OD of Initech using Lewin’s Change Theory: As based on Office Space Essay Example

justify">
Labor offers a platform for people to showcase resourcefulness and intent in their work under certain circumstances (Farganis, 1996, p. 43). However, Initech's work atmosphere undermines this entire innovative process of labor contribution. Continuous exposure to a setting that disconnects them from their creative potential is what the company's employees encounter. They are assigned dull and repetitive tasks, similar to those carried out by Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston).

Furthermore, a dominant person exacerbates the situation by placing them in even more degrading and isolating situations. Therefore, enhancing both the working environment and interpersonal communication is crucial for improving Initech's current condition. Upon examining the present conditions, it seems that modifying or adjusting the prevalent management style could be an ideal tactic. Specifically, there is a need for a comprehensive overhaul of the leadership method that permeates across the company.

The piece penned by Matt Hick titled Leadership Styles and Types – Overview of skills emphasizes that “Leadership Style is of pivotal importance…Leaders need to adapt swiftly to changes in the world and tackle its demands.” This strategy is suitable for achieving short-term objectives and enhancing productivity at work rather than revamping the physical workspace, which would eventually incur greater expenses for the company. Executives at Initech like Bill Lumbergh utilize the Authoritarian (Autocratic) Leadership style.

Absolute leaders outline precise expectations about what needs to be done, the timeline for completion, and the methods to be used, as described by Van Wagner. These leaders are often viewed as stringent, and while this approach suits crisis situations or instances where collective decision-making isn't feasible, it hinders the innovative capabilities of employees and causes them

to feel disconnected from the organization. Furthermore, this leadership approach can prompt individuals to exploit their authority. When such misuse occurs, as exemplified in Initech, we face a dictator rather than a leader.

Considering the current circumstances within the company, a leadership approach that encourages employee involvement would be suitable. Hence, there is a need to transition to a democratic or participative leadership style. Adopting such a style would portray Initech's senior executives as guides rather than threats or adversaries. The democratic leadership style fosters direct engagement from team members and can disrupt the existing "status quo" within the organization.

Not only does this enhance job contentment by engaging team members or employees in the overall business processes, it also contributes to the advancement of their expertise. Employees and team members gain a sense of control over their own future, for example, in relation to their aspirations for a promotion, instilling motivation not merely driven by financial gains (“Leadership Styles: Using the right one for your situation,” n. d. ). Additionally, research carried out by Kurt Lewin revealed that this method of leadership tends to be generally the most efficient one. Leadership Styles: Maintaining the Transformation

No matter if a transformation is intended to produce beneficial effects, it usually instigates apprehension among individuals. We naturally prefer staying in our comfort zones, notwithstanding unsatisfactory circumstances. This explains why the initial concept or implementation stage of introducing leadership changes in Initech may provoke disputes and face opposition from the existing manager, Bill Lumbergh. It's clear that Lumbergh employs an Authoritarian management approach, regularly overseeing minutely and delivering adverse comments to his team.

This

approach is utilized to fortify his managerial position. Transitioning from an autocratic to a democratic leadership style, and allowing his team members to actively participate in this shift could be achieved through the application of Lewin's Change theory. This theory aims at boosting organizational efficiency and productivity (Moseley, O’Connell, Schluth, Van Buskirk, Wilkerson, ; Wilson, 2007). It suggests that specific forces play a key role in upholding stability within a system's behavior.

Kurt Lewin's Change Theory proposes that a 'quasi-stationary equilibrium' state, where current actions are preserved, is achieved through a balance between change advocates and status quo supporters, as articulated by Smiley in 2001. The theory splits into three stages on the notion that it's challenging for any group to uphold a level of change without eventually returning to its initial state (Moseley et al., 2007). This process encompasses three phases—unfreezing, moving and refreezing—to realize the desired level of transformation.

In the Unfreezing phase, workers may oppose alterations as they interfere with their usual patterns and require them to adapt to a novel system. Edgar H. Schein elaborated on Lewin’s tri-phase theory, particularly emphasizing the importance of changing an individual's viewpoint via cognitive theory. Essentially, many team members are apprehensive about modifications because they thrust them into unknown realms, triggering fear of the future. Additionally, such transition might incite unease among employees, leading to worries about fulfilling the new criteria set by the institution (Moseley et al., 2007).

Hence, it is essential to equip the workers for the anticipated alterations. Employment of the trio of techniques, as mentioned by Robbins, can result in accomplishing this target. To begin with, it is

a must for Initech to boost active involvement across the organizational structure. Providing more decision-making opportunities for workers at each level (even for simple matters such as selecting the location for a corporate event) can help to shift away from the established tendency towards authoritarianism. Additionally, enforcing relevant penalties to limit confrontational conduct amongst managerial staff could help lessen opposition to change.

Conducting workshops to enlighten employees about the impending change while instilling in them the readiness to embrace and actively contribute to this transition is vital. This direct communication tactic not only alerts employees about potential shifts, but also provides an avenue to respond to their 'What's In It For Me?' (WII-FM) queries. In her 2001 article, Della Menechella pointed out that without a clear understanding of their personal benefits, prompting people to shift their ideas or actions is a significant challenge. She highlighted that acceptance of new concepts or behavior change only happens when individuals perceive their personal advantage (Menechella, 2001).

In fact, the organization can facilitate the change process by hosting workshops and featuring a moderator. Mumford (1995) argues in his Ethics methodology that this moderator plays a critical function. He identifies three primary objectives tied to change management: 1) encouraging employees to contribute to designing their work atmosphere; 2) establishing clear goals for job satisfaction along with technical and operational targets; and 3) confirming that an appropriate and efficient organizational structure supports the newly implemented technology system (as mentioned in George, 2002).

The firm's engagement of a facilitator indicates the application of a cooperative methodology associated with democratic leadership. The next phase in Lewin's model, referred to as

the movement phase, marks the transition from traditional practices to modern ones. This stage requires introducing new attitudes, perceptions and beliefs by altering organizational setups and protocols. During this time, focus must be on successful execution rather than simply accumulating information like testing out the novel strategy (Moseley et al., 2007; Smiley, 2001).

Gradually escalating the involvement of decision making from higher-level executives to lower-rank managers can trigger a domino effect. Seeing consistency in senior executives' approach towards permitting active participation encourages junior staff to follow suit. Indeed, the lower tier management tends to emulate the behavior modeled by their leaders, aligning with Bandura's Role-Modeling theory. This is in line with the third stage of Lewin's three-step change model known as refreezing.

Refreezing aims to solidify the new equilibrium created by the change, by equalizing both propelling and resisting forces. Robbins suggests that promoting forces support change while restraining forces resist it. Therefore, change will transpire when the overall power of one force outweighs that of its opposite (referenced in Kritsonis, 2004, p. 2). Refreezing is the sole method to finish Lewin’s change cycle without regressing to how the group initially operated. Continual reinforcement of the change until it becomes habitual and consistently applied is crucial for maintaining the change (Moseley, et al. , 2007).

In conclusion, considering that change is an ongoing process rather than a one-time event, it's crucial for Initech's management and executive team to maintain uniformity in their efforts to transition from autocratic to democratic leadership. Utilizing Lewin's three-step model for transformation can enable the company to proactively and successfully alter their leadership methods and address issues resulting

in employee disconnection, which ultimately negatively impacts performance.

Citation