Managing Leading Change
Managing and Leading Change
Name
Institution
Managing and Leading Change
Introduction
Currently, organizational change permanent features in business industry. The changes in the technology, labor pools, and even market have called for exploration of better and efficient ways to run the production (Amis Slack and Hinings, 2004). Hence, different organizations have employed different advanced strategies to deal with the problems they are facing. Each day, the organizational leaders have become more and more sensitive to all factors influencing productivity.
In most organizations, the employees are used to doing same activities every day. In the end, they find the activities boring and monotonous. Apparently, this phenomenon lowers …show more content…
productivity. As a result, organizations such as Pfizer came up with a unique style that can help reduce the monotony of the work while at the same time boosting the productivity in the organization. Jordan Cohen, senior director of organizational effectiveness, employed the strategy of Office of the Future (OOF). Here, the body is connected to an outsourcing company, where the leader of the team is emailed the work details. Thereafter, the administrator assigns the job to his team. As Cohen states, the approach has helped in saving time and finances.
Hence, this essay focuses on description and evaluation of what Pfizer is doing, concepts of organizational structure and an analysis of the structural implications utilized by Pfizer and application and assessment of the relevant theory on leadership style and behavior practiced by senior director. In addition, the focus will be laid on an innovative plan for continuous change management and organizational effectiveness at Pfizer.
Description and Evaluation of What Pfizer is Doing
Pfizer is a global pharmaceutical company that is determined to improve the efficiency and effectiveness. The Company 's senior director for organizational change, Jordan Cohen is committed to see every skill in the company put to use. The statistical data available for Pfizer shows that 20% to 40% of the employees in the organization are engaged in support services whereas only 60% to 80% are involved in knowledge work, which actually every employee was employed for. Despite using the Harvard MBA Staff, Cohen realizes that their strategies won 't bear any significant fruits.
Hence, the senior director at Pfizer embarks on a more sophisticated approach, to reduce boredom and monotony at workplace while at the same time increasing productivity. Pfizer resorts to using of OOF (Office of the future). In this case, the company is connected to an outsourcing company, which helps in carrying out some activities of the organization.
As Cohen says, the application of ‘office of future ' has had benefits. The benefits have been realized more especially in terms of time and finances. The time spent in conducting certain activities has indeed gone down, as the cost of these activities has also done (Wetlaufer, 2001).
The leadership at Pfizer, and especially the senior director for organizational effectiveness had actively worked to solve all the challenges affecting productivity. As it is noted, in this case boredom and monotony, plus many employees being involved in support services hindered the effectiveness of the team. Hence, the senior director went ahead to find an amicable solution (Marks and DeMeuse, 2005).
It is paramount for leaders to assess his or her employees regularly in order to detect areas of production that require reinforcing. By doing, the leader will be abreast of all the emerging challenges affecting the staff and ready to deal with them competently (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
Concepts of Organizational Structure and Analysis of Structural Implications Utilized by Pfizer
For a small organization, such as a business run by the proprietor and two more employees, an organizational structure may not be necessary. However, big and complex organizations such as Pfizer need a well-laid organizational structure. The structure of the company or business determines the authority, the roles and also responsibility of each and every worker in the organization. Importantly, there is no single suitable or ideal organizational structure. Hence, every company is at liberty of choosing the structure that best fits its operations (Wetlaufer, 2001).
There are several dimensions of organizational structure that are in existence. Among them are functional structures, divisional structure, process structure and matrix structure (Cascio 2002).Functional structure is an organizational concept based on employee functions. Here, every employee is allocated roles and responsibilities to play. In most organizations, it is common to find different departments such as ICT department, marketing, finance and even human resource. Every unit is allocated unique or various functions from the other. It is worthwhile noting that although the different departments play different functions; their services are coordinated in order to achieve the overall goals of the organization.
However, there is one drawback that has been associated with the application of functional structures as an organizational concept. It is possible to find some departments within the organization having their goals. In such cases, such agencies prefer operating independently from others even in the cases that require concerted efforts from all departments (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
On divisional structure, the concept merely deals with building mini-companies around particular product regions. This concept is widely applied in car manufacturing industries. For instance, the company may establish mini-companies dealing with heavy commercial vehicles, other dealing with luxury cars and others dealing with SUVs and economy vehicles among others (Cascio 2002).
Each division in the organization has common goals and contains necessary functions to handle all operations falling under that category. Eventually, this type of organization results in increased sales.
However, it is worthwhile to note that this concept of the divisional structure has its downsides. The group is characterized by duplication of same functions. As a result, more resources get wasted (Wetlaufer, 2001).
Process structure is also a universal concept is organizational structure. Under process structure, the organization is divided around the processes. For instance, the organization may be structured along the sales, manufacturing and even research (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005).
One significant difference stands out between process structure and functional structure. Unlike the latter, process structure takes into consideration how different processes are related to each other and the clients (Bower, 200). For instance, the manufacturing does not commence until the research is done. The same case applies; sales cannot be made until manufacturing has been done. Hence, one process leads to the other.
Focusing on matrix structural concept, it deals with a structure that is laid on top of the functional fabric of the company. The sole role of the model structure is handled projects that call for involvement of multiple departments. Project managers recruit their staff. Hence, the resources are better utilized (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
Pfizer is a complex organization and like all the other complex organizations it has put in place an organizational structure that will enhance efficient and effective output (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005). In the first case, a kind of functional structure is eminent in the organization. The group has set up department for organizational effectiveness that is headed by Jordan Cohen.
The unit or department for organizational effectiveness is mainly dedicated to improving the effectiveness of all the personnel, activities, and resources available.
The committee headed by Cohen, frequently assess all the process in the organization. Through the assessment areas that require improving are noted. Thereafter, the unit comes up with strategies on how improve the effectiveness in that particular field.
As a large corporation, Pfizer is also organized in terms of process. Focusing on the department of organizational effectiveness; the staff is entirely focused on identifying the areas in the organization that lower productivity. Consequently, the staff is engaged in research, where the best options for dealing with all the challenges are identified. In the end, the best approach to the problem is implemented.
Theory of Leadership Style and Behavior Practiced by Senior Director of Pfizer
Jordan Cohen, the senior director for organizational effectiveness, has shown tremendous efforts to improve the efficiency of the organization. The kind of leadership showed by Cohen can explain through several theories that exist on leadership and …show more content…
behaviors.
As pointed out earlier, there are a number of theories on leadership and behavior. Among them is a relationship approach, also called transformational theories. Contact approach focuses on the connections formed between the leaders and the followers or employees. Transformational leaders are known for motivating and inspiring employees. Transformational leaders are focused on helping every individual in the organization achieve his or her potential (Marks and DeMeuse, 2005).
Transactional theory, also known as management theory is more focused on the role of group performance, organization and supervision. Under this theory, leadership is based on punishments and rewards. When an employee does well, he or she is rewarded. On the contrary, if the employee performs poorly, he or she is reprimanded.
In addition, we have participative leadership theory.
Under this type of leadership theory, the ideal direction is the one that takes into account the input of others. Hence, participative leaders encourage their employees to participate and contribute to the decision-making process of the organization. As a result, the employees became more relevant and committed to the overall running of the organization (Meyer, Gaba, and Colwell, 2005).
Focusing on Jordan Cohen, the senior director of organizational effectiveness at Pfizer, he has shown a variety of leadership skills and competencies. First of all, Cohen can be described as a transformational leader, in the sense that he embraces changes. As a leader, he frequently assesses the running of activities in the organization. It is through this process that he notes of areas that require changes; boredom and monotony and also a high percentage of employees being involved in support work.
After thorough analysis of the organization, he goes ahead and develops a strategy that will solve the challenges the organization is currently facing. It is at this point that he comes up with office of the future. Based on his words, the approach actually works in solving the stated challenges. In addition, the use OOF helps in lowering the cost of operations and saving significant portions of time (Mirvis, Ayas, and Roth,
2003).
Additionally, Jordan Cohen’s style of leadership can be described as transactional. It focuses on performance of all employees including those holding high positions (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005). As the senior director for organizational effectiveness, Cohen assesses the effectiveness of each and every employee at Pfizer. It is here that he realizes that 20% to 40% of the employees are involved in support works rather than the knowledge work, which they were recruited for.
Under the domain of a participative leader, we cannot ascertain Cohen as one. The rationale for this conclusion is based on the lack of evidence to show that Cohen involved the employees before coming up with the office of future technology. Hence, it is debatable to describe Cohen as a participative leader.
Innovative Plan for Continuous Change Management and Organizational Effectiveness
Objectives
Activities
Responsible Person
Time Frame
1. To employ new technology in production of drugs that will enhance productivity
1. Researching about the latest technology being used for production in pharmaceutical companies
2. Compiling information on the available technologies.
3. Determining the cost of acquiring the new technology
1. Project Manager
2. Executive officials of the company
Six months
2. To involve all the employee in the decision-making process of the organization
1. Determining the effectiveness of every employee in regard to the overall production.
2. Setting up mechanisms for involving employees in the decision-making process.
Senior executive officer
Three months
3. Improving the safety of all employees
1. Assessing the safety of all employees
2. Developing safety measures
3. Implementation of security measures
Executive officers at Pfizer
Six months
(Feldman, 2000)
Conclusion
Managing and leading change are a tough obligation that faces many organizational leaders. In this paper, we have focused on leadership at Pfizer, a global pharmaceutical company. The company put in a place office of future strategy to deal with boredom and monotony facing workers and also increase their effectiveness. Organizational concepts such as functional and process structures are eminent. The leader, Cohen, can be described as a transformational and transactional leader. The innovative plan for managing and sustaining change revolves around acquiring the latest technology in the industry, improving safety of workers and involving workers in the decision-making process.
References
Amis, J., Slack, T., and Hinings, C. R. 2004. The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change. Academy of Management Journal 47(1):15–39.
Bower, J. 2001. Not all M&As are alike and that matters. Harvard Business Review 7(3):93–101.
Cascio, W. F. 2002. Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive 16(3):80–91.
Eriksson, M., and Sundgren, M. 2005. Managing change: Strategy or serendipity— Reflections from the merger of Astra and Zeneca. Journal of Change Management 5(1):15–28.
Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science 11(6):611–29.
Huq, Z., Huq, F. and Cutright, K. 2006. BPR through ERP: Avoiding change management pitfalls. Journal of Change Management 6(1):67–85.
Marks, M. L. and DeMeuse, K. P. 2005. Resizing the Organization: Maximizing the gain While minimizing the pain of layoffs, divestitures, and closings. Organizational Dynamics 34(1):19–35.
Meyer, A.D., Gaba, V., and Colwell, K.A. 2005. Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change in the organizational field. Organization Science 16(5): 456–73.
Mirvis, P., Ayas, K., and Roth, G. 2003. To the desert and back: The story of the most Dramatic business transformation on record. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wetlaufer, S. 2001. The business case for revolution. Harvard Business Review 79(2):113–19.
Name
Institution
Managing and Leading Change
Introduction
Currently, organizational change permanent features in business industry. The changes in the technology, labor pools, and even market have called for exploration of better and efficient ways to run the production (Amis Slack and Hinings, 2004). Hence, different organizations have employed different advanced strategies to deal with the problems they are facing. Each day, the organizational leaders have become more and more sensitive to all factors influencing productivity.
In most organizations, the employees are used to doing same activities every day. In the end, they find the activities boring and monotonous. Apparently, this phenomenon lowers …show more content…
productivity. As a result, organizations such as Pfizer came up with a unique style that can help reduce the monotony of the work while at the same time boosting the productivity in the organization. Jordan Cohen, senior director of organizational effectiveness, employed the strategy of Office of the Future (OOF). Here, the body is connected to an outsourcing company, where the leader of the team is emailed the work details. Thereafter, the administrator assigns the job to his team. As Cohen states, the approach has helped in saving time and finances.
Hence, this essay focuses on description and evaluation of what Pfizer is doing, concepts of organizational structure and an analysis of the structural implications utilized by Pfizer and application and assessment of the relevant theory on leadership style and behavior practiced by senior director. In addition, the focus will be laid on an innovative plan for continuous change management and organizational effectiveness at Pfizer.
Description and Evaluation of What Pfizer is Doing
Pfizer is a global pharmaceutical company that is determined to improve the efficiency and effectiveness. The Company 's senior director for organizational change, Jordan Cohen is committed to see every skill in the company put to use. The statistical data available for Pfizer shows that 20% to 40% of the employees in the organization are engaged in support services whereas only 60% to 80% are involved in knowledge work, which actually every employee was employed for. Despite using the Harvard MBA Staff, Cohen realizes that their strategies won 't bear any significant fruits.
Hence, the senior director at Pfizer embarks on a more sophisticated approach, to reduce boredom and monotony at workplace while at the same time increasing productivity. Pfizer resorts to using of OOF (Office of the future). In this case, the company is connected to an outsourcing company, which helps in carrying out some activities of the organization.
As Cohen says, the application of ‘office of future ' has had benefits. The benefits have been realized more especially in terms of time and finances. The time spent in conducting certain activities has indeed gone down, as the cost of these activities has also done (Wetlaufer, 2001).
The leadership at Pfizer, and especially the senior director for organizational effectiveness had actively worked to solve all the challenges affecting productivity. As it is noted, in this case boredom and monotony, plus many employees being involved in support services hindered the effectiveness of the team. Hence, the senior director went ahead to find an amicable solution (Marks and DeMeuse, 2005).
It is paramount for leaders to assess his or her employees regularly in order to detect areas of production that require reinforcing. By doing, the leader will be abreast of all the emerging challenges affecting the staff and ready to deal with them competently (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
Concepts of Organizational Structure and Analysis of Structural Implications Utilized by Pfizer
For a small organization, such as a business run by the proprietor and two more employees, an organizational structure may not be necessary. However, big and complex organizations such as Pfizer need a well-laid organizational structure. The structure of the company or business determines the authority, the roles and also responsibility of each and every worker in the organization. Importantly, there is no single suitable or ideal organizational structure. Hence, every company is at liberty of choosing the structure that best fits its operations (Wetlaufer, 2001).
There are several dimensions of organizational structure that are in existence. Among them are functional structures, divisional structure, process structure and matrix structure (Cascio 2002).Functional structure is an organizational concept based on employee functions. Here, every employee is allocated roles and responsibilities to play. In most organizations, it is common to find different departments such as ICT department, marketing, finance and even human resource. Every unit is allocated unique or various functions from the other. It is worthwhile noting that although the different departments play different functions; their services are coordinated in order to achieve the overall goals of the organization.
However, there is one drawback that has been associated with the application of functional structures as an organizational concept. It is possible to find some departments within the organization having their goals. In such cases, such agencies prefer operating independently from others even in the cases that require concerted efforts from all departments (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
On divisional structure, the concept merely deals with building mini-companies around particular product regions. This concept is widely applied in car manufacturing industries. For instance, the company may establish mini-companies dealing with heavy commercial vehicles, other dealing with luxury cars and others dealing with SUVs and economy vehicles among others (Cascio 2002).
Each division in the organization has common goals and contains necessary functions to handle all operations falling under that category. Eventually, this type of organization results in increased sales.
However, it is worthwhile to note that this concept of the divisional structure has its downsides. The group is characterized by duplication of same functions. As a result, more resources get wasted (Wetlaufer, 2001).
Process structure is also a universal concept is organizational structure. Under process structure, the organization is divided around the processes. For instance, the organization may be structured along the sales, manufacturing and even research (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005).
One significant difference stands out between process structure and functional structure. Unlike the latter, process structure takes into consideration how different processes are related to each other and the clients (Bower, 200). For instance, the manufacturing does not commence until the research is done. The same case applies; sales cannot be made until manufacturing has been done. Hence, one process leads to the other.
Focusing on matrix structural concept, it deals with a structure that is laid on top of the functional fabric of the company. The sole role of the model structure is handled projects that call for involvement of multiple departments. Project managers recruit their staff. Hence, the resources are better utilized (Huq, Huq and Cutright, 2006).
Pfizer is a complex organization and like all the other complex organizations it has put in place an organizational structure that will enhance efficient and effective output (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005). In the first case, a kind of functional structure is eminent in the organization. The group has set up department for organizational effectiveness that is headed by Jordan Cohen.
The unit or department for organizational effectiveness is mainly dedicated to improving the effectiveness of all the personnel, activities, and resources available.
The committee headed by Cohen, frequently assess all the process in the organization. Through the assessment areas that require improving are noted. Thereafter, the unit comes up with strategies on how improve the effectiveness in that particular field.
As a large corporation, Pfizer is also organized in terms of process. Focusing on the department of organizational effectiveness; the staff is entirely focused on identifying the areas in the organization that lower productivity. Consequently, the staff is engaged in research, where the best options for dealing with all the challenges are identified. In the end, the best approach to the problem is implemented.
Theory of Leadership Style and Behavior Practiced by Senior Director of Pfizer
Jordan Cohen, the senior director for organizational effectiveness, has shown tremendous efforts to improve the efficiency of the organization. The kind of leadership showed by Cohen can explain through several theories that exist on leadership and …show more content…
behaviors.
As pointed out earlier, there are a number of theories on leadership and behavior. Among them is a relationship approach, also called transformational theories. Contact approach focuses on the connections formed between the leaders and the followers or employees. Transformational leaders are known for motivating and inspiring employees. Transformational leaders are focused on helping every individual in the organization achieve his or her potential (Marks and DeMeuse, 2005).
Transactional theory, also known as management theory is more focused on the role of group performance, organization and supervision. Under this theory, leadership is based on punishments and rewards. When an employee does well, he or she is rewarded. On the contrary, if the employee performs poorly, he or she is reprimanded.
In addition, we have participative leadership theory.
Under this type of leadership theory, the ideal direction is the one that takes into account the input of others. Hence, participative leaders encourage their employees to participate and contribute to the decision-making process of the organization. As a result, the employees became more relevant and committed to the overall running of the organization (Meyer, Gaba, and Colwell, 2005).
Focusing on Jordan Cohen, the senior director of organizational effectiveness at Pfizer, he has shown a variety of leadership skills and competencies. First of all, Cohen can be described as a transformational leader, in the sense that he embraces changes. As a leader, he frequently assesses the running of activities in the organization. It is through this process that he notes of areas that require changes; boredom and monotony and also a high percentage of employees being involved in support work.
After thorough analysis of the organization, he goes ahead and develops a strategy that will solve the challenges the organization is currently facing. It is at this point that he comes up with office of the future. Based on his words, the approach actually works in solving the stated challenges. In addition, the use OOF helps in lowering the cost of operations and saving significant portions of time (Mirvis, Ayas, and Roth,
2003).
Additionally, Jordan Cohen’s style of leadership can be described as transactional. It focuses on performance of all employees including those holding high positions (Eriksson and Sundgren, 2005). As the senior director for organizational effectiveness, Cohen assesses the effectiveness of each and every employee at Pfizer. It is here that he realizes that 20% to 40% of the employees are involved in support works rather than the knowledge work, which they were recruited for.
Under the domain of a participative leader, we cannot ascertain Cohen as one. The rationale for this conclusion is based on the lack of evidence to show that Cohen involved the employees before coming up with the office of future technology. Hence, it is debatable to describe Cohen as a participative leader.
Innovative Plan for Continuous Change Management and Organizational Effectiveness
Objectives
Activities
Responsible Person
Time Frame
1. To employ new technology in production of drugs that will enhance productivity
1. Researching about the latest technology being used for production in pharmaceutical companies
2. Compiling information on the available technologies.
3. Determining the cost of acquiring the new technology
1. Project Manager
2. Executive officials of the company
Six months
2. To involve all the employee in the decision-making process of the organization
1. Determining the effectiveness of every employee in regard to the overall production.
2. Setting up mechanisms for involving employees in the decision-making process.
Senior executive officer
Three months
3. Improving the safety of all employees
1. Assessing the safety of all employees
2. Developing safety measures
3. Implementation of security measures
Executive officers at Pfizer
Six months
(Feldman, 2000)
Conclusion
Managing and leading change are a tough obligation that faces many organizational leaders. In this paper, we have focused on leadership at Pfizer, a global pharmaceutical company. The company put in a place office of future strategy to deal with boredom and monotony facing workers and also increase their effectiveness. Organizational concepts such as functional and process structures are eminent. The leader, Cohen, can be described as a transformational and transactional leader. The innovative plan for managing and sustaining change revolves around acquiring the latest technology in the industry, improving safety of workers and involving workers in the decision-making process.
References
Amis, J., Slack, T., and Hinings, C. R. 2004. The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change. Academy of Management Journal 47(1):15–39.
Bower, J. 2001. Not all M&As are alike and that matters. Harvard Business Review 7(3):93–101.
Cascio, W. F. 2002. Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive 16(3):80–91.
Eriksson, M., and Sundgren, M. 2005. Managing change: Strategy or serendipity— Reflections from the merger of Astra and Zeneca. Journal of Change Management 5(1):15–28.
Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science 11(6):611–29.
Huq, Z., Huq, F. and Cutright, K. 2006. BPR through ERP: Avoiding change management pitfalls. Journal of Change Management 6(1):67–85.
Marks, M. L. and DeMeuse, K. P. 2005. Resizing the Organization: Maximizing the gain While minimizing the pain of layoffs, divestitures, and closings. Organizational Dynamics 34(1):19–35.
Meyer, A.D., Gaba, V., and Colwell, K.A. 2005. Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change in the organizational field. Organization Science 16(5): 456–73.
Mirvis, P., Ayas, K., and Roth, G. 2003. To the desert and back: The story of the most Dramatic business transformation on record. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wetlaufer, S. 2001. The business case for revolution. Harvard Business Review 79(2):113–19.