Appointment of a leader in a core change team takes not only effort but clear analytical abilities. It is subject to being dictated by the team in question. However, certain areas of concern are to be addressed before a concise decision is made; type of existing structures the number and the recipients’ of change in the organization would opt for an informal structure where the trust network leader to lead. This in part owes to the tremendous and expression amount of trust bestowed upon such a person. Political machinations tend to hinder performance of satisfaction both for the employees and leadership structure.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Leader And Change Management"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

A trusted leader translates to a better understanding of company policies and the employees are easily bound to open up freely to change and equally contribute a case in point the David Leers company had to endure a fruitless committee meeting chaired by a formally structured leader who didn’t enjoy trust of his subordinates and fellow committee members. We equally see the instance of the bank branches where the leadership structure was vertical, and the tellers had to report directly to the supervisor compared to the mutual openness that the sister bank branches enjoyed and even showed a 70% increase in productivity.

Informal structure influences the uptake of change, in that, complex company jargons are demystified and simplified into workable situations. In addition to simplicity, informal networks usually create a receptive atmosphere for change; the trusted and advisory networks are better utilized since the employees trust the facilitator of change. The master servant social relationship between the formal structures of leadership means a master servant relationship hence rebellious nature to change. Informal structure boasts friendships that exist and trust that is easily utilized to facilitate change.

While a formal structure has direct and clear cut channel of communication informal structure of influence can translate to catastrophe especially if the “opinion shapers” are not taken to consideration, either by design or default they may choose to frustrate or be indifferent to the entire change process. However, informal structures can easily beat deadlines by by-passing normal bureaucratic channels it is seldom the case in formal structures where the law or due procedure is followed to the letter in which case can result to failure to meet deadlines and ultimatums. Collective thought process enjoyed in less tense and free informal organization is subjected to higher or biased scrutiny in a formal situation based on hierarchy opposed to informal situations where there is a tendency to be as equal partners in the decision-making.

Change influenced informal structure in many ways, first, the change proved to be a talking point between the pro and anti-change crusaders alike. It sent a sense of accomplishment to the entire group since all were part of the change process better networks, and understandings were forged between group members. It also doubled as a yardstick of measuring how urgency, commitment and understanding can be used to achieve targets.