Discuss the view presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing Essay - 1

Discuss the encounter presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing mixture invariably involves managing paradoxes and in partic - Essay ExampleHowever, the most critical aspect of the adoption of such change is its management. The management of change in organizational culture poses multiple challenges for any(prenominal) organization. There are various scholars who have embarked on describing different concepts related to organizational culture. Sushil and Nasim highlighted that managing organizational culture involves the management of paradoxes, and more specifically the paradox of pertinacity and change. This paper will develop a critical argument from the idea posited by these two scholars. It has become evident that change is inevitable. Organizations face the urgency of adopting change, although the caterpillar tread of change presents new complexities. Apparently, only a third of all ventures aimed at fostering change are likely to succeed. The failure of two thir ds of all projects seek to foster change emphasizes the urgency of new strategies for managing change. However, different scholars have posited opinions on whether managing change is a possibility (Collin, 2004560). One school of thought opines that through management, it is potential to exert a form of control on organizational culture. A different group of scholars has highlighted that organizational culture change can only fall out under certain conditions that act as preconditions for the change. The third school of thought is pessimistic concerning the potential of controlling cultural change through management. For these scholars, managing cultural change in an organization is an unlikely venture. Nasim and Sushil (2011186) highlighted the numerous paradoxes that have been used by different scholars to describe organizational change. The term paradoxes in this context denote the contradictions surround organizational change. One of the described paradoxes is the arising deba te on whether cultural change in an organization takes place in an orderly preplanned manner or still emerges depending on the prevailing environmental conditions. The planned view of cultural change introduces the ideology that cultural change occurs in episodes that involve a shift from a fixed state to the next. However, this ideology has received a challenge from the perceived dynamism of change as defined by prevailing conditions. Other scholars view change as an incremental process that takes place under the orchestration of the executives in an organization. On the other hand, other scholars describe cultural change as a radical event (Currie and Brown, 2003572). An additional paradox revolves around the focus of cultural change. Whereas some theorists view cultural change as a narrow focus either on the context or process, there is the argument that cultural change occurs in a holistic approach that views all aspects comprehensively. In addition, there is a prevalent ideolo gy that organizational culture change takes place on a macro scale. However, a counter opinion highlights that the organizational change occurs on a micro scale, which highlights a focus on individual perceptions. There is a surging debate on whether organizations should adopt an epistemological approach in reorganizing the management practices or whether they should shift focus to exploitation and exploration (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011188). Beer and Nohria described the contradictions between the theoretical archetypes E and A that seek to search the reasons behind organizational ch