Strategic Change in Government Based on HierarchyEssay Preview: Strategic Change in Government Based on HierarchyReport this essayStrategic Change in Government Based on Organization HierarchyWill PriceUniversity of Texas at Permian BasinMarch 22, 2005The literature supports the position that there should be a relationship between the structure and organization change. This study was undertaken to determine how different organization roles, hierarchy, and sizes affect planned strategic change. A survey instrument was administered to top federal government agency leadership to assess change in their organization. The intention is to draw common relationships between organization change and specific categories or sizes of organizations.
The data were extracted and analyzed using SPSS Statistics for the Internet. The study group in this study was composed of top federal government bureaucrats of the federal government. Top official responsibilities of a large number of government departments were to manage and implement various organizational changes in their organization. The most significant change was the role of hierarchy, including the allocation of space for each department to specific roles. These categories or sizes of roles tended to dominate priorities, and when they did not, this relationship had a significant effect on plan execution.
The findings regarding the significance of hierarchy of organizations for planning plan execution were obtained with a combination of multiple-target and one-item-rated design. The most important differences are that when an entire organization was represented, top level management were more involved and did not engage in large-scale organizational change, whereas when a group was represented, top management was less involved and did not engage in large-scale organizational change. The relationships of hierarchy in organization-based decision making was most significant, with organizational problems most likely to remain the focus of the executive decision-making process. However, organizational structure, structure-oriented leadership, and organizational failure led to many of the problems that characterized the organization that they have described as the biggest impediment to planning and execution of organizational change. The organization structure required organizational changes in order to carry out many of the roles and responsibilities of leadership. The organizations in which an organizational group was represented tended to be characterized by a pattern of organizational hierarchy that would suggest that a hierarchy of organizations required a large amount of leadership development throughout the organization. As such, organization failure during organizational reorganization was thought not to have a direct influence on plan execution (the report below shows that the problem that led to an organization’s failure was not organizational failure but rather organizational failure through a failure to plan and execute on organizational change).The data were analyzed using the B-Logistic model and linear regression analysis, and the results demonstrated that hierarchical and organizational groups that were represented by each of the organization-size categories (or smaller or larger or more or less significant) decreased significantly in the organization. Furthermore, when organizations were represented by a whole organization, the relationships between hierarchy, organization problems, and structure and structure had a significant effect on the overall organizational action. This resulted in a more positive group composition for organizations that had hierarchy of organizations. This implies that organizations that were represented by the whole organizational group (i.e., larger than or larger than any other group) must have a much higher priority for organizational change (rather than an overall organization’s priority).[3]The findings on hierarchical organization and organizational problems in the American Board of Public Information (AAPNI) for the United States were presented earlier in this report in a report titled:The Impact of the American Board of Public Information On Organizational Problems. The analysis used the B-Logistic model, linear regression analysis, and linear regression to calculate the effects of organizational problems (i.e., different organization problems for different groups) on planning, execution, and management during federal government organizational reform and reevaluation. The results
The data were extracted and analyzed using SPSS Statistics for the Internet. The study group in this study was composed of top federal government bureaucrats of the federal government. Top official responsibilities of a large number of government departments were to manage and implement various organizational changes in their organization. The most significant change was the role of hierarchy, including the allocation of space for each department to specific roles. These categories or sizes of roles tended to dominate priorities, and when they did not, this relationship had a significant effect on plan execution.
The findings regarding the significance of hierarchy of organizations for planning plan execution were obtained with a combination of multiple-target and one-item-rated design. The most important differences are that when an entire organization was represented, top level management were more involved and did not engage in large-scale organizational change, whereas when a group was represented, top management was less involved and did not engage in large-scale organizational change. The relationships of hierarchy in organization-based decision making was most significant, with organizational problems most likely to remain the focus of the executive decision-making process. However, organizational structure, structure-oriented leadership, and organizational failure led to many of the problems that characterized the organization that they have described as the biggest impediment to planning and execution of organizational change. The organization structure required organizational changes in order to carry out many of the roles and responsibilities of leadership. The organizations in which an organizational group was represented tended to be characterized by a pattern of organizational hierarchy that would suggest that a hierarchy of organizations required a large amount of leadership development throughout the organization. As such, organization failure during organizational reorganization was thought not to have a direct influence on plan execution (the report below shows that the problem that led to an organization’s failure was not organizational failure but rather organizational failure through a failure to plan and execute on organizational change).The data were analyzed using the B-Logistic model and linear regression analysis, and the results demonstrated that hierarchical and organizational groups that were represented by each of the organization-size categories (or smaller or larger or more or less significant) decreased significantly in the organization. Furthermore, when organizations were represented by a whole organization, the relationships between hierarchy, organization problems, and structure and structure had a significant effect on the overall organizational action. This resulted in a more positive group composition for organizations that had hierarchy of organizations. This implies that organizations that were represented by the whole organizational group (i.e., larger than or larger than any other group) must have a much higher priority for organizational change (rather than an overall organization’s priority).[3]The findings on hierarchical organization and organizational problems in the American Board of Public Information (AAPNI) for the United States were presented earlier in this report in a report titled:The Impact of the American Board of Public Information On Organizational Problems. The analysis used the B-Logistic model, linear regression analysis, and linear regression to calculate the effects of organizational problems (i.e., different organization problems for different groups) on planning, execution, and management during federal government organizational reform and reevaluation. The results
Role of ChangeBusiness strategy and structure have always been related. Organizational change involves innovation, process improvement, and organizational redesign (Galbraith and Lawler, 1993). They also noted that the hierarchical structure is related to changes in speed, quality and productivity. In recent years, the pace of change has accelerated so drastically that most organizational structures and management principles have no hope of adjusting or adapting (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Todays changes are discontinuous and happening at a geometric rate. Organizations must be sufficiently agile to be instantly reconfigurable to meet new demands (Tetenbaum, 1998).
Change efforts involve attempting to reduce discrepancies between the real and the ideal (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993). The change could be a first order change that occurs in a stable system that itself remains unchanged. It could be a second order change when fundamental properties of the system are changed such as the fall of communism (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993). Evolutionary changes are gradual and tend to be first order while revolutionary changes are second order. Both of these events could be driving the changes described in this study.
Some changes are limited and incremental in nature. Strategic, system wide changes implemented under crisis conditions are highly risky. Nadler and Tushman (1990) found that all strategic organizational changes initiated under crisis conditions with short time constraints were by far the riskiest. Such changes usually require a change in core values. Some recent trends that have generally lead to significant changes in corporate culture are reengineering, shift to horizontal forms of organizing, total quality management (Daft, 1998). These should not negate the importance of the vision statement as these are tools to assist in bringing about the change.
Some organizations are more able to change than others. Nutt and Backoff, (1992, p. 112) explain that some types of public organizations that can control change and other types that cannot easily control change. Professional agencies such as the IRS and FBI have considerable prerogative to act in a prescribed arena and have a protected budget. Political agencies, such as the State Department, have high control over their actions and may have legislation to protect it. Thus, change may be in the hands of parties outside of the agency.
In examining change, Lewin identified three phases of the change process – unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. This involves getting people ready for the change, providing new patterns of behavior, integrating the behavior into the individual permanently.
Tushman and Romanelli (1985) noted that “only executive leadership has the position and potential to initiate and implement strategic change”. There are four levels of change in people: knowledge, attitude, behavioral, organizational change (Hersey and Blancherd, 1993). This research focuses on the organizational or group performance changes.
Change in OrganizationsOrganizational change is considered to be the adoption of a new idea or behavior by an organization (Pierce and Delbecq, 1977). The Amburgey and Dacin (1994) study found that strategic and structural changes occurring throughout the history of a firm affect the rates of change in strategy. Strategic change is a change in the firms strategy, mission, and vision. This change should influence other organizational changes in technology, structure, and culture (Nadler and Tushman, 1990). The vision is inclined to drive important organizational changes (Belasco, 1990). Strategic organizational changes are usually triggered by factors outside the organization. External challenges, such as dramatic technological innovations, may cause strategic changes. “Strategic organizational changes affect the entire organization and usually change the strategy and the structure, culture, people, and processes” (Nadler and Tushman, 1990).
Burns and Stalker (1961) found that a stable, unchanging environment demanded a different type of organization than did a rapidly changing one. A stable environment can be portrayed as predictable demand for the organizations service, technological innovation is evolutionary, and government policies regarding regulation change little over time. An innovative environment is portrayed as having service demand change drastically on short notice, technological innovation occurs rapidly, and government policies and regulations change suddenly.
Important Burns and Stalker (1961) findings led to the concept of mechanistic and organic organizations. Mechanistic organizations have adherence to the chain of command, functional divisions, high specialization, formal hierarchy, detailed job descriptions, interaction is vertical, and behavior governed by instructions. Organic organizations are the opposite and have little concern with chain of command, jobs not clearly defined, and lateral communication.
Ban (1995) noted that the traditional model of bureaucracy does not appropriately fit all government organizations. Some are far more formal and impersonal, while others are smaller, more informal, and stress the importance of personal relationships. Most organizations “differ in the extent to which they stress use of formal regulations for control” (Ban, 1995, p. 23).
Stereotyped views of public bureaucracy in terms of change varies greatly among individual administrative institutions (Goodsell, 1989). He relates that to the Department of Commerce, advocating change means improving the productivity of American industry while to the Department of Defense it means rearming an alarmingly weak military establishment.
Boeker and Goodstein (1991) found organizations that have recently been successful will resist changes in their basic strategies and missions. Tushman and Romanelli (1985) found that a buffeted organization, such as