The Major Problem of Printzhof Corporate - Case Study Example

Printzhof’s Case Study Printzhof’s Case Study Introduction Various factors contributed towards Printzhof’s enlistment at the bottom of the list including both internal and external factors. Remarkably, printzhof may not need changes from an internal factors perspective as its performance reflects the internally set mission and objectives. However, from external factors perspectives including new technology in the market, market differentiations, marketing strategies, and innovation among others, the firm require changes in its strategic management and implementation. The primary cause of Printzhof’s deteriorated performance compared to other competitors is the lack of poor strategies to handle external factors. Subsequently, this requires the firm to change its internal organisation to cope with competitors and take the lead once again in the market. Question 1: Are the conflicting mandates that Ash faces primarily the result of internal factors at Printzhof, or more broadly, does the competitive environment drive them? The major problem facing Printzhof is the lack of competitive advantage over other competitors making the firm to lag behind in the market position, which necessitates the firm to re-establish the company’s strategy, market share, and revenue. The change in consumer demand posed high competitive challenges in the printing market; hence, Printzhof’s traditional hierarchal organisation was inappropriate to handle the external factors that are directly related to internal management (Todnem By, 2005). The firm needs to undertake internal changes that are driven by competitive environment factors to resolve the problems. There are few drive forces for change applicable in Printzhof case as shown in fig. 1 including customized books, e-books, ancillaries’ products, and applying score balanced sheet to monitor employees’ performance. These forces are likely to be opposed by resistance forces against change such as fear of change, disruption, declined morale, fear of the performance monitoring system, and employee turn-over rate (Miner, 2007). Quinn’s Competing Values Framework can determine some of the internal factors in Printzhof situation. Printzhof management has focused on the internal environment, which portrays a family culture revealed by their objectives that are based on personal growth, cooperation, and teamwork. Consequently, Printzhof operates in the “CLAN” quadrant in Quinn’s framework (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & Bright, 2014). The identified driving forces and critical uncertainties in Printzhof’s case are technological and social. Authors self-publishing through the web resulted in unpredicted crucial influence on printing sector, which could be anticipated by utilizing scenario planning. The establishment of “Community Colleges” had increased the variety of education choices that was predictable with high impact; hence, could have been anticipated through the implementation of a strategic plan. Question 2: What impacts are Printzhof’s history and organisational culture likely to have on Ash’s efforts to revitalise the business? Ash is pursuing product development, culture change, and new company strategies. On the other hand, Printzhof emphasises on certain standards including equal treatment of all employees with decency and respect. The culture of equal treatment in the firm further prohibits supervisors from questioning them on issues regarding their job, but rather pushing for self-awareness revealed by the phrase, “they know what they are doing”. The culture that has existed over 100 years will lead to substantial challenges in implementing changes. According to Elrod and Tippett (2002), any organisational change process will lead to emotional declined stages starting from the “shock phase” to denial, anger, bargaining, and grief prior to the achievement of the acceptance phase. Notably, this culture will slow down Ash’s efforts to change the behavioural culture within the proposed timeframe. Additionally, applying a strict employees’ performance program such as a balanced scorecard will demotivate, destabilize the usual working environment, and affect employees’ loyalty (Burke, 2010). Figure 2.Elrod & Tippetts emotional voyage of the organizational change process The company is significantly fixated on their traditional hierarchical organisation, which is unsuitable for effective management of the external changes. Additionally, the strong reputation of the company built over 100 years makes it hard to integrate emerging ideas. Question 3: Identify the interests of key individuals and groups that Ash must take into account when developing an action plan to implement the changes she chooses to make. Ash can use both internal and external constituents to implement her changes within the firm. The primary internal constituents that Ash needs to consider include the willingness and support within the EEH corporate. The EEH VP of the educational group, Bob Richard, is supportive of Ash; hence, he providing motivation towards the success of the new task she is pursuing. In Printzhof division, Ash can utilize Eric Nygren’s experience, power, and relationship with managers to influence the employees. The director of marketing, Deseray Matson, is forms part of the personnel that Ash requires to consider in her change implementation because of her direct relationship with customers’ needs and her initiative in taking change actions, as well as her ability to support Ash’s argument with other managers. The human resource manager, Harry Raines, has a great experience, knowledge, well-respected, and admired employees; therefore, he could positively expedite the change process. Remarkably, David Qual and Ash undertook previous projects that were successful; hence, will positively contribute towards implementing changes initiated by Ash. The Director of Product Development, Paul Davidson, possess the privileges of power because of his network and relationship with academic authors that he built over many years working in the company. The key interests in primary external constituents are the customers and suppliers that Ash can utilize to support her argument for the need to embrace changes, which will be important to the firm, suppliers, and customers. A change directly affects customers and eventually the supplies. Subsequently, considering the change of customer demand and needs forms an integral part in achieving change within the organization (Lewis, 2011). Question 4: Draw an Action Plan that includes change objectives and a timeframe that Ash could use to initiate change at Printzhof. Robin Ash strategy should keep Printzhof corporate in the Clan section in Quinn’s framework model, as it was initially where she needs to remain focused and emphasize on the internal changes and flexibility at Pintzhof corporate (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). However, Ash must re-align Printzhof managers and employees with the new changes to achieve a competitive advantage in the market. She should initiate the changes using strategies that are based on individuals and groups interests, which will help her to develop an action plan. Ash should gain the trust and the full support of Kross and Nygren to implement her programme change in Printzhof organisation. In return, Kross and Nygren must understand that these new changes are not associated with Ash, but to the external market forces necessitating the organization to initiate a change strategy. The change strategy can be applied in “top-down” approach to the general manager’s level, with Lars Kross and Ash as co-leaders. Kross and Ash should take Printzhof general managers through a developmental sequence in building a team guided by forming, storming, norming and performing to align their experience and effort with the new company strategy to keep pace with external market changes (Gartner, 2013). However, general managers should take a “bottom-up” approach that involves the organisation employees in the change plan. This program might have a better success possibility because it would unify the organisation leaders to focus all their support on the organisational change process (Janicijevic, 2012). Given that Nygren family started Printzhof corporate business and handled the task of formulating the organisation’s culture, it will be an advantage for Ash to let Nygren be in charge of the organization values. Subsequently, they will be in a position to highlight the importance of changes for Printzhof’s employees and corporate in an attempt to limit the resistance of the change program (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). Bob Richards who is the VP of EEH gave an explanation to Ash stating, “Fix it, but don’t break it”. Subsequently, Ash has to uphold Printzhof values through maintaining the organization family environments. Ash is obligated to convince the Director of Product Development, Davidson, by presenting Printzhof’s collected data showing low-performance, which will then drive him to recognize the need for implementing the changes. Ash’s first move will be to undertake the ‘unfreeze step’ as in Kurt Lewin’s change model. Subsequently, she will need to use Matson, the Director of Marketing, in her pursue to support her argument concerning the need for change, and subsequently subject the workforce through the emotional voyage starting from shock down through denial, anger bargaining, grief to acceptance stage. The HR manager, Harry Raines, is a major player for Ash to expedite the change plan process within the organization. In spite of Harry being an adored manager by his employees, Ash must pressurize him to improve his department and apply the balanced scorecard strategy to align employees with the organization’s new strategies. In the case where Harry will not accept that things have to change, only then that Ash must let him know that his substitute, David Qual, who worked in Ash’s previous team, would take over Printzhof HR department. Consequently, Ash will be imposing a non-negotiable emotional voyage procedure to Harry as she did to Paul Davidson. References Burke, W. (2010). Organization change. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Elrod, P. D., & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273-291. Gartner, C. (2013). Enhancing Readiness for Change by Enhancing Mindfulness. Journal Of Change Management, 13(1), 52-68. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.768433 Janicijevic, N. (2012). The influence of organizational culture on organizational preferences towards the choice of organizational change strategy. Ekon An, 57(193), 25-51. doi:10.2298/eka1293025j Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 331-341. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003 Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Miner, J. (2007). Organizational behavior 4: From Theory to Practice. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M., McGrath, M., & Bright, D. (2014). Becoming a master manager: A Competing Values Approach (5th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Todnem By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380. doi:10.1080/14697010500359250 Read More