Every company does its best to achieve excellent results in business and to obtain the highest profits. Organizational development is a very important field of study because it is closely connected with the management and company structure. The history of organizational development covers the problems of organizational changes and implies a constant reconstruction of the organizational hierarchy to adapt to the difficult conditions. The effective organizational structure has many issues to be included. Therefore, attention should be paid to the process of organizational development, to the theories applied, and to the identifying conditions of successful organization progress.
The basis for organizational development is the organizational change that induces the company leaders to face new problems and to facilitate their solutions. The trigger point for the change is making an effort that is very important in the organization’s progress. Those who face changes have more possibilities to overcome difficulties and, as a result, the more change efforts you make the more chances for your business to be beneficial. Hence, permanent changes are important in determining the outright leaders out from the followers. Changes lead to different consequences. First, of all, changes provoke more changes since each company strives to be competitive to fit the higher standards. That implies searching for the possible way of improvements in the product development. Secondly, the change can lead to “cynicism” (Gallos, J. V. 2005 p. 14) which means that the employees do not understand the actual goal of those changes provided by the leaders. In that case, changes are recognized as the trigger point for conflicts. Finally, changes mean the increase of pressure on the workers and may be regarded as a check for their ability to survive in difficult situations. However, such situations may provoke discontent with the organization’s leadership leading to strikes and violence.
There are numerous theories of organizational development that have their own advantages and disadvantages. Still, these theories can be divided into three classes. The theories depend on social factors and are supported by different theorists (Gallos, J. V. 2006 p.20). For example, “need theory” belongs to the individual approach and is based on the dependence of human need on self-realization that can affect the organization’s development both positively and negatively. The “expectancy theory” (Gallos, J. V. 2006 p.20) has a similar effect on the stages of organizational change. However, in this aspect, human motivation is mostly focused on the external reaction and satisfying his/her needs. If considering the group theories, the supporters of this approach believe that it has a greater influence on the organization development where the social intercourse takes place. In addition, the group also influences the individual human and provides the sophistication of the organizational development process. Needless to say that the systematic or total approach is more complicated and requires a thorough study. One of the famous theories associated with this approach is “division of labor” which is supported by Lawrence and Lorsch (p Gallos, J. V. 2006 p. 33). According to this theory, each company has its way of subordination and cooperation depending on the kind of goals settled and task accomplished. Hence comes, the more the organization cares about the goal-setting the more changes will be involved in the organization process. Anyway, each of the theories has the right to exist since it proves its impact on organizational change.
The changes taking place in the company are predetermined by certain conditions and factors. To start with, the company should be ready for these changes and must prepare an outright ground for it. If a company is aware that the potential of the company is exhausted and the previous organizational changes did not deposit to the prosperity of the company, the introduction of the organizational changes is of paramount importance. Another condition is the loss of competitiveness that is the obvious reason for the organizational change since most changes are directed at the increase of the company’s reputation and productivity. The readiness for changes also stipulates the company’s progress in terms of competence. Finally, the problem of communication is an apparent condition for organizational development since the lack of communication can deprive the organization structure of its leader.
The overhaul of that issue brings me to the conclusion that the introduction of organizational development is quite necessary since it is one the most effective way to improve the drawbacks of the organizational structure and to find a solution to the social problems within the company’s structure. Moreover, this need for changes is required to eliminate the undesirable conflicts between the groups and to increase intergroup cooperation. Since the business environment affects demand and supply and, therefore, the profit of the company, its previous planning can turn out to be loss-making. Therefore, providing organizational development contributes to reasonable planning and goal setting. It also helps to adapt the needs of workers to the new environment and to foresee the future alteration of those needs. Hence, as a whole, organizational development affects both the internal and external processes of the company.
Gallos, J. V., (2006). Organizational Development: a Jossey-Bass reader. US: John Wiley and Sons.
Rothwell, W. J. & Sullivan, R., (2005). Practicing organization development: a guide for consultans. US: John Wiley and sons.