Change Stories in an Organization
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 7432
Change Stories
Organizations may decide to effect changes to overcome instances or introduce new aspects. They have to formulate mechanisms to ensure the change is well implemented and acceptable to every stakeholder. The organization and the people must be ready and anticipate for the change intended to be a success. If a group makes any error at one point, then it will keep staggering with the process even after executing change that may lead to an unforeseen loss.
Significant Errors from Kotter’s Model
The first step to Kotter’s eight steps of transforming an organization is establishing a sense of urgency. Hewlett Packard never developed a sense of urgency while stepping up for a merger with Compaq. Stakeholders were not for the idea, with some showing resistance, and the company had to rush to step up vote hunt in support of the merger even to the last minute. The leadership did not commit enough conviction to guarantee that the change is necessary. Forming a powerful coalition takes strong leadership and the commitment of the key people within the firm (Mügge, 2011). Only with proper leadership can a change succeed in an organization and that should not mean that only the top leadership should lead the change process. It was expected that the merger would boost the company performance and increase its financial capacity. However, there was no adequate communication of the idea to make the stakeholders aware of the change so that their concerns and anxieties are addressed. Communicating vision will help in applying the change to every operation within the company and enable the change leaders to lead by an example. The company is not setting clear precedence troubling its change process.
IBM had a well-integrated approach that saw its change process originate from below before it was projected to the top. The company, however, did not have developed strategic vision, and most of the occurrences were coincidences and initiative of the change leaders at the initial stage. The company as well did not create short-term wins, and it built the change on a different approach other than the first change-initiating plan (Graetz & Smith, 2010). The plan of the organization towards achieving change was effective one, though if proper coalition were not formed, then the change in the approach to change from above would have seen resistance that would have made the company fail in the whole process.
The technology transformation came as a threat to Kodak, and the company had to adopt the change while still maintaining the performance. A lot of layoffs and closures characterized the company change process, and the management decisions threatened other stakeholders. The company had to change its methods, but the people had not felt the need for change on how it was brought (Palmer, Akin & Dunford, 2009). The management was unaware of threats and possible future scenarios and was committed to the change more than its results. From existing opportunities, people had to be convinced to support the change process, which definitely Kodak management could not. The stakeholders knew about the change and technology advancements but were not convinced due to the perceived risks and the shrinking of the company. Coalition was not built around the process that would support the intents, and though the communication about the change was done, no objectives and clear vision was presented to stakeholders that benefit the company and the people. The reactions of employees were negated due to the perceived risks and the uncertainties relating to intended change. The company, therefore, could not achieve or measure the success of the change because of challenges in the process.
McDonalds on its part introduced several changes without proper plan to those changes and experiencing obstacles that end up affecting the progress (McShane & Von, 2014). The company had not communicated any of its changes to stakeholders, and being a food company majorly its customers so that it can get their concerns and anxiety. The change had not enough support, and there were different obstacles from the business expansion and the introduction of new products. Even with the change of its slogan, no much change was felt, and the picture remained the same. The company did not make effort in removing obstacles to change it was implementing, making it hard for the change to be felt and be successful. Instead of the company focusing to build on each change at every moment and to identify the impact, new things kept on being rolled overtime, and it was hard to maintain focus making them flop.
Recommendation for Each Change Story
For HP, creating a stronger coalition to support the change from the stakeholders of the two companies would have granted much success (Palmer, Akin & Dunford, 2009). This would have been achievable through creating the urgency for change and communicating that change to the relevant people, as such would have seen a smooth transition and eliminated anxieties of the stakeholders of the two companies. For the case of the IBM corporation, having a proper vision developed for its change would have improved the effectiveness of the story. It's change came as a trial and error, and best of it being generated from the bottom and embraced at the top (McShane & Von, 2014). The Proper strategy for change at the initial stages would have given the company a proper focus that would have seen it achieve the advantages in the earlier stages. Change that is well planned proved to give more initial benefits and helps company to have a clear focus. That, supported by the stakeholders, would ensure forthwith success for a firm and eliminating major impediments, having clear expectations of the outcome of the process.
For Kodak, the whole process never had a clear set off that would see the company achieve its change. The change was initiated by the fact that the technology advancement existed, and there was an urge to incorporate it, which was not sparked internally. If the company had undertaken the urgency for the change and created a stronger coalition, the story would have been different. Instead of layoffs and closures, maybe branches could have expanded, and the whole process been smooth. For McDonalds, as much as the changes and the expansions were so dire, and there was a need to increase income, to communicate the change to stakeholders would have brought a whole new thing (Palmer, Akin & Dunford, 2009). The company would have been able to improve on processes established to achieve its desired results.
Attributing Change to Managers
Mark Hurd of the HP would get the credit for the successful change in the company. Taking from his successor, he undid the rigid matrix and handed over responsibilities to other managers. This would see things initiated from the respective points and done effectively. Change in IBM can be attributed to the efforts of Grossman (Graetz & Smith, 2010). He ensured that the need for the change is felt from below and that everyone one embraced the idea, that later saw the management effect it in the organization successfully. For Kodak, the change can be attributed to Carp, as the troubling of the company was initiated by his ideas and the thoughts of embracing new technology. Jim Skinner can be attributed to the change in McDonalds since he took note of the feelings of the people and proposed diets that saw the company re-attract its customers. Initially, customers went away due to the sense that the foods were risky for their health and by the proposed changes, many people made a comeback being clients of the firm.
For HP and Kodak, creating urgency for change would have been useful for a successful change, since support of the stakeholders and their ideas would have given a leeway for removing obstacles (Mügge, 2011). For IBM and McDonalds, having a vision for change would have given a clear guidance that would have seen IBM realize the success of the changes earlier enough and kept McDonalds from keeping on shifting focus on the operation. Such may have seen the companies achieve the intended change without failure of putting much effort to realize.