Experts in change management have always emphasized on the on the significance of developing organizational readiness in recommendation for change. The article Shipton develops strategies that will lead to organizational change. From his discussion, organizational theories fundamentally provide a look at how to predict, control and provide explanations to the culture, structure and interactions within an organization. I completely agree with the discussion developed by Shifton (2006), especially for the reason complexity in the nature of organization. From this discussion it is evident that the author tries to provide answers to the question that revolves around the nature of organization.
Presently we are aware that there are a variety of factors that influence business environments and outcomes. These factors have the ability to run goal procedures and values of the business while affecting leaders at the same time. Since the nature of organization can be defined by numerous factors, organizational theories discussed by Shifton (2006), provide an overlap of, organizational behavior, economics and ultimately organizational psychology. In response to the strategies developed by the author, I believe that the advice of developing organizational learning to influence organizational change seems reasonable to me because it has been backed up by scientific bases that are unlimited.
To bring out the difference between comparison and confusion, the author in his discussion brings out further the difference between individual and organization change with significant focus on readiness for change (Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, and Mattila, 2001). Just like individual readiness, the readiness for change in an organization has received extensive subjection to theoretical development. Apart from using empirical studies to show how organization learning and change can be developed, the author addresses important functions of the value of organizational change by members and how they manage to favorably address the determinants of change. I completely agree with the four quadrants developed by the author in addressing organizational learning.
The reason for agreeing with this model is because the author focuses on analyzing organizational operations since many approaches to the same analysis have been promising but do not deliver. However, even in the high level analysis, I still think that the author did not effectively break down each quadrant to ways that will ensure effectiveness. This is because of the challenges that are ever present in organizational procedures. A major challenge that the author did not address is in line with the specific measure of organizational that should operationalize changes in both individual and organizational learning.
I believe that organizational learning comprises of lots of activities that should not necessarily revolve around individual operations of becoming better in particular operations. For this reason therefore, these theories can be advanced to highlight specific measures that mitigate organizational learning (Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, and Mattila, 2001). Strategies such as the use of competency traps can be used to provide conditions under which organizational learning can be made effective. Further empirical studies should also focus on environmental aspects that make environmental learning efficient. Since all learning begin by internal processes, I believe that the same learning should be developed around individual concepts of learning in order for the whole process of organizational learning to be complete.
Further, future empirical studies might break down individual process in which organizational learning should be implemented while at the same time investigate on measures that are designed to increased efficiency of learning and effectiveness within organizations. Fundamentally, as discussed by Gherardi et al., it is essential to differentiate between individual needs as a separate entity and organizational needs as a separate entity.
