Leadership and Organizational viewpoint is one of the most strategic organizational possessions which provide means to devise a competent strategy for gaining a lasting competitive advantage in the marketplace. We identified in our training demonstration that organizations needed change to survive available on the market due to improve in customer needs, challengers' strategies and change in political, economic, sociable and scientific conditions encompassing the organizations. Organizations need to undergo a strategic change process where the stakeholders and employees of the organization play the most important role.
In this newspaper, supposing the role of the consultant to a company advice group, the material of "Buck and Pulleyn" which can be an American advertising firm has been preferred for discourse. This circumstance was written by Professor Louis B. Barnes in 1995 which is one of the very most prominent types of strategic change management that how this corporation has to gone through change. The discourse about the business revolves around the next important things and it provides important insights about the strategic change management.
Develop systems to involve stakeholders in the planning of change and create a change management strategy with stakeholders.
Evaluate the systems used to entail stakeholders in the planning of change.
Explain what systems and processes would need to be/have been developed to ensure involvement of the stakeholders in the change, and justify choice.
Create a technique for managing amount of resistance to change.
Review the effectiveness of management actions to defeat any identified instances of resistance
Describe the most crucial features in the successful execution of organizational change, attracting upon at least two organizational models
Plan to put into action a model for change and develop appropriate options to monitor progress.
The circumstance was printed by Harvard Business Institution in 1995 for category discussion. (The research study can be accessed online at: http://gwu-emse-211. wikispaces. com/file/view/Buck+&+Pulleyn. pdf)
Summary of the Examination of Buck and Pulleyn Strategic Change Management
This case focuses on the issues confronted by Buck & Pulleyn which includes restructuring of the business, employees' inspiration and stationing of Creative Director, Robert Massimilian, as the president due to conflicting reviews from different stakeholders. For Examination, I have applied and evaluated Lewin's Three-Step Change Model in this case. First of all, in Unfreezing, Chris came up with a new framework which was shaped by the consensus of all employees and stakeholders. The producing structure was less formalized and highly decentralized. In the Moving stage, the new framework was enriched with greater employees and stakeholders engagement and it contains external and internal teams to control the proper change process. The essential concentrate of change in organization's structure was to foresee the active environment with changing needs/wishes of customers and clients (The main asset for just about any organization). The problem of turmoil between cost and quality, issues regarding expertise database and concerns related to compensation according to the new system framework were also addressed. Review compensation group had to deal with several issues like the process, merits, execution and criteria for the reimbursement plans. Now the business is facing the situation to re-freeze the change process at an optimal point and this is the key problem for the case. After analyzing the case, I would like to make some advice which are:
Buck and Pulleyn need some visionary authority to foresee change with greater employee consensus and participation.
The payment plan by team needs even more compliance and concentrate. The Robert's management practices should be evaluated.
There is a need for ensuring the organizational worth and philosophy should be appropriate for the new organizational structure because these principles and philosophy are the building blocks of leadership and a sustainable competitive advantage. (Barnes, 1995)
Problem Statement:
"The Buck and Pulleyn needs major organizational framework changes scheduled to changing environmental framework and needs/desires of consumers and clients by keeping beneficial recruiting enriched with drive and enforcement of organizational philosophy and vision. The organization is looking to refreeze the change process at an best point"
Analysis:
The basic problems encountered by this organization were poor command, inefficient decision making and social resistance. In the beginning, when the necessity for change in organizational framework noticed by Chris, the initiatives failed because of old ethnical norms of organization and insufficient confidence on the top management by the employees and stakeholders; a factor which had decreased the drive level and increased the reluctance to improve one of the employees and shareholders. I've arrived to the conclusion through the use of, a well-known methodology for handling change that will require organizations to go through three separate techniques. It really is called Lewin's Three-Step Change Model. The three steps are unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. First step unfreezing was done by understanding the need for organizational change due to change in environmental framework and customer needs. In the next step conversations were held with all the current stakeholders to improve the existing design of management and strategy but employees revealed some level of resistance for organizational change. In this step, employees were just a little uncomfortable, and there was a need for some strategies to encourage them for taking part in decision making process to be able to engage employees in decision making about the new system. Finally during refreezing, some issues arose scheduled to poor leadership techniques, inefficient decision making methods and lack of confidence at the top management by the employees. (Barnes, 1995)
First of all, I'd like to analyze the truth with Lewin's Three-Step Change Model to understand the change process and i quickly would create some quarrels to get understanding of issues to reach at a bottom line of the research study with some advice. It is recommended that the audience of this paper must read the case study actually shared by Harvard business institution. (Barnes, 1995)
Lewis Three Step Change Model:
Unfreezing:
The initial periods related to the restructuring of the business were fulfilled with some problems, including the negative result of the employees when the first memo for the restructuring of the business was delivered. The employees were engaged in selective notion and assumed that their responses or participation in the new structure of the hierarchy would be insignificant, regardless of the continuous effort of the very best management to entail them in the structural reforms through various strategies including group discussions. Stakeholders were mixed up in proper change management process by group conversations and training sessions to discuss the change in environment and implement a technique for increasing a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace. The approach to change was good and being in the place of Chris Pulleyn, I would not like to improve in different ways from Chris because the way used by Chris opened just how for stakeholders' participation to increase their drive also to change their selective perception. Unfortunately, this work to activate stakeholders was not very successful scheduled to confusions one of the stakeholders about the tactical change management. My debate supports this approach because not surprisingly approach didn't be successful but it provided some border or effort for change or quite simply it did the trick as a slipping point to bring an alteration in the organization. All the remaining procedure for change in The Buck and Pulleyn started from this effort. Therefore, the change management strategy was described so that different tools and systems were developed to involve all the stakeholders in the change management process such as workout sessions, group discussion and seminars over the organization as has been described in the event. (Barnes, 1995)
Moving:
The failure of the first memo was accompanied by the advantages of group discussions for all your employees - one factor which resulted in a comparatively more positive upsurge in the response of the employees/stakeholders and enthusiastic participation in the strategic change process, but still it didn't meet the required objectives. The restructuring process force process resulted in formation of manipulated command groups on intra-departmental basis, as mentioned from the performance and the orientation of the exterior and the inner clubs, especially the red team, it appears that the five-stage model have been implemented in the group development model. Problem fixing teams both internal/external (red, renewable and blue) have been created and the team market leaders were selected by the associates themselves, thus increasing the cohesiveness among the groups and increasing the possibility of positive effect of performance expectations. Account in the three external and three inner teams had been proven. Each team was producing and clarifying its duties and new working human relationships, with the Red Team very good ahead of the others. Most Red Team members had past experience in another of Buck and Pulleyn earlier multifunctional clubs. The Blue and Green teams were still in their early stages of creation. The Transition Job Force was also under way, got a mission affirmation, and organized to dissolve itself following a three-month work course. Robert Massimilian experienced decided to spearhead the cost/quality effort and another employee was along the way of creating an expertise data source of inner resources for the coaching/consulting problem. The methodology was successful because it determined employees/stakeholders to take part in the change process and increase in response rate of employees is an obvious indicator of this success. (Barnes, 1995)
Refreezing?? - We have to do something about this!
The time constraints in your choice making process had been relaxed to some extend by Chris so as to ensure optimum decision making. The process of logical decision making would have been used to get a better and much quicker solution. The organization is wanting to assume and refreeze the change process but nonetheless some concerns from the employees and stakeholders' side exist. Moreover, even more brain-storming must refreeze the process as the new system is not fully mature (as stated in the initial research study). For example, Domains for teams are being identified and teams are still producing their working associations and then the process is in fact in progress. Red groups may have some experience however the blue groups and great groups are in start of their formation. Cost-quality constraints are being considered and new personnel is being developed for skills database etc. The existing structure is different from organization's earlier structure and there are some contradictions which can be confusing the company in successful decision making and control. For example, now the compensations should be paid on team performance basis within the past compensations were paid on specific basis. In simple words, similar problems like the controversy between the old individual centered performance worth and new team established performance worth are creating problems and a proper solution is necessary before re-freezing the change process. Some other problems like the issue of Creative Director need some immediate means to fix complete the refreeze process. My point here is to make clear that the organization struggles to re-freeze the change which it offers applied because of some problems and an instantaneous solution is required to talk about these problems before re-freezing the change process. Therefore, it is the basic problem experienced by the organization in this case. (Barnes, 1995)
Argumentation
The concentrate of the various teams in Buck & Pulleyn was on customer retention and satisfaction, which could be achieved through highly motivated and highly satisfied groups. Also, clean coordination and cohesiveness would be needed among the many team members. Scarce resources should be successfully allocated among the clubs to cause optimized performance through the forming of a comprehensive databases for resource recognition and an effective compensation insurance policy to go with both these factors. The factors highlighted by the Restructuring Job Force were related to the compensation and bonus of the employees, as well as job marketing promotions and possible career expansions. Compensation ideas would have a good effect on the desire and the productivity of the employees if they would be linked with both the team and the average person performance, with regular reviews of the team members for allowing better performance. (Barnes, 1995)
Looking at the team efficiency model, the groups possessed all the four components of Context, composition, work design and process and were moving to the road of success. Better groups would be made, with the duration of time, by giving training to the employees. (Barnes, 1995)
The organization had come out of the turmoil process successfully. The discord related to cost and quality was best for higher efficiency of the business because the employees could have concentrate on using the optimal production strategies for the utmost output. Taking a look at the issue faced by Chris about the nomination of Robert as the chief executive, we can easily see that there is a discord only in the opinions of the employees. (Barnes, 1995)
If we start to see the above occurrences which happened within the last then these incidents plainly support my conclusion given in the beginning of the discussion. For instance, there are clear evidences of poor leadership techniques, inefficient decision making methods and lack of confidence on the top management by the employees. We can consider the beginning of this change process when employees dropped the change process indirectly. Then at the moving phase, some issues arose. Finally at the truth of Richard, some contradiction occurred. All of the employees needed a unified type of command with determination and leadership for strategic change management. This backed my point which I explained in the demonstration that leadership and organizational viewpoint is the most important and strategic property of an organization which is critical for employees to understand the organizational school of thought to efficiently take part in the proper change management process. (Barnes, 1995)
Recommendations:
Based on all our evaluation, I would make the following suggestions for Chris to be able to solve various issues:
Ensure that the company has string authority, with a strong support from the employees.
The compensation plan, dealing with all the issues highlighted in the record distributed by the Restructuring Task Force, is required to be looked at in the light of the new system.
The business has a very strong culture and employees are reluctant to change. This should be kept in mind before establishing any more change plans.
The company will will have a decentralized decision making and a horizontal hierarchy, where the reliance will be on the decisions created by the team leaders rather than the top management. They'll be in direct connection with the customers and therefore, they will be the most valuable advantage for the business if it requires to prosper. Therefore, I'd like to recommend that for the external teams, motivated and customer friendly employees should be chosen. Moreover, the teams should also be given training to strengthen the team dynamics. Because of this, over time, they will create very positive effects for the business.
The methods used for the reimbursement strategies should be useful and employee focused like peer research, etc. The final decision should relax with the compensation team, while the bonuses should get on both team and specific performance basis. The job paths and possible special offers should be made clear in the new framework by the top management to boost the motivation degree of employees and to seek the services of the best talent for internal and external teams.
Any policies which are radical, or are providing a deviation from the overall norms or techniques, need to be carried out with extreme care and precision. This is because as was seen in the restructuring process, the business wasn't very supportive of the change in the framework of the business. Any change or major decision must be carried out with perfection and relative to the possible reaction of the employees. It might be better for the business to really have the self-assurance of the employees or the team market leaders before and during the execution process and decision making of regulations.
All the changes made should be examined empirically that whether these changes are compatible with organizational structure or not. Because group philosophy and eyesight are the building blocks of organizations framework, a proper brain-storming and activity mapping should be achieved to check the feasibility of change process. It is because organizational perspective and idea are transferred from authority and supports the activity systems of organizations. Any change away for these constraints will cause is poor command with organizational collapse.
Conclusion
If we evidently analyze the aforementioned the situation of Buck and Pulleyn, then it is evident that every strategy to undergo a proper change management was reliable but the only problem experienced was lack of command and organizational school of thought in proper change management. The exact same recommendations received in the training slides other than the statement. The organizational school of thought and authority the most the proper assets to endure and deal with the tactical change management process in organizations. The business must enforce organizational and management idea to align the non-public goals of employees with organizational goals to perform its goals and targets with an effective and productive strategy.
