Analysis of Greenheart and How the Company Embraced Environmental Sustainability as a Core Value - Assignment Example

Case study-Organizational behaviour [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Introduction This paper presents a case analysis of Greenheart and how the company embraced environmental sustainability as a core value, restructured its business practices and allocated resources to minimise environmental footprint. A change in ownership of the company however heralded resistance to change. Kotter’s framework is used to analyse the weaknesses and strengths of management’s implantation of the change. Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis is also used to depict both driving and resisting forces of change. Q1: Kotter’s framework Kotter’s framework refers to an eight-step model for implementing change (Petersen et al 1-2). Step 1: Creation of a sense of urgency was a key strength for Greenheart to implement change. In creating a sense of urgency, Greenheart expressed that its sales were levelling off in a highly competitive market. This was further compounded by findings of “Bruntland Report” that warned of the accelerating deterioration of natural resources and human environment. Step: Forming powerful coalitions was also a key strength. Environmental issues became a recurrent agenda for discussion in meetings between the CEOs and other members of the executive, each of whom had an influence on cluster or markets or a functional area. They all supported the need for environmental sustainability. An environmental policy group was also created that was composed of different influential individuals from various disciplines. Step 3: Creation of a vision for change was also a key strength. The ideas for change and the solutions should be linked into an overall vision that can be grasped easily, so that everyone understands the need for change (Petersen et al 2). In the case, Greenheart was able to embrace environmental sustainability as a core value. This enabled internal and external stakeholders to understand its vision of becoming an environmentally sustainable business by 2005. Step 4: Communication of the vision was another key strength. Greenheart communicated its vision through its values and mission statements from 1995 to 2005 effectively. The communication was done frequently and powerfully in order to keep the vision fresh in people’s minds. It interpreted its sustainability as conducting its business with minimal impact on the environment. As a result, the employees, stakeholders and the society understood its vision. Step 5: Removal of Obstacles was a key strength as structures for change were put in place to check for barriers or resistance to change (Petersen et al 1-2). Greenheart created a portfolio for environmental sustainability under the corporate environmental coordinator who would oversee the change process and the environmental policy group. Step 6: Failure to create short-term wins was a major weakness. Greenheart did not give a sense of success in the early change process. For instance, no early targets were chosen that could be achieved easily. Step 7: Building on the change was however a major weakness. The change failed to run deep into the organization to achieve long-term change. This is because, after the change of ownership of Greenheart, the successes in environmental sustainability were never analysed to determine what went wrong and what needed to be improved. Step 8: Failure to make change within the corporate culture was a major weakness. Greenheart failed to make environmental sustainability a central part of the organization. For instance, while the leaders and staff continued supporting change, new leaders and staff failed to embrace environmental sustainability. Q2: Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis is a useful decision-making tool that supports the decision-making process by analysing the forces that enable and resist change (Anon 15-16). Enabling Forces Environmental objective were created and linked with company objectives to create a vision for the company. Further, an environmental policy group was also created which composed of different influential individuals from various disciplines to oversee the change. Coalition with the government also enabled brainstorming of corporate sustainability. Environmental dialogue with pressure groups, and links with technology-related contacts, as well as meeting with external advisers, also enhanced change. For instance, Greenheart had a tradition of open communication with the outside world, where it took part in reflection platforms with the Dutch ministry of Environment and a business network of food suppliers who were committed to ensuring sustainable environment. Restraining Forces Greenheart's new owner did not share the vision for environmental sustainability. Further, commitment to environmental sustainability was compromised by various objectives that involved competitive time claims. The performance of external distributors also affected Greenheart’s ability to meet its energy efficiency agreements with the Dutch government. Additionally, in the year 2000, external crisis affected one of the components of the company’s main product forcing the company to conduct overnight change in its product composition. This led to a major production problem, such as high rate of defective products. The newly appointed CEO in 2001 did not prioritise environmental sustainability. Rather, he shifted focus on improving the company’s financial performance. After the takeover of the company in 2003, the company focused on economic targets and less on environmental initiatives. The company's corporate technical staff on the environment was also downsized, and by 2004, the department no longer played a critical role in enhancing environmental initiatives. Effect of understanding the theory Understanding Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis model can enable Greenheart’s management to eliminate the restraining forces and to strengthen the enabling forces. The company is also able to know whether the plan is worth implementing. The model can benefit the team leaders, mangers and agents of change at the company to characterise the nature of the change. For instance, whether it is a positive or negative change, and whether implementing the change would be easy or difficult. It also enables the organization in problem-solving, by dealing with resistance to change and to implement the change (Anon 15-17). Q3: Recommendations Greenheart should have created short-term wins in environmental sustainability. This could have motivated the staff and new CEOs to see the need for change, and why the company should give it a priority. The change should also have been built into the organization in a way that it ran’s deep into the organization. This could have been realised through analysis of past successes in environmental sustainability and using the results to improve and implement further initiatives in environmental sustainability. This could have enabled the company to initiate long-term initiatives in environmental stability that the new CEOs would have seen the need to continue pursuing. Greenheart should have made environmental sustainability a corporate culture, where even as the old CEO and staff continue to support change, the new staff and CEOs learn to also embrace the change. However, CEOs came with their own cultures (financial sustainability) that conflicted with the old culture (environmental sustainability). Conclusion Kotter’s Framework and Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis show that although Greenheart embraced environmental sustainability using enablers and strengthens (such as embracing the change as a core value, restructuring its business practices and allocating sufficient human and financial resources to minimise environmental footprint), the change was affected by resistance such as failure to incorporate environmental sustainability as a corporate culture making new CEOs to introduce new concepts. Works Cited Anon. MOC Week 2 - Change and Change Approaches, 2013. Petersen, Horn, Ballegaard, Ulricj & Pedersen, Ravenholt. A Case on Change Management, 2008. 17 Nov 2013, Read More