Analysis Of Buck And Pulleyn Strategic Change Management Management Essay

Analysis Of endeavour And Pulleyn strategical variety show Management Management EssayLeadership and Organizational philosophy is one of the whatever strategic governingal assets which provide means to bring up an efficient dodge for gaining a sustainable war-ridden advantage in the marketplace. We identified in our training presentation that ecesiss needed turn to succeed in the marketplace collectable to commute in customer unavoidably, competitors strategies and variety in political, economic, social and technological conditions surrounding the organisations. Organizations need to belowgo a strategic swap cover in which the stakeholders and employees of the government play the most crucial role.In this paper, assuming the role of a consultant to a business advice cheek, the material of Buck and Pulleyn which is an American advertising agency has been selected for discussion. This possibility was written by Professor Louis B. Barnes in 1995 and it is one of the most bombastic examples of strategic form caution that how this organization has to permitne change. The discussion ab egress the organization revolves around the following important arcdegrees and it provides important insights about the strategic change caution.Develop schemas to involve stakeholders in the planning of change and develop a change lovement strategy with stakeholders.Evaluate the systems employ to involve stakeholders in the planning of change.Explain what systems and do byes would need to be/ create been develop to envision involvement of the stakeholders in the change, and justify choice.Create a strategy for managing immunity to change.Review the effectiveness of management actions to overcome any identified instances of impedanceDescribe the most important features in the undefeated captureation of organisational change, drawing upon at least two organizational modelsPlan to implement a model for change and develop appropriate measures to monitor progress.The baptistry was promulgated by Harvard Business School in 1995 for class discussion. (The effort study can be accessed online at http//gwu-emse-211.wikispaces.com/file/view/Buck++Pulleyn.pdf)Summary of the Analysis of Buck and Pulleyn Strategic Change ManagementThis reason focuses on the issues faced by Buck Pulleyn which includes restructuring of the organization, employees demand and stationing of Creative Director, Robert Massimilian, as the pre placementnt be rationality of the fightinging feedback from different stakeholders. For Analysis, I have applied and reviewed Lewins Three-Step Change Model in this case. Firstly, in Unfreezing, Chris came up with a unfermented complex body part which was formed by the consensus of all the employees and stakeholders. The resulting coordinate was less formalized and highly deconcentrate. In the Moving phase, the new structure was enriched with greater employees and stakeholders involvement and it consisted of a track and internal teams to manage the strategic change process. The basic focus of change in organizations structure was to pass judgment the dynamic environment with changing necessitate/wants of customers and clients (The most important asset for any organization). The issue of conflict in the midst of cost and quality, issues regarding expertise database and concerns related to compensation according to the new system structure were also cryed. Review compensation group had to deal with a couple of issues such as the process, merits, implementation and criteria for the compensation plans. Now the organization is facing the problem to re-freeze the change process at an take up point and this is the main problem for the case. After analyzing the case, I would standardized to make about recommendations which argonBuck and Pulleyn need some visionary leadership to anticipate change with greater employee consensus and involvement.The compensation plan by team needs some more compliance and focus. The Roberts management practices should be reviewed.There is a need for do sure that the organizational determine and philosophy should be harmonious with the new organizational structure because these values and philosophy be the building blocks of leadership and a sustainable competitive advantage. (Barnes, 1995)Problem disceptationThe Buck and Pulleyn needs major organizational structure changes due to changing environmental context and needs/wants of consumers and clients by keeping productive gentle resources enriched with motivation and enforcement of organizational philosophy and vision. The organization is looking to refreeze the change process at an optimal pointAnalysisThe basic problems faced by this organization were woeful leadership, inefficient determination making and cultural resistance. At the offset, when the need for change in organizational structure realized by Chris, the efforts failed because of old cultural norms of organi zation and lack of self-assertion on the chair management by the employees and stakeholders a factor which had lowered the motivation train and increased the reluctance to change among the employees and sh arholders. I have arrived to this conclusion by applying, a head-known address for managing change that requires organizations to go by tether separate processes. It is called Lewins Three-Step Change Model. The three measuring rods argon unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. First step unfreezing was through by understanding the need for organizational change due to change in environmental context and customer needs. In the second step discussions were held with all the stakeholders to change the existing style of leadership and strategy but employees showed some resistance for organizational change. During this step, employees were a little uncomfortable, and thither was a need for some strategies to encourage them for participating in finish making process in lay to engage employees in decision making about the new system. Finally during refreezing, some issues arose due to poor leadership techniques, inefficient decision making methods and lack of confidence on the top management by the employees. (Barnes, 1995)First of all, I would similar to break the case with Lewins Three-Step Change Model to understand the change process and indeed I would generate some arguments to get understanding of issues to arrive at a conclusion of the case study with some recommendations. It is advised that the contributor of this paper must read the case study originally published by Harvard business school. (Barnes, 1995)Lewis Three Step Change ModelUnfreezingThe sign stages related to the restructuring of the organization were met with some problems, including the negative reaction of the employees when the first memo for the restructuring of the organization was sent. The employees were engaged in selective perception and believed that their feedback or amour in the new structure of the hierarchy would be insignificant, notwithstanding the constant effort of the top management to involve them in the structural reforms through assorted procedures including group discussions. Stakeholders were involved in the strategic change management process by group discussions and training sessions to discuss the change in environment and to implement a strategy for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace. The climax to change was good and being in the place of Chris Pulleyn, I would not like to change differently from Chris because the approach used by Chris opened the way for stakeholders involvement to increase their motivation and to change their selective perception. Unfortunately, this effort to engage stakeholders was not very successful due to confusions among the stakeholders about the strategic change management. My argument computer backups this approach because despite this approach did not succeed but it provided some edge or initiative for change or in separate(a) words it movemented as a slipping point to bring a change in the organization. each the remaining process of change in The Buck and Pulleyn started from this initiative. Therefore, the change management strategy was defined in such a way that different tools and systems were developed to involve all the stakeholders in the change management process such as training sessions, group discussion and seminars crosswise the organization as has been mentioned in the case. (Barnes, 1995)MovingThe failure of the first memo was followed by the introduction of group discussions for all the employees a factor which resulted in a relatively more positive increase in the receipt of the employees/stakeholders and do participation in the strategic change process, but notwithstanding it did not meet the required objectives. The restructuring task force process resulted in formation of controlled command groups on intra-departm ental basis, and as noted from the carrying into action and the preference of the external and the internal teams, especially the red team, it seems that the five-stage model had been adopted in the group development model. Problem solving teams both internal/external (red, green and blue) had been formed and the team leaders were selected by the team members themselves, hence increasing the cohesiveness amongst the teams and increasing the possibility of positive effect of performance expectations. Membership in the three external and three internal teams had been established. individually team was developing and clarifying its responsibilities and new working relationships, with the Red police squad far ahead of the others. Most Red Team members had previous experience in one of Buck and Pulleyn earlier multifunctional teams. The Blue and Green teams were politic in their primordial stages of formation. The Transition Task Force was also under way, had a mission statement, and planned to dissolve itself after a three-month work span. Robert Massimilian had agreed to spearhead the cost/quality initiative and another cater member was in the process of establishing an expertise database of internal resources for the coaching/consulting problem. The approach was successful because it motivated employees/stakeholders to take part in the change process and increase in response rate of employees is a sportsmanlike indication of this success. (Barnes, 1995)Refreezing We need to do something about thisThe time constraints in the decision making process had been relaxed to some extend by Chris so as to check up on optimal decision making. The process of rational decision making would have been used to get a better and much quicker solution. The organization is attempting to anticipate and refreeze the change process but still some concerns from the employees and stakeholders side exist. Moreover, some more brain-storming is required to refreeze the proces s as the new system is not fully mature (as mentioned in the original case study). For example, Domains for teams are being defined and teams are still developing their working relationships and then the process is actually in progress. Red teams may have some experience but the blue teams and great teams are in early days of their formation. Cost-quality constraints are being considered and new staff is being developed for expertise database etc. The current structure is different from organizations previous structure and there are some contradictions which are confusing the company in efficient decision making and leadership. For example, now the compensations are to be paid on team performance basis while in the ult compensations were paid on individual basis. In simple words, similar problems like the controversy between the old individual based performance values and new team based performance values are creating problems and a proper solution is required before re-freezin g the change process. Some other problems like the issue of Creative Director need some quick solution to complete the refreeze process. My point here is to explain that the organization is ineffective to re-freeze the change which it has implemented because of some problems and an immediate solution is required to address these problems before re-freezing the change process. Therefore, it is the basic problem faced by the organization in this case. (Barnes, 1995)ArgumentationThe focus of the various teams in Buck Pulleyn was on customer retention and satisfaction, and this could be attained through highly motivated and highly satisfied teams. Also, smooth coordination and cohesiveness would be needed among the various team members. Scarce resources should be expeditiously allocated amongst the teams to result in optimal performance through the formation of a comprehensive database for resource catching and an effective compensation policy to go along with both these factors. Th e factors highlighted by the Restructuring Task Force were related to the compensation and bonus of the employees, as well as job promotions and assertable career expansions. Compensation plans would have a positive effect on the motivation and the productivity of the employees if they would be secure to both the team and the individual performance, with periodic reviews of the team members for allowing better performance. (Barnes, 1995) looking for at the team effectiveness model, the teams had all the four components of Context, composition, work excogitate and process and were mournful to the path of success. Better teams would be made, with the passage of time, by providing training to the employees. (Barnes, 1995)The organization had come out of the conflict process successfully. The conflict related to cost and quality was good for higher efficiency of the organization because the employees would have focus on using the optimal production procedures for the utmost output. Looking at the issue faced by Chris regarding the nomination of Robert as the president, we can see that there was a conflict further in the opinions of the employees. (Barnes, 1995)If we see the in a higher place events which happened in the last then these events clearly support my conclusion assumption at the start of the discussion. For example, there are clear evidences of poor leadership techniques, inefficient decision making methods and lack of confidence on the top management by the employees. We can consider the start of this change process when employees declined the change process indirectly. Then at the moving phase, some conflicts arose. Finally at the case of Richard, some contradiction occurred. All the employees needed a unified line of command with motivation and leadership for strategic change management. This supported my point which I described in the presentation that leadership and organizational philosophy is the most significant and strategic asset of an organization and it is crucial for employees to understand the organizational philosophy to efficiently take part in the strategic change management process. (Barnes, 1995)Recommendations base on all our analysis, I would make the following recommendations for Chris in order to solve various issuesEnsure that the company has string leadership, with a vehement support from the employees.The compensation plan, dealing with all the issues highlighted in the report stipulation by the Restructuring Task Force, is needed to be considered in the light of the new system.The organization has a very strong culture and employees are disinclined to change. This should be kept in mind before establishing any just change policies.The company leave alone now have a decentralized decision making and a horizontal hierarchy, in which the reliance will be on the decisions made by the team leaders kinda than the top management. They will be in direct contact with the customers and therefore, the y are the most valuable asset for the company if it needs to prosper. Therefore, I would like to recommend that for the external teams, motivated and customer friendly employees should be hired. Moreover, the teams should also be given training to strengthen the team dynamics. As a result, in the long run, they will generate very positive outcomes for the company.The methods used for the compensation plans should be efficient and employee oriented like peer surveys, etc. The final decision should rest with the compensation team, while the bonuses should be given on both team and individual performance basis. The career paths and come-at-able promotions should be made clear in the new structure by the top management to increase the motivation level of employees and to hire the best talent for internal and external teams.Any policies which are radical, or are providing a deviation from the general norms or practices, need to be carried out with caution and precision. This is because as was seen in the restructuring process, the organization wasnt very supportive of the change in the structure of the organization. Any change or major decision needs to be carried out with precision and in accordance with the possible reaction of the employees. It would be better for the organization to have the confidence of the employees or the team leaders before and during the implementation process and decision making of policies.All the changes made should be tested empirically that whether these changes are compatible with organizational structure or not. Because organization philosophy and vision are the building blocks of organizations structure, a proper brain-storming and activity mapping should be done to check the feasibility of change process. This is because organizational vision and philosophy are transferred from leadership and supports the activity systems of organizations. Any change away for these constraints will cause is poor leadership with organizational co llapse.ConclusionIf we clearly analyze the above the case of Buck and Pulleyn, then it is obvious that every strategy to undergo a strategic change management was efficient but the only problem faced was lack of leadership and organizational philosophy in strategic change management. The same recommendations were given in the training slides other than the report. The organizational philosophy and leadership the most the strategic assets to undergo and manage the strategic change management process in organizations. The organization must enforce organizational and leadership philosophy to align the personal goals of employees with organizational goals to accomplish its goals and objectives with an effective and efficient strategy.