Lade Inhalt...

The role of psychological ownership in influencing evolutionism in organizational change

©2017 Projektarbeit 61 Seiten


The experience of failure in most organzational changes call for another in facilitating it in a cordially manner. Psychological ownership has been explained as one of the influences potentially bringing about evolutionism in organizational changes. Thus, research at a university in Tanzania strived to explore such influence and, if useful, the set backs in organizational changes may have been solved.

In that aim, the focus of the research has been centered on solving the current problem rather than a problem probing. Using a triangulation method through questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions and secondary dat,a a sample of 50 workers gave the results that have been used qualitatively to describe some phenomenon important in revampling organizational changes.

These results have shown that psychological ownership can positively influence organizational changes. However since organizational changes is a continuous thing in contemporary business, likewise on the same parameter some researches need also to be continuous.


Table of Content

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 The Problem to the Study
1.3 Research Objectives
1.4 Scope of this Study
1.5 Justification for this Study
1.6 Methodology

2. Conceptual Analysis
2.1 Organizations
2.2 Change
2.3 Evolution and Evolutionary Change
2.4 Organizational Change
2.5 Psychological Ownership

3. Theoretical Reviews on Organizational Change

4. Reviews on Organizational Change Models

5. Reviews on Trends in Organizational Changes and the Gap in Literatures

6. Reviews on Some Notable Challenges toward Organizational Changes

7. Findings and Discussions on Strategizing Organizational Changes

8. Conclusive Remarks on Organizational Changes

9. References

Figures, Graphs, Tables and Charts

Figure 01: Ideal Evolution- Turning and existing into a different feature with time

Figure 02: The influence of Psychological Ownership to Organizational Change

Graph 01: Definition of (ideal) Organizational Change

Graph 02: Fisher’s Change Curve

Table 01: The Results of Respondents on Psychological Ownership

Table 02: Relevance of Loyalty

Chart 01: Postive Attitudes for Psychological Ownership


The experience of failure in most organzational changes call for another in facilitating it in a cordially manner. Psychological ownership has been explained as one of the influences potentially for bringing evolutionism in organizational changes. Thus the research in one University in Tanzania striveed to explore such influence and if useful the set backs in organizational changes may have been solved. In that aim the focus of the research have been centered on solving the current problem rather than a problem probing. Using a trianulation method through questionnaires, interviews, focussed group discussions and secondary data a sample of 50 workers gave the results that have been used qualitatively to describe some phenomenon important in revampling organizational changes. These results have shown that psychological ownership can influence positive oranizational changes. However since organizational changes is a continuous thing in contemporary business, likewise on the same parameter some researches need also to be continuous.

Key words: Psychological ownership; organizational change; loyalty; affection; commitment; and participatory


ADKAR- Awareness , desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement

FGD- Focused Group Discussions

L – Latin

ML- middle Latin

ROCE- return on capital employed

ROI- return on investment

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Traditionally,organizational changes are revolutionary as leadership keeps on changing,visions and styles, which are embeded in leadership,also keep on changing.The continuance of such programs are always at stake. This stringed relationshipmakes it difficulty for transfering and sustaining changes from one era to the next.

After independance, Ujamaa policy was among the early organizational change initiatives in Tanzania. Then afterthe retirement of its inventor and visionary leader, the late Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, and eventually his death led to disruption for Ujamaa changes as no one currently speaks about it. Ujamaa is more polarized than before,and is brought to an end (Ibhawoh & Dibua, 2003; Body-Evans, 2013). Though no government leader has spoken boldly the demise of the Ujamaa policy, but it is explicit and apparent that Tanzania is no longer following the Ujamaa policy after the late Mwalimu Nyerere. The Tanzania experiment has failed (Ergas, 1980). Ujamaa was ideal in principle, but the way it was enforced shows it was not effective in practice (Essays-UK, 2013). This exemplify and amplify on the failure of visionary, leader driven, and top down organizational changes that has left memorable scars in the country.

Worldwide reports for success in organizational changes show a similar trend, for many organizations engaged in changes realize that about 70% of their projected efforts is a failure (Kotter, 2012). When the changes fails in organizations it is not only the changes have failed. But more astonishingly most efforts in organizational changes produce unbearable consequences to organizations such as mental stress; and failed afforts causing tremendous resistance and burnout in people, loss on employees’ morale, and turmoil on organizational culture (Wickkford, 2013; Anderson & Anderson, 2001). For instance burnout is an emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion whereby a person feels wholly drained, and incapable of meeting other social obligations. People in a burnout condition are not well effective. This world view though differs in magnitude is shared by many scholars (Ford & Ford 2010; Burnes & Jackson, 2011; Maurer, 2010; Hamlin et al, in Song, 2009). Constintently studies around the world reveal that after decades of study,untold investmet, best efforts and scholars, and enormous consultation; most organizational change efforts still underperform, fail, or make things more worse than expected; no full success and fail to achieve desired results (Kotter & Cohen, 2015 ; McFarland, 2012; Seo et al, 2012).

The ood thing is that organizations depict civilization and have a formal orientations whereby one or a few call others to join together, or organizing (Czariawska, 2008). The originality of organization is as natural as the existance of mankind. Civillization as part of change for human development came for shapping the future, adaptation to conditions than natural selection (Trigger, 1998 in Trigger, 2003). However civilization looks as a need driven and there is no vivid indication of organized leadership visionary emphasis on organizational change.

Changes in organizations has several stratified inferrences. These includes planning process, implementation, reactions, results and consequences for innovation and the adaptation to environmental situation. As long as organizational change infers also adaptation to conditions that foresee on strategic business competitive advantages, it is evidenced that organizations can adaptively evolve on themselves; self ability to keep them moving forward and instituting desired changes without being squizzed by external force. That they need to have a capability within to undergo effective but smooth changes.

People’s commitment both to their work and to thier organization is a significant indication of willingness for future competitive advantage. When governed by adaptation it may bring a great impact in contrast with current leadership led initiations which is similar to adoptation or compelling others to take a course of action or direction. But leadership is important in bringing changes to the organization, but the need for organizational change is necessarily for all stakeholders in the organization. This may reduce lack of participation since it has been observed that many failure of organizational change programs are linked to employee resistance (Hendrickson & Gray, 2012). Hendrickson and Gray point out resistence to oranizational change is the inabilty or unwillingness to accept changes due to perceptions of threatening or negative outcome to individuals.

Naturally people adapt from one environment to another. Since people are consciously adaptive to environmental changes, likely it is high regarded that they can also adapt appropriately in organizational changes. This could be the expectation from organizational changes with an evolutionary mind that focuses on a broad stakeholder approach specifically from the grassroots. The question is on how this intuitive experiment can be instilled in the people who are part of organizations as they focus their eyes on organizational changes. Thus evolutionism is contrasted with adoptation in organizational change that is sensed as imposition on the workers. Imposition is a tradition based on a practitioner-driven intervention-oriented approach to effecting organizational change via individual change (Lowe, 2004; Pierce, Gardner, & Dunham, 2002; Beitler, 2005). This makes people react in a denial, inaction or depression manner (Agocs; in Agocs & Jain, 2001); and sometimes resist passsively or actively (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin,2009) . While active resistance occurs where people are taking specific and deliberate action to resist the change, passive resistance occurs when people do not take specific actions but exhibits not wholly supportive.

Since Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (2010) comment that successful organizational change is possible if we look at our organizational experience with new eyes. What are these eyes? This new eye is the intuitive willingness of their participation in organizational changes. This provides a room for evolutionary organizational changes. In the words of Durand evolution applies to an entity and characterizes a process of transformation (2006). He notes that it is a series of identifiable events in alteration of essential characteristics. Therefore he says it is a probabilistic sequence of variation, selection and retention events. Thus evolution likened with life cycle answers to a dictated mode of change. Within such description evolution is not by chance but a planned and have certain pronounced promises. This background highlights another option for processing organizational change.

A challenge is on how to invigorate an evolutionary organizational change which is only possible with a high degree almost naturally adapted to commitment which can be manifested, but not limited to participation, selflesnes, loyalty, and valor in members of organization for sustainable changes. Commitement is affectionate and brings a sense of psychological ownership: A willingness to get involved and a binding to a sense of action (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). However ownership also increases commitment, thus there is an interdependence between commitment and ownership. In this sense people are the most important element toward organizational change, but if organizations are unable to capture their willing; that is ownership in commitment and affection, they can create havoc in the whole process of organizational change.

Since organizational change is a worldwide experience Tanzania is not an exception from sharing this experience. A Greek philosopher Heraclitus declared there is nothing permanent except change. Thereforein line with the permanence of changes the study was conducted in one higher learning organization to see how does it assume this important aspect, the organizational change conducively. This has to explore on how the organization undertakes evolutionism in organizational change in the current market opportunity for competitive advantaes.

1.2 The Problem to the Study

The concurrent problem with organizational changes is the mismatch between the plans and the actual results due to failures. One of the reasons is that people working in the organizations do not buy in such plans and remains for the leadership either to forge for organizational changes or become frustrated. Forging means they are doing it without the people which is a dangerous exercise. With all the efforts to carry on changes in organizations if the people are not given the first place such efforts will collapse. Peoples’ mind are usually not directed to the changes for positive action and thus the realization of benefits from them become futile and resources set for become wasteful. Such change programs erode severely the organization and the human resource.

1.3 Research Objectives

The research intended to find a smooth way of running organizational changes rather than the current common ones. To reach such finality the research used the following as specific objectives:-

1. To identify the relationship between the process of organizational change and evolutionary mind set of the workers

2. To describe the role of psychological ownership in influencing organizational change

1.4 Scope of this Study

Organizational change encompasses change in people, organizational structure, organizational strategy, technology, processes and others. However this study has solely dealt on the change in people, and intrinsically looked on the contribution of their pshycholoical ownership toward organizational change. The study was primarily carried within the University of Arusha as a study case. This implies the perceptions of workers, facult and staff about psychological ownership that supports the whole processes of organizational change from its initiation, implementing andsustainaining it.

The researcher has confined himself to the elements for influencing a high degree of willingness to organizational change which may increase organizational competitive advantage.Moreover the focus of the research have been centered on solving the current problem rather than a problem probing.

1.5 Justification for this Study

Change in organizations as exemplified by a system notion affect not a few, but somewhat a wholesome. When understood in this context, it means there is a need to formulate a reasonable chance of successfully bringing in organizational changes to the betterment, usefulness and benefit of all stakeholders. Amongst the focus of organizational change is the futuristic advantage and wellbeing which means not only survival, but sustainance. This futuristic insight need to converge the interests of the organization transcendly, resonantly, and desirously.

The future of the organization depends on the present. That is most organizations find themselves in what they are because of the inputs invested previously by the actors. This is the case of most organizations including the University of arusha in Tanzania. The way the members envision the organization in the context of the future challenges and opportunities overarch for the whole in a period of time. Therefore precise inputs with optimum throughputs may bring appropriate output. This justifies for searching the ways to increase success in organizaational changes. However there has beeen an alarming trend in organizational changes with huge failures (Trader-Leigh, 2002; Kotter, 2012; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005; Hendrickson & Gray, 2012). Thus failures have been the experience of most organizaional changes. These slander and ill felt lives seem to be wastage of resources and need to find an end in planned organizational changes.

In conducting this research the researcher believed that there are possibilities to facilitate successful organizational change- the profitably usage of competitive advantages toward the future. Resonantly the researcher believes that failures in organizational changes reside in people’s misallinment to the ‘future’ of their organization.

1.6 Methodology

This study was based on a survey done recently and utilized qualitative methods using two variables for psychological ownership as an influence evolutionism to orgnizational changes. Therefore the dependent variable is psychological owership. Though the independent variables for psychological ownership are many but the study has taken into consideration only participation, loyalty, readiness, commitment, and affection. Questionnaires, Focused Group Discussions (FGD) and interviews were used to gather the data and there after transcribing and inscribing so as to categorize into format of resemblance.

These data were then analysed and interpreted to secure any meaning in relation to the topic by triangulation method: A search for factors that caninfluenceevolutionism for consistenceorganizational change. The sample comprized a representation of 50 respondents from a workforce of 200 people at the University of Arusha in Tanzania. The design was a simple random sampling due to its simplicity. This has contributed extensively to the understanding of organizational processes in the context of change by testing the consequences of employees’ high degree of voluntarism (evolutionism) on the possibility of sustaining organizational change. The general analysis was based on literature reviews as cited in this study and the primary data collected from the sample.

The study has also taken into consideration that organizational change is a sum of individualistic changes which people optimize peoples’ attitudes in different units of the organization, as they perceive and act toward the organization’s main objective. So in bringing changes to organization people within such an organization need to accept and become changed specifically in their attitudes or rather mindset. These individualistic adjustment are related to their evolutionism to organizational change. Thus the human variable is invested with other variables significant for changes processes. These variabless considered for bringing psychological ownership are affection and commitment and which need to have a positive effect toward organizational change. Hence the discussion in the study has based on qualitative research using triangulation on both primary and secondary data. As noted above the secondary data have been cited as well as referenced appropriately.

2. Conceptual Analysis

One of the core processes in tackling the subject is to understand it. In understanding the theme of organizational change and its related concepts within it lays strong significance in understanding the whole nature of organizational changes. These words and concepts have been dealt with sequentially: Organizations, change, evolution and evolutionary change, organizational change and psychological ownership. These definitions have been intentional in creating awareness on the meaning and usage of these words and concepts in this study for betterment in practical use.

2.1 Organizations

The word organization is of the same root with organism.An organism is a living thing with different functioning parts linked in a complex manner but effective for sustenance of its existence. The show that the word organization stems from mid-15 century usage; act of organizing, from M.L. organizationem (nom. organizatio), noun of action from organizare, from L. organum, instrument, organ; meaning system, or establishment. However organizations under discussion should be differentiated from other establishment from other species since these consider the human agents. In line with this Beinhocker (2006) says:

Organizations are made up of individual agents who dynamically interact with each other; agents’ rules of behavior and networks of interactions change in response to changes in the environment; and agents’ interactions produce emergent macro-level patterns of behavior.

This definition has three important things: The composition, the processes and the outcomes. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines organization as the act or process of organizing or of being organized; the condition or manner of being organized. The definition has one inter alia important thing that organization exhibits orderliness. The Business Dictionary defines organization as a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meeta need or pursue collective goals: These structures determines relationships between activities and members, and subdivides and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authorities to carry out different tasks. This definition is very comprehensive, but can be redefined as a structured social unit with various relationships meant for differentiating functions, roles and responsibilities that makes the unit pursue its expected goals collectively.

But again from organizational theories perspectives organizations are organized collectivities (Cleggy & Bailey, 2008). Cleggy and Bailey (ibid) continue to mention these important collectivities as goal directed, resource dependent, boundary maintaining, and socially constructed system of human activity. They attest that organizations comprises of deliberate design, status structures, orientation toward an environment with shared understanding among participants, and substitutability of personnel who are entitled to various organizational benefits. Basically their choice and usage of words carefully suffice the major parts of organizations and their existence. Example goal directed means organizational priority; resource dependent means aligning of organizational capability and competence toward strategic business advantage; boundary maintaining means a distinguishing factor between the members and other people from the society; and the activity system means an interdependent component between the members. This view is shared by Aldrick and Rueff (2006) who give a bit shortened form by saying organizations are goal directed boundary maintaining and socially constructed system of human activity.

Organization is a combination of individuals, people or groups trying to influence others to achieve certain objectives by using different processes and technologies in a structured way with a social arrangement of certain groups in a formal way to achieve certain objectives and having well defined boundaries and limitations (Senior & Fleming, 2006). Senior and Fleming help us understand that organizations cannot exist in vacuum but need to be and influence the society. They can influence the society in a number of ways but that may include provision of services, products and processes. Hodgson (2006) states that they are special institutions that involve (a) criteria to establish their boundaries and to distinguish their members from nonmembers, (b) principles of sovereignty concerning who is in charge, and (c) chain of command delineating responsibilities within the organization.This definition also shows the composition, the institutions of governance and purposes that proves for organization’s existence.

Organizations are dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution that contain multiple parts, which interact with one another and the environment (Brown & Eisenhardt; in Amagoh, 2008). From this definition organizations are consistently adjusting within their setting. They are dynamic since they are characterized by constant change, functions, or progress. They also have interactive parts which means with distinctive interests. An organization is an orderly group of people with a definite purpose in a social entity.

Organization refers to a group of people or an association. The group may be formal or informal, depicting well defined, structured and acceptable roles and responsibilities for specified objective(s). Within this context, organizations are duty bond and assign definite responsibilities to each member, either formally or informally. Talking on the organizational environment Mason (2007) say it comprises of a set of relationships between agents or stakeholders and other factors that may be beyond the control of the organization. This understanding gives us an idea of the place of organizations in the society and also shows organizations’ existence being determined by relationships within and without.

But why should human societies form organizations? Lobo (2008) clarifies that organizations exist to secure and advance the interests of their members within the existing institutional framework, while constantly seeking to influence that framework so as to achieve greater advantages and benefits. But again Beinhocker (2006) discussing on the organizations’ roles says that they are better vehicles for exploiting business plan space and thus better vehicles for wealth creation. A business plan space looks as a business opportunity timeframe. Thus organizations are best understood as the formally or informally coordinated vehicles for the promotion or protection of a mix of individual and shared interests and ideas. Favorably organizations are systems, and in the complexity paradigm, systems are usually considered to be evolving or self-organizing into something new (Byeon, 2005; Ferlie, 2007; White, 2000).

These definitions for organization are central to the purpose of this study for human side of organizational change has many epochs of relationships. Again the definitions provided serve for both understanding and comparison but generally organization looks as a group of people, a team or social entities that is structured, goal directed and work for a common task by sharing and coordinating knowledge, skills, experiences and activities from individuals. Hence we may conclude by saying organization is a proven social group of people that exists and depicts certain form of governance which enables it to accomplish some desired functions and goals considered beneficial to its stakeholders without destroying the society.

2.2 Change

An ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus says, there is nothing permanent except change, and nothing endures except change (Knox, 2010; Koppes, 2005). This is still a de facto even today. The traditional view about change in organizations was that of a linear process of gradual and incremental with organizations progressing in a logical sequence of stages over time (Marsh, 2009). Letter this view was expanded to a nonlinear view (Chang, Bordia, & Duck, 2003). Contemporary literature shows change as a continuous process. Change is the adoption of an idea or behavior, whether a system, process, policy, organizational structure and culture, program, or even services that are new to the organization (Cerna, 2013; Bevan, 2011; Karakas, 2007).

Again, change is the moving away from the present state toward a future state (Adamowicz et al, in Snowball, 2007). Change is one of the most critical aspects of effective management. Change is the coping process of moving from the present state to a desired state that individuals, groups and organizations undertake in response to dynamic internal and external factors that alter current realities (Bloisi, Cook & Hunsaker, 2003). But again Nelson and Quick (2013) define change as the transformation or modification of an organization and/or its stakeholders.

A change in an organization is a deliberate new idea, process, service, product, technology or strategic approach that is brought in for the purpose of improving or disproving certain characteristics toward organizational success especially for competitive advantage.It is a process, by which an organization identifies, examines and implements new ideas (Austin & Claassen, 2008). Change is a transformation of mindsets and behavior which eventually transforms the way of working together (Anderson & Anderson, 2009). This definition concern much about the people and importantly these are the one who determine the success or failure of organizational change.Change is a movement of an organization from its current state to some future and hopefully more effective state (Pierce, Gardner, & Dunham, 2002).

To change is to move from the present to the future, from a known state to a relatively unknown state (Nandeshwar & Jayasimha, 2010) . Change may be further understood when viewed from an evolutionary perspective as transitional, transformational, or developmental. The transitional change is the one focusing mainly on improvement of the current state through minor and small degree of adjustments. Transformational change is the one represented change in the fundamentals of the organization portraying a radical shift that rejects current patterns and questions underlying status quo of mind-sets. And a developmental change is an organizational change in which what already exists is continually improved but no radical progress is achieved or aimed at. Thus the other word for developmental change is incremental change.

Morel and Ramanujan as quoted in Amagoh (2008) define change in organizations as a response to intra and inter relationships toward adaptations. However a change as a concept does not stand independently, it is a social process affected by a variety of causes and concepts; and changes are produced on the basis of several interconnected causes and effects (Sullivan, 2004; Amagoh, 2008). This view presents change as a resultant of some other forces of which this study is interested to search for.

A fundamental change implies a transformation in the ethos or culture of the system, prompting a new way of thinking and acting that will not only ensure the future of the organization but also put the purpose of its existence into focus. In general the word change means to alter, to make something different or better ortransformation of any existing thing by adding some values or giving up for something else. Change may be any action or set of actions having some directions to do something new or to amend something.

In this study whenever the word change will be used it should signify to make or do differently from the common way of practice, existence or previous setup. Change brings the idea of heteromorphic (being differentiated) rather than isomorphism (being alike).Change is being characterized by two aspects: Fundamental departure from the existing practice or minor adjustment to current practices (Austin & Claassen, 2008). Change makes something to differ from its previous observed features, thus it is an end of one thing and a start of another. Change is a process and not an event (Sullivan & Tillman, 2006).

2.3 Evolution and Evolutionary Change

But what is evolution? Literature shows evolutionary organization theory uses four generic processes -- variation, selection, retention, and competition -- to explain how organizations emerge and evolve (Pedraza, 2013). However most literatures describe three stages only - the variation, selection and retention (Clegg & Bailey, 2008; Durand, 2006). These stages of evolution as related to changes have been clarified by Clegg and Bailey (2008). They say variation is a continuous process of generation of ideas for the improvement of the status quo; and internal selection is the evaluation and screening of the change proposals to identify those worth of implementation. According to Clegg and Bailey (2008) the final stage, that is the retention is the translation of selected ideas into either novel or adapted routine. However if the procedures left as they are, there seem to be a leeping from internal selection to the retention. The application or practical implementation and experience has been skipped.

According to Pedraza (2013) this facilitates integrating strategy-making as adaptive organizational capability into evolutionary theory and illuminates facets of strategy-making that other theoretical perspectives do not contemplate. The idea of evolution applies to an entity and characterizes a process of transformation (Durand, 2006). However this explanation puts both evolution and change at par which is not the intention of this study. In this study evolution has to be looked as innately built in capability in an organization that enhance it for adaptability toward organizational changes. This is of prime interest to this study. It is backed by self-motivated, readiness, eagerness, progressive, irreversible, voluntary, continuous and radical changes in a given space of time. The citation of evolution as another term for change should be argued because this usage is different from profound contextual literature.

Many share the clustering manner of evolution and change. Example Greiner (in Malizia, Cannavale & Maimone, 2017) has not shown the distinction between organizational evolution and organizational change. Evolution as commonly known is gradual change about characteristics of species over successive generation. This gradual development brings a more complex form adaptive and resistance to unexpected and unfriendly conditions. However in this context organizational evolutionism means the auspicious process of growing into a quite different thing given the right input and time.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 01: Ideal Evolution- Turning and existing into a different feature with time (Source-Research, 2017)

Initially the organization like an organism should have that capability brought by external challenges and become more equipped or adaptive to address them for its survival. So in evolutionary organizational change we need to put in the organization the qualities that can make it change in consistence to the needs. Change as an evolutionary process is when the changing forces come from within the organization itself (Gibson & Barsade, 2003). This treats change as a construct and a result of how the organization is built what it has (see Figure 01 above).

From the figure above evolution suggests three distinctive but important stages: The starting point, the intermediate and the final stage. The final stage is the goal that the organization intends to reach. In contrast the observable feature is that the initiatives in change management mainly base on revolution. Literatures advocate for radical change which may simply mean revolutionary process in nature. With evolutionary concept in mind organizational change should be planned in regard with appropriate environment (i.e. Situational) at certain times and not at any time changes can be implemented in the organization depending on the level of the need and the way the members perceive it.

Therefore it focuses on the ability of some few individuals known as visionary people or simply leaders and not the organization in its totality. This view hampers expectation if the administration is not in favor of anticipated changes. The other controversy depicted from revolution concept is that cooperation is short lived and mostly out of personal gains.

2.4 Organizational Change

The first thing to note as a stepping stone in understanding organizational change is that organizational change though may seem focused on a particular sub entity it is still an institutional change that affect the whole. Distinctively organizational change is either a response to changes in environment or as a preemptive action (Damanpour, in Austin & Claassen, 2008). That is to say it is based on external forces or some other aspects within. Organizational change is the movement of an organization from its current state to some future and hopefully more effective state (Pierce, Gardner, & Dunham, 2002). Many have different notion on organizational change: Introduction of a new internal process plan, coordination and standardization of internal process, entering global markets, integrating companies and responding to upheaval in competitive environment (Spector, 2007).

Organizational change is a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity (Van de Ven & Poole, in van de Ven & Sun, 2011). It is a planned effort to improve a business’s capacity to get work done and better serve its market; and it is about people (Petrescu, 2010). However as observed from the background organizational change routinely occurs in the context of failure of some sort, and it challenges the way things are done (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Thus makes organizational change as a resultant of some factors seemingly unbearable by the members into the future of the organization.Bitonio (2011) says Change managementisa set of processes that isemployedto ensure that significant changes are implementedin anorderly controlledand systematic fashionto effectorganizationalchange.

A change in organization refers to any alteration in activities or task (Dawson, in Hargie, & Tourish, 2004). Moreover Kanter, Stein, and Jick, (1992) define change as an analytical process of the past in eliciting the present actions as required for the future. This definition is important since it express change is anticipated in the future but designed in the present by contrasting and comparing with the past. In the words of Wirth (2004) organizational change can be described as numerous individuals undergoing a similar change process at the same time. Each individual will be making choices relative to her personal situation and the culture that binds the group together (Wirth, 2004).



ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Paperback)
981 KB
Institution / Hochschule
Institute of Accountancy Arusha – Management
2017 (Dezember)
Psychological ownership; organizational change; loyalty; affection; commitment; and participatory

Titel: The role of psychological ownership in influencing evolutionism in organizational change