Stories Of Change Essays Example
Every company in the world is constantly thriving to manage change. Change management is important in order meets the transformations in the dynamic business environment. It is important that change should be managed well as it plays an integral role to shape both external and internal environments of an organization. The management of change is an important process that should be managed effectively by the top management because they have human beings to deal with in an entire process (Sonenshein, 2009).
here were three main significant errors that were made in all the change stories of world’s renowned business organizations. The first significant error that will be discussed is that of McDonalds. According to Kotter’s model, the error that can be related and applied, in this case, is the allowance of too much of complacency. Since McDonalds has been already a popular, well-established food chain being a market leader in the food industry, it is easier for large organizations like McDonalds to become complacent in their performance. It is important for organizations to realize that as time changes, the trend in customer thoughts and perceptions also alters (Palmer, 2009). The customer base today is more aware of their health, health-related risks and more diet conscious. They have more exposure towards gymnasium and exercise due to which they have started to avoid junk and high cholesterol diet. As McDonalds, is the leading fast-food chain in the world, it should have already adopted to these trends with the help of its research and development. Their complacent attitude result in different lawsuits as well crisis of identity of brand goodwill that could have been easily prevented through proper invested in research and development (Palmer, 2009).
The second significant error that will be discussed is that of Kodak. This is related to the company’s evolution and development in the digital technology era. According to Kotter’s model, the error that can be related and applied in this case is a failure of Kodak to make decisions that can help the company develop win in the short-term (Palmer, 2009). Even though the company thought that they were making the right decisions, but the big goal that they were trying to pursue with limited planning is the clear formula for the debacle that was developed by Kodak. Since, Kodak was unable to implement any series of short-term winning recipe, the investors and the employees kept on wondering whether this organization will be able to become successful. If Kodak was able to set benchmarks and develop standards, the concerns of both employees and investors could have been eliminated and organization could have stepped towards success and prosperity (Palmer, 2009).
The third significant error that will be analyzed is that made by IBM. According to Kotter’s model, the error that can be related to the fact that companies fail to develop a powerful coalition that can guide effective change related processes. Even though, there is no one who could have predicted that the information technology and the Internet could have revolutionized so quickly, it is integral that industry and industry leaders must intelligently utilize their resources they own for better utilization in the future (Palmer, 2009). It is integral, that management must welcome views and ideas from both bottom up and top down and all legal points must be considered and highly appreciated. Even though, the main campaign that was conducted by IBM was remarkably successful, but its time period must be considered and the number of days it took should also be taken into consideration. If the top management would have provided the resources, listened to the issues and supported the concerns, the market share of the company would have been considerably different than what it has today (Palmer, 2009).
It was important that McDonalds should have been more in contact with its customers and must have taken in consideration their needs and requirements of becoming more health conscious. This would have definitely resulted in a more conscious society which would have allowed the company to alter some of its menu before any legal action took place. It is integral that organizations must be willing to adapt to the changes in external environment considering the dynamic business environment. This would have clearly altered the outcome of the change process if McDonald would have been proactive to the responses (Westover, 2010). The second recommendation is for Kodak that should have slowed down its pace. Even though adapting the digital technology is a good option as it was an evolutionary process, but keeping all eggs in one basket was not a good decision to make. It should have taken each process step by step which would have resulted in a more calculated and responsible business response.
The third recommendation is for IBM, and it was important that they should have developed a mechanism that would have considered recommendation and ideas of their employees. This way, employees would have felt that they are part of the company and the management at least is willing to listen to their ideas and concepts that enhance critical problem-solving skills. The fourth recommendation is for the company Hewlett-Packard. It was important that the company must have benchmarked against companies that have had a successful process of merger. This would have certainly provided them with feedback, lessons learnt during merger phase and they could have avoided to repeat the same mistakes as past mergers did (Palmer, 2009).
The CEO of Hewlett Packard was Cary Fiorina, who was a change manager. The main objective was to ensure that a merger with Compaq was successful. As the CEO of the company, it was her prime responsibility to navigate the merger process. Even though change is resisted at some levels, it was still her responsibility to go through the effort (Palmer, 2009). The story of change of this organization depicts how change was resisted and how the CEO navigated through it. The second case is of IBM where David and John were the change managers as Interpreters. It is important to note here that efforts from bottom requires a lot of effort and also understanding of the benefits of change. It was becoming quite challenging for them to convince every employee to create a buzz for the benefits of Internet for IBM. Hence, their role as interpreter was obvious as they were making legal arguments as why and how the Internet would benefit IBM (Palmer, 2009).
The CEO of McDonalds acted as a Caretaker in the change management process. The CEO acted as a coalition between external forces and business such as the customers and the countries which are important for expansion purposes. The Kodak CEO planned to implement the Digital business model as a Director in change management. This model fits his personality and effort as he thought he was making the right decision at the right time and towards the right direction (Palmer, 2009).
The recommended business strategy for IBM is that they should incorporate the concepts and ideas of their employees while making important change decisions. This would impact organization become successful in the future, develop trust and mutual understanding between the leadership and employees (Rezvani, 2012). The second recommended strategy is for Hewlett Packard as the companies must have realized that their main customers are their employees and before restructuring process, they should have conducted an internal analysis to consider the impacts on current business. This would have certainly provided the company a chance to look into long-term impacts of change.
McDonalds should have maintained a personal relationship with its customers and this is the main recommended strategy for the company. They should have ensured invested in research and development which would have provided insights into what the consumers actually demanded. This would have helped the company to alter their menu and design it according to the changing health trends. On the other hand, Kodak should have handled the downsizing process more efficiently. It should have taken a phase approach to implementing every change effort with small goals (Rezvani, 2012).
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). In Managing Organizational Change (2nd ed.), Mc Graw Hill Education
Rezvani, S., Dehkordi, G. J., & Shamsollahi, A. (2012). Managing Strategic Change For Organizations. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(3), 112-121.
Sonenshein S. (2009) Emergence of Ethical Issues During Strategic Change Implementation, Organization Science, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p22. http://sonenshein.rice.edu/uploadedFiles/Publications/Sonenshein_emergence%20of%20ethical%20issues%20during%20strategic%20change%20Org%20Science.pdf
Westover, J. H. (2010). Managing organizational change: Change agent strategies and techniques to successfully managing the dynamics of stability and change in organizations. International Journal of Management and Innovation, 2(1), 45-50.