Case Issue

Change management in organizational behaviour is extremely common for all organizations and employee support is required for making such changes (Carnall 2018). The major and the most common change drivers majorly involve the process reviews, technological evolution and changes of consumer habit. This type of change management subsequently considers the entire organization and what should be changed. Organizational change management is also utilized for referring to how teams and people are being affected by the organizational transition (Cameron and Green 2015). Resistance to change can be stated as the significant activity that is being undertaken by the individuals or groups, whenever they are perceiving that any change that is going to occur could be a major threat to the workers or employees.

General Electric is a popular American multinational conglomerate that is incorporated within New York and the headquarters is located in Boston. They have become successful for their popular strategies and decision making processes. The following essay outlines a brief discussion on the issue that is being faced in this organization. GE implemented new staffing strategy and this created a major issue in the business. Various concepts, models and theories of organizational behaviour would also be provided in the report with proper analysis and discussion. Moreover, the evaluation of implications would also be provided in this report.

General Electric or GE is an American multinational conglomerate that is eventually incorporated in New York and has the headquarters in Boston (GE.com. 2018). This particular organization is operating by various segments like power, manufacturing, aviation, health care, digital industry, transportation, additive manufacturing, finance and venture capital, oil and gas and lighting. It is considered as the largest organization in the United States and has gained several competitive advantages.

Recently, General Electric has brought various changes in their business. General Electric has changed their strategies regarding human resources and has implemented agile and transparent goals, however for focusing of staffing issues. They decided to recruit more employees for bringing more profit. Change management, although brings several advantages in the organization; resistance to change is one of the most common activity or issue in any organization. They are not accustomed with these changes and have protested against them (GE.com. 2018). As the employees are resisting to such changes, they have also faced losses in the business and hence they are suffering from major obstruction.

The organizational changes could easily create a requirement for HR department for focusing on staffing. Previously, GE did not have staffing strategies, however, they felt that it was required for their business. The short term and long term goals were present in this strategy and hence there was a scope of increasing turnover. The implementation phase of this organizational change strategy was required to address the extent for which the employees are ready for accepting the changes and how the change process is threatening them eventually (Hayes 2018). This was mainly because the respective employees were not ready for these changes in the company. They did not feel safe and secured and hence did not want the changes to take place in their company. GE decided to make them understand the importance of staffing strategy in their company. According to Doppelt 2017, General Electric spotted such activity of resistance of change as soon as the new strategies were being implemented in the organization. It was noticed that these types of changes have also affected the decision making process and hence the procedural aspects of the decisions were being affected.

Description of General Electric

As per Kuipers et al. 2014, as soon as the organizational management observed resistance to change in their organization, they decided to find out the root causes and then help the organizational employees to resume their production. They understood that managing resistance is extremely challenging for several reasons and this type of change could be converted and organized eventually. Confrontation and conflict are the major or the most significant effects of such activity in any organization (Goetsch and Davis 2014). People were uncomfortable with this strategy for the fear of job loss. Moreover, interpersonal communication and engagement to these contributions were other factors of resistance to change. Conflicts between organizational management and employees occurred in GE.

Van der Voet 2014 stated that, the employees of GE resisted to staffing strategies for few important reasons and these are given below:

1. i) Not Knowing about the Requirement of Change: The first and the foremost reason that was responsible for the resistance to change for the employees of General Electric was not knowing about the requirement of changes (Pugh 2016). The respective staffs did not understand the significant requirement of the changes within the organization and hence resisted for the changes. Although, GE wanted to bring long-term goals in their business, they also wanted to resolved issues related to staffing. However, these employees did not understand the original reason and this created issue.
2. ii) Fear of the Unknown Changes: According to Hechanova and Cementina-Olpoc 2013, the second important as well as significant reason for the resistance to change of staffing strategy in General Electric’s employees was fear of the various unknown changes. The individuals only have to undertake active steps towards the unknown when they believe or feel that the various risks or threats are much greater than those of moving forward to a newer direction.

iii) Lack of Competence: Another noteworthy reason for such issue in GE was fear of the lack of competence. The employees might have felt the fear of lack of competence and hence they are unable to make the transition easily (Matos Marques Simoes and Esposito 2014). They might have felt that they do not have significant knowledge or skill and thus changes have occurred in the company.

1. iv) Connection to Old Strategies: Few of the employees had a strong connection to the older strategies of the organization and thus, when new strategies were being implemented in the organization, they were disturbed and does not feel motivated (K. Vora 2013). Since, it is a popular company, several employees have worked here for many years and they have got a connection to the older strategies.
2. v) Lower Trust: This particular reason is for the new employees of General Electric. These individuals do not believe that they or even the organization could manage the changes easily. They did not have trust on these new staffing and hence resisted.
3. vi) Temporary Change: According to Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015, another important reason of resistance to change in General Electric is the belief of temporary changes. The employees might have felt that changes are temporary and would not be effective.

vii) Poor Communication: There would had been a poor communication between the management and employees and thus employees were not happy with the changes occurred.

viii) Not being Consulted: The employees of GE felt left out since they were not consulted by the organizational management before implementation of these changes and thus they have resisted (Steigenberger 2015). GE did not consult with their employees before implementation and this enhanced a rebellious behaviour in every employee and they protested.

Eight significant issues are being identified for the case issue of General Electric and these could be analysed with the help of several concepts of organizational behaviour (Pinder 2014). The fundamental concepts of OB for these issues are as follows:

1. i) Individual Differences: The first and the most significant concept of organizational behaviour is individual difference. Since, every person is different and thinking power is different, each of them could not any situation or change easily. Few of them resists to the changes and this often becomes a major issue for the company. For the organization of General Electric, similar case was being involved (Miner 2015). Some of the employees were happy to accept staffing strategy changes, however the rest of the employees did not readily accepted them and resisted to such changes.
2. ii) Perception: The second concept of OB that is applicable to such issues of resistance of change in General Electric is perception. It is being considered that two people never see an object in similar manner and hence few people are adjusted or comfortable with the changes in General Electric and the other employees are not comfortable with the changes and hence issues have occurred. Since, every employee was from different background, few accepted the new strategy, while others protested against it.

iii) Motivated Behaviour: The next important and significant concept of organizational behaviour that is majorly applicable to this case study of General Electric is motivated behaviour of the employees (Wagner and Hollenbeck 2014). Each and every employee should feel motivated while working and hence want to fulfil their requirements. If these employees do not feel motivated enough, they would not be able to work properly. Moreover, work quality is also dependent on the employee motivation and thus when the employees of General Electric did not feel motivated from the changes, they resisted.

1. iv) Human Dignity: The issue of not being consulted is applicable to this particular concept of organizational behaviour of human dignity. Each and every employee should be treated with utmost respect and dignity and thus if any type of change is occurring within the company, it is important to share with the employees. This was absent in GE and thus employees resisted to the changes.
2. v) Holistic Concept: When the various fundamental concepts of OB are being combined together, this type of concept eventually emerges (Luthans, Luthans and Luthans 2015). The relationship between people and organization is being interpreted with this concept. Here in General Electric, there was lack of transparency and communication between employees and the organizational management and hence employees could not understand the importance of changes and resisted. The new staffing strategy was not clearly explained to the employees and hence they did not understand the importance of this strategy.
3. vi) Desire of Involvement: Each and every employee has the desire of getting involved in all the activities of his or her organization and when this does not happen, they feel left out and de motivated. In the case issue of General Electric, the organizational management did not call for any team meetings for discussion and the employees were directly notified about the changes. This was not accepted by them and hence resisted to those changes.

The specific segment of organizational behaviour is majorly dependent on two important elements, which are nature of people as well as nature of the company. Some of the most significant factors eventually affect the nature of people and amongst them, the major factors are individual difference, perception, value of the person and motivated behaviour (Pinder 2014). On the other hand, the factors affecting nature of organization are social system, ethics and mutual interest. Resistance to change is one of the major effects of the nature of employees or workers and is common for any type of change management. There are some of the major and the most significant models or theories of OB that would be effective to resolve the issue in GE. These models are as follows:

1. i) Autocratic Model: According to this model, power is the main requirement to resolve issues. The employees would listen to their boss and are obedient to them. In GE, the employees who have already accepted the changes could help the rest of the employees for accepting the changes.
2. ii) Supportive Model: As per this model of OB, the organizational management of GE should conduct meetings with their employees and take their support for making them understand the importance of such changes (Miner 2015). After taking support, they could implement the changes and stop such issues.

iii) Collegial Model: This model states that changes should be implemented with teamwork. For implementation of such changes, employees should be involved and make them responsible enough to handle such issues.

Conclusion

Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that organizational behaviour is the subsequent study of human behaviour for organizational settings and the interface within organization and human behaviour of the employees. The above essay has properly outlined the case issue of resistance to change for an American company of General Electric.

The most significant recommendations for dealing with such issue in General Electric are as follows:

1. i) Making Them Understand Importance of Staffing Strategy:The first recommendation is make employees understand the requirement and importance of staffing strategy. When employees get to know requirement and major reason of such strategy, they would not resist any more.
2. ii) Team Meetings before Change: General Electric should conduct team meetings before bringing any change to the organization and hence this would be extremely effective for them to deal with resistance to change issues. Such meetings would bring up several problems of the employees and the organization would be notified.

iii) Offering of Resources: The third recommendation for General Electric is to offer resources to the employees so that they could easily handle the major changes. Moreover, these resources would make them feel motivated and hence they could work with subsequent motivation.

References

Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.

Carnall, C., 2018. Managing change. Routledge.

Doppelt, B., 2017. Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Routledge.

GE.com. 2018 [online]. Accessed from https://www.ge.com/ [15-Dec-2018].

Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.

Hayes, J., 2018. The theory and practice of change management.

Hechanova, R.M. and Cementina-Olpoc, R., 2013. Transformational leadership, change management, and commitment to change: A comparison of academic and business organizations. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), pp.11-19.

1. Vora, M., 2013. Business excellence through sustainable change management. The TQM Journal, 25(6), pp.625-640.

Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. and Van der Voet, J., 2014. The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public administration, 92(1), pp.1-20.

Luthans, F., Luthans, B.C. and Luthans, K.W., 2015. Organizational Behavior: An EvidenceBased Approach. IAP.

Matos Marques Simoes, P. and Esposito, M., 2014. Improving change management: How communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management Development, 33(4), pp.324-341.

Miner, J.B., 2015. Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Routledge.

Pinder, C.C., 2014. Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press.

Pugh, L., 2016. Change management in information services. Routledge.

Steigenberger, N., 2015. Emotions in sensemaking: a change management perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(3), pp.432-451.

Van der Voet, J., 2014. The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure. European Management Journal, 32(3), pp.373-382.

Verhulst, E. and Lambrechts, W., 2015. Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp.189-204.

Wagner III, J.A. and Hollenbeck, J.R., 2014. Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage. Routledge.