Organizational Change Programme - Lakeland Wonders

This report assesses aspects of Lakeland Wonders change programme and the approach to organizational change that has been taken. It critiques the way Cheryl Hailstrom, the CEO of the organization has communicated the change that she is seeking to implement and makes recommendations for improvement.

Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
1
Organizational Change Programme
Student Name
Institution Affiliation

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
2
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................3
2. Introduction.........................................................................................................................4
3. Organizational Background and Perceived Need For Change............................................4
4. Critique on the Way Cheryl Hailstrom Has Communicated the Change that She is
Seeking to Implement..........................................................................................................5
5. Recommendations for Improvement...................................................................................7
6. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................9
7. References..........................................................................................................................11

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
3
Executive Summary
Organizational change is essential for any organization that wants to remain relevant in
the dynamic business environment. Lakeland Wonders, a company that manufactures wooden
toys has realized that through the help of its CEO, Cheryl Hailstorm. Cheryl is applying the
“change at all costs” style of effecting desired reforms in the company. However, I think this
kind of leadership towards the organizational change is turning disastrous. The board tends to
have lost confidence in her. The senior officials, who are part of the team in causing the desired
change, are not on the same page with the CEO. It is not that her idea of change is wrong, I
believe that Cheryl is not applying the technique of such a successful change process.
To be successful, Cheryl needs to change her leadership style. First, she needs to
understand that she is the boss of the company and come up with ground rules applicable to all
employees. Secondly, Cheryl should be open to the ideas and opinions of other people within the
organization. In addition, she should encourage employee participation and engagement
throughout the change process. Research has indicated that employees are central to the success
of any change in an organization. Employees’ skills, experience, attitudes, motivation and
knowledge create a favorable organizational environment in which change can take place. Lastly,
she should communicate her capabilities and intensity to the board in regards to the set targets.
Observing this will allow her to work with realistic goals.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
4
Critical Assessment of Organizational Change Programme
Introduction
Organizations nowadays require changing to remain relevant. It is imperative that
organizations respond quickly to both technological advancements and emerging competitions.
Besides, the primary goal of the organizational change is to develop and improve organizations
to enhance competitiveness of external forces. Through evolution, organizations improve
employee management, strengthen competency, enhance communications, procedures and
structures. However, it is worth noting that many factors contribute to the effectiveness of
change within organizations. In spite of whether the transformation process is unprompted and
irregular, set and vital, or incremental or progressive, they have significant ramifications for
people management and development. Change of any type summons the prerequisite for
improvement, creativity, learning and ethnicity shift, all of which lie genuinely within the sphere
of enthusiasm of staff and development.
The purpose of this study is assessing aspects of Lakeland Wonders change programme
and the approach to organizational change that has been taken. The report will critique the way
Cheryl Hailstrom, the CEO of the organization has communicated the change that she is seeking
to implement and make recommendations for improvement.
Organizational Background and Perceived Need For Change
For this assessment, we focus on a toys company named Lakeland Wonders. Lakeland
Wonders manufactures high-quality wooden toys; has a population of 5,000 employees and three
plants in Minnesota. Lakeland Wonders has a new CEO Cheryl Hailstrom, who is hired to steer
the company to higher levels regarding revenue and size. Cheryl strongly believes in
accomplishing this vision; the company needs to diversify its market from upscale market to
mid-scale market. In doing this, Cheryl is convinced that Lakeland will attract more customers
and grow its market potentials. One of her main aims is for Lakeland to be the exclusive supplier
of wooden toys to Bull’s-Eye Stores, who want to purchase the toys at a lower price than what is
offered by Lakeland. Cheryl is persuaded that the company can meet Bull’s-Eye Stores pricing
requirements if Lakeland can manufacture the toys offshore and ship them in time during holiday
season.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
5
According to Cheryl, the change will have tremendous benefits in Lakeland. First, the
company will gain recognition in offshore manufacturing companies. Secondly, the company
will expand its market by lower-priced line. Thirdly, by manufacturing offshore, the company
will increase capacity regarding branches, employees and products. Cheryl has visions for
change. She has the right intentions for the company besides meeting the board’s target. Her
critical senior team thinks Cheryl is pushing for too much change very quickly. Even though she
registers a legitimate sense of urgency and all the primary indicators support her midmarket
change strategy, she is frustrated at the speed of the change process. She already has a ready
market, and her sense of urgency is legitimate. If the company wants to capitalize on the holiday
season, then it has limited time to manufacture the toys, secure a production company offshore
and come up with a marketing message that tackles care of all the branding issues.
Unfortunately, she is burdened with a group of top officials who are resistant to change and only
incline to their old way of doing business.
Critique on the Way Cheryl Hailstrom Has Communicated the Change that She is
Seeking to Implement
Cheryl has an excellent idea of increasing revenue in Lakeland. She is determined,
motivated and aggressive. I agree it is because of her business demeanor and capability of
steering an organization to greater heights of achievement that the board hired her in the
company. She has a massive target in her hands that she needs to accomplish for both personal,
career and organization development. However, I agree that her strategic vision for the company
is not influential. She is leading by example but frustrated because it seems she is working with a
team who are clinging to their old culture of doing business. Nobody in the company including
the former CEO seems to see the change and its benefits from her point of view. I support that
Cheryl has a perfect and practical vision, but she is taking a wrong direction in communicating
the change that she expects to see (D’Ortenzio, 2012). In addition, I propose that Cheryl needs to
be critical about change and the change management process. She should understand that she is
now a leader, part of Lakeland and not a partner as when she was in Kids&Company. In this
regard, I suggest, as the head of the company, and the primary driver in the proposed change,
Cheryl should take into account employee’s understanding of change and their view of the
change process (D’Ortenzio, 2012; Del Val and Fuentes, 2003).

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
6
I note that her style of leadership in the change process is wanting. Indeed, she is the
CEO of Lakeland, but she is not working alone. She depends on the other employees as much to
affect the change process (Terry, 2001). I agree with Smith (2005), employees are central to the
success of any change in an organization. Employees’ skills, experience, attitudes, motivation
and knowledge create a favorable organizational environment in which change can take place. I
perceive Cheryl style of leadership, “leading by example’ as intimidation, coercion and
domineering.
I see Cheryl is losing terribly for failing to align the vision of the change with Lakeland’s
culture. Through her leadership style, Cheryl has been unable to identify that instead of
promoting urgency (Rune, 2005), she has instilled panic and annoyance among her supervisory
group. If she fails to change her directing approach, she risks losing the confidence of her
stakeholders. Wally, who was once her great cheer, is beginning to lose faith in her. Wally
cautions her to be careful to avoid tearing the company apart. If she loses Wally’s confidence,
she will ultimately lose the board’s approval.
Cheryl has fallen short in establishing a sense of urgency in her change process as well as
examining the market and competitive realities. She expects her employees to effortlessly and
quickly buy into her idea of change, but she puts down their concerns about the reform and only
acknowledges the opinions working in her favor. She fails to give room to her colleagues for
identifying and discussing the potential crisis. From my perspective, things have to work out, and
they have to go her way. Cheryl practices authoritarian leadership style in her change process
(Smith, 2005). She fails to exercise the rule of engagement and participation in her change
process and instead prefers dragging employees to the change. I share the same sentiments with
Del Val and Fuentes (2003), resisting change will continue unless Cheryl learns to factor in the
ideas of her employees and bring them on board in the change process.
There is no clear and articulate operating direction for Lakeland in Cheryl’s change. It is
because of this that the former CEO Wally reminds Cheryl to go slow on her change process.
Wally suggests to Cheryl that the company has been in existence for 94 years. The people she is
working with, for example, Mark has been in the company for the most extended period.
Therefore, he understands the dynamics of the market about the company. In this regard, I
suppose Cheryl will need to first convince the CEO, together with the other long-term employees
of how structural or behavioral changes can be constant with the company’s most cherished

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
7
principles and norms and advance performance (Eby, Adams, Russesl & Gaby, 2000;
Armenakis& Harris, 2002). I believe Cheryl should do this to create transformational readiness.
Recommendations for Improvement

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
8
Employee perception towards the Change
Employee perception towards the perceived change is critical for successful change
readiness. Moreover, employees’ perception towards the company readiness on the change is a
critical factor in resistance to change (Eby et al., 2000). Therefore, instead of being authoritative,
an emphasis on motivation, negotiation and persuasion will work better for Cheryl. I support the
idea of Armenakis& Harris (2002) which Cheryl must start being open-minded about hearing the
concerns and views of others about her idea of offshore manufacturing and mid-market
customers. Also, I propose that she engages in constant communication with both external and
internal stakeholders concerning how her change tactic will serve all their welfare. In my view,
resisting change will proceed unless she masters the technique of linking the stakeholders’
interests and expectations with her change strategy (Del Val and Fuentes, 2003; Bienerth, 2004).
Fortunately, it is possible for Cheryl to link their personal and career needs with her vision of
expansion.
Creating a Clear Vision
Cheryl needs to create a clear idea for her change strategy. The vision will clarify the
course in which Lakeland requires to progress. Devoid of a clear outcome, the change strategy
will disorient the company’s goals and which can easily sway the organization to the wrong
direction (Kotter, 1995). Thus, Cheryl needs to be very clear about how the perceived change
will compliment the company’s values and culture as well as improve performance. She can be
able to bring employees onboard by first affirming what they treasure most about the company
while at the same time, challenging them about being comfortable in their current state. To effect
cultural and performance transformation, I recommend Cheryl needs to appoint a team for her
mid-market development program (Jones, Jammieson & Griffiths, 2005: Kotter, 1995). After
that, she needs to charge each member of the team with identifying the obstacles to change and
recommendations on how to overcome the barriers. Involving employees will encourage
employee engagement, participation, and speed up the change process (Goodman, Devadas and
Hugheson, 1988).Establish Rules of Engagement.
Cheryl should understand that she is no longer a partner to Lakeland but the CEO.
Therefore, she needs to establish the rules of teamwork (Dawson, 2003). I add that management
capability is mainly required for effective change (Senior, 2002). In support of Bamford &
Forrester (2003), Cheryl as the boss needs to move Lakeland from the present status to a new

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
9
condition for her to see any change. To do so, Cheryl must explain to her team how she works
and how she expects them to respond. In doing this, according to Eldrod II and Tippett (2002),
Cheryl will move the employees from a comfortable position to where she wants them. Once the
ground rules are clear, The CEO should then communicate openly about the desired change
strategy as expressed by the board. She should then give an opportunity for each employee to
share their views, opinions and concerns about the desired change goal and come to a consensus.
If Cheryl is not precise with the team about her change goals, it will be tough for her to move
ahead.
Teamwork
Cheryl needs to understand that “there is more than one way to rope a calf.” One mistake
that Cheryl is doing is looking at her employees as if they are the “great unwashed” (Cohen &
Bailey, 1997). They have never ventured into offshore marketing. They do not know anything
about the mid-market program. They are not technologically advanced. In her mind, even the key
executives have no idea of ways to launch a plan to meet the company’s great objectives. In this
regard, Cheryl needs to learn how to accommodate other people’s point of view (Luecke, 2003;
Beugelsdijk, Slangen & Herpen, 2002). It is disturbing that Cheryl has not yet found out from
Mark, her crucial manufacturing manager, for his opinions especially because they have worked
together before and he delivered. In addition, Cheryl will be better off working hand in hand with
the Union and try to solicit their assistance in making Lakeland more competitive.
To regain Wally’s confidence in her, I suggest she rectifies her association with Mark and
persuade him to adjust his views and perceptions to acknowledge her change plan. When Cheryl
and Mark work together as a team, the high chances are that they will both come up with better
growth goals that perfectly suit Lakeland’s culture (Sundstrom, DeMeuse and Futrell, 1990). It is
clear that Cheryl has set goals that she wants to achieve, but I point out that she cannot meet
them alone. Sadly, Cheryl is yet to convince the senior team and must if at all Cheryl wants to
emerge as the winner of her change strategy. Without the support of the leading company
officials, it does not count how promising her vision is; it will not kick off until she effectively
persuades her senior team that her change plan is a right course (Eby et al., 2000).

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
10
Recalibrate the Board’s Expectations
Finally, I recommend Cheryl to adjust the board’s expectation. The expansion is crucial,
but the laid down goals must be realistic. “Growth at any cost” mindset is prawn to failure.
Cheryl has a great leader personality. Her exposure and experience are working to her advantage
in the whole change process. Indeed the board has set aggressive targets. Cheryl is working
tirelessly to achieve the goal's objective. Unfortunately, she feels as if she is the only one
motivated in attaining these goals. Everyone else in the company seems to lag behind or rigid at
the company’s status. She is frustrated and weighed down. Thus, she needs to communicate
clearly to the board about her speed and intensity to transform the culture of the organization
(Zeffane, 1996), if she fails to do this, she will feel pressurized which might end up being
disastrous to her and the entire company.
Conclusion
Lakeland is a successful company and has been for the last 94 years. However, the
business environment is continually changing, and if the company wants to maintain its
competitive edge, it has no choice but to adjust to the current business environment. Lakeland
has already realized that by bringing onboard a competitive CEO, Cheryl to steer the company to
greater heights of achievement. Cheryl like any goal-oriented leader has a change plan to see
Lakeland to another level.
Nonetheless, the change plan is not the only ingredient for practical success. Notably,
there are many mistakes that leaders make while initiating change in an organizations.
Fortunately, there is a guide to the productive and successful change process.
There are seven parts of change readiness as per investigates, which incorporate
recognition toward change endeavors, vision for change, shared trust and regard, change
activities, management support, acknowledgement, and how the association deal with the change
procedure. At its centre, change status includes a change of individual cognitions over an
arrangement of employees. The people are the genuine wellspring of, and the vehicle for, change
since they are the ones who will either grasp or oppose change. In this way, it is essential to
survey a person's status recognition preceding any change endeavor.
Leaders of an organization need to understand that in spite of them being the leaders of
change they cannot cause the change by themselves. They will need the skills, efforts, experience
and knowledge of other employees. Thus, like Cheryl, in my opinion, leaders should persuade,

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
11
negotiate and fully engage other employees in their vision. Self-Managing team increase group
productivity and in turn translates to success in the change process. In the same way, leaders
should communicate clearly to ensure that only realistic goals are set to avoid creating pressure
and unnecessary anxieties for employees.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
12
References
Armenakis, A. A., and Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183.
Bamford. D. R., Forrester.P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an
operations management environment. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 23(5), 546-
564, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310471857
Bernard Burnes. (2004) Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The
case of XYZ construction, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 24( 9),886-902, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410552108
Beugelsdijk. S., Slangen. A., Herpen. A. (2002). Shapes of organizational change: the case
of Heineken Inc, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (3), 311-
326, https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429336
Bienerth, Jeremy. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human
Resource Development Review, 3(1), 36-52.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness, research
from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
Dawson. P. (2004).Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience of
People: The contemporary experience of people at work. London: Sage Publication.
Del Val. M. P., Fuentes. C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and
empirical study, Management Decision, 41 (2), 148-
155, https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310457597
D’Ortenzio. C. (2012). Understanding change and change management processes: a case study.
Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/81c02a90-6a15-91ae-
c7a2-ff44c96d60b2/1/full_text.pdf
Eby. L.T., Adams. D.M., Russel. E. A., Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational
readiness: factor related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team based
selling, Human Relation, 53(3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700533006

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME
13
Elrod II. P. D., Tippett. D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change, Journal of
Organizational Change Management,15 (3), 273-
291, https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429309
Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R. and Hughson, T.L. (1988). Groups and productivity: analyzing the
effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J.P. Campbell and R.J. Campbell (Eds.)
Productivity in organizations: new perspectives from industrial and organizational
psychology, pp. 295-327. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones. R. A., Jimmieson. N. L., Griffiths. A. (2005). The Impact of organizational culture and
reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness
for change, Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 361-386.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review,
73(March), 59-67.
Luecke. R. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. United States: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Rune. T. (2005) Organisational change management: A critical review, Journal of Change
Management, 5:4, 369-380, DOI: 10.1080/14697010500359250
Senior, B. (2002) Organisational Change. London: Prentice Hall
Smith. I. (2005). Continuing professional development and workplace learning 11: managing the
“people” side of organizational change, Library Management, 26(3), 152-155.
Sundstrom, E.S., DeMeuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: application and
effectiveness, American Psychologist, 45 (2), 120-133.
Terry, R. (2001). Seven zones for leadership: acting authentically in stability and chaos, Palo
Alto: Davis Black.
Zeffane. R. (1996). Dynamics of strategic change: critical issues in fostering positive
organizational change, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 36-43.