Organizational Change Management Strategies

This assignment delves into the concept of organizational change management, examining various strategies employed by businesses to effectively navigate transformations. It provides a detailed analysis of successful organizational change initiatives implemented in real-world scenarios, highlighting key factors contributing to their positive outcomes. The assignment draws upon academic literature, case studies, and examples from reputable sources to illustrate best practices and provide valuable insights into managing organizational change.

Understanding and Leading Change
1

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
P1: Comparison of organizations where change has put an impact on strategy and operations of the
company......................................................................................................................................................3
P2: Evaluate the ways in which drivers of change (internal and external) affect leadership, team and
individual behaviors within Google and Atlassian......................................................................................5
P3: Assess measures to minimize negative impacts of change on organizational behavior within Google
and Atlassian...............................................................................................................................................6
P4: Explain different barriers for change and determine how they influence leadership decision-making in
a given organizational context.....................................................................................................................8
P5: Apply different leadership approaches to dealing with change in a range of organizational contexts. 10
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................10
References.................................................................................................................................................12
2

Introduction
Organization change is the technique for making modification in business process or
management structures. In other words is the process when companies bring a change in there
working methods or aims so as to attain a completive advantage over the rival firm (Jeston and
Nelis, 2014). Changes usually assist the firms in doing things efficiently and in a cost effective
manner hence the businesses should not fear change rather embrace it in order to attain success
(Botha, Kourie and Snyman, 2014). The present study has thus made an attempt to study the
organizational changes that affected the working of Google and Atlassian in different period of
time. Google underwent a change in organization structure during 2015 while Atlassian adopted
a different performance review system. Focus of the report is thus on studying the overall drivers
to change, forces of resistance and leadership approaches to deal with them in the best possible
manner.
Google is a US based technology firm that has an expertise in internet related products
and services which was founded in the year 1998 by Larry page and Sergey Brin and is now
headed by Sundar Pichai who is the present CEO of the company (Google Inc, 2017). Atlassian
is a software company and has an expertise in providing collaboration, development as well as
issue tracking software for the firms. It has a presence of more than 85000 consumers over the
globe and is driven by honest business approach, amazing work culture as well as revenue
growth on a consistent basis (Atlassian, 2017).
P1: Comparison of organizations where change has put an impact on strategy and
operations of the company
Change management in Google
Google by the start of year 2000 was a great success and had shown a huge domination in
the area of internet search engine as well as application like Google maps and Gmail. It thus
made its work area quite diverse where all of them seemed to be connected with each other but in
reality they were not (Troyani, 2017). Google management was now facing difficulties in terms
of managing the organization as there was a presence of intertwining goals, teams, funding as
well as management. Hence Larry page who was CEO of Google decide to makes changes in
form of deconstructing the entire firm. Mr. Page broke Google into several parts and each one of
3

them ran as a separate company but all of them were under a single umbrella corporation known
as Alphabet in the year 2015. Page was the CEO of Alphabet while Sergei (cofounder of Google)
was positioned as president while Eric Schmidt was named as the chairman. However each of the
companies under umbrella had their own set of goals and focus of Larry page was on those aims.
Figure 1 Structure of alphabet
(Source: Nudelman, 2016)
This allowed the company to have more management scale as things can be run on an
independent level when they are not much related. The concept of alphabet was all about making
the business prosper though a presence of strong leadership and independence of different units.
This change done by Larry page within Google was quite radical one but it was also beneficial as
it made the employees to focus more on their productivity and they were also happy to be with
the mission of their own company rather than concentrating on goggle entirely (Troyani, 2017).
Every company was now also responsible for its own expenses and income which made the
innovations more meaningful one. However it was in the hands of Larry to funnel additional
funding to one of the firms if the need arise.
Change management in Atlassian
During the year 2011, Atlassian made a decision to overhaul its complete performance
management strategy by finding out that its biannual performance review system which was
based on traditional rating was not providing the needed results (Wang, 2011). Due to the
presence of less frequent reviews employees were not in a happy situation. Moreover as the
numeric rating of performance found out whether bonus was to be received by worker hence
4

increased attention was placed on whether an employee was rated 4 or 5. The difference was
however an irrational one. Hence in order to address the above mentioned issue, existing review
process was discarded by management at Atlassian so as to get a more continual as well as less
numeric system. Managers now emphasized more on monthly performance review rather than
biannual one that was usually done through a one on one meeting (Hansen, 2018). Six years after
the introduction of this change, Altassian is a proud owner of 425 million dollar Trello and is
mostly in news on account of being the fastest growing technology firm of the year (Wang,
2017).
Overall it can be said that it was the HR who made an effort to effectively train the
employees so that employees can be coached properly while at Google the change took place at
top. But both the firms depended on technology to attain the change which was in form of a new
performance system at Atlassian and a technological investment in order to identify, hire as well
as promote the top most talent within Google (Wang, 2017).
P2: Evaluate the ways in which drivers of change (internal and external) affect leadership,
team and individual behaviors within Google and Atlassian
Drivers of change are the ones which make a difference on the entire industry in general
and compel the business to modify the actions due to changes taking place in the environment.
They may originate in the macro as well as microenvironment where the business is working
(Hashim, 2014). In this regard, there has been identification of many drivers to change that has
put an impact on leadership, team as well as individual behavior within both Google and
Atlassian.
In case of Google the internal drivers to change that led to deconstructing of the
organization was aiding towards proper management in all possible areas such as finance,
production, team work, goals etc (Troyani, 2017). While the external drivers to change were to
meet up the needs and demand of consumers and face the competitive landscape in technology
industry in a better manner. They further wanted to attain growth and development in terms of
profits, sales and revenue which was only possible when a better organizational structure was
prevalent (Botha, Kourie and Snyman, 2014).
In context of Atlassian, the internal drivers to change were to bring an improvement in
the employee morale that was going down on account proper performance review. Moreover the
performance review system of the company was also a traditional one and the need to implement
5

a new technology to drive the process of change (Burke, 2017). It was also essential for the
company to maintain a positive culture in the organization which led to bring change in the
performance review system. External driver to change in this case was to meet up the
competitive landscape where the employees may have a chance to leave the firm and join other
firms.
The above mentioned drivers to change also affected leadership in Google as each of the
formed company under Alphabet worked under an independent leader who had its own goals that
were different form Apple. Moreover, Larry page further took the position of chief executive of
Alphabet and Sunder Pichai became the CEO of Google. The leaders in this regard are required
to motivate as well as influence the employees to work as per goals and mission of the respective
company and also make them understand that they are still a part of Google (Jeston and Nelis,
2014). The need is further to communicate the vision of respective companies to the employees
in best possible manner and also set goals for them accordingly. They are further required to be
tough in case any employee resists the changes. The democratic approach may also be required
from the leaders so as to make the employees feel comfortable with the changes in company
structure. Team working has also been impacted on account of the change as the employees are
now required to work on a mission statement that is different from Google and is solely based on
the operations of the company where they are placed (Pulakos and et.al., 2015).
An indirect impact on leadership also occurred on account of changes in Atlassian as the
managers were now required to closely supervise the employees on account of monthly
performance reviews. They were further required to be in touch with the supervisors so that
employee working can be reviewed in the best possible manner. Individual and team behavior as
employees worked harder every time in order to get a better review by month end and it further
motivated the employees as accurate assessment of the performance can be done in a short span
of time rather to wait for one full year (Brewster and Hegewisch, 2017). Conflicts may further
arise in team working as the employee may start focusing on individual performance so as to get
a good review by the end of month. This situation is required to be handled by the supervisors in
the best possible manner.
6

P3: Assess measures to minimize negative impacts of change on organizational behavior
within Google and Atlassian
The management at both Google as well as Atlassian can take varied steps in order to minimize
the negative impact of the changes on the entire organizational behavior which has been
discussed in below mentioned sections;
Employee engagement in change process – As the changes made by Google and Atlassian has
put an impact on the employees of the firms hence the best possible strategy is to involve them in
the change process. This strategy has been followed by Atlassian where feedback was taken from
the managers about the biannual review system so as to know whether the strategy needs change
or not. The feedback came out to be an encouraging one and it did enough to spark out positive
chats within the organization (Jluijke, 2010). This strategy was however not applied with Google
employees as the staff members had a great deal of confusion about where there department
stood and who will sign in the paychecks among others (Populi, 2015).
Taking meeting and interview sessions – Maintaining transparency and communication are the
best practices to effective change management as employees get gelled up with the changes
quickly once they are consulted as well as informed (Wang, 2017). In this regard, both the
companies are required to take meeting or individual sessions with the employees so as to assess
the overall feeling about the change process. This is most essential strategy to be undertaken by
Atlassian as every employee is affected by change in performance review system. In case of
Google, meeting with supervisors of the companies will aid in reducing the negative impact of
change if any (Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015).
Taking time for watching and listening – the concept here is that if changes are about to take
within the organisation then the management at both the companies should take out time to
watch as well as listen to the employees carefully. This is required to reduce negativity from the
organisation on account of change (Mellert and et.al., 2015). The anxiety present in employees
can be in direct form or indirect one by change in behaviour or performance hence the
management at both the companies should observe and listen to all the happenings.
Showcase genuine concern – Good manager is the one who responds to the issues faced by
employees on account of the change process. Hence the supervisors at Google and Atlassian
must guide the employees when they feel uncertain or isolated with respect to change process.
This can be done by ensuring that open lines of communication are maintained with the
7

employees so that employees can talk freely about their concerns (Abrell-Vogel and Rowold,
2014).
Train and prepare – in case of Atlassian the top management will need to prepare the managers
as well as the supervisors in the area of new performance review system. Hence the management
ensured that an executive coach was appointed who can train the managers in this regard (Jluijke,
2010). Training is however not required within Google as the employees working will not be
affected much by the change however top management must be trained so that they can
transition themselves in the new roles that have been gained by them in newly formed
companies.
Positive attitude of manager - Change process can generate the best effects if the management
keeps a positive attitude towards it. Hence the need on part of management is to be positive,
enthusiastic as well as foster motivation within others. The need is further to compensate the
employees for the extra efforts that have been done by them (Cummings and Worley, 2014).
P4: Explain different barriers for change and determine how they influence leadership
decision-making in a given organizational context.
There is a presence of many different kinds of barriers to change that have put an impact on
leadership and decision making with respect to Atlassian and can be assessed by usage of force
field analysis. The change that has been introduced in Atlassian is with respect to modifying the
traditional biannual performance review system and making it monthly one. The goal for the
same was with respect to reducing anxiety as well as demotivation in the team members as well
as management (Jeston and Nelis, 2014). The internal forces of change was a decreased team
morale and anxiousness in minds of employees and managers while external driver to change
were getting a competitive advantage against rival firms and ensuring towards technological
development. However there was a presence of many factors that resisted the change process that
was brought within Atlassian. These were in form of fear of the unknown as to if the new review
method may degrade the performance of employees.
The new review process may further make some of the employees look less competent
than others followed by poor timing if some employees are expecting a promotion or pay raise
during that period (Fuchs and Prouska, 2014). A few employees may also resist change as a part
of political strategy in order to prove that the change decision is wrong. This tendency may be
prevalent in those managers who have not been involved in change process or whose viewpoints
8

have not been heard by the management. Hence they may be committed enough to see the
change in review system as a failed one. As per the force field analysis the next step is to assign
scores to each of the e above mentioned force from weak being 1 to strong being 5. The scoring
has been done in the influence of each force on the change plan that has been introduced in the
organisation (Schwarz and Stensaker, 2016).
1 2 3 4 5
Forces
that favor
change
process
Decrease in
team morale
Increased
anxiety in
employees
and managers
Increased
staff turnover
getting a
competitive
advantage
against rival
firms
technological
development
Increase in
profitability
and employee
productivity
Forces
against
the
change
process
Fear of
unknown
employees
look less
competent
9

poor timing
Office
politics
From the above analysis, it seems clear that the firm should bring alteration in performance
review system so as to decrease employee turnover, increase team morale, productivity and
profitability of the company.
P5: Apply different leadership approaches to dealing with change in a range of
organizational contexts
There can be usage of varied kinds of leadership approaches in order to deal with the
change that takes place within Atlassian. For example, supportive leadership style is required to
be used in employees of Atlassian while change in performance review system has been
introduced in the company. This will aid in helping the employees to understand the process of
performance review and thus give their efforts accordingly. The supervisor can further assist the
employees in improving the skill set that can give them the best review (Rosemann and vom
Brocke, 2015).
On the other hand the managers of Atlas can make use of coaching leadership style with
the supervisors so as to make them understand what is there role and responsibility with respect
to reviewing the overall performance of employees (Jeston and Nelis, 2014). Suggestions and
inputs can also be taken from them which will build a two way communication and help in clear
decision making. It can also be used with those employees whose performance reviews have not
been good in previous times. The leaders can work towards increasing the overall performance
of employees and helping in developing there long term strengths. In the same situation the
management can utilize coercive leadership so as to deal with problem creating employees who
are not in support of the change process (Botha, Kourie and Snyman, 2014). There can further be
an application of laissez faire leadership with those senior staff members who are an expert in
their field and can work without any guidance. However the employees are required to be skilled
in their work and upper management should also show trust in their abilities in order to make this
kind of leadership style a successful one.
10

Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above report that the changes made in Google and Atlassian
were indeed a phenomenal one which has made a huge difference on the overall working of the
entire organization. On one hand, Atlassian did not just made a change in performance
management but also modified the entire process while Google just added a supplement to the
existing strategy by reorganizing the structure in order to support its upcoming plans. However,
subsequent changes can led to creation of many barriers which should be worked upon by taking
measures such as following open, direct and two way communication; showing concern towards
employee issues on account of change; training the staff members and engaging the employees.
Other than this, an effective leadership style should also be followed so as to aid in the overall
process of decision making.
11

References
Online
Atlassian, 2017. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.atlassian.com/company> [Accessed
on 15th January 2017].
Google Inc, 2017. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/our-
company/> [Accessed on 15th January 2017].
Hansen, J., 2018. How Atlassian Does Performance Reviews. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.atiim.com/blog/how-atlassian-does-performance-reviews/> [Accessed on
15th January 2017].
Jluijke., 2010. Atlassian’s Big Performance Review Experiment – Part II. [Online]. Available
through:
<https://www.atlassian.com/blog/archives/atlassians_big_performance_review_experime
nt_part_ii> [Accessed on 15th January 2017].
Nudelman, M., 2016. One chart that explains Alphabet, Google's parent company. [Online].
Available through: <http://uk.businessinsider.com/chart-of-alphabet-google-parent-
company-infographic-x-gv-2016-1> [Accessed on 15th January 2017].
Populi, V., 2015. Google Employees Weigh In On The Alphabet Restructuring. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.popsci.com/google-employees-respond-alphabet-
restructuring> [Accessed on 15th January 2017].
Troyani, L., 2017. 3 EXAMPLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE DONE RIGHT. [Online].
Available through: <HTTPS://WWW.TINYPULSE.COM/BLOG/3-EXAMPLES-OF-
ORGANIZATIONAL-CHANGE-AND-WHY-THEY-GOT-IT-RIGHT> [Accessed on
15th January 2017].
Wang, D., 2011. SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IS EASIER THAN YOU THINK.
[Online]. Available through: <https://www.tinypulse.com/blog/sk-successful-
organizational-change-examples> [Accessed on 15th January 2017].
12

Books and journals
Botha, A., Kourie, D. and Snyman, R., 2014. Coping with continuous change in the business
environment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology. Elsevier.
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J., 2014. Business process management. Routledge.
Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A., 2017. Policy and Practice in European Human Resource
Management: The Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey. Taylor & Francis.
Fuchs, S. and Prouska, R., 2014. Creating positive employee change evaluation: The role of
different levels of organizational support and change participation. Journal of Change
Management. 14(3). pp.361-383.
Abrell-Vogel, C. and Rowold, J., 2014. Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness
in change–a multilevel investigation. Journal of organizational change
management. 27(6). pp.900-921.
Hashim, M., 2014. Organizational change: Case study of GM (General Motor). Journal of
Business Administration and Management Sciences Research. 3(1). pp.001-005.
Schwarz, G.M. and Stensaker, I.G., 2016. Showcasing phenomenon-driven research on
organizational change. Journal of Change Management. 16(4). pp.245-264.
Burke, W.W., 2017. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Pulakos, E.D. and et.al., 2015. Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job
experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. 8(1). pp.51-76.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage
learning.
Rosemann, M. and vom Brocke, J., 2015. The six core elements of business process
management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Mellert, L.D. and et.al., 2015. Examining the relationship between organizational change and
financial loss. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 28(1). pp.59-71.
13

Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T., 2015. Integrating the organizational change literature: a model
for successful change. Journal of organizational change management. 28(2). pp.234-262.
14