We accept

Critical Research of Organisational Change Development and Management

  2. Company A
  3. Company B
  4. Similarities
  1. Differences
  2. Initition
  3. Implementation
  4. Impact
  5. Conclusion:
  6. ONE Office TWO Labor force COMPONENTS
  7. Experience and Opportunity
  9. Achieving Improved Performance and Efficiency
  11. TQM-What COULD IT BE?
  12. 1. Customer-Driven vs. Company-Driven
  13. 2. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation
  14. 4. Reduction of Waste vs. Tolerance of Waste
  15. 5. Constant Improvement vs, Open fire Fighting
  16. 6. Reduction vs, Inspection
  17. 7. Cross-Function Teams vs. Fortressed Departments
  18. 8. High Worker Contribution vs. Top-Down Hierarchy
  19. 9. Problem-Solving vs, Blame
  20. 10. Systems Thinking Vs. Isolation
  21. 11. Management vs. Management
  22. The Three Quality Gurus
  23. TQM As Organizational Change
  24. Overview
  25. Organizational Change Principles
  26. 1) Time
  27. 2 Resistance
  28. 3. Leadership
  29. 4. Persistence
  30. 5. Consistency
  31. 6. Incentive
  32. 7. Communication
  33. "Culture will not change because we desire to change it. Culture changes when the organization is transformed; the culture reflects the realities of folks working together every day. "
  34. - Frances Hesselbein
  35. Implementation
  36. "A decade previously, Peter Senge created the thought of the 'learning organization' Now he says that for big companies to improve, we need to stop thinking like mechanics and also to start operating like gardeners. "
  37. - Alan M. Webber, Learning for a Change
  38. "In times of swift change, experience could be your most detrimental enemy. "
  39. - J. Paul Getty
  40. "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change. "
  41. - Confucius


Sometime in the 5th century BC, Heraclitus of Ephesus philosophised "the only real constant is change. " (http://en. wikiquote. org/wiki/Heraclitus). All organisations go through change as they develop and progress, whether to success or even to failure. This essay will look at two companies as they go they go through change, organized and unplanned, their strategy and the level to which they succeeded and making use of company development and change theory to these two circumstance studies. Organisational change is a recurring theme in the study of organisational development - there are several factors, internally and externally, that will impact the introduction of the organisation, initiating an alteration which might, or might not, lead to success and sustainability. The way the change is executed is vital to its success as it often impacts one, if not absolutely all, regions of the company.

Early change management theorists include: Kurt Lewin (1951).

Doug Stace and Dexter Dunphy (2001) identify organisations which they explain as 'wise mechanistics', which keep traditional structures, avoid the 'organisational fashion show', and succeed. (Buchanen, p566). Harold Leavitt (2003) argues that, while rigid beaurocratic constructions encourage 'authoritarianism, distrust, dishonest, territoriality, toadying, and dread', in addition they provide means of handling intricacy, give us structure and predictability, and offer 'mental rewards' by fulfilling needs for order and security.

It is argued that the analysis of change is 'paradoxical' (Buchanan, 565) as the reasons for organisational change are 'many and sophisticated' and because change is a process not really a static moment in time, hence can be only understood in relation to continuity.

Not all change must be 'profound' change - it can be a fine tuning to a proper response.

Transformational change of the Australian Defence Drive. The companies were chosen because other their organisational similarities.

Company A

Company B


Large > 20, 000



Public Sector

Strong commercial culture

Founded 1921

Large >20, 000



Public Sector

Strong corporate culture

Founded 1922




Organisational structure

Approach to change



Organisational structure

Approach to change

Scope: PESTEL - Organisational behaviour terrain. Review this at the organisational level. This article won't take a look at the group or individual level.

Australia has looked after military causes since federation as a land in January 1901. Upon Federation, the Australian Administration established the Australian Military and Commonwealth Naval Force. In 1909, the federal government founded the Royal Australian Navy, which utilized the Commonwealth Naval Pressure. The Army established the Australian Soaring Corps in 1912 although this separated to form the Royal Australian Air Make in 1921. The assistance were not associated by an individual chain of command, as both reported to their own individual Minister and got separate administrative plans. The three services noticed action around the world during World War I and World War II.

The importance of 'joint' warfare was made clear to the Australian Government during World Battle II when Australian naval, earth and air models frequently served as part of single commands. Following the war, several senior officials lobbied for the appointment of a commander in main of the three services. The federal government rejected this proposal and the three services remained fully impartial. [13] The lack of a central power resulted in poor coordination between the services with each service organising and operating on the basis of a different armed forces doctrine. [14]

The need for an integrated command organised received more emphasis during the Australian military's experiences in the Vietnam Warfare. [14] In 1973, the Secretary of the Office of Defence, Arthur Tange, submitted a report to the Federal that advised the unification of the different departments assisting each service into a single Section of Defence and the creation of the post of Key of the Defence Make Staff. The government accepted these tips and the Australian Defence Power was established on 9 Feb 1976. [15]

The English Broadcasting Firm (BBC) is the main public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. It is the largest broadcaster on earth with about 23, 000 staff. [1][2][3] Its global headquarters are located in London, and its own main responsibility is to provide general public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster[3] that operates under a Royal Charter. [4] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence cost, [5] which is charged to all UK homes, companies and organisations using any kind of equipment to track record and/or acquire live tv broadcasts;[6] the level of the fee is set yearly by the British Federal and agreed by Parliament. [7] he BBC was the world's first national broadcasting organisation[8] and was founded on 18 Oct 1922 as the British Broadcasting Company Ltd. The original company was founded in 1922[9] by a group of six telecommunications companies-Marconi, Radio Communication Company, Metropolitan-Vickers, Basic Electric, European Electric, and Uk Thomson-Houston[10]-to transmit experimental radio services. The first transmission was on 14 November of this year, from train station 2LO, located at Marconi House, London. [11]

Outside the UK, the BBC World Service has provided services by immediate broadcasting and re-transmission contracts by sound radio because the inauguration of the BBC Empire Service in December 1932, and recently by television and online. Though posting some of the facilities of the domestic services, specifically for reports and current affairs productivity, the planet Service has a separate Managing Director, and its operating costs are funded mainly by direct grants from the UK government. These grants or loans are driven independently of the home licence rate.

How do organisations change - why do they change. How change is carried out, their impact and their success factors?

Two organisations will be compared and contrasted against the various theories, their similarities because they are both large and sophisticated organisations whose purpose is to provide the public.


What are the sets off for change? Why do the company have to change. Organisational life pattern (Greiner L)

Mintzberg - types of change. . . possible step change (company 1)

Elements of change : Whipp, Rosenfeld and Pellige

The Change Kaleidescope Bolgrum, Barly

Whitepaper 1986

Organisational behaviour landscape. Types of change - planned and unplanned

Strategy Safari

Punctuated equilibrium

Organisational structure

??? Cultural Era



Elements of change (Whipp)

Levels of change

Change Kaleidescope

Factors faciliting change

Levels of change Wilson, D

Forces for change, Lewin K (disagree in co1 cas but potentially for co 2)

Total quality management

'n'step process : c1 y c2 elements of

Resistance to improve - bellelan co1 n - long terms, c2 yes - short-term bursts

Managing level of resistance : Kotter Co1 yes, co2 no

The coping cycle Kublar-Rosser - co2 yes ; n/a to company 1

Factors facilitating change

Yes co1 & 2 but co2 fainlied in mid-implementation

"Unless structure employs strategy, inefficiency results. " (Chandler 1962: 314)


Contingency strategies - Dunphy and Stacy : Yes - can be employed to both

Effectiveness of change strategy

The change kaleidoscope (culture & management)






Organisational composition---- tie into first part (initiation)

Organisational culture---- link into first part (initiation)



5 types of organisational structure : Mintzberg - Divisional Form, mechanistic

1982 : Peters and Waterman - in search of excellence - Mckinney 7 steps

Elements of change - framework : Economic & Political

? Organisational effiveness/ development - maturity?


Political and monetary forces

Restructure of organisation


Organisational design

IT - communciation


Bluprint for change

One must consider the culture re: effectiveness and how deep it is to go

Contigiency Approach - Lawrence and lorsh - composition will depend on factors from the surroundings.

Contingencey Theories : 'imprecise standards of factors' such as 'environment'

Ashridge leadership and management - BPR radical decentralisation - BBC petal.

The management of invention - melts away stalk - mechanistic organic

The Australian Defence Company (ADO) has an 'enduring strategic goal is to keep Australia and the Australian people safe from assault or the risk of attack, and from financial or political coercion. ' To meet up this need, the Defence Office employs a full time workforce of over 92, 000 personnel comprising both uniformed Australian Defence Make (ADF) customers and civilian Australian Consumer Service (APS) staff. The Defence Environmental Scan 2025, discovered that the Defence Organisation's labor force consists of an ADF with 50, 600 full time members and 20, 600 Defence Consumer Servants. Furthermore, the ADF has 21, 000 Active Reserve customers. 2

2. All together, the Defence labor force is responsible for delivering the number of defence results required by Federal government. While the military services and civilian components of the Defence Organisation must contribute collectively to the accomplishment of these Administration aims, the management of the Defence labor force happens to be stovepiped along ADF and APS lines, with limited thought of the workforce as a total resource.

Scope. This article will analyze the theories current Defence labor force structure across the ADF and APS. It'll consider the actual disadvantages of the existing stovepiped parting of ADF and APS staff management, and analyze the merits of moving towards a and total Defence workforce. It will explore the great things about increasing the amount of contested positions open to ADF and APS members, particularly in midsection and mature management.

ONE Office TWO Labor force COMPONENTS

Experience and Opportunity

7. The Division of Defence is regularly praised for its success in the planning and do of military functions, while also being criticised for failings in its commercial and tactical management. This slightly paradoxical situation is in part due to the Defence Department's workers management processes, where on one hand significant effort and resources are put on ensure that ADF personnel are adequately informed, trained and well prepared for jobs they will probably undertake within the Defence Company, while within the APS, folks are expected to 'undertake any process without subject matter competence or professional qualification. '6

8. The organized and formalised ADF way underpins a culture where the importance of experience and professional development are respected and included in job pathways. The APS employees management way is not reinforced by the correct personnel set ups or management mechanisms necessary to allow this development. While ADF older commanders understand and expect ADF personnel to be released from mainstream tasks at certain times during their job to meet professional development milestones, the APS management construction does not offer senior managers this overall flexibility. The APS workforce structure provides limited ability to backfill APS personnel executing formalised professional development and as such, it's very difficult for senior APS managers release a personnel for long periods professional development and education.

9. The lack of opportunities for professional development in the APS is compounded by the comparative inexperience of the APS labor force when compared to their ADF counterparts. This inexperience has been 'exacerbated by the accelerated campaign of individuals in recent years as a byproduct of the fast growth in civilian numbers. '7 A comparison of the comparative experience levels of older and middle management in the Defence Organisation shows that 27 %of all APS Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel are under age 45 and 26 %of Executive Level 2 (EL 2) staff are below age 40. 8 For ADF associates, the minimum period of commissioned service for advertising to one celebrity rank is roughly 23 years, with at the least twenty years service required before being eligible for advertising to colonel equal list. The accelerated progression to midsection and older management in the APS limits enough time and opportunity for staff to go after professional development and 'education for civilian personnel is very much an exception rather than a rule. '


11. THE PRINCIPLE of the Defence Pressure and Secretary are focussed on moving the Defence Department's 'people management in a more strategic path so we [Defence] can better recruit and wthhold the talent we need to meet the security challenges into the future. '11 To meet these troubles, the Defence Team will require a 'people management' construction that draws jointly the capabilities of the existing personnel resources available to the Department more effectively. Key for this approach is wearing down the culture of stovepiped management of ADF and APS personnel. A proceed to a more included workforce management framework, that selects the most experienced and experienced candidate from over the Defence Company for particular sessions, would provide significant benefits to the Section.

12. While acknowledging that one regions of the Defence business takes a amount of specialisation, specifically in the ADF for the planning and do of procedures and the APS in the delivery of specialist services, there is a great deal of scope for a more integrated method of employees management across large areas of the Division. This is particularly the case across middle and mature management within the Section at the EL 1lieutenant colonel (05) equal level and above, where the requirement for specialisation is often much less important as a acoustics knowledge of the broader working of Defence.

14. With regards to the ADF, a built-in workforce would significantly enhance the capacity of the Defence Organisation to raised leverage the experience and skills of ADF customers. ADF participants' thorough knowledge and skills gained through experience in a variety of functional and nonfunctional appointments, and set up professional development, can be employed in a range of areas within Defence. For ADF members, an integrated strategy would provide increased profession opportunities for the top majority of ADF officers who currently find themselves with limited options midjob.

Achieving Improved Performance and Efficiency

15. A built-in personnel management framework and the corresponding improvement in experience and professional development across middle management within the Team would provide considerable scope and chance for older management to consider delegating additional responsibility to a far more capable midsection management group. This might help out with focussing the decision space of mature management on the strategic route of the Defence Organisation as opposed to the more boring issues currently eating their limited time. The empowerment of middle management would also provide increased job satisfaction, resulting in improved productivity and retention. This is a significant profit within an environment where in fact the Defence Company is aggressively contending to recruit and wthhold the best.

16. The advantages of an integrated workforce will demand cultural change within both ADF and APS. There will need to be an acceptance that the lines of accountability for personnel issues to the Secretary for APS members and CDF for ADF employees will become less clear. The employees management framework should move away from a differing model for the APS and ADF to a more involved management system, especially in the region of midsection and mature management. The recent appointment of a human being tool management professional into the role of Deputy Secretary People Strategies and Insurance policy, provides a real chance to realign workers management across Defence.

17. To aid in this technique, a review of all middle and mature management positions from EL 105 equivalent and above is necessary. The review should focus on identifying which positions are ideal to be categorized as contestable between APS and ADF customers. With an understanding of the type and scale of the contestable positions, an overarching management composition that contains both APS and ADF senior and middle managers can be developed. This overarching approach requires Defence mature and middle management employees to be centrally were able to best meet Defenceextensive requirements. Because of this approach to be successful, the Department's workers numbers would have to be supervised in a far more adaptable manner, with a move from separate ADF and APS caps, towards an overarching cap on total Defence employees.

18. There are numerous illustrations within industry and other Government agencies where personnel with diverse skills and backgrounds are supervised as a complete resource. Studies of these solutions would be of benefit when developing a revised construction for the Defence Company. The Australian National Law enforcement officials (AFP) has tackled these issues very effectively and achieved a wellbuilt-in workforce adding both sworn and unsworn officials. Defence should consider using the AFP experience as a research study on how to integrate differing elements into a complete workforce.


(Substantial conclusions are attracted about the implications of the analysis for theory and practice)

19. The Defence Department can't manage a stovepiped method of workforce management and must move towards higher integration between your ADF and APS components where in fact the total personnel resources of the Department can be applied to achieve best affect. A move to a more included workforce, especially in the areas of middle and mature management would have significant benefits for the average person APS and ADF participants and the Department all together. It would provide opportunities to build mechanisms and versatility into APS employees management to allow increased professional development and enhanced experience levels. This will enhance the job satisfaction and overall employability of APS participants both within the Defence Department and the wider APS. For ADF users, greater workforce integration provides improved career opportunities in most of experienced and skilled employees who, under the current construct have limited profession options after they reach the mid career point. This will likely have significant profit for ADF retention.

20. A more integrated labor force would provide a construction that ensures the most trained and experienced personnel from across the complete Department are identified for visits at the center and older management level. Increased included can only improve overall workforce effectiveness and efficiency as the Defence Organisation confronts the complex security challenges into the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Complete, relevant and considered recommendations for practice are offered). In creating a total and built in Defence workforce the following is recommended:


If you are reading this book, chances are that you already know very well what we mean whenever we use the term Total Quality Management. Still, it's wise to define the term, and provide a brief overview.

Certainly TQM can be defined in several ways, and the facts of different solutions can vary slightly. However, a good starting explanation, attracted from Capezio & Morehouse is:

"Total Quality management identifies a management process and group of disciplines that are coordinated to ensure that the organization consistently fulfills and surpasses customer requirements. TQM engages all divisions, departments and degrees of the organization. Top management organizes all of its strategy and functions around customer needs and advances a culture with high employee contribution. TQM companies are focused on the organized management of data of all processes and methods to eliminate waste material and pursue constant improvement. "

Perhaps a better way of understanding TQM is to compare a "TQM corporation with what we might call a "traditional organizations". tet's take a look at lots of variances.

1. Customer-Driven vs. Company-Driven

Traditional organizations tend to make their decisions based on what is most convenient for them, rather than what's sought and expected by their customers. Being customer-based means gatf7ering information from customers/clients and modifying services and processes to meet those needs as well as is feasible. In government, this is not always easy, because of the conflicting responsibilities of your division, and the multiple customers/stakeholders involved in government situations. However, oftentimes moving to a customer-driven organization can produce many positive results for federal government departments.

2. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

Traditional organizations tend to think and plan with respect to short term benefits, white TQM organizations have a tendency to think in much larger time spans. A typical example might be a TQM group would take a look at downsizing as having results over ten years or two, while a normal business would look only at the immediate budgetary issues, letting future chips land where they could.

Also, successful TQM organizations make a long-term commitment to the rules of TQM, somewhat than considering TQM as an application; something with a beginning and end. This implies fortitude.

3. Data-Driven vs. Opinion-Driven

Traditional organizations tend to be supervised by gut feel, or by judgment. They guess at what their customers want, and think at the expenses of waste materials, etc. TQM organizations bottom their decisions on data they gather; on customer needs, on waste, on costs, and on the sources of problems. While judgment is always involved with any decision, TQM organizations get started with the info, not with the answer.

4. Reduction of Waste vs. Tolerance of Waste

Most organizations operate with a high degree of waste products and inefficiency. Traditional organizations consider misuse, whether in time, materials, etc, as a standard part with their operation. TQM organizations are very active in identifying wasteful activities, and getting rid of them.

5. Constant Improvement vs, Open fire Fighting

Traditional organizations tend to address issues with the way they actually things only once there's a significant problem or crisis. The watchword in traditional organizations is: "if it ain't broke, don't correct it", except that often it IS broke, but no one is paying any attention.

TQM organizations are always looking for improvement, and are constantly involved in problem-solving to make things better.

6. Reduction vs, Inspection

Traditional organizations have a tendency to fix problems after the fact. Rather than trying to prevent problems, they catch them following the simple fact, which is very costly. TQM organizations work to avoid problems and errors, rather than mending them.

7. Cross-Function Teams vs. Fortressed Departments

Traditional organizations generally have sub-units that work autonomously and with little communication or participation with other items. For example, workers may have only limited conversation with other departments. Or, on a local level, administrative staff may have little communication with other staff in a government branch, and also have another type of reporting framework.

In TQM organizations, you can find more use of cross-functional teams; teams convened for a specific goal or purposes, with representation from lots of products or levels in the organization. The usage of cross-functional clubs means that insight is gained from parts of the organization that need to be engaged.

8. High Worker Contribution vs. Top-Down Hierarchy

Traditional organizations generally have very restricted communication and decision- making patterns. Employees are advised how to proceed, rather than being inctuded in figuring out what to do. Information tends to flow from top to bottom.

In TQM organizations, employees are a lot more actively involved in both decision-making and communication functions. Information moves both top to bottom and bottom level to top. For that matter, information also flows sideways.

9. Problem-Solving vs, Blame

Traditional organizations tend to turn to affix blame for things that go wrong. TQM organizations strike the problems in their organizations rather than the people. They fix things.

10. Systems Thinking Vs. Isolation

Traditiona~ organizations have a tendency to start to see the parts and techniques of their business as sole things, unretated to other area of the corporation. TQM organizations tend to recognize that a lot of often, probtems come up as a result of multiple triggers, and that sub- units are interdependent. TQM organizations have a tendency to see problems consequently of the whole system.

11. Management vs. Management

Traditional organizations have a tendency to see people as things to be supervised; told what to do, disciplined, monitored, etc. TQM organizations display more self-assurance in staff and much more trust, and expect MORE from them, not less.

That's a good starting place. There are most likely lots of other comparisons to be produced, but that provides us some common ground for conversation.

The Three Quality Gurus

While TQM may appear to be a new development to many, it's been around since the 1940's. Among the explanations why TQM seems to be the newest novelty was that it was not embraced by AMERICANS, but it do find a home in post-WWII Japan.

The most well-known advocate of TQM was W. Edwards Deming, a statistician who, while basically ignored in North America, was actively mixed up in '40 in the rebuilding of Japan. Deming passed on recently, and was at his 90's.

Two other gurus are Philip Crosby and Joseph Juran. Both are a bit more radiant than Deming, but have been important in the field. It is worthy of remember that the three gurus do not always agree, probably scheduled to variations in terms of what each believes is important, somewhat than in basic principles.

For those enthusiastic about learning more about TQM, it could be smart to read materials from each one of these experts.

TQM As Organizational Change


Moving to TQM is like other organizational change. It must be been able effectively, and market leaders of the change must take into account areas of the organization's current "culture".

In simple fact, although TQM brings a number of advantages to those in the business, you can expect many people to be cynical and repellent to change. Let's face it. Everyone in federal has seen management fads come and go.

Thankfully, a well handled TQM organizational change will probably bring most if not all people on side over time.

Organizational Change Principles

1) Time

Any change (and its attached benefits) will take longer to understand than you anticipate. Typically, it might take as long as two or three years to acquire TQM working at its maximum.

2 Resistance

Regardless of the objective characteristics of the change, some (even many) people will withstand it since it is new. TQM must be released so that it maximizes people's enthusiasm and minimizes resistance.

3. Leadership

Any change will be successful or fail predicated on the power of the change market leaders to lead. People will need their cues about TQM from the management. If management show they are committed, employees will become so. If management waffles, hedges, and backs off, then employees will dsicover this as just more rhetoric of little importance.

4. Persistence

Nobody is letting you know that this process is easy. The most severe thing a manager can do is start the procedure, and when it gets difficult, stop it. That breeds contempt for both the process and the director. Managers need to commit within the long haul and realize they need to be persistent while the remaining organizations works at "getting it".

5. Consistency

The primary problem professionals make is that they become inconsistent. Perhaps almost all of the time, their thinking and activities reflect the ideas of TQM. However, not all enough time. This says employees that the director is not serious. As soon as a manager shows that a poor service or product be delivered, the game is up. Instant insufficient credibility.

Consistency also means including employees in the planning of TQM activities, treating employees as the manager's customers, and a number of other things.

6. Incentive

People will adopt changes that they see are in their own self-interest. When presenting or package ing with TQM changes it is important that managers point out and give attention to the huge benefits to the other people in tt7e organization.

7. Communication

Change will be accepted or declined based on the potency of the communication about it. Communication must be regular, of any two-way character, and balanced (both positives and negatives). It must start as early as possible along the way.

http://work911. com/articles/tqm2. htm accessed 23102010


"Culture will not change because we desire to change it. Culture changes when the organization is transformed; the culture reflects the realities of folks working together every day. "

- Frances Hesselbein

The Key to Cultural Change, Head to Leader (Spring 1999)


"A decade previously, Peter Senge created the thought of the 'learning organization' Now he says that for big companies to improve, we need to stop thinking like mechanics and also to start operating like gardeners. "

- Alan M. Webber, Learning for a Change

Vision without action is only a dream

Action without perspective just passes the time

Vision with action can transform the world

Joel A. Barker

The Ability of Vision

"In times of swift change, experience could be your most detrimental enemy. "

- J. Paul Getty

"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change. "

- Confucius

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment