When a new management is appointed to a company to take over and realign the organization, it can be a very difficult process. There are many things that need to be taken into consideration, such as, what was the company like before? How many managers are in each department? What are the various job responsibilities of the company? Finally, do we have the budget and the power to make changes? Finding the answers to these questions will give you the ability to begin the process to realign a company.
Being the new manager on board the first thing that needs to be done is to hold a company meeting with all departments in attendance. This gives the opportunity to not only go through the introductions of the new staff, but to add assurance to the company that even though there will be changes, it will only be to reorganize the company to develop a new mission statement for the company. Once the meet and greet of the organization has been accomplished, then the process of appointing a change agent can begin. The change agent in which is appointed would not be someone that is already in management. This person can be from the Human Resources Department. By doing this, you have made a change; yet keep someone in position who already knows the “before” of the company. (Robbins & Coulter, (2007) pp. 360 - 361)
The company in which is being taken over has various managers in many departments. One of the changes that can be done would be to find a department that is not utilizing its full potential. Therefore, we can take these departments and combined them with departments that may need more assistance. While on the other hand, you may have departments in which you would have to eliminate multiple managers to just having one, and put the other manager in another area such as the shipping department. In order for the new management structural changes to take effect everybody must realize the reasons for the change, and start seeing the big picture of the organization.
When it comes to change in any organization you are going to have a few disgruntle employees who will not agree with everything that is trying to be accomplished. This can cause a decrease in employee motivation, among the possibility of a high employee turnaround.
Every organization will experience a change of leadership at some point or another. CEO’s of organizations will move on to take on different challenges in their lives or many of them will retire. There are few changes that can occur in an organization that could have a larger impact than a change at the top of the management chain. According to Firoozmand (2014) resistance from employees is an occurrence that is a part of the natural process of change. This is no different in the event of a change of leadership. New leaders will bring in a new vision, culture, and expectations that employees may not be ready or willing to accept.
A transformational leader style inspires involvement in a mission, giving a vision of personal and professional growth to accomplish change for the better in the organizations performance. Firms generally seek leaders with styles that complement the organization. However, no matter what the style, the likelihood of success usually involves the emotional intelligence, of leader, such as one’s motivation, empathy, self-awareness, and social skills. The Transformational leadership style of Kelleher has been effective for Southwest airline however, the CEO succession is very important therefore, at least five lessons in transition must be considered. Cross training is essential for not appearing to steep. The new leader should know the expectations from the board. Potential conflicts should be discussed associated with the roles of both the incoming and outgoing CEOs. The CEO should facilitate open discussion with employees in small groups. And all members should not overestimate the ability of the new CEO’s to institute change. Considering these factors, following in the footsteps of former CEO Kelleher would be challenging regardless to the style of leadership however, the transformation leader style has proven to be appropriate for the culture at
Change is an inevitable part of life involving individuals and organizations. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a significant organizational change. The analysis will explore the change, the reason behind the change, key players, the timeframe, the outcomes, leadership strategies, mistakes made by key players and suggestions to alleviate the mistakes.
In today’s ever changing world people must adapt to change. If an organization wants to be successful or remain successful they must embrace change. This book helps us identify why people succeed and or fail at large scale change. A lot of companies have a problem with integrating change, The Heart of Change, outlines ways a company can integrate change. The text book Ivanceich’s Organizational Behavior and Kotter and Cohen’s The Heart of Change outlines how change can be a good thing within an organization. The Heart of Change introduces its readers to eight steps the authors feel are important in introducing a large scale organizational change. Today’s organizations have to deal with leadership change, change in the economy,
It is important to select the right approach to apply organisation change. The approach should suit the type of change, leader’s strength, organisation structure and organisation culture. Being able to adapt to constant changes makes the organisation less vulnerable to unpredictable or sudden changes.
The insights in this book, if applied, are destined to influence the organization because they follow the basics of a structure's influence on behavior. Change the structure and the organization will change...Change it intelligently and the organization will advance. Buy the book and step to the forefront of organizational leadership...but be forewarned: Bring a teachable spirit. Be willing to unlearn a few assumptions to make room for Fritz's simple and strategic insights. Managers wouldn't begin to think about change in an organization without answering the 11 Questions first (they're in the book). Finally, and for Pete's Sake, Peter Senge wrote the forward for his "friend and mentor" Robert Fritz.
According to Swanson and Power (2001), “Organizational change and restructuring is often perceived as leading to increased occupational stress, impacting negatively on the psychological well-being of employees (p. 161).” The uncertainty of future employment for remaining employees after a restructuring process can lead to high stress levels, low productivity and overall dissatisfaction with their current or new roles.
Change is important to the survival of an organization and according to history there are many examples in which organizations are no longer in business due to the failure of change. In order for an organization to be successful at change, the employees must have understanding of the change because the resistance that is presented by the employees is due to the fear of the unknown. The employees’ resistance to change depends on how they comprehend it and how well they are prepared to handle it (Hamric, Spross, and Hanson, 2005).
Organizational changes have a potential failure rate of 70%, although this rate has been consistent for many decades there are many organizational changes that are successfully strategized and implemented (Maurer, 2010). An organizational change is when an organization goes through a renovation of altering business strategies (Organization change) to strengthen and expand their services to meet a demand of the economy (Ackerman, 1997). According to the chapter on Development, Transition, or Transformation: The Question of Change in Organization by Linda Ackerman in the book Organization Development Classics: The Practice and Theory of Change, there are three types of collective changes that are among organizations these changes are developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change (1997). In this paper I will further discuss the changes in details and will counteract the changes discussed by Ackerman through other approaches or reasoning for the changes.
The role of the directorate is continuously changing in the modern organizations. Change emphases organizations and affect what organization does and how to achieve organization objectives. Adopting change is a hard concept to manage; organizations will always resist for various reasons, either internal resistance or external resistance. KKF management must deal with this change by updating their skills to address the changes that the above strategies might bring (Bryson,
The desperate call-to-arms, "Change or Die"— which can be heard echoing down the corridors of businesses everywhere — is evidence that leaders have recognised the need to change. Managers know that companies must be fast, flexible, responsive, resilient, and creative to survive. Most also know that current mind-sets, techniques, and tools are ineffective for creating such an organisation. These people are displaying the talents required to successfully negotiate change. They are aware of the limitations around or within themselves and are willing to learn the necessary skills required to succeed as change managers.
What a manager does and how it is done can be categorised by Henri Fayol’s four functions of management: Planning, Organising, Leading and Controlling. Through these functions managers can be catalysts for change or by definition change agents – “People who act as catalysts and manage the change process.” (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg and Coulter, 2000, p.438) Wether performing the role of the change agent or not, change is an integral part of a manager’s job. Change is “An alteration in people, structure or technology.” (Robbins et al., 2000, p.437) Change occurs within and around organisations today at an unprecedented speed and complexity. Change poses threats and creates opportunities. The fact that change creates opportunities is reason why managers need to encourage change.
During the organizational change, it was very common to find management and direct-line supervisor showing more commitment for the change and less support for the employees. Thus, the many of the employees were experiencing a high level of uncertainty, stress, and anxiety awaiting to hear how the change would impact their roles. Additionally, with many leadership and management roles in jeopardy the not much of attention was being given to the employees. It was evident to the employees when management was attending meetings or scheduled conference calls regarding the meetings regarding the organizational change.
The idea of change is the most constant factor in business today and organisational change therefore plays a crucial role in this highly dynamic environment. It is defined as a company that is going through a transformation and is in a progressive step towards improving their existing capabilities. Organisational change is important as managers need to continue to commit and deliver today but must also think of changes that lie ahead tomorrow. This is a difficult task because management systems are design, and people are rewarded for stability. These two main factors will be discussed with reasons as to why organisational change is necessary for survival, but on the other hand why it is difficult to accomplish.
The biggest pain point in any company transformation and re-organization is the effect on the employees who are impacted the most, often in the form of layoffs, or job description changes, which require the employee to re-apply for their own job, albeit a new role and title. I try to keep an open mind about this, especially since the reason I was able to join the company in the first place was as a result of open positions due to a previous transformation that the company went through nearly four years ago. So while the loss of good employees is inevitable, there is also opportunity to see an influx of new talent throughout the company, which is exciting.