Paradoxical Nature Of Organizational Culture, As Incorporating Essay

Paradoxical Nature Of Organizational Culture, As Incorporating Elements Of Both Stability And Change - Essay Example These paradoxes, according to popular opinion are a consequence of socially constructed management discourses, whereby concepts such as change and flexibility, centralization and decentralization, flexibility and control etc., tend to co-exist, and at times, encouraged and perceived as inevitable elements for organizational success. For the purpose of this study, the predominant and widely recognized organizational paradox of change and stability, will be discussed at length. Change and flexibility, with regard to organizational environment, are perceived as two of the most inherent and crucial tools of achieving organizational growth and success. Companies, all over the world, constantly use these elements to drive their organizations towards growth and ensure long-term sustainability in the marketplace, particularly in situations whereby the external environment is characterized by strong competition or when the companies are caught in the midst of a crisis. This paper aims to disc uss the paradoxical nature of organizational culture, with regard to incorporating the widely popular albeit highly contradictory elements of change and stability. ... , managers today, encourage continuous innovation, improvement and change within organizations in order to address the challenges posed by the economic environment. The management is faced with the persistent challenge of adapting to the continuous innovations taking place in the external environment and devise and implement appropriate change management policies within their organizations, accordingly. It is on account of this very reason that various authors and researchers have concluded that change takes precedence over stability in contemporary corporate environment (Daft, 2010). It is a widely established fact that in order to survive in this highly dynamic corporate environment, the firms are required to include elements of innovation, flexibility as well as change from time to time. However, at the same time, they are also required to ensure stability and reliability (Farjoun 2010). The existence of this duality of change and stability, is one of the most widely popular and e ssential paradoxes in the field of organizational management (March & Simon, 1958; Thompson, 1967; Weick, 1979) which has received widespread attention and recognition in the field of management research, over the years (Farjoun, 2010; Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006; Leana & Barry, 2000; Lok, 2006; Nelson & Winter: 1982; Schultze & Stabell, 2004; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Literature review There is a high level of awareness within the field of management, regarding the existence of paradoxes ultimately leading to a rise in complexity and ambiguity (Farson, 1996; Handy, 1994; O’Connor, 1995). Most of these terms are widely popular and predominant in changing organizations wherein change is given crucial significance (Lewis, 2000). Van de Ven and Poole (1988), hence, making the concept of