Abstract
|
Institutional change is a complex process. Usually, institutions transform themselves in a rather incremental way, and not discontinuously (North, 1990). The literature relevant to the case of institutional change is rather numerous. There are many models to interpret the process of institutional change, namely: as a voluntary and planned process, as a process seeking effectiveness, as a chaotic process, as a political process and as a crisis process. We will limit ourselves to the model of institutional change as a crisis process.
Greiner (1972) estimates that the organizations’ dynamics in increasing their number follows a succession of phases of evolution and revolution and demands stability in the latter. Crisis are characterized by such a scope that they entail major transformations affecting both the institutional structure and the behaviors and objectives. The nature of the crisis depends upon the development stage in which the institution is positioned. Nutt and Backoff (1997) suggest using the unbalances caused by crisis to make managers agree to the institutional change. Greiner (1977) on the other hand points toward defining as a change (in a crisis situation), a new organizational pattern for the next evolution phase.
Any organization is established to achieve a mission, a goal and certain specific objectives. In the Romanian’s case, due to the financial crisis and the IMF requirements for their loan, certain agencies and departments of several ministries or public institutions have been dismissed or reorganized. We ask ourselves – who is to continue the activity of those organizations? Is it possible that after the reorganization, the institution to properly function with less staff? Is it about the fact that Romania cuts public expanses, by giving away certain priorities (respectively, organizations?) How do the new organizational structures look after being reorganized – can they handle the initial objectives?
The topic in hand: Government says that these reorganizations are to earn to the public budget a considerable amount of money, and that they are not to affect the organizations’ activities. We ask ourselves: can the economic crisis be defined as a driving force of change and as an opportunity of organizational innovation? Did the economic crisis impose new organizational changes, which led into an increase of the organizational efficiency and effectiveness? Our paper will include analyses of the organizational and institutional changes, following the factors of change, the objectives for change, the sources of change, the levels of change, the forms of change, the driving forces and the logics of change, the steps, stages, and episodes of changes and their results.
Research methodology:
1. analysis and comparison of organizational objectives and missions before and after reorganization.
2. analysis and comparison of two organizations subordinated to the government before and after reorganization.
Bibliography:
1. Bartoli A., (2005), “Le management des organizations publiques”, Dunod, Paris.
2. Borins S., (2001), “The Challenge of Innovating in Government”, Arlington, V.A.: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowmwnt for the Bussiness of Government.
3. Commission Européenne DGV, (1999), „Étude de cas sur le traitement des conséquences sociales des grandes restructurations d’entreprises”. Appel d’offres général No. V/015/98.
4. Greiner, L.E., (1972), ”Evolution and revolution as organizations grow”, Harvard Business Review, Juillet/Août.
5. Hafsi,T., et Demers, C., (1997), „Comprendre et mesurer la capacité de changement des organisations”, Éditions transcontinental.
6. North D.C., (1981), ” Structure and change in Economic History”, WWNorton&Cy
7. North D.C., (1990), “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance”, Cambridge.
8. Shrivastava P., (1993), “Crisis theory and practice”, Industrial and environmental crises quarterly, n. 7
|
