essay fall ottoman empire

OBJECTIVES To comprehensively assess the effect of a living will on end-of-life care. Included studies were conducted in adults with and without living wills.

They chose from the available inputs and work out the right mix. Management must organize production to meet the goals of the company, which normally include keeping manufacturing costs low and producing a profit Better Essays words 4.

Models of Organization Diagnosis Free Essays - dufevenuqugi.gq

Although change is important in an organization, it can also be seen as a strength and weakness. Effective leadership is about mastering change. One must be willing to change in order to grow and be successful. This paper will compare and contrast Kotter and Kurt Lewin step in their change management models. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the concepts and explain whether these methods can be used at the same time Better Essays words 2.

How you manage your business is important in determining its success. Even if you put your heart out in what you do, if you don 't manage your business well, then there is nowhere to go but down. You may be passionate about what you produce or manufacture but if your staff feel that you don 't manage them all too well, then there will be no support from them, and that 's not good news for you. Always re-evaluate your business management from time to time Organizational Change and Stress Management, Robbins begins the chapter with a strong discussion on the needs for the Organisational Change as such nature of workforce, technology, economic shocks, competition, social trends and world politics.

With the current world multicultural environment, technical innovation, economic crises, global competitions, structural adjustments as part of social trends and with the unhealthy politics practice and understanding, all requires an organisation to change and develop ultimately Better Essays words 3. Change management is the change that occurs in the management of change and also the development that occur within the business or organization.

Strategic management is the setting of objectives, which are analyze by the competitive of it environment and it also analyze by the internal organization which evaluate strategies and ideas that could ensure management Better Essays words 3 pages.


  • ways to reduce baby dumping essays!
  • ap us history gilded age essay?
  • thesis theme warrior forum?

These words are interconnected and interdependent. Effective change management involves aligning all enterprise resources — physical assets, know-how, technology and people — simultaneously, but with a different intensity at the organizational, work group and individual levels Better Essays words 5.

Modern managers use many of the practices, principles and techniques developed from earlier concepts and experiences. It began around the and continued into the s. Max Weber known as the father of modern sociology analyzed bureaucracy as the most rational and logical structure for large organizations Free Essays words 4 pages.

Essay Preview. Particular attention is paid to how well change is implemented and at what cost and speed. In advising organizations how to plan and implement change, CM addresses many of the same issues as those dealt with in OD, such as creating a vision for change, overcoming resistance, developing political support, managing the transition process, and reinforcing the changes. What distinguishes CM from OD, however, is an emphasis on change implementation, with a relative neglect for development and its concern for member psychological maturity and transferring knowledge and skills to organizations so that they are more capable of managing change in the future.

Consulting companies are generally more concerned with gaining repeat business than with transferring their expertise to clients. To provide conceptual clarity about development and change in organizations, we suggest that OD and CM be treated as different approaches to organization improvement.

OD addresses change implementation from a developmental perspective. CM's values and methods focus on implementing organization changes effectively and efficiently, not necessarily from a developmental standpoint. In those cases where CM is conceived and practiced developmentally, it is synonymous with how change is implemented in OD, and consequently, it is more accurate and parsimonious to simply use the name OD.

This is a tall order. All of this makes interpretation of results problematic and comparison across studies nearly impossible. Research in CM is just beginning, with few if any common measures or research designs that permit causal inference e. Without common measures of OD and CM and research designs that allow reasonable causal conclusions, empirical understanding of the two approaches, their relative effects and general applicability will continue to rest more on supposition than empirical evidence. OD helps organizations solve particular problems or improve their current functioning.

Although the field conceptualizes change as a process, in practice change often is treated as an episodic event involving a linear series of change activities with a distinct beginning and end. Episodic approaches to change can help organizations implement discrete changes but can be troublesome when organizations need to change almost continuously to adapt to changing environments. In these situations, a more dynamic application of OD is needed.

The distinction between episodic and continuous change is crucial to understanding OD change processes and where they are most likely to be effective. Yet differences between the two types of change are often glossed over in the OD literature. Standard descriptions of how OD is practiced generally follow an episodic perspective. Because OD applications more suited to continuous change are relatively new and still being developed, they often are presented as an adjunct to traditional OD practices rather than a fundamentally different approach to change.

This can hinder understanding the unique qualities of continuous change and what is needed to implement it effectively in organizations. Starting from Lewin's pioneering work in action research and change dynamics Lewin, , , OD has conceptualized organization change as involving three sequential steps, portrayed as unfreezing, moving, and refreezing the organization. First, the structures and processes that govern and reinforce an organization's current functioning and performance need to be unfrozen or loosened, so there is opportunity or leeway to change the status quo.

Second, the organization needs to move or change to new structures and processes to function and perform more effectively. Third, the organization needs to refreeze or stabilize the new structures and processes so that they do not revert to their former states. This simple yet profound model of organization change has stood the test of time. Almost all conceptions of how OD is applied include elaborations on these three stages cf.

They typically start with organization members perceiving a problem and seeking OD help to resolve it; then the problem is diagnosed to discover its underlying causes, and action planning occurs to design changes to solve the problem; finally, the changes are implemented and assessed and, if found successful, are stabilized and reinforced.

This general OD process can vary in magnitude, timing, and degree of member participation depending on the nature of the problem and the organization's expertise and culture. Despite these differences, the language and conceptual frame that are used to describe the change process imply, often unintentionally, that organization change is an episodic event that occurs periodically, beginning when a problem is identified and ending when it is resolved.

An episodic approach to OD can pose difficulties, however, particularly when applied to organizations facing complex and changing environments. Rational approaches to problem solving tend to be widely accepted, well learned, and taken for granted in most organizations cf. They can lead to an overly programmed approach to OD, in which organization leaders, who are responsible for solving problems and improving the organization, focus more on results than the change process itself. Consequently, organizations can easily neglect the development part of OD in favor of solving particular problems rather than gaining the knowledge and skills to solve problems and implement change in the future.

Developing dynamic capabilities is essential for organizations that need to change constantly to adapt to rapidly changing and unpredictable environments. Continuous change requires an approach to OD that is itself continuous. Because members constantly need to learn new ways to behave and perform, change involves an iterative cycle of learning activities.

Kotter’s 8 Steps Process Analysis Essay

Members take action to implement changes, assess whether they are progressing as intended, and, if not, make plans to modify them, then continue the implementation process, and so on. It continues indefinitely as members initiate changes to adapt to changing conditions as well as invent and implement new ways to improve the organization. It is essential to improving the other two levels of learning and to enhance the organization's capability to learn how to change and improve itself.

The inner side of Organizational Change: - Thijs Homan - TEDxAmsterdamED

Conceptually, the overall differences between episodic and continuous change are fairly clear, as are the situations where each is most appropriate. Moreover, explanations of episodic change offer detailed accounts of how it works and what results can be expected.

Organizational and Change Management Models

Considerably more explanation is needed, however, about continuous change. Initial descriptions of this newer approach to change suggest that learning by doing requires a supportive infrastructure, in which an organization's leadership, culture, and information system need to mutually support and reinforce the learning process. Specifically, leadership needs to provide a clear valued direction for change, criteria for assessing progress, and rewards for learning and improvement.

Cultural values and norms need to support open and frank discussion of how changes are being implemented and what can be learned from both failures and successes. These preliminary suggestions are based mainly on ethnographic observations from researchers who were actively engaged with organization members in continuous change cf.

Managing Change And Stress

A next step is to conduct more rigorous studies of continuous change, including quantitative measures of organization learning and its effects over reasonable periods of time. Along with episodic change, planned change is fundamental to OD's identity and practice. It is intentional and rational, a process that is formally initiated, designed, and implemented to achieve expected results.

Recently, a more processual approach to change has emerged called emergent change cf. It views organization change as ongoing, unpredictable, and influenced as much by daily evolving work events as by rational planning. So far, planned and emergent change have been treated as separate and often conflicting approaches to organization improvement.

Limited consideration has been given to how they might interrelate to provide a more comprehensive change perspective. A step in this direction is to clarify the premises underlying planned and emergent change and to explore how they might provide complimentary perspectives on organization change. Planned change is an integral part of OD. It is deliberately designed and managed and presumes that practitioners have sufficient foresight and control over the change process to plan and execute it effectively cf.

Planned change is widely accepted and generally taken for granted in OD, which makes it difficult for the field to consider alternative forms of organizational change. Yet emergent change is ubiquitous in organizations and can impact whether planned change is successful cf. Weick, It includes all the innumerable daily activities that organization members do to respond to emergent problems and opportunities. These ongoing adaptations and modifications are not formal or explicitly planned ahead of time but arise in response to changing conditions.

Although emergent change may consist of many small, independent alterations, they can accumulate and interact with each other over time to produce larger, more fundamental organization changes, such as when a series of small modifications in work methods leads to an entirely new approach to performing work. Because emergent change is ongoing and represents an informal approach to continuous change, it can help organizations adapt to changing environments. Both planned and emergent change have been criticized on several counts cf. Planned change can be too slow and formulaic to keep pace with the rapidly changing environments faced by many organizations today.

In these situations, to be systematically late is to be systematically wrong. Planned change requires a high level of understanding and control of the organization and its context that many organization members may not possess. This can make changes difficult if not impossible to implement, which can contribute to conflict and distrust among members. On the other side, emergent changes can be too small, disparate, and diffuse to accumulate into more basic changes, which can limit their effect on organization performance.

Emergent changes may be constrained by the organization's technology, culture, and standard operating practices, making it difficult to implement and learn from them. These two approaches to organization change can be difficult to reconcile conceptually and in practice. This makes them highly resistant to change and relatively closed to alternative viewpoints. A potential way to bridge the gap between planned and emergent change is to exploit their differences by applying them to different yet complementary aspects of the change process.

Emergent change is informal and localized. Naturally, this joint application raises a host of thorny issues that need further inquiry and practical consideration. For example, should the two approaches be used sequentially or in tandem with each other? How do organizations buffer or protect emergent change processes from formal organizational arrangements, such as culture, structure, and human resource practices, which can intrude on them and render them ineffective? How are localized emergent changes transformed into formal practices that can be used elsewhere in the organization?

Answers to these kinds of questions would provide a deeper appreciation that organization change is an unfolding process involving the constant interplay between planned and emergent elements. Sustained organization effectiveness is likely to depend on maintaining a dynamic balance between the two kinds of change.

Diagnosis before action is a fundamental dictum of OD. It is considered the rational basis for choosing planned changes, which follow from assessing the organization to determine the underlying causes of problems or areas where it can improve cf. Harrison, Recent years have seen a growing interest in alternatives to traditional diagnostic OD based on fundamentally different philosophical and conceptual assumptions about organizations and how best to develop them. Weick, , Rather than assess an assumed objective organization, dialogic OD seeks to improve discourse among members, so they better understand their different interpretations of organization reality and can jointly envision a more positive reality.

Because sensemaking affects how members think and act, it is thought to influence organization effectiveness. Dialogic OD has received varied attention in the literature and practice. It often has been portrayed as a postmodern extension of traditional OD, without clear understanding of its concepts and practices and their unique contribution to the field. Dialogic OD draws on interpretive approaches to social science, which view organizations as sensemaking systems cf. Organization members actively engage in sensemaking to understand and know how to behave in their situation; they socially construct organization reality through dialogue and interaction with each other.

Because sensemaking can vary depending on personal, role, and power differences among members, multiple organization realities can exist and members may need to negotiate among them to gain sufficient agreement to enable coordinated action. In practice, dialogic OD facilitates meaningful discourse among members so they can understand their different organization realities, identify dysfunctional assumptions and interaction patterns, and jointly engage in new sensemaking that nurtures positive actions.

It engages members in a generative process of inquiring about their organization realities and imagining new alternatives and how to make them happen cf. Dialogic OD is often presented as a solution to what are seen as limitations of the diagnostic approach cf.

Because diagnostic OD is based on positivist social science, it treats organizations as tangible entities that can be assessed objectively. This can result in diagnostic models that are too prescriptive and assess the organization on ideal criteria or benchmarks that may not fit with how members make sense of their situation. Diagnosis seeks to uncover causes of problems or areas for improvement. This contrasts with dialogic OD's focus on generative ideas and positive change. Because members may perceive these changes as externally created and controlled, they may not be committed or motivated to implement them.

Although these differences between diagnostic and dialogic OD help to clarify the two approaches to organization change, they tend to be overstated. Perhaps most important, diagnostic and dialogic OD share fundamental values about developing organizations. They both promote empowerment, collaboration, and human potential as well as open and trusting interactions among members.

They facilitate members inquiring about the organization and gaining the knowledge and skills to change and improve it. Thus, despite diagnostic and dialogic OD having radically different philosophical views on organization reality, their shared values suggest that the two might complement each other, at least in practice. There are many standard instruments for assessing these organization features and they can provide preliminary data as a starting point for subsequent dialogue. Or conversely, organization change might start with dialogue among members to envision positive futures.

Then, diagnosis could identify organization features that might thwart or support those visions. It could reveal key action levers for enacting the desired future. Further thinking along these lines might lead to more productive exchange between diagnostic and dialogic OD.