Uncategorized

MBA502 Bethel CH17 External & Internal Forces for Change at HCL Analysis Paper The discussion requires a minimum of 300 words, 3 scholarly sources, includi

MBA502 Bethel CH17 External & Internal Forces for Change at HCL Analysis Paper The discussion requires a minimum of 300 words, 3 scholarly sources, including the textbook. Make sure that you use APA style with your references. Under no circumstances use any direct quotes. Any directly quoted or copied material will result in a zero for the assignment. Let’s be sure to write it in own work 100% and give appropriately when using someone’s else work.

Reference for textbook attached:

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Can you categorize your organization as a learning organization? Explain your answer.

1,500 word count and there is a total of 5 questions each (not including in-text citation and references as the word count), a minimum of 4 scholarly sources are required in APA format. For the 4 scholarly sources, one from the textbook that’s posted below and the other two from an outside source . Let’s be sure to write it in own work 100% and give appropriately when using someone’s else work. Under no circumstances use any direct quotes. Any directly quoted or copied material will result in a zero for the assignment.

Reference for textbook attached:

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

HCL Technologies Transforms Itself to Compete with the Big IT Services Firms (pp. 563-563)

1 What were the external and internal forces for change at HCL?

2 To what extent did Vineet Nayar follow the change models proposed by Lewin and Kotter? Explain.

3 Which of the target elements of change within the systems model of change were affected by the changes of HCL?

4 What did Vineet Nayar do to overcome resistance to change? Could he have done anything differently? Explain.

5 What did this case propose about organizational change? Discuss. chapter 17
R
Organizational Design,
I
C
Effectiveness, and Innovation
A
Learning Objectives
R
D
,
When you finish studying the material in this chapter,
A you should be able to:
LO.1
D to all organizations, and explain the difference
Describe the four characteristics common
between closed and open systems. R
LO.2
Define the term learning organization.
LO.3
LO.4
LO.5
I
E
Review the factors that hinder an organization’s
ability to learn from success and failure.
N
N are structured.
Describe seven basic ways organizations
E
Discuss Burns and Stalker’s findings regarding mechanistic and organic organizations.
LO.6
1 structures is the right fit.
Identify when each of the seven organization
LO.7
Describe the four generic organizational effectiveness criteria.
LO.8
LO.9
LO.10
9
0
Discuss the difference between innovation,
2 invention, creativity, and integration.
Review the myths about innovation. T
S
Explain the model of innovation.
How Can Companies Modify Their Meetings
to Boost Innovation?
R
In the downturn, some small-business owners are look-I
ing for more creative ways to make conference-room
time as efficient as possible, an effort they hope will ulti-C
mately trickle down to the company’s bottom line.
A
Many managers say fostering participation is a majorR
challenge, particularly when the attendees with valuable
D
ideas are too reserved or timid to speak up. Without their
,
contributions the meetings are less productive.
Dixon Schwabl Advertising in Rochester, New York,
tried to lower the inhibitions of its 82 employees by arm-A
ing them with water guns, which workers are instructed
to bring to all meetings. Anyone who passes a negativeD
R
comment at the meeting is bound to get wet.
“It helps them be more comfortable because no oneI
will be criticized or scrutinized,” says Lauren Dixon, the
E
marketing and advertising firm’s chief executive. . . .
N
Other entrepreneurs are relying on technology to propel the meetings and keep the employees engaged. N
Managers at Russell Construction Co, introducedE
a new device at a recent quarterly meeting that calculates the average salary of those in attendance and determines exactly how much the meeting is costing the1
company based on those figures.
9
“I don’t think people thought of time as an expense0
before,” says Angelo Bagby, director of marketing and
2
T
S
client relations for the 70-employee firm, which is based
in Davenport, Iowa.
That initial 90-minute meeting cost the firm roughly
$5,000 . . . since then, employees have used the device
at smaller group meetings, helping to shave off as much
as $100 per meeting, Ms. Bagby estimates.
Other small businesses are using special software to
hold interactive meetings that end with tangible outlines
and focus points.
AscendWorks LLC, a consulting firm in Austin, Texas,
is using a program called Mindjet Catalyst that allows
employees to write out the talking points of the meeting as they are being discussed. They can then easily manipulate the text, organizing it by category and
subcategory.
“It’s like thinking out loud, except it’s on a screen,”
syas AscendWorks President Don Dalrymple.
Finis Price, a lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky, uses a
visualization technology called Papershow to similarly
engage his two paralegals, who work remotely.
“If I couldn’t verbally describe something, I’d just have
to say, ‘You’ll see what I mean after I send it,” says Mr
Price of his meetings prior to purchasing the technology
last year. “Then, they’d call and inevitably have questions
about it.”1
496
Part Four
Organizational Processes
The chapter-opening case highlights the relationship between organizational design and the use of technology in affecting innovation in small firms. The same
relationships are important in large organizations. DuPont’s innovative efforts,
for example, have resulted in obtaining nearly 40% of its 2009 revenues from
products introduced within the last five years. This helped DuPont’s stock to
increase 41% in 2010.2 A pair of management experts echoed the importance
of innovation by concluding “sooner or later, all businesses, even the most successful, run out of room to grow. Faced with this unpleasant reality, they are
compelled to reinvent themselves periodically. The ability to pull off this difficult
feat—to jump from the maturity stage of one business to the growth stage of the
next—is what separates high performers from those whose times at the top is all
too brief.”3
The overall goal of this chapter is to provide you with a solid foundation for
understanding how organizational design influences organizational effectiveness
R
and innovation. We begin by defining the term organization, discussing imporI charts, and contrasting views of organizations as
tant dimensions of organization
closed or open systems. Our attention
then turns to the various ways organizations
C
are designed, from traditional divisions of work to more recent, popular ideas
Adepartments and companies. Next, we discuss the
about lowering barriers between
contingency approach to designing
R organizations. We then explore various criteria
for assessing an organization’s effectiveness, and conclude by discussing the topic
of organizational innovation. D
,
LO.1
TO THE POINT
What are the four
characteristics of
organizational structure,
and what are the key
conclusions regarding
closed and open
systems and a learning
organization?
Organizations:
Definition
A
D
and Perspectives
R
As a necessary springboard for this chapter, we need to formally define the term
I of organization charts, and explore two openorganization, clarify the meaning
system perspectives of organizations.
E
N
What Is an Organization?
N
According to Chester I Barnard’s
E classic definition cited in Chapter 1, an organi-
zation is “a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more
persons.”4 Embodied in the conscious coordination aspect of this definition are
four common denominators of
1 all organizations: coordination of effort, a common goal, division of labor, and a hierarchy of authority.5 Organization theorists
9
refer to these factors as the organization’s
structure.
Coordination of effort is 0achieved through formulation and enforcement
of policies, rules, and regulations. Division of labor occurs when the common
2 performing separate but related tasks. The higoal is pursued by individuals
erarchy of authority, also called
T the chain of command, is a control mechanism dedicated to making sure the right people do the right things at the right
S
time. Historically, managers have maintained the integrity of the hierarchy of
authority by adhering to the unity of command principle. The unity of command principle specifies that each employee should report to only one manager.
Otherwise, the argument goes, inefficiency would prevail because of conflicting orders and lack of personal accountability. (Indeed, these are problems
in today’s more fluid and flexible organizations based on innovations such as
cross-functional, self-managed, and virtual teams.) Managers in the hierarchy
of authority also administer rewards and punishments. When operating in concert, the four definitional factors—coordination of effort, a common goal, division of labor, and a hierarchy of authority—enable an organization to come to
life and function.
Chapter Seventeen
figure 17–1
Organizational Design, Effectiveness, and Innovation
497
Sample Organization Chart for a Hospital (executive and director levels only)
Board of Directors
Strategic
Planning
Adviser
Legal
Counsel
Chief Executive
Officer
R
I
C
A
R
D
,
Cost-Containment
Staff
President
Executive
Administrative
Director
Director of
Human
Resources
Director of
Admissions
Director of
Accounting
Director of
Patient and
Public
Relations
Organization Charts
Director of
Nutrition
and Food
Services
A
D
R
I
E
N
N
E
Executive
Medical
Director
Director of
X-Ray and
Laboratory
Services
Director of
Surgery
Director of
Pharmacy
Chief
Physician
Director of
Outpatient
Services
An organization chart is a graphic representation of formal authority and division
of labor relationships. To the casual observer, the term organization chart means
1 on workplace walls. Within
the family tree–like pattern of boxes and lines posted
each box one usually finds the names and titles of current
position holders. To or9
ganization theorists, however, organization charts reveal much more. The partial
organization chart in Figure 17–1 reveals four basic0dimensions of organizational
structure: (1) hierarchy of authority (who reports to2whom), (2) division of labor,
(3) spans of control, and (4) line and staff positions.
T
S
Hierarchy of Authority As Figure 17–1 illustrates,
there is an unmistak-
Go to
www.mcgrawhillconnect.com
for an interactive exercise
to test your knowledge of
organizational charts.
able hierarchy of authority. Working from bottom to top, the 10 directors report
to the two executive directors who report to the president who reports to the chief
executive officer. Ultimately, the chief executive officer answers to the hospital’s
organization System of
consciously coordinated activities
of two or more people.
unity of command principle Each
employee should report to a single
manager.
organization chart Boxes-andlines illustration showing chain of
formal authority and division of
labor.
498
Part Four
Organizational Processes
real WORLD // real PEOPLE
Companies Have Different Views about the Optimum Span of Control
Consider Pepsico Inc’s Gemesa cookie business in
Mexico as a case in point. There, workers have been
briefed on company goals and processes so that they do
more themselves to keep production running smoothly.
New pay systems reward productivity, quality, service
and teamwork while penalizing underperformance. That
promotes efficiency, Pepsico says, while letting managers function more as coaches of self-motivating teams.
Gemesa last year ran its factories with 56 employees
per boss, Pepsico says, instead of the 12:1 ratio that prevailed in the mid-1990s. The changes have helped Gemesa
improve its business results, the company adds. . . .
Not all companies are eager to give bosses more
subordinates. Sun Microsystems prefers work teams of
10 people or fewer, says Ann Bamesberger, vice president, Open Work Services group, at the Santa Clara,
California, computer company.
Sun lately has put more energy into redesigning work
environments, so that teams can expand and contract
The “king” chess piece
represents the top of the
hierarchy in a game of
chess. The chess pieces
can also be viewed as an
organization of sorts because
the movement of pieces are
coordinated to obtain the
end-goal of capturing the
opponent’s king.
more easily as projects evolve, says Ms Bamesberger.
Among those initiatives: better support for engineers who
sometimes work from home and flexible seating so that
growing teams can fit in new members without losing
proximity.
One boss with more than two dozen people reporting to her is Cindy Zollinger, president of Cornerstone
Research, a litigation-consulting firm.
R“I don’t really manage them in a typical way,” Ms
Zollinger says. “They largely run themselves. I help them
inIdealing with obstacles they face, or in making the most
ofC
opportunities that they find.”
A
Do you think an individual can effectively manage
Remployees? Explain.
24
D
,
SOURCE: Excerpted from G Anders, “Overseeing More
Employees—with Fewer Managers,” The Wall Street Journal,
March 24, 2008, p B6.
A
D
board of directors. The chart R
in Figure 17–1 shows strict unity of command up
and down the line. A formal hierarchy of authority also delineates the official
I
communication network and speaks
volumes about compensation. Research shows
that there is an increasing wage
gap
E between layers over time. That is, the difference in pay between successive layers tends to increase over time.6
N
Division of Labor In addition
to showing the chain of command, the samN
ple organization chart indicates extensive division of labor. Immediately below the
E
hospital’s president, one executive director is responsible for general administration while another is responsible for medical affairs. Each of these two specialities
is further subdivided as indicated
1 by the next layer of positions. At each successively lower level in the organization, jobs become more specialized.
9
Spans of Control The span
0 of control refers to the number of people reporting directly to a given manager. Spans of control can range from narrow to
2 in Figure 17–1 has a narrow span of control of
wide. For example, the president
two. (Staff assistants usually T
are not included in a manager’s span of control.)
The executive administrative director in Figure 17–1 has a wider span of control
S
of five. Historically, spans of 7 to 10 people were considered best. More recently,
however, corporate restructuring and improved communication technologies have
increased the typical span of control.7 Despite years of debate, organization theorists and senior executives have not arrived at a consensus regarding the ideal span
of control (see Real World/Real People above).
Generally, the narrower the span of control, the closer the supervision and the
higher the administrative costs as a result of a higher manager-to-worker ratio.
Recent emphasis on empowering employees and administrative efficiency dictates
spans of control as wide as possible but guarding against inadequate supervision
and lack of coordination. Wider spans also complement the trend toward greater
worker autonomy and participation.
Chapter Seventeen
Organizational Design, Effectiveness, and Innovation
499
Line and Staff Positions The organization chart in Figure 17–1 also distinguishes between line and staff positions. Line managers such as the president, the
two executive directors, and the various directors occupy formal decision-making
positions within the chain of command. Line positions generally are connected by
solid lines on organization charts. Dotted lines indicate staff relationships. Staff
personnel do background research and provide technical advice and recommendations to their line managers, who have the authority to make decisions. For example, the cost-containment specialists in the sample organization chart merely advise
the president on relevant matters. Apart from supervising the work of their own
staff assistants, they have no line authority over other organizational members.
Modern trends such as cross-functional teams and matrix structures, which are
discussed later in this chapter, are blurring the distinction between line and staff.
An Open-System Perspective ofR Organizations
I evolved over the years, we
To better understand how organizational models have
need to know the difference between closed and open
C systems. A closed system is
said to be a self-sufficient entity. It is “closed” to the surrounding environment.
In contrast, an open system depends on constant A
interaction with the environment for survival. The distinction between closed R
and open systems is a matter
of degree. Because every worldly system is partly closed and partly open, the key
D play in the functioning of
question is: How great a role does the environment
the system? For instance, a battery-powered clock, is a relatively closed system.
Once the battery is inserted, the clock performs its time-keeping function hour
after hour until the battery goes dead. The human body, on the other hand, is a
highly open system because it requires a constant supply
A of life-sustaining oxygen
from the environment. Nutrients also are imported from the environment. Open
D
systems are capable of self-correction, adaptation, and growth, thanks to characteristics such as homeostasis and feedback control. R
Historically, management theorists downplayed
I the environment as they
used closed-system thinking to characterize organizations as either well-oiled
E believed
machines or highly disciplined military units. They
rigorous planning and control would eliminate environmental
N
uncertainty. But that proved unrealistic. Drawing on the field
of general systems theory that emerged during theN1950s, organization theorists suggested a more dynamic model
E for organizations.8 The resulting open-system model likened organizations
to the human body. Accordingly, the model in Figure 17–2 reveals the organization to be a living organism that
1 transforms
inputs into various outputs. The outer boundary of the organi9 goods and
zation is permeable. People, information, capital, and
services move back and forth across this boundary.
0 Moreover,
each of the five organizational subsystems—goals and values, This aerial shot of a boat sitting on top of a
2
technical, psychosocial, structural, and managerial—is depen- building in Japan is a good example of an
dent on the others. Feedback about such things as T
sales and cus- open-system. The tsunami in Japan caused
tomer satisfaction or dissatisfaction enables the organization to open-system effects like this throughout Japan.
S
self-adjust and survive despite uncertainty and change. In effect, The tsunami is feared to have killed over
the organization is alive.
10,000 people.
span of control The number of
people reporting directly to a given
manager.
staff personnel Provide research,
advice, and recommendations to
line managers.
line managers Have authority to
make organizational decisions.
closed system A relatively selfsufficient entity.
open system Organism that must
constantly interact with its environment to survive.
500
Part Four
figure 17–2
Organizational Processes
The Organization as an Open System
Goals and
Values Subsystem
60’/06#$’*.*+#4
61 -””*’.
6 -*0+”*’.
6 )$1$0′
Managerial
goals
Subsystem
6 *’. //$)”
R
6′))$)”
Psychosocial
6.. (‘$)”- .*0-
Subsystem
6-“)$5$)” I
6 0()
6 (+’ ( )/$)”C
resources
6*)/-*”$)”
6//$/0 .
A
6 – +/$*).
R
6*/$1/$*)
6 -*0+4)($.
D
6 -.#$+
,
6*((0)$/$*)
6 )/ -+ -.*)’
relations
Inputs
6/ -$’
6*) 4
6 0() !!*-/
6 )!*-(/$*)
Technical
Subsystem
6)*2′ ”
6 #)$,0 .
6 $’$/$ .
6 ,0$+( )/
.
Structural
Subsystem
6.&.
6*-&!’*2
6*-&”-*0+.
60/#*-$/4
6 )!*-(/$*)!’*2
6-* 0- .
60′ .
Outputs
6-*0/.
6 -1$ .
6 0()
satisfaction
6-“)$5/$*)’
survival and
growth
6*$’ ) !$/
A
D
Feedback
R
SOURCE: This model is a combination of Figures 5–2 and 5–3 in F E Kast and
I J E Rosenzweig, Organization and Management: A Systems and
Contingency Approach, 4th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986), pp 112, 114. Copyright © 1986. Reprinted with permission of the McGraw-Hill
E
Companies, Inc.
N
The 2011 tragedy in JapanNis a good example of an open system. The crisis
started with an earthquake, which
E led to a tsunami, and then to a nuclear accident.
Open systems effects then caused many different problems for the Japanese people
(e.g., nuclear exposure, food shortages, contaminated water, death, and destruction) as well as for organizations
1 located in Japan, such as Walmart.9 “Of its 414
Seiyu stores—as Walmart’s Japanese chain is called—24 were in the Sendai and
9 close to the epicenter. Stores were trashed as
Fukushima area in northern Japan,
goods fell off shelves during the
0 temblor. A massive power outage ensued. Two
stores suffered extensive damage. Close to 2,000 employees worked in the stricken
region and were unaccounted2for.”10 The effects of open systems also go beyond physical and geographical
T boundaries. For example, Ford Motor Company
“halted all new orders for trucks, SUVs and cars in ‘tuxedo black’ and a handful
S
of other hues due to shortages of some pigments made in Japan.”11
LO.2
Learning Organizations
In recent y…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment