Short Paper One Page: What Does The Term 'Managing' Mean?

Short Paper One Page Is Enoughwhat Does The Term Managing Organizati

Short Paper, one page is enough. What does the term managing organizational change mean to you? Is it possible to not have change in an organization? Is change best driven by the leadership or is change more effective in a grassroots movement? Should change be resisted at all costs? Is change a good or a bad thing? Discuss, substantiating your position with the research that you have collected. This only has to be a paragraph. (Discussion Board) What power theories have you seen in action in your current or prior organizations? Were they need-driven or ego-driven? Research a few major organizations that have either undergone a recent organizational change or, in your opinion, are ripe for change. Collect some examples of organizational change, or failure to change. Use these examples to illustrate your points in your discussion post and short paper. Feel free to include your current, or most recent, organization as examples.

Paper For Above instruction

Managing organizational change is a dynamic process that involves guiding and facilitating transformation within an organization to adapt to evolving internal and external environments. To me, it means actively steering the organization through strategic adjustments, culture shifts, or structural reforms to ensure continued growth and sustainability. It is theoretically possible for organizations to remain static; however, in practice, resisting inevitable change often leads to stagnation or failure, especially in competitive markets. Change is most effective when driven collaboratively, with leadership setting the vision and providing strategic direction, while grassroots movements foster ownership and engagement among employees. Resisting change at all costs can be detrimental, as it may hinder innovation, reduce adaptability, and increase vulnerability to external disruptions. Conversely, embracing change can be beneficial if managed properly, as it often leads to improved processes, increased competitiveness, and organizational resilience. Research indicates that successful change management involves both top-down strategies and bottom-up participation, balancing authority with involvement (Kotter, 1998; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Regarding power theories, I have observed influence of coercive and reward power in my previous organizations—often need-driven, aimed at addressing immediate operational concerns. For example, during a recent restructuring, leadership leveraged reward and coercive power to implement new policies swiftly. Major organizations such as Microsoft and Netflix have undergone significant transformations—Microsoft with its shift towards cloud computing under Satya Nadella, exemplifies strategic change driven by leadership, while Netflix’s cultural overhaul illustrates grassroots engagement. Conversely, some companies like Kodak failed to adapt to digital changes, leading to decline, exemplifying how failure to change can be disastrous. These examples reinforce that timely, well-managed change, whether top-down or bottom-up, is vital for organizational survival and growth.

References

• Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
• Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics. Pearson Education.
• Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2012). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools, and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page.
• Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). Managing change processes. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 97–111.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases. Pearson Education.
• Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.
• Ferguson, R. B., & Ferguson, E. (2011). Managing change at Microsoft: Lessons learned. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(4), 498–514.
• Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 202–223.