Participative Change Process - Assignment Example

Organisational Change How can organisational change be facilitated without re to traditional ‘top-down’ command and control procedures? Critically evaluate at least two examples of participative change processes within your answer (with particular reference to lecture 5 and appropriate online resources). Introduction Organisational change is one of the most important aspects of management since a company which does not change itself based on the situation it is presented with might have to suffer tremendous losses. In normal circumstances, change management is a part of the other duties and functions which top management has to perform but for special companies and for those who take collective efforts to improve themselves, change can come from a participative procedure. In this regard, several examples can be given of how companies Such as GE and Apple have utilised a process of participative change to gain competitive advantages on the competition. Participative Change Process Change management is the set of management practices and controls which ensure that any organizational change is not negatively affected by the individuals involved in the change process. Change is often seen as negative since it is disruptive and there are interested parties who do not want to see change established in any company. However, change is also necessary since a business that does not adapt to changing situations is moving towards decline and possible ouster. When change management becomes participative, instead of looking at a top down approach where orders flow from the top to be half-heartedly implemented by the bottom, communication becomes a key aspect of creating a change. The Example of GE No company in the world across any industry in any location is as well respected and appreciated as GE (Demos, 2006). Throughout its existence, and more recently in current years, analysts from the fields of management, administration, human resources and organisational behaviour have all given their highest respect to GE (Fisher, 2006). A large part of this respect comes from the way GE handles its organisational aspects of Power and Control of which examples have been given by those who have been a part of GE as well as those who have observed it from afar. There was certainly was a man at the top who ran GE for many years before stepping down to make way for the new guard, the policies and methods used by Jack Welch have remained popular with the company and little has changed despite his exit (Colvin, 2006). In fact, the systems created by Welch were so good that they are continued in place with modifications made only when necessary. It is clearly no wonder than Business Week hailed him as America’s Best Manager long before he wrote his own book on management which also is considered essential reading for management students (Byrne, 1998). The Importance of Communication Amongst these systems was a system of establishing good practices and a commitment to participative change which seeks input from all levels of employees in order to enhance GE’s position in the corporate world. When Welch came to run the company it was not doing particularly well and several things had to be changed quickly. Instead of trying to fight the individuals who were already working within the company, Welch became the great communicator who worked with middle and senior managers to share his vision with them (Welch, 2005). When that vision was accepted by others, changes started flowing as work related suggestions from the very bottom of the company to the very top. Participative change in the case of GE came from the motivation which management gave to the individuals working for the company. In fact, Welch (2005) considers adaptability and flexibility to be as much a part of the employee’s creed as is remaining profitable and competitive. He discusses change and change management at length in his book and has said that entrepreneurs and anyone else who has the responsibility of leading the company must be open to suggestions of change made by others or not take up the position of responsibility at all. Acting like a Small Company For all the examples of small companies given by him and others, whenever the CEO of the company was mentioned the quality of adaptability and listening to the recommendations made by others was often assigned to the CEO. Participative change can only work if the management body of a company is willing to work with the individual at the bottom of the corporate ladder who wants to see one or more changes brought about to the company. In a larger, more bureaucratic organisation there can be several barriers between the head of the company and the workers in the trenches therefore small companies are often considered more adaptable to change and more likely to have indulged in participative change. A small company is likely to conduct participative change exercises simply because they are adaptable and flexible to changing times. The Herman Group (2004) pointed out that small companies will form the future of the world’s economy and that: “Future economic growth will come from these small enterprises, which are more flexible and mobile than their lumbering big brothers. Communications technologies overcome many of the functional limitations of being small, and micro-businesses can usually relocate quickly to draw from a new labour pool, serve new customers, and contribute to a new regions tax base (Herman Group, 2004, Pg. 14)”. This is a very valuable set of advantages and these are gained in part by the size of the company but the majority comes from other factors such as accepting the process of participative change. With that in mind, GE may be a large company, but it operates on the theoretical basis of a small company which manages to cut through the chains of hierarchy and control associated with large organisations (Armstrong, 1999). Byrne (1998) says that GE has been made an informal small company simply because people know when to violate the chain of command, know how to communicate across layers, and work as if they worked not for a big company but for a demanding entrepreneur who took decisions based on the recommendations of people who were working directly with him (Byrne, 1998). Apple Inc. On the other hand, a significantly different approach towards participative change is taken by the CEO at Apple where the vision of one man becomes more or less a forced participation for the rest of the company. Luckily, that man is Steve Jobs who is able to create a passion about his own ideas amongst his employees and they are able to participate in the change management process by accepting the change along with the vision. As opposed to the situation at GE, in the case of Apple, it is the culture of the organisation which helps in producing participative change along with the personality of the CEO of the company. The Culture Factor For change management, the culture of an organisation is not a static entity which exists in a vacuum. It can change, it can grow and it can develop into something which is larger than the organisation itself. One of the first companies in the world to adopt an informal business culture was Apple and few other companies have seen the drama, emotional involvement as well as ups and downs as Apple. The company has stood the test of time and has managed to turn out convincing products that have given it an image of innovation and being a radical organisation. There is no lack of information about Apple or the one person on which Apple banks for leading the company forward, i.e. Steve Jobs. Perhaps the best resource for understanding how participative change is managed at the company as well as the personality of Steve Jobs is the website folklore.org that gives details of hundreds of incidents that show how Steve cajoled and convinced others to support him in changing the company. The analysis of the participative change management process of the company has to be done at two different levels, firstly at how the company is controlled by the convincing powers wielded by Steve Jobs (Deutschman, 2000). At the same time, it is useful to examine the image presented by Apple of itself as a company and how the marketing mechanics utilised by Apple let it be seen as a cool and hip company while giants like IBM and Microsoft come across as nothing more than big brother (Scott, 1991). This reflects in the management style of the company where informality is the order of the day and little heed is paid to established rules or corporate norms. The participative change process at Apple directly tackles the issue of social constraints and limits to human potential that can be created due to strict management and hierarchical systems of management. Bypassing managers and breaking the chain of command might have irked people in middle and senior management teams but the end results and the profits declared by Apple under such management procedures speak for themselves (Forbes, 2006). Apple was the first company in the 1970s to redefine what change loving corporate culture should be. The company was flat instead of being hierarchical and it was mostly casual rather than formal in terms of attire and work timings. Executives walked about the company campus barefoot in shorts and short sleeved shirts. Anyone wearing a business suit was looked at with surprise even after Apple became part of the Fortune 500 list (Wikipedia, 2006). While the company was being run by previous CEOs like Scully, it had developed a relaxed atmosphere which was good for morale but it was hurting production and output. Deutschman (2000) describes the conditions before Steve’s return to the company and says: “Before Steves takeover, the campus had a leisurely atmosphere. Staffers loved to hang around smoking and chatting in the courtyard of the R&D complex, which always had ashtrays stocked at the outside and inside doors of all six of its buildings. Some employees seemed to spend most of their time throwing Frisbees to their dogs on the lawns (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3).” The Visionary Steve changed that for the better with new rules that prohibited smoking anywhere on Apple property. Dogs were banned from the campus and it seemed as if, “Steve were pushing his own lifestyle on 10,000 others (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3).” These steps made quite a few employees unhappy since smoking in the courtyard allowed individuals of different departments to interact with each other and people who worked nights and weekends for Apple had hardly any time left to be with their pets (Deutschman, 2000). Given sudden change in HRM styles, it would seem that Jobs’ decisions were wrong and could lead to disaster because such changes can affect individuals very negatively. Strangely enough, these steps appeared to work at Apple because Steve accepted the input from his top management and worked with them to implement the changes required. The record breaking profits, the sale figures and the brand value appreciation as Steve Jobs returned to Apple all show that his methods of establishing participative changes have worked wonders (Deutschman, 2000). From behaving like members of a civil service that did what it wanted without paying attention to short lived CEOs at the top, the company became proactive and employees began to interact with the boss on a deeper level. Keeping things under a tight lid is one of the hallmarks of Apple computers since no one can ever be sure of what Apple is about to release on to the market. Rumours and speculation begins weeks before any company event and before the return of Jobs, a lot of information was often leaked to the press. As reported by Deutschman (2000) this situation changed in a matter of weeks when Steve was able to create a feeling of trust with the employees: “Before Steves takeover, Apple people loved to leak. They did so partly because the company really did have lacklustre marketing. If you were proud of your work, the only way to let other people in the industry know about it was to leak it yourself. Steve insisted on his old “loose lips sink ships” policy. At first the employees were incensed. Before long, though, they began to trust Steve to do Apples marketing for them (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3).” Clearly, going against the established culture was only possible with having the trust of others that comes with the practice of participative change. Understandably, the professionals working at Apple were rational beings who were able to come to an agreement with Steve Job’s vision because it agreed with their own vision of the company. In the shape of their CEO, members of the company had a person in charge who others in the company could trust completely. If results are what matters most then Steve Jobs and Apple both have certainly shown the results required of them. Conclusion I feel that despite the need for change, change management and a participative style of change management, a company must first have many other things which allow it to effectively change itself. For example, without the vision of the person leading the company, neither Apple nor GE could have turned themselves around to become the giants they are right now. Without the communication skills their CEOs had to call on, neither company could have made other employees participate in the change process. Most importantly, without having a culture that accepts change, no company can ever hope to change itself or to improve beyond a certain limit. In conclusion, I feel that participative change is possibly the best way to go if lasting and effective changes are to be brought about in a company but in certain cases a top down approach may be required when all else has failed. Participative change requires time management, communication skills and the ability to show others what effects the change will have. Often, these things may be lacking in a company leader in which case participative change would be difficult to create. Works Cited Armstrong, M. 1999, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page. Byrne, J. 1998, ‘How Jack Welch Runs GE: A Close-up Look at How Americas #1 Manager Runs GE’, BusinessWeek.com, [Online] Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/1998/23/b3581001.htm Colvin, G. 2006, ‘What Makes GE Great?’, Fortune, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 90-96. Demos, T. 2006, ‘The World’s Most Admired Companies’, Fortune, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 72-73. Deutschman, A. 2000, ‘The once and future Steve Jobs’, Salon.com, [Online] Available at: http://archive.salon.com/tech/books/2000/10/11/jobs_excerpt/index.html Fisher, A. 2006, ‘America’s most admired companies’, Fortune, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 65-76. Forbes. 2006, ‘Steven Jobs’ Forbes.com, [Online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/HEDB.html Herman Group. 2004, ‘Strength in Small Business’, Futurist, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 14-16. Scott, L. 1991, ‘“For the Rest of Us”: A Reader-Oriented Interpretation of Apple’s “1984” Commercial.’, Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 67-81. Smith, D. 2006, ‘The non-stop revolutionary’, The Guardian, [Online] Available at: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,1697348,00.html Welch, J. 2005, Winning, HarperCollins. Wikipedia. 2006, ‘Apple Computer’ Wikipedia.org, [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer Word Count: 2,516 Read More