UMODML 15-3 : Managing Organisational Change

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
Critically evaluate the implementation of a specific case of organisational change.
Building on this, reflect on what you can personally learn from this case analysis
about change management and how you might benefit from these insights in the
future.
This essay will critically review the implementation of change at Washdales
Manufacturing, who implemented a planned top-down led change. The catalysts for
the implementation of change was the “inappropriate” working practices that had
become adopted by the night shift, which eventually resulted in the removal of the
night shift from the organisation. Following this, the management team wated to
implement a cellular layout throughout the organisation to improve efficiency and
help deal with external pressures. The essay will aim to critically evaluate the way in
which this approach to change was implemented, and how another method could
have been used instead.
Although the organisational change was successfully implemented, it has been
argued that the methods of change raised serious political and ethical concerns.
Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership theory will be used to analyse
the leadership method, which was implemented, along with recommendations of
what could have been done. They essay will argue that there were cases of
Machiavellian tactics implemented to coerce employees into change which question
the idea of social sustainability; which identifies the impacts of business on
employees and the significance of the relationships between organisations and
employees (Kandachar 2014). Finally, there will be a reflection on what has been
learned and how these lessons will be beneficial in later life.
According to King and Laeley (2003), planned approaches can be defined as an
approach which sees change as planned over a long-term series of steps. Planned
organizational change processes are of increasing need for organizations to maintain
their competitive edge in today’s global economy. In the case of Washdales, senior
management raised concerns about the performance which led the managers to
begin the planning for change. Hope-Hailey and Balogun’s (2002) Kaleidoscope
theory can be used to analyse the context of change. This highlighted contextual
factors which needed to be considered when formulating a change plan. In the case
of Washdales, the areas of preservation, readiness, and power should be considered.
According to Kotter (1995) many sources suggest that more than half of all efforts in
organisational change fail to accomplish their original goal. Lewin (1947), suggests
that this is because when organisations implement change to achieve higher levels
of group performance, it usually short lived. However, in the case of Washdales, the
implementation of change through a planned approach was successful. Referring
back to Hope-Hailey and Balogun’s (2002) Kaleidoscope theory, this success could
be credited to the level of power that the management team had when
implementing this change. This was highlighted in the case when a manager
commented to a resistant employee, “well, you might as well get on the bus because
it’s happening anyway”. This highlights the context in which this change process
took place, and opens the door to question the political and ethical ways in which
these processes took place. Furthermore, although the change process was a

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
success, there was still a level of resistance from employees. Resistance tends to
happen when marginalised and oppressed groups resist the aims and requests of
more powerful groups such as managers. According to Roethlisberger and Dickson
(1939), the alteration of the existing social organisation to which the worker has
become accustomed to will result in resistance. Resistance was most apparent in the
machine shop, where there was “a real culture” and “factions within one area”.
Management attempted to overcome the problem by supporting employee
contributions. However, the direct style that was used by managers only generated
more resistance (Clegg et al., 2016). With this in
mind, numerous studies how ‘democratic’ leadership encourages employee
participation in decision-making and leads to lower levels of resistance (Buchanan
and Huczynski 2013). This leads to the analysis and evaluation of the leadership
style that was adopted throughout this period of change, while also applying Hersey
and Blanchards (1982) theory on leadership style.
Throughout this period of change, Washdales adopted a top down management
style. According to Burgelman (1983), change can be conceptualised as “top down”
or “bottom up” based on the roles of managers in the hierarchy. Top-down
perspectives view top managers as initiators of change (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, and
Sanders, 2004). External pressures to change and or potential internal resistance to
change are cited are reasons to adopt a top down approach. The strong culture that
was present in the workshop presented management with the potential for
resistance, which led to the implementation of top down change. However, this also
led to what could be considered Machiavellian tactics to be employed as a way to
implement the change. This was seen in the way that Washdales managers
approached the workers union to agree the enterprise agreement. In the top
managers own words, “I deliberately used broad terms.. and then they had to
comply”. This once again opens the argument for the ethical and political
consequences of change when carried out in this manner. According to Buchanan
and Badham (1999), the use of devious political tactics can be considered
Machiavellian. Clearly this case shows the concerning degree to which employees
and the union were manipulated through a series of clever political manoeuvres that
serviced the aims of management and paid little real attention to the needs of
employees. Based on the model of Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four
reasons why groups resist change and six approaches to deal with this. In the case of
Washdales, manipulation and co-option were used. However, it could be argued that
a less devious approach could have been taken which would have prevented the so
called Machiavellian tactics being implemented. This could have been accomplished
through negotiation and agreement.
Using Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership theory, the leadership
style which was adopted at Washdales can be further evaluated. Managers at
Washdales chose to take a telling style towards leadership, in this style the leader
tells people what to do and how to do it. According to the model, this method of
leadership should be used for a group with a low level of maturity, where group
members “lack knowledge skills and willingness”. However, in this case it could be
argued that employees at Washdales were in fact in the M3 category; where
employees have the ability and skills but are unwilling to take responsibility.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
According to Clegg (2006) adopting a telling style that oozes control and
consequently generates resistance from employees. Furthermore, these “Hitler-like”
decisions (Dawson and Andriopoulus 2014) immobilises middle managers and
demotivates employees. This contributes to the suggestion that although the change
process at Washdales was successfully implemented, it came at the cost of initiating
high levels of resistance and questioned the ethical appropriateness of the methods
used. On the other hand, Washdales could argue that they used a participating
leadership approach, however, it is being argued that the attempts to gain employee
participation was simply a lip service exercise to gain power over the employees and
unions through the enterprise agreement.
With all of the following being considered, it is argued that there was another way in
which this change process could have been handled; which would not conflict on
ethical or moral grounds. There are several alternatives to the top-down approach.
For example, the bottom up approach creates conditions for employee participation
that top down change generally does not provide. Further to this, unlike manager led
teams, self-managing teams have significant responsibility for managing their own
work. This allows them to make decisions about goals, team structure and support.
The bottom up approach has been praised by Kanter (1983) who highlights the
importance of middle managers in challenging the status quo. This is supported by
Wooldridge’s (2008) middle management perspective which advocates the pivotal
roles of middle managers in driving change from the organisations core (Balogun
and Johnson 2004). The case study shows the importance of the relationship
between middle management and employees when it states that the workshop
supervisor would relay the concerns of employees to top management.
However, In most cases, middle managers are presented as impediments to change
(Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). When considering the case and Washdales, the
supervisor of the workshop, which presented the highest level of resistance to
change, was considered to be “a major block to change”. Kotter (1995) highlights
the fact that in most cases, the expectation that change is initiated by top managers
and executed by middle managers is rarely challenged. However, this assumption
can be credited to the overall constraint of understanding change. Top down models
tend ignore the idea of middle managers as change initiators and bottom-up
perspectives exclude the role of top managers as change executioners.
With this in mind, it should be considered that if the top managers at Washdales had
spent time working with the middle manager in the workshop, they could have delt
with the process of change in a much more socially sustainable manner. It should be
realised that employees are not passive recipients of change (Bartunek et al., 2006),
and factors such as accurate information, empowerment, and control in their
contribution all affect employee acceptance of change. Information provided by top
managers and middle managers can differ in depth and way that it is communicated,
this affects uncertainty for employees (Agarwal and Helfat, 2009). Additionally, top
managers have a stronger approach to get things done their way, which affects
sense of control. This is once again shown in the comments made by top
management when they stated, “you might as well get on the bus, because it’s
happening anyway”.