The need for change has been implied throughout this text. “A casual reflection on change should indicate that it encompasses almost all our concepts in the organizational behavior literature. Think about leadership, motivation, organizational environment, and roles. It is impossible to think about these and other concepts without inquiring about change.”
If environments were perfectly static, if employees’ skills and abilities were always up to date and incapable of deteriorating, and if tomorrow were always exactly the same as today, the organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. The real world, however, is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change if they are to perform at competitive levels.
Managers are the primary change agents in most organizations. By the decisions they make and their role-modeling behaviors, they shape the organization’s change culture. For instance,
management decisions related to structural design, cultural factors, and human resource policies largely determine the level of innovation within the organization. Similarly, management decisions, policies, and practices will determine the degree to which the organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors.
We found that the existence of work stress, in and of itself, need not imply lower performance. The evidence indicates that stress can be either a positive or negative influence on employee
performance. For many people, low to moderate amounts of stress enable them to perform their jobs better by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. However, a high level of stress, or even a moderate amount sustained over a long period of time, eventually takes its toll, and performance declines. The impact of stress on satisfaction is far more straightforward. Job-related tension tends to decrease general job satisfaction. Even though low to moderate levels of stress may improve job performance, employees find stress dissatisfying.