Just like the seasons, the nature of business is ever changing. Executives know that in order to keep up with these changes, they must place a high level of importance on understanding, explaining and addressing these challenges in order to improve the behaviors of individuals and groups within their companies. One of the most significant challenges facing managers is how to lead an organization during hostilities. Hostilities can arise from various situations, but most often during times of organizational change where there are many uncertainties facing employees and managers alike. Things like affective commitment, the matrix structure, and the organizational culture can all play a part in one’s ability to navigate during such tumultuous
…show more content…
Aristotle said, “We are what we repeatedly do”. This view elevates repeated behavior or habits as the core of culture and deemphasizes what people feel, think or believe” (Watkins, 2013). In Case 3: Leading in a Hostile Environment, Colleen Brooks, is the manager responsible for overseeing nursing operations in four states. While she is not pleased with the idea, she understands however, that it is her job to complete the job at hand. Her task is simple; to help facilitate the successful merger of nursing operations for Medicare One and Healthcare Plus. Two companies that share the same purpose but have two completely different types of culture. As outlined in the prescribed case, merging two companies with two distinct cultures is a surefire way to change the culture in an organization (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2017). Especially when we consider that at the beginning of any merger, there is not clear direction as to how the final organization will look and feel. The approach taken to get ball rolling, was to call a meeting with all subordinates in a neutral location to encourage all participants to keep an open mind towards the tall task before them. However, this tactic is not well received and helps to create a tense atmosphere where participants held the ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Unfortunately, when that happened the participating managers were not open-minded to the ideas proposed by …show more content…
Affective commitment is defined as a desire to remain a member of an organization because of some sort of emotional attachment (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2017). Being affectively committed to your organization means that you want to stay at the organization. The employee feels valued and can act as ambassadors for their organization. They are generally great assets for the organization. The employee is satisfied with their work, identify with the organizational goals, and feel that they fit into the organization. It is all about comfort at where you work. You are happy to come into work because you like the environment. You like where the organization is headed, and as previously stated, you relate to the organization. You are involved in any way possible within the company or organization. Clearly, the employees in the case are having their level of commitment tested by the merger. As the manager in charge, Colleen needs to address this issue head on. If she does not, her team will be more likely to leave the organization. Research suggests that when organizations experience significant change, there is a higher than normal percentage of turnover by those not willing to adjust to the
Aristotle said, “We are what we repeatedly do”. This view elevates repeated behavior or habits as the core of culture and deemphasizes what people feel, think or believe” (Watkins, 2013). In Case 3: Leading in a Hostile Environment, Colleen Brooks, is the manager responsible for overseeing nursing operations in four states. While she is not pleased with the idea, she understands however, that it is her job to complete the job at hand. Her task is simple; to help facilitate the successful merger of nursing operations for Medicare One and Healthcare Plus. Two companies that share the same purpose but have two completely different types of culture. As outlined in the prescribed case, merging two companies with two distinct cultures is a surefire way to change the culture in an organization (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2017). Especially when we consider that at the beginning of any merger, there is not clear direction as to how the final organization will look and feel. The approach taken to get ball rolling, was to call a meeting with all subordinates in a neutral location to encourage all participants to keep an open mind towards the tall task before them. However, this tactic is not well received and helps to create a tense atmosphere where participants held the ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Unfortunately, when that happened the participating managers were not open-minded to the ideas proposed by …show more content…
Affective commitment is defined as a desire to remain a member of an organization because of some sort of emotional attachment (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2017). Being affectively committed to your organization means that you want to stay at the organization. The employee feels valued and can act as ambassadors for their organization. They are generally great assets for the organization. The employee is satisfied with their work, identify with the organizational goals, and feel that they fit into the organization. It is all about comfort at where you work. You are happy to come into work because you like the environment. You like where the organization is headed, and as previously stated, you relate to the organization. You are involved in any way possible within the company or organization. Clearly, the employees in the case are having their level of commitment tested by the merger. As the manager in charge, Colleen needs to address this issue head on. If she does not, her team will be more likely to leave the organization. Research suggests that when organizations experience significant change, there is a higher than normal percentage of turnover by those not willing to adjust to the