Friendship Baptist Church Case Study

1008 Words null Page
Boundaries or the idea of boundaries helps to distinguish between organizational systems and their environments. Boundaries-the boarders or limits of the system-help to protect or buffer the organization’s transformation process from external disruptors (Cummings, Thomas G and Worley, Christopher G, 2015). There are no boundaries in place within the organization. Usually membership and new members’ classes serve as a buffer to the outside distractions but the recent lack of new members has all but removed the boundary.
Feedback is information regarding the actual performance or the outputs of the system (Cummings, Thomas G and Worley, Christopher G, 2015). There has not, traditionally, been feedback to the organization.
…show more content…
It should be noted that all elements of the change used as reference are not applicable at this juncture. The leadership of the organization must seek additional elements of examination and determine a feasible timeline for additional implementation.
Step One: Create Sense of Urgency
Time itself has generated this needed element for change within Friendship. The element of non-variance within racial demographics and the resistance to diversity and cultural limitations as allows for a dwindling number of members within the organization. Kotter states, “Develop a consistent message of change needed by crafting and using created significant opportunity as a means for exciting people to sign up to change their organization” (Kotter, 2012). The dilemma itself has crafted the very sincere message of either change the very structure, culture and systems of Friendship or cease to exist.
Device and
…show more content…
Internal communication elements, teambuilding ventures and activities that reveal an openness to the proposed changes must be conducted. The following journal article offered some valuable insight on creating a special team or coalition to handle the coming determents to change. It communicates thusly, “As a profession, the Army cannot lose sight of the purpose behind organizational design. In an effort to retain their corporate identity, leaders cannot stand as a special interest bastion defending jurisdictional dogma; their collective charge is ensuring that the Army serves the Nation. No organizational design can be sacrosanct. The Army’s organization of combat forces adapts, as required, so that it can best achieve its mission” (Efflandt, 2010, p. 26). It is a military principle, yet conveys the essence of all healthy organizations. The development of coalition must be done with

Related Documents