Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
Organizational change remains a powerful process for transforming performance and addressing existing change. The appointment of Charlie Eitel as Simmons new CEO resulted in various changes that were aimed at making this company more profitable. The implemented strategy presented several strengths, such as completing a detailed survey and using the findings to engage stakeholders and improve the situation. However, some weaknesses affected the success of the process, including the absence of a proper change model and the inability to engage key stakeholders. These attributes are elaborated and analyzed in this paper.
Introduction
The case Leading Change at Simmons (A) reveals how the selected company became less competitive and incapable of achieving the intended objectives due to the leadership styles of different chief executive officers (CEOs). After the appointment of Charlie Eitel in 1999 as the companys CEO, several changes were implemented that would eventually make Simmons more successful. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Eitels approach to the process and recommendations of leading order and change in such a situation.
Strengths of Eitels Approach to Change
The studied case reveals that Charlie Eitels presence at Simmons became a new opportunity for introducing new practices and improving performance. He adopted a superior approach that was capable of delivering positive results. The first strength of such a style was that he began by conducting a detailed survey. This evaluative strategy was aimed at understanding the unique challenges and drawbacks that were affecting productivity and profitability at Simmons (Casciaro, Edmondson, McManus, & Roloff, 2005).
The findings revealed that the existing plants were competing with each other. Some appeared to be below the outlined standards. The issue of management resulted in role conflicts, thereby disorienting performance. With this observation, Eitel went further to inform different employees, leaders, and stakeholders about the existing problems and the reason why there was a need to transform the situation.
The next move was to implement the intended change in accordance with the observations made from the completed survey. The CEO launched his Great Game of Life plan or program in every plant. Employees were required to cooperate, promote a superior culture, embrace teamwork, and focus on customers needs. The decision not to launch the program in all plants simultaneously is a major strength since it presented a new opportunity for continuous improvement (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2016).
The approach also resonates with Kurt Lewins model of refreeze, change, and freeze. Another outstanding strength is that the leader informed all stakeholders about the existing challenges and the best way to turn things around. Additionally, Eitel embraced the power of effective leadership attributes throughout the change process (Casciaro et al., 2005). He ensured that all top executives remained supportive, pursued a creative culture, and promoted teamwork to empower their followers.
His approach to order was also informed by the concepts of organizational change. This is true since he focused on how leaders interacted with their subordinates and the role of followers throughout the process. He maintained the highest level of communication to inform more people about the purpose of the intended change and anticipated outcomes. He also included suppliers and partners as part of his approach to order (Casciaro et al., 2005). This strategy eventually supported the entire process.
Weaknesses of Eitels Approach to Change
The above discussion has revealed that Eitel considered the unique attributes associated with change implementation. However, several weaknesses are identifiable that could have affected performance. Firstly, the leader failed to implement the change in all plants, thereby increasing chances of objection and opposition from different workers and leaders (Casciaro et al., 2005). Secondly, Eitel failed to engage topmost leaders to be part of the process. He wanted to implement rapid changes and redefine roles in the company to deliver timely results.
Thirdly, his change to order was rapid and failed to put into consideration the expectations and demands of different general managers. Instead, he went further to change their responsibilities and job descriptions. He also compelled them to start reporting to HR heads and manufacturing controllers. This swift approach might have contributed significantly to the opposition recorded at this company.
Finally, the case reveals that the involvement and contributions of different stakeholders and partners remained minimal throughout the process (Casciaro et al., 2005). Consequently, it became unfeasible for the proposed or targeted change to be launched in every plant. Despite such weaknesses in Eitels change model and approach to order, the company managed to make significant achievements within a period of two years.
Recommendations
The presented situation indicates that the Simmons was performing poorly due to poor managerial practices, ineffective leadership strategies, and conflicting roles. The company was unable to record positive results due to such challenges. In this kind of a scenario, those in topmost leadership positions should begin by identifying and implementing a powerful change process informed by theory.
For this situation, Eitel could have considered the attributes of Kurt Lewins change model. This theory is applicable in a wide range of settings, easy to follow, and resonates with the needs of the targeted stakeholders. Using the model, Eitel would have informed his employees and plant managers about the current challenges and their impacts on performance (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). This strategy would then become a new opportunity for them to present their insights and ideas for delivering positive results. The involvement of other key partners would have made the completed surveys more informative.
The other suggestion that could have led to change and order is the involvement of all managers. As described in the case, implemented ideas and strategies that appeared appropriate for the situation (Casciaro et al., 2005).
He introduced new changes after realizing that a specific strategy could fail to deliver positive results. For example, he decided to implement the targeted strategy in one plant to identify the potential complications that could affect the intended results. Additionally, every change or practice should be monitored continuously before it becomes a norm in a given organization (Hope, 2010). As observed in this case, those involved failed to consider how the new strategies could remain sustainable at the company.
Finally, the inputs of external stakeholders were of little consequence throughout the change implementation process. This was the case since Eitel did not focus on the demands of suppliers and community members (Casciaro et al., 2005). Although the strategy succeeded, the considerations of such attributes could have delivered additional results. Those who want to achieve better results should always consider these suggestions whenever planning to design, introduce, and implement a new change process.
Justification
The above recommendation resonates with different organizational theories and concepts. For instance, McLain and Hackman, K. (1999) identify trust as a powerful attribute that leaders can apply to maximize the productiveness of their human resources. The involvement of stakeholders could have resulted in trusting relationships, thereby supporting the entire change process. Similarly, McLain and Hackman (1999) believe that such an approach minimizes risks and encourages positive decision-making processes. The adoption of an effective model amounts to power when promoting change. Ashforth (1989) uses this concept to explain why leaders should have autonomy and participate in every activity. This strategy maximizes legitimacy and improves the level of organizational control.
Without proper empowerment and guidance during the change process, the level of fear increases and eventually maximizes opposition. Debiec and LeDoux (2004) acknowledge that people will oppose any change if it makes them feel threatened. Through continuous collaboration and engagement, it becomes possible for employees and managers to be involved and reduce rejection. The suggestions outlined above amount to effective change leadership since they present a new philosophy for CEOs to transform command-control behaviors into self-directed teams that are capable of remaining accountable and focusing on the anticipated goals (Behr, 1998).
The adoption of an effective change model becomes a new opportunity for ensuring that middle managers are involved throughout the process (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). This is something necessary since they play an important role when change is to be implemented (Hope, 2010, p. 195). These attributes and suggestions for leading change and order in an organization are, therefore, evidence-based and applicable in diverse settings.
Conclusion
The above discussion has outlined the unique strengths and weaknesses of Eitels approach to change. Using his competencies, he was able to transform operations, introduce a superior culture, and encourage workers to focus on the anticipated goals. The approach to order and change could have been improved by considering the attributes of an effective theory, engaging more stakeholders, and addressing every emerging issue. This suggestion becomes a powerful model for companies that are planning to remain profitable or improve performance.
References
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.
Behr, E. T. (1998). Leadership. Management Review, 1, 52-55.
Casciaro, T., Edmondson, A. C., McManus, S., & Roloff, K. (2005). Leading change as Simmons (A). HBS No. 9-406-046. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Debiec, J., & LeDoux, J. (2004). Fear and the brain. Social Research, 71(4), 807-818.
Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 195-210. Web.
Jarymowicz, M., & Bar-Tal, D. (2016). The dominance of fear over hope in the life of individuals and collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 367-392. Web.
McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. PAQ Summer, 1, 152-176.
Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55-75.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.