STABILITY VERSUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Headnote

Abstract: Providing a permanent quality of life, both now and in the future, it requires an organizational and societal level changes that lead to balance the three spheres: economy, environment and society. Changing the working environment is determining the organization to redesign the internal activity, to initiate new structures, new strategies, etc... in order to reach the established goals. But not every organizational change provides stability and performance of the organization, but only those changes with significant and lasting impact on all stakeholders and interested parties (employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, community, society, etc..), in the context of protecting the environment. Therefore, the organizational culture plays a decisive role in the process of the organizational change and it represents a competitive advantage for any organization who's seeking to survive in a sustainable manner and to obtain profit in a competitive economy.

Keywords: change, stability, development, organizational culture, sustainability

JEL clasification: D21, M14, Q01

1. INTRODUCERE

In the current environment, the organizations need to initiate changing processes to meet the market requirements, to offer value, to increase the profits of the shareholders or fulfill the purpose for which they were created. Also, the organizations should initiate any change processes to maintain the organizational stability, but also to support the economic growth and the sustainable development. The concept and the practice of the organizational change management has become an increasingly popular topic in the last years among academics and practitioners, especially given the importance of the change in the economic crisis. From the researches made resulted that on organizational change reflects not only the implications of the change on the organizational and individual performance, but also on economic growth and sustainable development. But in the specialty literature, there are very few approaches on the relationship between the organizational stability and the organizational change or changestability dilemma in terms of achieving high economic, environmental and social performance. In this context, the study approaches the relation between stability and organizational change in terms of organizational identity, a flexible structure, organization interaction - environment, organizational culture, but especially from the perspective of the individual as a member of the organization.

2. STABILITY OR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

Business organizations operate in a dynamic economy, which produce large changes directed usually towards development. Development aims to provide dynamism to companies, treated in two aspects:

* how to integrate in the current and future trends of an economy based on knowledge;

* the economic efficiency and social benefits, income level, both global and individual products in terms of protecting the environment.

This is because the sustainable development requires the acquisition of three-way performance (Bran F., Marin D., Simon T., 1998):

* economic - requires an increase level of exploitation and utilization of resources;

* ecological - involves recycling, avoiding environmental degradation, reduced land theftfrom the agriculture circuit;

* social - would increase the number of jobs, the practice of traditional professions; encourage people to practice tourism as physical and mental regeneration measures, etc..

Regarding the sustainability of development, we have defined two ideological ways in approaching the economy-environment relationship: tehnocentrism and ecocentrism (Bran F., Marin D., Simon T., 1998):

* The tehnocentrism supporters are followers of a market free of constraints, both for producers and consumers. They are very confident in the possibilities of almost total substitutability between factors of production, as well as the fact that man and technology will always find a way to compensate for the lack of resources required. They are also those who adopt a very weak sustainability criterion, the socalled version of "abundance", and weak sustainability criteria less extreme called "conciliation". The conciliate tehnocentrism takes into consideration the environmental issues, accepting that the inputs are not always substitutable, includes a precise notion of critical natural capital and support capacity and is interested to correct distortions on the market with instruments such as environmental taxes;

* The ecocentrism requires a rather conservative approach, in which the environment, for example, acquires a centrality which was absent in the previous approaches. To recognize the earth as a single body leads to very strong restrictions on the possibility of substitution of production factors and lead to a radical approach, which claims a strong sustainability concept. This view seeks to transform the current economic systems, drastically limiting the production, consumption and population growth.

Therefore, the organizational development aimed at creating, designing and implementing changes to promote efficient use of resources and increase economic efficiency, in terms of environmental protection.

2.1. Change as opportunity-way to address sustainable development at the organizational level

As such, regardless of the approach or definition method, the change is inevitable. The literature offers a wide range of definitions of change: the philosophical approach of the phenomenon ("modification or variation of quality of objects and phenomena, their transition from one state to another"), the procedural approach to change ("a continuous process confrontation, identification, evaluation and action "- Mc Calman, Paton), to address structural change (" portfolio changes "- Ansoff(1988)). Also we need to mention the descriptive definition of change: "action, a set of actions, a process which seeks modification, partial or total transformation of an organization, its components or processes that take place here, allowing, from present state to a future state, desired that differ quantitatively and / or quality of the first. The objective of an organizational change is to establish q new states in place of the existing one "(Prediscan M., 2001) or "the process by which an organization aims to match the requirements of the operating environment, by converting all or part of the internal processes and resources available or drawn on the basis of anticipated future reactions and legal and effective management of potential risks associated to the environment of developing the business".

Change can be defined in terms of action field, respectively as operational and organizational change. Operational change relates exclusively to individuals, with their roles and values and organizational change refers to all procedural changes within the organization.

Also, change can be defined as innovation, as it involves changes at the individual, procedural or organizational level. Innovation is being treated in the specific literature as a phase of creativity (Bâtlan I., 1993), in order to define unprecedented organization of mental processes into the association of personality skills to the purpose of obtaining the new and the original. At company level, innovation is presented in the form of redesigning their organizational structures, depending on the magnitude of specific functional requirements of each stage from their maturation and development. In this perspective, social innovation is the main source of decisional creativity, determined factor of change and development.

Therefore, all the organizations are confronted with two sources of pressure for change, external and internal. But the first and most important factor is the dissatisfaction with the present state. In other words, the organizational change involves switching from an existing condition (present) to a desired, through a sustained process, coherent, structured and organized. Of course, the equation becomes necessary to change the perception that there is an alternative that will improve the existing condition (T. Mitchell, P. Dowling, KabanoffB., J. Larson, 1988).

Desired state can be known (the introduction of new products, services and technologies, entering new markets, changing the rules, procedures, structures, new hiring, redesign of jobs, etc..) or unknown. When the desired state is known, the organizational change is transactional type, and if the desired state is new, unknown, there is a transformational type (Linda Ackerman, 1986, "Development, transition or transformation: the problem of change in the organization"). This latter type of change requires both organizational change and development organization transactional changes. That is why, in the context of sustainable development, the organizational change can be seen from at least two perspectives: in terms of process and content, focusing on the transformational and transactional factors of change. Transformational change occurs as a result of environmental factors and directly affects the organization's mission and strategy, leadership and organizational culture. Obviously, the transactional factors - structure, systems, and climate or management practices are also affected. (Litwin, H. G., Burke, W.W., 1992, A causal model of organizational performance and change, Journal of Management, vol. 18, no. 3, 523-545).

Regarding the origin of the change at the organizational level, approached first as the notion of David Nadler and Michael Tushman 1988, in the book "Strategic Organization Design", generated in the literature two theoretical approaches and practical aspects of the phenomenon of change: change-oriented to the organization and change-oriented to people. But regardless the perspective or the approach of the organizational change, any organizational change process includes all aspects of both approaches. Change-oriented to the organization, focused on diagnosis, on setting goals, design, implementation and evaluation stages or phases considered in the process of change from this perspective. The stages of change-oriented to individuals are aware of the problem, build a vision of the future transition and internalize change. Change-oriented to individual, has four levels: changes of knowledge, attitude changes, behavioral changes and changes in the group. The common aspect of both approaches is the organizational culture change phenomenon.

Concerning the phase change process-oriented to the organization in the context of sustainable development can be considered the following: stability, organizational discomfort, diagnostic analysis of the organization, or explore alternative choice situations, experimentation or testing alternatives, the decision to change, commitment and implementation and evaluation or return to any of these phases. Under this approach, stability is a phase of organizational change that tends to be a balance between the economy, environment and society.

In the first phase of organizational change, the company is characterized by stability, respectively a good state of wellness, sometimes euphoric, even if persists the feeling that some important part of organizational life are not just right.

Once realized that not everything is perfect: organization, culture, climate, way of conducting activities etc., arise the feeling of discomfort. Obviously, managers will require an analysis of the current situation, considering that a change in the organization is needed. In the next stage of changing is looking for new opportunities, alternative situations and their consequences are examined: change in organizational structure, redesign of jobs, opening a new branch, etc. Solutions testing are possible using various methods. For example, new teams can be created, new rules can be applied for a short period of time or assign new responsibilities to employees, all that just for a short period of time. Thereby, actors - supporters of change - can be identified, and also those who resist change, along with the identification of reasons for resistance to change. The decision to change involves the transition to action, realizing that change means progress. Company manager will prepare and organize change and find the right person to start the process of change. At this stage the necessary actions are determined, the factors involved and their role in achieving successful change. Of course, managers will assume certain risks, but failure is the path to success. Implementation of proposed changes is to make changes step by step, starting from the idea that a well developed and real change are sufficient reasons to go on. Each person involved in the change process will assume the responsibilities set by the manager. Monitoring and evaluation process of change means that, during this, one can return at any stage, to achieve successful organizational change, because change is a continuous process.

The change involves a sequence of organizational events or a psychological process, taking place over time. Interestingly, the change is not in itself a tangible thing. It cannot be known the process of change itself, but the desired results of change are known. Basically, any social or political change, institutional or organizational begins like this: people / employees simply realize that something is not going well and indicates that local or even take action if they are sufficiently mature and control well the things.

The change requires continuous adjustment to the external conditions of life in rural organizations, operating in parallel with an increase in domestic stability, in response to the dynamic environment. Typically, the internal stability is an emotional stability, as a result of a strong organizational culture.

2.2. Organizational stability and sustainability

It is known the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of both concepts: sustainability and organizational stability and even less, the indicators which measure these phenomena in relation to the meaning of sustainable development. However, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002, p.131), applying the meaning of sustainable development organizations, argue that corporate sustainability is "a firm's ability to meet the needs of its direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, groups pressure, communities etc.) without compromising the ability to meet the future stakeholders' needs.

The sustainability of organizations is defined differently depending on their purpose, whether in financial terms, with reference to security, stability (economic) prosperity, financial viability, either in terms of ability to provide (on medium and long term), quality services, which will meet the market demands with a higher level (target groups). Accordingly the first approach, stability is a component of the organizational sustainability. Of course, the two organizations are characterized by stability, respectively, significant differences related to sustainability:

* objectives. Stable organizations (financial sustainability) focus on competitiveness and economic performance measured by profit growth, while sustainable organizations focus on achieving the mission, purpose and philosophy of the organization, in terms of value offered to all those interested in space and time;

* strategies. Sustainable organizations are focused on satisfying all stakeholders, present and future members of society are concerned with providing a significant and lasting impact on them. Stable organizations are oriented to the present needs of customers and other stakeholders. Management of stable organizations show a major concern for stability and financial security of the company;

* activities. In stable organizations, activities are important in terms of results obtained by their conduct. These organizations focus on raising funds through various grant programs in order to ensure economic and financial stability. Meanwhile the organizations are strategically oriented towards sustainable funding programs, to achieve the objectives established in the short, medium and long term;

* products/services. Sustainable organizations are concerned with the quality of projects, products and services market and the stable focus on a fair and accurate reporting of the activities and results;

* relationships. While organizations develop stable relationships with all the competing socio-economic actors, the sustainable organizations are inclined to collaboration and cooperation to ensure a balance between economy and environment, the societal level.

Stability and safety are achieved through planned change at both individual and organizational.

3. STABILITY AND CHANGE-SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

At a first sight, between the two concepts would seem that there are only differences. However, if referred to the origin of change and stability, it can be said that both concepts can be addressed, theoretically and practically, in terms of organization and individual. Stability-oriented towards organization is primarily economic and financial stability. Stability-oriented towards individual presupposes the existence of a trust, positive behavior patterns, and safety and positive values. In both cases it is a strong culture, positive and synergistic.

The organizational stability lies in the balance of the organizational development (result of the change) and the three parts of the community in which the organization operates: economic, social and environmental.

But regardless the development level of the organization, at some point, the internal stability prevents innovation and development at individual and organizational creativity, which is required to change the organizational culture. In fact, the element of congruence between the concept of change and stability is the organizational culture.

The organizational change on stability requires change in mentality and employees. Individual stations need identity and meaning. Therefore, any change in an organization must begin with its members, by developing the necessary skills and positive attitudes. Changing the organizational culture is between the mentality change of the individual and the organization change.

As the organizational culture involves values, beliefs and stable rules, the organizational cultures can be changed very slowly. The hardest part is to change the organizational culture resistant to change (J. Bailey, J. Schermerhorn, Hunt J., R. Osborn, 1987). This type of organizational culture particularly stressed and control stability and tradition. After RH Kilmann (1984), an expert in organizational culture, organizational culture change includes a five-step process. The first step is the real highlight of the members of the norms (expected behavior in the organization) in meetings of organization units. The second stage involves defining the behaviors that are necessary for corporate success after the first stage indicated the directions in which the organization is heading. The third stage occurs and the new rules are chosen, with a positive impact on organizational effectiveness. And then - in the fourth stage - there are identified the areas where is big difference between the actual norms and the ones that will positively affect organizational efficiency. The last step is to achieve agreements or arrangements on the new rules and means to enhance their design and new systems of reward and punishment intended to encourage new members to follow the cultural norms.

The company culture plays a major role in the organizational change, because when the social, technical and administrative systems of a company change, they are affected by the default rules and beliefs that support these systems and organizational practices. Although most managers who approach the organizational change are oriented on the problems, they must realize that most times, rules, beliefs, core values of culture are responsible for the organization's problems and that a cultural change is required whether to start with it or change the system. The differences between the system change and the culture change perceived by managers, lead to the formation of an organizational development skills needed. Stages of change necessary to cause organizational change, according to some authors (J. Gordon, RW Mondy, A. Sharplin, Premeaux S., 1990) are: establishing the need to change, establish the change method, and overcome the existing building to the new situation.

Therefore, the organizational culture change is necessary and possible, because one of the most important effects of their dynamic organizations is endogenous. The organization is not just a technical response to the technical and economic problems faced, but also a cultural tool to approach the human conflict, to cooperation structure and regularization of the participants (St. Buzarnescu., 1995).

It is true that a strong cultural environment protects the organization from the environmental changes and gives to its values stability which is necessary for long-term survival. But if companies want to develop culture change is inevitable, but only in the context of environmental protection, community and quality of life in general

Changing the organizational culture requires "strong" measures. As such, there are structural changes, process and personnel (G. Hofstede, 1996). From case to case, structural changes can mean parts of the organizational structure, people moving. Process changes mean new procedures in all or only certain aspects of the organization. Personnel changes require new hiring and promotion policy. As structural changes, process and personnel, an evaluation by comparing their observed changes with those actually intended. If necessary, appropriate adjustments will be applied to some.

On the other hand, the organizational culture must be approached in a dynamic perspective, emphasizing the facilities of partial or total changes (O. Nicolescu, 2000), dynamic processes is manifested both through internal integration and external adaptation (Schein EH 1990), and as a result of the impact of different types of crops, especially in the globalized markets.

Also, culture is continuously created, meaning that there is constantly a certain type of learning, based on the organization's relationship with the external environment and internal management problems. Learning involves the accumulation of new knowledge and skills, based on experience.

The relation between stability and organizational change, in the context of sustainable development can be approached from a clear understanding of both concepts and answers to the following questions:

* How stable is the organization?

* Which are the factors / causes that undermine the organizational stability?

* What should change in the organization to become a stable entity?

* How can you monitor and measure the stability of the organization?

* What strategy should adopt companies, in the context of sustainable development?

Sustainable development means change and opportunity. The effect of the change approach is stability in the context of sustainable development.

The economy based on knowledge feels the need to change, under the impulse of the economic influences, political and social, but especially the organizational culture. This is because the organizational culture is the main resource of the organization, productivity and profitability multiplier, but also the stability because of its thinking structures and positive action means, widely shared by the entire organization through individual and collective positive models, by generally accepted behavior values.

In this respect, it is imperative to create a model of an organizational change in the context of sustainable development. The premise of the model assumes that the values and assumptions that define an organizational culture vary according to four main dimensions:

* orientation towards interior versus orientation towards exterior;

* orientation to stability and control versus orientation to flexibility and change;

* orientation to present versus future orientation;

* orientation to activity versus orientation towards action.

Although present at the organizational level as the most diverse forms, spectacular degree and level of complexity, the change requires not only the use of a model change, but also the use of a strategy, especially that organizations are facing major changes and discontinuous. Thus, changing the search strategy represents proactive alternative work practices, norms, rules, beliefs, attitudes existing in the organization.

Both in the organizational change strategy and that of sustainable development are used terms whose meaning is different (after Johnson G., Scholes K., 1993).

In the process of organizational change, organizational change implementation strategy, oriented in achieving organizational goals undertaken by the firm is done through communication. In this situation, the organization and communication should be seen as systems and complementary tools.

The improvement of the organizational culture is the base of the change in the conditions under which an organization ensures the identity of the company and increase opportunities for market expansion. All this must be subordinated to the firm's strategy, objectives on short, medium and long term to contribute to a positive development, implementation of changes belonging mainly to managers.

The organizational change is an ongoing process, depending on each organization as it relates to change: passive (victim safe), neutral or proactive.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The organizations are open systems which take some input from the external environment, transform a part of them and send them into the environment as outputs of the system. If the environment changes, the organization will change. Therefore, all the organizations are faced with internal and external sources of pressure for change. In other words, if the entries are modified, the outputs also change. In order to change the outputs there are needed cultural involvement within the organization. These changes may be on the targets and strategies, the technological level, the organizational structure, the phases and processes at work and, at last but not least, the members of the organization.

The approach of the change as an opportunity is relevant in the context of sustainable development and stability is required, as a step of the change. Moreover, understanding and proper management of change can be achieved very easily in terms of a systemic approach, especially of an organizational culture, considered as a congruence element between stability, organizational change and sustainable development.

References

5. REFERENCES

Bailey J.; Schermerhorn J.; Hunt J., Osborn R. Managing organizational behavior in Australia, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, 1987, page 421

Bâtlan I. Introduction to the history and philosophy of culture, Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, RA, Bucharest, 1993, page 33

Bran F.; Marin D.; Simon T. The economy or tourism and environment, Economic Edition, Bucharest, 1998, pages 41, 243

Buzarnescu St. Introduction in the sociological organization and management, Didactic si Pedagogical Edition, R. A., Bucharest, 1995, pages 66-68

Hofstede G. The management of multicultural structures, Economic Edition, Bucharest, 1996, pages 230-231

Johnson G.; Scholes K. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall International Ltd., 1993, page 13

Kilmann R. H. Beyond the quick fix, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1984

Gordon J.; Mondy R. W.; Sharplin A.; Premeaux S. Management and organizational behavior, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1990, pages 634-637

Mitchell T.; Dowling P.; KabanoffB.; Larson J. People in organization - an introduction to organizational behavior in Australia, McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia, Pty Limited, 1988, pages 520-523

Nicolescu O. (coord.). Systems, methods and managerial techniques of the organization Economic Edition, Bucharest, 2000, page 513

Schein E. H. Organizational culture, American Psychologist, 1990