An Evaluation of Organizational Change Its Impact on Staff Production, a Case Study of Zenith Bank Plc
Table of Content
List of Tables
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Objective of the study
1.4 Research question
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 Scope of the study
1.7 Limitation of the study
1.8 Definition of terms
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual framework’
2.2 Theoretical Framework
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Population of the study
3.4 Sample size determination
3.5 Sample size selection technique and procedure
3.6 Research Instrument and Administration
3.7 Method of data collection
3.8 Method of data analysis
3.9 Validity of the Study
3.10 Reliability of the study
3.11 Ethical Consideration
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Presentation
4.2 Research Hypothesis
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This study was on an evaluation of organizational change its impact on staff production, a case study of zenith bank Plc. Four objectives were raised which included; To determine the nature of organizational change, to determine the nature of staff productivity, to determine the impact of change on organizational productivity and to determine the impact of change on staff productivity in First Bank plc. A total of 77 responses were received and validated from the enrolled participants where all respondents were drawn from selected zenith bank staffs in Uyo. Hypothesis was tested using Chi-Square statistical tool (SPSS).
1.1Background of the study
Bateman and Zeithaml (1990), who identified four major areas of organizational change: strategy, technology, structure and people. All the four areas are related and companies often must institute changes in the other areas, when they attempt to change one area. The first area, strategy changes can take place on a large scale-large for example, when a company shifts its resources to enter a new line of business or on a small scale for example, when a company makes productivity improvements in order to reduce costs.
There are three basic stages for a company making a strategic change: realizing that the current strategy is no longer suitable for the company’s situation, establishing a vision for the company’s future direction and implementing the change and setting up new systems to support it.
Technological changes are often introduced as components of larger strategic changes, although they sometimes take place on their own. An important aspect of changing technology is determining who in the organization will be threatened by the change. To be successful, a technology change must be incorporated into the company’s overall systems and a management structure must be created to support it. Structural changes can also occur due to strategic changes as in the case where a company decides to acquire another business and must integrate it as well as due to operational changes or changes in managerial style. For example, a company that wished to implement more participative decision making might need to change its hierarchical structure.
People changes can become necessary due to other changes, or sometimes companies simply seek to change workers’ attitudes and behaviours in order to increase their effectiveness. Attempting a strategic change, introducing a new technology and other changes in the work environment may affect people’s attitudes (sometimes in a negative way) (Bateman and Zeithaml, 1990). But management frequently initiates programs with a conscious goal of directly and positively changing the people themselves. In any case, people changes can be the most difficult and important part of the overall change process. The science of organization development was created to deal with changing people on the job through techniques such as education and training, team building and career planning .Resistance to change: Resistance to change based on the existing theoretical and empirical study, the negative evaluation of and resistance to change may occur on account of a number of factors.Bateman and Zeithaml (1990) outlined a number of common reasons that people tend to resist change. These include: inertia, or the tendency of people to become comfortable with the status quo, timing, as when change efforts are introduced at a time when workers are busy or have a bad relationship with management, surprise, because people’s reflex is to resist when they must deal with a sudden, radical change or peer pressure, which may cause a group to resist due to anti-management feelings even if individual members do not oppose the change. Resistance can also grow out of people’s perceptions of how the change will affect them personally. They may resist because they fear that they will lose their jobs or their status, because they do not understand the purpose of the change, or simply because they have a different perspective on the change than management. Making a solid case for the change is critical for the change to have a lasting effect. The source of information about the change must be credible. Stroh’s (2001-2002) study indicates that the participation of employee leads to more positive relationships with the organization and thus greater willingness to change Therefore the research intends to prefer an evaluation of organizational change and its impact on staff productivity
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The business environment produces change in the workplace more suddenly and frequently than ever before. Mergers, acquisitions, new technology, restructuring downsizing and economic meltdown are all factors that contribute to a growing climate; of uncertainty. organisational ability to adapt to changing work conditions is key for individual and organizational survival. Change will be ever present and learning to manage and lead change includes not only understanding human factors, but also skill to manage and lead change effectively (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991).
However for change to produce its desired effect it must be accepted and embraced by the organizational employees; But this is not often the case. Most changes results in employee resistance of change in the organization;Thereby resulting in poor morale and productivity
Therefore the problem confronting this research is to proffer an evaluation of organizational change and its impact on staff productivity with a case appraisal of Zenith Bank plc
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1 To determine the nature of organizational change
2 To determine the nature of staff productivity
3 To determine the impact of change on organizational productivity
4 To determine the impact of change on staff productivity in First Bank plc
STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS
1 Ho Staff productivity in First Bank plc is low
Hi Staff productivity in First Bank plc is high
2 Ho change is not accepted in First Bank plc
Hi change is accepted in First Bank plc
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study shall focus on the essential factors necessary to effect change in the organization It shall determine the impact of change on organizational productivity The study shall provide significant information on managing change to managers and organizations
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study shall profer an evaluation of organizational change and its impact on staff Productivity.
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE DEFINED; Organizational change occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state.
Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization, while also maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort. Change is both inevitable and desirable for any progressive organization (Fajana, 2002).
Lewin’s model: Considers that change involves a move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo. Lewin specifically considers a three stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing and re-freezing. The first stage involves creating a level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, which creates conditions for change to be implemented. The second stage requires organizing and mobilizing the resources required to bring about the change. The third stage involves embedding the new ways of working into organization.
Beer and colleagues: Advocate a model that recognizes that change is more complex and therefore, requires a more complex, albeit still uniform set of responses to ensure its effectiveness. They prescribe a six-step process to achieve effective change. They concentrate on task alignment, whereby employees roles, responsibilities and relationships are seen as key to bring about situations that enforce changed ways of thinking, attitudes and behaving. The stages are Armstrong (2004):[email protected][email protected]