Organizacijos kultūra ir komunikacija
Vadybos kursinis darbas.
Analysis of the BT organizational change. Organizational resistance and communication change. Culture change. Part Effective organizational change management.
Today’s business environment often requires companies to become a flexible for the organizational changes, influenced by the rapid technology, systems or competition changes. However, the growing knowledge and commercial awareness often include many practical difficulties that the organisations face. For example, the change complexity of operations, culture or communication principles can be extremely difficult to control without a successful change management (Todnem, 2005). In this essay will be critically analysed the management of organizational change by using the BT case study. This will evaluate two parts of change, including the organizational resistance, communication and culture change.Organizational resistance and communication changeBritish Telecommunications (BT) is a one of the most competitive markets in the UK with about 250 Internet competitors. Since, it provides innovated technology and broadband facilities, the sustainable competitive advantage is more difficult to achieve. According to the case study, the technological, economic and business market factors continue to trigger the process of change in organizations. In order to remain competitive and built revenue sources, BT must constantly innovate its product lines and develop the new LED technology transformation in the market. Although, the company historically had the dynamic portfolio for its business units to easily create change saturation, it had to build a culture and processes to more proactively drive change (BT, 2006). This change can be seen as a proactive development change, which includes a programmatic approach to avoid the potential future threats or large-scale change saturation (Dawson, 2006). For the effective change management analysis, the proactive strategy is more likely to help avoid negative employees’ response (Russ, 2008). While the reactive strategy includes the unexpected changes that can lead chaos between the employees, the proactive style creates an environment when the employees may expect certain pattern of change. This automatically can increase the talented specialists’ awareness, knowledge sharing and better resilience (Dawson, 2006). According to Carley (1993) this also can be criticised as it includes additional efforts to ensure accurate and timely decisions. In many cases, time pressure causes errors due to the loss of information and limit of human cognition. Therefore, this can be difficult to manage effectively and only the managers with a right leadership can effectively progress the proactive development change (Dawson, 2006). However, the conventional evaluation of management style typically regards the proactive style is better than reactive. This suggests that the proactive management is more active, cooperative and more prepared that are supposed for better performance. This can be argued as the planned change can stimulate employees’ willingness for change commitment over time (Carley, 1993). Although, some unexpected cases are not possible to manage proactively, the open innovation development requires a programmatic approach as BT is constantly predicting the rapid technology changes.