1

Change Management and

Organizational Structure
(5008)

Submitted by
BY 518521
MSC. ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES
Semester: Spring, 2020

______________________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

 2

Introduction
Changing an organization’s structure is one of the most difficult leadership challenges. That’s
because an organization’s structure comprises an interlocking set of goals, roles, processes,
values, communications practices, attitudes and assumptions.
The elements fit together as a mutually reinforcing system and combine to prevent any
attempt to change it. That’s why single-fix changes, such as the introduction of teams, or
Lean, or Agile, or Scrum, or knowledge management, or some new process, may appear to
make progress for a while, but eventually the interlocking elements of the organizational
structure take over and the change is inexorably drawn back into the existing organizational
structure.
Changing a structure is a large-scale undertaking, and eventually all of the organizational
tools for changing minds will need to be put in play. However the order in which they
deployed has a critical impact on the likelihood of success.
In general, the most fruitful success strategy is to begin with leadership tools, including a
vision or story of the future, cement the change in place with management tools, such as role
definitions, measurement and control systems, and use the pure power tools of coercion and
punishments as a last resort, when all else fails.
Frequent mistakes in trying to change structure include:
 Overuse of the power tools of coercion and underuse of leadership tools.
 Beginning with a vision or story, but failing to put in place the management
tools that will cement the behavioral changes in place.
 Beginning with power tools even before a clear vision or story of the future is
in place.
These lessons are evident in successive efforts to change the organizational structure of the
World Bank over a period of almost half a century.
The challenge of structure change at the World Bank
The World Bank represents a particularly difficult case of organizational structure change. Its
formal goal—development—is ambiguous. The institution itself is a peculiar mix of a
philanthropic foundation, a university and a bank. As an international organization, it is
owned by the governments of the world, with a resident board of directors and their staffs
who are ever present and ready to second-guess the management.
In a broad sense, the World Bank is a great success. It’s easy to forget that fifty years ago,
India, China and Korea were seen as basket cases requiring Western charity in perpetuity:
 3

today, they are independent economic powers in their own right, as a result in part to the
implementation of economic policies that the World Bank has been coaching them over many
years.
But the remaining development problems in the poorest countries, particularly in Africa,
remain intractable. And the new global issues such as the environment present new
challenges for the World Bank to play a different role from the past.
Structure’s reputation as being among the “softer” instruments of management might lead
you to conclude that it’s a luxury—something that gets attention in buzz-conscious Silicon
Valley but occupies more of a background position everywhere else.
Yet structure is critical to business success, according to the results of our 2013 Structure and
Change Management Survey. When we recently surveyed more than 2,200 global
businesspeople to get their take on structure’s role in business, we saw that structure is widely
seen as more important than companies’ strategies or operating models. This view of
structure’s importance holds true around the world.
Nonetheless, corporate structure often doesn’t get the attention executives suggest it deserves.
Only 53% of businesspeople say structure is an important part of the leadership agenda at
their company. Even fewer people (35%) say their companies do an effective job of
managing structure.
Our own work suggests that the problem is one of mind-set. Companies facing cultural
challenges often think the answer is to try to transform their structures by using traditional
change-management tactics. But cultural situations are complex and rarely lend themselves to
change through the same mechanisms or at the same pace as other parts of an organization.
We’d argue that those who work with and within their existing structure to change critical
behaviors have more success than those who try to change their structure. Said another way,
it is easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than it is to think your way into a new
way of acting.
While it is resistant to change itself, structure can be a great enabler of organizational change
—whether the change involves digitization, faster product development, or a systematic
lowering of costs. Overall, change initiatives are only adopted and sustained about half the
time, our survey shows. But when companies tap into the energy and emotional commitment
that are bound up in their structures, change initiatives are far more sustainable.
In any major change initiative, it is the job of management and the people affected by the
transition to figure out how to harness the strong cultural attributes of their company to build
momentum and create lasting change. Companies that are able to do so—to take what we call
 4

a “structure led” approach to change—substantially increase the speed, success, and

sustainability of their transformation initiatives. Based on our survey findings, the odds of
success are about twice as high with structure-led change than with more conventional
change-management approaches.
MAJOR STEPS INVOLVED IN CHANGING AN ORGANIZATION’S
STRUCTURE
There are four major steps involved in changing an organization’s structure:
1. Before an organization can change its structure, it must first understand the
current structure, or the way things are now.
2. Once you understand your current organizational structure, your organization
must then decide where it wants to go, define its strategic direction, and decide
what the organizational structure should look like to support success. What vision
does the organization have for its future and how must the structure change to
support the accomplishment of that vision? Your management team needs to
answer questions such as:
 What are the most important values you would like to see represented in
your organizational structure?
 Are these values compatible with your current organizational structure?
Do they exist now? If not, why not?
3. However, knowing what the desired organizational structure looks like is not
enough. Organizations must create plans to ensure that the desired organizational
structure becomes a reality.
4. Finally, the individuals in the organization must decide to change their behavior
to create the desired organizational structure. This is the hardest step in structure
change
IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF AN
ORGANIZATION
Other components important in changing the structure of an organization are:
 Create value and belief statements – use employee focus groups, by department,
to put the mission, vision, and values into words that state their impact on each
employee’s job
 Practice effective communication – keeping all employees informed about the
organizational structure change process ensures commitment and success. Telling
 5

employees what is expected of them is critical for effective organizational

structure change
 Review organizational structure – changing the physical structure of the company
to align it with the desired organizational structure may be necessary
 Redesign your approach to rewards and recognition – you will likely need to
change the reward system to encourage the behaviors vital to the desired
organizational structure
 Review all work systems – employee promotions, pay practices, performance
management and employee selection to make sure they are aligned with the
desired structure
CHANGING THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE REQUIRES TIME
Corporate structure is a hard thing to get right. It’s a moving target that means something
different to everyone. It grows and evolves over time and is the result of action and
reaction. It is the lingering effect of every interaction.
Managing organizational structure change can be a difficult challenge of leadership. This is
because the structure of an organization consists of an interlocking set of goals, values,
processes, roles, assumptions, attitudes, and communication practices.
These elements integrate as a mutual system of reinforcement and combine for the prevention
of any attempt to change that system. This is the main reason why changes of single fix such
as knowledge management or the introduction of teams may seem to make some progress for
a certain period of time. However, the organizational structure eventually takes over and the
change in the organization is drawn back into the already existing structure in the
organization.
Managing organizational structure change is a huge undertaking and this requires all tools of
organization for changing people’s minds to be properly utilized in the process. However, the
way these organizational tools are deployed has a very critical effect on the success.
Generally, the most useful and successful strategy to use is to start with the right leadership
tools which includes a vision pr a future story of an organization. In addition, to cement the
structure change already in place you need to use management tools such as measurement
system, control system and role definitions. As a last resort, you need to use pure power tools
of punishments and coercion when the rest fails.
Common Mistakes to Avoid When Managing Organizational Structure Change
When it comes to managing organizational structure change some common mistakes that
might happen include under-using the tools of leadership and overusing the power tools of
 6

coercion. Starting with a story or vision, but eventually, failing to utilize the management
tools, which will strengthen the behavioral changes currently in place is also another frequent
mistake in organizational structure change. Lastly, starting with the power tools before a
well-defined story of the future or vision is in place is also a common mistake.
These common lessons are clear evidence in the successive efforts to effective change of an
organizational structure like the World Bank over a certain period, which is half a century.
Important Hurdles Managers Face When Changing an Organization Structure
Since changing an entrenched organizational structure is a daunting task to do, in order to be
successful make sure you win the minds and hearts of individuals you work with. This
usually takes both persuasion as well as cunning. These are some hurdles to experience when
instituting wide change in an organization:
• Cognitive – This is the first one and in this case, people you work with must have some
knowledge why the strategy or structure change is required at that given time.
• Limited resources – To change an organization requires shifting resources away from
certain areas and then towards the rest.
• Motivation – This is yet another hurdle most mangers trying to institute structure change
face. In this case, employees have to work hard to make the necessary change.
• Institutional politics – This is typically one of the worst hurdles to face as a manger when
instituting structure change in an organization. This kind of politics in an organization may
terribly hinder the process of cultural change in one way or another. This usually happens in
the top management.
In conclusion, to successfully change an organizational structure you need to do enough
research about the nature of an organization and people working there. Therefore, you need to
be very consistent and motivated with the current practices and values needed in an
organization in order to make the whole process convenient and successful.

Practical study
The most successful president by far in terms of changing the structure was Robert
McNamara. After a career at the Ford Motor Company, of which McNamara became head in
1960, he was the U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968 and president of the World
Bank from 1968 to 1981.
His most lasting accomplishment at the World Bank is, for better or worse, that he introduced
hierarchical bureaucracy, with its attendant goals, roles, accountabilities, values and
communications.
 7

And we know how he did it. On his arrival at the World Bank in May 1968, McNamara
quickly took charge. John Blaxall, a young economist at the time, recalls being summoned to
McNamara’s office shortly after his arrival, being handed a stack of annual reports, and asked
to assemble multiyear financial statements—something that hadn’t been done before.
McNamara penciled in his left-handed scrawl on a white-lined pad the headings that he
wanted. The columns across the top were the past five fiscal years, and the rows were the
standard balance sheet and income statement items. How soon could he have it ready?
Blaxall gave him a date and observed with concern that McNamara carefully wrote it down.
Within six weeks, McNamara had a set of tables covering all major aspects of the Bank
Group’s activities, with totals for each five-year period and detail for the past five years.
Blaxall recalls McNamara poring over the sheets full of numbers, exclaiming with some
animation: “This is really exciting, John!”
McNamara then asked the senior managers in the President’s Council of the bank to fill in the
numbers for the next five years for the activities under his responsibility. The immediate
reaction was that it couldn’t be done, to which McNamara replied that they should do it
anyway—and have it ready within a month.
It is not surprising that the five-year lending plans submitted by the geographical units had
little correspondence to the five-year plans prepared by the technical units. And the financial
projections put forward by the disbursement department were unrelated to either.
It was at this point, in early summer 1968, that McNamara announced to the senior managers
that in the future, the World Bank would have only one sheet of music from which everyone
would play. Ensuring the necessary consistency would be a key role of the programming and
budgeting department. The game plan was not a narrative but rather a set of standard tables—
a bunch of numbers—through which McNamara managed the organization for the next
thirteen years.
As a result, McNamara transformed the World Bank from a small, sleepy, financial boutique
into a large, bustling, modern corporation, expanding lending more than tenfold in the course
of his thirteen-year tenure. He dramatically increased the World Bank’s role in agristructure
and education and opened up new lines of business in health, population, nutrition, and urban
development. He articulated a new role for the World Bank in alleviating global poverty,
passionately calling attention to the plight of the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population
who had been essentially untouched by development lending. But his most lasting
accomplishment is that he introduced hierarchical bureaucracy.
It’s interesting to note what McNamara didn’t do to bring about the structure change:
 8

 He didn’t change the managers or bring in his own staff. He basically worked
with people who were already there. When he needed something he couldn’t
get from the existing management, he drew on young people from within the
organization like Blaxall.
 He didn’t start by reorganizing: It was only four years after his arrival (in
1972) that McNamara finally got around to a reorganization, which was
needed in any event because the organization had grown so much. By this
time, his management systems and philosophy were firmly in place.
McNamara thus arrived with a clear vision for the organization: it was to be a lending
organization that was lending a great deal more money. He had a clear idea of the
management he wanted introduced: hierarchical bureaucracy. He introduced systems and
processes that focused everyone’s attention on his vision of the World Bank as a rapidly
growing lending organization and the type of management required. Those systems are still
largely in place today and still guide management action.
Tom Clausen: 1981-1986: Strategic planning
Tom Clausen came from being head of the Bank of America, in which role he was named as
the “best manager in America”. After his stint at the World Bank, he returned to the Bank of
America, where he was once again voted “best manager in America”.
However at the World Bank, he found it difficult to make his mark. He spent much of his
time trying to figure out how the organization functioned. He could see that the organization
lent a great deal of money, but the goal of lending—development—remained fuzzy.
Clausen’s response was to launch a major strategic planning exercise, of which the end
result, like most such corporate exercises, was essentially to continue with “more of the
same”.
Clausen relied principally on management tools, and lacked any clear vision of where he
wanted the organization to go. As a result, it kept going in the same direction.
Barber Conable: 1986-1991: Reorganization
Barber Conable’s background as a Republican congressman from New York led him to
approach his new job as a political challenge. The organization that he inherited had become
slow, bureaucratic and unresponsive to its stakeholders. Conable’s response was a massive
reorganization, combined with mild downsizing. The hope was that the reorganized
organization would emerge lighter, nimbler and more client-focused. The reality was that the
old structure quickly reemerged, despite the new managers and the new structures. The
structure easily survived.
 9

Here the reliance of power tools resulted in short term disruption but no long term change.
Lew Preston (1991-1995) came from being head of JP Morgan. As a banker, he accepted the
World Bank as a bank, and in the four years that he served as president, he made no
significant effort to change it.
James Wolfensohn: 1995-2005: New structure, new managers
James Wolfensohn came from a career of investment banking. Unlike his predecessors, he
had spent a number of years thinking about the World Bank and in fact trying to become its
president. He was a candidate when McNamara retired in 1981, but he was told he was
ineligible as an Australian citizen. He adopted U.S. nationality and succeeded in becoming
president in 1995.
Upon his appointment, it was reported in the press that he intended to remove the entire cadre
of senior managers. He denied the report at the time, but over the next couple of years, he did
exactly that.
He also launched a massive reorganization that preoccupied managers and staff for several
years, though as in earlier reorganizations, the structure re-emerged largely unscathed from
the experience, despite the changes in personnel and structures.
More importantly, he also took steps to clarify the goal of the organization. In 1996, he
espoused knowledge management as a strategic goal of the organization, calling it “the
Knowledge Bank”. (I served as director of knowledge management from 1996-2000.)
In 1998, he succeeded in introducing a World Bank mission statement—the first in its entire
life.
To fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results. To help people help
themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building
capacity and forging partnerships in the public and private sectors.
The goal was for the first time clearly focused on fighting poverty. However as all of the
management systems and processes remained focused on getting out the lending program, the
mission statement has still had little operational impact.
Thus Wolfensohn’s ten-year term was marked by a lot of energy and effort to introduce
change. The organization became more decentralized, with a younger and less experienced
staff, but not fundamentally different. It was a still a bank lending money for development, in
accordance with the systems that McNamara had put in place almost forty years before.
Wolfensohn did have a vision for the organization as an organization dedicated to relieving
poverty, but failed to put in place the management systems that would support and reinforce
that vision.
 10

Paul Wolfowitz: 2005-2007: New blood from outside

As a leading neoconservative, and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz was a major
architect of President Bush's Iraq policy and its most hawkish advocate. His appointment as
president of the World Bank was controversial.
Wolfowitz arrived with a change agenda to move the organization towards a more
conservative stance. He tried to do this by bringing on board some of his neoconservative
lieutenants as managers. By and large, the organization, which has no tradition like the US
government of bringing in new managers from outside, responded like an immune system
reacting to invading pathogens.
 In effort to identify and put an end to corruption, Wolfowitz brought on two
US nationals formerly with the Bush administration, whom he appointed as
close advisors to flush out fraud. Their work proved divisive.
 Another appointee ran into problems when he tried change policies on family
planning and climate change towards a conservative line.
After serving a tumultuous two years, Wolfowitz resigned, following revelation of a
promotion that he had arranged for his companion. Obviously, a personal scandal brings any
change effort to a screeching halt.
Robert Zoellick: 2007-to date
After the tumult of the brief Wolfowitz era, Zoellick’s calm tenure with no bold moves was a
relief to many. His recent discovery of the World Bank’s role in providing data to the world
shows how long it can take an incoming president to understand, let alone manage, this
intricate organization. As he enters the final year of his five-year term, there is no indication
from President Obama as to whether he wants the former Bush hand to stay on. Zoellick has
made no statement about his own plans.
Meeting the challenge for the future
As of mid-2011, the World Bank remains a slow-moving traditional hierarchical bureaucracy,
with an inward-looking perspective. The mission statement of 1998 dedicating the
organization to the relief of poverty is largely unsupported by the management roles, systems
and structures which still drive the organization to focus mainly on lending for individual
development projects. While filled with talented staff, the organization as a whole is
underperforming. It lacks the agility to cope with the diverse challenges that the world now
faces.
Overall, the World Bank is desperately in need of a radical change in management. If no
change occurs, it will become less and less relevant.
 11

Lessons for the next president

If the next president is to achieve the needed change, he or she should learn from the success
of Robert McNamara and the failures of his successors, as well as other successful change
efforts in large organizations, such as Alan Mullaly at Ford [F] or even Steve Jobs at Apple
[AAPL]:
 Do come with a clear vision of where you want the organization to go and promulgate
that vision rapidly and forcefully with leadership storytelling.
 Do identify the core stakeholders of the new vision and drive the organization to
be continuously and systematically responsive to those stakeholders.
 Do define the role of managers as enablers of self-organizing teams and draw on the full
capabilities of the talented staff.
 Do quickly develop and put in place new systems and processes that support and
reinforce this vision of the future, drawing on the practices of dynamic linking.
 Do introduce and consistently reinforce the values of radical transparency and continuous
improvement.
 Do communicate horizontally in conversations and stories, not through top-down
commands.
 Don’t start by reorganizing. First clarify the vision and put in place the management roles
and systems that will reinforce the vision.
 Don't parachute in a new team of top managers. Work with the existing managers and
draw on people who share your vision.

Literature Review
The Concept of Structure
To achieve this learning objective there are three main areas which has to be address. First
one is the to determine a framework for analyzing organizational structure and then
Explanation on internal and external factors that influence organizational structure and at last
of this section the consideration was given to evaluate the current Organizational structure.
Determine a framework for analyzing organizational structure
Organizational or corporate structure is the pattern of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and
assumptions that may not have been articulated but shape the way in which people behave
and things get done. Norms are unwritten rules and behaviors.
In a very simple way we can say the structure of an organization is the typical way of doing
things in the organization. It particularly relates to the behavior pattern and the relationship.
 12

The structure of an organization develops as an evolution of long time. It is normally created

by the people who work in the organization both the managers and the workforce.
So this framework for analyzing organization should be developed in a manner considering
on above said ideas of the organizational structure.
There seems to be wide range of agreement that organizational structure refers to a system of
shared meaning held members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations.
This system of shared meaning is, on closer examination, a set of key elements that in
aggregate capture the essence of and organization’s structure.
These elements are the core of the framework which can use to analyze the organizational
structure. Those are as follows.
Innovations and risk tasking – The degree to which employees are encourages to be
innovative and take risk.
Attention to detail – The degree to which employees are expected to exhibit precision,
analysis, and attention to detail.
Result Orientation – The degree to which management focuses on results or outcomes rather
than on the techniques and processes used to achieve those outcomes.
People Orientation – The degree to which management decisions take in to consideration the
effect of outcomes on people within the organization.
Team Orientation – The degree to which work activities are organized around teams rather
than individuals
Aggressiveness – The degree to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than easy
going.
Stability – The degree to which organizational activities emphasize maintaining the status
quo in contrast to growth
Each of these elements exists on a continuum from low to high. Appraising the organization
on these seven characteristics or the elements and then gives a composite picture of the
organization’s structure.
Explanation on internal and external factors that influence organizational structure to
Management Practices
Internal Factors
The actions of Top Management – The actions of the top management also have major
impact on the organization’s structure. Through what they say and how they behave, senior
executives establish norms that filter down through the organizations as to whether risk
taking is desirable, how much freedom managers should give their employees, what is
 13

appropriate dress, what action will pay off in terms of pay raises, promotions and other
rewards.
Human resources Practices – Once structure is in place there are practices within the
organization that act to maintain it by giving employees a set of experience. For example
many of the human resources practices reinforce the organization’s structure. The section
process, performance evaluation criteria, training career development activities, the
promotions procedures ensure that those hired people fit in with the structure.
Socialization – No matter how good a job the organization does in recruiting and selection,
new employees are not fully indoctrinated in the organizations structure. May be most
important, because they are unfamiliar with the organizations structure, new employees are
potentially likely to disturb the beliefs and customs that are in place. The organizations will
therefore want to help new employees adapt to its structure. This adaptation process is called
as Socialization.
External Factors
The context of Community – The people have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by
meaningful work that takes place in the context of the community. This matter have two sides
one is community as a external factor how look at the organization and the other hand
employees also come from that community that will effect to the internal factors also.
Organizations that promotes a spiritual structure recognize that people have both a mind and
a spirit seek to find meaning and purpose in their work, and desire to connect with other
human being and be part of a community.
Government Rules and Regulations – This is also having another high effect on
organizational structure. Especially in the areas like how to treat for the employees,
regulations o customer relations and like that the government rules and regulations also may
have a effect on organization’s structure.
National Structure – it is needed to taken in to account if accurate predictions are to be made
about organizational behavior in different countries. But does national structure override the
organization’s structure. Is an IBM facility in Germany, for example more likely to reflect
German ethic structure or IBM’s corporate structure? This example should be taken in to
account to national structure override the organization’s structure.
Evaluate the current Organizational structure
Here if we take the McDonalds organization the organizations structure can be identified as
follows.
Organizational structure to cope up with National structure
 14

McDonald’s company adjusts to cooking differences in various structures. In the case of

India, McDonalds offered vegetarian burgers to practicing Buddhists. Asian countries
preferring spicy taste saw the introduction of spicy burgers, chicken and seasoning. This
provides options for customers to purchase food with either the American taste or the local
taste. McDonalds achieves balance by maintaining standardization in products but adjusting
to the local taste.
Company operations
Operations Customer Oriented Product and service delivery of McDonalds is customer
cantered. This means that McDonalds’ primary concern is the satisfaction of its customers.
This is ensured by applying a strict standard of food and service quality. Under direct
Supervision of Mother Company Periodically, representatives from the mother company visit
certain branches in order to ensure the maintenance of quality standards, to discover problems
and issues, and to provide updates on operation, management and marketing techniques.
Relationship with the Employees
The company applies the employment policy of providing sufficient training to its workforce.
Prior to starting work, newly hired employees are given a rundown of the rules and
regulations, company practices and the goals of the company. After this, the employees are
introduced to the different components of the menu, process of food preparation, food-
packaging techniques, serving of food, handling the cash register, and establishing rapport
with customers. New employees are given practical exercises for experience.
Change Management Process
The change management process is one of basic skill in that most Managers and larders need
to be competent in there management process. There are very less working environments
where change management is not important and not implemented.
In here we are looking basic principles of change management, and provide some guideline
on how these principles can be implemented.
When leaders and managers are planning to manage changes, there are five main
philosophies which need to be remember
Various people respond various way to change
Everybody has basic needs which have to be fulfil
Changes regularly involves a loss, and people go through the “loss curve”
Anticipation need to be managed rationally
Fears have to be deal with changes
 15

The some techniques in the change management practitioner’s belt are well known in the
business and trade press. The effective organizational change in their implementation and
realization are required the introduction of lean manufacturing, 360° feedback, executive
coaches, six sigma, CRM, just-in-time supply and manufacturing processes such as kanban
and kaizen, Total Quality Management, or enterprise applications such as SAP, and etc
Importance (Objectives) of Change Management to the Organization
1. To allow changes while, at the same time, maintaining or improving service stability and
availability.
2. To increase the probability of change process success.
3. To reduce and minimize the ratio of changes that needs to be backed out of due to
inadequate preparation.
4. To ensure that all parties affected are informed of planned changes.
5. To provide a record of changes implemented to assist with and shorten problem
determination time.
6. To ensure that technical and management accountability for all changes is identified.
7. To assist with the accuracy of predictions of impact, such as response time, utilization, etc.
8. To ensure that all affected parties are not only informed, but necessary documentation and
training is in place prior to the implementation.
Organization Structure and Change Management Process
The organization structure and change management process are interrelated. There are many
impact cultural impacts for change management process. Ever organization has unique
structure, so management system also adapted surrounding that structure and if they
implement any change process they have to adapt that change process with their structure,
otherwise they have to change organization structure. Company motivation process is often to
improve the effectiveness of this employee in order to improve the financial status of the
company. Some organizational structures are making barriers to implement changes, so they
have to overcome those resistant against to change. Most of manager and leaders are not
willing to do changes, because they have some fear about it success or failure. Cultural
changes or changes adaptation to structure are required to success of changes, because these
two cannot be separated. Good relationship between organization structure and change
management process always bring success of change.
Model for the Changing Process
Change is not conventional; it does not chase the particular order in change management
models were suggested. So, when look at these models of change management, permit a lot
 16

of flexibility when referring a model rather than referring any model too rigidly, The way of
implementation of changes are differ and depending on which model is used, but we can
fallow basic steps those are essential to follow and those are common to any personal or
organizational changes.
Model for the Changing Process
Kotter’s Eight Change Model
John Kotter’s eight change model is so suitable compare with the other all models for
Universal Supplier change process. It has eight steps to fallow for the appropriate change
process that will be applied to Universal Supplier.
(Source: http://www.google.co.uk/images?clien)
Step One: Create Urgency
This may help to Universal supplier spark the initial motivation to get things moving
company has low distribution network so they want to expand it all over the UK, still it
spread only within boundary of London. Company has threat from their market, because
there are many competitors arising with new entrance. Company has opportunity to expand
its other region in UK; because London is more competitive place many business
organizations are located there, not only UK they have opportunity to penetrate other EU
countries Like French. Company competences are enough for penetrate and expand the
market network, but they should strengthen it further.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
The effective change leaders don’t need to follow the traditional company hierarchy. To lead
change, company management level need to bring all together a coalition, or team, of
influential people whose power comes from several of sources, including job title, status,
expertise, and political importance
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
The universal Supplier change process vision is to be a leading food supplier in UK and
change objective is expansion of market network all over the UK and Penetrates to other EU
countries such as French. When the first start thinking about change. There will probably be
many great ideas and solutions floating around. Link these concepts to an overall vision that
people can grasp easily and remember.
Step Four: Communicate the Vision
Change vision is communicated all the stakeholders of Universal Supplier. There are various
methods is implicated for success of vision communication.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles
 17

Universal Supplier has some obstacles from importing process. There are many rules and
regulation impose when importing of products, and employee knowledge and skills are not
enough for achieve that change. Therefore company has to remove those obstacles by using
various strategies
Step Six: Create Short-term Wins
Company should create short term wins like annual target coverage, 10% change coverage.
Company should be given a taste of achievement early in the change process. It will be
encourage employees to reach to final goal in changing process
Step Seven: Build on the Change
Company need to implement continuous improvement and change build on going changes. In
here final goal is penetrate to other EU countries that should be achieved in the change
process. Continuous improvement is very important for going to final target.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Structure
The Cooperate structure regularly identifies what gets done, so the values behind the
company or person vision must show in daily work. Required continuous commitment to
ensure those changes are seen in every aspect of organization, this will help that change a
solid place in Universal supplier (Pvt) Ltd
Resistant to Change
There are many reason to change, those are due to lack of understanding, poor
communication process, cultural and belief barriers, norms, conflict, company structure,
technological capabilities, Managerial attitudes and style. Therefore managers and other
executives need recognise and identify different form of resistance:
1. Threat of power on an individual basis
2. Threat of power on an organization basis
3. Losing the control by employees
4. Increasing the control of employees
5. Economic factor and limitation
6. Fear for the Job’s security
7. Implication on personal objectives and plans
8. Misunderstanding about changes
9. Fear of unknown
10. Limited resources allocation
 18

There are many factors for create resistance again changes. Organization should identify
those barriers (resistant) to changes and need to find out overcome those resistant otherwise
changes are not implemented successfully.
Successful Method of Implementation of Change
There are several key parameters that need to be observed if change is to be successful, those
are:
1. Idea and the need for the change: Idea generally should be serious, and otherwise there is
not a perceived need for change.
2. Adaptation: Adaptation is occurred after key persons make decision chose to a head with
planed objectives. Executives and general employees should help to success of change
process, and major organizational changes should be sign on legal documents by the board of
directors
3. Resources: Change is not happened without resources, it requires allocated resources
within time frame, specially required adjustable budget, and proper human resource,
technology and etc.
4. Implementation: Implementation is occurred after create change decision with
organizational plan. Capital approval, employee training, arranging of materials and
equipments are very important in implementation process.

Advantages / Disadvantages
There are some advantages and some disadvantages in each type of the organization.
The clan structure in which friendly environment is present the advantage of this structure is
that it has supportive advantage if any problem occurs then the employees eradicate that
problem and the operations keep on going without any further delay. The disadvantage of this
structure is that the employees take this friendly environment very lightly and they start waste
their time in talking more than doing their jobs.
The hierarchy structure where rules and procedures have most importance has the advantage
of getting more results and work done within time limit. The disadvantage is that if any
problem occurs during operation then it takes times to fix.
The adhocracy has the best advantage of introducing innovation in the market. This structure
provides the organization with new and unique ideas. And the disadvantage of this structure
is that it could face loss if the idea or innovation does not work.
 19

The market structure has the advantage of speedy work and completion of the tasks and
goals, and the disadvantage of this structure is that there is no innovation or supportive
environment within the organization.
All types of structures have some advantages and disadvantages. The Clan structure has the
advantage of more supportive environment in the working area. Employees love to help each
other and it brings a lot of success for the organization. The disadvantage of this structure is
that people become more lenient they waste most of time in discussion rather than work.
The hierarchy structure provides strict environment that is disadvantage but it produce more
result that is advantage. The adhocracy structure brings innovation that is advantage and it
faces many losses as it is more risk aversion that is disadvantage. The market structure main
advantage is it complete and achieves goals in time whereas its disadvantage is that it has no
innovation.

Conclusion & Recommendations

This assignment analyses a broad area in organizational structure, and change management
process. In the first part of the study the concept of structure of an organization has been
studies in broad term under three main study areas. Which are organizational structure
external internal factors affect for organizational structure and assessing a current
organizational structure of an organization. In the second section a comprehensive
understanding on structure of the organizations a study has been expanded to study
understand the impact of changes that underpin individual and organizational performance. In
that section the concept behind organisational structure and the changes to an individual and
as well the affect of manger’s personal values in working with team members has been
explained properly.
In the final section relationship between structure and changes has been understood and
accordingly it was identified how organizational structure can affect organizational change
process and then it was assessed how organizational structure can affect individual and
organizational changes. Also ultimately it is discussed model of change process, resistant to
changes and successful method to implementation of changes.
Universal Supplier (Pvt) Ltd is UK based company, they import many food items from
various Asian countries, and among that Sri Lanka is major country. Universal suppliers are
newly established company, it is not alder than 10 years, but its progress is very successful.
World is change every day, new technologies are emerge and customer anticipation and
satisfactions are change day by day therefore every business has to upgrade their standard.
 20

Universal suppliers have understood change system, so they give more priority to change
their management and products relative to market change.

References
[1] John Kotter, The Heart of Change: Real Life Stories of How People Change Their
Organizations, (Harvard Business School Press, 2002).
[2] Janet Parish, Susan Cadwallader, and Paul Busch, “Want to, Need to, Ought to: Employee
Commitment to Organizational Change,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21,
no. 1 (2008).
[3] Edgar Schein, The Corporate Structure Survival Guide, (California: Jossey-Bass, 1999);
Sally Riad, “Of Mergers and Structures: What Happened to Shared Values and Joint
Assumptions,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, no. 1 (2007).
[4] Chris Argyris, “Teaching Smart People How to Learn,” Harvard Business Review, 14
(1991).
[5] Celeste Wilderom, Ursula Glunk, and Ralf Maslowski, “Organizational Structure as a
Predictor of Organizational Performance,” in the Handbook of Organizational Structure and
Climate, Eds. Neal Ashkanasy, Celeste Wilderom, and Mark Peterson, (California: Sage
Publications, 2000).
[6] Geret Hofstede, Structure’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, (London: Sage Publications, 2001).
[7] F. Kluchhohn and F.Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientation, (Illinois: Row, Peterson,
1961).
[8] Mark Mallinger and Gerard Rossy, “Film as a Lens for Studying Structure and its
Implications for Management,” lecture, presented at the Western Academy of Management,
(Redondo Beach, CA: 1999); Mark Mallinger and Gerard Rossy, “The Trader Joe’s
Experience: The Impact of Corporate Structure on Business Strategy,” Graziadio Business
Report, 10, no. 2 (2007); Mark Mallinger and Lindsley Boiney, “An Interdisciplinary
Approach to Teaching Organizational Structure,” presented at the Western Academy of
Management, (2002).
[9] Yvon Chouinard, Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman,
(Penguin Press HC, 2005).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Structure:
Based on the Competing Values Framework, (California: Jossey-Bass, 2006).