Stories of Change
Must pass turn it in. Attached you will find the material you need to read from the book.
Here is the citation needed for attached work if referenced.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2006). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Read the “Stories of Change” section in Chapter 1 of the textbook that describes how companies such as Hewlett Packard, IBM, Kodak, and McDonald’s have addressed significant changes within their organizations.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
Using Kotter’s model, identify the three (3) most significant errors made out of all of the change stories presented and describe the ramifications of those mistakes.
Make at least one (1) recommendation for each change story that would have improved the effectiveness of the change process and explain why that recommendation would have altered the outcome of the change process.
Attribute a change image to the leading managers or directors in each change story and provide an explanation as to why that change image label is appropriate.
Recommend a different strategy for managing change in each of the one change stories presented and provide a justification for your recommended strategy.
Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
Change
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Institution:
Introduction
The element of any organization is very crucial as it defines the element of management in the organization and also defines the position of the company in question within the market. The market is a dynamic element and the organizations are more often than not forced to conform to the changes taking place, rather than define the market. The process of developing the changes in the origination, are as every bit messy as they are rewarding (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2006). There are a number of constraints that are associated with change in the organization, such that the management cannot effect changes without having to deal with aspects such as the shareholder, staffs, competing companies, legal implications and many other determinants. Depending on the industry and the company in question, the change elements and effects to firms is unique, however there are some baseline aspects that can be seen to emerge from any change in an organization (Kourdi, 2009). This paper brings out the element of change in different companies and the various aspects associated with process. Using Kotter’s Model, it is much easier to establish the dynamics of change in the organization.
Mistakes in Response to Change With Reference To Kotter’s Model
Business is defined by the changes that take place in the market; regardless of the amount of change that occur within the given time. However, the most crucial aspect of the changes that the organization has to deal with is the responses to the same. It is also important to note that regardless of the level of expertise that a certain manager has with reference to the market, it is always difficult to affect the strategies in response to change. There are so many moving parts that have to be considered. John Kotter one of the renowned professors lecturing at Harvard business school, came up with one of the best models that can be applied in the event that a company is going through change. In light of the changes and the strategies that, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Kodak, and McDonald’s have gone through there are some mistakes that can be identifies relative to the steps suggested by Kotter in his model.
One of the main mistakes that the companies made was creating weak coalitions. This meant that while the ideas about change may have been floated well in their various companies, the coalitions backing the need for the strategies proposed were weak and unwilling to champion for the same. This is a clear indication from struggles that HP, Kodak and IBM had in common. As such their strategies were greeted with a lot of resentment from the parties that were supposed to be implementing the same. With reference to leaders chosen to bring the change all the companies failed at first and only came to realize the same later after the damage had been done. It is for this reason that changes in management is seen to replicate in the four companies towards the turnaround points.
According to Kotter one of the main steps that any of the management teams is supposed to follow is communicating the vision of the changes that the company is about to deal with. This comes after the vision of the change anticipated is created. There are various levels of management, clients, shareholders, staffs and other interested parties that have to be convinced on the need for the vision and what it will bring to the company. In the case of HP, the management did not market the aspect of the vision for the company to the staffs, which is why, part of the larger group from the original company and a few from Compaq, did not agree with the strategies proposed. Much of the efforts to communicate on the same came in too late a majority of the staff and even clients did not appreciate the strategies imposed on them. At IBM only one of the top management officers supported the move towards internet integration into the vision of the company (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2006). As a result much of the team on the ground had to deal with also involved lack of funds as the management did not practice the vision of the company. Kodak on the other hand made this mistake with subtle implication on the staffs and the shareholders. They never addressed the anxiety of the staff and the shareholders as a demonstration of their commitment to the vision. Better communication and assurances to the staff would have generated better results. The same grieve mistake was done by McDonalds with the ‘Made for You’ campaign which led to its slop in business and franchises selling back their stores. This would explain why the products did not match the interest of the clients and the franchises were loosing out on business.
The other mistake that the companies made in their quest to embrace change, was failing to create short term goals. In all the companies efforts there was a lot of criticism from the staff and the share holders. This was as a result of the fact that the management did not have short term goals in mind that would compliment the efforts f the teams on the ground (Horne & Hoffman, 1998). Change is bound to be welcomed with a lot of resentment, mainly because most of the staffs and shareholders do not see the bigger picture in mind or the results expected could come decades to come. As such, the management needs to create a chance for the teams to realize short term goals. There is nothing that motivates teams better than the realization of goals however small. Worked into the long-term goals, the employees and the stake holders are bound to buy in to the long-term goals if the shot term goals are achieved with relative ease.
Recommendation for each change story
In the case of HP, there was need for the management to identify the true leaders that would support the course of action. In this case, HP sh...