Difficulties in Companies' Leadership - Case Study Example

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP Organizations are dynamic, and characteristic to this dynami is transitionperiods. Good managerial qualities entails being able to take an organization through such a period with great success. Leadership, and specifically transformative leadership, entails creating a sustainable vision for the future, engaging other individuals, not necessarily ones subjects, into the vision through motivation and inspiration, sticking to the vision while adjusting action plans according to prevailing circumstances, as well as creating an efficient team with whom the vision can be pursued. Good leaders are those who can dexterously handle the paradoxes associated with the organization, and steer the organization to heights unimaginable. However, many managers always attest to the fact that handling changes can sometimes be challenging. Research show that it is the methods employed in handling implementation that sometimes are not suitable for the prevailing circumstances in a particular organization, and thus the imminent failure witnessed in such situations. Consider a case in an organization, say ABC, in which the management wants to give an overhaul to the current humanistic values. As is the case with humans, change is never something that they are ready to welcome. This necessitates the need for a better approach that will not stir rebellion from the employee. Nickols (2010) for instance, presents an analysis of four strategies that are vital to managing change in any organization. He centers his argument on a number of aspects regarding the nature of change. These aspects include the extent of the change i.e. more radical and transformative changes require a strategy that is environmentally adaptive, and which might fail when dealing with a less radical change. The other aspect is the stakes that the change has, for instance, a change with high stakes requires the application of almost all the four strategies, while moderate stakes are totally against an approach such as the power-coercive strategy. The degree of resistance the change is bound to encounter is another aspect, strong resistance favors the use of power-coercive and/or environmental-adaptive strategy while a weak resistance is more receptive to either or a combination of rational-empirical strategy and normative-re-educative strategy. Another aspect of great importance is the period within which execution of the change is to take place. Here, he notes that Short time changes require power-coercive strategy to execute, while long-term changes thrive well under a combination of the other approaches. Given the nature of the expected change in this virtual organization, it would be wise to adopt a rational approach that entails slow assimilation of the work force into the new system. Nickols further notes that the strategies and the nature of expertise available to execute the change, as well as the structure of the organization i.e. the nature of dependency between the organization and the workers, are also matters of great concern when adopting particular strategy/strategies. Concerning the structure of the organization, Nickols notes two structural configurations, one is the case in which the organization is greatly dependent on the people, in which case it has limited ability to command and demand, and hence an adaptive approach will be suitable. The reverse case implies that the people are dependent on the organization, in which case any of the four strategies can be skillfully employed. It is worth noting that an intermediate mutual case can also exist, necessitating the need for negotiation, and hence playing in with the time factor. Assuming the organization in question is one where there is mutual dependence between the employees and the company, an adoptive approach will be suitable for effecting such a change. According to Nickols, the Empirical-Rational strategy relies on the assumption that humans are rational beings, who tend to pursue their self-interests, and hence this strategy employs a carrot-and-stick approach. The execution here is thus dependent on balance of risks and incentives. This means that in the case of ABC, given that the incoming humanistic changes will affect the wellbeing of the employees directly, the management can offer the carrot side the empirical-rational method by incorporating into the memo a clause that defines a given package as a compensation for the best performer under the new set of rules. Secondly, Nickols discusses a Normative-Re-educative approach that relies on the social human trait signified by their tendency to stick by cultural norms. This approach aims at providing in depth clarification and interpretation of the existing norms, while at the same time introducing new ones. Since this change relies on culture, and given the fact that culture tends to be more static, or rather less dynamic, this approach is not suitable for short time turnaround changes. However, almost all efforts of change do have both short term and long-term objectives. This implies that this approach can be applied in either type of change effort, provided the organization adeptly involves the informal leaders who have important and valued influence on groups or sub-groups that hold powerful positions. Another strategy espoused by Nickols is the Power-Coercive approach. This approach centers on the human trait of being compliant. In as much as human beings like to follow instructions, and given that this approach relies on exercising authority to achieve the goal (Kotter & Schleisinger. 2008), it can terribly fail in the case of humanistic changes. This is because trying to impose a change in the culture of persons always receives the fiercest of rebellion, which can be marked by outright protest or go slows. The creation of a ‘burning platform’ situation in this case is tantamount to suicide. However, other instances exist when such an approach work. Giving the change proposal the necessary hype will make it acceptable once the workers will have realized that their resource is threatened. Finally, Nickols discusses an Environmental-Adaptive approach. He observes that since people are naturally opposed to losses and disruption but can readily adapt to new situations, this strategy exploits their adaptive nature by shifting the burden of change from the management to the organization. In doing so, this strategy skillfully dodges the complications associated with trying to make people change their culture. It is directed towards creating a new organization and providing an all-inclusive plan that aids in the movement from the old system to the new one, as opposed to initiating a systematic transformation of the organization. Nickols points out that this strategy is suitable for radical transformative type of change. He further notes that turnaround time is not a factor of much consideration in applying this approach, as it can work well with both short term and long-term change efforts. However, for short time frame changes, Nickols notes that the management should strategize on how to handle the explosive growth that may result from such a change, and how to curtail the effect the old culture may have if implementation of the new one encounters some obstacles. That notwithstanding, this strategy has one key challenge. In an attempt to bring about the change, the procedure involves a certain level of profiling of workers as either worthy of moving with into the new system, or labeling them as ‘bad apples’, and thus must be chucked from the organization completely. Some of these strategies, as has been shown, rely on the carrot and stick approach. For instance, the empirical rational approach offers the carrot side, while the Power-Coercive strategy leans towards the stick side. This implies that it is possible to use these strategies simultaneously, and still obtain good results in as far as change implementation is concerned. Nonetheless, the application of these strategies requires a dynamic and flexible formula such as the Kotters 8 stage process managing change program in an organization. The Kotters 8 stage process is one of the most effective and widely used change implementation models among management systems. However, just like other models, Kotters model incorporates the usual stages change creation such as creation of a clear vision, communicating properly about the vision with other staff members and stakeholders, empowering of employees and leading the way of success by being the example. However, in order to adopt a particular method, an understanding of change strategies is imperative. The creation of a new order in any setting is always difficult to say the least. Leadership, to begin with, demands the understanding of paradoxes that may show up within the organization. Smith (2015) while citing Smith and Lewis (2011) defines paradox as ‘contradictory yet related elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time’. Smith observes that organizations encounter paradoxes frequently during their operations, and the ability of a leader to sustain such paradoxes is what defines good leaders. Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996) espouse that strategy-making process is the backbone of change process. They argue that the concept of strategy is the extensive spreading of strategy-making abilities in individuals throughout the organization. According to Liedtka and Rosenblum, focus on strategic thinking has shifted to the centrality of strategic intent as a more relevant point of analysis. The concept, they note, has changed the overall conception of who in an organization bears the responsibility of making of formulating strategies. They note that the once preserve of the top management has become anybody’s business. However, this does not imply that senior management is no longer involved. The management is still responsible for the formation, provision of the necessary support and communicating the vision to the people. The concept of centrality strategic intent encompasses sharing of decision-making authority through appreciating the input of other players by linking intent and learning. This allows for the formation of a decentralized environment for maximum dissemination of local information that goes a long way in having maximum impact on the system. The second aspect involves disintegration of boundaries. The current world economic order necessitates the need to bring together multiple related industries with an aim of fostering innovation. This inter-relation between firms has made it possible to explore multiple fields, with this new design providing the necessary acceleration towards developing new ideas. Concerning the issue of adaptability to change among employees in an organization, Lawrence observes that there is always a tendency among some employees to resist change. He notes that characteristic of such resistance include resignation of some employees, reduction in production as a means of protest, and submission of a number of reasons why the new order may fail to work, among others. He therefore analyzes the underlying causes of such protest and provides four major ways of resolving such a stalemate. The first solution, According to Lawrence, involves making the employees take part in the change, rather than attempting to impose it on them. However, Lawrence notes that this mode is not at all the best one, as it may lead the management to future problems. Secondly, he notes that understanding the true nature of the resistance can help solve the problem. He points out that the actual thing the employees resist is not the technical change, but rather the social change that accompanies the technical change. Lawrence also points to an apparent development of a blind spot and certain negative attitude amassed from getting preoccupied with the technical aspects of the change as being another factor that stirs resistance among employees. This problem can easily be overcome by creating a powerful team to help on sensitizing other staff members on the technical aspects, rather than leaving the employees to try to decipher them on their own. The management can also put a lot of emphasis on new standards expected of all employees. Lawrence also proposes, in extreme situations, the use of its power to suppress some of these resistances. Whipp and Pettigrew (1992) attempt to provide an explanation of the link between strategic and operational change, as well as how managerial capacity relates to competitive performance. They observe that management, acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, as well the communication factor of knowledge interaction have positive relation with the overall performance of the organization. With the realization that management capacity enables the improvement of outcome in any organization, there is need among firms to be constantly aware of the fact that social interaction can help moderate this link. Firms therefore ought to pay attention towards the formulation of appropriate social interaction conditions that can allow for adequate dissemination of information for increased performance of the organization. From the above deductions, Kotters method clearly fits the bill, and thus can be adopted as a management style of introducing change. The method is divided into 8 distinct stages as discussed and which can be applied in the case of ABC as below: Establishment of a sense of urgency This involves performing an examination of the market to establish competitive realities. This examination can be effectively carried out by conducting a PESTLE analysis. Having identified the need for this type of change, ABC ought to discuss crises or potential crises, as well as opportunities. The potential crisis in this case would be internal protest, and which once the management understands its proper context, it can then initiate a catalyst for the necessary change, which could be attaching reward parks to the change objective. Formation of a powerful coalition Agents of change ought to be people who are ready and willing to work, and who have significant influence on other sub-groups that are found within the organization,and who have the tenacity and aptness to champion for the vision even when there is internal resistance from other employees. ABC management should therefore assemble a group that has enough power and drive to lead the people through this venture, people who can indoctrinate their fellow staff members with the expected benefits. This coalition should have proper strategies for pursuing the vision, and as such should receive proper induction concerning the vision and its benefits from the management. Creation of a vision All changes initiated by organizations are always guided by particular visions. Good leadership therefore requires the creation of tenable visions for the organization. Such a vision must incorporate proper and adequate strategies that will ensure that no obstacle blurs the attainment of the vision. Visions, whether short-term or long-term, should be dynamic in order to ensure future adaptability. A change such as that initiated by ABC is but an icebreaker. The management is just trying to have proper guidelines in place for other projects in the near future. Communication of the Vision Good leadership entails not only good communication, but also timely and efficient communication strategies. The way the vision reaches the junior individual that are tasked with its implementation determines how their reaction towards it will turn out. The management at ABC should thus employ every means and channel of communication available within their disposal to communicate the vision. In addition, the guiding coalition earlier established should be available to redirect others on the new set of behaviors expected of every individual, and through example demonstrate the effectiveness of such a change. Empowering other staff to act on the vision One method that has shown tremendous results in matters concerning people empowerment is by removal of obstacles, or providing ways of avoiding potential obstacles as and when they arise. Kotters method identifies the need to do the same when implementing changes. To achieve this, ABC leadership ought to eliminate all systems and structures that may undermine achievement of the vision, which could go as far as getting rid of persons that are known to be rigid, and who may incite others to oppose such a move. In addition, the management should find ways of encouraging risk-packed ventures as well as non-traditional ideas, activities and actions among employees to nurture new innovative ideas. Planning for and creation of short-term goals Human beings are innately attracted to success, however minimal the returns such a success brings. A vision, regardless of whether it is short-term or long-term, should have elements within it that will provide immediate positive returns. Such positive results will translate to visible improvement in overall performance of the organization due to the changes introduced. Furthermore, the management ought to recognize and reward employees to which such success can be attributed. This reward forms part of the proverbial carrot, and which will eventually make the change appealing to any potential dissidents. However, these rewards must exhibit an even distribution among the present departments, for purposes that are well obvious. Consolidation of the improvements, while producing more change Here is where the benefits of instantaneous benefits come in handy. Achievement of a short-term goal means a re-evaluation has to be done. During such moments, the management can use increased credibility to make further changes to the system, structures and policies that seem redundant, and those that have failed to fit into the new system. This re-evaluation also provides information on the available human resource, and can thus be used as a yardstick to determine the necessary area that needs new staff, the individuals who qualify for promotion as well those who need to be developed in order to conform to the set action plans of achieving the vision. At this point, the management can also initiate steps such as introduction of new projects, themes and agents of change with a bid of re-invigorating the process. Institutionalization of new approaches The final stage of change implementation involves the creation of connection between the new ideas and corporate successes. In this case, then management should develop channels that will ensure there is consistent development of leadership, as well a succession plan that works best for the organization. Institutionalization of the approaches can be evaluated based on five main components namely recognizing, planning, evaluating, reinforcing and re-norming. Recognition involves acknowledging the masters of change, and ensuring the maintenance of their legacy. Planning involves continually sourcing for leaders whose ambitions are in line with the vision of the organization, and hence who are capable of carrying the vision forward. Evaluation entails proper recording of data for crosschecking with outcomes to ensure that sustenance of the said vision is solely because it is giving positive results. Reinforcement on the other hand entails the rewards according to small and big achievement that result from the vision. This should include rewards to the respective individuals as well. Finally, re-norming involves how rewards and incentives are used to support new norms and shared ideas to ensure continued innovation for better adaptability. Having adequately analyzed the Kotters 8 stage process of managing change, an organization that requires a modest method of handling change can easily adopt this method. It is imperative to note that such a method when duly executed, can give quality results to any given organization. The method offers a management system that in addition to providing a liberal environment in which all employees are free to give their input; they also form an integral part of the organization. The method further allows the organization to avoid unnecessary compromises in the quality of production due to internal resistance as a way of protest against imposed changes. Furthermore, Kotters approach of handling changes in an organization has been widely used due to its flexibility to change. It also adopts an effective approach of consolidating the changes, while at the same time introducing new ones making it quite dynamic and suitable for the current world order where predicting the future is a near uncertainty. The instantaneous re-evaluation thus ensures the organization gets up to date with current trends. References Kotter, J. P. & Shlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139. Lawrence, P.R. (1954). How to Deal with Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3), 49-57. Liedtka, J. M. & Rosenblum. J. W. (1996). Shaping Conversations: Making Strategy, Managing Change. California Management Review, 39(1), 141-157. Nickols, F. (2010). Four change management strategies. Distant Counseling LLC. Retrieved from http://www.Nickols.us/four_strategies.pdf Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal. 1015 (1). 58-89. Whipp, R. & Pettigrew, A. (1992). Managing Change for Competitive Success: Bridging the Strategic and the Operational. Industrial & Corporate Change, 1(1), 205-235. Read More