Managing Change at Bingham Business College - Essay Example

?Managing Change at Bingham Business College Introduction This essay considers the case of Bingham Business College and the current problems being experienced by the Central Records Office. It begins by analysing the current situation using appropriate theory to identify the issues facing the Director both now and in the longer-term. A brief summary of the findings is followed by a series of recommendations aimed at resolving both the present difficulties and potential future problems. The Issues Problems and Assumptions The main issue appears to be change imposed by someone new to the College who believes the approach taken prior to his arrival was unprofessional and inefficient, despite working at 120% capacity. Having said that, Stacey (2011, p.27) cautions that “the particular explanation one adopts directly affects the particular account one gives of any phenomena, including those to which the concepts of strategy and organisational change apply”. Thus this interpretation is partial and not objective, which is not how business situations should be viewed. The correct business approach to problem solving is represented in the rational decision-making process described by Miller et al (1996): Figure 1: Rational Decision Making Model (Source: based on Miller et al, 1996, p.76) This appears to be the approach taken by Snook when devising his new system. However, what he perceives as a problem is not necessarily a problem. His issue is how the Central Records Office appears to those outside of the Office, with data security and the impact of anticipated increases in student numbers seemingly secondary to his primary impression of the Office as being unprofessional. He wants the College to appear professional and the Office to appear the same as part of that. He makes several assumptions about the original Office set-up, including it is inefficient (“it must be, it’s a mess”) and that a fundamental restructuring is needed. He ignores evidence showing the Office has been operating at 120% capacity, using the original system, that he doesn’t like, and proceeds with his ideas without advising the Office staff of the potential for additional student enrolments or asking them for their views on how the Office might need to change to deal with this. At no point has he actually discussed his opinion of the Office with the staff, which might have averted the crisis that now exists. He even ignores the warning from his “expert” that the Head of Central Records would not be comfortable with the proposals, projecting his own preferences onto Fearne to justify his decision. Ignoring Roberts’ point, when it is made by someone who has been at the College for some time and therefore knows how things operate both formally and informally, is a major error of judgment on the part of Snook, who has only been in post for a matter of months. A Learning Organisation Perspective A learning organisation is one that “encourages and facilitates the learning and development of people at all levels of the organisation, values the learning and simultaneously transforms itself” (Mullins, 2010, p.827). Stacey (2010, p.99) looks at different approaches to strategy, stating that one belief is that “an organisation’s strategic development could be better understood as arising in processes of learning”. Organisations become what they are due to “the quality of their learning processes”, with organisational leaders required to “design learning processes and inspire effective learning” (ibid). Fearne would argue the learning experience for her and her team is one of how not to manage change. Snook’s imposition of the change indicates he does not consider the College to be a learning organisation, nor does he consider the Office staff have any knowledge which could be useful to him in redesigning the Office systems. He also believes the staff do not need development, which could have happened had he involved the staff in the change process. Stacey (ibid) refers to Senge’s (1990) model of a learning organisation involving the five disciplines of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Those who achieve personal mastery “consistently obtain the results that they want and it requires commitment to lifelong learning” (Stacey 2010, p.103). Stacey further identifies the characteristics of “deepening one’s personal vision, focusing energy, developing patience and seeing reality objectively” (ibid). Snook appears to have no patience with anyone questioning his viewpoint, evidenced by his response to Fearne highlighting the dissatisfaction of the Office staff with the new system, and it is doubtful that he sees reality objectively, as he frames all of his dealings with the Office in terms of the “unprofessional” conduct he witnessed. This latter point also falls within the area of mental models. Kelly (1963, p.55) developed a personal constructs theory, within which he states “persons differ from each other in their construction of events”. Stacey adds that “humans are compelled by their limited brain capacity for processing new information to simplify everything they observe” (Stacey, 2010, p.109). These two ideas combine to create mental models – a shorthand way of interpreting reality. Once such a model is created, it is very difficult to change and most people do not really think about the basis upon which they construct reality because it seems that reality is just reality and assumptions do not need to be made, never mind considered. Snook believes a business school should be professional and efficient, not childish or playful. He values neatness, formality and control, viewing the Office as being “out of hand”. Fearne, in contrast, believes in staff participation and being part of the team, albeit with the right to make decisions. She sees the cake parties as boosting morale and values team-building. Fearne has also built up mental models about how the work in the Office should be done, based on her experience. She probably does not need to think about how to do things, doing things automatically out of habit. Although her approach has been successful up until now, it may need to be reviewed in the light of changes at the College. But it appears she has been denied the information that might compel her to review her mental models as to how the work is done (double-loop learning – Stacey, 2010, p.109). Instead, she has formed an opinion equating the old system with good, and the new system with bad. She may also see Snook as someone who is new in the organisation interfering with something that was working properly and therefore not really qualified to comment on the work of the Office. The shared vision aspect of a learning organisation is missing from this situation. While Snook has a vision, he has not shared this with anyone, meaning his actions might not make sense to onlookers, or even be seen as interference. There is also no indication given as to whether his vision ties in with the College vision. If it doesn’t that will cause additional problems. The Office team clearly do share a vision as they have created a system that gets the work done, allows them to deliver quality customer service that receives compliments, and gives them time to play a little as well. They may think their vision is obvious, but again it is probably not. There are potentially three conflicting visions here. Stacy (2010, p.110) puts the manager within the context of groups and teams. Group and team members will learn the mental models of the group/team by being part of it. This idea is similar to Johnson et al’s (2011) sub-cultures existing within an overall organisational culture. The Office team clearly have their own ways of doing things and their own culture, which also clearly conflicts with Snook’s ideas of what should happen and the culture that should exist. His change could therefore not only be seen as a change of office systems but also one of culture change, which is notoriously difficult to achieve. It would go some way to explaining the difficulties now being faced by the department. Management Styles Gratton (2004) identified what she called the six tenets of the democratic enterprise : 1. The relationship between the organisation and the individual is adult-to-adult 2. Individuals are seen primarily as investors actively building and deploying their human capital 3. Individuals are able to develop their natures and express their diverse qualities 4. Individuals are able to participate in determining the conditions of their association 5. The liberty of some individuals is not at the expense of others 6. Individuals have accountabilities and obligations both to themselves and the organisation. (Source: Gratton, 2004, pp.xiv-xv) Many employees, especially during and following the global economic crisis of 2007-2008, feel disengaged from their work. Paton (2010) reports 16% of line managers felt their staff were fully engaged with the business, while chief executives believe the number is 38%. A study in 2007 indicated one of the reasons staff were disengaged with their work was that “senior leaders ‘treat us as just another part of the organisation to be managed’ or ‘as if we don’t matter’” and there was no “sincere interest in their satisfaction and well-being” (Paton, 2007). This is how Snook appears to treat his staff, resulting in the potential for staff disengagement and ultimately loss of those staff to other organisations. Snook violates all six tenets of the diplomatic enterprise, treating the staff as if they are children who must be “seen and not heard”. This is reflected in the management style used by Snook when dealing with his staff, which is autocratic. Stacey (2010, p.115) highlights an authoritarian use of power “exercised as force over unwilling followers ... is characterised by sullen acceptance, covert resistance and at times outright rebellion” and prevents double-loop learning. It contrasts sharply with Fearne’s participative style. These styles lie at opposite ends of the leadership behaviour continuum identified by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973, in Mullins 2010) which Mullins reports as evidencing four main leadership styles: tells, sells, consults and joins (2010, p.382). Snook demonstrates “tell” style, where the manager “makes decision and announces it” (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958, p.96). He gives the staff absolutely no say in anything to do with the reorganisation. Fearne’s style is “joins”, which “permits subordinates to function within limits defined by superior” (ibid). She allows her staff a great deal of latitude when dealing with work. The degree of difference between the styles is likely to cause friction between Snook and Fearne, as shown by the doughnut incident and his reaction to the Monday morning cake parties. Snook was not interested in Fearne’s explanation of maintaining staff morale, which also indicates a lack of understanding of the importance of individuals within organisations. He also describes the new system as a “regime” to Roberts, a word usually associated with government dictatorships, revealing not only what he thinks of the old system but also how he believes management should be – autocratic and based on the scientific management principles of Taylor (Mullins, 2010, pp.45-49), which focuses on efficiency and increased productivity. It is unfortunate the new system, which is supposed to increase efficiency and productivity, actually reduces both, causing complaints. Working Environment and Other Issues One consequence of Fearne’s approach, not mentioned, is the use of such things as the cake and birthday parties as a means of reducing stress levels within the office. This may not appear to be important, but the increasing levels of sickness within the Office following the introduction of the new system indicates that stress levels within the office have potentially increased, making the work environment less conducive for the Office team. This is likely to reduce the amount of extra work put in by the staff, resulting in work not being done. In imposing a new system on the Office, Snook is potentially undermining Fearne’s position as head of the department. As the department head, it would be expected she would be consulted on any possible changes to her working area, as she is responsible and accountable for it. However, in imposing the change, Snook has not only undermined her position, but also disconnected her responsibility and accountability for it. She will not feel responsible for the results of the system change, nor the effects it has on other people, regardless of how she used to feel. If she is unhappy, she will make sure others know, causing further disruption. The signed letter, involving senior academics as well as the Office team, sets her at direct odds with Snook, which will not help resolve the issues. It also means the whole affair may come to the attention of senior management becoming a political issue, and seriously compromising any potential resolution. The final issue concerns the sex of the protagonists. The Office team, including its head, are women. The new director and the systems expert are men. Mullins (2010, p.161) reminds readers that “there is a body of evidence to confirm the position, status and (lack of) power of women in organisations” and this dynamic may be at work here as well. It is something to bear in mind when resolving the issues. Conclusion This issue appears simple but has potentially several causes and many more effects, both in the short and long term. The immediate problem requiring resolution is the Office is not working properly under the new system and not delivering what it should. The second, and more intractable problem, is the conflict between Snooke and Fearne which has become confrontation. This requires extremely careful handling to avoid either party losing face and/or the College losing valuable members of staff. Recommendations The quickest way to get the Office working again, is to return to the old way of doing things. Snook may not like this, but he should be able to see the new system is not working. Whether that is because the system is inflexible or the staff are working to rule is not the issue at present. Getting the work done, is, as it is inconveniencing both staff and students. This should not be presented as a victory or defeat for anyone, but a triumph of pragmatism to get the system working again. While this is taking place, there needs to be some form of mediation to allow both Snook and Fearne to air their opinions, so that each knows how the other feels and can evaluate the impact of their actions on each other and, by extension, the team and the College. This will need to be very carefully managed: it is recommended that a professional mediator with substantial experience in this area of conflict resolution be hired by the College to facilitate this process. The College may argue that it will cost a substantial amount of money, but they need to see that if this issue is not resolved properly, then the College may lose one or both of these members of staff and they both have a great deal to offer the College: replacing them will cost not only money but goodwill. If Snook goes, then Fearne may establish a position of being untouchable by anyone replacing Snook. If Fearne goes, then the rest of the team may go as well, even if not all at once and immediately. The lost goodwill among the rest of the staff and the students will not be replaced easily. So the expense of a professional mediator is fully justified in the circumstances. As part of the mediation, as long as it is appropriate to do so, the change can be discussed in terms of taking things forward. If both parties can see what the other thinks and why they think it, they may well find that they have similar aims for the Office, and differ in how those aims should be achieved. If common ground can be established between them, they can begin to work together to identify what issues might exist with increasing numbers and how best they can be resolved, without compromising either party’s dignity or professionalism. Only together will they be able to both resolve the issues surrounding the current situation, and deal with issues that might face them in the future. Word Count: 2,673 words, excluding diagram and references References Gratton, L. (2004) The Democratic Enterprise FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Johnson, G., Whittington, R. and Scholes, K. (2011) Exploring Strategy (9th edn.) FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Kelly, G. A. (1963) A Theory of Personality: the Psychology of Personal Constructs Norton, London Miller, S. J., Hickson, D. J. and Wilson, D. C. (1996) ‘Decision-Making in Organisations’ in Salaman, G. (ed.) Decision Making for Business: A Reader The Open University/Sage, London Mullins, L. J. (2010) Management and Organisational Behaviour (9th edn.) FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Paton, N. (2010) ‘A War for Talent or for Dead Wood?’ Management Issues available online at http://www.management-issues.com/2010/3/9/research/a-war-for-talentor- for-dead-wood.asp?section=research&id=5885&specifier=&mode=print&is_ authenticated=0&reference= [accessed 27th January 2011] Paton, N. (2007) ‘The Disengagement Gap’ Management Issues available online at http://www.management-issues.com/2007/10/23/research/thedisengagement-gap.asp?section=research&id=4579&specifier=&mode=print&is_authenticated=0&reference= [accessed 27th January 2011] Stacey, R. D. (2011) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity (6th edn.) FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. (1958) ‘How to Choose a Leadership Pattern’ Harvard Business Review Vol. 36 No. 2 pp.95-101 Read More