Management Skill Berde, Csaba Management Skill



Download 2.13 Mb.
Page12/23
Date09.08.2018
Size2.13 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   23
2. References

Berde Cs. - Láczay M. (2005): Menedzsment. Nyíregyházi Főiskola, Nyíregyháza.

Baker, K. (2004). “Organizational Culture”. In Organizational Culture: An Introduction. Edited by Nasreen Taher. ICFAI University Press, India.

Daft, R. L. (1992): Organization Theory and Design. West Publishing, New York.

Denison, D. R.  (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons, New York.  

Fisher, R. – Ury, W.(1981): Getting to Yes. Penguin Books, New York.

Handy, C. (1999): Undestanding Organizations. Penguin Books, London.

Kinicki, A. - Williams, B.K. (2011): Management- a practical introduction. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. New York.

Kono, T. (1990): Corporate Culture and Long-range Planning. Long Range Planning, Tokio.

Lawrence, P. R. – Lorsch, H. J. (1967): Organization and Environment. Managing Differentiation and Integration. Richard D. Irwin Inc. HomeWood, Illinois.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981): Theory Z:  How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Addison-Wesley Pub, Boston.

Perrow, C. (1979).  Complex Organizations:  A Critical Essay.  Second Edition. Scott, Foresman Glencoe.  

Cameron, K.S.- Quinn, R.E. -  Degraff, J. – Thakor, A.V. (2006):   Competing Values Leadership. Edward Elgar, Northampton.

Schein, E. H.(1999): The corporate culture survival guide. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Schein, E. H.  (1992-copyright 1985).  Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Schein, E. H.  (1980-copyright 1965): Organizational Psychology.  Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Schein, H. E.(1994): Does Japanese Management Style Have a Message for American Managers. In: Barakonyi-Lorange: Stratégiai menedzsment. KJK., Budapest, 1994.

Smircich, L. (1983): Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly September.

Quinn, R. E. (1988): Beyond Rational Management. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Trice, H. – Beyer, J. (1993):  The Cutures of Work Organizations. Prentice Hall.  Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Tosi, H. L. – Rizzo, J. R. – Carroll, S. J.(1986): Managing Organizational Behavior. Pitman, Murshfield.

Williams, C. ( 2011): Management. Cengage Learning, Ohio.

10. fejezet - 10. Managerial Methods

The situation, the needs and personalities of his or her employees, as well as the culture of the organization, all determine a manager’s style. Organizational restructuring and the accompanying cultural change has caused management styles to come in and go out of fashion. There has been a move away from an authoritarian style of management, in which control is a key concept, to one that favors teamwork and empowerment. In many companies, managerial styles that focus on managers as technical experts who direct, coordinate and control the work of others have been replaced by those that focus on managers as coaches, counselors, facilitators and team leaders.

Today’s successful management styles involve building teams, networks of relationships and developing and motivating others. Presently, more significance is seen in management styles which are ‘hands-on’, i.e. in which the manager directly participates in work, relying more on people management skills, than directives. Known as accommodative management styles, this people-focused management encourages teamwork and employee participation in decision-making processes, motivating employees and promoting long-term growth prospects of organizations. Such managerial styles stand in stark contrast to authoritative management styles. Management theorists argue that there is hard evidence of the advantages companies gain in creating a company culture centered on such management styles, of which there are many, including: participative management, Total Quality Management (TQM), Management by Walking Around; Management by Objectives and employee empowerment.

1. 10.1. Participative management

Participative management entails sharing information with employees and involving them in decision-making. Employees are motivated to run their own departments and make decisions regarding policies and processes. In companies suffering from employee malaise and low productivity, participative management may offer a means for quickly reenergizing staff. Nonetheless, participative management is not appropriate in every organization and at every level. This is because such a style assumes that an organization’s employees possess the skills and capabilities to contribute properly to managing problems on their own or that they have the requisite technical experience, communication skills and/or intelligence to make necessary decisions and to communicate these effectively. More importantly, this style assumes that such employees will be able to follow through, i.e. ensure that work is done properly and on time, regardless of whether such targets would require coming into conflict with those sharing an office with them. Regardless, it does hold true that an organization’s culture must support employee involvement and the issues in which employees get involved must be relevant to them.

Representative participation allows workers to be represented by a small group who actually participate. The goal of representative participation is to redistribute power within the organization. Employees’ interests become as important as those interests of management and stockholders. According to Robbins (2002), the two most popular forms of representative participation are works councils and board representatives. Works councils are groups of employees who have been elected by their peers and who must be consulted by management when making personnel decisions. Board representatives are employees that sit on the board of directors and represent labor interests. As with participative management, representative participation is a poor choice for improving performance or morale. Evidence suggests that the overall influence of representative participation is small.

2. 10.2. Total quality management

Total Quality Management (TQM) represents a management style that incorporates all tasks of a company, in order to achieve a high quality product. Most important in TQM are its focus on customer satisfaction and quality, which are the responsibility of all employees, followed by the integration of an emphasis on teamwork. TQM logically involves every aspect of the company, asthe entire personnel of the organization, from the CEO to the lowest rank worker, must be committed to improving quality. Equally, TQM emboldens employees to grow by learning. Employees all lend a hand in anyprogress. This managerial style is geared towardsinvolving all employees in an ever-changing, continuous process, geared towards constantly striving for quality improvement. (Compare Goetsch et al., 2001)

In the United States, W. Edward Deming (1986) and Joseph M. Juran (1988) became the forerunners of the quality in management movement. Based on their experiences in post-World War II Japan, during which time they practically revolutionized the quality of Japanese products in the 1970s, in the America of the 1980s, Deming and Juranserved as drivers for the quality management movement,which has come to typify successful American businesses. (Creech, 1995)

3. 10.3. Management by walking around

Management by Walking Around (MBWA) is a standard technique used by sound managers who are excellent at feeding in to what their employees are noticing about their organizations. The point of this managerial style is to work much like a good detective and tocollect as much gen as possible, and thereby preclude anypotentially damaging situation from evolving into an actual, severe problem. MBWA is based on the notion that it is through tuning into one’s employees and what problems they foresee, that management may steer safely clear of anybuddingcalamities.

MBWA benefits managers by providing them with unsanitized, real-time information about everyday work events which have potentialimpact on an organization’s effectiveness, but which is often not included in memos or reports.Knowing that employees are often hesitant to put concerns in writing, MBWA managers instead pay personal visits to every available employee, thereby assessingtheir employees’spirits and noting where the manager needs to act. MBWA is not to be utilized as a means by management to do the thinking for the employee, but to provide the staff with more of a mentoring-style leadership.

However, managers using this method must remain mindful of what their walking around is for: it is aimed at ensuring that processes already decided are properly carried out and that in doing so, planned aims are resulting in the intended outcomes. MBWA is not a means of keeping one’s employees busy by piling on new tasks and thus bringing already assigned tasks to a halt. Rather, MBWA is a means to an already determined end: planned and assigned tasks are checked, feedback on potential problems and certainty of successes is gained and targets are met by employees who understand that a helping, guiding hand is always nearby. (Pop M. - Pop D., 2008)

4. 10.4. Management by objectives

Management by Objectives (MBO) involves the inclusion of all employees in determining, e.g. production or profit targets which must be tangible, verifiable, and measurable. MBO is founded on Peter Drucker’s 1954 book titled The Practice of Management, in which he describes a methodicalway of keepingevery individual employee and team in line with set company goals. Intel, the computer giant, is only one of several global companies that use MBO at all levels of their organizations. MBO works whenever management takes its overall organizational objectives and breaks these down into specific employee assignments and objectives. At each level, the overall objectives are interconnected through a “bottom up” approach, as well as a “top down” approach. As long as each individual achieves the goals set for them, then their departments will achieve their goals - logically, this means that the original organization objectives will be met, too.

There are four steps involved in the MBO process: setting goals, participative decision-making, implementing plans, and performance feedback. Top managers work with middle managers and middle managers work with lower level managers to set goals for their departments. Each manager then works with employees in the department to set individual performance goals. The participative decision-making step allows managers and employees to jointly set goals, define responsibility for achieving those goals, and set the evaluation process.

Managers are allowed to implement their plans and control their own performance. This step of MBO utilizes every manager’s expertise to benefit the organization and permits managers to continuously improve their skills. The final step is to continuously provide feedback on performance and achievement of objectives. By periodically reviewing employees’ performance, goals can be modified or new goals can be set. This step complements the formal appraisal system because the continuous feedback throughout the year keeps individuals informed of their progress. (Cherrington, 1994)

As with any other management style, the organization’s culture must be conducive for MBO to work. Top management must be committed and involved in the MBO program for it to be beneficial. This management style is not without its problems. Managers often set their departmental goals and objectives too narrowly at the expense of the organization’s strategic goals or objectives.

Another problem arises when managers are not flexible in setting up the goal-setting and evaluation processes, and employees lose the ability to respond to issues quickly. Unrealistic expectations about results are often a problem with MBO programs as is the unwillingness of management to allocate rewards based on the accomplishment of individual goals.

5. 10.5. Employee empowerment

Employee empowerment is a style of management that puts managers in the role of coach, adviser, sponsor or facilitator. Empowerment involves delegating the decision-making authority regarding the action to be taken on a task that is considered to be important to both the manager and employee. The main reasons for implementing an empowerment program are to provide fast solutions to business problems, to provide growth opportunities for employees, and to lower organizational costs while allowing the manager to work on multiple projects. (Matejka, J. K., et al., 1999)

Employee empowerment is the most effective when management has set clear obtainable goals and defined specific accountability standards. The success of employee empowerment relies on the ability of management to provide resources such as time and money, support by way of legitimacy, and relevant and factual information so employees can make educated decisions. Training employees to take responsibility and make sound decisions that are supported by upper management as well as lower level managers are other areas that are important to the success of empowerment programs.

Employees benefit from empowerment because they have more responsibility in their jobs. Employee empowerment increases the level of employee involvement and therefore creates a deeper sense of satisfaction and higher levels of motivation.

However, there are potential problems with empowerment programs that often result in unfavorable outcomes. Many times, managers delegate trivial and boring tasks to employees, keepingthe more challenging – yet stimulating - tasks for themselves. Empowerment will not work unless the authority and decision-making tasks are perceived as meaningful by the employee. Another problem arises when managers not only assign meaningless tasks to their employees but also then expect the employee to continuously consult them for approval. Managers must evaluate their employees’ skills and abilities and determine if the organization’s culture can support an empowerment program before beginning.

6. 10.6. Self-managed work teams

Logically, employee empowerment led to the development of self-managed work teams. This management style delegates authority on making decisions on primary activities of everyday company operations.  Self-managed work teams consist of about a dozen people and require minimum supervision. General Motors and Hewlett-Packard use this managerial form is portions of their activities. According to Stephen P. Robbins (2002), one in every five companies uses self-managed work teams. Of course, managers must select a management style that is best suited for them, their department, their subordinates, and finally the organization they work for. The situations managers encounter may require varying management styles depending on a specific assignment, the employees being managed, or the manager’s personality. Management style can ultimately determine the performance outcome of employees and a company’s growth depends on the management styles of its executives. Therefore, in order to determine the most appropriate management style, it is necessary to first review previous results produced as a result of a particular management approach.

For example, Toyota has registered unprecedented growth and success as a result of a radical shift in management policy from an authoritative management style to a uniquely tailored management style called Toyota Production System. This particular system allows employees to exercise their skills independently and utilize tools within their reach to perform their duties and solve problems as they arise. Toyota production system management style has enabled the company to benefit from continued innovation from all categories of its employees from managers to junior staff. (Loney, 2007)

Management positions require a certain degree of authority and therefore managers may often find themselves in leadership positions. However, not all leaders are managers and not all managers are leaders. Managers who possess good leadership skills influence and motivate employees to achieve organizational goals. It is therefore noteworthy to mention that certain leadership styles lend themselves to effective management styles as well.

7. 10.7. Quality and total quality management

Quality and quality management do not share a formal definition.Rather, the concepts may be seen as an integration of all functions of a business to achieve high quality of products through continuous improvement efforts of all employees. Quality,as an ideal, is focused on the concept of meeting or even surpassing customer expectation, which is then applied to the product and service. Indeed, achieving high quality is an ever changing, or continuous, process. As such, quality management emphasizes the ideas of working constantly toward improved quality. It involves every aspect of the company: processes, environment, and people. The whole workforce from the CEO to the line worker must be involved in a shared commitment to improving quality.

Quality and total quality management (TQM for short) can be defined as directing (managing) the whole (total) production process to produce an excellent (quality) product or service. Quality management differs from other management techniques in the attitude of management toward the product and toward the worker. Older management methods focused on the volume of production and the cost of the product. Quality was controlled by using a detection method (post production inspection), problems were solved by management and management’s role was defined as planning, assigning work, controlling the production. (Mouradian, 2002)

In contrast, quality management is focused on the customer and meeting the customer’s needs. Quality is controlled by prevention, i.e., quality is built in at every stage. Teams solve problems and everyone is responsible for the quality of the product. Management’s role is to delegate, coach, facilitate, and mentor. The major quality management principles are quality, teamwork, and proactive management philosophies for process improvement.

Quality management is not derived from a single idea or person. It is a collection of ideas and has been called by various names and acronyms: TQM, total quality management; CQI, continuous quality improvement; SQC, statistical quality control; TQC, total quality control. However, each of these ideas encompasses the underlying idea of productivity initiatives that increase profit by improving the product.

Although most writers trace the quality movement’s origins to W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran, and Philip B. Crosby, the roots of quality can be traced even further back, to Frederick Taylor in the 1920s. Taylor is the “father of scientific management.” As manufacturing left the single craftsman’s workshop, companies needed to develop a quality control department. As manufacturing moved into big plants, between the 1920s and the 1950s, the terms and processes of quality engineering and reliability engineering developed. During this time, productivity was emphasized and quality was checked at the end of the line. As industrial plants became larger, post-production checks became more difficult and statistical methods began to be used to control quality. This was called reliability engineering because it moved quality control toward building quality into the design and production of the product. Taylor was the pioneer of these methods. The ideas of W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran, and Philip B. Crosby had the biggest impact on the development of the quality management movement.

Therefore, only a brief outline will be provided here. Deming relied heavily on ‘statistical process control’ methods, though his philosophy went beyond statistical quality control and encouraged building quality into the product at all stages. He put forward the concept of the quality chain reaction: as quality improves, costs go down and productivity goes up; this leads to more jobs, greater market share, and long-term survival. He stressed worker pride and satisfaction and considered it management’s job to improve the process, not the worker. Quality circles, a central Deming theme, are based on the importance of employees meeting regularly in groups to comprehensively discuss product quality. Deming’s ideas were encapsulated in several important doctrines, including his fourteen points for management, the Deming Cycle, and the Seven Deadly Diseases. (Washbush, 2002)

The Deming Cycle involves five steps: consumer research and planning of the product (plan), producing the product (do), checking the product (check), marketing the product (act), and analyzing how the product is received (analyze.) The Seven Deadly Diseases are:



  1. Lack of constancy of purpose to plan products and services

  2. Emphasis on short-term profits

  3. Personal review systems for managers and management by objectives

  4. Job-hopping by managers

  5. Using only visible data in decision making

  6. Excessive medial costs

  7. Excessive costs of liability driven up by lawyers who work on contingency (Deming, 1986)

Joseph M. Juran was another influential quality guru. Like Deming, Juran (1989) emphasized planning, organizing, and controlling. However, he emphasized customer satisfaction more than Deming did and focused on management and technical methods rather than worker satisfaction. Juran developed basic steps that companies must take, however he believed there was a point of diminishing return, a point at which quality goes beyond the consumer needs. For example, if the consumer trades his car in after 80,000 miles, the car need only be built to perform trouble-free for 40,000 miles. Building a better car would drive up costs without delivering the expected product. This is called the Pareto Principle, or the Juran 80/20 rule: 80 percent of the trouble comes from 20 percent of the problems. The rule is named for Vilfredo Pareto, an economist, but it was Juran that applied the idea to management. It can be expressed as: ‘concentrate on the ‘vital few’ sources of problems; don’t be distracted by less important problems.’ Like Deming, Juran developed a number of reinforcing doctrines, including Juran’s trilogy—quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement —and his ten steps to quality improvement:

  1. Build awareness of opportunities to improve.

  2. Set goals.

  3. Organize to reach goals.

  4. Provide training.

  5. Carry out projects to solve problems.

  6. Report progress.

  7. Give recognition.

  8. Communicate results.

  9. Keep score.

  10. Maintain momentum by making annual improvement part of the systems and processes of the company. (Juran, 1989)

Philip Crosby, author of Quality Is Free, was the third major quality guru. Crosby emphasized meeting customer requirements by focusing on prevention rather than correction. He claimed that poor quality costs about 20 percent of the revenue; a cost that could be avoided by using good quality practices. Crosby’s method does not dwell on statistical process control and problem-solving techniques that the Deming method uses. He stated that quality is free because prevention will always be lower than the costs of detection, correction, and failure. Looking at the history of quality management, we see several stages of development. The first was quality control, which involved setting up product specifications and then inspecting the product before it leaves the plant. The second state is quality assurance, which involved identifying the quality characteristics and procedures for quantitatively evaluating and controlling them. The next phase is the true total quality control, a term actually coined by Feingenbaum in 1983. At this stage, the quality became a total organization effort. It effected production, profit, human interaction and customer satisfaction. The fourth stage is total quality management. In TQM the customer is the center and quality is an organization-wide effort. (Creech, 1995)

TQM has gained wide acceptance in the United States and quality management principles have had a remarkable influence on every sector of American business, spreading into non-profit organizations and universities.

Indeed, many U.S. companies implemented total quality management systems as far back as the 1980s, in order to be competitive in the global market place. Successes lead these companies to be interested in hiring managers and engineers with some TQM training. This prompted universities to start teaching quality methods. To help universities in this, the University Challenge program was developed by a group of companies that had implemented TQM successfully. Their goal was to encourage universities to commit to integrating TQM in their own operations and courses. Initially eight universities with both business and engineering schools were chosen. Milliken worked with North Carolina State University and Georgia Institute of Technology. IBM worked with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Rochester Institute of Technology. Motorola worked with Purdue University. Procter & Gamble Company worked with University of Wisconsin at Madison and Tuskegee University. Xerox worked with Carnegie Mellon. (Creech, 1995)

Work on quality management conceptscontinues into the 21st century. Works such as Process Improvement and Quality Management in the Retail Industry, Quality Management in Construction, and Quality Management in Health Care have appeared in recent years to apply quality management techniques to areas such as retail, construction, healthcare, software development, and more. Quality may no longer be the hot new management idea that it was in the 1980s; however, the quality revolution has succeeded, making quality management techniques a permanent part of the global business world.

8. References

Besterfield, D., C. - Besterfield-Michna, - G.H. Besterfield - M. Besterfield-Sacre(2002): Total Quality Management. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Cherrington, D.J.(1994): Organizational Behavior: The Management of Individual and Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Creech, B.(1995): The Five Pillars of TQM. New York: Truman Talley Books/Dutton.

Deming, W.E.(1986): Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goetsch, D.L., - S.B. Davis.(2001): Total Quality Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Juran, J. M.(1989): Juran on Leadership for Quality. New York: Free Press.

Juran, J. M.(1988): Juran on Planning for Quality. New York: Free Press.

Loney, N. (April 26, 2007): “Toyota: Leading from the Front.” World Business Web Exclusive.http://www.worldbusinesslive.com/Career/Article/653253/toyotaleading-front/.

Matejka, J. K. – R. J. Dunsing – C. McCabe(1999): ‘‘The Empowerment Matrix.’’ Manage 50, No. 2, 14–16.

Mathieu, J. E. – L. L. Gilson – T. M. Ruddy(2006): ‘‘Empowerment and Team Effectiveness: An Empirical Test of an Integrated Model.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology. 9, No. 1, 97–108.

McGregor, D.(1960): The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co..

Mescon, M. H. - C. L. Bovee -J. V. Thill.(2002): Business Today. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, D.– J. Hartwick –I. Le Breton-Miller(2004): ‘‘How to Detect a Management Fad–And Distinguish It from a Classic.’’ Business Horizons 47 No. 4, 7–16.

Mouradian, G.(2002): The Quality Revolution. New York: University of Press of America.

Pop, M.-Pop, D.(2008): ‘‘Types of Managers and Management Styles.’’ Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering Vol. 7, http://imtuoradea.ro/auo.fmte/ MIE_files/POP%20MIRCEA%201.pdf.

Robbins, S. P.(2002): Essentials of Organizational Behavior. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Strach, P.- A. Everett.(2004): ‘‘Is There Anything Left to Learn from Japanese Companies?’’ SAM Advanced Management Journal 69, No. 3, 4–13.

Waddock, S.– C. Bodwell.(2007): Total Responsibility Management: The Manual. London: Greenleaf Publications.

Washbush, J.B.(2002): ‘‘Deming: A New Philosophy or Another Voice?’’ Management Decision 40, No. 10, 1029–1036.

11. fejezet - 11. Managementchange I.

In today's dynamic, diverse and unstable environment, when managers and professionals would look for something constant and stable to grip, the most stable and most consistent stability they can find, is the change itself. We all must recognize the message of ’Nothing is more permanent than change’ and in today’s world only those who can accept and adapt to the accelerated and constantly changing environment will be successful. According to our interpretation the change is nothing more than a continuous adaptation to environmental conditions. The environment mediates the effects and enforcement that make the organisations adapt, behave and produce differently. An organisation can react to the changes in environmental conditions in many different ways. According to management and organisation professional literatures, experts and employees primarily focus on the question of structural changes. The question of changing organisational structure is really a key issue because these changes fundamentally affect the operation of companies. We also have to accept that most changes in the operation and behaviour of the companies have organisational implications as well. From these approaches, it can really be concluded that the most important are the structural changes that aim at changing the organisations, namely the structural changes.

The adaptation to environmental conditions does not always require structural changes. In many cases, only attitude, and thus behavioral changes are sufficient for the adaptation. Changing culture, changes in leadership styles or in leadership methods, or the formation of quality management or marketing policy do not always affect the structure of organisations. Today, the adaptation to a rapidly and continuously changing environment requires many changes from organisations which do not require structural change but they can significantly affect the operation of organisations. However, the change of the operation can enforce organisational structural change.  Operation and structure are closely related organisational characteristics, which often move together or at least their interaction is unquestionable. Therefore, it is not appropriate to distinguish between the changes affecting the function and structure because the process of change and its nature are the same.

In the past decades, change management thinking was characterized by the fact that only those changes were interpreted as organisational changes, which occur on the basis of consciousness intervention of the organisation or happened accompanied by such interventions. These so-called "guided organisational changes" assume conscious management activity that is we know why and where we started from and where we want to arrive. Change management theories, and methods, almost without exception remain within the topics of ’guided organisational change’. They assume a stable, clear and transparent business environment. All features can be measured, predicted and modeled. The necessity of the change can be foreseen based on a simple, cool discretion of the internal and external factors causing the change. The process of change can be planned, controlled, namely it is controllable (Bakacsi, 2001).

According to the traditional management approach, organisational change can be regarded as ’directed change’, so managerial involvement is assumed. The recognition of the guided nature of organisational changes is difficult if the change is not initiated by the management.  ‘Of course, that does not mean that the leadership could not use the changes already in progress for its own purposes.’ Successful leaders often claim the processes originally started independently with their own initiatives; thus, the processes become managed ones. According to this approach, the organisational changes in each case are to be understood as controlled changes because the term ’organisational change’ itself refers to the active participation of leadership (Kiss, 1991).

According to Pataki’s (2004) work (which is based on Levy, 1986; Smith, 1982; Watzlawick et al., 1974, 1990), two basic types of changes can be distinguished. (1) The morphostatic (first degree), change takes place within the frame of the given system while the system itself remains unchanged. A good example is the 2012 Hungarian NEA grants, which are intended to assist the operation of NGOs and can be submitted in an electronic form. The form and the content are changed to a lesser extent from year to year, but the change remains within the system and the tender system itself does not change.  (2) The morphogenetic (second degree) change is the change of the system itself. The support of the NGOs is also a good example here. In 2003, the support system of NGO operation was fully revised by the new NGO base program and it made the organisations consider their private operation. Change management is a professional field dealing with the management of the second degree (morphogenetic) changes (MINK et al., 1993).

According to Conner (1993), three types of changes can be possible:


  • Micro-changes which affect me, my partner, the family and close friends

  • Organisational changes which occur at workplaces or at any other institutions involved in my life (e.g. religious communities)

  • Macro changes, for example in constituencies or regions

Many things can change in the life of organisations, such as the organisational form, strategy, hierarchy, operational profile, human resources, etc. Thus, it is difficult to exhaust the previous dimensions of change. While the dimension described by Pataki (2004) is a comprehensive one, Conner’s dimension (1993) is relevant due to the involvement of change.

Based on our own experience and the approach in the literature, we consider change to be a dynamic process in which the organisations adapt to environmental conditions. Therefore, they consciously transform the processes of the organisation.

Change is a process in which the phases can be clearly defined and distinguished (Figure 1). Each change is preceded by a relatively stable state which can also be described as the starting position. The initial state can be interpreted via Lewin’s force field analysis which evaluates the impacts of the blocking and generating factors. This state is characterized by stability and balance, in the sense that the forces supporting and causing a change are in balance with the impediments blocking change. These factors, forces or conditions causing and blocking change can be very different and can be originated both from outside or inside the organisation.

11.1. ábra - Figure 1: The process of change(based on Lewin(1975))



When this balanced state is disrupted for some reason, the initial stable state becomes unstable, or loosened, since the factors generating change are intensified or the blocking forces are weakened. Then the process enters the next phase namely the phase of change (Bakacsi, 2001). In this phase, there is no stability in the organisation. There is a lot of uncertainty because the previous stable state loosened, changed, but the result of the change is still unknown and uncertain.

The state created as a result of the change can be called a future or target state. It is a stable equilibrium state created after the consolidation and strengthening of the result.  

Nadler (1988) determined some criteria stating the change can be considered successful if as much as possible of the criteria is fulfilled:



  • The organisation got from its previous state to the desired new state, so it managed to accomplish the planned changes.

  • The operation of the organisation in the new state meets the requirements, so it operates in the planned way.

  • The transition happened without excessive expenditures for the whole organization

  • The transition happened without excessive expenditures for some of the members

The conditions of successful change are symbolically expressed by some researchers in the form of formula. One of the best-known formulas is the Gleicher-formula (Internet 1). The original formula refined is the following (Dannemiller-Jacobs, 1992):


Download 2.13 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   23




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page