Organisational Change and Employee Engagement

The assignment explores the complexities of organisational change, highlighting the need for effective communication and employee engagement. It examines the role of managers in driving change and the importance of a planned and systematic approach to minimise risks and ensure success. The document also discusses the potential benefits of change, including growth opportunities and stronger relationships between management and employees.

For a manager, carrying the burden of ensuring success for a business can be a stressful task, but with
appropriate knowledge this can be minimised. This required knowledge goes from basic definitions
between managerial roles and the way they support a business, to mastering the characteristics for
effective leadership, especially when implementing changes as this will have a huge impact on everyone
involved in the organisation. Managers must be efficient communicators, as this is paramount for any
organisation, especially in relation to decision making processes.
Managers at all levels share a goal, to ensure success “through efficient planning, direction and
organisation” (Lomas, referred to reference.com, 2016). There are different managerial roles that oversees
different areas of a business, the structure of the business will define a chain of command; showing “who
reports to who” and communications, as well as the span of control of each level.
Junior Managers tend to be low in the chain of command and in contrast with higher levels they possess
smaller span of control. They oversee efficiency for their teams, day-to-day tasks and they directly affect
performance by setting goals for their teams. As they oversee the success of the base of the operations,
they must keep their staff motivated to ensure efficiency and meet targets set by the middle management.
Managers on this level act as the “middle-man” when passing communications through the chain of
command to employees, as well as passing any concerns to higher levels. Junior Levels are usually
constituted by Supervisors and Team Leaders they report through the chain of command to the Middle
Level Management.
The middle level management is constituted by General Managers, Regional Managers and Departmental
Managers. They ensure that departmental goals are set in line with the Senior management’s visions and
they are generally responsible for decision making within department. In contrast to the junior
management, they possess a wider span of control; it embarks the junior management and their teams.
They support the junior management to set goals for their teams, and targets to meet the operational goals.
Middle managers “are responsible and answerable for the performance of the respective departments they
manage” (Bhasin, 2019). They share with the junior management that, in the command chain, they still
report to a higher management level, this being the senior level management, they usually also oversee
communications between junior managers and senior management.
The senior level management is constituted by the Chief Executive Officer, Chairperson and Managing
Directors, and they oversee the long vision plans for the company and the strategic side of the
organisation, contrary to the Junior Level and Middle Level they do not handle day-to-day operations.
This level of management’s span of control Is the whole organisation, and it is the “ultimate source of
authority” (Kukjera, n.d). Although they are on top of the command chain, the Senior Management is
responsible for responding and communicating with stakeholders about the business, as well as keeping
motivation and communication about future with all levels of the business.
The main goal for managers at every level is to achieve organisational success, and to do so knowledge of
the different styles of management, the ability to adapt these styles to different scenarios; such as
“workplace culture”, and their use as tools for effective leadership will consequently enhance staff
efficiency as they feel more inspired and motivated; this is when an individual passes from being merely a
manager and becomes a leader, truly fulfilling its role.
The type of business and its work culture have a huge impact when choosing a predominant leadership
style, as this determines “the way we do things here” (Bower, 1966). Lewin and colleagues (1939)
produced three types of leadership styles that can be used to become a more effective leader. He explains
that an Authoritarian Style or Autocratic Leadership Style could be beneficial to manage a type business
that does not allow gaps for mistakes, or it has unskilled staff that requires constant supervision. This

style is likely to not be sustainable for long periods of time as this type of leader is characterised by
having all the decision-making power and giving very little, to noting, to employees; this not supporting
long term efficiency as employees might feel that their input is not valued as well as limiting learning
opportunities for the manager and employees. This style although good for productivity and quick-
decision-making It also neglects the employee’s motivational needs, such as through achievements
(McClelland, 1961), consequently negatively affecting efficiency and leading to increased levels of
absenteeism and staff turnover.
Lewin (1939) moves from the autocrat style and adds a “Participative Style or Democratic Style”, which
he considers the most efficient leadership style. This type of leadership allows employees to take part in
the decision-making process while the manager keeps the final decision, this style uses the full potential
of employees’ expertise, encourages creativity, gets ideas that maybe the leader would have not thought
of and keeps employees motivated by giving them a sense of achievement; employees tent to be more
motivated by the work they do than by financial incentives or rewards, as Herzberg concluded regarding
salary; “for all people, there are bigger more sustaining motivators than money”. This style focuses on
people and quality rather than productivity, not making it suitable for some “task” focused scenarios, so it
is important to reiterate the importance of using a curated mix of styles when managing your team.
Some managers have worked with the same team for a long time, using a democratic leadership style and
taking an active role in developing their decision-making skills, so they are trusted and experienced. If a
manager is certain that they have a highly efficient, self- motivated team, a Delegative style could work
for them. This style allows team members to work with minimal assistance, although this style can be
very damaging if the team is not skilled or knowledgeable enough, “it is likely they have reached this
stage because they have been assisted in their development.” (Leadershipandperformance, 2019) thus by
ensuring that this stage is reached organically, that there are available resources to support them and by
checking their performance, this can be a successful model. Allowing employees to self-manage their
work, could improve performance, and give them a higher sense of achievement, allowing the manager to
focus on other matters such as the strategic side of the business.
Leadership styles are also explained as a continuum of behaviour where a manager decide how much
responsibility to give and what level of freedom to employees (Tanenbaum and Schmidt, 1958).
Tannenbaum’s and Schmidt’s added how a leader can identify a problem and “Tell”, acting as an
authoritarian by not asking for input from employees, this characteristic also presented in the autocrat
style. It adds that a manager might “Sell” and idea by sharing benefits and reasoning behind the decision
process yet making this decision on its own. Another characteristic is that the manager might “Consult”;
in relation to Lewin’s model this is a characteristic of a democratic style, the manager on this instance
will not make any final decisions without getting suggestions from team members. Tannenbaum and
Schmidt add a final characteristic where a manager provides limits within the problem-solution process
and the manager decides to “Join” or to leave it to the team, this showing high levels of trust in the team
but also making the manager liable for any failure, although this can be minimized by the manager setting
the right boundaries and cultivating the team’s skills.
John Adair’s (1973) puts it perfectly when explaining in a simple “Action-Centred Leadership Model”
how every area is as important as the other, and how neglecting one of this areas will end up affecting the
other; you can see it as an ecosystem where “achieving tasks”, “building the team” and “developing
individuals” are essential to maintain balance, therefore is the leader’s responsibility to meet the
organisational needs as well as of those of the employees by intelligently using the different styles.

If we observe a business carefully, we can see traces of our human characteristics, constantly changing
and susceptible to its surroundings. It is said that a business is a reflection of external and internal factors
that “urges” the organisation to change in order to prevail, Buchanan and Huczynski (2007) refer to these
factors as “triggers for change”.
“Grow with the time or the time will kill you”, this is a statement that it is particularly true regarding an
organisation. We are living in a constantly changing world where consumers, culture, legislations, and
technology do not seem to stay still, and this must be acknowledged and acted upon by every business to
stay current in the market and to stay aligned with an ever-evolving society; as we grow more flexible and
open, so should businesses in order to keep its appeal and profitability. Due to this factors, some
companies find the internal need of re-shaping their structure to a more flexible one, change the way they
work, re-assess their mission so it aligns with consumer’s new ways of thinking (Beckhard and Harris,
1987) and even breaking stigmas in the workplace, for example by the implementation of gender equality
policies.
It is argued by Kanter (1983) that changes are not triggered by external factors but by managers and their
perceptions; where the manager’s “attentions go, energy follows”. Although Kanter is expressing how the
manager is the “trigger for change”, it also acknowledges how external factors influence the individual,
in this case the manager, by forging its perception and aptitude towards change; thus in both instances
external factors have a big role triggering organisational change.
Over the years there have been models that aim to support managers through this transition, such as
Kotter’s model (1995) and Proci’s “ADKAR” model (1999). Both models explain a planned and
systematic approach when dealing with change, Proci even adds the reinforcement of change, yet both
still ignore the elephant in the room, the employee’s emotional reactions. Hayes (2002) recognised this as
part of his model but, can you really deliver change and ensure high performance by using a model based
on predicted behaviours? In all honesty, I really doubt it. The truth is, that as Kanter’s refers to a
manager’s perception regarding change, the same it is for employees; they are unique individuals with
different perceptions towards change and will act upon own logic, this is when it gets tricky.
In some sort of organisational eutopia, a leader would use these systematic approaches and get the
expected results… and how wonderful would that be. But sticking to reality, a focus in what really makes
or breaks a company, its employees, and their unpredictability it is imperative. And can we do that? Sort
of, and by sort of I mean, it all depends on a manager’s leadership skills. Although a well stablished plan
is needed to reduce some of the barriers for change that can be avoided such as resourcing, timeframe or
budget, a leader that really understands the workplace culture will be able to plan ahead for their
unpredictability and also lay an effective, persuasive communication plan that truly embeds this change
and triggers employee’s desire to actively participate.
Organisational change can be daunting for employees and managers, employees might feel that they are
not in control and are afraid of what this change is going to mean for them; change tends to be
accompanied by “new processes and behaviours” (Lomas, n.d) and employees might not know how to
react. Seemingly change for a manager could mean be a decisive time in their careers, managers that are
not prepared to expect the unexpected can find themselves in a sticky situation, critics might emerge and
might need to revisit and change their mission (Kanter, 2002). The whole change process also has the
potential of creating stronger relationships between management and employees, but most importantly
there are growth opportunities for everyone involved.
Referring to my example of an organisation as an ecosystem, for it to thrive it needs to work in unison,
and the only way to ensure this is through effective communication between departments and managers.

Success results from consistency, and collective efforts. Every department has an important role in the
decision-making process by data collection. A well implemented manager information systems that can
be used by managers and functional department, is crucial for strategic planning. Through communicating
to employees, the importance of accuracy when imputing data into this system and the repercussions of
not doing so appropriately or taking the right measures to avoid data protection breaches, risks are
minimised and the company can collectively work towards a common goal.