Seemingly, the concept and Implementation of change breeds stress and tension in everyone, be it for those who are supportive of change, or to those who are indifferent, opposed, and fearful of change. In addition to these feelings, following any changes made to the organization comes with additional work, the challenges of bringing forth change into a world of uncertainties, and having the pressure of coping with one another (Carnal, 2003). To gulled the employees through the change, the management team should coax the staffs, and model the appropriate change behavior as a set example (Gardner. 69, as cited In Bruce & woman, 1998). Evidently, the few central objectives of changing an organization are to ignite growth and development of the organization, strive towards a goal of excellence, enhance its market presence, intensify competitiveness, and to be progressive In Its pursuit for innovation. If modern organizations should take on planned change, they can turn to the vast availability of expertise In today’s world. For example, with the aid of organizational development (ODD) practitioners or consultants, organizations would find it easier to engage professional help to implement the change process.
Planned change allows change to be implemented In an organized, step-by-step process. Considering a useful model of planned changed, the Action Research Model Is chosen as the suitable choice to change an organization, for the reason being stimulated by Basketballs and Wood-Harpers (1996) claim on action research as a clear-cut social scientific research method, which can most appropriately examine a system from the people-perspective (as cited in Lingered, Hendrickson, & Schultz, 2004). It is selected to strategically change the organization partly because it gives detailed processes of specifying what needs to be done.
The action research model clearly magnifies and tackles the root of the problem that serves as an obstacle to the wider picture of achieving the organization’s main goal. According to Friendlier and Brown (1974), since the project interventions of action and research are done at many levels of the organizational hierarchy, it is vital to incorporate the active involvement, support and commitment from both the top and lower levels of the organization, for the flow of change to go smoothly.
The purpose of action research is to help the organization to build up on its capacity n discovering how to change its structures, systems, culture, business environment, work procedures, or even improving co-working relationships, that impede successful organizational development (Marxism & Gephardt, 2003). The collaborative nature of action research requires and involves the sharing of knowledge, skills, and competencies between the organization, who is the client, and the ODD practitioner (Eel & Merry, 1986).
As action research moves in an ongoing cyclical manner, it can increase the knowledge for taking action across various other settings, from the continuous learning of experiences over a period of time. Alden and Chisholm elastically describe action research as “a cyclical inquiry process that involves diagnosing a problem situation, planning action steps, and implementing and evaluating outcomes.
Evaluation leads to diagnosing the situation anew based on learning from the previous activities cycle” (Alden & Chisholm, 1993, p. 124, as cited in Marxism & Gephardt, 2003). The steps of the action research model begins primarily with the management’s detection of problems in the organization, then appointing a professional ODD consultant to embark on the process of making positive changes to the organization (French & Bell, 1995; Waddled, Cummings, & Worldly, 2004).
With the guidance of a consultant, he/she can help to bring the organization through the action research process by means of selecting tools for the intention of research, examining and interpreting the research data for a clearer presentation of the crux of the organization’s problems, analyzing the process of feedback meetings, providing advice on the action plan to take, and lastly evaluating on the administration of change (Friendlier & Brown, 1974). It is ideal if the ODD practitioner and client are in synchrony with each other, and this happens when both have a “Joint ownership of the change process” (Scheme, 1999, p. ). The result of this combination significantly boosts the supporting validness of diagnostic interventions in the next few steps of the action research process, right down to any ensuing interventions relating to change. Supposing that the problems of the organization lies with its internal technological structure, that it is restricted to its outdated systems and manual processes, thus being a burden on the company’s overall profitability and growth (Davis, 2004).
It is also assumed that the organization faces another problem of dissatisfaction in working interrelationships, resulting in conflict among the staffs. If the conflict is not dealt with properly and contained to a minimum, it can turn into dysfunctional conflict, which can be disruptive, bringing work concentration levels down and teamwork productivity, company commitment, and affects work performance (Greengage & Deep, 2004).
In the next step of action research, the consultant starts off by systematically gathering detailed research data about the ongoing sequences of events and activities within the company followed by his/her individual diagnosis of the problems and feeding back these findings to the client (French & Bell, 1995). In actual act, any forms of diagnosis that the ODD practitioner tries to make, such as through observations, interviews, and questionnaires, are already prominently intervening in the organization’s system.
The smoothness of the managed learning process consists of the interrelating activities between continuous diagnosis and intervention. Interventions arising from planned change are dynamic and influencing, rather than occur inconspicuously (sachet, 1999). Through trying to learn more about the organization’s internal operations and the way its people are functioning, the consultant is already in the mid-process of indirectly changing the operational system. This is because the organization is influenced by the way data is being collected and assembled.
For example, posing the question of what an employee thinks of his/her superior might stir up many cognitive thoughts about the issue, which may never have been given much consideration by the respondent before. This might even prompt the person into engaging in a discussion of the matter with other employees, which would somehow lead to creating a new common attitude amongst themselves that was not apparent previously (Scheme, 1999). Therefore the ODD consultant must ensure that he/she is ireful in the technique of data gathering, to allow for unbiased and more precise outcomes for analysis.
Depending on the working preferences of the organization, the management can either collaborate with the consultant, or let the consultant himself/herself design the survey questions to be asked. When doing a survey on the organization’s staffs, it is preferably better to have a good understanding relationship between the consultant and respondents (Friendlier & Brown, 1974). During the interviews with the employees of the organization, the consultant should create an atmosphere with he lack of restrictions and encourage spontaneous participating behavior from the people.
Not only does this build a better rapport between the consultant and interviewees, the interviewees would also feel less pressurized and better able to freely express their concerns and inhibitions (Bruce & Woman, 1998). The consultant can then acquire more genuine and accurate information research. The findings are presented to the client for purposes of validation and further Joint diagnoses (Waddled, Cummings, & Worldly, 2004). Research is highly constructive when feedback on the process of organizational intervention and progress of interpret the findings, and more feedback is given during meetings, which are held in a group.
The group of members involves those belonging to the organization units from which the data was collected from, with the intention of diagnosing and making prospective changes. From the results concluded during the meetings, any discrepancies shown between organizational aims and survey feedbacks prove more causes for change (Friendlier & Brown, 1974). Wholly participating in feedback meetings is important as it can shape the entire group’s interpretation of problems, elucidate any further expectations of improvement, and members can benefit from the value of group interaction.
The use of survey feedback can be effectively increased by the keen participation from members, partaking of unit management, careful facilitation by the consultant, and following up with decisive execution of action steps (Friendlier & Brown, 1974). An example shown in a study done by Bandmaster (1959), as cited in Friendlier and Brown (1974), illustrated that the feedbacks from the survey had made both supervisors and subordinates more conscious of the interpersonal problems between themselves.
In this case the role of organizational superiors in feedback dieting was crucial, as it had determined the way they were perceived. He found out that the initial misconception of managerial behavior had changed after feedback, owing to the improved facilitation of information that streamed throughout hierarchical levels, and allowance for the people to face up to problems. Scheme (1999) emphasizes a crucial point to remember in this step is that the consultant must take precaution when feeding back diagnostic data to the client.
It is the responsibility of the practitioner is to make sure that he/she is familiar with his/ her own insights and analysis, and how they will have a bearing on the client. It must be noted that there might be psychological boundaries that revolve around the organization’s members. Therefore, the delivery of the consultant’s notions and examined reviews, by means of the varying degrees of formality, will depend generally on the cultural behavior of the people in the organization. Insensitive handling on the consultant’s part during these stages of intervention can result in strong opposition to changes from the organization’s end.
Thus, this corresponds with the view of action research from an area of science, encompassing a set of interventions that must be guided by NY plausible impacts on the organization, in addition to what measures to be taken to achieve positive impacts of change, and diminish adverse negative impacts Working together, the client and ODD consultant then reassess the summary of information to work on the identified problems, discussing to create a Joint action plan for the next course of action (French & Bell, 1995; Waddled, Cummings, & Worldly, 2004).
The characteristics of action research recognize the need for action plans to be Gephardt, 2003). The action plan must be designed with the purpose of to changing an unsatisfactory situation in mind. The client and ODD consultant will come up with possible solutions to the diagnosis of the problem, and decide on when is the best time to execute the plan into action, not before taking into account other factors that might affect the functioning of the action plan.
The finalized discussions and proposals have leaded the management to decide on upgrading the company’s current technology into a state-of-the-art system, believing that it will increase operational efficiency and effectiveness to all of the organization’s internal business processes (Davis, 2004). As for the managing of conflict, it is suggested that managers are trained to put into practice constructive conflict skills that can help in maintaining positive working relationships among members of the organization and meet the challenge of the changing environment (Greengage & Deep, 2004).
After the client and ODD practitioner come up with a solution to confirm the changes to be made, the actions are undertaken to alter the organization’s state (French & sell, 1995). The implementation of the new system may involve high costs, but the management has considered that this tactical move can offer the augmentation of desired values ND services to cater to the growing needs of the organization’s customer base.
The outcome of having a new business system is exceptionally important for the impression it creates on customers, if customers are able to see some notable and considerable improvements resulting from the efforts of change (Davis, 2004). Managers qualified in the area of handling conflict can try to convert dysfunctional conflict into functional conflict. Functional conflict is good for the organization because it can boost the morale of employees and improve on interpersonal relationships, leading to enhanced creativity and higher productivity (Greengage & Deep, 2004).
Besides taking the first step to reengineering the organization’s internal processes, the management must also go on to regenerate competitive strategies. Introducing change within the organization is the core basis for focusing on all the attention internally, but to be a leader in the industry, the management should aim to revolutionize the industry. It is common for many companies to provide better services, but sometimes this is not enough to create a competitive edge over the other players in the industry. Real success is achieved when the organization is able to think of a stratagem to transform the industry (Carnal, 2003).
Time is allowed for the period of change to take place, as change is a long-term process and therefore visible results cannot be expected immediately. Since action research is a cyclical process, further data must be collected to review and evaluate the implemented changes. This may lead to a new process of diagnosis, feed back, on change, the principle of learning underlines the importance of deriving valuable lessons from the research process and pinpointing any implications for other circumstances and research contexts.
Going by the cyclical learning process of action research, whereby the organization earns from its mistakes through change, the organization can also learn from the external world, by formulating its future action plans based on ‘strategic benchmarking. Therefore, the act of benchmarking, which applies rational analysis to the process of diagnosis by weighing against a point of reference, signifies a learning technique. The role of ‘strategic benchmarking has taken up an imperative position in the organizational diagnosis for change.
Comparing the organization alongside with the world’s most powerful corporations allows the organization to view itself in another light. The company might be able to see more clearly what are its other problems and the causes of its present condition. That is how benchmarking lets the organization identify its potential for improvement and creates purposes for change (carnal, 2003). In summary, changing an organization starts with reshaping its frame of mind by altering the old mindset, removing mental blockages and welcoming the establishment of new aims and visions (Globularity & Kelly, 1995).
The aptitude for change itself paves a pathway to success, and this paradigmatic shift demands for a strong management, proper action planning, endurance for pressure, facing up to uncertainties, and having an eagerness to learn (Carnal, 2003). Out of the many planned change models, the Action Research Model in particular is the main focus of all these models. In contrast to other methods, action research uses the approach of diagnosis intervention and extends on knowledge, which is useful in both research studies and application to practice.
Carnal (2003) states that the usefulness of the Action Research Model is its combination of the knowledge and techniques required for corporate diagnosis, together with the action plan programmed of change, to successfully create strategic change. However, on top of his, the organization still needs the essential skills to motivate learning and change, because substantial change entails an advanced overall integration between divisions and departments. The change and development of an organization is not a short-term process because it takes time for the entire company to adapt to the new practices.
Action research can only work out if the members of the organization are voluntarily prepared to change their status quo, because the organization does not really change, it is the people who have to change (Bruce & Woman, 1998). The failure to motivate change will be encountered Interweaving the steps of the Action Research Model into the organization’s internal operating system, and the thorough course of action might take years for the change effects to visibly produce results. Yet, the changes are worth waiting for, in replacement for the organization’s successful attainment of its goals.
