What follows will be a review that identifies three (3) significant errors, and the ramifications of those mistakes, made out of all of the change stories using the John P. Cotter model as described in Cotter, J. (2012) Leading change. In addition to identifying the errors, I will propose at least one recommendation for each change story that would have improved the effectiveness of the change process and explain why that recommendation would have altered the outcome of the change process.
Lastly, I will attribute a change image to the leading managers of directors in each change story and provide an explanation as to why that change image is appropriate. I will also recommend a different strategy for managing change in each one of the change stories presented and provide a justification for my tragic recommendation. In the first story of change, the significant error made by the managers at Hewlett-Packard (HP) is failure to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition.
The announcement of the merger with Compact was done in September 2001 yet; in March 2002 the CEO Carry Farina and SCOFF Bob Woman were struggling with having to convince Deutsche Bank that the merger is in the best interest of both organizations. Farina and Woman had not taken the opportunity to convince the son of the co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, Walter Hewlett that the merger was in the best interest of the organization, and e had publicly opposed the merger, which required shareholders’ approval.
Cotter (2012) explains that major change is said to be impossible unless the head of the organization is an active supporter. According to Palmer et al. (2009) shareholders’ managers, employees of both organizations and even Deutsche Bankers themselves were skeptical about the merits of the merger; even after they had advanced HP a $1 million contract to research the voting pattern of other organizations. Palmer and colleagues (2009) goes on to mention external pressures with doubts of the merger being expressed by a Merrill Lynch portfolio anger who was unsure of what the HP managers would do if the deal was rejected.
It appears that there was no specific strategy that was made known by Farina and Woman to assure all parties involved in the transaction of what their intentions were regarding expected outcomes as a result of the merger. Prior to the merger Farina had launched some organizational restructuring which were short lived because they did not address the customer’s needs effectively and uncovered how the operations were uncommunicative, thus leading to additional changes. Those changes led to employee resistance and eventually ore bureaucracy instead of customer satisfaction.
Therefore the ramification of the lack of failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition would have eventually resulted in the merger not going through, and the possibility of destroying the organization. One recommendation that Farina could have implemented that would have improved the effectiveness of the change process is to have created a team of individuals, shareholders, employees, and managers from HP, Compact, and Deutsche Bank, as well as people from outside these organizations to work together strategically, to understand the value of the roger and to impart that to all involved.
Had there been a coalition involved in the process from the beginning to the end there would not have been any need for the CEO Farina to at the last minute be pressured into having to persuade the investors to accept and vote in favor for the merger. I would attribute the change manager as a navigator image to Farina. Although it appeared as though Farina had control of the situation there were a number of external factors that would have affected the outcome of the merger, some of which were outside of her control, such as the votes of the shareholders.
This image is appropriate because the merger was partly due to the actions of Farina having convinced the voters to go for the merger as opposed to the planned outcome being achieved solely because that was to plan. According to Palmer et al. (2009), up to the point of her departure, Farina was still having trouble communicating a vision for the future of the company. In 2005 her replacement Mark Hurl was able to eventually navigate the changes by establishing different teams that worked together with clearer responsibilities to divisional managers for their own operations.
In the case of the HP change story, would have recommended that the manager utilized the change manager as director approach. The change is strategic and is in line with the general well-being of the organization and that should have been communicated to the parties involved through the use of the change management, contingency and processors approach. This approach provides multiple steps on how to achieve large scale, transformational changes.
The second change story; IBM transformational change from below and above show that the organization did not have upper-personnel managers in position o understand the organizations need to secure their internet broadcasting brand. From 1 993 to 2002 the company had to undergo a significant change that was undertaken in most part unofficially, working from the bottom-up with lower-level employees. The ramification of not having the foresight could have had severe financial cost to the company. The changes undertaken by David Grossman a computer programmer and John Patrick a member of the strategic task force worked well for their change plan.
Because they recognized that there were no upper-level personnel with the credentials to identify, plan strategically, ND implement the changes, they worked together with lower-level personnel to develop and share technical information that according to Palmer et al. (2009) eventually helped IBM into the internet era. They were able to create a culture of support among the employees throughout the company on different levels, through informal networking that embroiled and communicated the changes that were necessary.
In light of the facts that the necessary help would not have been forthcoming from upper management, I believe that the route taken was appropriate and cannot at this time recommend any changes that should have en undertaken that would have improved the effectiveness of the change process. Attribute the change manager as interpreter to the IBM change story. Both Grossman and Patrick operated with a mental image of what they thought was achievable. They identified what needed to be done to keep the organization competitive in the future.
They had some control of a variety of factors internally while there were some factors that they had no control, such as the outcome of how the process would be received by the employees and if the upper-managers would embrace the changes. They were able to get the employees to buy into the changes and share in the transferring of information and development, working as functional teams without being appointed to such teams. This ended up with some intentional and some unintentional changes.
They eventually took on the role of ensuring that the organization’s members were receptive to, and have the necessary skills and motivation to take charge of and implement the changes. I cannot recommend a different strategy because the one that was takes proved to have been the best for the organization based on the outcomes. Although here may have been some complacency on the part of upper management, that may have be attributed to their ignorance of the technical details necessary for the organization to proceed into the digital era, as was recognized by Grossman and Patrick. According to Palmer et al. 2009), that complacency was eventually addressed by Palominos the new CEO. Palominos reduced the gap in pay as a way to communicate to the entire organization his intention and commitment to the organization’s vision. Grossman and Patrick also created a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition within the lower-level personnel, and understood the rower of having a vision of the future and sharing that vision. They also did not allow any obstacle to get into the way of their efforts by raising the necessary funding they needed, and creating short term wins within the unofficial work that they were doing.
Hey did not declare victory but allow their work to speak for itself, while anchoring the changes firmly in the organizational culture, all of which illustrate their capacity to avoid errors that are common during organizational changer Cotter (2012). In the third story, a Kodak change story: provoking reaction, the most significant error was under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1 ,OHO). The ramifications were undue stress on its employees, investors, and financial losses. In 2003 Kodak CEO David A.
Carp announced that, Kodak will be making physical changes to the organization, to reduce the square footage of Kodak facilities worldwide, and to reduce employment worldwide with up to 1 5,000 jobs by 2007. According to Palmer et al. (2009) Kodak planned to cut 20 percent of its workforce worldwide. That came on the heels of a reduction in the workforce of 30,000 between 1997 and 2003, a move that according to The wall tree journal was undertaken by a number of companies because of the rapid changes in information technological improvements.
Management did little to reassure the employee of the organizations future, this lack of communication left them wondering about how they would care for their families. Similar to the under-communication between Kodak and their employee, was the lack thereof with their investors. The announcement in September 2003 took many external experts by surprise Palmer et al. (2009). Palmer et al. (2009) also wrote that the investors were promised that company’s revenue was going to increase but hat was not realized, and in fact the organizations dividends were expected to be severely cut. I would have recommended that the CEO David A.
Carr meet with the investors and the employees before the announcement as well as several times after the announcement, and during the change to reassure them that the change is in the best benefits of the survival of the organization. He could have also made special arrangements for the employees who were slated to be let go, so that they could have whatever assistance they needed to find another job (referral, community resources etc. ). My reasons for making hat recommendation is that, at the very least, the employee would not have had to experience the amount of stress that they felt as a result of the lack of communication.
The employees would have the assistance they needed to make the transition a smoother one and that would also alleviate some of their stress. Having less stress may have enabled the employees to work harder to ensure that Soda’s products and services were of the highest quality. Similarly, had the CEO communicated effectively with the investors, they too may have thrown their support behind the organization in a way that may have saved the organization financially. With regards to the” Kodak Change Story: Provoking Reactions”; I would attribute change manager as director to CEO David A.
Carp. Mr.. Carp envisioned the direction that the organization was heading and set out to explain why the change was necessary. Carp believed that his management and control of the change outcomes was achievable, and directed the organization in that particular way to produce the desired changes. My reason for choosing the director as the change manager for Mr.. Carp is that, he believed that the choices that he made were for the right ones for the survival and well Ewing of the organization. I would have recommended that Mr.. Carp undertake the change manager as navigator.
Although control would still be seen as at the heart of the management actions, the external factors that affected the desired outcome could have been anticipated with planning. He would have had the opportunity to make assumptions and contingency plans as the changes unfolded over the period of time. In justifying this recommendation, it is my belief that the changes could have been processed as it unfolded among the complexity of all the variables associated with the changes such as; context, lattice processes, and bureaucratic consultation within the organization.
This process would have given him time to navigate through the change while identifying the range of options available, gather and monitor information and availing himself of appropriate resources Palmer et al. (2009). In the last story “A McDonald’s Change Story: Responding to Pressure”, the most significant error made is neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture Cotter (2012). This failure cost the organization financially, because they had to reduce the number of stores that they had planned to open and close mom that were already opened.
After the experiment that was conducted by Morgan Spurious that identified the correlation between the McDonald’s meals and its effects in his health, the organization changes some of its menu’s but neglected to ensure that the changes also influenced the behavior of the employees and customers, as it relates to their social norms and shared values as well as the organization culture. I would have recommended that McDonald’s make a conscious effort to show people how their specific behaviors and attitudes affected their health especially with regards to their choices of DOD.
According to Cotter (2012), when people are left on their own to make the connections they often make inaccurate links. Anchored change requires that enough time is allowed to personify the new ideas, as well as the reshaping of promotional transformation. This process would have been more beneficial to the organization because had they made specific connections with their customers on their level with regards to their health choices they may not have lost their customer base. I would attribute the change manager as interpreter to the McDonald’s, story, albeit a very weak one.
The organization attempted to create the meaning for the organization change by using Splotch’s experiment as a catalyst in the eyes of the customers, to explain their decisions to change the menu. They attempted to provide legitimate arguments for why their actions fits the changes and benefits the customers. What occurred as a result of the changes was an organization with too much innovations and not enough efficiency, leaving the company to return to its’ original core values of quality and service.
In the change story of McDonald’s, I would have recommended the change manager as nurturer. Although the manager is not able to control the outcome of the changes, they would have nurtured the organization by facilitating the organizational qualities that enable positive self-organization to occur Palmer et al. (2009). Adapting the Chaos Theory the organization could have continuously regenerated itself through adaptive learning and interactive structural change.
The manager could have nurtured the changes through the chaotic times by using the Confucian/Taoist approach, understanding that the change process is a journey based of maintaining the harmony that their customers seek to address their issues of providing them speedy service and quality products. Managing change requires a set of skills that perhaps most people do not possess. It is difficult to describe and measure, but it relies on the managers’ ability to help the organization grow and adapt to changes and new situations.
