Literature Review: Organizational Development

The topic under consideration is organizational development, knowledge creation and change management. The main focus of this research is to see how the process of change management is affected by organizational development and knowledge creation. In order to get an overall view of that these broad areas are their relationship with each other, a literature review was conducted.

Worren & Ruddle & Moore (1999) explored about how over the years people have moved from organizational development to a more holistic view which is change management. According to this article the tools used in change management and organizational development are the same but the rationale behind it is different. For example attitude surveys are used in both. In organizational development it was used to gauge job satisfaction and the climate of the organization but in change management it is part of a strategy driven and holistic change program. This article basically uses research of various other people to give us a complete picture of what change management is all about. According to them as now the scale of businesses is increasing and so is the need for having specialized firms to administer change. They talked about interventionist and integrative strategies. Interventionist strategies are used in organizational development where as integrative strategies are used in change management.

The variables taken from this article are change management and organizational development. These variables are very important for the research as it clearly defines what the word change management would mean when it would be used in the research. The definition also takes both the culture and structure aspect of change management into account.

The authors concluded that in order to increase the standard and the overall performance of the organization the company as to use the integrative strategies because when the employees are a part of the whole process the resistance to change is minimized.

Van de Ven & Poole (1995) through their research gave a theoretical overview of how development and change management basically occurs. The article classifies four types’ development theories namely; life- cycle theory, teleological theory, dialectical theory and evolutionary theory. The authors were of the opinion that these basic theories can be used to explain how change occurs in the organization. To explain that they developed a framework with these four theories and classified companies based on the mode and unit of change at various levels of organizational development. The conclusion they drew from their research was that as the organization grew in size the motors of change also get more complex because comes into play at once.

Ikujiro Nonaka(1994) gives a comprehensive view of how knowledge is created within the organizations.

The main variable identified for knowledge creation is innovation. It is defined as follows

‘Innovation is a process in which the organization creates and defines problems and then actively develops new knowledge to solve them’

The article also identifies three dimensions of knowledge creation. This includes epistemology, ontological and the ‘spiral’ model of knowledge. The paper differentiates between codified, formal (explicit) and informal, personal information. He concluded that the organization played a very important role as far as knowledge is concerned. The organization can facilitate the creation of knowledge by encouraging socialization, internalization of codified information into tacit information etc.

Choi & Lee (2002) stated that knowledge creation is very important to insure a persistent positive financial growth. The authors basically classify the knowledge creation management strategies into either human or system oriented. They used empirical data to prove the link between the mode of knowledge creation and its management strategies. The authors concluded that proper grouping of the mode of knowledge being used and the strategies involved is essential to achieve the desired financial improvement. For example it the mode of knowledge creation is socialization it should be aligned with the human strategy in order for it to be effective. It also found out knowledge creation strategies different with different types of departments that are taken into account. This research also gives us guidelines for future research which includes a comparative analysis between the service and the manufacturing sector. This study basically shows how qualitative variables can be measured quantitatively. I will be using the study as a guide when formulating the survey form etc.

Bloodgood & Salisbury (2001) talks about that organizations’ can implement change and gain and maintain a completive advantage but this cannot be achieved by knowledge creation alone. Knowledge transfer and knowledge protection is equally important. The authors have used the Resource-Based View (RBV) to explain how both types of information i.e. explicit and tacit can help in the change process and how they can be transferred to achieve long-term benefit. In the paper they identified knowledge creation as a process which is based on creativity and a shared knowledge between a group of people which can be used to make new products as well as management strategies. The authors went on to stress that it is not just creating knowledge. It would be of no use if other can get that information from your company easily or it can be altered. So the protection of the knowledge is equally important for a business to remain competitive. To ensure its safety security and legal measure should be used.

Rune Todnem’s (2005) paper basically talks about things which should be taken care off when conducting research in the field of change management. This article basically takes into account various researches conducted in this field and then draws consensus based on the data they have. The two main findings of this paper were as follows:

Firstly, it is agreed that the pace of change has never been greater than in the current business environment (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004; Carnall, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003; Moran and Brightman, 2001; Okumus and Hemmington, 1998; Paton and McCalman, 2000; Senior, 2002).

Secondly, there is a consensus that change, being triggered by internal or external factors, comes in all shapes, forms and sizes (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004; Carnall, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003), and, therefore, affects all organizations in all industries.

Waddell & Sohal (1998) stated that resistance is as a critically important factor that can influence the success of change management. They defined it as:

Resistance, in an organizational setting, is an expression of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change (Block 1989)

The authors throughout the paper talked about resistance. They were of the opinion that resistance to change should not be seen as a hurdle is had its own advantages. They used a lot secondary data to put their point across. Though their research they were able to conclude that resistance from the management can actually lead to greater stability in the external environment. This conflict between the internal and the external environment which is brought about by change is actually healthy for the business as a whole. The authors also identified that resistance at time draws attention to certain aspects of change which might not be appropriate for the organization in the long run. The most important advantage concluded by them was that it results in an influx of energy within the organization which is healthy for the organization as it in turn results in higher levels of efficiency.

Keller & Aiken (2009) talks about some stereotypes which are prevalent about change management. They based their research on John Kotter research which was published in 1995. They basically identified some of the mistake which managers in all the organizations make then they are administrating change in the organization. The concluded that what motivate you as a person might not motivate most of the employees in the organization. So special attention should be given to the things that motivate the employees. Secondly they identified that the leaders/ managers who are bringing about the change should not believe that they are “the change” and just because the manager/ leader is influential you cannot guarantee effective change within the organization. They also went on to point out that good intentions of the managers are not enough to ensure that the change management will be effective. Employees all need some kind of monetary reward to ensure maximum compliance.

Ash (2009) in his article basically talks about how change can be managed efficiently. He talks about the time lag between the decision is made and implemented and the results in the form of increased performance to be seen. According to him this is due to more resistance than expected by the top management from the side on the employees. He goes on to explain why organizations generally fail to minimize the negative consequences of transition. According to him most organizations do little to allay such fears and concerns which results in slow change process. People initially resist change is the uncertainty change creates.

Theoretical Framework

C:Documents and SettingsuserLocal SettingsTemporary Internet FilesContent.Worduntitled.bmp

Hypothesis

H0= organization size will have an effect on change management?

H1= organization size will not have an effect on change management?

H0= internal stability would have a positive effect on change management?

H1= internal stability would have no or a negative effect on change management?

H0= business performance will have an effect on change management?

H1= business performance will not have an effect on change management?

H0= knowledge creation has a positive impact on change management?

H1= knowledge creation has a negative impact on change management?

H0= innovation results in knowledge creation?

H1= innovation does not result in knowledge creation?

H0= knowledge transfer has an effect on knowledge creation?

H1= knowledge transfer does not have an effect on knowledge creation?