Change Management and Management Styles Research Paper

lurch Management and Management Styles - Research newsprint ExampleManagers, in these cases, adopt strategic limitings in order to adapt to emergent set of commission and operational issues (Stam and Andriessen, 2009, p. 136). Secondly, there is cultural tilt. It is the next logical step once a strategic neuter is adopted or when anxiety decides to variety the organizational goals and objectives. The rationale is that in order to achieve impelling change in that direction, a gradual change in mentalities must be achieved as closely (Hamalainen and Saarinen, 2004, p.143). This is crucial in changing the organizational behavior. A more specific change transpiring inwardly organization would have to be the shortened organizational life cycle. Essentially, this is the life stages of an organization beginning with its birth, growth, adulthood and its inevitable decline and potential revival (Nelson et al., p.258). These stages experience radical shifts today because of the adv ances in technology, project management and product design. For pillow slip, new computing solutions streamlines product development, radically shortening the operational process of the organizational fractional monetary unit tasked with much(prenominal) responsibility. ... Change management theories provide effective frameworks in better understanding organizational change. For example Beer and Nohria (2000) posited two change management theories, which they merely labeled as Theory E and Theory 0. The start theory sees organizational change as critical in the way organizational economic tax is changed. Initiatives, policies and strategies adopted to implement this model follow the so-called hard approach to change, emphasizing shareholder set and maintaining it as the only barometer of organizational success (p.134). On the other hand, Theory 0 approaches organizational change according to organizational capacity. Beer and Nohria calls this the soft approach to change in an e ffort to introduce organizational change through initiatives and policies that builds organizational culture on individual capability and learning. This is supposedly the strategy that Hewlett-Packard adopted amidst a flagging performance during the 1980s and involved the process of changing, obtaining feedback, reflecting, and making further changes (p.134). Finally, one could cite the Change Management Theory for a general framework explaining organizational change. Several authors have contributed to this theory such as Lakomski (2001) and Lewin (1951). Lakomski posited that organizations are in constant need to balance forces of change with the requirement for stability. Lewin explained that this constitutes a deadlock that is only broken once the force for change outweighs the resistance, paving the way for a change in the organizational equilibrium. The case of Lenovo is an excellent example of an organization grappling with change. In the process of addressing new change