Organizational Culture at Ogilvy & Mather - Assignment Example

HRM Name Course Tutor Date HRM Question One a. Organizational culture at Ogilvy & Mather Alvesson & Sveningsson (2008) defines organizational culture as shared beliefs, principles and values of the organizational members. At Ogilvy & Mather Advertising Company, it was one of the founders who defined the organization culture. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.2) claim that David Ogilvy instilled a culture with similarly to “first class” which he preferred and understood to provide some creative work. This form of culture created an effective customer service within the company. It created staff that could best be described as “gentlemen with brains” and treated workmates, customers and clients with the desired respect (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.2). He always insists the employees in his companies must be polite and collegial and not ruthless when talking to customers. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.2) argues that as an Englishman and understood British culture to hospitable, he wanted such culture to be replicated into his New York based company Ogilvy & Mather Advertising Company. When setting it up, the company Ogilvy inculcated personal positive character which will resonate well with customers. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.2) contended that the company hired employees and advised them to have gentle manners, adhere to high level of professional standard and show human kindness when dealing with customers. In marketing and advertising, professionalism and human kindness entail the ethics with which the company operates. For instance, too much nudity in the advertisement does not echo well with societal morality. In this company, the management holds that showing gentility when dealing with clients does not mean weakness, but it is used to create long term relationship with clients and the society at large (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.2). It is through this unorthodoxy which they have also portrayed in their work; hence their clients keep on coming back due to increase sales. Organization culture also entails the language and Ogilvy showed it through speeches which was done with acerbic wit and literary references. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.2) posits that his speeches targeted young executives who were being introduced to the organization culture. The culture urges them to develop their eccentricities early enough and nobody will think take as senile working, progressing in their work (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.2). as the company progresses beer must create a well understood organizational culture since it will determine the performance of the company. Reasons for resistance to Brand Stewardship and the most appropriate method to overcome it In it’s rebuilding after profits drop, the company building a brand philosophy which was distinctive to Ogilvy & Mather. This brand philosophy was Brand Stewardship and was crafted by Charlotte Beers. Brand Stewardship is defined as array of techniques, tools and concept used to create and improve relationship between the company and consumers. Whereas other market players developed same brand focus to their services, Ogilvy & Mather philosophy was and set them apart from its rivals (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.9). However, it is the Brand Stewardship which was outstanding among the rest. Although it was a new concept brought about by Beers, many executives below the top tier level did not understood it correctly. Hence, the concept resulted to resistance. In the process, client service president Kelly O’Dea urged the company to move from a vision creating concept for top executives and creative individuals and create a vision for every employee at Ogilvy & Mather (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.13). Brand Steward was resisted because this Beers’ concept was not plainly communicated in different organization levels as required (Ibarra & Sackley, 2011, p. 13). The situation hampered the instantaneous effectiveness and success and averted members buying the idea in all levels of organization. The outcome was evidenced based on the observation made by Beers after this change process had been adopted. Beers claimed that “internally, we lack consensus” (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.15). Ibarra & Sackley (2011) contends that whilst Beers' concept built a vivid and definitive image of a potential future for Ogilvy & Mather, lack of clear and intentional communication within the company predestined that several staff could not embrace it. Another reason why employee resisted Brand Stewardship was of poor understanding and lack of experience on matters entailing the concept. This can be justified by O’Dea’s claim that “only few people actually understand and adopt the concept of Brand Stewardship” (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.11). In this situation, employees must be trained to understand the concept. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.12) claims that some have also resisted on account that it is a loss of time and “an indictment of what they have been doing”. As such, doing it would mean admitting that the past previous actions were wrong. Brand Stewardship had shown signs of positive improvement and aligning it to internal factors will help the company to satisfy new consumer demands. References Alvesson, M & Sveningsson, S 2008, Changing organizational culture, USA, Routledge Publishing Ibarra, H & Sackley 2011, Charlotee Beers at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide (A), Harvard Business Review, pp.1-16 Question two a) Contingency model of change, map the scale of change at Ogilvy and Mather According to Carnall (2007), the globalization and increase in number of companies has led to increase in change process as companies rush differentiate their products. In the face of change, experts urge top management to embrace contingency model of change to be able to sustain the process. Stace & Dunphy (2001) claim that model holds that there is no better way to manage and the contingent action depends on internal and external situations. In the past two years under David Ogilvy’s leadership, the company was slow to react to change and to recognize the need of the clients (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.1). Ineffective leadership created mistrust and lack of confidence between new and old management. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.4) states that after a short period the company lost some major clients such as Unilever, Nutrasweet and shell. The company was experiencing high cost of operation while others were low cost. Nevertheless, the company made turnaround when Beers took over as the CEO. Beers had the command to transform the company and reverse its fading performances. Beers realized that change depended on the internal and external situation of the company. Inside the company, there was improper leadership with no direction, while externally; competition was very stiff because they had just lost some of their clients. Hence, she adopted contingency model of change crafted by Stace and Dunphy in 2001. Beers recalled former employees of Ogilvy who she thought understood the system, significance of brand and shared her aspiration for management change (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.5). She used one of the components of a contingency model of change called dictatorial transformation by dismissing non-performing executives who could not initiate the needed change in her two months. She went ahead to assign executive tasks with no regard to areas of expertise (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.7). By assigning tasks based of task aptitude, and not disciplinary area, Bear was implementing situational leadership in the organization. Another component of contingency of change used by Beers is participative evolution. During numerous meetings in which the executives frequently held diverse opinions on the change process, Beers created a good rapport for her Brand Steward concept. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.8) claims that at first, members held diverse views on goals and during the second meeting, he came up with 22 priorities, Beers merged the goals into just 3 manageable priorities. Contingency model of change encourages incremental changes. In this perspective change is done step by step. Change also entailed situational structural changes where roles were defined and efficiency ensured. The suitability of Stace and Dunphy’s (2001) contingency model of change is that it enables the company to align its internal factors to match external demands. This model may not be effective rapidly, but in the long it can steer Ogilvy to greater heights. A change process ... requires awareness of, if not action in, the political processes of the organizations The statement is a culmination that communication is very important in the change process. Change process is defined as gradual procedure in a way of doing things. Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.12) hold that, while resisting Brand Steward, some executives questioned the significance of such concept of Stewardship for Ogilvy and Mather. At the same instance, one manager held that the major challenge was inadequate communication. He confessed that everyone who heard of organization communication is personally from when Charlotte Beers was brought in. Whereas communication in Beers’ network was considered strong, the suggestions were that concept of change was not communicated on efficiently within the organization (Ibarra & Hunter 2007, p.43). Beers influenced the competencies and strength of employee in her network to create their networks and improve technical knowledge to transmit the Brand Steward concept further within the organization. Since organizational change also involves organizational politics in that, it disrupts organization structure, creating awareness for such change is encouraged (D’Ortenzio 2012). This is because it allows members of the organization to prepare psychologically for their new positions. For instance, the board fails to communicate the takeover of Ogilvy and Mather WPP Group Plc making the then CEO Kenneth Roman to oppose the process. Ibarra & Sackley (2011) believed that if Beers would have been more purposeful regarding including employees from all levels of organizational structure and empowering them to be agents of change who are able to communicate her change concept, it could have set up more grip within all divisions of Ogilvy and Mather. Staber (2004) suggests that in formational phases of change, accomplishments have to be done rapidly, but system thinking dictates it should not be rushed. For instance, Charlotte Beers and the top level tier managers created and incorporated new services which were instantly popular and marketable with their customers, yet, the new services were introduced without appropriate communication, support and training. According to Ibarra & Sackley (2011. p. 10), one executive claimed the reputation of the changes “build pressure to introduce to public before the company had each “i” dotted and “t” crossed”. The manager also described how customers came into the offices requesting for one of the new products made by Ogilvy and Mather but staff did not have an idea of new product existing and how to offer it to customers. The previous top leaders were culturally lacking in openness, as managers to control organizational conflict and politics. This is until Beers started to aggressively cultivate communication, tension and supporting open disagreements on various issues. Through such change processes, she was capable of gaining approval and enhancing communications resulting to trust. Hence, Perrin (2005) contends that change holds higher chances of success more so when a new manager comes in and instantly communicates his or her desire for change process. References Carnall, C.A 2007, Managing change in organizations (5th Edn.), London, Prentice Hall D’Ortenzio, C 2012, Understanding change and change management processes: a case study, University of Canberra Ibarra, H & Sackley 2011, Charlotee Beers at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide (A), Harvard Business Review, pp.1-16 Ibarra, H & Hunter, M 2007, How Leaders Create and Use Networks, Harvard Business Review, pp. 40-47 Perrin, T 2005, Reconnecting with employees: Quantifying the value of engaging your workforce, London, Towers Perrin Report Staber, U 2004, Networking Beyond Organizational Boundaries: The Case of Project Organizations, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.13, No. 1, pp. 30-40. Stace, D & Dunphy, D 2001, Beyond the boundaries: Leading and re-creating the successful enterprise (2nd Edn.). Roseville, NSW: McGraw-Hill Question three “In your work life you need to gather a number of tools that will help you either manage or deal with change that’s happening ‘to you, around you or through you’ Carnall (2007) affirm that, as the 21st century unfolds, employees and executives have found themselves being overwhelmed with how changes take place so fast. For that reason, experts recommend that as executives and employees continue to work in organizations, they need to adopt some tools which can help them manage change happening to them, around and through them. One of such model is McKinsey “7-S” which resonates best with employees (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.8). McKinsey “7-S is a tool fro creating coordination within the organization to make sure its division operates in harmony. In the company, people had different opinions on the change process. However, when the discussion was brought in, people turned to attacking personalities (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.8). Therefore, when McKinsey “7-S” model was applied; it can become easy to depersonalize the debate. The model looks at internal and external factors which are influenced by change. Normally, this model has seven elements including three hard and four soft elements. Hard elements such as strategy, structure and systems can be can be used to manage changes that happening around (Carnall 2007). Ibarra & Sackley (2011, p.10) claim that after the arrival of the Beer, she instilled these strategies making sure that customers could come asking for new products. Structures were also streamlined and roles defined to eliminate duplication. Soft skills like shared value, style staff and skills often help executives to control change happening to them and through them. For instance, Beers’ shared value for Ogilvy and Mather and ensured she brought people she believed would revive the waning performance of the company (Ibarra & Sackley 2011, p.5). McKinsey “7-S is a tool of the 21st century used by most successful company and adopting it one way the company building competitive advantage. References Carnall, C.A 2007, Managing change in organizations (5th Edn.), London, Prentice Hall Ibarra, H & Sackley 2011, Charlotee Beers at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide (A), Harvard Business Review, pp.1-16 Read More