Let us discuss these features in little bit detail. ‘The Complexity Factor’ Management of an organizational change happens in a background that is exceptionally complex. Because, it is observed that creating a dynamic multi-dimensional sphere where complete understanding of all the factors involved is next to impossible. There are a various of theoretical reasons for this: Fundamental systemic nature: The systemic, socio economic and political context within which they operate is characterized by a large number of factors and by multiple connections. These systemic features often harvest such negative behavior and make it very difficult for change managers to implement change. Reflexivity: Yet another type of uncertainty relates to the fact that managers are naturally "participants-observers." They are actors in the very situation they attempt to understand and control. The financier, George Soros, for example, who coined the term “reflexivity,” has recognized this particular characteristic with respect to the behavior of markets where participants' views impact market behavior only to be influenced, in turn, by market events. . ‘The Epistemic Factor’ is another set …show more content…
This evidence, representing a central understanding of early sciences, has a number of noteworthy implications for managing change. First and foremost is the fundamental concept that a behavior different from an existing one would require a different fundamental structure. Many change efforts fail to produce desired results, since, while statements about the need for change are made the structure, the architecture of the system in question is left untouched. Organizational design and the design of alternative structures should always, accordingly, be a central component in managing
To be able to analyze this, we have to split these forces into two types, internal and external. Internal forces: these are sources of change that are found within the organization. This means that they can be easily modified or controlled, depending on the needs of the organization. Internal forces include the employees, structure of the organization, and the processes that tasks are completed in the organization. Human resources: this includes personnel/workforce who are obligated to deliver different services, for example, the overall managers and employees are main sources of change as they are the ones who ultimately make the decisions and take the initiative to start the change within an
This is experienced as a result of the desire to maintain status quo. In some organizations, a minor change to the responsibilities of the organizations requires much time and resources (Want, 2006). Change can lead to conflict. Individuals become attached to things they consider as the norm of their workplace. When change occurs the employees have difficulty of letting go of the status qou.
Be that as it may, he immediately stresses his steadfast reluctance to accept this association, as he contends that naturalistic epistemology (or rather, moderate naturalistic epistemology) is indeed quite compatible with a priori knowledge and justification (Goldman 1). Goldman briefly reminds us of what two other stronger, yet quite different versions of naturalistic epistemology claim. On the one hand, scientific naturalism, he explains, holds that “[e]pistemology is a branch of science [where the] statements of epistemology are a subset of the statements of science, and the proper method of doing epistemology is the empirical method of science” (Goldman 2). On the other hand, empiricist naturalism claims that “All justification arises from empirical methods [and the] task of epistemology is to articulate and defend these methods in further detail” (Goldman 3).
Therefore, in order for someone to be a true epistemic peer in the mind of an exclusivist, their beliefs would need to be aligned. Thus, as a result of this belief, there is no need to question the validity one’s own
Long before philosopher, Edmund Gettier came along, knowledge was thought to be equal to justified true belief, which is to say that: “You know p iff, i) p is true, ii) you believe that p, iii) and you are justified in believing that p” (Gettier, 1963) However, Gettier argued that ‘p’ cannot simply be known because you are justified in believing that ‘p’. He proposed several counter-examples to the Justified True Belief theory (JTB theory) and they are known as Gettier cases. In this paper, I aim to explain how a Gettier-style case spells trouble for the view that knowledge is justified true belief.
Bernie Madoff’s reputable stock trading business, venerable reputation as a Wall Street insider, and ingenuity as a fraudster enabled him to dupe experienced wealthy investors and bilk them for billions of dollars (Ferrell, 2009). Madoff understood how to leverage the currency of relationships to establish trust, the significance of exclusivity to attract wealthy clients, and how to covertly appeal to people’s greed (Frontline, 2009). As a result, Madoff leveraged his credibility as a Wall Street insider to disarm investors, insisted that his services could only be contracted by invitation only, and failed to charge fund management fees. Subsequently, Madoff enable feeder fund managers to make more money in fees, which resulted in more aggressive
DISCUSSING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Lisa Thai HRMT-440 Colorado Technical University 4/18/2018 Business organizations in the industry are always experiencing changes in the business environment. This forces them to change their operations hence in order to coup with the changing business environment (Fletcher, 2004). The technology keeps on advancing hence the need for business enterprises to adopt the use of it in order to boosts its performance in the industry. Organizations that perform well in the industry starts to grow in size hence expanding their operations in the industry. The increase in size of a firm requires it to makes certain changes in its operations in order to incorporate the growth in its operations.
In Epistemology, there are sub categories as well. These are called Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism will be discussed in this paper, and there are two philosophers that follow this method. There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it.
For Bernie Madoff he was able to use a couple of different factors to continue to bring in more business for his firm. Bernie was a very smart, intelligent man himself and was well liked in the financial community. Madoff had received his Bachelor’s Degree from Hofstra University where he had previously served as a trustee until his scheme was revealed (Troop, 2009). Madoff had been instrumental in the development of the NASDAQ providing him first-hand knowledge of this new market and how it would make things easier, especially for him and his Ponzi scheme (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). Having served as the NASDAQ Chairman for three years in the early nineties, knowledge of the changes being made to the regulations were virtually placed in his lap and made it much easier for him to keep up this scheme.
When a company/ organization is needed to make large changes within the organization, the participative leadership style promotes employees which leads to accepting changes easily because they play a role in the process. This style meets challenges when companies rely on trying to make a decision in a short period of time. IBM was forced to change its approach as it was near bankruptcy and didn’t have a plan B. Hence, Meyer & Stensaker (QUT, 2008)
The increased complexity of modern day organisations
Transactional or Transformational Leadership Style Gates was both a transactional and transformational leader. As a transactional leader, he made sure to visit the new products teams and inquire challenging questions to the point that would make him satisfied and ensure that the team are on track and have a clear understanding about the aimed goal (Pamela Spahr, 2014). He is well known for his emphasis on rigid structure, hierarchy and his system of reward and punishment to achieve outcomes. His strict standards of what he wants is what made Microsoft successful and he ensures that his employees do not deviate from these standards (‘’Mindvalley academy blog’’, n.d.). In addition, Gates has a transformational leadership style.
This reflective model is very simple and often used as the first step on the ladder of the reflective practitioner. This model encompasses three simple questions to be asked of the experience or activity to be reflected on, what? So what? Now what?
One of the main features of this theory is that "truth” consists
As mentioned earlier, communication and information provision help reduce employee’s resistance to change and hence create an organizational culture that values change. According to Gill (2002), communication is the ‘blood’ of organizations and ‘oxygen’ of change implementation. Poor communication between leaders and the individual staff, on the other hand, could impede change programs (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001, cited in Burnes, 2003). Frahm and Brown (2005) identify three communication channels, namely strategic information provision by top management, operational information provision by direct supervisors and conversations between peers (cited in Peus et al., 2009). During strategic information provision, top executives explain why changes are necessary and define their expectations from these changes projects, whereas during operational information provision, direct supervisors clarify roles and responsibilities during change processes and new requirements, if any, after the change and answer questions.