A Large-Scale Planned Organisational Change - Essay Example

Describe and Evaluate a Large-Scale Planned Organisational Change That Had Major Implications for an Organisation, Branch, Division, Department, Office or Agency An organizational change relates to the structural, social or cultural change in an organization. It deals with many areas such as physical transformation, technological advancements, changes in the hierarchical structure or they way they run their business. Structural change in an organization does not only mean alteration in the current workings, it can also mean an addition to their existing product line, change in the business entirely also mergers and acquisitions. Often it happens that the organizational change that has been brought about by the management does not click with the existing workforce or does not hold any value to the employees as the existing environment is comfortable for them, they believe in the existing values and see any change as a threat. There are many times when firms give out changed or revised mission statements that look dramatic and appealing but as it is taken as threat and creates so much confusion, that the purpose of the change does not materialize, eventually the hype and excitement of such a change disappears. Bringing about a structural change is extremely time consuming, stressful and most of the times difficult to change once implemented. Once an organization changes the structure or the system new processes are made in exchange of the old ones, it is extremely difficult to the way things were. This is because of the huge amount of investments that are made to change to the workforce, the environment and the way people think in the firm. If in such a situation a firm makes a wrong decision, it will have to suffer the consequences for a long time. for example with the change in time people have started to shift from written records to completely computerized systems, if now they are asked to go back to doing manual work it will be extremely difficult for them. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPANY Corwin Corporation, previously known as Vaughn Machine Company started in American in Peabody Massachusetts during the early 1900’s. It is a company that initially dealt in automobile parts and was a huge part of the American brass automobile parts industry. After its formation, the company added many other products to its business and with time, the company’s reputation boomed due to it product quality and dedication toward customer satisfaction. Its growth has been significant and has shown results in terms of profits. By the year 1983, Corwin Corporation’s net earning was about one hundred and fifty million dollars per year. It was known internationally for its low cost rubber components of excellent quality. Corwin had involved itself in the production of almost over a dozen different product lines. All of its products were available in all kinds of stores including departmental and hardware stores and at the conventional automobile parts distribution. The name of the company was associated with quality products and had a strong international and local presence. This goodwill made it easy for the company to have the benefit of having items with a long product life cycle and a long maturity period. The company philosophy initially was to maintain its known products and avoid starting new product lines or venturing into new projects as they had already a very strong customer base with their existing products. This was because Corwin had kept the same organizational hierarchy for over fifteen years and the structure was extremely centralized and conservative in nature. They believed that it is better to promote and market the existing products instead of introducing new ones. That is the reason why they did not have a very large research and development department. The Research and Development department of Corwin Corporation was there to keep a check on the new technologies being introduced in the related market and how it could be used to improve the existing line of production. (www.yahooinfo.com) INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN Because of this Corwin Corporation did not accept any specialty product assignments 90 per cent of the times, the only time they would accept it was when they would think that there was a possibility to make the specialty in a product line. The company was basically marketing driven instead of production driven which did not allow them to innovate and create new product lines themselves. As soon as the specialty product was made into a full product, a product line manager would be appointed to it. The basic project was that of R and D on the product for six months. Corwin Corporation did take up a similar project in 1980 and all the way till 1983 from a Company known as The Peters Company. These contracts started in 1980’s and then follow ups were signed for three consecutive years to produce specialty products for them. This was something unusual for the company and would be considered as an organizational change as a different way of doing business was considered and there was potential in these specialty products to become Corwin Corporations full product line which is also a part of the organizational change. In 1982, Gene Frimel, the vice president of marketing at Corwin Corporation was approached by Dr. Frank Delia, the market­ing vice president at Peters Company. He wanted the company to basically look upon a project that the Peters Company wanted to take care of. Peters had an R&D group that had $250,000 put towards a research towards making a new product, basically a new rubber material. Although they had the financial resources, they did not have the right amount of people to carry out the task, so they asked Corwin to carry out the research for them. As Corwin was a major marketing company at first did not want to take up on the project as they knew that their expertise did not lie in research and development, they were willing to take over the production of the material if they gave the research and development to another firm. Peters did not want to go through the hassles of patents and royalties so they made a deal that if Corwin decides to take up this project and if they were successful n making the product, they would give them a five year contract of producing it. As it was an opportunity for them to create a new product line and as they had already carried out R and D before the same company they decided to take over the project. When the project was undertaken, it was the year end and most of the employees had already left for vacations, however Peters Company did not want to wait and demanded that the project specifications and timeline should be sent within 48 hours and they wanted someone assigned on it as soon as possible. Due to the pressure form the Peters company they finally decided to undertake the project. Royce appointed Dan West, who was a scientist in their research and development department, to act as the project leader. Royce was extremely hesitant to do this as the director of the research and development department, Dr Reddy had already left for his vacations and he did not want to do it without his consent. As work had to start and changes in the production line had to be made, as soon as the specification sheets arrived Royce hired Dan West as the project leader and Dick Potts, a contracts man to help him work on the proposal. West prepared the direct labor man-hours, and Royce provided the costing data and pricing rates. Potts, who was not at all familiar with the kind of work he was appointed to provided some advice and act as a silent observer. So the project was started and Royce although not directly involved, made all the decisions on how to start the R and D and what equipments and materials to buy. Basically the entire decision to undertake the project was based on rough estimations and without following the proper protocol. Corwin Corporation was marketing oriented and to give it to production personnel was a risk in itself. But Peters believed that it was the job of the production department and not of the marketing department so they gave a go signal. During the project Peters Company also sent Patrick Ray as the in-house representative so that he could report to Delia on the processes and how the project was being executed. Patrick was not an easy man to work wit and create many problems for Corwin’s employees and for Dan during the entire process. (Harold Kerzner, Advance Project Management) EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT THROUGH CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS Companies, no matter big or small, should always be prudent in their decisions involving any aspect of the organization. A company is only successful if it takes decision after thoroughly analyzing the problem or opportunity and through devising effective and fairly accurate solutions. Change management is one of the most difficult tasks for the management of any organization no matter what kind of change is taken place. Bidding on projects using rough draft specifications and estimations is a huge risk leaning more towards failure than success. In research and development project that Corwin Corporation undertook resulted in failure and an overrun in the projected costs because the overall estimations and basically abrupt decision making. Corwin Corporation was only given 48 hours to agree and come up with an estimated break up of the 250,000 dollars that Peters Company wanted to invest in a six months research and development project. This was something that Corwin was not used to doing and did not have the personnel or the faculty to facilitate such a project. However to maintain a healthy customer relationship and for the long term benefit of the company in the form of a five year production contract, they accepted the project on the basis of a rough draft specification that resulted in not only extra costs but also in the loss of a potentially beneficial five year contract. Due to the uncertainty of the project many of Corwin’s employees felt detached and were disheartened as they were unable visualize the success of the project. So this shows that it is not feasible and in the benefit of companies to take up projects based on mere drafts and estimations. CHANGE MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP Dan West being the project leader and responsible for all the activities, did not handle the situation with Patrick Ray, the in-house representative of Peters Company, the way it should have been handled. Dan being the boss should have made it clear to Pat that he was the man in charge and that he was the one with the authority. Dan’s submissive attitude allowed Pat to give outright and sometimes unjust opinions and gave him the position to be uncooperative and unsupportive. Dan, from the get go, should have stopped Pat and should have explained him the details of each and every test that was being and the limitations so that that he would have no room for argument, he instead let him do whatever he felt like. Dan even fired his employee when Pat disliked his work instead of showing his own authority he should have informed Mr. Royce or Mr. Reddy of Pts behavior and explain them the situation. In this situation it was very important for Dan to be a leader and be a good self monitor and take charge, he was unable to do so. With the prior knowledge that Peters was an extremely difficult client to please and with the experience of working with them on such a project previously, Pat Ray should not have been allowed to visit the laboratory personnel. Pat Ray’s attitude was clearly not favorable and he made it extremely difficult for the lab personnel to do their jobs. Due to his meddling and interference in their job West started to receive daily phone calls from the workers in the lab which would have definitely made his job difficult. One of the calls that he received also said that Pat had also altered the test condition of the latest approved test matrix not only hampering the workers but also the project. Pat also stated that Corwin was very unprofessional and at one point also demanded that one of the workers be fired and gave an ultimatum. This resulted in unhappy and disheartened employees and less productivity. Therefore it was not wise of Dan West to allow Pat Ray to visit his labs and tamper with his tests and harass his employees. Senior management such as Presidents or Vice Presidents are at their positions because they have the knowledge and the experience to take mission critical decisions for their company. There are at the level of hierarchy where they make decisions that are generally less technical and are more related to the long term benefits of the organization. During bidding or a no bidding decision, the company has to decide whether to take up a project or not. If the Vice president for Manufacturing or any individual that is significant for such decisions is not present, a go-error or a drop error can be made. In the case of Corwin it was a go-error. A Research and Development project was too risky of a decision to make without the presence of the Vice president of Marketing Mr. Reddy as Corwin is a marketing driven firm and all important decisions are made by the Marketing department. Also because Corwin did not have a solid Research and Development department and did not usually take up such projects the participation of a senior representative such as Mr. Reddy would have been wise and would have been able to save Corwin from such a disastrous outcome. STEPS FOR SUCCESSFUL CHANGE MANAGEMENT Basically when you deal with any kind of change you need to identify the change management process and how it is related to the kind of change you’re binging to the organization. Basically to carry out a successful change process you need to define and identify what are the basic requirements or the resources you need to execute the job. When Corwin decided to take up the project it did not fully understand what they would require to research and produce the new rubber material and based their projects on mere estimations. This is where the problems started in the project and it led to a lot of difficulties during the entire six months that the Corwin Corporation dedicated to the project. After the project is considered you need to identify the proper channel through which you need to get the project approved. In a centralized workplace like Corwin to make a decision without the formal consent of senior management also led to many managerial problems for Corwin. After the decision has been taken, the feasibility of the project, with Corwin hey had only 48 hours to decide what the expenses would be and had 250,000 allocated to them to carry out the project. They did not expect any future expenses and did not anticipate any costs for problems that they might incur in the future. then comes the time line in many situations, the organization devises a time line or a Ganth chart that tells the organization when and what has to happen at what time, when do they want to start certain tasks and how will the project be carried out. With the time constraint and year end, Corwin was unable to devise a proper schedule and it result in serous mismanagement and employee dissatisfaction due to increased work time. Finally in the process you review the project. You see how beneficial it has been for the organization. In Corwin’s case it was a complete failure as it led to low employee morale, lesser productivity and overall losses. (Karl Wiegers, 21 Project Management Success) References Karl Wiegers, PhD, 21 Project Management Success Tips,(http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/21-project-management-success-tips.html) Change amangement process,2003, method 123, http://www.method123.com/change-management.php John P Kotters eight steps to successful change are , John Kotter 1995-2002, ( http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm) Alfonso Cornejo, Organizational complexity, September 2007,( http://www.slideshare.net/tektology/complexity-and-structural-change) Thomas G. Cummings, Christopher G. Worley, Organization Development and Change, Nov 2004, (http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=cUH27KvRudcC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=structural+change+in+an+organization&source=web&ots=M6X8H2mfRT&sig=9TzvTnb3WrCoyOjbGwA5W4D5sjo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA196,M1) Marketing by Elizabeth hill, Terry Sullivan (Longman Publishing) 1996 Donald Clark (1997). Leadership Styles. Retrieved on March 16, 2008 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html Goliath (2007). The other silos in healthcare organizations: managing four life assets may help you break down your organizations silos and optimize results. Retrieved on March 16, 2008 from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198-403882/The-other-silos-in-healthcare.html Gregory P. Smith (2006). Baby Boomer Versus Generation X: Managing the New Workforce. Retrieved on March 16, 2008 from http://www.managerwise.com/article.phtml?id=110 Managing the Multicultural Environment, 2008, www.Charis.com, Neil Fligstein and ­ Kenneth Dauber,­, Structural Change in Corporate Organization, Aug 1989, www.arjournals.com, http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000445 Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn and Curtis Johnson, How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/digest/index.shtml Jim Clemmer, managing change and leading people, http://www.clemmer-group.com/pathways/mgntlead.htm Ken Blanchard, how to overcome resistance to change, www.smartbiz.com, http://www.work911.com/management/leadchangearticles.htm THE BOUNDARYLESS ORGANIZATION: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure, by Ron Ashkenas, Dave Ulrich, Todd Jick, and Steve Kerr, Jossey,1995, http://www.change-management.net/ MANAGING TRANSITIONS: Making the Most of Change William Bridges, Addison-Wesley Publisher, 1991, http://www.change-management.net/ Organization Development and Change, by Thomas Cummings & Christopher Worley, South Western College Publishing, 6th edition, 1997, http://www.change-management.net/ corporate culture and performance: by john p. Kotter & James l. Heskett, the free press, 1992, http://www.change-management.net/ Leadership and the new science: learning about organization from an orderly universe, by Margaret j. Wheatley, Berrett-Koehler publishers, 1994, http://www.change-management.net/ Organizational capability: competing from the inside out by Dave Ulrich and Dale Lake, John Wiley & sons, 1990,http://www.change-management.net/ Harold Kerzner, advanced project management,2003, published by john Wiley and sons, Read More