Classical Theory of Public Administration
There have been several discussions and arguments regarding whether public administration can be categorized as a Science or as an Art. During our discussion of the topic earlier, we had come across authors and social scientists who vehemently supported the cause that public administration was a science indeed and amongst the most notable supporters of […]
Individual Decision Making – Pros and Cons
Individuals have a tendency to think and question before performing. This is fruitful in analysis and forecasting of individual’s behaviour. Individual decision making has certain pros and cons, few of which are mentioned below: Pros of Individual Decision Making An individual generally makes prompt decisions. While a group is dominated by various people, making decision-making […]
Leadership Case Study: Steve Jobs – The Man Who Ushered in the Smartphone Revolution
The Transformational Leadership of Steve Jobs Anyone and everyone who owns a Smartphone must be thankful to Steve Jobs, the late legendary founder of the tech firm, Apple, who not only ushered in the Smartphone revolution, but was also singlehandedly responsible for changing our perceptions about what a mobile phone can and could do. Indeed, […]
Building an Emotionally Agile Workforce
“Leave your emotions at home.” Almost every working individual must have heard of this phrase. And leaders admit repeating it time and again, to eliminate the ‘so-called’ emotional drama at the workplace and foster ‘practical thinking’. This raises many questions. Is it even possible? Aren’t emotions the part of human existence? Can they be separated […]
Effective Listening Skills – An essential for good communication
Listening is a significant part of communication process. Communication cannot take place until and unless a message is heard and retained thoroughly and positively by the receivers/listeners. Listening is a dynamic process. Listening means attentiveness and interest perceptible in the posture as well as expressions. Listening implies decoding (i.e., translating the symbols into meaning) and […]
It is often the case that companies are faced with a dilemma about whether the change initiatives must be driven from the top or they should be organic from the bottom up. This is especially the case with organizations that are growing in size where the increase employee base or the skyrocketing sales and revenues mean that the top management’s scope of control is more and hence driving change from the top alone might not just work.
And for those organizations that initiate change from the top, they might find themselves in a situation where the middle and bottom layers of the organizational hierarchy may not be responsive or energized in the way the top managements wants them to be.
So, the existential questions as to whether there ought to a spontaneous involvement from all the levels, or whether the top management must induce the change, are very real and need to be answered for change initiatives to succeed.
The answer as to which option is preferable depends on a number of factors:
For a change initiative to be successful the top management has to communicate and the employees have to respond. Like Bees gathering around honey and being driven by the Queen Bee, organizations have to ensure that while the CEO or the other top managers initiate the change, employees at all levels must take to the change as well.
So, a mix of having the top management initiate the change and letting the employees take over from them works best for larger organizations where micro management by the top management might not work.
Examples of organizations that have embraced change successfully include 3M, Google and Facebook where the visionary leaders at the top ensured that the initial germ of an idea was seeded in the employees and then they let the trees grow by sampling nourishing them from time to time while at the same time preferring organic growth rather than transplanted growth.
The other extreme is marked by failures like HP where the top management was unable to make their employees buy into their change strategies. Of course, this is not to say that organizations need visionary leaders as essential elements of success. Though it helps, companies can make do with success if they have a combination of people enablers who take pride in their organizations and can empower the employees to participate in the change initiatives.
In conclusion, change can be driven solely from the top. However, for continued success, change has to come from within each employee and this can only happen in organizations that have an organizational culture that encourages each employee to contribute to the initiatives.
Change can thrive where there is an institutional catalyst and hence the key takeaway is that the organizational structures have to be built in such a way that no one individual can either make or mar the chances of success.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
How Relevant is the Corporate Planning Function in the Digital Age of Agile Organizations
February 12, 2025
Contingency Model of Change Management: Dunphy and Stace’s Model of Change
February 12, 2025
