Successful Management of Organization - Research Paper Example

?Introduction This case study provides a very unique insight into how the overall change management process can be successfully implemented within anorganization. Right from feeling the need for change to conceiving and planning for change, communicating it and finally implementing the same indicates a comprehensive approach towards the change management process. The step by step and incremental approach to implement the changes therefore suggested that the change management can be successful and resistance could be overcome if the overall process is managed from the strategic perspective and all the stakeholders are taken into consideration in the overall change management process. How was change managed at Simmons? One of the most effective methods of ensuring a lasting change within an organization is to engage different stakeholders including employees in the overall process of change. This would mean that all the stakeholders are taken on board before any decision to take on the new changes within the organization is implemented. (Ragsdell, 2000). What is also significant to understand that in order to manage change effectively, it has to be communicated well and thus requires a great deal of effective communication in order to ensure that the real message is trickled down to the employees. (Almaraz, 1994). Any change management process therefore faces the fact that different people react differently to the change due to the fact that everyone has different fundamental needs which need to be fulfilled and the overall process of change can threaten such needs. What is also significant to understand that changes often result into loss- losses such as jobs, loss of position and organizational power etc and in such a situation, it becomes often difficult to accept such change and become part of it. (Paton,& McCalman, 2008). In order to overcome such situations, it is therefore critical that the overall process of change is managed properly and within an acceptable norm where losses are minimized while at the same time, the overall objectives are achieved with ease.(Stanleigh, 2008). It is also important to note that change often creates fears and therefore it is important that the overall process of managing fear is also managed properly. Employees often believe that the overall process of change would result into their job losses or make them redundant and therefore they may not fully accept the change and provide the kind of information and input required to make change successful. Leaders therefore will have to ensure that the fears of the individuals are managed properly and that individuals know how this change is going to affect them positively. (Saka, 2003) A closer look at the overall affairs at Simmons would suggest that it was undergoing tremendous competitive pressures not only due to the fact that its major customers were out of the business but its overall approach was not centered on the consumers. This lack of focus on consumers therefore was not only costing them presently but it was its future which was at the risk also. Apart from this, the overall organizational structure at the firm was such that it resulted into the direct competition between different plants rather than fostering an overall process of collaboration between them. This situation therefore demanded a complete process of change management to be initiated at the firm. The overall process of change was managed at Simmons in rather an unconventional manner where the top management of the firm was first introduced to the concept. The CEO of the firm first shared the need for change with one individual and than the process of change management was initiated in order to ensure that the top management of the firm is on one page in terms of proposed changes in the future. As such the overall approach was a top down approach wherein the changes were first introduced at the top and then they were subsequently trickled down to the lower level. Changes were introduced at the higher level first wherein the top management of the firm was actually being allowed to see the big picture and value the idea that how an overall team based approach can really help the organization to achieve its overall objectives. It is also important to understand that as a part of this change process, the underlying organizational structure of the Simmons was changed too. Many layers of organization were reduced not only at the plant level but at the higher level also. Changes at the plant level were initiated in piecemeal wherein only one plant was chosen to soft launch the overall process of change. At the plant, plant managers were given the opportunity to understand the overall process of change and how an effective and team based approach can actually help the plant to achieve its objectives. This plan was also critical owing to the fact that communication was really absent at this plant and the overall organizational structure was bureaucratic in nature. Overall the process of change at Simmons was managed in realistic manner where almost all layers of management and line management were taken into consideration and were given proper information and justification as to why this overall process of change is necessary and how it will help the organization. Approaches used by Simmons A closer analysis of the facts presented in the case study suggest that Simmons clearly followed certain patterns and approaches in order to initiate the overall process of change and how to manage it properly. Considering the overall process of change which was initiated at the firm, an analysis from the perspective of the Kotter’s 8 step change model would suggest that the Eitel- CEO of the firm was successful in creating a sense of urgency behind the change. This sense of urgency emerged from the fact that the firm lost its three major customers, its product lines were not good because of some quality issues and the overall organizational structure at the firm was not supportive. These factors therefore were enough to create a sense of urgency within the firm and ensure that the overall program of change is going to address these issues and provide solutions so that the firm can actually get out of its existing condition. The second step in the Kotter’s model suggest that in order to effectively manage and create change, it is important to formulate an effective partnership. (Kotter, 2002). Eitel seems to have followed this approach also by partnering with Hellyer and as such a limited coalition was formed in order to develop a shared vision for the change to be implemented at the firm. Such formation of the partnership is also considered as effective because it requires an emotional attachment and response from the individuals and therefore offers a very unique perspective to ensure that the team building process can also be initiated. Eitel was also instrumental in creating a shared vision for the change and how it is going to affect the organization in the long run. The overall approach was to ensure that a combined and shared vision is developed under which all the stakeholders of the firm are actually invited to develop a shared vision in order to ensure that the company performs well. Eitel in one of his earliest meetings clearly stated that change and his vision for making such change. As such the overall direction and vision for the change was present within the mind of the CEO of the firm and same was also communicated to the top management of the firm. Communicating that vision was another important task which Eitel took when he visited all the plants of the firm as well as met with all the higher ups of the firm in order to first get a realistic picture of what is actually happening at the firm level. The Great Game of Life program was another more formal effort by the management of the firm to effectively communicate how necessary the overall process of change is and what firm actually needs in order to ensure that it is managed strategically. What is also significant to understand that this process of communicating the vision has also resulted into the achievement of support from the top management of the firm as well as the lower assembly line management also. Eitel also removed the short term obstacles by completely revamping the overall organization structure at the plant level. By eradicating the plant manager position and creating a team based structures at the plants allowed Eitel to actually remove the bureaucratic style of management at the plants while at the same time ensuring that different individuals at the plant work towards single objective. It’s however, important to note that the firm has probably failed to set up short term wins which can offer the firm a real taste of success for its effort to bring on the change. No smaller targets were set but rather the focus was on the achievement of bigger objectives of bringing in the change at the macro level of the firm. Similarly, if the overall process of change is viewed from the perspective of Scott and Jaffe model of change, it would emerge that the firm was under the state of denial when its three major customers went out of the business. Firm was generating significant revenues from these customers however, what is also significant to understand that firm failed to diversify its overall base of customers thus forcing itself into a state of denial. The State of denial was also evident from the fact that the overall organizational structure of the firm was such that it did not allowed health collaboration between the different plants. Plants of the firm were rather working as a direct competitors thus learning little from the experience of other plants and utilizing their strengths in order to ensure that the same level of efficiency and effectiveness to be brought in within other plants. Sharing of each others strengths therefore could have offered a unique perspective in terms of further improving the efficiency and achieving the desired level of cohesiveness at the organization wide level which was however missing and thus the firm was under the constant state of denial. Once this was realized, there was a resistance to the change as many plant managers left the firm because they were simply not able to comprehend the change which was going to take place within the firm. Exploration process started when higher management of the firm was allowed to work on a team based approach through the great game of life and once the actual problems and the real reasons behind the failure of the firm were identified, a real shift towards commitment of resources was initiated to start the overall process of change. (Cameron & Green, 2004). What "change tools" were used and what "challenges" occurred? One of the most important tools used by Eitel was the readiness assessment wherein he figured out as to whether the firm is actually ready for the change. Readiness assessment requires the overall assessment of the organization in terms of its current position and where it wants to go in the future. (Hiatt, & Creasey, 2003). The existing position of the firm was such that it was losing its regular and large customers owing to the economic situation which emerged as a result of the 9/11. This assessment was however, at the organizational level wherein a macro approach was undertaken to see through the different situations from which the firm was undergoing. There were three different situations undergoing at the same time i.e. the firm was losing its customers, the overall product quality as not good and the organizational structure was inefficient. Eitel therefore performed the assessment of how these changes will be actually implemented at the firm wide level and what could be done in order to ensure that the organization make a turnaround. Another important change management tool employed by the firm was the open communication of the same to almost all layers of the management. Eitel openly communicated the need for change to his top aides and ensured that the message is delivered clearly to all those who are actually responsible for managing the organization at the top level. It is however, also important to understand that the overall nature of the communication was two-folds i.e. on one side, Eitel intended to communicate the need for change and what is going wrong which requires an effective response from the management to ensure that the organization makes a turnaround. Another important tool which was used in order to bring the change successfully was the coaching and mentoring of the managers and the employees to ensure that they understand the change and its broader implications for the future of the firm. Eitel formed a coalition with one of the senior most executives at the firm and developed the overall vision for the change at the firm. However, this vision for the change was implemented with external help wherein the external change management experts were hired to mentor and coach the higher management of the firm to effectively understand the value of the team building and how an effective mentoring of the employees can result into mutual collaboration and solution of the organization problems. Further, coaching and mentoring however, was only limited to the higher management of the firm whereas at the plant level this was somewhat missing as the firm could not impart the required coaching and mentoring at the lower level of the organization. It is also important to note that coupled with this coaching and mentoring firm also initiated the process of training wherein the managers were given training in understanding team dynamics and how team work can actually improve the organizational efficiency. In the context of Simmons, the training for team building and work was also carried out in order to ensure that the overall process of change management is carried out according to the plans. The overall challenges in the process of implementing the change included the resistance from the plant managers who could not subscribe to the new idea for the change. Since plant managers were given lot of power at the plants and the new change management process was about to change that therefore the overall resistance to the change was higher from the lower level. This challenge however, was managed through an effective resistance management wherein plant managers were communicated the overall effectiveness of the change management process and how it can actually improve their work environment and increase their effectiveness. It is also important to note that one of the significant challenges in terms of successfully implementing the change is to manage the resistance effectively. Though the case study has suggested that the resistance was there from the plant managers however, it does not indicate as to whether there was any resistance from the lower level employees i.e. people working in the plants. Since the overall structure and style of management is different at each of the plant therefore it might be difficult to reconcile the differences and bring everyone on the same page in terms of enforcing a unanimous change at the firm wide level. What is also significant to understand that Simmons may face significant challenges if it fail to take into account the concerns of employees working at the lowest level. Another important challenge was to convince the owners of the firms because of the overall amount involved in carrying out the whole change management process at the firm. In order to ensure that the change management is effectively introduced, it is important that all stakeholders of the firm are taken into confidence in order to make change successful. Since the owners were wary of the overall economic situation and the amount involved in the transaction therefore overcoming this challenge was something significant for the firm to achieve. Was the planned change successful? The most important criteria to measure the success of any change management program is to measure as to whether the firm has been able to achieve the desired results or not. Setting effective goals and measuring their progress therefore is one of the key criteria to claim whether the proposed changes were successful or not. (Kotter, 1996). Before discussing whether the planned change was successful or not, it is important to understand that the change was initiated at a very limited level. Eitel was successful in bringing in the required change in the mindsets of the existing executives and they were taken on board in terms of the proposed changes and how they are going to affect the organization. What is also important to note that the firm’s decision to implement the proposed changes at only plant delivered the results and the plant went on to receive the accolades because of the improvements in the quality and efficiency. This therefore indicates that the changes were successful and if implemented at the organization wide level would have resulted into better and effective management of the quality as well as the efficiency increased at the plant. This increase in quality as well as the efficiency therefore also indicated that the firm was focused more on what its consumers wanted to consume rather than focusing on itself exclusively. Further the improvement in the communication, changes in the organizational structure at the plants further helped to improve the efficiency at the plant level thus suggesting that the changes were successful. (Diefenbach, 2007). However, whether the Simmons will be able to replicate this success at the enterprise wide level would still be a debatable issue because these changes were only implemented at a very small scale and were successful at only one plant. The overall rate of success therefore could only be measured when the changes are implemented at the organization wide level and they deliver the required results to the organization. What has been described in the case however, suggest that the changes have been successful to the level and extent they were implemented within the organization and can serve as an strong example for the management of Simmons to present their recommendations to the owners of the firms in terms of the overall success potential of the proposed changed management program. References 1. Almaraz, J (1994). Quality Management and the Process of Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management . 7 (2), pp.41-47. 2. Cameron, E & Green, M (2004). Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools . Illustrated. ed. New York: Kogan Page Publishers,. 3. Diefenbach, T (2007). The managerialistic ideology of organisational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 20(1), pp.112-117. 4. Hiatt, J , & Creasey, T (2003). Change management: the people side of change. Illustrated. ed. New York: Prosci. 5. Kotter, J (1996). Leading Change. 1st edition. ed. New York: Harvard Business School Press. 6. Kotter, J (2002). Heart of Change, The: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. 1st edition. ed. New York: Harvard Business School Press. 7. Paton, R, & McCalman, J (2008). Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation. Illustrated. ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 8. Ragsdell, G (2000). Engineering a paradigm shift?: An holistic approach to organisational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management . 13(2), pp.157-165. 9. Saka, A (2003). Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 16 (5), pp.3-5. 10. Stanleigh, M (2008). Effecting successful change management initiatives. Industrial and Commercial Training. 40 (1), pp.52-53. Read More