Helloeveryone,Afterreading and analyzing the case of Jordan Cement Factories, we can say that thechange approach that the company selected was a gradual approach; which meansthat the changes were introduced in small steps one by one and the changeprocess occurred over a period of two to three years. Also, another importantmethod that the organization took was the participative change process whichhelped to implement the use of task groups and working parties, and a bottom-uporientation to problem-solving (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013, p. 261).This approach also helped that the participation of the staff and HR gainedimportantly. According to our textbook, exist many perspectives of change, inmy opinion, one of the best options for this case is the processual orcontextual perspective. One of the keywords of this process, in contrast toplanned change, is that change is not viewed as a single event, but it’s understoodas a process that develops over extended periods of time. This model suggeststo look at organizations as social systems with a past, present, and future,and that’s exactly what they did with JCF (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013,p.
248). They respected the fact that the parent’s company has its own internalculture; they recognized that culture change is a slow process and their mainpoint was to achieve integration. “Thus, to assess the success or failure ofchange processes, there is a need to examine how future plans play against anorganization’s history and current context (including both aspects of cultureand structure) (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013, p.248). Additionally, somestructural changes were also executed as part of the change process. Overall,the leaders intended to introduce change carefully, but I think the missed thecommunication part and the organization had to experience its effect later whenthey had issues with the union and the privatization process.
Atthe end of it, the company failed to manipulate and influence individualperception, and they had to face resistance from some people and especially theunion, who was the most significant obstacle. Finally, all the plans that theorganization had in mind couldn’t be implemented because of this resistance andinstead, the pressure from the union increased during the privatizationprocess. This power union grew not only at the company level but also at thenational level.
ReferencesArvinen-Muondo, R., & Perkins, S. (2013). Organizational Behaviour (pp. 241-263). London: Kogan Page.
