Elite Engineering Unable to Achieve Change Elite Engineering has been unable to successfully implement change because they haven’t been able to get the employees to see the need for the change and to believe in the change. “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.” (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008) Change is often met with resistance. When it comes down to it many people fear change. At Elite Engineering, the engineers were happy with the way things were being run. They enjoyed the billable work they were doing and did not want to take the time to collaborate with others, as it would take away time from their …show more content…
(Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008) At Elite Engineering, I think upper management was unsuccessful at implementing change because the employees didn’t want to lose their bonuses (something of value to them), they misunderstood the change, and they didn’t …show more content…
When Paul shared his vision with the engineers, their main concern was the bonus plan. They wanted to ensure that things would stay the same or improve in that regard assuming the company met its goals. As previously mentioned, one reason people are opposed to change is because they feel they will lose something of value to them. This creates self-interested behavior which ends up costing the company in the long-run. In this case, I think the engineers feel that if they collaborate with their peers, they will end up losing out on their bonuses. The incentive plan currently in place creates a certain level of competition amongst the engineers. “If managers want their employees to share information, why do they encourage them to hoard it by rewarding competition among them?” (Van Alstyne, 2005) If the engineers are to receive their bonus at the end of the year they have to meet certain requirements and they may fail to meet them if they begin to collaborate with their peers. Val Alstyne states that “the people rewarded for individual performance shared information least, while the people rewarded for team performance shared most.” (Van Alstyne, 2005) The way Elite Engineering has their incentive plan setup creates self-interest behavior. Instead of sharing information, the engineers choose to keep it to themselves to maximize their performance. When rewards are tied to
Leading Change was named the top management book of the year by Management General. There are three major sections in this book. The first section is ¡§the change of problem and its solution¡¨ ; which discusses why firms fail. The second one is ¡§the eight-stage process¡¨ that deals with methods of performing changes. Lastly, ¡§implications for the twenty-first century¡¨ is discussed as the conclusion. The eight stages of process are as followed: (1) Establishing a sense of urgency. (2) Creating the guiding coalition. (3) Developing a vision and a strategy. (4) Communicating the change of vision. (5) Empowering employees for broad-based action. (6) Generating short-term wins. (7) Consolidating gains and producing more changes. (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
John Kotter, an expert on organizational change, conducted thirty years of research, coming to the conclusion that because companies do not completely investigate the whole picture when it comes to change, seventy percent of businesses crash by not finishing the change through to the end. For the reason that many businesses fail because of this reason, he created an eight-step process to help businesses succeed and move forward with their change (The 8 Step Process). This paper’s objective is to explain Kotter’s change process and link it to Target Canada’s decision to open in Canada, discussing what decisions fared well and the decisions that produced failure.
Bateman, T.S. & Snell, S.A. (2009). Management: Leading and Collaborating in The Competitive World, New York, New York: McGraw Hill Companies. (p. 101)
In his book, Leading Change, Dr. John P. Kotter communicates why organizations fail or succeed based on ten years of conducting research on more than 100 companies to see what contributed to their successful transformations and what hindered those transformations. “In October 2001 Business Week magazine reported a survey they conducted of 504 enterprises that rated Professor Kotter the number one “leading guru” in America.” The two significant aspects I took from this book were the reasons why change initiatives fail and an eight-stage process to lead the organization through a successful transformation.
Kegan, R. & L. Laskow Lahey. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
This kind of uncertainty always puts employees at risk. Their knowledge and skills might be out of date; their valued work space, or social relationships might be removed and disrupted. Therefore, people resist change out of worry that they cannot adjust to the new work requirements or they will produce unknown costs. Issues such as “fear of the unknown” and “the inability to see the need for change” are common in resistance to change research (Hickins, 1998; Wienbach, 1994). For instance, if change had been poorly implemented during the past and employees have been subject to broken agreements, unfair treatment and poor management decision making, it is unlikely that trust damaged by such actions will be easily restored (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008; Piderit, 2000). Ultimately, employees also would feel bad towards
9. Lawler, E. E. (2006). What makes People Effective?. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader. (pp. xxi-xxviii). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Change is a fundamental element of individuals, groups and all sorts of organizations. As it is the case for individuals, groups and societies, where change is a continuous process, composed of an indefinite amount of smaller sub-changes that vary in effect and length, and is affected by all sorts of aspects and events, many of which cyclic are anticipated ones. It is also the case for organizations, where change occurs repeatedly during the life cycle of organizations. Yet change in organizations is not as anticipated nor as predictable, with unexpected internal and external variables and political forces that can further complicate the management of change (Andriopoulos, C. and P. Dawson, 2009), which is by itself, the focus of many scholars in their pursuit to shed light on and facilitate the change process (Kotter 1996; Levin 1947; et al).
Kotter, JP 1995, Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review on Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989), Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Organizational change is a very big risk for organizations. The process of change can be very difficult for employees as well as the leaders implementing the changes. The changes are usually planned to improve the company. However, sometimes change can destroy a company when things don’t go as planned. From a change in management to a change in the company structure, or way of doing daily task, organizations must carefully execute the process of change and use change strategies that will ensure success.
Kotter, J. P & Schlesinger, L. (2008). ‘Choosing strategies for change’. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 130-139.
LaFasto, Frank M. J.; Larson, Carl (August, 2001). “When Teams Work Best.” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard business review, 25-40.