Organizational Change: Principles of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

This reflective essay discusses the principles of ethical organizational change and corporate social responsibility. It covers models for achieving these requirements and how to apply them. The essay also discusses the role of change agents in successful change implementation.

Organizational Change
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

Table of Contents
Principles underlying ethical organizational change.......................................................................3
Models underlying the ethical organizational change..................................................................4
Principles underlying corporate social responsibility......................................................................5
Models underlying the corporate social responsibility................................................................6
Applying the change models...........................................................................................................6
Applying Kotter’s model to achieve ethical change principles...................................................7
Applying Warrick model in achieving corporate social responsibility requirements..................8
Change agent...................................................................................................................................9
Reflection.........................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................11

Introduction
The reflective essay will focus on ethical organizational change and principles of corporate
social responsibility in organizational change. The essay is based on the fact that successful
change can be achieved if it does not conflict with ethical requirements and at the same time if it
is in line with all stakeholders.
Principles underlying ethical organizational change
Burnes (2009) describe ethics as moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the
conduct of an activity. Martin & Woldring (2001) proposes that organization and employees
need to be aware of possible ethical consequences in four main areas: the choice of the approach
to change, the choice of the goal of change, the responsibilities of the administrators and the
manipulation.
With the choice of the approach or combination of change approaches that is considered
best for the situation, administrators and employees must recognize the ethical aspects derived
from the criteria that will be used. Does the manager or change agent have an interest already
established in using a particular technique, and the other alternatives will not receive a fair
consideration? Do people who participate in the organizational diagnosis who pre-determine the
identified problems have prejudices? and in this way influences the chosen change approach?
A study conducted by Von Tonder (2007) suggested that an important ethical dilemma in the
area of responsibility of administrators responds to the question of who are the goals and values
that should guide the effort of change.
Based on Von Tonder (2007), it can be deduced that When the methods of change or
their combination are determined, it is best in this case for managers and employees to recognize
the possibility of ethical problems arising during such a choice. It is understood that certain
methods of change may reveal undesirable aspects of their activities for participants: professional
unsuitability, lack of required knowledge and skills, negative attitude to work, etc. As noted
above, the changes may affect the redistribution of power and influence, may involve
participants in political intrigues and thereby negate the changes. Changes can also be associated
with demotion and staff reduction, changes in the compensation package and the elimination of
previous benefits. All this should be widely discussed in the organization in order to reduce the
level of resistance to change..

Models underlying the ethical organizational change
One of the best models that can be used to achieve these ethical requirements is the
model proposed by Warrick (2005). The model covers three key elements. The first element
entails preparing for change. Preparing for change typifies what might be considered "ideal" in
organizational management processes, but unfortunately it is not the most common, although
management is urged to take the necessary action. Possibly this is due to a lack of sense about
the need for planning or, equally serious, a lack of awareness of the forces that prevail in the
environment and pressure organizations to change. The second element entails implementing
change, while the third element entails maintaining change. However, it should be noted that
regardless of the kinds of causes that motivate change, organizations must be very clear about
why they want it or require it, what factors drive it, and what outcomes are expected.
Another model is the model by Hurley Robert et al (1992). This model entails
organizational development. It is a form of planned change. The first step entails empowering
employees to act. The second step entails creating openness in communication. The third step
entails facilitating ownership of the change process and its outcomes. The fourth step entails
promotion of a culture of collaboration. The final stage entails promotion of continuous learning.
Principles underlying corporate social responsibility
Aguinis & Glavas (2012) define corporate social responsibility as “context-specific
organisational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple
bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance. This is true because In the
modern world, corporate social responsibility becomes a new business philosophy, according to
which companies focus not only on making profits, but also maintaining environmental stability
and achieving public goods (Burnes and Todnem, 2012). The world community highly actively
discusses the business practices, the tasks of public control over its results and consequences for
stakeholders, the basics of the interaction of social partners in ensuring social progress, and the
rules for dialogue (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). The stakeholder approach is good because it makes
managers consider all the responsibilities of the corporation. As an example, consider the
situation with the closure of the plant. This phenomenon should be considered not only from the
point of view of the profitability of the plant, that is, on the part of the shareholders. In this case,
the number of stakeholders includes not only shareholders, but also workers, consumers,
suppliers, the local population (Starke, Sharma, Mauws, Dyck & Dass, 2011).. At the same time,

the interests of shareholders may prevail over the interests of other stakeholders, but the opinion
of everyone who may be affected by the closure of the plant is considered (Tsoukas, 2005). That
is why Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) emphasize an approach to CSR that focuses on courses
of action beyond the requirements of law that are desirable in terms of the values and objectives
of society
Models underlying the corporate social responsibility
The emergence of corporate social responsibility means that the companies and
organizations are expected to adjust their traditional ways of doing this to fit the current
expectation, whereby profit or economic benefits is not the major factors to consider. But how
can they do so? A number of models can be applied in ensuring that conflicting goals are
addressed amicably.
One of the change models underlying corporate social responsibility to an organizational
change process is the model proposed by Beer & Spector, (1993). The model postulates that it is
appropriate and advisable to understand dysfunctional and functional aspects of an organisation’s
culture so that it can be used to transform the culture. The model expects change agents to first
have the data, then diagnose the problem, then give feedback to the beneficiaries before
intervention. After intervention, evaluation should be done to ascertain whether the problem have
been solved. In case the issue is not addressed, the cycle can start again.
On the other hand, the model was proposed by Van Tonder (2006) postulated that it is
important to adopt certain corporate governance practices in order to meet the corporate social
responsibility principles such as transparency, freedom, culpability, responsibility, fairness and
social responsibility.
Applying the change models
Firstly, it is important to note that irrespective of whether the change is designed to meet
ethical requirements or corporate social responsibility requirements, change should proceed
through a series of steps called change model process. These include entry, contracting, data
gathering, diagnosis, feedback, intervention and evaluation and exit. Each of the models should
address these elements.

Applying Kotter’s model to achieve ethical change principles
The first step is to create urgency (Kotter 1995). In an organization, the urgency to create
ethical changes is determined by the problems facing the organization. If there is issue of
dishonest, then the change agents should create urgency by demonstrating how dishonesty is
hindering organization from achieving its goals
The second step is to form change team (Kotter 1995). The team should be
comprehensive so as to ensure fairness (Hitlin & Piliavin 2004).
The third step is to create vision (Kotter 1995). The vision created should be in line with
the expectation of all people. Participatory approach should be used to decide the vision.
The fourth step is to communicate vision. It will be unfair if the vision is created and the
employees and other stakeholders are not allowed to know the vision.
The fifth step is to overcome obstacles. There are many obstacles that should be
addressed. Since this is often a collective effort, everyone must be able to contribute, on pain of
being left behind (Shamir, House & Arthur 1993).
The sixth step is to ensure short term success. Long-term efforts that do not offer small
short-term satisfactions become quickly demotivating. It is important to highlight the first signs
of change, and reward them with dignity (Kotter 1995).
The seventh step is to grow or expand the change already generated. This step of
capitalizing the first results is crucial, it is it that will give the necessary motivation to train
everybody towards the first results (Kotter 1995).
The last and important step is to set the culture change. Once the reform is over, the new
equilibrium must be stable, so that at the slightest problem everyone can return to the old
practices (Kotter 1995).
Applying Warrick model in achieving corporate social responsibility requirements
Warrick (2005) model entails preparing for change, implementing change and sustaining
change. To ensure that the change meets the corporate social responsibility requirements, a
number of actions will be taken in every stage.
Preparing for change will cover the first four steps of the change model process (Warrick
2005). These steps include entry, contracting, data gathering and diagnosis (Walker, Armenakis
& Bernerth, 2007). Here, the change agents will have to look for appropriate corporate social

relationship that are beneficial to the organization by diagnosing the gaps between what is
expected and what is in place.
Implementing change will cover feedback, intervention and evaluation (Warrick 2005).
It will entails helping the organization adopt the proposed corporate social responsibility values.
The identified values will be communicated to the employees and then integrated in the vision
and mission.
Sustaining change will entails the development of appropriate corporate culture that will
ensure that change is sustained.
Change agent
In order to be successful, the change must consider some characteristics: it must be
motivating, facilitate a shared vision, have political support (Burnes and Todnem, 2012). Change
leader should ensure that people have an active need for change and that it can satisfy them. He
proposes an integrative model of leadership for change that is reflected in cognitive, emotional
and behavioral aspects, and that includes elements such as vision, values, strategy and
motivation. The model was applied to several organizations that were in the process of change,
and it was concluded by them that progress occurs when skilled leaders take advantage of the
opportunity for change to improve things, change requires a good leader.
Reflection
One thing I learned is that there is no standard model for achieving change. This means
that regardless of the approach or model that the organization decides to use to make the
changes, it is important to understand that these do not occur by spontaneous generation, due to
goodwill or just good intentions (Herold, Fedor & Caldwell 2007). The possibility of change
depends on clearly intentional actions and is linked to the way the organization focuses on
generating transformation.
For the deployment of changes in the organization can be considered the various models
noted above, but to put into action it is necessary to understand that none has linear application
and must include different pathways ranging from the deductive to the inductive. I support the
Kotter’s model of change because it is detailed and cover all the elements of change. It shows the
significance of creating urgency and how to address resistance. I believe that urgency of need is
very crucial for a successful change implementation

Conclusion
From the reflection, I have demonstrated that successful organizational change should not
conflict with ethical requirements and that it should not focus only on economic interest. The
reflection also reveals that there are several models that can be applied in organizational change.
The choice of the model depends on the nature of change.

References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social
responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38: 932-968.
Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee
satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 63-86.
Beer, M. and Walton, R.E. (1987). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38, pp. 339–368
Burnes, B. (2009). Reflections: Ethics and Organizational Change– Time for a Return to
Lewinian Values. Journal of Change Management, 9:4, 359-381,
DOI:10.1080/14697010903360558
Burnes, B. and Todnem, R. (2012). Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical
Clarity. Journal of Business Ethics 108(2): 239-252
Hemingway, C. A. and Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of
Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 50(1), 33–44
Herold D.M., Fedor D.B. & Caldwell S.D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel
investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 942–951.
Hitlin S. & Piliavin J.A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30, 359–393
Hurley, R.F., Church, A.H., Burke, W.W. and Van Eynde, D.F. (1992). Tension, change and
values in OD. OD Practitioner, 29, pp. 1–5
Kotter, J. (2000). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business school Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 74 (2), 56-67.
Shamir B., House R. J. & Arthur M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Starke, F., Sharma, G., Mauws, M., Dyck, B. & Dass, P. (2011). Exploring archetypal change:
the importance of leadership and its substitutes. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 24 (1), 29-50.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Afterword: Why language matters in the analysis of organizational change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 96-104.

Van Tonder C.L. (2006). Towards A Minimum Conceptualisation Of Ethical Organisational
Change: The Platform Provided By The “King Ii” Report. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, 2006, 4 (3), 12-21
Walker, J., Armenakis. A. & Bernerth, J. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change
efforts: an integrative investigation of change content, context, process and individual
differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20 (6), 761-773.
Warrick, D. D. (2005). Organization development from the view of the Experts, in Rothwell, W J
and Sullivan, Roland. San Francisco, Pfeiffer, John Wiley and Sons.