What, if any, are the catalytic mechanisms in your organization? What is the link between vision, goals, and catalytic mechanisms? Collins implies that using catalytic mechanisms is not a widely employed management practice. Has that been your experience? What are the barriers to using catalytic mechanisms? What are the benefits?
While the purpose of a catalytic mechanism is to essentially take a business “by it’s horns” and establish processes and core structures that works towards producing effective results internally and externally, it may not necessarily provide the thoroughness needed when mid to large sized companies are involved. The problem with establishing catalytic mechanisms is that it doesn’t establish who, within the organization, should reinforce these procedures. This one single point of contact is key for enforcing such an affect on the organization.
A year ago, the executives at my company began planning on the restructuring of how our products would be managed through the various cycles of planning, development, and execution. This process is called Product Life Cycle Management (PLCM). PLCM promised to deliver the following:
1. Checks and balances
2. Eliminate bureaucracy
3. EVERY single person involved would impact the process. Any individual who did not influence any part of any of the planning, development, and execution stages, would have their position restructured. Otherwise, they would be fired.
4. Streamlined processes across the board
5. Increase in communication across all departments. Getting rid of silos.
6. A system by which the various departments could feel a sense of camaraderie and support.
PLCM officially launched World Wide in October of 2007. While only 2 fiscal quarters have passed, there has already been much disapproval of PLCM. Complaints include, lack of consistency across the board, checks and balances are not distributed equally and/or properly, and the lack of communication has not improved.
Consistency has proved over time that it is not established by making simple statements or claims that promote change. It requires that all parties involved remain dedicated and committed to the process and actively pursue new methods that foster this change. In another words, for PLCM to work across the board, ALL departments involved need to abide by their newly outlined processes THEY had developed and submitted to the executives a year ago. The overall goal from the executives was for departments to streamline their headcount. This would ensure the beginnings of efficiency. However, some of the crucial participants to the overall process (directors and their direct reports) have preferred not to change anything about their department.
Leading Change was named the top management book of the year by Management General. There are three major sections in this book. The first section is ¡§the change of problem and its solution¡¨ ; which discusses why firms fail. The second one is ¡§the eight-stage process¡¨ that deals with methods of performing changes. Lastly, ¡§implications for the twenty-first century¡¨ is discussed as the conclusion. The eight stages of process are as followed: (1) Establishing a sense of urgency. (2) Creating the guiding coalition. (3) Developing a vision and a strategy. (4) Communicating the change of vision. (5) Empowering employees for broad-based action. (6) Generating short-term wins. (7) Consolidating gains and producing more changes. (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
Once all of the teams are in place and employees are put with the product specialized for them, the ball will get rolling. Slowly but surely things that need to be corrected will be done, employees that can not conform to the new responsibilities will be eliminated, and employees will start to feel the job satisfaction that is really the driving force behind this system.
Every business has an evolutionary clock speed measuring the rate of change in products, processes and capability. At the core of everything is the organizations ability to design a sustainable supply chain. When this becomes an organizations core competency, they are then positioned to continually win the temporary advantage. By simultaneously working to improve products, process design/creation and supply chains (three dimensional concurrent engineering), a company can drive the “turn of the helix” thus changing the clock speed for the industry.
One example of a shared department is the laboratory. The manager of the laboratory directly reports to the manager of the military jet engine division.
Change usually comes with resistance in any workplace because change disrupts the employees’ sense of safety and control (Lewis, 2012). Kurt Lewin (1951) created a three step process for assisting employees with organizational Change (Lewis, 2012). The three stages are Unfreeze, Change and Refreeze. These are the steps to a smooth transition for change within organizations. Further, these steps are not possible without good communication from upper Management through line staff. Communication was consistently listed as an issue in surveys conducted by the department.
changing the individuals in the company (their skills, values, attitudes, and behavior). On this case, the changes are considered to be instrumental to organizational
Overall, this six-step process allows obtaining renewal without imposing it. When the employees see that the new approach is more effective, they don’t oppose resistance to the ongoing changes. A virtuous circle effect also happens, since those problems solved by the improved coordination help to reinforce team behavior and produce a desire to learn new skills.
Change as defined by Thompson (2010) is “a process through which people and organizations move as they gradually come to understand and become skilled and competent in the use of new ways.” Change is not a process that happens in just one day. It is something that takes time to build and strengthen amongst an organization. The people involved in the process of change need to have the same goals and have the same clear ideas; this so they can be in the same mindset and be able to work together towards success. Communication is crucial during the process of change to facilitate the work for the people involved in the organization.
...ent agencies (for example, one agency making a phone call to another agency to determine their respective roles and to schedule activities).
However, this vision generates an overlapping problem between the marketing department and the product development department. The marketing department, among other duties, is responsible for the identification of new opportunities and also to assure the development of new products. Unless these activities are extremely well coordinated with the product development department, there will be misalignment in the strategy of the EPD. Ultimately, this misalignment will affect a third department, i.e. the manufacturing department, since it is directly involved in the product development process.
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used
However, Lewin’s central model centres on unfreezing, effecting change and then refreezing, starting from the status quo, then moving things and then continuing with the new status quo (Green, 2007). Kotter’s change model focuses on establishing urgency, guiding coalition, developing strategy, communication, empowerment, short-term wins, consolidation of gains to produce and anchor new changes (Sabri et al, 2007). Kotter does not engage with the complexity of organisational systems and potential clashing, he sees change being systematic, architectural, political and doesn’t engage strongly with the less deterministic metaphors in the latter steps (Smith et al, 2015). However, Kotter does highlight the importance of communicating the vision and keeping the communication high throughout the process although this starts with a burst of energy and in later stages its followed by delegation and distance (Cameron and green, 2009). Lewin’s change model focuses on people with the collaboration, contribution creating a force field approach to change including the power holders socially, culturally and behaviourally to drive change (Smith et al, 2015). However, Lewin’s approach ignores the metaphor of groups of people only willing to change if there is a need to do so, the model is more of a planning tool rather than an organisational development process (Cameron and green,
...change. The organization must provide training that fosters the attitude of using performance management. The organization must be prepared for long-term utilization and have resources to support the performance management plan.
In conclusion, each segment of the performance management process holds a vital link to the next. Not unlike knocking over one domino in a series, it has an effect on the next domino. If one portion in the process is dysfunctional, the next may be identical in its dysfunction – and on and on.