Managing Agricultural Change
Added on 2019-10-30
6 Pages1495 Words152 Views
|
|
|
Running head: MANAGING CHANGE1Leading and managing changeNameInstitutionDate
MANAGING CHANGE2Managing change is challenging process due to resistance caused by barriers to such change. Undertaking the risky project will face some of these obstacles (Beckhard, & Harris, 2007). According to the project that Cargill’s board seeks to implement, the farming community will be significantly affected. Their economic status may take a huge blow following the implementation of these changes. Thus, the group will seek to resist this legislations. The first barrier to change is perception. Statistics show that most people who are involved in farming andthe food supply chain believe that agriculture is not the cause of climatic change. Based on this perception, many believe that trends such as the rising sea levels and the melting of ice at the poles began decades ago before the implementation of greenhouses (Kurukulasuriya, & Rosenthal, 2013). Besides, the gasses emitted comprise a small percentage that is not entirely responsible for climatic change. Following such a viewpoint, the farming community will resist the change that Cargill seeks to implement. This will impede the change management process. Going ahead with the change may cause riots and destruction of Cargill’s property and resources causing significant losses for the company, a reason that the board should not implement the change (Özdemir, & Clark, 2007). This barrier to change will arise from the different perception of the farming society. Culture has always impeded change. Taboos and lack of imagination due to the societal setting increase the barrier to change. Cargill is dependent on the farming community as a major supplier and consumer of its products. However, implementing the climate change resolution to this group means facing resistance from this community. The agricultural changes to be implemented threaten the financial life of these people (Brewster, 2005). Besides, according to their culture, agriculture has been a way of life that provides food and economic sustainability. The resolutions seek to impact negatively to the existing farming culture. For Cargill, this would
MANAGING CHANGE3mean boycotting of their products and switching to competitors in the region. Secondly, farmers who supply to the company may seek alternative buyers. It curbs the supply chain for the company leading to losses where other resources are not utilized due to the lack of inputs. Cultural barrier, therefore, inhibits Cargill’s change management (Rodriguez, et al., 2009). As such, going ahead with implementing the resolution would affect the revenues for the company. This will be the case where the farming community boycotts their products. Moreover, Cargill may lose its competitive advantage over its competitors. The loss of suppliers after implementingthe climate change resolution may affect its production process, as well as, other function of the enterprise. The third barrier and reason that the board should not follow through with the project relate to environmental obstructions. Change may be faced with resistance but requires significant support from the environment. For Cargill, other stakeholders may be on board with the changes but the farming community may not. Trade unions and other related associations are created with the intention of protecting the rights of its members (Rodriguez, et al., 2009). Today, these unions play a significant role in dictating the implementation of a particular legislation that may affect any aspect of their members’ lives. Dealing with these unions have seen companies drain in legal suits that are accompanied by stagnation of business operation. The project that Cargill’s board seeks to implement faces such risks. As it aims to solve the climate change problem, another issue arises. The project will negatively affect the lives of the farming community, a stakeholder whose perception is against the idea that it has majorly contributed to global warming (Brewster, 2005). It is more likely than not that associations will be formed with the aim of resisting the implementation of change. Since the allegations are justified, Cargill would face legal suits. It would divert scarce resources from other profitable
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.