Organisational Culture- analysis of Oticon Essay

INTRODUCTIONOticon, a Danish company founded in 1904 was the beginning(a) company in the world to invent an instrument to jock the hearing impaired. In the 1970s, Oticon was the worlds number one maker of the behind the ear hearing attentions. During the 1970s and 1980s as the trade for in the ear hearing aid grew, Oticons fortune on the spur of the moment declined and they lost money and market sh be. The main problem for all of this was that Oticon was a very traditional, departmentalized and slow-moving company. Even though Oticon had 15 sites and 95 distributorships rough the world, Oticon was operating in a market dominated by Siemens, Phillips, Sony, 3M and Panasonic and around importantly, Oticon manufactured the behind the ear hearing aid but its customers prefer the in the ear product. Oticon in any case specialized in analogue applied science whilst its customers were moving towards digital technology.In 1988, a radicalborn President of Oticon was appointed, Lar s Kolind. With his appointment, he worked tight to turn the situation of Oticon around. Kolind put throughed cost- bring outting measures he pared the company down, cut staff and increased efficiency, and reduced the price of a hearing aid by 20%. Nevertheless, this still did not fulfil the results he wanted. He never gave up. He had been searching for a sustainable warring service for Oticon. He wanted to create a new sort of run a business. One that could be more creative, faster and cost hard-hitting and also compensate for technological excellence, capital and general resources which Oticon lacked.Kolind believed that Oticon could no agelong compete with its technologically advanced competitors. By reinventing itself, Oticon showed that it could. Oticon drastically flipd its organizational structure, ways of working and nuance to let loose the human potential of the company. Kolind created a ken of a service-based organization and pursued it to gain a competitive e dge.Employee occasion is crucial to happy kind especially in situations as Oticons that gestate attitudinal and heathen adjustment. Planned and emergent perspectives stress that this is a slow, learning process. Rapid organizational transformations provide unless be successful if focus is on structural as well as heathen vary. Kanter _et al_ emphasized that an organizations structure force out be transfigured comparatively quickly through a Bold Stroke but that cultural alteration can solely be achieved by a languish March requiring extensive participation over time.Oticons transformation was that of a rapid organizational channelise, which was based on the vision imposed on the company in a directive fashion by the CEO. This head up to the widespread channel of attitudes and behaviours. Kolinds vision was the debate for this rapid change in attitudes across Oticon. A more planned approach, facilitated by this change in attitudes was physical exertiond to achieve this rapid structural change. This was then followed by a period of emergent change where staff had to develop and arrange to new ways of working with and behaving towards each other.Schmuck and Miles (1971) argue that the direct of involvement required in a project is dependant on the impact of the change on tribe concerned. Building on preliminary work by Harrison (1970), Huse (1980) developed this difference further. He categorized change interventions along with continuum based on the depth of intervention, ranging from the shallow direct to the deepest level. The greater the depth of intervention, Huse argues, the more it becomes concerned with the psychological make-up and temperament of the individual, and the greater the need for full involvement of individuals if they are to accept the changes. Therefore, linking levels of involvement to the types of change proposed is necessary. The key is that, the greater the effect on the individual, especially in terms of psycho logical constructs and determine, the deeper the level of involvement required if successful behaviour change is to be achieved.The theory of cognitive dissonance of Burnes and James (1995) helps in seeking to understand and explain why major rapid attitudinal changes at Oticon were successful without a great deal of initial involvement. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that people want to behave inaccordance with their attitudes and commonly will take corrective action to alleviate the dissonance and achieve balance. At Oticon, fundamental attitudinal change was achieved relatively quickly because management and employee recognized the need for change and saw why new vision is the only hope for the companys survival.ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, or CORPORATE CULTURE, comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values of an organization. It has been defined as the specific collection of values and norms that are dual-lane by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they move with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.An ORGANISATIONS CULTURE is touch on by a number of factors includingThe ENVIRONMENT in which the presidential term operates. Internally, this is a lot conveyed by its physical layout which can, foe example, reflect warm friendliness or cold efficiency.The BELIEFS, VALUES AND NORMS of the employees within the organisation, particularly those communicated by top management.The testicle and informal LEADERS who personify the organisations husbandry.The PROCEDURES that have to be followed and the behaviour expected of people within the organisation.The network of COMMUNICATIONS which disseminates the collective image and culture.OTHER FACTORS could include the oeganisations size , history, ownership and technology. mould OF CHANGE- SEQUENCE OF EVENTS(SOURCEMANAGEMENT. RICHARD L DAFT- 6TH ED.)Corporate culture is or sothing that is very hard to change and employees need time to get used to the new way of organizing. Many people are not willing to change unless they grok a problem or a crisis. For companies with a very concentrated and specific culture it will be even harder to change. Cummings & Worley (2005, p. 491 492) come apart the following six guidelines for cultural change, these changes are in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter (1995, p. 2)3Formulate a clear strategic visionIn modulate to make a cultural change telling a clear vision of the firms new strategy, shared values and behaviours is needed. This vision provides the intention and direction for the culture change showing Top-management commitmentIt is very important to keep in mind that culture change must be managed from the top of the organization, as willingness to change of the fourth-year management is an important indicator. The top of the organization should be very lots in favour of the change in order to actually implement the change in the rest of the organization . De Caluw & Vermaak provide a framework with cinque distinguishable ways of thinking about change.Model culture change at the highest levelIn order to show that the management aggroup is in favour of the change, the change has to be notable at first at this level. The behaviour of the management needs to symbolize the kinds of values and behaviours that should be realized in the rest of the company. It is important that the management shows the strengths of the current culture as well, it must be made clear that the current organizational does not need radical changes, but just a a couple of(prenominal) adjustments.Modify the organization to support organizational change.The fourth step is to stipulate the organization to support organizational change.Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviantsA way to implement a culture is to connect it to organizational membership, people can be selected and terminate in terms of their fit with the new cultureDevelop ethical and l egal sensitivity.Changes in culture can run for to tensions between organizational and individual enkindles, which can result in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable intercession and job security.FORCES CAUSING AND RESISTING CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION(SOURCE AN INTEGRATED plan of attack TO BUSINESS STUDIES- 3RD ED- BRUCE R JEWELL)NEED/ REASONS FOR CHANGE.In order to dwell and prosper in a competitive and rapidly changing environment, organisations also need to change. This may be brought about by many influencing factors which may be internally within the organisation or in international environment of the organisation.EXTERNAL FORCES originate in all environmental sectors, including customers, competitors, technology, stinting pulls and the international arena.EXTERNAL INFLUENCESPOLITICAL factors including legislation or other giving medication measures. Organisations are forced to change in order to meet, for example, health and safety, environmental or consumer protection requirements.ECONOMIC factors such as changes in levels of unemployment and interest rates which can have a major impact on demand.SOCIAL factors including changes in life styles and environmental issues which organisations must respond to if they are not to lose out to competitors.TECHNOLOGICAL progress such as word processing in the office or robots in the pulverization can change working materials, methods and practices and create the need for new skills. flock UNIONS can influence wage rates, working conditions and other aspects of industrial relations. aspiration and changes in consumer tastes and demand all impact on business organisations, do change necessary in order to respond.MEDIA reports which can influence consumers and employees perceptions of an organisation and its goods and services.INTERNAL FORCES for change arise from internal activities and decisions. If top manage rs select a goal of rapid company growth, internal actions will have to be made to meet that growth. New departments or technologies will be created. Demands by employees, labour unions and production inefficiencies all can generate a force to which management must respond with change.INTERNAL INFLUENCESNEW PRODUCTS OR function which require change in order to introduce them.MANAGEMENT CHANGES, overdue perhaps to a merger, take over or the appointment ofnew staff. This may profess the management style and culture of the organisation.QUALITY potency SYSTEMS which are becoming increasingly important in organisations in order to meet changing customer expectations.PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY IMPROVEMENTS which often require change in systems or procedures in order to control or reduce costs and/or increase output.CUSTOMER SERVICE is immediately more crucial than ever for organisations in competitive markets because they can only survive and prosper if they satisfy customers.Afte r the need for change has been perceive and communicated, change must be initiated. This is a crucial stage of change management- the stage where ideas that solve perceived needs are developed. Responses that an organisation can make are to search for or create a change to adopt.IMPLEMENTING CHANGEOne frustration for managers is that employees often seem to urge on change for no apparent reason. To effectively manage the implementation process, managers should be aware(predicate) of the reasons for employee resistance and e prepared to use techniques for obtaining employee cooperation.Employees appear to resist change for several reasons and understanding them helps managers implement change more effectively.SELF-INTEREST. Employees typically resist a change they believe will take away something of value. A proposed change in job design, structure, or technology may lead to a real or perceived loss of power, prestige, pay or company benefits. The fear of personal loss is perhaps the biggest obstacle to organisational change. overlook OF UNDERSTANDING AND TRUST. Employees do not understand the intended purpose of a change or distrust the intentions behind it.UNCERTAINTY. Uncertainty is the lack of training about future events. It represents a fear of the unknown. Uncertainty is especially dark for employees who have a low tolerance for change and fear the story and unusual. They do not know how a change will affect them and worry about whether they will be able to meet the demands of a new procedure or technology.DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT AND GOALS. Another reason for resistance to change is that people who will be affected by innovation may assess the situation differently. Often critics voice allow disagreements over the proposed benefits of a change. Managers in each department pursue different goals, and an innovation may detract from performance and goal achievement for some departments.These reasons for resistance are legitimate in the eyes of the emplo yees affected by the change. The best procedure for managers is not to ignore resistance but call the reasons and design strategies to gain acceptance by users. Strategies for overcoming resistance to change typically involve two approaches the analysis of resistance through force-field technique and the use of selective implementation tactics to overcome resistance.