Well, I actually think talking about organizational change is important, but there is a small problem in addressing this and that is that it can actually mean two things outright. This isn’t uncommon as related fields overlap in terminology but not in definition nor context.
Yeah, that does happen a lot. So, what can organizational change actually mean? They both apply to the science of change and change management, but one is a model of change, and the other is a type of medium which change is being applied to.
I’m going to be focusing on the former, not the latter, but know that this can also mean that, if you see what seem like pieces that contradict this one. I may touch more on the other definition at a later time, but the change model theory about organizational approach is more important right now, as it’s more broad-reaching by a vast order.
Definition of Theory:
Well, there are two basic kinds of change environment you can find yourself. One is a handful of individuals who share a common thread but not place in an organization. These, while maybe trained and tracked as a group, are very much individuals in how they are handled.
The other is change on a larger scale, of related, interdependent individuals, and therefore your approach is them as a dynamic singular organism. It’s tougher than individual, but it often runs more smoothly as well.
Well, you have that resistance struggle on a far more grand and epic scale due to its collective momentum. But, at the same time, you also have that interrelationship to actually propagate sponsorship and adoption of change as well.
It’s a double edged sword in that sense, and you’ll see that being a common theme here, because another problem is organizational training, which is in and of itself a very painful logistical and ideological hurdle. But, again, the social dynamic of organizational approach can also be harnessed to make this resolve itself with a little wise and calculated guidance.
Not stalling, however, is the struggle that can’t resolve itself with good guidance, and in change of the organizational type is where this is most prominent as an obstacle in general.
An organization must continue to perform whatever functions it is intended, during the change. Therefore, changes being too huge and fast can actually bring everything to a crawl, and actually stall the entire dynamic.
But, there are some benefits that make up for this where it’s applicable at all. With this kind of dynamic, as I said before, you can overcome the cumulative scale of training logistics and fighting of freezing resistance.
Along with this, we have more freedom to tweak our model, and get the system to support itself in adopting, enforcing and adhering to changes applied. Without this kind of dynamic, it’s rigorous individuals alone in crowds, fending for themselves.
In that sense, organizational change addresses this problem in the same way various alternative training models remove the same kinds of problems inherent in classroom mentality. It’s an escape from old wandering paths versus an efficient straight line to connect necessary points. It’s a good thing!
WalkMe spearheaded the Digital Adoption Platform (DAP) for associations to use the maximum capacity of their advanced resources. Utilizing man-made consciousness, AI, and context-oriented direction, WalkMe adds a powerful UI layer to raise the computerized proficiency, everything being equal.