How Organizations Have Changed-R-H

I need help with a Business question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

Reponse to the post below:

Your response Must be 650-700 words, must include the integration of at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and the scripture (the Bible) in current APA format, outlined in each respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle.

Roe

Numerous changes have affected the construct-of and definition-of an organization over the years. In an effort to remain relevant within their respective markets, organizations have had to allow for an agile approach to internal change, allowing for processes to evolve and a construct that properly aligns with their external environment. Organizations who were historically rational-closed have changed their approach to allow for bottom-up communication flow and innovation. This even applies within organizations whose bureaucratic control is required by law, such as the Department of Defense. A Taylor task specific approach to leadership and management which suppresses open communication has become a thing of the past and is no longer a desired approach. These changes were primarily brought on by innovation and globalization of organizations. Reaching outside of local suppliers and workforce’s has allowed firms to decrease cost, increase their internal knowledge base and become more competitive within their markets.

These activities have provided for a significant amount of change within organizations over the last 20 years. Seeking to allow for growth and change within an organization aligns with a biblical worldview as well. As captured in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come” The old has gone, the new is here” (NIV). Organizational leaders should seek to allow for “the new” if they chose to remain relevant for a long period of time. Scott and Davis (2015) capture data from a 1974 study that properly summarizes an organization and it structural change over time:

The word, organization, is a noun, and it is also a myth. If one looks for an organizations one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events, linked together, that within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, and the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization. Instead, assume that there are processes which create, maintain, and dissolve social collectivities that these processes constitute the work of organizing, and the ways in which these processes are continuously executed are the organization (Scott & Davis, 2015, p. 386).

With that, attempting to define the parameters of an organization is almost impossible, and maybe even irresponsible, as each and every “organization” consistently changes, redefining how one could or should define an organization. Of the numerous ways organizations have changed over time, the two ways captured in this research are global expansion and organizational changes driven by innovation and internal change management processes.

Globalization and Expansion Beyond Local Operations

Organizations have change dramatically “from an earlier time when all organizations were local, situated in specific geographically delimited contexts, we now find ourselves in a world in which the reach of many organizations is worldwide” (Scott & Davis, 2015, p. 381). This expansion beyond one facility has allowed for the increase in telecommunication across many industries. It’s has had a direct effect on organizational structures across the globe, allowing for adaptation in the face of uncertainly. Collaboration across state, national, and cultural boundaries has increased. Communication via telecommunication has allowed organization to expand to numerous geographic locations and has allowed them integrate a more diverse workforce. Organizations have and will continue to seek growth in their global workforce to allow for continued success at a high rate (Harvard Business Review, 2020). “Organizational units are now effectively represented at international, national, state, and local levels” (Scott & Davis, 2015, p. 382).

Globalization has also led to organizational restructuring, in an attempt to put the business in the best position to be successful in obtaining their strategic goals as developed by leadership. Annual strategic planning activities can have a significant effect on the organizations design. “Pressure to change the business strategy is a global phenomenon. Global organizations create internal pressures on organizations and projects for restructuring and internationalize their perspectives” (Laurentiu, 2016, p. 209). Not only does this effect the internal organizational design, it also affects the products themselves, as glocalization of products becomes important to align more closely with the local cultures serviced by the organization as it expands to geographically separated locations. Integrating the expanded culture in the organization also drives organizational design considerations.

The global construct has also effected hiring activities in a positive way as a more diverse workforce can be attracted by an organizations outside of the local workforce that was employed in the past. Non-standard employees, those working remotely, are distinct from traditional employees within an organization design. Those in this labor force require a different level of trust from organizational leaders and are judged on their engagement with others and how they affect organization overall growth (Kuhn & Maleki, 2017). This long-distant trust would have never worked within a rational-closed approach that most organizations used 50 years ago. Furthermore, an organizations labor market is “widen due to globalization as the pool of qualified employees increases. As a result, organizations develop more competitors then before in order to attract the best employees as these employees may be situated at different locations around the world” (Koster & Wittek, 2016, p. 289). If the nature of the organizational complexities within a global organization is analyzed, they appear to be influenced by certain factors such as structure, resources, and culture and in most cases, external environmental factors that are presented from a global viewpoint (Baruah & Ward, 2014).

According to Koster & Wittek (2016), a “higher level of economic openness can imply increase competition on the market for goods and services. Instead of competing with companies within the same national boundary, organizations may be more involved in a competition on a global scale” (p. 289). This approach drives organization design change as well. Organizations are forced to seek a more horizontal organizational structure vice a vertical-hierarchical approach if they are to allow for open communication across their operating locations and remain competitive within the different cultures. This approach also allows for a more efficient decision making process across numerous geographic locations rather than leaning on the bureaucratic approach that extends decisions making processes beyond quick-turn times that are needed to be successful in today’s fast moving market. This is also important when considering the cultural differences that global organizations face. Those within the local markets must be in a positions within the organizational structure to ensure they can effect change to align with their specific operating location instead of aligning all processes or products with a location that does not comply with their local culture.

Innovation and Change Management Principles

Since the early 1990’s organizations are becoming more innovative, driving structural changes to retain relevancy within their respective domains. “Organizational studies have shifted from a paradigm-driven to problem-driven work” (Scott & Davis, 2015, p. 389), allowing for internal personnel to present solutions that can be analyzed to overcome problems that limit organization expansion or success. However, even these problem-driven events are looked at threw lenses developed by 100’s of years of theories (Scott & Davis, 2015). Organizations undergo desired or undesired structural change when they implement innovative ideals. When an opportunity is presented to enhance the firm’s financial performance by following a process that doesn’t align with the organizational traditions processes (Aguilera, Judge, & Terjesen, 2018), it drive change within the organizational norms and structural make-up. Each opportunity to seek an innovative process potentially forces the organization to consider structural changes that may not align with any theory that currently exists. Rather, these events drive changes that require new research and presentation of new theories within the organization design domain.

“Changes in strategy will cause changes within the structure so strategy can be properly developed and higher performance achieved. Successful strategies must be based on the organization’s main distinctive capabilities in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage” (Rassa & Emeagwali, 2020, p. 1459). Organizations will continuously undergo structural change to align with the implementation of their shifting strategies. These changes also drive behavioral changes within the organizations. “Affect plays a key role in organizational behavior, characterizing and influencing the responses of organizational members in diverse organizational contexts and positions, such as leaders, followers, change agents, and change recipients” (Oreg, Bartunek, Lee, & Do, 2018, p. 67). Proper consideration of employee perceptions and feedback prior to initiating a new strategy or innovative change in process will lighten the negative effect of change. Seeking feedback from employees can also present new ideas that the firm can decide to pursue, which is long way from the old rational system thought processes. “When an employee identifies a new opportunity, the firm usually faces two choices: they can keep this opportunity a secret or they can choose to disclose it to the firm with the hope of earning some company profits that arises from this joint development” (Baruah & Ward, 2014, p. 814). This open approach to the organization design allows for disclosure of information across the workforce and will drive future communication across the firm, enticing other employees to present ideas.

Many activities drive organizations to change their internal design and the structure of their workforce. “Regarding the workforce structure of an organization, it is known that it is not static, it is in constant change according to gender, age or education. So that, new employees join the organization while others leave the organization” (Laurentiu, 2016, p. 209). Succession planning requires organization leaders to consider structure change as personnel leave and are replaced with like or more advanced employees. Trying to fit new personnel into a specific structure can have its downfalls as knowledge, skills, and abilities are different across a diverse workforce. “Managers face these changes and always need to restructure the working groups so that the organization can carry out activities by referring and skills that employees possess” (Laurentiu, 2016, p. 209). This has driven organizations to seek a more open design, allowing them to place people in the position that best aligns with strategic goals rather than simply aligning them within a rational design.

Personal Perspective

Numerous changes have affected the construct-of and definition-of an organization over the years. In an effort to remain relevant within their respective markets, organizations have had to allow for an agile approach to internal change, allowing for processes and a construct that properly aligns with their external environment. These changes captured in this forum were brought on by innovation and globalization of organizations. Both, innovation and globalization, are actions organizations must take to be relevant today. Global growth and global sourcing or materials and personnel have driven competition to a new level when compared to the past. This expansion beyond one facility has allowed for the increase in telecommunication across many industries. It’s has had a direct effect on organizational structures across the globe, allowing for adaptation in the face of uncertainly. The global construct has also effected hiring activities in a positive way as a more diverse workforce can be attracted by an organizations outside of the local workforce that was employed in the past. Non-standard employees, those working remotely, are distinct from traditional employees within an organization design. Organizations will continuously undergo structural change to align with the implementation of their shifting strategies. These changes also drive behavioral changes within the organizations.

Because of these aspects, organizations must seek to allow for change to their internal design if they chose to remain relevant for a long period of time. Although there is difficulty within organizations to accept change, especially when considering their structural design, Christian leaders should seek guidance from scripture. Christian leaders within organizations can look to Corinthians 5:17, as previously captured, or Proverbs 2:1-2 to gain strength and the wherewithal to allow for positive change within their organizations. Proverbs 2:1-5 states,

“My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find knowledge of God (NIV).

As Christians, we must always seek to invite knowledge and innovation while allowing wisdom to enter our hearts. This wisdom may be presented by God thru study or thru communication from our superiors, peers, or subordinates. Suppressing knowledge shared by lower-level personnel will not allow for growth within the workplace. Proverbs 2:10 captures, “For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul” (NIV). Even in the face of potential failure, this verse will allow for a calmness that will help leaders overcome doubt, remain steadfast in their decisions, and lead to success. Worldly theory is not always to best approach, especially when seeking to find the best solutions for organization of personnel within our responsibility.

Reponse to the post below:

Your response Must be 650-700 words, must include the integration of at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and the scripture (the Bible) in current APA format, outlined in each respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle.

How Organizations Have Changed (Haw)

The late philosopher Heraclitus introduces the perpetuity of change. Organizational leaders today reflect on the statement, “the only constant in life is change.” As environments change, organizations adapt in response to their pressures (Scott & Davis, 2016). This phenomenon is known as the contingency theory (Scott & Davis, 2016). The purpose of this discussion post is to discuss organizational changes, as they have resulted from decentralization and the technological revolution.

Technological Change

Technology, according to Scott and Davis (2016), is connected as a system using different tools to convert knowledge and information into work and outcomes. Through time, organizations have leveraged technology in an increasingly robust way. Early-on, rational systems employed technology in the first and second industrial-revolutions led formal, mechanistic, work through machines and electric technology, respectively. (Schneider, 2018), Through the third industrial revolution, digitalization was born (Schneider, 2018). The fourth industrial revolution, or industry 4.0, has transformed sectors, like manufacturing (Schneider, 2018). Industry 4.0 revisits the first industrial revolution, digitizing and networking manufacturing processes through cyber-physical system, but too, the latest installation of innovation has been pervasive across other sectors as well, as the internet of things is introduced (Dong, Chang, Wang, & Yan, 2017; Schneider, 2018).

Unlike the first industrial revolution which propelled a mechanistic framework for organizations, the internet of things has broadly been applied across sectors, transforming manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, and retail (Dong, Chang, Wang, & Yan, 2017). Modern technologies apply across all sectors because of their increased capacity to serve as information and communication technologies that communicate and coordinate specified information, allowing for decision-making, reduced rouses and human actors, greater productivity, and enables interdependence (Scott & Davis, 2016).

Emerging Technology

The Fall of 2019 challenged the presence and capability of things as the coronavirus invaded nations all over the globe. The uncertainty and anonymity associated with the virus and the asymptomatic spread has caused far-reaching state of emergency closing businesses across the globe from a multitude of different sectors. Xiao and Fan (2020) posit that emerging technologies like robots, online communication platforms for healthcare and digital learning, three-dimensional printing, automated supply chains, online entertainment, and online work from home. These tools and their robust capabilities have improved resilience across industry that would have been hard to attain without the internet of things (Xiao & Fan, 2020).

As new technologies enter the environment, they bring with them a hype, or fear, that technology will replace workers in organizations. For example, Walmart announced its testing of a self-checkout-only location, and then intent to expand the service to other stores based on customer feedback (Thakker, 2020). Automation has instigated the concern that technology will cause mass unemployment my replacing employees in the workplace (Brougham and Haar, 2018). Literature, however, suggests that while emerging technologies may cause some job loss, the industry will shift those positions to new positions to keep up with the technology (Wilson, Daugherty, & Morini-Bianzino, 2017).

Structural Change

Changes to organizational structure have also been realized over recent decades. Organizations change in response to their environment, both in regard to what is happening externally, and consequentially, what is happening internally. This section discusses changes to organizational structures over time. Beginning very early on, organizations were developed for the sake of producing a means to an end (Daft, 2016). Therefore, organizations were a means to an end. As factories during the first industrial revolution, organizations had vertical structures that were highly formalized, with large workers focused on production and efficiency (Daft, 2016). Through the 1980s, organizations introduced approaches to structure that were flexible, creating more appealing work environments and edging the organization toward the competitive advantage (Daft, 2016).

Protecting the core

The evolution of the organizational structure can also be a means to protect the core of the organization. Considering the reliability change will occur, organizations develop structures that protect their primary interests and capabilities through activities that shield, or buffer, them from the uncertainty and complexity of the surrounding environment (Scott & Davis, 2016). Some activities include coding, stockpiling, leveling, and forecasting (Scott & Davis, 2016). However, structural modifications are also used to buffer, or protect, the core. Delloite’s Page, Rahnema, Murphy, and McDowell (2016) posit that organizations create an innovative and disruptive edge, and protect the core. This work involves identifying the new or existing space where disruption will occur and creating teams who will act in the space (Page, Rahnema, Murphy, and McDowell, 2016). Structure in the disruptive edge looks flatter, creating cross-functional teams and organic leadership, as seen by the surge of natural and open systems present in the organizational landscape today (Page, Rahnema, Murphy, and McDowell 2016).

Technology and Structural Changes

Changes in organizational structure have occurred both because of, and in response to, the emergence of new technology. New technologies call for different work structures in order to be effective, and we are also able to create new and innovative organizational structures because the technology is in place for communication and knowledge sharing to happen through technology (Scott & Davise, 2016). Scott and Davis (2016) summarize that technology has a dual nature as being both produced by the actors and given meaning by social context where it exists, and also it is an agent that becomes broadly applied across a system, further creating structure within the organization. For implementation to effectively take place, the organizational structure must be accommodating (Henk & Fallmyr, 2019). Where rational systems are now able to handle the increasing complexity through technology, systems require the use of a natural paradigm for interdependence amid uncertainty and complexity to increase (Scott and Davis, 2016).

Personal Perspectives

Change for change sake is often a recipe for disaster, but transformation begun by a trigger event is a responsible next step for an organization. The evolution of the organization, also revolutionized how project management was approached. In the 1980s Toyota brought lean processes to the manufacturing world, reducing waste, and eliminating errors (Dong, Wang, & Gong, 2020). Driven by continuously rising healthcare costs, hospitals have begun leveraging lean tools as well, creating new ways to eliminate wastes that negatively impact the bottom line (Lot, Sarantopoulos, Min, Perales, Boin, & de Ataide, 2018). The universal foundations of lean principles are rooted in reductions of several forms of waste caused by defects, overproduction, excessive movement, rework, surplus, motion, and others (Pekarčíková, Trebuňa, & Kliment, 2019). The emergence of technology has exacerbated the role of lean tools in organizations (Pekarčíková, Trebuňa, & Kliment, 2019). In production operations, technology, machines, made waste reduction fast and efficient, and entering industry 4.0, increase capacities for communication and production have further enveloped the sector (Pekarčíková, Trebuňa, & Kliment, 2019). Therefore, the emergence of technologies has arguably improved project management by creating greater resources to support waster reductions, and to better manage the project itself by managing knowledge and coordinating important information fr the stakeholders.

Biblical Integration

Perhaps the most important outcome of a biblical worldview is the take away that a person walks away from the gospel changed, as a new creation, serving in the manner according to God’s purpose. Early examples of transformation appear as far back as creation. God created the heavens and the earth, and the world was teeming with life. The Lord could have left this creation alone. Genesis tells that God saw the creation and called it good. However, instead, God created man and put him in the Garden. The Lord created Adam with a purpose, intending for him to subdue the earth and cultivate it, nourishing the existing life and raising new life. Merida (2015) uses the story of Hezekiah to illustrate that past experiences, even ruin, do not have to define your future. Seeking the Lord is a priority, and through His grace, transformation is possible (Merida, 2015). One example of the greatest transformations Christ achieved during his walk, and posthumously, was the decentralization of His church. The church stems beyond a building, and even a group of people, but instead it is an interdependent network of believers who individually pursue a common goal. Jesus says this about His church, “for where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them” (Matthew 18:20, New International Version). The primary form of information sharing and communication was rooted in prayer. Therefore believers, anywhere, can continue to prosper the gospel and make more disciples.

Conclusion

Organizations should expect to see change as is it is natural and responsible if they wish to pursue a competitive advantage. Two major changes that have occurred within organizations include the shift, or emergence, of technologies in the workplace, and the decentralization of modern organizations. Organizations have evolved from simple, rational systems serving as a means to an end, to being complex structures that leverage information through technology to continue forward in dynamic environments.

Books

Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives (Paperback) 2007

Author

Scott, W. Richard / Davis, Gerald

ISBN-13:

978-0-13-195893-7


Order the answer to view it

Assignment Solutions


Assignment Solutions

ORDER THIS OR A SIMILAR PAPER AND GET 20% DICOUNT. USE CODE: GET2O