, 2000) .It is important for the organizations to be aware of their organizational culture, holistic nature and the way in which their employees affect each other.The rapid rise in the change has enforced the organizations and their employees to focus on the bigger side of the picture and gain awareness how the changes in events and business policies can affect them. At present the dynamic business environment and technological advancement greatly demands changes to be made in the operations of the organization and its respective organizational structure. Turner (1999).It is noteworthy that today change is prevalent and has turn out to be an essential element in maintaining the competitive edge of an organization (Abrahamson ,2000). Therefore the old bureaucratic management style is now incompetent of meeting the challenges of changing business environment (Turner ,1999). In order to effectively meet the changes it is imperative for the organizations to strengthen their work force so that their profitability does not get affected due to changes (Eichelberger,1994). The prospect of an organization greatly depends upon the success of change projects and consequently immense endeavors are required for successful implementation of projects. Simpler process, increased productivity, shorter delivery durations and increased employ welfare are some of the typical examples of the objectives of organizational changes (Jarvenpaa,Eloranta, 2000) ;(Barker 1998); (Salminen, Perkiomaki,1998).According to a survey carried out in 1991 of major electronic companies of United States, just 38percent of companies engaged in total quality programs reported that through the program, more than 10 percent of their quality defects were improved (Schaffer, Thomson ,1992). The results of the survey illustrated that nearly 50-70 percent of reengineering endeavors not at all achieve their targets (Hammer, Champy 1993).

Organizational ChangeOrganizational Change is referred to a process in which an organization optimizes its performance as it targets to acquire an idealistic position in the market (Jones, 2004).From a submissive point of view, organizational change takes place in an organization as a response to turbulent business environments or as a reaction to crisis situation. Moreover a more pro-active perspective of organizational change is that it is the change prompt by senior management. Besides this organizational change is particularly evident in organizations that experience a shift in its senior management(Haveman, et al.,2001).According to Poole and Van de Ven (1995),the main causes of organizational change can be determined in the light of following theories: dialectical theory, life-cycle theory and teleological theory. According to teleological viewpoint organizational change is an effort made to attain an ideal state in the market through a continuous process of planning, execution, assessment and reformation. On the other hand the Life cycle theory argues that an organization is a body whose functions typically depends upon the external environment, various cycles involved in the phases of birth, growth, maturation and declination. At last the dialectical theory assumes that an organization to a certain extent is similar to a multi-cultural society with contrasting principals. In the context of this theory, organizational change is evident when one force dominates over others. As a result rest of the companies in the market tends to establish new organizational goals and values in order to remain competent in the market. Change denotes that new state of things is distinctive from existing one. Therefore organizational change signifies that new state of business in an organization is distinctive from the previous one (French, Bell 1999).According to French and Bill (1992) there are several different sources that stimulate the need for change(Goodstein, Burke 1997);( Kanter etal., 1992).These sources might be internal as well as external .The external driving forces to change include competitors ,customers ,technology and regulators. On the other hand the internal drivers to change include outdated products and services, fresh market opportunities, increasingly diversity in the workforce and new strategic directions. Moreover in 1958 Lipitt et al, explained that the decision of an organization to endeavor for change either depends upon the failures of its projects and business operations or on new business opportunities in the market (Lipitt et al.,1958).Change in an organization can also be motivated through an exterior change agent which takes the initial step towards the endeavor of change. It is observed that majority of the organizations incorporate change in their business structure or operations due to external pressures instead of internal aspiration of need (Goodstein,Burke ,1997);(Kleiner,Corrigan ,1989) ;(Lanninget al. 1999).According to a different research in the same regard, change is stimulated because of the awareness or experience of potential threat, loss or due to opportunity. In sum, organizational change is required in the circumstances when the present performance of an organization or is operational business strategies are no longer equivalent with the internal requirements of the company or with the exterior business environment and competency level. With respect to developing organizations two different notions are generally notable, that are operational change and organizational change. Yet practically both of these concepts are robustly intertwine with each other and hard to separate since changes in one unit of systems definitely influence other units also(Salminen,2000);(Sharrat ,McMurdo 1991) Therefore each attempt for a successful change must involve both operational and organization elements and characteristics.According to Goodstein and Burke (1997), organizational change in an organization can be achieved by changing three different levels of an organization. At first stands the changing of employees which means that changes must be made in their behavior, attitudes, values and skills. Secondly changing the procedures and systems that encompass reporting relationships, rewarding systems and work design. The last is changing the overall climate or culture of an organization. Tuner (1999) explains that change initiated by a project can be either cultural that is modifications in the structure processes, systems, attitudes, values and skills or can be technical that is advancement in the technology or physical environment. Salminen (2000) put forwards that artificial separation of the two types of changes typically takes place due to boundaries between different research traditions and academic limitations. Social researchers view organizational changes from an individuals perspective whereas operational changes from the perspective of operations research and industrial engineering (Salminen 2000).Moreover the subject matter and the extent of the change, its meticulousness and necessity might also differentiate the types of efforts required for the two changes. Frequently large scale changes in an organizational strategy and culture are often classified as evolutionary changes, incremental changes, fixing issues, fine-tuning and making necessary adjustments and modifications in the procedures. The changes should be made in such a manner that the implementation of the change only enhances the performance of an organization and does not change the organization. Elementary changes are as well known as fundamental or innovative change, turnaround ,renovation, reorientation or refocus(Barker 1998);( Buhanist 2000);( Mintzberg,Westley 1992).A change can be either premeditated that is planned or accidental that is unplanned. The process of change can be either slow or past. However it can have an effect on many business units of an organization or only few can be affected. The number of components of an organization depends on the degree of change that is being implemented(Cummings, Worley 1993,).Westley and Mintzberg (1992) propose that change can occur in all aspects of business that is from the broadest, most conceptual level for example changing the overall business culture of an organization to the narrowest and most confined, for example replacing out-dated instruments with new advance one. Nevertheless change can take place around two basic spheres that is change in the operational strategy or pertaining to organization. Although majority of the scholars believe that the topic of organizational change is currently the centre of attraction for most of the organizations, a difference in opinions exist regarding the implementation and management of it. Even though opinions of few scholars seem to contrast with each other, they still must be viewed as harmonizing to one another. Every approach related to organizational change is distinctive but still it provides a partial perceptive about it. However by synchronizing insight from each approach a comprehensive understanding of organizational change can be established. In fact, this coordinated insight of organizational change is expected to be richer and effective as compare to the adaption of single approach. (Poole, Van de Ven, 2005).

Organizational DevelopmentOrganizational change is frequently handled under organizational development. Organizational development is a field of study that basically originates and is based on the behavioral science disciplines such as anthropology, system theory, sociology, organization theory, management and psychology (French, Bell 1999).The role of organizational development is to address the change and to determine the impacts of change on the organization and its employees. Therefore effectual organizational development facilitates the organization and its employees in managing the change in a more effective manner. In order to introduce a planned change in an organization, various strategies can be designed such efforts can be made to establish a cohesive team that works together to enhance organizational functioning. Despite the fact that change is specified, there are numerous approaches to effectively cope with it, however some of them are effective while others are not. Organizational development helps an organization to cope with changing business environments both externally and internally .And it generally does so by initiating endeavors for a planned change. In the field of business, organizational development is comparatively a fresh approach for organizations. On the other hand the approach regarding the professional development of employees has been acknowledged and implemented in majority of the organizations in the past time. However still indistinctness exist regarding the approach of organizational development. Nevertheless the chief principal of organizational development and professional development is similar but a crucial divergence exists in focus. The aim of organizational development is to enhance the overall profitability, responsiveness to turbulent environment and productivity of an organization where as professional development focuses on improving the capabilities and effectiveness of employees. (Cummings, Huse, 1988).There targets are achieved by involving a number of processes that are designed to deal with specific issues. The endeavors of organizational development whether facilitated by an external professional or by an internal expert as a consistent, method results in a planned change inside the teams and organizations. Change in organization is not triggered until its requirement becomes crucial for the survival for an organization. This is due to the fact that usually the organizations and the employees oppose change. In general, the organizations and employees do not embrace a change until they are forced to do so. One concerned researcher has explained in his theory about how pain triggers change in an organization. According to him the situation of pain arises when employees or organization pay the cost of missing a golden opportunity or for being in perilous state. Therefore in such circumstances change is required to eliminate the pain. According to this perception, it can be concluded that change will not be appreciated because it is a good idea. But it will take place because the loss or pain suffered by an organization and its employees is adequately immense to justify the complexity of implementing the change. Thus the person in charge should emphasize more on the utter need of incorporating change within an organization, instead of just focusing on its benefits. Therefore it is significant for the person in charge of the change to acknowledge this approach and make others realize that expect of change there is no other option for an organization in struggling situations.Targets of Organizational Change The factors that influence organizational change are extensive. These factors are mainly related to changes in external environment and strategies that will facilitate in enhancing the internal administrative efficacy. Prior to planning for change, the organizations must focus on the potential reasons for change. These reasons generally encompasses internal situation of an organization and external environment. Recognizing the key reasons behind the change, assist the change agents to identify the factors that must be changed. The most potential targets of organizational change take account of present strategy, organizational culture, vision, structure of an organization, its style of leadership, systems and production technology (Yang, et al.,2009).Vision of an organization mainly comprises of the organizational core value of a company, meanwhile it also includes that values which are adapted in accordance to the external environment. It is imperative to determine the core values of an organization during the process of organizational change so that they can be preserved. Strategy of a company typically represents the long-standing goals of an organization and steps and resources required to accomplish the desired goals. A company can divide its chief strategy into the overall strategic change for example multiple angle management, enterprise strategy change such as low cost strategy and global expansion strategy change. The culture of an organization typically represents the norms and values of its employees, their behavior towards work and their perceptions. Moreover it is easier to manage explicit culture as compare to implicit culture. Structure of an organization refers to the authority relations and official system of duty of an organization. Changes made in the structure of an organization results in a transformed horizontal differentiation, level of formalization, vertical disintegration and power allocation. Production technology includes knowledge, technology, capabilities, and resources such as tools, equipments and computers that are required for transforming inputs into outputs. System comprises of formal policies, regulations and procedures such as methods for assessing performance, goal budget system and reward system which are required for operating the organization. Leadership refers to an influential force within an organization. The style of leadership typically influences the interface of its employees and group dynamics. The targets of organizational change will certainly influence each other. For instance the actualization of vision of an organization relies on its strategies and culture. Hence in the process of organizational change the vision of the company should be taken into account so that different change targets can be considered as a whole to successfully accomplish the organizational change.Planning for Organizational ChangePrior to initiating an organizational change, it is imperative for the senior management of an organization to design strategies and forecast prospective issues. Kurt Lewin (1947) had proposed a technique known as force-field analysis that can be used by the organizations to plan and manage organizational change. This analysis technique is relatively simple and effective. He assumed that organizational behavior was a consequence of stability among the two disparate forces. According to his perspective change might only triggered if there is a shift in balance among these two forces. He described driving force as a force that influences a positive and enhanced change. Driving forces of an organizational change can be the customers or clients of an organization, changing business trends and resources. Resisting an organizational change are restrictive forces which are characterized as barriers to preferred change. While both of these opposing forces are active in an organization, a state of balance exists within an organization. This signifies that when the weights of restrictive forces and driving forces are comparatively same, an organization will stay static. However as new changes become effective in an organization a new state of balance will be established as a result the organization will return to quasi stationary equilibrium. Force-field analysis facilitates an organization in designing two major strategies that are: a strategy that is used by the employees to determine their current organizational framework, brain storming and forecasting the potential changes that are currently taking place in the business environment. Second strategy acts as a tool for executing the change. In the former the force-field analysis becomes a technique that can be utilized by the organizations in environmental scanning which is in turn beneficial for strategic planning. And through which an organization maintain a record of potential and impending changes. These changes range from social and cultural trends to employee turnover or replacement of out-date equipments. Anticipating an organizational change prior to its implementation helps organizations to effectively prepare to confront the consequences of it. The force-field analysis also plays a significant role in examining the potential resources which can be brought to withstand an organizational change and any anticipating restrictive forces. This pre-planning and analysis facilitates the organizations in designing strategies to effectively implement an organizational change within an organization.Process of Organizational ChangeThe technique such as force-field analysis is an initial step of organizational changes. There are many other methods for processing an organizational change. Egan in 1988 had proposed one such simple and straightforward process to bring about an organizational change. His proposed process comprises of three steps that are as follows: A critical evaluation of the present state of an organization The creation of desired organizational state Designing an effective strategy that shifts the system from present to desired organizational stateWithout any doubt it can be said that the theory of Lewin had influenced Egan, since both of them essentially emphasize on both evaluation and planning. Additionally, Egan claims that planning must be directed to an action that generates positive and beneficial results which in turn enhances the overall performance of an organization. Therefore planning as well as organizational change should be intended to accomplish a specific goal. As the requirement of organizational change has been recognized, an organization must follow three steps to bring about the desired change. The first step is to critically evaluate the present state of an organization. This can be done with the help of force-field analysis technique. This step will help the organizations to determine the driving forces of the preferred change and the restrictive forces that can act as a barrier to the desired organizational change. The second step in the process of organizational change involves the creation of desired organizational state. This step can be completed through sessions of brainstorming that chiefly involves the leadership management of an organization. Effective brain storming sessions helps the management to create a more prospective future. At the same time as the need that triggers the change is undeniable, there are numerous ways in which change can take place inside an organization. The third and the most crucial step in the process of organizational change is designing an effective strategy that shifts the system from present to desired organizational state. The strategy is further classified into a number of plans that can be put into practice by organizations in order to overcome the restrictive forces in an organization. This is basically a political process that encourages the employees to tie together and make use of their combined power. Power is crucial for bringing about an organizational change. It cannot be considered either good or bad since it simply facilitates the management in achieving their aims and objectives. Mastering the politics of planning a book created by Benyeniste(1989) explains that even well planned strategies for organizational change can fail if politics of implementation is not taken into account(Benyeniste,1989). Effective organizational changes are only possible when the experts of change combine together to bring about the preferred change within an organization by utilizing formal networks as well as informal networks.Strategies for Implementing Organizational ChangeIt is essential for the management of an organization to combine the resources and workforce when moving an organizational development endeavor from a planning phase to the implementation stage. According to Kanter (1983) there are three set of power tools that can be acquired by the employees of an organization for gaining power essential for moving towards organizational change. These tools are as follows: Resources that include staff, materials, funds and time Information related to statistics, political intelligence, technical data and expertise Supports that encompasses backing, authorization, authenticity and endorsement.The first strategy in executing an organizational change is involves the collection of maximum number of the above mentioned power tools. Once this is done the employees can plant seeds of support for the planned organizational change. This is predominantly significant in convey others the critical necessitate for planned change. The next strategy is to wrap up the change in such a manner that makes it less intimidating and hence easier to advertise. For example it is simpler to incorporate an organization change if the desired change is performed on trial basis, can be reversible if desired outcomes havent been achieved, executed in small steps, is appropriate with respect to current direction of an organization, is consistent and familiar with the past organizations experience and fabricated on the earlier projects or commitments of an organization(Kanter, 1983).This packaging must be accomplished before presenting the organizational developments endeavors to the person in-charge of the change. However the responsible person of creating this package will be involved for further assistance in packaging and selling of the proposed change.Establishing alliances with other organizations having the same interest is considered as an essential strategy throughout the executing phase of organizational change. Furthermore support from all the areas across different levels of organization that are expected to be affected because of the desired change must be gathered prior to the implementation of organizational change. In order to cater concerns or questions of supporters regarding the proposed organizational change it shall be convenient for the change masters to make use of their informal networks instead of discussing the issues in formal meetings. However pre-meetings can provide a platform for addressing the concerns of supporters or employees regarding the designed organizational change. In addition, the pre-meetings also provide opportunity to responsible employees to trade some of power tools they have utilized to establish support.Resistance to ChangeIn each type of change whether minor or major, resistance to certain extent prevail. This section of the literature review will discuss some of the causes and types of resistance to change specifically at organizational level.Individual ResistanceAs discussed above whether a change is major or minor, resistance to change exist in each type, however the question arises why resistance to change occurs and what are key factors that promote resistance. Resistance to change prevails because some of the employees in an organization are fear of the change. They believe that any kind of change in the structure of an organization might affect their employments; as a result they resist such changes. Another reason is that most of the employees are not familiar with the benefits of a change. It is the nature of individuals to accumulate habits easily and follow a certain routine. Therefore any kind of change might disrupt their daily routine. Initially change represents the unknown. It could mean the likelihood of disappointment, the surrendering or attenuation of ones span of power and control. On the other hand it might be possible that the planned change does not have any effect on the performance and productivity of an organization. Hence, any of these conceivable outcomes can cause mistrust and in this manner fear, naturally bringing resistance to endeavours related to change. Moreover the shift from current state to changed state is hard for both the organization and its employees. On an individual level, it is essential to remind a person that each move or change effort starts with a finishing that is the closure of present state. The initial step headed for change is to revise the methodology of closure. The potential outcomes of a change must be acknowledged and managed before people can completely embrace the change. Regardless of the fact that the approaching change is required, a feeling of misfortune will exist since our sense of self being is characterized by our responsibilities, roles and context. Therefore any kind of change compels us to redefine ourselves and our reality. However this procedure is not simple. Resistance to change is assumed to be one of most significant factor that influence the success of an organizational change that encompasses new policies, latest organizational structure and technological advancement. Maurer (1996) had claimed that more than half of the attempts of organizational change fail and resistance to change is believed to be a chief contributor to that failure. In the recent times, researchers are more interested in studying behavior reaction (Maurer,1996). According to Brower and Abolafia (1995) resistance is a sort of inaction and action(Brower,Abolafia,1995). On the other hand Ashforth and Mael (1998) explained that resistance to change occurs within an organization when its employees deliberately perform actions of omission and defiance(Ashforth,Mael,1998). Shapiro et al. (1995) defined resistance to change as an enthusiasm of deceiving authorities (Shapiro et al.,1995), whereas Sagie et al.(1985) suggested that resistance to change can be diminished if employees exhibit acquiescent behavior(Sagie et al.,1985). Despite of the fact that concept of resistance has been clearly explained; there are certain limitations in the concept. According to Jermier et al.(1994),while processing an organizational change it must be notified that interests of senior management must not be privileged above the interests of employees(Jermier et al.,1994). Block (1993) argued that resistance to change evidently prevail in situations where employees distrust their management or might have experienced disappointing change outcomes in the past (Block ,1993).OToole (1995) stated that resistance to change is an attempt to save conventional social relationships that might be at risk because of change. Graham(1996) pointed out that some employees resist organizational changes ,since they lack vision for future, are short of capabilities required to effectively manage the change or fear of replacement or relocation.Organizational Resistance to ChangeBesides, the individuals resist change; it is evident that resistance to change is observed at organizational level also. Since organizations are mainly composed of individuals, therefore the degree to which employees of an organization can manage the change symbolizes the organizational capacity of change .Nevertheless, apart from individuals behavior there are other factors also that contribute to resistance to change. Some of these factors are listed below:InertiaInertia is believed to be one of the most strong force that resists the organization and its employees to execute organization change. Due to burden of excess work, the necessity of implementing a change diminishes.

Lack of Clear InstructionIf all the instructions and information regarding the implementation of organizational change are not clearly communicated with the employees, different perspectives and expectations concerning the change might prevail. Low-Risk EnvironmentIn an organization where managers do not encourage change and blame employees for the failure of initiatives, employees usually resist change. They prefer to work in safer and low risk environments. As a result they do not appreciate change even though it is well-planned. Lack of Sufficient Resources. Lack of adequate resources is assumed to be the most significant factor that leads to organizational resistance. If an organization does not acquire adequate resources such as workforce, funds and time to effectively bring about the change, the endeavors of change will incapacitate.All of these factors and other aspects that are specific to an organization can destabilize the efforts of desired change and offer resistance to change.Successful Methods For Addressing Resistance to ChangeRecognizing the chief drivers of resistance to change can assist the leadership management to design effective strategies to address resistance to change. There are many reasons why employees present a negative reaction to change. The chief reason that encourages employees to resist change is personal loss. Most of the employees fear that due to organizational change they might lose some for example: Security: employees fear loss of their employments because of organizational change which might result in lessening of workforce or automation. Money: Employees concern regarding cutback of their salaries and incentives due to potential change. They also concern about practicing overtime responsibilities that might be required to effectively manage the change. In addition, a rise in their expenses can also occur if the desired change results in reallocation of employees to locations that are far from their home. Power and control: Employees fear of losing their power and control that is associated with their current position and which might be affected due to change. Friends and important contacts: A change in location as a consequence of organizational change can result in the loss of friends and important contacts. Therefore employees offer resistance to change, since do not want to lose their contacts. Freedom and authority: Organizational changes such as structural changes often result in the change of leadership management. Therefore employees show concern regarding their relation with their new boss. They fear that new management or boss can replace personal freedom and confidence with close supervision that in turn diminishes the opportunity for decision-making. Moreover the employees also worry that new boss might withdraw their authority as a result they suffer loss of authority and control over their subordinates.Resistance to organizational change must not be regarded in terms of defiant and confrontations, instead it should be recognized as a force or challenge that helps organizations in overcoming any threats or negative aspects of change that are identified by critics(Waddell, Sohal, 1998);(Piderit, 2000).It is the responsibility of senior management to encourage those employees who tend to distrust the planned change and challenge it. Such employees should be communicated separately about the benefits of the planned change so that their ambiguities vanish. However unconvinced people are assumed to be the best people that can highlight the issues associated with the change and can also fix them. Stanley et al.(2005) suggested a learning and teaching approach to deal with the employees that offer resistance to change. Teaching or training are considered as the best practices that can convince and establish support of individuals to play their role in the change process. It is crucial for the leadership management to refocus their change efforts if a large degree of resistance to change persist(Geller, 2002).The process of refocusing includes involvement of other employees, listening and receiving feedback from them, encouraging employees and encouraging their ownership of the change process. In order to enhance the acceptance of planned change on individual, it is significant to breakdown the process and reconstruct (Gotsill,2007).In the first phase of communication if the employees fail to comprehend the organizational change or fail to see the vision for the future, it is significant to reconstruct the change process. Reconstruction allows the employees to see the big and brighter side of the picture and their responsibilities in the change process.It is vital for the change agents to make every step to widen the sphere of employees involvement(Axelrod, 2002).The process of organizational change should be conducted in a democratic manner, despite of the fact that mangers at the top level of the organization possess formal authority. Instead of conventional command-and-control approach it is vital to create democratic environment in the work place where the employees are treated with reverence and their intelligence and opinion is respected. Integration of employees with the change process resolves the issue of lack of organizational support required for successful change as now organizational change is an institutional process. It is essential for the managers to establish a relationship of trust with their employees showing confidence and commitment on all the members of the organization. Most of the employees disagree with the statement that take care of the organization and organization will take care of you. Perhaps in the past time, the employees didnt have much idea but nowadays employees are smart enough to provide logical reasons of fearing loss of employment. Employees prefer to work in flow instead of changing their direction of work for improving the performance of the organization. Therefore it is imperative for change masters to overcome this approach and encourage the employees to actively participate in the process of change. Once the design of the change process is approved, the leadership management should establish support with theemployees(Kotter,Cohen,2000).However lack of support and commitment will lead to failure of change implementation process. It is must for every business organization to employ principals of continuous improvement and organizational learning. Moreover it is a vital approach to maintain the records about the past changes, since these past records can be utilized by the present organizational leaders to avoid mistakes made in the past. Different Types of ChangeOrganizational change can take place in different forms. Initially the change can be referred as invasive or non-invasive, they can be identified as potential threats or not. It might be possible that few changes affect the business environment only and not a group of employees whereas other changes might impact directly on the group such as introduction of new manager as a part of change. The changes can be made on large scale or vice versa, however large-scaled changes tend to alter the overall business culture of an organization. On the other hand changes made at comparatively small scale might only influence a small number of employees. Changes can also contrast in terms of controllability and predictability. For instance a change is predictable as well as controllable the only option for the employees is to select appropriate time for executing the planned change. The benefit of such type of changes is that the methodology for change can be executed when the change agents are prepared and have sufficient time. In contrast to predictable and controllable changes, the changes can also be uncontrollable and unpredictable. Such type of changes are expected to present potentially immense challenges and difficulties for the organization(Poole,Van de Ven, 2004).The organizational changes can be regarded as planned and unplanned, episodic and Continuous. Below is the comparison of the four types of change mentioned.Planned vs. Unplanned Change Planned changes are usually executed by change agents who acquire complete understanding about the change and about the organizational structure where the change has been required. A Planned change always tends to enhance the performance of organization and in such type of change desired goals are defined prior to the implementation of change. In contrast to planned change, unplanned change does not always occur by the will of individual and it usually does not direct the organization in a desirable direction. Other major difference between unplanned change and planned change lies under the extent to which the change can be scripted, controlled and choreographed. Theories of planned change constructively focus on the ways in which the change can be controlled or administrated whereas theories of unplanned changes argue that change is a forced initiative that cannot necessarily be effectively handled or organized (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004) .Continuous vs. Episodic change Changes can also be classified according to their cadence such as continuous or episodic change. Episodic change is basically discontinuous, intermittent and deliberate. On the other hand continuous change is often regarded as an evolving, cumulative and an ongoing process. Episodic change usually takes place while an organization is transiting from its state of equilibrium. It utilizes a discrete time interval to get accomplished and it usually results in the change of technology or key personnel. In contrast, continuous change is a turn of phrase which encompasses cumulative, ongoing and evolving organizational changes. In general, a change can be illustrated as grounded and positioned in enduring updates of work processes. The concept of continuous change illustrates those diminutive consistent modifications which are implemented simultaneously across the business units within the organization can cumulate and bring about a significant organizational change (Weick, Quinn, 1999).The ways of executing continuous and episodic change are contrasting. An episodic change is generally executed over a short time interval and they are frequently well-designed that is from the initial to final, all steps of change are clearly defined prior to the implementation of change. This type of change is normally executed by change masters. On the other hand a continuous change typically involves minor modifications and enhancements in daily routine processes that can come into view immediately. While implementing continuous change, change masters require developing an understanding regarding the ongoing changes. This understanding can be developed by the means of effective communication (Nonas, 2005) Different Models of Organizational ChangeLewins Three-Step Model:After the presentation of theory in 1947, numerous changes have occurred. Beside all changes that occurred, the model given by Kurt Lewin is functional and pertinent yet. One of the major points of the theory of Kurt Lewin is that change is not just a single step but it happens undergoing through various steps and levels. More importantly when we are concern with psychological stage then change is all and all a venture or a great journey instead of a simple single step. The journey of change may comprise of various levels of errors, lack of understandings etc. A theory related to change based on 3 stages was presented by Kurt Lewin.Stage 1: UnfreezeIt is the first step of change transition stage of Lewis in which various people belonging to countries that are not ready for change are taken to such other countries that are eager and ready to take steps for change. This stage of unfreezing is really very important for people and is really helpful to familiarize with world of change, in which we are living nowadays. This stage will be about preparing for change. It includes getting to a focus of comprehension that change will be essential, it will enhance the importance and will help us to understand need of change and prepared ourselves to move away from our present safe place. This introductory stage is about to make ready ourselves, others, before occurrence of change (and conceivably making a circumstance in which we need the change).we will become more keen and interesting to make change if we realize the necessity and urgency of change more and more.

Step 2: Change (Transition)The most important thing after preparing the people or making them unfrozen for change is that to create and make such steps that would make them going on for it, this is really another important point of concern. As it has been told earlier that according to Lewin change is a journey or a complete process not a even step. He named that process or journey a transition. This is the internal development or voyage which is made in response to a change. This second stage happens as we create the changes which are required. After making people unfrozen, the most difficult thing is to make them move on for the change. Hence this second stage is the most difficult stage because people are not sure or afraid of change. Hence people should be provided with plenty of time to familiarize and to work with them as they are feeding themselves with changes. People should be provided with full assistance in form of care, guidelines, training and etc because at this stage support will play a vital role. Their mistakes should be ignored and they should be allowed to create their ideas for solution of a problem. This would be helpful for change and also helpful to communicate the image of required change and would not let them shift away from path of change and make them comfortable.

Step 3: Freezing Or RefreezingThis is the 3rd stage of Lewins theory in which people from the countries that are in the beginning state of transition are taken and shifted to such countries which are sufficiently productive and stable. Some people named this switching and shifting of people as refreezing while Lewin named it as freezing stage. Establishing stability is another meaning of this stage after change is happened. The changes are acknowledged and turn into the new standard. People structure new relationships and get agreeable with their schedules. This can require plenty of time. In today's universe of change the following new change could happen in few days. There is simply no opportunity and time to subside into agreeable schedules. This inflexibility of freezing does not fit with up to date pondering change being a nonstop, at times riotous procedure in which incredible adaptability will be requested. Hence prominent thoughts have moved far away from the idea of freezing. Rather, we might as well ponder this last stage as being more adaptable. By following this "Unfreezing" for the following change could be simpler. Lewin`s model is an appropriate model that shows the chain of changes that a company or organization must undergo in a circumstance at a coveted, anticipated. This model will be a moderately straightforward outline and simple use by chiefs and could be utilized to reshape society. This model is really helpful in boosting up performance and increase production for such companies and organization that are having various problems and hurdles in their development instead of those that are working efficiently and are fully stable. The environment in which we are living is dynamic therefore organizations should show quick and faster response to change(Lewin,1951)

Kotters Model

Step One: Create UrgencyThe change will easily occur when each and every individual, department and groups of an organization is willing to make the change instead of few people or departments of an organization. This will be helpful in boosting up the movement of change more over this will be helpful in creating the sense of urgency among the people that are associated with change. Producing the sense of urgency among the people will be in favor of change to occur quicker. This does not means to call meetings to discuss about the competitors of certain organization or to give a glance of poor statistics of sales to people or discussing about poor marketing techniques but to create a platform and invite related people to open talks and conversation on market situation and requirements. If most of the related people favor and support the cause and need of change that is putted before them then for sure element of urgency has developed among them.What You Can Do1. Examine chances that ought to be, or could be, misused.1. Sense the alarming threats and create a picture in minds of people showing them the expected future events and problems.1. Initiate platforms of discussions and provide persuading ideas to convince people to talk and to think efficiently1. Request backing from clients, outside shareholders and industry people to reinforce and empower your ideas.

Step Two: Form a Powerful CoalitionAttract people towards change and convince them through persuading ideas. This would require a rigid leadership. This would be possible only when support and full assistance is available from the leading people of organization. You should lead and manage the process of change because only managing is not sufficient. You can easily find strong leaders among the people associated with your company or organization. To lead change, you have to unite a coalition, or group, of persuasive people whose force and power originates from various sources, counting occupation title, status, aptitude, and political support and importance. When structured, your "change coalition" it is required to act as a group, keeping on developing urgency and more energy around the necessity for change.What You Can Do1. Discover the appropriate, effective and strong leaders from your firm1. Should work on group forming inside your change coalition.1. Judge and check your group for frail zones, weaknesses and guarantee that you have a great blend of people from various sections and departments and distinctive levels inside your organization.1. You are supposed to Ask for a passionate responsibility from these key people.

Step Three: Create a Vision for ChangeAt the beginning when you plan for a change to happen, numerous attracting and good options and remedies may come in your mind. You should join these ideas to a generally vision that people can get a handle on effortlessly and keep in mind. A vision which is crystal clear can help everybody comprehend why you're requesting them to accomplish and perform some tasks. The point when people see what you're attempting to accomplish, then the guidelines and directions they're given tend to work effectively.What You Can Do1. Develop a technique to bring that vision in action.1. Make sure that your change coalition can portray the vision in few minutes.1. Frequently deliver your "vision speech".1. Create a precise outline that shows your vision for your organization in future.1. Should evaluate the characteristics that are vital to the change.

Step Four: Communicate the VisionImmediate fundamental steps and measures that are taken soon after the creation of vision will increase the rate of success. You should again and again communicate your message instead of arranging occasional meetings. By doing so, people will remember your message and process of change will sped up. Try to solve problems on daily basis by using your vision. All possible efforts should be made to keep vision fresh in minds of people in order to get quick responses. Things you do are more important and considerable than what you said. You should convey to people your expectations and behavior you want, through frequent messages and demonstrations.

What You Can Do1. Frequently discuss your vision of change with related people1. Free and honestly communicate the peoples problems and suggestions.1. You should demonstrate your vision to all parts of operations - from preparing to execution audits. Attach everything over to the vision

Step Five: Remove ObstaclesYou will get good response from your staff and hopeful attitude towards process of change by following these mentioned steps and upon reaching this stage of change process you will find your staff working efficiently in order to achieve the results and benefits that you were promoting since the beginning of process. You might found some elements that will be creating hurdles in the journey of change. Hence you are required to look into this matter continuously and check for such hurdles and problems and should remove them. By removing obstacles you can empower and boost up your journey towards change.What You Can Do1. Hire such leaders who can play their role in promoting change1. Try to maintain check and balance in your organization among department that are associated with process of change so that your organization may not deviate from your sight of vision.1. Appreciate those people who are promoting their positive efforts for making change to occur and reward them with benefits.1. Strictly deal with those elements and people that are creating obstacles in making change to occur1. Take immediate steps to remove obstacles.

Step Six: Create Short Term WinsSuccess is the best key to inspire people towards a cause. Try to give the pleasure of victory to the people of company at virus stages during the process of change. Inside a brief time allotment (within a month or few months, contingent upon the sort of change), you'll need to have comes about that your staff can see. If you failed to do so then some faultfinders or critics decrease your moral by criticizing upon your progress. For this you can divide your process in certain intervals and targets and by completion of each interval that leads towards completion of process of change, will increase moral of people of organization and your change group may need to work quite hard to think of these targets, however each one "win" that you made can further propel the whole staff. it will also swipe away those critics. What You Can Do1. Try to choose cheaper targets so that your budget will not exceed your limits.1. try to choose such targets which you can achieve in selected budgets and appropriate time.1. Checkout for the problems and their solutions at regular basis.1. Try to achieve success in early and alarming goals because if you failed to do so then it may risk your change process.1. Appreciate and award those who achieve their goals successfully.

Step Seven: Building ChangeAccording to Kotter announcing the victory too early is the reason behind the failure of some change process. Genuine change runs profound. Speedy wins are just the start of what requirements to be carried out to accomplish long haul change. Introducing one new item utilizing new technique is incredible. In any case when you can introduce 10 items, is a sign of working and performance of that system up to expectations. To achieve that tenth victory, you have to continue looking for enhancements. Every victory gives a chance to expand what went right and recognize what you can progress.What You Can Do1. Analyze the improvements which are required for change after achieving each success.1. You should believe in the opinion of rapid and regular improvements.1. Update your ideas by inviting new leaders in your journey of change.

Step Eight: Anchor the Change in Corporate CultureAfter the occurrence of change it is mandatory to make it rigid by making it the fundamental part of your organization. Immediate steps should be taken in order to reflect the occurrence of change in all aspects of your organization. Make sure that change should reflect in corporate culture. More over the management and key persons of organization should favor the change because if you lose the backing of these people, your strength winds up back where you began.

What You Can Do Discuss about progress and prosperity frequently and demonstrate the successful stories of change. Make arrangements to swap key pioneers of change as they proceed onward. This will help guarantee that their legacy is not forgotten or disregarded. Incorporate the change standards and qualities when procuring and preparing new staff(Kotter,1996).Shields ModelThe Shieldss model is basically based on the principal that an endeavor of change fails primarily because of inadequate attention to the cultural and human aspects of business. Sheilds pointed out that there are certain critical elements that are required by the leaders to bring about a change within an organization. The units within an organization are interlinked to a certain extent. Therefore any type of change taking place in one business unit if not aligned with other units can lead to unproductive work processes. This model amalgamates business process innovations with human resource management. It is imperative for the organizational management who are considering organizational change to clearly identify the strategies or the operations that are crucial to change. They must also define the critical success factors prior to change so that the degree to which a desired change can be accomplished is well communicated. A number of models designed for organizational change particularly do not incorporate this phase of change in their design. It is essential for the organizational leaders to discuss the aims and objectives of the strategy for change with their employees. However if the goals of a planned change are not clearly communicated with the employees the effort for change will be restricted to a series of unrelated change initiatives. At last the senior management should analysis the strengthens of their workforce in order to determine the extent to which their employees can support in the change process (Shields, 1999).Sheilds(1999) proposes 5 steps that can lead to a successful change. The first step involves defining the expected outcomes and planning the process of change. The second step is to establish competency and potential to change. The third step is to design pioneering solutions. The fourth step involves creating and implementing solutions. The last step is to sustain and strengthen business benefits. Creating the Organizational Transition Plan for futureDefining the desired changes and fundamental reasons behind the change along with the potential outcomes of the change makes simpler to create a successful organizational transition plan for future. Whether the transitioning involves shifting to other location or it tends to take place in-house, designing a plan for all the phases of transition is crucial. It facilitates in measuring performance of the change process against the goals. Hence keeping a continuous track record of all the steps that builds up the change process. The phased-out approach can also present adequate time span for re-evaluations and modifications between each cycle. The steps involved in developing an organizational plan for future are explained in detail below:Step 1Critically assess the present state of an organization and identify the essential future prerequisite. Examine the ongoing processes within the organization and identify the processes which can be transitioned. In the context of human resource management, the strategies such upgrading the human resource management system, improving the salaries and incentives can be performed in order to transit this department. Although forecasting the outcomes of transition and identifying the potential requirements, for example introducing advance technology or hiring skilled employees or commencing training programs is essential, but it is costly process. Therefore organizations have to plan smart and cost effective strategies to assess the requirements of transition and its overall benefits.Step 2Identify the gaps existing and develop an understanding regarding the potential solutions to the present and future demands. Align professionals with their respective process-related work-streams to asses every ongoing process and determining the changes required in future. For example recruitment process, performance management process and compensation process must be revised to identify the potential requirements needed to be covered for future. Step 3Blueprint a proposal model that incorporates all the present and future transition demands. For example if you are outsourcing your entire organization than include the number of new hiring, training programs, new location, cost and rent in the proposal model. The design phase is assumed to be most extensive phase of transition but it is quite essential, since it highlights the potential prospect requirements. It records the time span required for each stage of the transition process so that the approximate completion date of the transition project can be computed.Step 4Place the approved plan into practice for example start hiring new staff, search new location and replace the out-dated technology with the new one.Step5Put the organizational transition in the live mode. For example commence the selected business centre. Start training of newly hired staff and place the advance technology into action.

Chapter SummaryThis chapter had discussed the relevant literature related to the topic. The literature review was designed to effectively answer the research questions discussed in the first chapter of the dissertation. Initially the chapter presented an overview about the company that is mainly focused by the author in the entire dissertation. The operational strategies of the company were also highlighted in this chapter. The chapter then highlighted the widely used definition of change and reasons that lead to change process. At present, majority of the organizations across the globe function under escalating demands for change. Due to high competition, technological advancement, increase in customer demands and globalization the market has drastically changed. This rapidity in change requires the organizations to change their organizational behavior and policies so that they can effectively become accustomed with the shifts in the market. Organizational Change refers to demands place on organizational subunits that that require significant departure from peoples current routines and behaviors, and the success of which depends upon the support of those affected. Change is a constant therefore organizations must be prepared to address all changes. Organizational change is a process through which an organization optimizes it productivity and performance in order to acquire an idealistic position in the market. With respect to submissive perspective, organizational change occurs in organization in order to cope up with changes in external business environment. The need of organizational change might also arise to address crisis situation. On the other hand according to pro-active approach a change is initiation by the senior management of an organization to enhance the performance of the organization. . Wendell and Bell Jr(1999) have presented another aspect of change that is concerned with the various threats and challenges faced by the organizations today. These include challenges from turbulent environments, threats to efficiency and effectiveness and increased in competency level and alternating customer demands. All of these factors acquire great significance and interest in keeping companies viable and healthy. The process of organizational change is not automatic; it requires proper planning for the desired change and designing effective strategies to manage the change. Successful organizations respond sharply to factors which precipitate change. Implementing a change is a very difficult process especially when the employees and stakeholders offer resistance to the process of change. Resistance to change is defined as the process through which the employees resist change. Resistance to change is assumed to be one of most significant factor that influence the success of an organizational change that encompasses new policies, latest organizational structure and technological advancement. Frequently resistance to change is so destructive to change endeavors that the efforts made to address the factors contributor forms the bedrock to managing the change. Resistance to change is a natural process and takes place when employees do not prefer to accept the desired change The contact center employees are resistant to the recent changes that the new chief executive officer is attempting to implement. Employees resist change because they want things to stay the same and they believe that the planned change can adversely affect them. Therefore it is essential for the senior management to effectively communicate the vision and mission of the planned changed with their employees and encourage them to participate in the change process. Organizational change can take place in different forms. Initially the change can be referred as invasive or non-invasive. It can be planned change or unplanned change. Moreover changes can be also classified as Episodic change or continuous change. Each type of change incorporate different working principals. Various researchers have presented different models for organizational change. However this dissertation had mainly focused on models presented by Shields, Kotter and Lewin. The Lewins Three-Step Model comprises of three steps that are Unfreeze, Transition and Freeze. The Sheilds model for organizational change consist of 5 steps. The first step involves defining the expected outcomes and planning the process of change. The second step is to establish competency and potential to change. The third step is to design pioneering solutions. The fourth step involves creating and implementing solutions. The last step is to sustain and strengthen business benefits. The Kotters model put forward eight steps to successfully implement a change. All these models tends to facilitate the organizations to effectively bring about the desired change within an organization. It can be concluded that to effectively lead the change it is significant to identify the reasons that trigger change and corresponding to those factor a process of change must be designed. In order to successfully accomplish the goals of change it is essential for the change agents to be equipped with the skills needed to effectively guide subordinates through organizational change.

ReferencesAbrahamso, E.(2000). Change Without Pain. Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000:75 79.Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1998). The power of resistance: Sustaining valued identities. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: 89120. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Axelrod, R. H. (2002). Terms of engagement: Changing the way we change organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Barker, B. 1998. The Identification of Factors Affecting Change Towards Best Practice in Manufacturing Organisations. Management Decision 36/8: 549-556.Beer M. & N. Nohria (2000), Breaking the code of change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MassachusettsBenveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning. San Francisco: Jossey-BassBlock, P. (1989). Flawless consulting. In McLennan, R. (Ed.), Managing organizational change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y. (1995). The structural embedded ness of resistance among public managers. Group and Organization Management, 20, 149-166Buckner, K.A., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Leading in the Times of Change. Harvard Management Buhanist, P. 2000. Organisational Change, Development Efforts and Action Research.Doctoral Dissertation, HelsinkiUniversity of Technology.Cumming, T. G., & Huse, E. F. (1989). Organizational development and change (4th ed.)St. Paul, MN: West PublishingCummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (1993). Organisation Development and Change, Fifth edition. St Paul (MN), West Publishing Company.Eichelberger, K. A.(1994). Leading Change through Projects. Quality Progress, Vol. 27, No. 1: 87-90.French, W. L. and Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization Development Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, Sixth edition. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), PrenticeHallGoodstein, L. D. and Burke, W.W. (1997). Creating Successful Organization Change. In Carnall, C. A. Strategic Change: 159-173. Oxford, Butterworth-HeinemannGotsill, G., & Natchez, M. (2007). From resistance to acceptance: How to implement change management. T+D, 61(11), 24-27. Graham, J. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8. 1-52.Hammer, M. and Champy J.( 1993). Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York, Harper Collins PublishersHrenstam, A., M. Karlqvist, A. Rydbeck, K. Waldenstrom & P. Wiklund, (2004), The Significance of Organisation for Healthy Work: Methods, study design, analysing stategies and empirical results from MOA-study, ISBN: 91-7045-729-8Haveman, H. A., Russo, M. V., & Meyer, A. D. (2001). Organizational environments in Flux: the impact for regulatory punctuations on organizational domains, CEO succession, and performance. Organization Science, 12, 253-273Hirschhorn, L. (2000), Changing Structure Is Not Enough: The moral meaning of Organizational Design. In Beer, M. & N. Nohria (Ed.) Breaking the Code of Change, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 161-176Jarvenpaa, E. and Eloranta, E. (2000). Organizational Culture and Organizational Development. In W. Karwowski (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Taylor and Francis Inc.Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations: 69101. New York : RoutledgeJones, G. R. (2004). Organization Theory, Design, and Change.New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A. and Jick, D. T.(1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change.New York, The Free Press.Kleiner, B. H. and Corrigan, W. A.(1989). Understanding Organisational Change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 10, No 3: 25-31.Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Kotter, J.P(1996). Leading Change, Hovard Business School Press, Lanning, H., Roiha, M. and Salminen, A. (1999). Guide Book to Change How to Develop Organisations in an Effective And Controlled Manner (in Finnish). Lewin, K.(1951) Field Theory in Social Science,Harper and RowLippitt, R., Watson, J. and Westley, B.(1958). The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York,Harcourt, Brace & World.Maurer, R. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change. Journal for Quality & Participation, 56-63Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of Organizational Change. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 (Special Issue): 39-59Nonas, K. (2005), Vision versus reality in organizational change, OToole, J. (1995). Leading Change: Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny of Custom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CAPiderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review,25(4), 783-794.Poole, M. S. & A. H. Van de Ven (2004) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, Oxford University Press, New YorkSagie, A. & Koslowsky, M. (1994) Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in strategic and tactical decisions: an application of path-goal theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 37-47.Salminen, A.(2000). Implementing Organisational and Operational Change Critical Success Factors of Change Management. Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Executive School of Industrial ManagementSalminen, A. and Perkiomaki, P.(1998). Evaluation of "Kaikki peliin" Productivity Campaign (in Finnish). Publications of Ministry of Trade and IndustrySchaffer, R. H. and Thomson, H. A.(1992). Successful Change Programs Begin with Results.Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No 1: 80 - 89.Senior, B. & J. Fleming (2006) Organizational change, Pearson Education Limited, EssexShapiro, D. L., Lewicki, R. J., & Devine, P. (1995). When do employees choose deceptive tactics to stop unwanted organizational change? Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 5, 155-184Sharrat, J. and McMurdo, A. (1991). Managing the Information Explosion. Bradford, MCB University PressShields, J. (1999), Transforming Organizations, Methods for Accelerating Culture Change Processes, Information Knowledge Systems Management, V ol.1, No.2, (Apr .), pp.105-115Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19(4), 429-459Turner, R. J. 1999. The Handbook of Project Based Management, Second edition. London, McGraw-HillUpdate. 1-5. Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(7/8), 543-548. Weick, K. E & R. E. Quinn (1999), Organizational Change and Development, Annual Review Psychology, 50, pp. 361-386Yang, R. S., Zhuo, X. Z., & Yu, H. Y. (2009). Organization theory and management: cases, measurements, and industrial applications. Taipei: Yeh - Yeh .