In society there are leaders for examples Presidents and Prime Ministers. These leaders need to have certain characteristics, which include respect, maintaining order, and to protect the people. When these leaders start to ignore their responsibilities the society starts to get uncontrollable and mistakes will happen. For an example when leaders ignore protection and safety their actions undermine the groups ability to function, also when leaders ignore respect their actions undermine the groups ability to function. All of this happens in the story written by William Golding Lord of the Flies. All in all when leaders ignore their responsibilities their actions undermine the groups ability to function. To begin, when leaders ignore respect their actions undermine the groups ability to function. When Ralph gets assigned Chief by a vote he makes the rules where some of Jacks choir boys will go hunting and some watch the fire so it does not go out. When Ralph and Jack got into a fight about how Jack does not help out the group with their hunting, and how they are just wasting time because they barely catch a pig or any food for the group he disrespects them: â€œBoys armed with sticks.â€ (Golding,127) This shows that Ralph does not really care for them and their skills that they seem to have according to Jack. After Ralph had said this Jack left the group and asked anybody who wanted to join him could do so if they wanted to. After Jack left with his group him and Ralph are always fighting now but one occasion it gets a little out of hand: â€œYouâ€™re a beast and a swine you bloody, bloody thief!â€ (Golding,177) After Ralph said this it made Jack furious he stole Piggys glasses for fire for themselves instead of asking for it he just took it. After this was said Jack also killed Piggy. Ralph being leader and ignoring respect undermines the groups ability to function. As leader, Jack also fails to respect people and keep peace. Jack disobeys Ralphs orders to have to choir boys watch the fire because Jack feels that they need the men to hunt and not get rescued. When the fire went out it could of saved them in that time frame as a symbol of help but he decides to disrespect Ralph and not listen to his orders: â€œWe had to have them in the hunt.â€ (Golding,69) After Ralph confronted Jack about the fire going out he refused that he was wrong although he knew he disobeyed Ralphs orders, which in the end could of resulted in getting rescued by the boat that drove by. Now Jack in his own group decided that they need to attack Ralphs camp and steal Piggys specs so they can have fire instead of just asking him: â€œRalph remember what we came for. The fire. My specs.â€ (Golding,161) Jack invaded Ralphs camp here to steal Piggys glasses to have fire. As Jack said that he came for fire and that the specs were his, although the specs are Piggys. Piggy even asked Jack to give back his glasses but he refused and killed Piggy. Jack is just disrespecting Piggy and Ralph here not listening to them at all. Jack refusal to have respect undermines the groups ability to function. Both boys, clearly fail in their responsibility to have respect. Ralph being voted leader should have respect for others and enforce it instead of ignoring it, having thee problems caused the group to fall apart. Jack on the other intentionally disrespected everybody in the group to get what he wanted . In both cases, however, when leaders ignore respect, their actions undermine the groups ability to function. To begin, when leaders ignore protection and safety their actions undermine ability to function. Ralph being the leader of the group tries to keep it safe for everyone to live so he decides that they need to make shelters for the group. Ralph is trying to make the shelters for everyone but no one will help him except Simon because he failed to maintain order from everyone: â€œBut you like it!â€¦You want to hunt! While I-â€ (Golding,125) Ralph is clearly upset here with Jack of how he wont help them make the shelters while they go out and hunt for pigs. Ralph not being able to control the group early on had failed him now, since no one will listen to him they have a lack of safety due to them not have shelters for them sleep in. Also at camp the boys have to sleep in the dark one night when the fire burned out: â€œWe cant get any more wood Ralph not in the dark not at nightâ€ (Golding, 125) As shown here there is a lack of protection due to not having the fire at night because it resembles hope. That night they had no hope they had fear. The fear of darkness was scaring the littluns and some others to go in the forest to get wood to keep the fire burning. Jack also fails in his responsibility to keep it safe and protected. During the storm when everybody was dancing, Simon was walking to all the boys and Jack thought he was the beast and went to attack him: â€œKill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood! Do him in!â€ (Golding,141) Jack is not having safety for the group because he is getting them to kill a human who they think is the beast which is not. After they killed Simon they realised how small the beast was and the found out that it was Simon. Jack saying â€œKill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood! Do him in!â€ got the group all hyped up and not paying attention who or what the beast was and they just acted and attacked it. After Jack killed Piggy and killed the conch, he attacked Ralph and saying he is the new chief: â€œSee? See? There isnâ€™t a tribe anymore! The conch is goneâ€¦ Im Chiefâ€ (Golding, 181) Jack is furious here just after he killed Piggy he threatened Ralph that he would do the same. Jack is totally ignoring safety and protection is actually doing the complete opposite ignoring it a killing other people in his tribe. When Jack ignored his responsibility to maintain protection and safety it undermines the groups ability to function. Both boys, clearly fail in keeping the island safe and protected. Ralph tried to protect the group but since he joked around when he was first chief no one took him serious when he needed them to help. Jack totally ignored safety and did the opposite he tortured people, and also killed people. In both cases, however, when leaders ignore their responsibilities to maintain safety and protection it undermines the groups ability to function. In conclusion, when leaders ignore their responsibilities their actions undermine the groups ability to function. When leaders ignore protection and safety their actions undermine the groups ability to function, also when leaders ignore respect their actions undermine the groups ability to function. If all of this happened in our life, we would all become epic fails, just like how everyone did in this book.
Organizational change is occurring at an intense rate within modern organizations, as demands to stay current with technology and marketplace trends are ever increasing. Although knowledge exists amongst management and leadership regarding the need for change, the ability to deliver the expected results of proposed changes often fails. Recent literature actually suggests that failures are frequently attributed to the level of employee involvement and commitment, and that employees actually â€œplay a major role in the success or failure of change within organizationsâ€ (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012, p. 727).
There are various theories of organizational change, many of which have corresponding models that can be applied to change processes. Although such theories have differing strategies, most share common elements, to include a clear vision for the organization, the role of the leader in the initiative, the communication process between key stakeholders and employees, and overcoming opposition to change. That said, it is the intention of this paper to evaluate two specific models of organizational change, and to appraise how each model incorporates those common elements within their framework.
Kurt Lewin: Three-Phase Change Theory and Model
Kurt Lewin proposed a three- phase change theory in the 1940â€™s; however, his theory, together with a corresponding change model, has major implications for modern organizational change initiatives. The three phases of the model are as follows: unfreeze-transition-freeze, and are meant as a straight forward approach to organizational change. What is more, Lewinâ€™s model has been utilized by many well-known corporations, and has a proven track record of success.
Role of the Leader in Lewinâ€™s Model
According to Lewin, the role of the leader in implementing the three-phase process is mutifactoral, as at each phase, leadership is central. For example, during the unfreezing phase, the leader creates a sense of urgency, which is accomplished by generating awareness and understanding of the need for change. It is also during this phase that communication between the leader, key stakeholders, and employees is essential in order to reach the next phase of transition.
During the transition phase, the leader is responsible for the development of organizational structure and process changes that will ultimately be shaped by new behaviors, values and attitudes (â€œKurt Lewin 3 phases change theory,â€ 2012, para. 3). Once the transition phase reaches the point of successful re-structuring, the final freeze stage must occur, and also be maintained. This is the point at which the leader must ensure that adaption to the change has crystallized, as the possibility for the organization to â€œrevert back to old waysâ€ (â€œKurt Lewin 3 phases change theory,â€ 2012, para. 3) exists, unless the changes are continually reinforced.
Three-Phase Change Model: Overcoming Resistance
Although one may expect immediate resistance to change, this is generally not the case. In fact, during the unfreezing stage, â€œmost staff and management are willing to changeâ€ (â€œKurt Lewin 3 phases change theory,â€ 2012, p. 4); however, there are still others that will require greater provocation. The leaderâ€™s role to resistance is in generating motivation. This is done by dismantling the status quo through educational initiatives, and the provision of tangible examples of proven success.
Additionally, lines of communication must remain open, allowing for the building of a guiding coalition, and the formation of an unwavering cohesiveness. Overcoming resistance also entails the leaderâ€™s personal involvement, attention to empowerment, staying open to negotiation, and use of milestones as a means for illustrating successes. As the freezing stage nears, the leader must remain cognizant of any barriers to maintaining the change. Furthermore, a forward outlook is essential, which will be sustained through effective communication, ongoing observation, training, and even â€œperformance and reward systemsâ€ (â€œKurt Lewin 3 phases change theory,â€ 2012, p. 5).
Three-Phase Change Model and Communication
Communication is truly the most central component to Lewinâ€™s model. It is highlighted at each of the three phases, with lack of communication being a barrier to successfully transitioning between phases. That said, it must not be discounted the impact that strong lines of communication have on successful change initiatives, as high percentages of change failures are often attributed to poor communication, thus hindering the transition process (Shin et al., 2012, p. 727).
Harrisâ€™s Five-Phase Model
Ben Harris developed a five-phase organizational change model in the mid 1970â€™s. According to Harris, the phases are sequential; however, they often overlap one another (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 4). The five-phases are as follows: planning & initiation, momentum, problems, turning point, and termination.
Five-Phase Model: Role of the Leader
Unlike Lewinâ€™s three-phase model, Harrisâ€™s model is less dependent upon concrete leadership initiatives at each phase. For example, per the five-phase model, the role of the leader is accentuated most at phases II-IV; posited by Lunenburg when he acknowledged â€œthe importance of leadership at various phases of program implementationâ€ (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 5). During planning and initiation, the leader introduces the proposed change, goals, activities, and necessary resources. , and â€œmounts interest among individualsâ€ (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 5), which is dissimilar to Lewinâ€™s creation of a sense of urgency at the unfreezing stage.
During momentum, strong leadership is emphasized for the development of goal-directed activities, and the organizing of processes meant to serve as the point at which employees experience personal growth through involvement. At the problems phase, leaders must stay focused on imminent issues, including the complexity of plans, differences between involved parties with regard to perceptions and goals, demands of responsibility, conflict, and individuals not fulfilling duties and expectation (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 5). It is up to the leader to direct the actions necessary for the completion of this phase in order to move on to the turning point.
During the turning point phase, the leader continues to act as facilitator for the continued growth of problems, or he moves the group forward if problems have been overcome. Solid leadership is crucial here, as the point at which the change coalition should see results of initial planning, and experience the momentum of the change process. Similar to Lewisâ€™s transition phase, emphasis at this phase is placed on â€œbehaviors, values, and attitudesâ€ (â€œKurt Lewin 3 phases change theory,â€ 2012, para. 2).
At termination, the leader must attempt to break down any barriers to the success of the change. This phase comes with a twofold strategy, which on one hand addresses potential change failure, and on the other hand, the possibility for change success. It is also the point at which resistance to change becomes most evident; therefore, the investment of leadership is vital to this phase.
Harrisâ€™s Five-Phase Model: Overcoming Resistance
There is very little focus within Harrisâ€™s five phases on leadersâ€™ overcoming staff resistance to change. In fact, of all five phases, it is not until termination that attention to resistance is even highlighted. Unlike Lewinâ€™s model, which does not allow for transitioning between phases if opposition is met, Harrisâ€™s model affords for a five-phase transition, even in the face of potential failure. This is a good example of a five-phase model weakness, and three-phase model strength.
Harrisâ€™s Five-Phase Model and Communication
Harrisâ€™s model does not specifically stress the importance of communication as does Lewinâ€™s model; however, it is implied in the description of the leaderâ€™s responsibilities at each phase. Noticeably, each of the five phases alludes to the need for leaders to effectively and consistently communicate with staff in order for certain activities and goals to be accomplished. The difference; however, between Lewin and Harris, is that Harris allows for the transitioning between stages even when barriers to success persist.
As organizations face the ever-increasing demands of technology, together with the challenges of staying current with marketplace trends, the need for
change will remain imminent. With various strategies in existence for the execution of change initiatives, leaders must stay abreast of the specific demands of their fields, while also maintaining solid lines of communication and solid leadership within their organizations. It is also important that change models with proven effectiveness be implemented, and that they are well-matched to the situation. Relative strengths and weakness of any change model will always exist, but through solid and effective leadership, the potential to overcome such weakness and the likelihood of change success is altogether probable.
Kurt Lewin 3 phase change theory universally accepted change management. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.change-management-consultant.com/kurt-lewin.html Lunenburg, F. (2010). Approached to managing organizational change. 1, 12, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C%20Approaches%20to%20Managing%20Organizational%20Change%20IJSAID%20v12%20n1%202010.pdf Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M. (2012, June 1). Resources for change: the relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employeeâ€™s attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727-748. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5a0184b6-033b-45ea-a35a-e84a3a89923d%40sessionmgr110&vid=8&hid=116
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.