The Kind of Framework that Would Be Required in The Creation of Change

It falls upon leaders to examine the current state of their organizations in contrast to where they need them to be headed so that they can assess whether or where change is required within their organizations. While the process of creating change can be difficult, the use of effective change models, techniques and approaches can ensure success. In the case where a president of a Fortune 500 corporation found that his organization acted in accordance with the listed items in the “Psychopathic Disorder Checklist” and wished to change these characteristics, he would have to come up with some form of framework to approach the challenge of effecting change. This paper examines the kind of framework that would be required in the creation of change within such an organization, the areas where the leader would be expected to start, who would be involved, and how the problem would generally be addressed. According to hare (1993), psychopathological behavior can be exploitative and often has little regard for social responsibility.

Some of the characteristics of the psychopathic include the use of violence, charm, deceit or other methods to ruthlessly prey on others so as to get what one needs. Symptoms include egocentricity, a lack of conscience or even a sense of guilt, pathological lying, disregard for the law, a lack of empathy, the repeated violations of social norms, as well as a history of making victims out of others. Jacobs, Witteloostuijn, and Christe-Zeyse (2013) warn that organizational change is a risky, multifaceted endeavor with most change initiatives not only failing but also incurring high opportunity and process costs that far outweigh the benefits of having a change in the first place. The leader who is intent on spearheading change in his organization should be aware that both the external environment and the internal dynamics of the organization act hand-in-hand to influence the meaning of whatever managerial practices are implemented.

To best handle the fact that a change process must be handled correctly, an astute leader must institute a framework for changing the characteristics within his organization. In this case, an input-throughput-output model would be best suited to ensure the role of organizational members was recognized in creating change, especially because such a process would have to affect in a large part the corporate culture at the organization. The input would be related to the antecedents of – or period before – the change even as the throughput would refer to the process of change, while the output would be concerned with the after – the consequences of organizational change. The reasons for changing the characteristics of the organization as it is would mainly be influenced by the fact that an organization’s identity matters not only to its internal audience but also to its external one. In instances where stakeholders perceived code violations or the fact that some of their expectations are not being met, the organization might be on the fast track to losing its legitimacy where key external audiences are concerned (Jacobs, Witteloostuijn, and Christe-Zeyse, 2013). In the case of our Fortune 500 Company, the leader must examine the corporate culture that has helped propagate such callous practices as those that warrant the company to act in accordance with each of the items on the Psychopathic Disorder Checklist.

Culture, according to Bolman and Deal (2008), is what makes it possible for the sharing of similar values, outlooks, ideas, goals, and traditions in certain groups of people. And since people are at the center of companies, they take to these organizations the strategies that they themselves have adapted to suit their needs. In essence, a company’s culture almost always stems from the example set up by its leaders. It is remarkably easy for things to go wrong, particularly because managers will often operate on the basis on intuition, and rely a lot more on hunches, firsthand observations, and judgment that is obtained from experience.

Transforming a corporation into one that is more conscientious is likely to be a hefty challenge due to the fact that companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. As they do not have innate moral impulses, they are systematically driven to achieve profit-making objectives, and acting in a manner akin to that of a psychopath may have numerous short-term benefits, particularly toward the fulfillment of their objectives. The fact that corporate directors and officers are obligated to act in the best interest of their companies where money making is concerned only goes on to show why a leader bent on instituting change would have quite a few hurdles in his path (Niose, 2011). It would behoove the leader, then, to constitute a project team so that he could oversee the process of effecting change in his organization by ensuring that negative employee attitudes were addressed and handled, and unproductive management behavior was identified and adjusted accordingly. Effective organizational change can only be accomplished where the change is clearly defined and aligned to the company’s goals. The project team in charge of this process would be well advised to critically review the changes required to the organization’s objectives and performance goals. This way, any changes contemplated would be financial, ethically, and strategically sound, with the bonus of having quantifiable efforts and inputs, and value that could be easily determined. The impact of the change would then have to be determined, as would those who would be (most) affected, as well as how such a change would be received.

Changing the culture at our Fortune 500 Company would help it become more competitive by boosting its appeal and level of trust from its customers, and enhance its corporate image and identity as a company that had now evolved to become socially responsible in the manner it conducted business. Virtually all employees would be affected in one way or the other, particularly if training was required to ensure that they, as brand ambassadors in their various capacities at the company, would need support to adjust to different skills.

For a change, particularly that which concerns mindsets, to be effective, employees must be shown the point for it and agree with it, and the reward and recognition systems that are part of the system must be aligned with the new behavior expected of them. They must also have the skills to adapt to the change as required and, whenever possible, employees must see the people they look up to modeling such change actively (Williams, 2010). As such, the leader must develop a communication strategy that well communicates the change journey as well as the timeline for how the change will be incrementally communicated, and provide effective training, whether structured or informal, that can teach the appropriate knowledge and skills to the employees. Requiring that the managers under the company’s president stay true to the newly defined path of being good behavior models would help accelerate the uptake of proper corporate behavior within the ranks in the company. The last two steps of ensuring that change was effected in the organization would be seeing to the implementation of a support structure and measuring the change process.

A support structure would be able to assist the employees emotionally and practically adjust to the change required of them even as they built proficient behaviors and skills necessary to achieve their objective. Given the nature of a psychopathic organization, support such as counseling services would be necessary, as would mentorship or even an open-door policy with management which would facilitate the fielding of relevant questions as they arose.

Eventually, there would need to figure out if the change process actually aided the company in achieving its business goals, whether it was successful, and whether there might have been anything else done differently. A business leader who is intent on changing his organization’s culture so that it reflects that of a company that, while competitive, still cares about its stakeholders and is committed to playing fair and well within the law must be aware of the fact that such an endeavor would be highly resisted. It is significantly easier for a company to embrace negative externalities that may be bad for society but very good for the business as they are either cost-saving or cost-neutral. With long-term goals for the business in mind, however, the astute leader will understand the need for ensuring that his company is well-adjusted and has a great corporate image as it bears a lot more positive results in the long-term than a company that is deemed to be psychopathological.