Introduction

Change means moving from one condition to another and affects individuals, groups
and organizations alike, all organizations experience changes of some kind and ever
faster. The most frequent changes in organizations are those caused in the structure by
mergers, divisions, size adjustment by growths or reductions, those provoked by
technology, by organizational culture and society alike.

According to Chruden and Sherman (1999) point out that there are four reasons for
making changes in organizations. 1). Improve the means to meet economic needs, 2).
Increase profitability, 3). Provide jobs to humans and 4). Contribute to the satisfaction
and social welfare of individuals. (Chen, Suen, & Lin, 2013)

However, it must be recognized that there are three realities in the change, on the one
hand, it is everywhere, moreover, it is constant and the pace with which it is
increasingly fast and causes:

Organizations face a wide variety of drastic changes, from government regulations,

others experience deregulation; Some are fragmented, while others are merged, some
see their market contracted and others are thrown into the global market, participate in
hostile mergers or acquisitions, while others have applied sharp cutting programs with
violent psychological and economic effects on their employees . (Paula S. Weber,
2001)

To survive, the decision organizations face is not whether to change or not, but when
and how to make change happen more successfully.

Labor change is considered as any alteration in the work environment, the effect of
change in one sector influences the whole organization, so it can be said that the
whole organization tends to be affected by a change in any of its parts . Like a
balloon, if it is pressed in one of its parts, it presses everything else and tends to be
broken in some way by the pressure exerted, the same thing happens with the
organizations, it breaks a situation of balance, that the people Tend to develop when
working in a harmonious and stable way, however when a change occurs, they tend to
balance again through new adjustments. However, equilibrium represents a dilemma
for managers, because it is assumed that one of their functions involves introducing
changes, doing things to transform organizational homeostasis, that is, things are not
static, in other words, it has to Be dynamic, proactive and non-reactive, however,
when the change gets out of control you have to react to restore balance and adjust it.
Fortunately, many of the change actions are small or low impact and can affect few
people or work processes, arguably they are incremental and relatively predictable in
nature, however, very radical forces of change can arise that severely affect The
organization and many of these are becoming more frequent due to the causes
mentioned. "Crises such as these, whether positive or negative, require managers to
guide employees along the emotional impact that accompanies them and thus lead the
organization to a new equilibrium" . (Chen, Suen, & Lin, 2013)

When speaking of an organization's development, it refers to the preparation and

management of change within the organization. Managing change represents complex
challenges; however, organizations need the ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to
survive because the speed and complexity of change is a tough test for the ability of
managers and employees to achieve change, however. , When the goals of change are
not achieved, the costs of failure may rise too much. It is a reality that the vast
majority of organizations "live" in a constant environment of continuous change and
those that tend to be rigid, inflexible, highly specialized and bureaucratic will not be
able to respond effectively to the requirements of change. Organizations need designs
that are flexible and adaptable, they also need systems that simultaneously demand
and enable greater engagement and use of the talents of employees and managers.

Today's organizations must undergo innovation and change, not just to thrive, but
simply to survive in a world of greater competition. In addition to these structural
changes, today's organizations face the need for a drastic change in their culture and
strategy, and rapid innovations in technology and products to survive and be
competitive.

According to Tayles and Drury,(1994) points out that there are some forces that
could be considered as detonators of organizational change, such as: 1) technological
change, 2) international economic integration, 3) the maturation of markets in
developed countries, and 4) the fall of socialist and communist regimes; These forces
cause changes to occur through competition and globalized markets and that in some
way represent threats to organizations, but also opportunities that, if prepared, could
be exploited. (Johnson, Cassell, Close, & Duberely, 2001)
However, the surprising variety of pressures for change faced by organizations are
considered to be three of the most important: (1) the globalization of markets, (2) the
diffusion of information technology and computer networks And 3) changes in the
nature of the workforce employed. Therefore, the general attitude of the
administration, is to be attentive to detect the moment when any of these conditions,
or what would be better, to prevent them or anticipate their arrival.

Analyzing each one of the concepts of these factors that propitiate the organizational
change has to:

1. Technological changes: are modifications in the process that provide a knowledge

base and skills that allow advantages against competitors by the use of modern
technology or cutting edge that are designed to make production and operation more
efficient ; Include manufacturing technology and services; Encompass methods,
equipment and workflow.

2. Changes in products and services: include small adaptations to existing products or

product lines, are designed to increase market share or to develop other markets,
customers or consumers that allow them to move into niche markets more profitable.

3. The changes in strategy and structure: they correspond to the administrative sector
of the organization, it includes the supervision and administration of the organization
and changes in the structure, strategic administration, policies, reward systems, labor
relations, coordination devices and Information and control systems. Changes in
structure and systems usually go from the top down, while changes in products and
technologies can come from the bottom up.

4. Changes in people and culture: they refer to alterations in the values, attitudes,
expectations, beliefs, skills and behaviors of employees. You may want to change
communication networks and improve management leadership skills, improve
problem-solving skills, including the work culture.

Normally, organizations react to the needs of structural changes, however, they should
be proactive, rather than reactive to the needs of change, that is, change should be
planned. What distinguishes planned changes from routine changes is their scope and
magnitude, the planned changes are intended to prepare the entire organization or an
important part of it to accommodate significant changes in the goals and direction of
the organization , One could define the planned change as "deliberately designing and
implementing an innovation of structure, policy or new goals, or a change of
philosophy, climate or style of operation"

The main problems or restrictive forces that can be present in the change are those
that maintain the homeostasis of the organization and deserve special attention,
because they represent possible sources of resistance to the planned change, if they
can change these forces or attack their basic functions, They will be much more likely
to achieve change. Among others, the main opposing forces of change may be:

1. The organizational culture: this may be the most important to shape the identity of
the organization and to conserve it. Often people remain in organizations because the
work done there identifies them with their personal goals and objectives, or in a way
their personality and their culture is identified with it. "In fact, many employees
identify with the organization and take their losses and profits as a personal matter.
Consequently, they may feel threatened by activities that aim to effect radical changes
in organizational culture or the way things are done .

2. Self-interest: even when people identify with their organizations, they also care
about their person, their personal interests that are threatened, in exchange for their
work, expect a reward of equal intensity to that of their effort. When changes are
made, employees face a period of physical and emotional adjustment, possibly
uncomfortable as long as they adapt to the new structure of the organization or
redesigned work.

3. The perception of the goals and strategies of the organization: these are very
important to organize and coordinate the activities of any organization, in fact, the
definition of the mission can direct the acts of employees in the absence of formal
policies and procedures. Sometimes employees do not understand that a new goal is
required because they do not have the same information as their managers. They may
also yearn for the "old days" and refuse to change to new goals because they are
comfortable because of the imbalance in which they are provoked by change.

Gibson et al., (1999) they continue to point out that there are three alternative
approaches to change management: 1) change management through power, 2) change
management through reason and 3) change management through re-education.

1. The management of change through power: this approach indicates that the
application of power to bring about change leads to using coercion. Executives are
considered to be those who have access to power and can use it for their purposes of
forcing subordinates to do what they want them to do, can exercise power by
controlling rewards and sanctions, can determine the conditions of Employment,
including promotion and promotion. The application of power is a manifestation of
autocratic leadership that is not held in high esteem in today's organizations. In the
past, autocratic management could have been an important factor in the emergence of
unions as a counter measure to the abuse of this by the managers. Except for
situations of crisis, where the survival of the organization is at stake, coercive power
is far from being the favorite approach to generate change today.

2. The management of change through reason: this method is based on dissemination

and information before introducing the proposed change. The assumption is that
reason can prevail on its own and that the parties involved in the change will make a
rational choice. This approach strongly attracts the sensitivity of those who opt for an
idealistic view of the world of the organization; however, the reality of organizations
requires recognition of the existence of individual motives and needs, of group norms
and sanctions, as well as of the fact That organizations exist as social and work units,
all of which implies that reason alone will not be enough to manage change.

3. Managing change through re-education: this is an intermediate approach between

the two, it relies on the education of people to improve organizational functioning, it
implies a set of specific activities that recognize that none The two previous methods
can generate the change by itself, this is more delayed, but in the long run the results
are by conviction and not by convenience.

Each method or approach has its own specific characteristics for effectiveness, the
important thing is to distinguish them and also distinguish between the change that
inevitably occurs day by day in all organizations and the change that is planned
specifically for some purpose. The focus should always be on planned or intentional
change, even if it is not very well planned, it represents an intentional attempt by
managers and staff to improve the functioning of groups, work teams, departments,
divisions or the whole organization in Important way:

Conditions related to effective change programs were identified, including the

following: 1) members of the organization have to be the fundamental source of
energy for change, not external, 2) key members of the organization must recognize
the Need for change and to be attracted to the potentially positive outcomes of the
change program, and (3) there must be a willingness to change rules and procedures
in order to be more effective

Derived from the above can be deduced, that it is better that the change comes from
within and not from outside, that people are aware of the need for change, that it
believes in the potential value of it and that it is willing to change in order to
Responsible for what it is appropriate to do to make more effective the work teams in
the organization. However, for a change to be successfully implemented, Daft (1999)
points out that managers need to be aware that there are a number of important
elements to consider in a process of organizational change pledges that are mentioned
below: (Smith, 2011)

1. Ideas: Although creativity is a radical element of organizational change has not

been studied extensively and systematically, an idea is a new way of doing things and
can come from inside or outside the company.

2. The need: ideas are generally not considered seriously unless the need for change is
perceived, the perception of this need arises when executives perceive a gap between
actual performance and desired performance in the organization .
3. Adoption: This takes place when decision-makers decide to go ahead with a
proposed idea. Managers and key employees must agree to support the change. In the
case of an important organizational change, the decision may require senior
management to sign a legal document, but in the case of a minor modification, it
would be sufficient for the decision of an area manager.

4. Implementation: occurs when members of the organization use the idea, technique
or new behavior. Perhaps it will be necessary to acquire materials, equipment and
train workers to use the new idea. It is a very important step, because without it can
not carry out the plans, it is often the most difficult stage of the process of change. It
is not until people use the new method, that change can be taken for granted.

5. Resources: human activity and energy are required for the modifications to take
place, change does not happen alone, it takes time, materials and equipment to
implement an idea. The staff have to contribute their energy and administration the
other resources for the change to take place.

To implement a change, it is always recommended that it be performed through an

organizational diagnosis and usually when it is done, four basic steps must be
followed:

1. Recognize and interpret the problem and assess the need for change.

2. Determine the willingness and ability of the organization to change.

3. Identify administrative and workforce resources and their motivations for change.

4. Determine a change strategy to use and goals to achieve

According to Hellriegel et al., 1999, any change program involves a careful

assessment of the capacity for individual and organizational change. In individual
change there are two important aspects: 1) the degree of satisfaction and identification
of employees with the prevailing situation and 2) the perceived personal risk of
changing it. Hence, when the staff is dissatisfied with the situation in the organization
or perceive that a change does not represent much risk, they will show greater
acceptance, but when the situation is contrary, the willingness to change will be low
or even zero To resist him. On the other hand, it is also important the expectation that
the staff have with respect to the effort that represents a change and the benefit that
will obtain, therefore, when it is intended to implement a change, it is necessary to
consider that the behavior of the workers in the organization Is affected by many
forces that interact with each other, that is, they have multiple causes, trying to see it
as isolated functions or processes would be a very serious error and worse would be
the attacking symptoms rather than the causes. (Yonnedi, 2010)

No matter how beneficial the actions of organizational change are perceived, there
will always be a natural tendency to resist them, both individually and
organizationally. Many times this resistance is disconcerting because of the many
ways it can adopt, to mention only a few, can be manifested in strikes, less
productivity, defective work and even sabotage, other covert forms can be: delays and
absenteeism, requests for transfers or Changes of departments, resignations, loss of
motivation, lower morale and accident rates or higher errors, etc. One of the most
damaging forms of resistance is the lack of participation and commitment of
employees with the proposed changes, even when they have the opportunity to
participate. (Appelbaum, St-Pierre, & Glavas, 1998)

People tend to selectively perceive things that are most comfortably adapted to their
view of the world. Once people establish an understanding of reality, they resist
changing it. Among other things, people will resist the possible impacts of change on
their lives by (1) reading or listening only to the things they agree with, (2) by the
very convenient forgetting of any knowledge that can lead to other points Of sight and
3) the distortion of communication that, if perceived correctly, would not agree with
their attitudes and values.

To ensure operational effectiveness organizations sometimes create strong defenses

against change, because in many cases it goes against vested interests, that gives them
some degree of rigidity, but the more mechanical or rigid the organization, the greater
the Number of levels through which an idea must pass, therefore, the mechanistic
organizational design increases the probability that any new idea is eliminated
because it threatens the status quo. Therefore, more adaptable and flexible
organizations should be designed to reduce the resistance to change created by the
same rigid organizational structures, structures that do not allow time and form to
react to the needs of the market, the environment and the customers themselves.
(Hellriegel et al., 1999) point out ways in which both individual and organizational
resistance can be manifested: the individual manifests with perceptions, personality,
work habits, threats to the preserves of power and influence, Fear of the unknown or
for economic reasons; Organizational resistance can originate from the same design of
functions and the structure itself, the culture of the organization, resource constraints,
agreements or inter-organizational agreements, etc.

Resistance to change according to Davis and Newstrom, 2000, may be due to the
following causes: 1) Logical or rational, such as the time required for adjustment, an
extra relearning effort, the possibility of less favorable conditions or a degradation of
abilities For new ones, etc .; 2) Psychological or emotional, which could manifest in
fear of the unknown, low tolerance for uncertainty, lack of trust in others and need for
personal security and stability, and 3) Sociological or group interests, such as political
coalitions, opposition to Group values, narrow local vision, established interests or a
desire to maintain a circle of contacts and friendships. (Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2002)

However, even if there is any level of opposition or resistance to change, there will
always be some way of counteracting their effects, or at least minimizing them, and
one way to achieve this is through proper planning and proper action to prevent
Situations or conditions that provoke or originate, hence the recommended actions
will be that the change agent can manage three approaches to the planned change
through "make a change in the structure, that is, redesigning, decentralizing and
Modifying the workflows; With a techno-structural approach, that is to say, also
redesigning the organizational structure and the labor operations; Relying on
technological change and change in people: their skills, attitudes, expectations and
perceptions of change. "
Methodology

Articles reviews . (Chen, Suen, & Lin, 2013)

Questionnaire and interviews . (Johnson, Cassell, Close, & Duberely, 2001)

Conceptual framework (Appelbaum, St-Pierre, & Glavas, 1998)

Case study (Smith, 2011)

Observation and questionnaire (Paula S. Weber, 2001)

Case study (Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2002)

a survey questionnaire (Yonnedi, 2010)

Conclusion

when planning the organizational change, members often take the change activity too
seriously, but neglect the change goal itself. Thus, members participate in the activity
vigorously, but the achievement is actually very limited. Poor management in change
process is another commonly made mistake. Many factors have to be considered and
attended to in the unfreezing, moving or freezing stages. Overlook certain factors
many lead to total failure of the organizational change. the match between change
plan and organizational context may also play a significant role in the success or
failure of organizational change.

it is critical to depict strategic organizational change as an integrative process, and all

organizational elements, the soft (human resources) and the hard (systems and
technologies), need to be considered for successful change to occur. The proposed
model for strategic organizational change is an attempt to link the software and
hardware components of organizations.

In view of the pressures being expected from the external environment and the critical
vision of organizations, top management needs to establish a flexible and adaptive
infrastructure that should lead tomorrow’s organizations to higher levels of
performance. The largest barrier to “change” is not changes to technologies, and work
processes but changes involving people. To reach such level of performance, links
between the environment, the vision of the organization, its leadership and learning
processes are essential. Further research is needed to identify systematic integrative
models of strategic organizational change with predictive capabilities. These models
could be utilized both by management and organizational researchers in order to
facilitate the implementation of adaptive strategic change initiatives.

Quality enhancement is concerned with achieving organizational fitness for purpose.

A change from the status quo is assumed. Managing change is thus inherent in
organizational quality enhancement – change and quality go hand-in-hand.
Information providers and professionals operating in an environment of rapid and
complex change should add to their managerial “toolkits” an understanding of the
powerful interconnections between managing both organizational quality and
organizational change – and a proactive approach to both.

privatization brought about major changes in the organizational goals, corporate

governance and organizational structure of privatized firms. These changes
transformed privatized firms that fundamentally different and suitable to a
competitive market environment. These positive organizational changes led to
significant performance improvement. Changes in ownership structure, from public to
private, alter the behavior, incentives and performance of managers and organizations.
The study contributes to our understanding about the relationship between ownership
performance by providing an organizational change perspective on the examination of
privatization-performance effect.

References

Bibliography
Appelbaum, S., St-Pierre, N., & Glavas, W. (1998). Strategic organizational change: the role of
leadership, learning, motivation and productivity. management decision , 289 - 301.

Chen, J. M., Suen, M. W., & Lin, M. J. (2013). Organizational Change and Development. T&D.

Johnson, P., Cassell, C., Close, P., & Duberely, J. (2001). performance evaluation and control:
supporting organizational change. Management Decision, 841 - 851.
Paula S. Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change.
Leadership &Organization Development Journal,, 291 - 300.

Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, A. S. (2002). Shapes of organizational change: the case of Heineken Inc.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 311 - 326.

Smith, I. (2011). Organisational quality and organisational change. Library Management, 111
- 128.

Yonnedi, E. (2010). Privatization, organizational change and performance: evidence from

Indonesia. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 537 - 563.