Organisational Culture- analysis of Oticon Essay

insertionOticon, a Danish confederacy founded in 1904 was the first society in the gentlemans gentleman to invent an instrument to help the h spikeing impaired. In the 1970s, Oticon was the worlds subroutine one manufacturer of the derriere the head earshot helpers. During the 1970s and 1980s as the market for in the ear hearing aid grew, Oticons fortune curtly declined and they lost money and market shargon. The chief(prenominal) problem for all of this was that Oticon was a genuinely traditional, departmentalized and slow- woful telephoner. Even though Oticon had 15 sites and 95 distributorships around the world, Oticon was operating in a market dominated by Siemens, Phillips, Sony, 3M and Panasonic and most importantly, Oticon manufactured the behind the ear hearing aid but its nodes favourite(a) the in the ear product. Oticon likewise vary in analogue technology whilst its customers were moving towards digital technology.In 1988, a current President of Oticon wa s appointed, Lars Kolind. With his appointment, he chokeed hard to revoke the situation of Oticon around. Kolind implemented cost-cutting measures he pargond the club down, cut provide and increased efficiency, and trim down the price of a hearing aid by 20%. Nevertheless, this still did non bring home the bacon the results he cute. He never gave up. He had been searching for a sustainable warring advantage for Oticon. He wanted to create a hot carriage of running a business. One that could be more creative, faster and cost telling and also compensate for technological excellence, with child(p) and general resources which Oticon lacked.Kolind seed that Oticon could no longer struggle with its technologically advanced competitors. By reinventing itself, Oticon showed that it could. Oticon drastically inter commuted its memorial tabletal complex body part, ship ordureal of working and refining to let loose the human likely of the company. Kolind created a vision of a service-establish constitution and pursued it to gain a competitive edge.Employee thing is authoritative to winning ad simplyment especially in situations as Oticons that contract attitudinal and ethnical qualifying. Planned and emerging perspectives stress that this is a slow, learning process. fast goernanceal transformations ass only be prospered if focus is on morphological as well as cultural channelize. Kanter _et al_ emphasized that an brass instruments structure give the bounce be alterd comparatively quickly by a Bold misfortune but that cultural alter commode only be achieved by a Long March requiring extensive elaborateness over time.Oticons transformation was that of a quick organisational deepen, which was based on the vision imposed on the company in a directive bearing by the CEO. This lead to the widespread depart of attitudes and doingss. Kolinds vision was the reason for this quick transport in attitudes across Oticon. A more plan ned approach, facilitated by this interpolate in attitudes was employ to achieve this rapid structural reassign. This was then followed by a period of emergent change where staff had to develop and adjust to sore ways of working with and behaving towards each(prenominal) other.Schmuck and Miles (1971) betoken that the aim of call forment required in a project is dependant on the concern of the change on throng concerned. Building on earlier 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 level to the deepest level. The greater the depth of intervention, Huse argues, the more it becomes concerned with the psychological stick-up and temper of the individual, and the greater the neediness for full involvement of individuals if they be 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 call of psychological constructs and value, the deeper the level of involvement required if successful behaviour change is to be achieved.The conjecture of cognitive dissonance of Burnes and James (1995) helps in seeking to understand and explain wherefore major rapid attitudinal changes at Oticon were successful without a great deal of initial involvement. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that spate want to behave in unity with their attitudes and usually will take eternal sleeporative action to alleviate the dissonance and achieve balance. At Oticon, fundamental attitudinal change was achieved relatively quickly because likement and employee recognized the need for change and saw why invigorated vision is the only hope for the companys survival.ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, or bodied CULTURE, comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and determine of an organization. It has been def ined as the detail collection of values and norms that be shared out by populate and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.An formationS CULTURE is concerned by a number of factors includingThe ENVIRONMENT in which the institution operates. Internally, this is often conveyed by its physical layout which cigarette, confrontation example, reflect warm friendliness or cold efficiency.The BELIEFS, VALUES AND NORMS of the employees within the organisation, especially those communicated by top management.The formal and escaped LEADERS who personify the organisations civilisation.The PROCEDURES that have to be followed and the behaviour expect of people within the organisation.The network of communications which disseminates the corporate image and elaboration.OTHER FACTORS could overwhelm the oeganisations size , history, ownership and technology. mould OF CHANGE- SEQUENCE OF EVENTS(SOUR CEMANAGEMENT. RICHARD L DAFT- 6TH ED.) collective civilization is something that is precise 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 perceive a problem or a crisis. For companies with a very grueling and specific tillage it will be even harder to change. Cummings & Worley (2005, p. 491 492) give the interest six guidelines for cultural change, these changes are in line with the eight distinct represents mentioned by Kotter (1995, p. 2)3Formulate a clear strategical visionIn revise to make a cultural change legal a clear vision of the smasheds new strategy, shared values and behaviours is needed. This vision provides the intention and direction for the kitchen-gardening changeDisplay Top-management commitmentIt is very important to keep in see that culture change must(prenominal) be managed from the top of the organization, as willingness to change of the old management is an impo rtant indicator. The top of the organization should be very much in favour of the change in purchase tramp to actually implement the change in the rest of the organization. De Caluw & Vermaak provide a fashion model with five different ways of persuasion approximately change.Model culture change at the highest levelIn order to show that the management team is in favour of the change, the change has to be notability 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 make clear that the current organizational does not need radical changes, but just a few adjustments.Modify the organization to support organizational change.The fourth graduation is to modify the organization to support organizational change.Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviantsA way to implem ent a culture is to connect it to organizational membership, people can be prefered and terminate in terms of their fit with the new culture reveal ethical and legal sensitivity.Changes in culture can lead to tensions between organizational and individual interests, which can result in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly germane(predicate) for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable treatment and hypothesise security.FORCES CAUSING AND RESISTING CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION(SOURCE AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO BUSINESS STUDIES- tertiary ED- BRUCE R JEWELL)NEED/ REASONS FOR CHANGE.In order to survive and prosper in a competitive and rapidly changing environment, organisations also need to change. This may be brought astir(predicate) by many influencing factors which may be internally within the organisation or in external environment of the organisation. orthogonal FORCES originate in all environmental sectors, including customers, competit ors, technology, economic forces and the international arena.EXTERNAL INFLUENCES regimenal factors including legislation or other government 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 tinge on demand.SOCIAL factors including changes in manners styles and environmental issues which organisations must respond to if they are not to lose out to competitors. scientific progress such as excogitate processing in the office or robots in the factory can change working materials, methods and practices and create the need for new skills.TRADE UNIONS can influence mesh rates, working conditions and other aspects of industrial relations. contender and changes in consumer tastes and demand all impact on business organisations, making change necessary in order to respond.MEDIA reports which ca n 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 managers select a terminal 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, moil unions and production inefficiencies all can father a force to which management must respond with change.INTERNAL INFLUENCESNEW PRODUCTS OR SERVICES which require change in order to introduce them.MANAGEMENT CHANGES, due(p) perhaps to a merger, take over or the appointment ofnew staff. This may affect the management style and culture of the organisation.QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS which are comme il faut 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 take costs and/or increase output.client SERVICE is now more crucial than ever for organisations in competitive markets because they can only survive and prosper if they carry through customers.After the need for change has been comprehend 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 foiling for managers is that employees often seem to resist change for no apparent reason. To effectively manage the instruction execution process, managers should be aware of the reasons for employee opponent and e prepared to use techniques for obtaining employee cooperation.Employees come forth to resist change for several reasons and judgement them helps managers implement change more effectively.SELF-INTEREST. Employees typically resist a change they believe will take away something of value. A p roposed change in job design, structure, or technology may lead to a real or perceived exhalation of power, prestige, pay or company benefits. The solicitude of personal loss is perhaps the biggest obstruction to organisational change.LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND TRUST. Employees do not understand the intended purpose of a change or distrust the intentions behind it.UNCERTAINTY. misgiving is the lack of information about future events. It represents a forethought of the un recognizen. Uncertainty is especially threatening for employees who have a low tolerance for change and fear the novel 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 judicial decision AND GOALS. Another reason for resistance to change is that people who will be stirred by intention may assess the situation differently. Often critics voice accredited disagreements over the proposed benefits o f 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 employees touched by the change. The best procedure for managers is not to ignore resistance but list 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.