Discuss the view presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing Essay - 1

dissertate the emplacement presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing alteration invariably involves managing paradoxes and in partic - Essay ExampleHowever, the most tiny scene of the adoption of such happy chance is its management. The management of change in organisational finis poses multiple challenges for any organization. There ar various scholars who have embarked on describing distinct concepts related to organisational culture. Sushil and Nasim highlighted that managing organisational culture involves the management of paradoxes, and more specifically the paradox of continuity and change. This paper will develop a critical argument from the idea posited by these two scholars. It has become evident that change is inevitable. Organizations face the urgency of adopting change, although the menstruate of change presents new complexities. Apparently, only a thirdly of all ventures aimed at fostering change are likely to succeed. The failure of two thirds o f all projects seeking to foster change emphasizes the urgency of new strategies for managing change. However, different scholars have posited opinions on whether managing change is a possibility (Collin, 2004560). One school of thought opines that through management, it is contingent to exert a form of control on organizational culture. A different group of scholars has highlighted that organizational culture change can only occur under certain conditions that act as preconditions for the change. The third school of thought is pessimistic concerning the potential of controlling cultural change through management. For these scholars, managing cultural change in an organization is an unlikely venture. Nasim and Sushil (2011186) highlighted the numerous paradoxes that have been used by different scholars to describe organizational change. The term paradoxes in this context denote the contradictions surrounding organizational change. One of the described paradoxes is the arising debat e on whether cultural change in an organization takes place in an orderly preplanned manner or solely emerges depending on the prevailing environmental conditions. The planned view of cultural change introduces the ideology that cultural change occurs in episodes that involve a shift from a fixed state to the next. However, this ideology has received a challenge from the perceived dynamism of change as defined by prevailing conditions. Other scholars view change as an incremental process that takes place under the orchestration of the executives in an organization. On the former(a) hand, other scholars describe cultural change as a radical event (Currie and Brown, 2003572). An additional paradox revolves around the focus of cultural change. Whereas some theorists view cultural change as a change focus either on the context or process, there is the argument that cultural change occurs in a holistic approach that views all aspects comprehensively. In addition, there is a prevalent i deology that organizational culture change takes place on a macro scale. However, a counter opinion highlights that the organizational change occurs on a micro scale, which highlights a focus on individual perceptions. There is a surging debate on whether organizations should adopt an epistemological approach in reorganizing the management practices or whether they should shift focus to exploitation and exploration (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011188). Beer and Nohria described the contradictions between the theoretical archetypes E and A that seek to seek the reasons behind organizational ch