Leading Change Analysis Paper
Running head: LEADING CHANGE ANALYSIS
Leading Change Analysis
University of Phoenix
Leading Change Analysis
Introduction
When it comes to diagnosing if a company succeeds or not, it takes more than their sales numbers, their stock price and new products. Sometimes it takes looking deeper into the heart of the corporation, and understanding the organizational structure and culture it represents, the difficult political standings of senior executives, the power structures that are set up to keep the company successful, the most effective way to lead the company and how it would deal with its several inevitable conflicts. In this analysis, the fictional corporation of Good Sport is examined and each of these topics is explained. …show more content…
Good Sport
Every company has at one time or another experienced change, whether it is in its infancy, or at the end of the company's life. Sometimes a simulation can more accurately represent a company's future than that of a real company. Take Good Sport (GS) as a simulation. GS is a company that was founded by Jason Poole (a former NBA star) over fifteen years ago in Coral Springs, Florida. GS primarily manufactures exercise equipment and fitness based products and is relatively successful. Piggybacking off of his popularity as a basketball star, Jason had little difficulty overcoming the usual difficult beginnings that a small start up might incur. His business sense has helped the company stay up with the latest trends and has given them an image that would not have been possible any other way. Current trends are a staple of the exercise equipment industry and this ability, along with Jason's advertising image, as made the company well known through mediums such as television. Jason is the current chairman of the board. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position (early in the simulation) was being taken care of by Marvin Wallace. As CEO, Marvin lead the company to four years of prosperity by putting significant capital on increasing performance various teams including research and development, sales and production. Pioneering the use of GS equipment in hospitals, Marvin has taken the company towards solid growth and expansion into areas like Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. GS's products are also sold in hotels and fitness clubs. The simulation was handled by a user in three different parts: 1. Where the user is a senior manager in charge of R&D (and must convince those above and below them to undertake a new offering, both sales and production in separate exercises), 2. Where the user is the promoted to the Vice president of Production (and must deal with those managers above and below them) and 3. Where the user is promoted to CEO (and must take care of the previous CEO's political decisions).
Organizational Structure
When discussing GS and its information, it is helpful to identify its organizational structure.
"Organizational structure refers to the division of labor as well as the patterns of coordination, communication, work flow, and formal power that direct organizational activities."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 446) What kind of structure does GS represent? When considering the structure of a particular company, there are several aspects at which to look. Is the structure formalized (where the product is adhered to based on exact standardizations, much like McDonald's) or non-formalized (where every product is made to specification at that time, or customized)? Does the company have centralized power (where the power and information is in the hands of few at the top of the hierarchy) or decentralized power (where the span of control is spread over many seniors and leaders)? How about a balance of both? Is the company mechanistic ("Some companies, such as McDonald's, have a mechanistic structure, which is characterized by a narrow span of control and high degree of formalization and centralization."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 453-454)) or organic ("it has a wide span of control, decentralized decision making, and little formalization. Tasks are fluid, adjusting to new situations and organizational needs. The organic structure values knowledge and takes the view that information may be located anywhere in the organization rather than among senior executives."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 454)? Further, how are the employees departmentalized? In the case of good sport, it is a mixture of many of the available options. Although the concepts did change throughout the simulation, the main structure of the company was a mixture of mechanistic and organic functional departmentalization. This means that there is standardization to the way things are, and while some of the power stays at the top, it is given out to distribute power. This increases morale and helps keep managers happy. This is
sustained by early traits of a mechanistic structure (when the user was a senior manager) and then moving into a more organic form later (when Eartha is CEO) to a mix of both (when the user is CEO). GS also had the foundation of the functional departmentalization structure throughout the simulation which "organizes employees around specific knowledge or other resources" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 456). Since the company revolved around the each department individually, this structure identified how the employees were departmentalized.
Organizational Culture
In addition to the organizational structure, an organizational culture must be identified. Organizational culture is defined as "the basic pattern of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs governing the way employees within an organization think about and act on problems and opportunities."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 476) So what kind of culture is GS? Since there are no specific classifications for organizational cultures, GS would be considered a performance-based, customer-focused, and adaptive culture. While many of the decisions in the simulation are done by the user, the culture could really be whatever the student would like. In the early stages of the simulation, it seemed like GS was more growth and performance based than anything else. The CEO had invested significant capital in the growth of the company, while the profiles of both vice presidents Eartha Simpson and Tamara Watkins showed that each is not easily impressed and need to see results before trust is issued. The simulation stated that under Eartha Simpson, production created a performance-based culture by being inspired by creative challenges, impressed by the facts only, and maintaining professional distance.
GS is an adaptive culture because "the employees focus on the changing needs of customers and other stakeholders and support initiatives to keep pace with these changes."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 483-484). This adaptive culture means the company is dedicated to change based on those for whom they create products. Samuel's sales team is very informal at the beginning of the simulation and makes it clear that the "Customer is King". During the early stages of the simulation, the company is also employee-focused, with information sharing and power being delegated from the top down. Later in the simulation, the leaving CEO corrupted the culture by controlling all sensitive information.
Contrasting Structure and Culture
So do the culture and structure of GS fit well with the guidelines that GS is putting forth? Do they gel well or do they resist each other? The structure of GS is one of some formalization and some deregulation. Because of the mix of the two, it fits well with the aforementioned adaptive culture. Focusing on the customer and being able to change has a significant role in growth as well. Early in the simulation, the culture and structure mentioned above meshed well. However, further into the simulation, when the user becomes the CEO, the company has changed from an employee-focused culture to a centralized and information controlling culture. This causes problems with the organizational structure (which did not change throughout the simulation). Since there is a moderately decentralized structure and no established formalization, this led to a kink in the information chain and low employee morale.
Power Structures
Accurately identifying the organizational structure and culture is only half of the battle when understanding GS. Why does GS have specific types of cultures and structures? How did that culture begin? How did it change over the life of GS? Who are the leaders? Where does the true power in the company lie? These will all be answered after the identification of the power structures of GS.
Power is defined as "the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 358) The concept of power is divided into many different categories. There are five distinct types of power and four contingencies of power.
The five types of powers are: legitimate power "the capacity to influence others through formal authority" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 360)., Reward power "derived form the person's ability to control the allocation of rewards valued by others and to remove negative sanctions (i.e., negative reinforcement" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 360-361)., Coercive power "the ability to apply punishment" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 361)., expert power "an individual's or work unit's capacity to influence others by possessing knowledge or skills that they value." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 362). and referent power "the capacity to influence others based on the identification and respect they have for the power holder" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 362). GS demonstrates a mix of legitimate power, expert power, and referent power. In the beginning of the simulation, the user was implemented as the senior manager of production, where they were given legitimate power to make decisions. This power was not based off of experience (as none was mentioned) but off the placement of someone in that position. The evidence of expert power is seen through the knowledge of Eartha and Tamara in their respective positions as Vice Presidents. Since they had each been with the company for over ten years, they were well respected and were extended referent power. Later in the simulation, the user is promoted to Vice President of Production and is given options of what to do with the senior managers. The option to use a reward power is given here, and this institutes a reward power. However, the simulation regards using this power cautiously. There are other ways to initiate power with the lower rankings. Specifically, when Matt (the senior manager of production) is upset that the user was promoted to Vice President of production, instead of rewarding Matt for his actions, the better choice is to focus on Matt's ideas and institute a legitimate power structure. Later in the simulation, the outbound CEO abuses the expert power by controlling all the information that is involved in the company. GS suffers and morale is lowered. At this point the user is given the opportunity to re-open those lines of communication. Due to the referent power at this time, it is able to be re-established. The only form of power not emphasized in the simulation was coercive power, and although there were examples of where coercive power could have taken place, it was never exercised.
There are also four contingencies of power. "Let's say that you have expert power by virtue of your ability to forecast and possibly even prevent dramatic changes in the organization's environment. Does this expertise mean that you are influential? Not necessarily." As with anything, the situation of the power has a big part in how the power is perceived. The four contingencies of power are: "substitutability (the extent to which people dependent on a resource have alternatives), centrality (the degree and nature of interdependence between the powerholder and others)"(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 364-365) discretion ("the freedom to exercise judgmentto make decisions without referring to a specific rule or receiving permission from someone else"(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 366) and visibility (the ability to be seen by those employees that are being managed). These four contingencies all control the manner in which the sources of power are perceived. For instance, a huge factor of GS's success was due in part to Eartha and Tamara's abilities. They would have substitutability power. They cannot be substituted easily within the company early on in the simulation. They have expert knowledge and know-how that makes them indispensable. Additionally, this adds to the value of centrality with both Eartha and Tamara. If they decided to say, leave the company spontaneously, the impact would leave the company with serious issues to address with their employees. The user is given the power of discretion early in the simulation, by being handed power to make decisions (the more freedom for decision making, the more power that can be applied). Finally, the visibility of the CEO and the Vice Presidents, such as being involved in their managers and senior managers decisions, sharing information and assisting in the day to day operations really has a giant impact on how those individuals are perceived in power.
Politics
Perhaps more important than the power sources and contingencies themselves is the influence tactics and organizational politics of GS. Organizational Politics is described as "behaviors that others perceive as self-serving tactics for personal gain at the expense of other people and possibly the organization."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 375) What kind of political structures are in place at GS? The establishment of a specific type of culture and work environment is one of the examples of political power being put into place. When the user is promoted to Vice President, there are several options from which to choose. One involved agreeing with everything that Eartha stated and continuing her type of management, and one involved including Eartha's inputs and outlining the user's plan. Since Eartha at this time is CEO, the use of influential tactics required background information on Eartha to make the correct decision. Outlining what would be done with the position but also including Eartha's input was the right decision.
Politics are not typically the best to have in an environment. "Over one-third of management and non-management employees recently surveyed claim that organizational politics is the most common reason for decision-making delays. Another survey estimates that business leaders spent nearly one-fifth of their time dealing with organizational politics." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 376) Even worse, when a company supports politics by promoting those who are better politicians rather than pure talent, problems can arise. Specifically, the CEO that was in place late in the simulation over exercised his political power by controlling information that was sent into the company. This CEO would be a great example of politics gone awry.
Power and Politics and Organizational Culture and Structure
So how much of the power and politics mentioned earlier has to do with the organizational culture and structure? Much of what was caused throughout the simulation was due to the initial establishment of a performance-based culture and the toggle between organic and mechanistic based structures. The structure and culture initially created the power structures that were put into place as well as the organizational politics. Later, the roles were switched. When the company started to switch its organizational structure and culture, it was due in large part to the power and politics that were being exercised at that time. Beyond the decisions given in the simulation, a preferred choice would have been to be allowed to work together with the peers during the promotion to Vice President. The ability to share information at that level would have allowed a greater rapport than simply taking one small action. Additionally, a dinner with everyone from the senior management, Vice Presidents, and CEO would have established a greater visibility and instituted greater power to those where they needed it.
Managing Resistance to Change
In a company with obvious changes going on like GS has and political and power based decision making falling the way that it is above, there is almost guaranteed to be some resistance to change along the way to those changes. Workers have a "general adaptation syndrome when an individual's adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as challenging or threatening the person's well-being" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 207). This means that many of the workers out there may invariably take changes personally. Having an effective management plan in place early is the best option to ward off any considerable changes in the corporate structure that may lead to non favorable actions. Exercising options such as increased communication between managers and their subordinates, combined training programs, exercising the four contingencies and sources of power to help smooth out the transition, and most important, being consistent with the changes. Increased communications can always help increase employee morale and lower the resistance to change. When an employee is informed of a change prior, they generally feel that they can voice their opinions and that they have a part in the decision. Instituting combined training programs, which combine the changes with already understood processes, can really help keep an employee from feeling coerced into a change. It is very similar to the well known science experiment of the frog and the hotplate. If you drop a frog in boiling water, it will jump out immediately, but if you submerse a frog in cool water and steadily warm up the water, the frog will stay there until it expires. By exercising the four contingencies and effectively utilizing the correct sources of power (namely not coercive as it may have a negative effect), the upper management can stay in a position of power throughout the process. Finally, consistency is the most important part of the process. When an employee hears one thing and another is instituted, it can cause serious morale issues and cause the employee to worry. The changes that do require changes should be implemented slowly so the employees are aware of it.
Leadership and Change
What if an initiative came up and there was a choice of what to do before implementing it? Besides those mentioned above, there is the serious consideration of which leadership style would be the most effective in implementing that change, what strategies would be used to manage the different groups (R&D, production, sales and finance), and what conflict management techniques that should be used.
Leadership is defined as "Influencing, motivating, and enabling others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 416). But what is the best leadership style to lead a company to a major change initiative? The path goal theory, defined as "a contingency theory of leadership based on expectancy theory of motivation that relates several leadership styles to specific employee and situational contingencies." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 422) The path goal theory is a form of servant leadership which does "not view leadership as a position of power; rather, they are coaches, stewards, and facilitators."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 422). This chart, by Mcshane and Von Glinow, shows the four types of leadership styles involved in path goal theory leadership:
The main point of path goal leadership is to tailor every issue with one of the four specific leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented. This would be the most effective style of leadership to use towards implementing a new change initiative. While it may not cover everything needed to smoothly cover the change, it will allow the leader to be ready for different changes that may occur. This would help to customize the leadership to the departments needing the assistance with the change initiative. All four departments can benefit from this type of leadership.
With the change initiative, there are bound to be conflicts. How does conflict management take place, and what types of methods are available to quell conflict? Conflict management is defined as "interventions that alter the level and form of conflict in ways that maximize its benefits and minimize its dysfunctional consequences."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 390) Although there are several different options out there, there are five ways to manage interpersonal conflict: problem solving, avoidance, forcing, yielding, and compromising. Problem solving involves finding a "mutually beneficial solution for both parties" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 396) while avoidance involves avoiding the conflict entirely. Forcing works for a win-lose opportunity and is usually at the expense of the other person at conflict. Yielding involves letting go of the conflict and letting the other side win with little to no regard to the repercussions that may come about. Compromising "involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued gains" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 396). Choosing which conflict management technique is best is based on each conflict specifically. Obviously the best choices in respect to those in conflict would be compromise or problem solving, but in certain cases, there may be no way to utilize those techniques.
Conclusion
The simulation provides detailed information about a company based on small changes that take place. It opens up the opportunity to find specific areas where both organizational structure and culture can be identified, as well as political and power structures. When these four topics are identified, it makes it relatively simple to effectively plan for inevitable changes that will take place and the potential conflicts that may occur. Good Sport shows that there are other ways to identify why a company could be successful without looking at its stock price, gross earnings, and growth potential.
Reference
Mcshane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Leading Change Analysis
University of Phoenix
Leading Change Analysis
Introduction
When it comes to diagnosing if a company succeeds or not, it takes more than their sales numbers, their stock price and new products. Sometimes it takes looking deeper into the heart of the corporation, and understanding the organizational structure and culture it represents, the difficult political standings of senior executives, the power structures that are set up to keep the company successful, the most effective way to lead the company and how it would deal with its several inevitable conflicts. In this analysis, the fictional corporation of Good Sport is examined and each of these topics is explained. …show more content…
Good Sport
Every company has at one time or another experienced change, whether it is in its infancy, or at the end of the company's life. Sometimes a simulation can more accurately represent a company's future than that of a real company. Take Good Sport (GS) as a simulation. GS is a company that was founded by Jason Poole (a former NBA star) over fifteen years ago in Coral Springs, Florida. GS primarily manufactures exercise equipment and fitness based products and is relatively successful. Piggybacking off of his popularity as a basketball star, Jason had little difficulty overcoming the usual difficult beginnings that a small start up might incur. His business sense has helped the company stay up with the latest trends and has given them an image that would not have been possible any other way. Current trends are a staple of the exercise equipment industry and this ability, along with Jason's advertising image, as made the company well known through mediums such as television. Jason is the current chairman of the board. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position (early in the simulation) was being taken care of by Marvin Wallace. As CEO, Marvin lead the company to four years of prosperity by putting significant capital on increasing performance various teams including research and development, sales and production. Pioneering the use of GS equipment in hospitals, Marvin has taken the company towards solid growth and expansion into areas like Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. GS's products are also sold in hotels and fitness clubs. The simulation was handled by a user in three different parts: 1. Where the user is a senior manager in charge of R&D (and must convince those above and below them to undertake a new offering, both sales and production in separate exercises), 2. Where the user is the promoted to the Vice president of Production (and must deal with those managers above and below them) and 3. Where the user is promoted to CEO (and must take care of the previous CEO's political decisions).
Organizational Structure
When discussing GS and its information, it is helpful to identify its organizational structure.
"Organizational structure refers to the division of labor as well as the patterns of coordination, communication, work flow, and formal power that direct organizational activities."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 446) What kind of structure does GS represent? When considering the structure of a particular company, there are several aspects at which to look. Is the structure formalized (where the product is adhered to based on exact standardizations, much like McDonald's) or non-formalized (where every product is made to specification at that time, or customized)? Does the company have centralized power (where the power and information is in the hands of few at the top of the hierarchy) or decentralized power (where the span of control is spread over many seniors and leaders)? How about a balance of both? Is the company mechanistic ("Some companies, such as McDonald's, have a mechanistic structure, which is characterized by a narrow span of control and high degree of formalization and centralization."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 453-454)) or organic ("it has a wide span of control, decentralized decision making, and little formalization. Tasks are fluid, adjusting to new situations and organizational needs. The organic structure values knowledge and takes the view that information may be located anywhere in the organization rather than among senior executives."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 454)? Further, how are the employees departmentalized? In the case of good sport, it is a mixture of many of the available options. Although the concepts did change throughout the simulation, the main structure of the company was a mixture of mechanistic and organic functional departmentalization. This means that there is standardization to the way things are, and while some of the power stays at the top, it is given out to distribute power. This increases morale and helps keep managers happy. This is
sustained by early traits of a mechanistic structure (when the user was a senior manager) and then moving into a more organic form later (when Eartha is CEO) to a mix of both (when the user is CEO). GS also had the foundation of the functional departmentalization structure throughout the simulation which "organizes employees around specific knowledge or other resources" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 456). Since the company revolved around the each department individually, this structure identified how the employees were departmentalized.
Organizational Culture
In addition to the organizational structure, an organizational culture must be identified. Organizational culture is defined as "the basic pattern of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs governing the way employees within an organization think about and act on problems and opportunities."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 476) So what kind of culture is GS? Since there are no specific classifications for organizational cultures, GS would be considered a performance-based, customer-focused, and adaptive culture. While many of the decisions in the simulation are done by the user, the culture could really be whatever the student would like. In the early stages of the simulation, it seemed like GS was more growth and performance based than anything else. The CEO had invested significant capital in the growth of the company, while the profiles of both vice presidents Eartha Simpson and Tamara Watkins showed that each is not easily impressed and need to see results before trust is issued. The simulation stated that under Eartha Simpson, production created a performance-based culture by being inspired by creative challenges, impressed by the facts only, and maintaining professional distance.
GS is an adaptive culture because "the employees focus on the changing needs of customers and other stakeholders and support initiatives to keep pace with these changes."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 483-484). This adaptive culture means the company is dedicated to change based on those for whom they create products. Samuel's sales team is very informal at the beginning of the simulation and makes it clear that the "Customer is King". During the early stages of the simulation, the company is also employee-focused, with information sharing and power being delegated from the top down. Later in the simulation, the leaving CEO corrupted the culture by controlling all sensitive information.
Contrasting Structure and Culture
So do the culture and structure of GS fit well with the guidelines that GS is putting forth? Do they gel well or do they resist each other? The structure of GS is one of some formalization and some deregulation. Because of the mix of the two, it fits well with the aforementioned adaptive culture. Focusing on the customer and being able to change has a significant role in growth as well. Early in the simulation, the culture and structure mentioned above meshed well. However, further into the simulation, when the user becomes the CEO, the company has changed from an employee-focused culture to a centralized and information controlling culture. This causes problems with the organizational structure (which did not change throughout the simulation). Since there is a moderately decentralized structure and no established formalization, this led to a kink in the information chain and low employee morale.
Power Structures
Accurately identifying the organizational structure and culture is only half of the battle when understanding GS. Why does GS have specific types of cultures and structures? How did that culture begin? How did it change over the life of GS? Who are the leaders? Where does the true power in the company lie? These will all be answered after the identification of the power structures of GS.
Power is defined as "the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 358) The concept of power is divided into many different categories. There are five distinct types of power and four contingencies of power.
The five types of powers are: legitimate power "the capacity to influence others through formal authority" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 360)., Reward power "derived form the person's ability to control the allocation of rewards valued by others and to remove negative sanctions (i.e., negative reinforcement" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 360-361)., Coercive power "the ability to apply punishment" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 361)., expert power "an individual's or work unit's capacity to influence others by possessing knowledge or skills that they value." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 362). and referent power "the capacity to influence others based on the identification and respect they have for the power holder" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 362). GS demonstrates a mix of legitimate power, expert power, and referent power. In the beginning of the simulation, the user was implemented as the senior manager of production, where they were given legitimate power to make decisions. This power was not based off of experience (as none was mentioned) but off the placement of someone in that position. The evidence of expert power is seen through the knowledge of Eartha and Tamara in their respective positions as Vice Presidents. Since they had each been with the company for over ten years, they were well respected and were extended referent power. Later in the simulation, the user is promoted to Vice President of Production and is given options of what to do with the senior managers. The option to use a reward power is given here, and this institutes a reward power. However, the simulation regards using this power cautiously. There are other ways to initiate power with the lower rankings. Specifically, when Matt (the senior manager of production) is upset that the user was promoted to Vice President of production, instead of rewarding Matt for his actions, the better choice is to focus on Matt's ideas and institute a legitimate power structure. Later in the simulation, the outbound CEO abuses the expert power by controlling all the information that is involved in the company. GS suffers and morale is lowered. At this point the user is given the opportunity to re-open those lines of communication. Due to the referent power at this time, it is able to be re-established. The only form of power not emphasized in the simulation was coercive power, and although there were examples of where coercive power could have taken place, it was never exercised.
There are also four contingencies of power. "Let's say that you have expert power by virtue of your ability to forecast and possibly even prevent dramatic changes in the organization's environment. Does this expertise mean that you are influential? Not necessarily." As with anything, the situation of the power has a big part in how the power is perceived. The four contingencies of power are: "substitutability (the extent to which people dependent on a resource have alternatives), centrality (the degree and nature of interdependence between the powerholder and others)"(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 364-365) discretion ("the freedom to exercise judgmentto make decisions without referring to a specific rule or receiving permission from someone else"(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 366) and visibility (the ability to be seen by those employees that are being managed). These four contingencies all control the manner in which the sources of power are perceived. For instance, a huge factor of GS's success was due in part to Eartha and Tamara's abilities. They would have substitutability power. They cannot be substituted easily within the company early on in the simulation. They have expert knowledge and know-how that makes them indispensable. Additionally, this adds to the value of centrality with both Eartha and Tamara. If they decided to say, leave the company spontaneously, the impact would leave the company with serious issues to address with their employees. The user is given the power of discretion early in the simulation, by being handed power to make decisions (the more freedom for decision making, the more power that can be applied). Finally, the visibility of the CEO and the Vice Presidents, such as being involved in their managers and senior managers decisions, sharing information and assisting in the day to day operations really has a giant impact on how those individuals are perceived in power.
Politics
Perhaps more important than the power sources and contingencies themselves is the influence tactics and organizational politics of GS. Organizational Politics is described as "behaviors that others perceive as self-serving tactics for personal gain at the expense of other people and possibly the organization."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 375) What kind of political structures are in place at GS? The establishment of a specific type of culture and work environment is one of the examples of political power being put into place. When the user is promoted to Vice President, there are several options from which to choose. One involved agreeing with everything that Eartha stated and continuing her type of management, and one involved including Eartha's inputs and outlining the user's plan. Since Eartha at this time is CEO, the use of influential tactics required background information on Eartha to make the correct decision. Outlining what would be done with the position but also including Eartha's input was the right decision.
Politics are not typically the best to have in an environment. "Over one-third of management and non-management employees recently surveyed claim that organizational politics is the most common reason for decision-making delays. Another survey estimates that business leaders spent nearly one-fifth of their time dealing with organizational politics." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 376) Even worse, when a company supports politics by promoting those who are better politicians rather than pure talent, problems can arise. Specifically, the CEO that was in place late in the simulation over exercised his political power by controlling information that was sent into the company. This CEO would be a great example of politics gone awry.
Power and Politics and Organizational Culture and Structure
So how much of the power and politics mentioned earlier has to do with the organizational culture and structure? Much of what was caused throughout the simulation was due to the initial establishment of a performance-based culture and the toggle between organic and mechanistic based structures. The structure and culture initially created the power structures that were put into place as well as the organizational politics. Later, the roles were switched. When the company started to switch its organizational structure and culture, it was due in large part to the power and politics that were being exercised at that time. Beyond the decisions given in the simulation, a preferred choice would have been to be allowed to work together with the peers during the promotion to Vice President. The ability to share information at that level would have allowed a greater rapport than simply taking one small action. Additionally, a dinner with everyone from the senior management, Vice Presidents, and CEO would have established a greater visibility and instituted greater power to those where they needed it.
Managing Resistance to Change
In a company with obvious changes going on like GS has and political and power based decision making falling the way that it is above, there is almost guaranteed to be some resistance to change along the way to those changes. Workers have a "general adaptation syndrome when an individual's adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as challenging or threatening the person's well-being" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 207). This means that many of the workers out there may invariably take changes personally. Having an effective management plan in place early is the best option to ward off any considerable changes in the corporate structure that may lead to non favorable actions. Exercising options such as increased communication between managers and their subordinates, combined training programs, exercising the four contingencies and sources of power to help smooth out the transition, and most important, being consistent with the changes. Increased communications can always help increase employee morale and lower the resistance to change. When an employee is informed of a change prior, they generally feel that they can voice their opinions and that they have a part in the decision. Instituting combined training programs, which combine the changes with already understood processes, can really help keep an employee from feeling coerced into a change. It is very similar to the well known science experiment of the frog and the hotplate. If you drop a frog in boiling water, it will jump out immediately, but if you submerse a frog in cool water and steadily warm up the water, the frog will stay there until it expires. By exercising the four contingencies and effectively utilizing the correct sources of power (namely not coercive as it may have a negative effect), the upper management can stay in a position of power throughout the process. Finally, consistency is the most important part of the process. When an employee hears one thing and another is instituted, it can cause serious morale issues and cause the employee to worry. The changes that do require changes should be implemented slowly so the employees are aware of it.
Leadership and Change
What if an initiative came up and there was a choice of what to do before implementing it? Besides those mentioned above, there is the serious consideration of which leadership style would be the most effective in implementing that change, what strategies would be used to manage the different groups (R&D, production, sales and finance), and what conflict management techniques that should be used.
Leadership is defined as "Influencing, motivating, and enabling others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 416). But what is the best leadership style to lead a company to a major change initiative? The path goal theory, defined as "a contingency theory of leadership based on expectancy theory of motivation that relates several leadership styles to specific employee and situational contingencies." (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 422) The path goal theory is a form of servant leadership which does "not view leadership as a position of power; rather, they are coaches, stewards, and facilitators."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 422). This chart, by Mcshane and Von Glinow, shows the four types of leadership styles involved in path goal theory leadership:
The main point of path goal leadership is to tailor every issue with one of the four specific leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented. This would be the most effective style of leadership to use towards implementing a new change initiative. While it may not cover everything needed to smoothly cover the change, it will allow the leader to be ready for different changes that may occur. This would help to customize the leadership to the departments needing the assistance with the change initiative. All four departments can benefit from this type of leadership.
With the change initiative, there are bound to be conflicts. How does conflict management take place, and what types of methods are available to quell conflict? Conflict management is defined as "interventions that alter the level and form of conflict in ways that maximize its benefits and minimize its dysfunctional consequences."(Mcshane & Von Glinow, 2005, 390) Although there are several different options out there, there are five ways to manage interpersonal conflict: problem solving, avoidance, forcing, yielding, and compromising. Problem solving involves finding a "mutually beneficial solution for both parties" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 396) while avoidance involves avoiding the conflict entirely. Forcing works for a win-lose opportunity and is usually at the expense of the other person at conflict. Yielding involves letting go of the conflict and letting the other side win with little to no regard to the repercussions that may come about. Compromising "involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued gains" (Mcshane & Von Glinow, 396). Choosing which conflict management technique is best is based on each conflict specifically. Obviously the best choices in respect to those in conflict would be compromise or problem solving, but in certain cases, there may be no way to utilize those techniques.
Conclusion
The simulation provides detailed information about a company based on small changes that take place. It opens up the opportunity to find specific areas where both organizational structure and culture can be identified, as well as political and power structures. When these four topics are identified, it makes it relatively simple to effectively plan for inevitable changes that will take place and the potential conflicts that may occur. Good Sport shows that there are other ways to identify why a company could be successful without looking at its stock price, gross earnings, and growth potential.
Reference
Mcshane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.