I need to reply to my mates:
– First mate:
Systems and structures
According to Anna (2017), a change is when a something enter a process of getting a new state, and to get a new state in a company, the company need to be flexible and acceptable to the change, that require the company to have a system and structure that enable the flexability in dealing with the change and the challenges that came with it, that will not come without a good culture inside the company, that accept and evolve around the new ideas and thoughts that get generated by both old and new members of the company, and also ready to drop old ideas that can not be evolved and not adding to the company, and not keeping it because we like it.
According to Will (2022), the organizational structure is a system that descripe how rules and responsibilities efficiently used to achieve the goals of the organization, according to Jae & Kuk (2021) the organizational structure are mechanistic and organic, mechanistic is to ensure the predictabilities of employees behaviors, while the organic give the employees their freedom to innovate and deal with changing conditions, In Elm, the old strcutre was a mechanistic, every department was a functional department and have specfic role, the new strcture is more organic, where every department is more a project based than functional.
Limits of Existing Structure
In order to support the new stracure of Elm, the company reassmented the customer journey from A to Z to understand where possibly the journey get delay, it find out that usually the issue is the communication between each functional department, where every department care only about its KPI, and there good connection with other departments KPIs, that gave the idea of having department that is project based, and each department have functional teams that collberate with each other to acheive the same goal, that will ensure the customer journey is more quicker and direct.
How Systems And Structures Influence The Success?
The functional department stracture was internally stracured as a project based teams, and each team have thier counterparts in the other departments, the issue in this stracture as outlined above is how the communication some time is diffecult, and how some time collberation were less than expacted, the idea of reversing the stracture did not was a very diffcult task, as they are in fact worked togther as seprate teams, and now need more integration to have success together, of course there were some resistance and a lot of experiments to make things move better, but still a good move in the right direction.
Uncertainty And Complexity
The new stracture reduce the complexity but it incresed the uncertainty, yeah now there less complexity in communication between the teams, but the issue now that mangeing different functional teams is a headache, every functional team may work in the same project, but every team have thier own way in dealing with the project, they also differ in how to improve and gain new skills, which will create an issue to determine the best courses to have for the department, also in the development, they less contacting with other similar functional teams, which result to less share knowledge in the company, and repeting the same mistakes made by thier counterpart not long ago.
– Anna Szarek (2017), Evolution of Change Management Models And Their Future in the Context of Ona
– Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon (2021), Transformational Leadership and Employees? Helping Behavior in Public Organizations: Does Organizational Structure Matter?
– Will Kenton (2022), Organizational Structure, investopedia.com
– Second mate:
Using structure and systems to bring about organizational change in pharmaceutical companies
Organizations goes through change from time to time and the means to support the change can differ from one organization to another. One way of bringing on change is through formal organizational structures and systems, as they can either help in facilitating change or making change more difficult. Gaining the proper approval and prior acceptance for the change through the right channels can help facilitate the change, but it may require implementing changes to the current structure and systems and this depend on the change being implemented (Deszca, 2020). To explain this more, we can look into the pharmaceutical industry to see how they adapt to external changes and gain or maintain their competitive advantage.
Pharmaceutical organizations incorporate a research and development (R&D) center into their organizational structure as their grow and this center include additional expenditure for the company. This expenditure increases with new developments like when biotechnological products started gaining attention, as companies started creating markets for those products and this required changes to companies? structures and systems to adapt to the changes and reduce costs. Lots of companies changes their vertical integrated structures to horizontal structures to gain more benefit of specialized individuals and departments (Cockburn, 2004). This can make them more competitive in the market, as they will have faster access to information with less processing needed (Deszca, 2020). Some companies started changing their structures and systems from a mechanistic vertically integrated structure to a more flexible self-regulated, self-organizing structures to adapt to the new market, and this required transformational leadership support to mediate the change (Najm, 2021). The importance of those leaders comes into place in shaping the employee?s perception and acceptability for change and how they respond to the changes implemented (Oreg, 2019). So it is clear that the formal authority has a power in implementation of the changes, but initial changes were needed to the leadership to bring about new ideas and more adaptability to the changes including changes to the organization structures. The systems also undergo changes and from my experience in this industry, systems changes are slower and undergo an incremental approach to make it happen in order not to interrupt the current business.
To conclude, the prior organizations structures, and systems can help aid in the implementation of the changes and structural changes usually comes first with the help of the leadership. The leadership them selves can undergo changes, so that new leaders can aid in directing the new changes. Systems changes comes next but at a slower rate so that the current business is not interrupted. However, the approaches used by variation companies differ depending on the size of the company and the complexity of each company?s structures and systems, meaning that the uncertainty and complexity differ based on the company size and current structure and system and is not unified across companies.
Cockburn, I. M. (2004). The changing structure of the pharmaceutical industry. Health Affairs, 23(1), 10-22.
Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. SAGE Publications.
Najm, N. A., & Alfaqih, A. A. (2021). Organizational Intelligence and Market Expansion in Jordanian Pharmaceutical Companies. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 12(1), 222-251.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2019). Leaders? impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272-307.