I found Worley and Lawler's findings on built-to-change organzations very intriguing. The focus of the article was that organizations need to be able to adapt and shift focus as market and customer demands dictate.
Since change is happening faster and faster every year, being flexible might be the key to success (London, 2006). In a journal article by Simon London that appeared in the Financial Times in 2006, he discusses the ways change affects an organization and how to capitalize on it. Change, he argues, involves loss. "Sometimes the loss is small, as when the boss asks us to give up a familiar routine or move to a distant corner of the building. Sometimes it is of existential proportons, as when a new assignment challenges us to reconsider our values, status and career. Ether way, distress is the inevitable result" (London, 2006).
But in the long run, change is necessary to stay competitive (Worley and Lawler III, 2006). Built-to-change organizations must have strong and open lines of communication: marketing must talk to R&D to ensure the hot new products are being developed; marketing must talk to sales to ensure the brand messaging is coming through the sales channel; recruiting must talk to strategy to ensure the right people are being hired for the company and the job.
London also argues that "distressed organizations look for scapegoats within, enemies without, and slip easily in denial" (2006). This directly relates to Worley and Lawler's argument that effective businesses models assume that change is going to happen and that adaptation of the business gives it a competitive advantage.
Is change fun? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely. I think Worley and Lawler's findings and London's arguments are very complementary of one another, and organizations that succeed the test of time adopt some of these theories into their business models.
1. Worley, C and Lawler III, E (2010). Designing organizations that are built to change. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol 48 (1).
2. London, S (2006, Feb. 28). Change means possibility and pain. Financial Times Ltd., p. 1.
Lauren, it seems the London (2006) piece focused on the idea that humans, by nature, resist change. Worley and Lawler (2010) note that traditional org design features discourage change and, because of this, companies need to rethink design assumptions (p. 19). You mention that orgs built to change must have open communication, but what other org design features can facilitate change? How can orgs overcome the human resistance to change through reward systems, hiring practices, leadership, and organizational structure?
ReplyDelete