|
Resolve Organizational Conflict
OLB 7006, Assignment 7 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 28 October 2018 Introduction Columbus Christian Academy is a private, Christian educational institution in North Carolina. The school serves approximately 175 students from grades pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. The school is served by a staff of 20 faculty and administrative staff and daily operations are administered by a principal. The school is overseen by a school board of six individuals from the community. Recently, Columbus Christian Academy experienced a significant change in educational philosophy and staffing. This change took place over a period of three years and created significant conflict within the organization. This paper examines how the change was implemented, the necessity of the change, as well as how resulting conflict was resolved. Impetus for Change The organizational change at Columbus Christian Academy was the shifting of employee demographics from a majority of long-tenured, older employees to new, younger staff members. Prior to this intentional and strategic organizational change, the average tenure of a staff member was 15 years and the average age of a staff member was 55. This change was initiated and implemented by the school board due to the increasing demand for new and more innovative methods of educational delivery. The existing staff openly and vocally resisted the change in educational delivery methodologies when presented with the looming change by the school board. Primary among the reasons for the resulting conflict was the perception by the staff that the school board did not listen to their concerns and simply made an executive decision without considering those impacted by the decision. Previous organizational changes followed traditional leadership theories and formulas which suggest a top-down approach to change and innovation. Organizational leaders gather in the board room to develop a “master plan” which will then be presented to the organization corporately. This change will then be communicated to the organization, and the staff is expected to adopt their daily routines to accommodate the new change. The end result of previous change initiatives was failure due to a lack of cooperation by staff members. However, after researching organizational change, the school board decided that organizational change and innovation begins at the lowest level: the individual. Research highlighted the fact that it is the cognitive processes of each individual which are among the most important factors of innovation and idea generation (Li et al, 2016). Thus, the school board concluded that if present staff members wither did not or would not possess the capacity to change their cognitive processes, then new individuals must be recruited for this organizational change initiative to be successful. This thought process was reinforced by the research of Herman (2013) who noted that those from “Generation X” are inherently more individualistic and prefer autonomy over management. Furthermore, Generation X is inherently more innovative than previous generations (Herman, 2013) which builds upon the research of Li et al (2016) and others which suggest that organizational change and innovation must begin at the individual level. Once this begins to take place, group-level processes will begin to take place and organically form a comprehensive leadership model for the organization. This “bottom-up” solution, which is contrary to traditional leadership approaches, will bring about the greatest degree of successful change into the organization. Implementation of Change The school board made a strategic decision to commence individual conversations with the oldest and longest-tenured staff members first to discover their openness to the change. These employees were over 60 years of age and had over 30 years of employment at the school. Their conclusion was that there was no support for the change initiatives because these employees were not willing to learn new processes and delivery methods. Furthermore, as leaders within the organization, they would discourage the adoption of such innovation by other staff members within their sphere of influence. The school board concluded that they would need to replace these older employees with newer, younger employees who were in favor of the new delivery methodologies. The decision was made to hold a “retirement celebration” once per year for three years for three years for their three longest-tenured employees. They would also name various buildings, scholarships, and programs in their honor for their contributions to the school. Simultaneously, they would implement an organizational change whereby innovation would be encouraged and incentivized among remaining employees. For this part of the implementation process, the school board focused their change initiatives on answering two important questions: How does innovation take place at the individual level? And, likewise: What can organizational leadership facilitate that would expedite this process of innovation? (Shafie et al, 2014) noted that one factor dramatically improving innovation in organizations is “knowledge sharing” amongst those within the organization. Knowledge sharing among employees takes place when ideas are encouraged by the mutual discussing of workplace problems and group-focused solutions (Shafie et al, 2014). Furthermore, Wang & Wang (2012) noted that knowledge sharing directly encourages not only present innovation, but sets the stage for future innovation as well. As individuals within the organization begins to freely express their ideas and experience the results of innovation, then such “knowledge sharing” will take place from one member to another throughout the organization. This will serve not only to develop group dynamics within the organization, but it will also spark new ideas for positive change resulting in greater growth and innovation. When leadership endeavors to create a culture of “knowledge sharing”, they, in turn, create a culture of innovation throughout the workplace. This innovative culture gives companies and organizations their best chance to remain competitive and relevant in the modern market (Shafie et al, 2014). Resolving Conflict Anticipating conflict throughout this process, the school board decided on a strategy to pro-actively resolve conflict. First, they held individual meetings with every staff member to both inform them of the direction of the school as well as to receive any feedback from them regarding their own feelings about these changes. This is in keeping with recommendations from research to hold an initial “listening phase” before implementing any major organizational changes (Mazzei and Quarantino, 2013). This left employees with assurances that the board not only knew that conflict would be created, but, more importantly, that their input was encouraged and welcomed throughout the process. Additionally, the school board took a pro-active approach to conflict management with the creation of knowledge-sharing groups. The staff was broken down into sub-groups of 3-5 staff members, with each group being appointed a designated leader. Group leaders were trained on conflict resolution and management to recognize when employees are disgruntled. Group leaders rotate in reporting to the school board so that potential conflicts can be brought to the attention of board members and addressed as early as possible. Effectiveness of Conflict Resolution Initiatives The board experienced several positive aspects to their conflict resolution initiatives as well as some negative consequences. Positively, employees knew that their concerns were heard and listened to by school board members. Furthermore, they were clearly communicated with that the reasons for the change were for the betterment of the school. Their proactive approach to conflict resolution solved many issues before they became issues of major conflict. By establishing knowledge sharing groups, they freed employees up to have much more autonomy than they had under the previous organizational structure. However, the one glaring area for improvement was the lack of accountability measures on the groups themselves. One group quickly became toxic when the leader failed to lead according to the guidelines the board issued. Group meetings quickly became sessions of griping and bashing, which only created greater conflict. Precedent Examples Precedent examples exist which demonstrate that changes of this magnitude are possible while continually increasing organizational productivity. Specifically, examples are given of changing organizational structures and even employees themselves while simultaneously increasing productivity. Anderson (2017) noted the rising organizational structure of a “holacracy” and cites Zappos.com as a positive example of such an example. Within this structure, there is no hierarchy or chain of command, but rather individuals are freed and required to self-manage their work. This, he noted, unlocks the innovativeness within employees by freeing them from a structure which emphasizes uniformity over innovation. Tony Shieh who serves as the head of the online shoe company, Zappos.com. In an article published by Business Insider, Feloni (2016) reported that 18% of Zappos employees took severance packages and left the company when faced with working under Hsieh’s “holacracy” where each employee is self-managed and traditional structures and titles are eliminated. This new working environment, while cutting almost one-fifth of his workforce, drastically transformed both employees and overall production. In this organizational structure, Shieh was somehow able to lose almost one-fifth of his workforce while simultaneously increasing production and employee morale. This shift could happen because the culture of Zappos.com was fundamentally changes by implementing a “holacracy”. Once this new organizational structure was in place, innovation was unleashed by the employees of the company which not only shaped the workplace culture, but also resulted in increased production. Conclusion Raza and Standing (2011) were correct in their assertion that organizational change is difficult to implement due to its complex nature and effect on people and organizational structure. However, in the case of Columbus Christian Academy, a proactive approach to conflict resolution addressed many issues before they grew larger and involved more people. Organizations preparing to implement change should consider implementing a listening phase while simultaneously and strategically filling positions with employees who will further the change initiatives. Additionally, implementing accountability measures for those employees given leadership responsibility and authority are encouraged in order to prevent such employees from creating additional conflict. References Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001 Feloni, R. (2016, January 28). Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh reveals what it was like losing 18% of his employees in a radical management experiment — and why it was worth it. Retrieved October 28, 2018 from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-hsieh-explains-how-zappos-rebounded-from-employee-exodus-2016-1 Herman, R. (2013, July). A Leadership Evolution. Retrieved October 28, 2018, from https://www.hermangroup.com/futurespeak/article_leadership_evolution.html Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2015). The Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Individual and Team Innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 66-97. doi:10.1177/1059601115573792 Mazzei, A., & Quaratino, L. (2013). Designing organizational change: Learning from a grounded research project. Journal of Management and Change, 30(1), 166-179. Accessed at http://emeraldinsight.com/journal/jocm Raza, S.A. & Standing, C. (2011). A systemic model for managing and evaluating conflicts in organizational change. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 24:187-210. doi:10.1007/s11213-010-9186-0 Shafie, S. B., Siti-Nabiha, A. K., & Cheng Ling, T. (2014). Organizational culture, transformational leadership and product innovation: A conceptual review. International Journal of Organizational Innovation. 2014 Special Issue, Vol. 7, p. 30-43. doi:10.1108/13563280510596943 Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J.M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775-790. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21757
0 Comments
Appraise the Value of Change
OLB 7006, Assignment 6 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 21 October 2018 Introduction In this paper, planned organizational change within a small, rural community. in North Carolina is examined. A local school district executed a plan to close a small middle school in the community and relocate the children to other schools in the area. This paper examines the communication involved in the planned organizational change, and the ways in which the change impacted the local community. Furthermore, specific recommendations are provided on which elements of the change process should be sustained and why as well as recommendations on how the change process can be improved for future instances of planned organizational change in similar settings. Planned School Closure Beginning with the 2018-2019 school year, the local school board decided that it would close one of the local middle schools. The local community impacted by this decision is a small, rural agricultural community of about 1,500 people. This school served about sixty students from sixth grade through eighth grade. The justification for the decision is financial – it saves the county money to close the school and relocate the children and teachers to neighboring schools. This conclusion was reached after a planning period of approximately two years. A cost/benefit analysis was conducted by the school board and educational consultants assessed the situation and provided recommendations. In the end, the board decided that the best decision for the county and its families was to close the school and relocate the students and teachers. This planned organizational change impacted approximately forty-five local families. The school board took a pro-active stance in communicating with these families as well as the community at large regarding their decision to close the school. As the school had served the community for forty-five years, the school board also realized the attachment the community would have to the school. This added another layer of complexity to the planning process for communicating this change. Impact of Change on Community While this change only directly impacted forty-five local families, this small community is comprised of large extended families. Furthermore, families who share no relation are extremely close-knit and often have deep relationships which have existed for decades. Therefore, this change, while perhaps seeming small, actually impacts the community greatly. The school board, aware of this reality, took careful and strategic steps during this planned organizational change. Initially, communication from the school board took the form of informing residents of these discussions through local print media. Subsequent steps included a listening phase where residents were invited to actively participate in the change process by providing direct feedback. Research suggests that such a step in the planning process is beneficial. Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) noted that a listening, information-gathering phase at the outset of change enhances chances of success for organizations. This finding was supported by Erving (2006) who noted that a low level of support for change is a strong predictor for change success or failure. Gauging this level of support is often made possible by organizational leaders initiating a listening phase. Furthermore, Stroh (2007) noted that successful change depends greatly on employee involvement in the change process. Inviting and encouraging participation by all employees can be accomplished during this listening phase. This phase included hosting community forums and inviting residents to question and answer sessions with local school board members. Following this listening phase, the school board decided that the decision had to be made to close the school and that local residents were informed of the justification for this decision. The school board then voted during the 2017-2018 school year to close the school beginning the following school year. This would provide residents one year to prepare for the impact of such a change. Once the decision was made to close the school, effected community members were informed by means of electronic and postal mail from the school board. These notifications were distributed periodically throughout the school year so that the change would be constantly in front of those most impacted by the closure. Negative Consequences of Change There were several negative consequences which resulted from the change. Before the decision was made to close the school, there was a fear that even the discussion of such a change would generate a negative response from residents even before the justification was clearly understood. This fear seems to be justified by current research on the subject. Vakola et al (2013) concluded that individuals are, in fact, predisposed to respond in certain ways to organizational change. In this case, one of the immediate negative consequences was the uproar created in the community by the publicizing of the possibility of closing the school. Residents and families of this small community typically do not respond well to change, and this case was no exception. Thus, the first and most immediate negative consequence was the firestorm generated by this discussion. This caused more work for the school board members following the initial announcement. An additional negative consequence was the unwillingness of the community to adapt to changing situations. The dynamics of the community changed dramatically over a fifteen year period which brought about the need to re-evaluate the necessity of the school in this community. This entire planned organizational process highlighted the lack of capacity for change inherent within the community. Bess (2015) noted that successful change initiatives are largely pre-determined by the internal culture and change capacity within the organization. It was noted, for example, that organizations with a culture of “organizational learning and participatory design” possess more trust and collaboration and, consequently, change more successfully. The local culture had no practice of organizational learning, in this sense, and the capacity for change was limited. Benefit of Change While there were certain drawbacks which accompanied this change, certain benefits resulted for the community as well. After the listening phase initiated by local leadership, it was concluded that this step should be taken for all subsequent planned change initiatives. This listening phase not only allowed community members to express their concerns and opinions, but it also allowed the school board to assess the level of support or resistance to the initiative. Vakola (2014) noted that organizational leaders should investigate the readiness of individuals within the organization who will be impacted by change prior to implementing change. This listening phase provided a great opportunity for such an assessment and will continue for all future initiatives. The second major benefit to the community was that the listening phase allowed the community to get to know and understand the members of the school board in a deeper, more meaningful way. While the community largely already knew these members, they were afforded the opportunity to get to know the individuals better, which resulted in a more favorable response to their initiatives. In a study conducted by Battilana and Casciaro (2012), they discovered that successful change initiatives are often preceded by the development of relationship with the change agent. Not only did this listening phase afford the opportunity to further develop these relationships, it also afforded the school board members to encourage and facilitate self-reflection by these families on the proposed change. This process has also proved to be beneficial to the planned change process. Vakola (2014) discovered that individuals who engage in regular self-evaluation respond more positively to organizational change. This response is due in part to their ability to see the positive aspects of change on their own initiative and as a part of their regular self-evaluative practices. The research of Bess (2015) agrees with this conclusion. In a case study of planned organizational change, the researcher discovered that members who see change as a personal and professional opportunity for growth and creativity respond positively. Conversely, members who resistance change due so in part because a lack of change is viewed as personal and professional stability and security. Recommendations for Improvement Several steps are recommended for future improvement in similar future circumstances. Firstly, knowing the inherent resistance to change in this community, local leaders should initiate the listening phase as the first element in the change process. This immediately communicates to the residents that you have not already decided on a change, but are inviting and encouraging their opinion on the change before a decision is made to initiate the change. This also provides the opportunity to assess the degree to which support or resistance is present in the community to the initiative. Secondly, knowing that change capacity is limited within the existing community, steps should be taken to increase the capacity for future change initiatives. This could include hosting regular community forums even in the absence of proposed change. This would increase trust and cooperation between the residents and the local leadership. This could also include initiating smaller change initiatives which are largely supported by the local residents for the purpose of building a greater capacity for change in general from those who will be impacted by future changes. Recommendations to Sustain This community was a community which had not experienced significant change in an extended period of time. While this can create initial resistance, research has demonstrated that continuous innovation patterns are the most inherently unstable for organizations (Glor, 2014). Therefore, the community itself was more stable before and during the planned change process. Local leadership should continue the practice of less frequent change and innovation for the sake of community stability. Secondly, encouraging and inviting the input of the local populace proved to be significant in the success of the change initiative. Future planned organizational change initiatives should include and build upon such a phase. References Battilana, J. & Casciara, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0891 Bess, K.D. (2015). The impact of everyday experiences on planned organizational change: Applying schematic change theory to the study of narratives in community-based organizations. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(6), 739-759. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21757 Elving, W. (2006). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2). Doi:10.1108/13563280510596943 Glor, E.D. (2014). Building theory about evolution of organizational change patterns. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 30, 1-23. doi: 10.17357.f9e2f64daf515a2a63f6cb21541120 Mazzei, A., & Quaratino, L. (2013). Designing organizational change: Learning from a grounded research project. Journal of Management and Change, 30(1), 166-179. Accessed at http://emeraldinsight.com/journal/jocm Stroh, U. (2007). Relationships and participation: A complexity science approach to change communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/15531180701298916 Vakola, M., Oreg, S., & Armenakis, A. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual-differences perspective: A review of empirical research. Psychology of Organizational Change, 14(1), 95-123. Vakola, M. (2014). What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact of organizational change. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 35(3), 195-209. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm Investigate Local Leadership and Change
OLB 7006, Assignment 5 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 14 October 2018 Introduction There are a variety of documented leadership styles and characteristics (Landis, Hill, & Harvey, 2014). With each leadership style, organizations will reap certain benefits as well as suffer from certain drawbacks. This paper examines three local leaders within the context of Southeastern North Carolina from a variety of organizational backgrounds. The leadership style of each is examined as well as how each leadership theory and style impacts the organizations which they lead. Furthermore, each leader has implemented organizational change within their respective contexts. These changes are also analyzed within the framework of the leadership theory and style displayed by each leader. Servant Leadership The first local leader under observation is Scott. Scott is a religious leader who serves simultaneously at multiple echelons of leadership. Scott serves as a local pastor of a church of approximately 500 congregants as well as the treasurer of his denomination’s district (three states and approximately one-hundred churches). Scott was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent time as both a Marine Infantry Officer as well as an Army Chaplain. Consequently, he was thoroughly trained and well-versed in a variety of leadership styles. He always spoke very directly and easily commanded the room in which he was present. However, despite this training and presence, his leadership behavior and traits were consistent with two dominant leadership theories: spiritual leadership and servant leadership. He effortlessly combines these two theories to produce effective leadership. Scott’s leadership style is the embodiment of servant leadership. Washington, Sutton, and Sauser (2014) define servant leadership as a distinct leadership style in which the leader values the good of the follower above their own self-interest. Followers in his organization noted that he routinely praises their accomplishments to the team, but notes that it would be self-serving of him not to acknowledge their strengths and the future potential available. He selflessly takes time to develop the skills and talents of others and routinely goes out of his way to expose them to greater opportunities for service and leadership. Strategic Leadership The second local leader under observation is Phil. Phil owns a local produce company and delivers produce all over the eastern coast of the United States. Phil has served in this capacity for almost forty years. Phil has navigated his company through many technological changes, logistical challenges, and changes in governmental regulations. Phil is a strategic thinker, and constantly and routinely examines his company’s resources and aligns his people and products to further his company’s goals and objectives. Phil’s leadership style and philosophy aligns with the leadership theory of strategic leadership (Landis, Hill, & Harvey, 2014). Phil noted that, as a strategic leader, his first and best investment is in the people who work for him. He strategically and carefully selects people who already align with his organizational goals and addresses the importance of their role within the strategic objectives of the company. Phil’s employees noted that while Phil is a strong leader and strategic thinker, they also know and understand that he cares about their well-being. Thus, even as a strategic thinker and leader, Phil strategically and relationally invests in his employees as an intentional business strategy. Charismatic Leadership The third local leader under observation is George. Like Phil, George also owns and runs a local produce company. George’s operation is one of the largest employers in the county. George has a reputation of being an innovator in his field as many of his ideas have revolutionized his industry. In talking to George’s employees, they noted that they choose to work for George because he inspires and motivates them to be better people and employees. Multiple employees noted that George transforms the workplace environment by virtue of his charisma and personality. George fits the definition of a charismatic leader, as his enthusiasm and energy inspire his employees to reach their maximum potential while working for him (Landis, Hill, & Harvey, 2014). Like Phil, George has been leading his company for nearly forty years. He has spearheaded major organizational changes in technology utilization, organizational structure, business relationships, and sales and marketing. His charismatic leadership has allowed for his employees and company to grow from being a small, family farming operation to a nationwide company. His surrounding community has also benefited from his charismatic leadership as outside money and jobs have flowed into the area in their desire to work for and alongside George. Conclusions Each leadership style comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. Servant leadership, as modeled by Scott, allows for employees to be empowered while also endearing them to both the leader and the organization (Dinh et al, 2014). Scott has led his congregation through local building projects as well as international projects to bring well water to remote African villages. This is the result of his servant leadership in which he actively sought to empower his followers to use their gifts in greater and more meaningful ways. However, it is also not uncommon for people to attempt to manipulate the compassion and relational aspect of servant leaders for personal gain (Dinh et al, 2014). In this respect, Scott spends a large percentage of his time working with people who approach him with ideas for change initiatives which they hope will bring them personal gain. Compassionately, Scott willingly invests his time in these people until it becomes obvious that their motivations are impure. This did not seem to be an issue with Phil or George in their workforce. This would suggest that servant leaders, while having perhaps the greatest potential for positive organizational change, also possess the greatest potential for time spent with individuals which neither increases their potential or furthers the mission and vision of the organization. Like servant leadership theory, strategic leadership carries with it the potential for tremendous organizational growth. In his forty years at the helm of his produce company, Phil has led his organization into sustained growth. This growth, he noted, is the direct result of successful and strategic change initiatives. Phil noted that he always precedes his change initiatives – which are typically adjusting to some new government regulation or implementing a new technology – by talking to each of his employees about the necessity of the change, how it will impact them, and how they are still as vitally needed as before the change took place. He credits his intentional relationships with his employees as the reason for his success. This is corroborated by current research on organizational change. In a study conducted by Battilana and Casciaro (2012), they discovered that successful change initiatives are often preceded by the development of relationship with the change agent. In other words, employees are more likely to change, and change initiatives are more likely to succeed – when employees have a relationship with the change agent. Not all change initiatives have been successful, however. While excelling at big-picture planning and strategizing, strategic leaders can be more prone to overlooking the individuals impacted by the change (Landis, Hill, & Harvey, 2014). Phil gave as examples change initiatives that he knew were necessary, but that his workforce did not readily or willingly adopt. As a result, the implementation timeline was not only greatly extended, but it also created relational turmoil for Phil within his organization. This caused him to spend a great amount of time repairing such relationships, which may not have been necessary if individuals were initially given more consideration. Therefore, while strategic leaders can marshal people and resources for positive growth and change, they are at greater risk for losing the individuals in their strategic planning processes. George is a dynamic charismatic leader who obviously inspires his employees to maximize their potential. The explosive growth his company has experienced is no doubt due to his indefatigable charisma and energy. His ideas are presented with such passion that everyone around him believes in their viability, and they adopt the idea as their own. His company has undergone so many significant changes in every organizational area that, over his period of leadership, the company would be unrecognizable to previous leaders. However, George’s passion and charisma are accompanied by constant change and innovation. A tremendous amount of time and energy are given to an idea, and as soon as that idea becomes a reality, George is already planning how to change and improve the idea. This seems to bring with it an uncertainty and sense of organizational chaos. This fits with current research which noted that continuous innovation patterns are the most inherently unstable for organizations (Glor, 2014). George’s charisma and passion for his work does not allow for his employees to celebrate organizational achievements and victories but is constantly focused on more and greater innovation. While this has led to the tremendous growth noted earlier, it has also served to cause George to lose some of his most faithful and productive employees. They expressed a desire to feel more appreciated for the work they have accomplished, rather than constantly being driven to constant and greater innovation. References Battilana, J. & Casciara, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0891 Dinh et al. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25, 36-62. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-leadership-quarterly Glor, E.D. (2014). Building theory about evolution of organizational change patterns. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 30, 1-23. doi: 10.17357.f9e2f64daf515a2a63f6cb21541120 Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 97-100. Retrieved from www.nabpress.com/management-policy-and-practice Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Sauser, J. I. (2014). How distinct is servant leadership theory? Empirical comparisons with competing theories. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(1), 11-25. Retrieved from www.na-businesspress.com/JLAE/jlaescholar.html Analyze Effective Communication and Change through a Corporate Case Study
OLB 7006, Assignment 4 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 7 October 2018 Introduction Research has proven true the old adage that change for organizations is inevitable (Saruhan, 2014). While there are many factors which contribute to this constant need to change and adapt, prevalent factors include a shrinking global economy, increased competition and technological advancements (Saruhan, 2014). Consequently, it is necessary that organizations change and change positively. Organizational change initiatives are both challenging and complex, and the future of organizations depends, in large part, on successful change initiatives. This paper will examine a recent failed change initiative by General Electric and examines what steps could have been taken to result in successful change. General Electric Adam Lashinsky of Fortune Magazine recently detailed the decline of General Electric following their failed organizational change initiative with implementing new technology (Lashinsky, 2018). Former CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, began addressing sweeping changes to General Electric and their utilization and implementation of new technology (Lashinsky, 2018). Lashinsky (2018) noted that the change effort was a massive failure as a result of three exceptionally poor decisions: poor investments in new technology, poor allocation of capital, and, as a result, a sharp decline in organizational culture. Ultimately, for Immelt, the failed organizational change initiative resulted in his abrupt resignation from his role as CEO of General Electric. What steps could have been taken by the organizational leadership of General Electric to better communicate with their stakeholders regarding these changes? What lessons can we learn from this failure? Communication Techniques Vamsi Chimitiganti, writing for ITProPortal, a technology commentary and analysis organization, noted that the primary failure of General Electric was not related to technology, but to organizational communication (Chemitiganti, 2018). Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric communication to stakeholders was poor every step of the way: poor communication of the rollout plan, poor communication to technology developers, and poor communication to employees impacted by the new technology. While the technological advancements leaders were seeking to initiate failed, the true failure on the part of those leaders was communication with stakeholders. Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric’s communication of their rollout plan failed to communicate in quantifiable terms what the company was seeking to accomplish and how. Their communication during this phase failed to address how the new technology would reduce costs and generate revenue as well as failing to address how this would affect their existing business model and structure (Chimitiganti, 2018). Their communication with technology developers was equally ineffective. Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric’s communication with developers failed to include listening to or soliciting their input regarding the technology they were developing. Organizational leaders of General Electric imposed unnecessarily long, cumbersome organizational processes for procuring resources and solving technology-related problems in the development phase (Chimitiganti, 2018). Furthermore, the developers were dictated to what technology they were developing and what the timeline for development was rather than being consulted with regarding such decisions (Chimitiganti, 2018). Similarly, Chimitiganti (2018) noted that poor communication to employees impacted by the new technology included no invitation to employees to experiment with the new technology and provide feedback regarding their experience. As with their relationship with developers, communication from organizational leaders of General Electric to their employees was given in the form of directives which increased resistance and decreased the likelihood of successful change. Strategies for Improved Communication What can we learn from the failures of General Electric’s leadership in this change initiative? What strategies can other organizations adopt which would increase their likelihood of changing successfully? Firstly, organizational leaders must acknowledge the importance of careful and thoughtful communication to all stakeholders within the organization. Saruhan (2014) developed a list of vital organizational change factors. The researcher noted that communication and perception of organizational justice are both vital factors, and that good communication positively impacts employees’ perception of organizational justice. The research of Raina (2010) also concluded that communication is the most vital factor and predictor of organizational change success or failure. Additionally, Amis (2013) discovered that communication is also the primary instrument used effectively by organizational leaders to prepare employees for change. The research of McClellan (2014) agrees with this conclusion. The researcher noted that communicating and announcing change should be seen as opportunities for open dialogue with shareholders to invite them to serve as active change participants. Communication is arguably the most important factor for organizational leaders in considering and implementing organizational change of any type. This is true not only in the technical sense of utilizing appropriate communication tools, but more importantly in what it communicates to stakeholders about the values of the organization. Research has demonstrated the importance of trust between organizational leaders and stakeholders, but it has also highlighted the importance of a sense and perception of proper organizational justice by leaders implementing change (Huevel et al., 2013). This sense of justice deals with the treatment of employees throughout the process of change (Saruhan, 2014). In addressing this issue, Saruhan (2014) noted that while there are many reasons organizational change initiatives fail, human related issues are the primary reason. Many of these human-related issues surface in the form of resistance to change which may be alleviated with purposeful and intentional communication from organizational leaders (Huevel et al., 2013). Oreg (2003) constructed a “resistance-to-change scale” comprised of four factors: routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity. The researcher concluded that the greater the dependence of individuals on these factors, the greater will be their resistance to change. Inversely, it can be concluded that the greater and more personal the communication by organizational leaders to address these issues during change processes, the greater the likelihood of changing successfully. Recommendations While the objectives of the organizational leadership of General Electric may have been in the best interest of the company, the communication during this season of change was so poor that this message was never received by shareholders. Consequently, the change initiatives proved disastrous. Company revenue provides the most glaring example of this disaster and its consequences. Alwyn Scott, writing for Reuters, noted that General Electric’s revenue for 2017 equaled $124 billion. Current projections for the year 2020 expect General Electric’s revenue to equal just $12 billion (Scott, 2017). This indicates that this failed change initiative cost General Electric more than ninety percent of their annual revenue. What practical steps need to be taken going forward? Organizational leaders of General Electric must re-evaluate the importance they place on communication. Trust and a proper sense of organizational justice must be re-established throughout all levels of the organization prior to any new change initiatives. Therefore, a listening phase is recommended to encourage participation and engagements at different organizational levels. Initially, a forum should be initiated by organizational leaders to include as much of the company as possible. This would address all employees and other members of the organization and encourage their feedback and input on the proposed changes. Secondly, a subsequent listening phase should be held with each department. Departments should have their own forum, as this will allow organizational leaders to learn and absorb how proposed changes will impact departments differently and how resistant various groups are to organizational change. Furthermore, specific attention should be given during this listening phase to the “resistance-to-change scale” constructed by Oreg (2003). This scale is comprised of four factors: routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity. Each of these factors should be at the core of communication efforts to employees to minimize employee resistance to change initiatives. Secondly, experimentation should be encouraged once change initiatives are launched. This further encourages employees and shareholders to interact with the new changes with the understanding that their interaction and feedback are valued more than the technical usage of the technology. This further communicates to those impacted by the changes that their contribution to the organization, and their role within the organization, are more important than the technology they utilize. Throughout each of these phases, it should be communicated how this new technology will improve the life of the shareholder as well as the organization. This provides a purpose for the changes that will help shareholders grasp how these changes are beneficial. These recommendations help build a framework for the employees in which they are valued, encouraged, and empowered and the organization continues to be effective and prosper as well. References Amis, J.M., & Aissaouri, R. (2013). Readiness for change: An institutional perspective. Journal of Change Management, 13, 69-95. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2013.768435 Chimitiganti, V. (2018, October 3). What we can learn from GE and why digital transformations fail. ITProPortal. Retrieved from https://www.itproportal.com/features/what-we-can-learn-from-ge-and-why-digital-transformations-fail/ Heuvel, M. V., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004 Lashinsky, A. (2018, May 24). The failure of GE’s digital transformation. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2018/05/24/ge-failure-immelt/ McClellan, John G. (2014). Announcing change: Discourse, Uncertainty, and organizational control. Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 192-209. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.844195 Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 Raina, R. (2010). Timely, Continuous & Credible Communication & Perceived Organizational Effectiveness. Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev., 46(2), 345-359. Retrieved from http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijir/article/view/41270 Saruhan, Nese. (2014). The role of corporate communication and perception of justice during organizational change process. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(4), 143-166. doi:10.1108/13563280510596943 Scott, A. (2017, August 28). GE shifts strategy, financial targets for digital business after missteps. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge-digital-outlook-insight-idUSKCN1B80CB |
NG, LR, & NCUMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
March 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Justin DuBose | 2013-2022
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved