Just like in any other organization, sport organizations have to deal with change and a resistance to change. The text book identifies four different areas that change can occur in a sport organization: technology, products and services, structures and systems, and people. A big technological advancement in the sport industry came via television and changing how the major sporting events were delivered to the audience. Now people are able to watch a game from their home instead of actually having to be at the stadium. A change in the products or services of a sport organization may involve the addition, deletion, or modification of other areas (Slack and Parent, p. 239). Structural or systemic changes often occur in growing organizations. As they grow the structure of the organization will most likely change, as may the strategy. People change does not just mean bringing in new people but can just be a change in the way the group thinks and acts as a whole.
After reading the chapter and the journal article I feel that the contextualist approach to understanding organizational change is an approach that should be understood thoroughly. The contextual approach examines three areas that are related to change. Content refers to the four areas in which change can occur. Process has to do with how the organization gets from the current state it is in to the future state it wants to be in. Context is split into two categories: inner and outer context. Inner context refers to things within the sport organization while outer context refers to the society at large (Skirstad, p. 3).
If an organization is changing that also means there will be some type of resistance from inside and/or outside the organization itself. Resistance is not always a bad thing, for example, what if a group of resistors show to the group that are trying to change the organization that this particular change may not be in the best interest to the organization. The book identifies four major sources of resistance to change. The first source is self-interest and this comes from people who oppose the change because they feel the change will hurt them in some way through job security or losses in power. The second source is a lack of trust and understanding about the implications of change. This source stems from employees in the organization not knowing how the change will affect them personally and this is enhanced even more when there is also a lack of trust. The third source is differing assessments of change consequences and this comes from people who will be affected by the change and them having inadequate information about the change. The last source is the cost of change. This happens when people cannot see the long term benefits of a change and only see the high cost in time, effort, or money in the short term.
Questions for the class:
1. What are the six stages of the change process?
2. Is resistance to change always going to hurt the organization or are there situation in which the resistance might be a good thing? Example?
Is resistance to change always going to hurt the organization? It depends what you mean by “hurt.” I would say that resistance to change will always slow down the process of changing an organization, but in general, I would say that resistance to change is actually a very positive thing that benefits the organization in the end. Whether the change is prevented as a result of the resistance, or if it still goes through, I think resistance is a good thing.
For example, the Minnesota Twins are currently trying to change the organization by increasing diversity in on the field, in the stands, in their front office, and in their community. Resistance to this change may come in the form of feedback from employees in the front office. While I don’t think this resistance would prohibit the change altogether, it would put pressure on those enacting the change to critically analyze how they are going about creating this change. Are their hiring practices still fair? Are they evaluating people on their skills and not on their skin color or gender? (Diversity goes far beyond those two factors, but that is what many may focus on.) Resistance in general puts pressure on the change trying to be made and causes people to rethink the change and make sure it is right for the organization.
(Reposted to tag my name)
Is resistance to change always going to hurt the organization? It depends what you mean by “hurt.” I would say that resistance to change will always slow down the process of changing an organization, but in general, I would say that resistance to change is actually a very positive thing that benefits the organization in the end. Whether the change is prevented as a result of the resistance, or if it still goes through, I think resistance is a good thing.
For example, the Minnesota Twins are currently trying to change the organization by increasing diversity in on the field, in the stands, in their front office, and in their community. Resistance to this change may come in the form of feedback from employees in the front office. While I don’t think this resistance would prohibit the change altogether, it would put pressure on those enacting the change to critically analyze how they are going about creating this change. Are their hiring practices still fair? Are they evaluating people on their skills and not on their skin color or gender? (Diversity goes far beyond those two factors, but that is what many may focus on.) Resistance in general puts pressure on the change trying to be made and causes people to rethink the change and make sure it is right for the organization.
Summarized from Slack and Parent p. 248-250
1. Pressures and Arousal – strong pressure being applied to the top levels of an organizations management. This pressure can come from external or internal sources.
2. Intervention and Reorientation – normally requires and outside perspective such as a newly hired employee. This new person must have the power and ability to encourage top management to reevaluate their perspective.
3. Diagnosis and Recognition – different groups within an organization must come together to establish what the problems are. Requires significant amounts of open communication.
4. Invention and Commitment – the same groups must be will to work together and share power in order to come up with solutions to the problems identified. Continued open communication is required.
5. Experimentation and Search – this is the solution testing phase. Here the solutions are tested on a smaller scale, perhaps in a department or small division. If successful then the solution is implemented organization wide.
6. Reinforcement and Acceptance – this is the process of sharing and showing the benefits of the new solutions. There should also exist a more excepting culture of open communication between levels within and organization.
- David Dahlstrom
Change is something that is hard for some organizations to comprehend. Many organizations that were created recently do not have trouble with change. It is the successful organizations that have been around for many years that may need to undergo changes to stay successful. The first stage of the change process is pressure and arousal. The reason for this is to put strong pressure on the senior management who make decisions. The second stage is intervention and reorientation. This stage means that upper management needs to bring an outsider into the organization as a consultant. The third stage is diagnosis and recognition. This calls for different groups within the organization to come together to locate the cause of problem issues. Stage four of the change process is invention and commitment. New unique solutions must be invented in this stage. In stage five, experimentation and search takes place. The sixth and final stage involves reinforcement and acceptance of the positive results obtained in stage five.
I agree with Becca that it all depends on what you mean by the word “hurt.” When I think about hurt in terms of a sport organization I think about profits dwindling, internal conflict, threats upon the organization’s existence, and things along those lines. An example to this is from where I work right now. I work in a small town gas station that is locally owned and operated by a cooperative, meaning that everyone that puts money into the company gets a “share” of the company at the end of the fiscal year. We had to make a decision this year about changing from a cooperative to a franchise which would take away the “shares” that our customers got from putting money into our gas station. The change would mean more buying power for our store, but customers would be dissatisfied with loss of their “shares.” We changed to a franchise but I believe that we could have stayed operating if we would have stayed a cooperative. I know that this isn’t exactly the example that you were looking for, but I think that it conveys the different aspects that come along with change that are both positive and negative.