Lakeland Wonders: Evaluating the Appropriateness of Change Approach

This paper evaluates the change management case of Lakeland Wonders, a 94-year-old wooden toy manufacturer, focusing on the changes initiated by CEO Cheryl Hailstrom. It identifies the reasons for change, including faulty departmental operations and business expansion goals like achieving the 'Bull’s Eye Deal.' The analysis employs frameworks such as Van de Ven and Poole’s, Burne’s Speed and Scale, Alvesson and Karreman’s Metaphors, and Allen, Maguire and McKelvey’s Organizational Complexity to assess the nature and suitability of the proposed changes. The paper identifies gaps in Hailstrom's approach, particularly in communication with employees regarding performance issues and the viability of outsourcing. Recommendations include improved communication, quality control strategies, and performance assessment plans to ensure the success of the mid-market manufacturing initiative. The study concludes that while Hailstrom's strategy has potential, its rapid implementation carries risks, especially considering the impending labor union contract expiry.

Running head: CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Change Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Executive Summary:
The paper evaluates the change management case of Lakeland Wonders. The paper is
dedicated in identification of the change approach using four different frameworks. Along
with that the paper evaluates the reason behind the changes in Lakeland Wonders and also
includes appropriate recommendations for the case. The paper includes the reasons behind
the interest of the management of the organization in introducing new and efficient
employees and along with that, the paper also provides the reasons behind the strategies
proposed by the CEO of the organization in order to achieve the desired growth.

2CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................3
Reasons of Change:....................................................................................................................3
Faulty Operations of Various Departments:..........................................................................3
Business Expansion:...............................................................................................................3
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................4
Nature of the Change:............................................................................................................4
Van de Ven and Poole’s Framework of Change:...................................................................4
Burne’s Speed and Scale Framework of Change:..................................................................4
Alvesson and Karreman’s Metaphors of Change Framework:..............................................5
Allen, Maguire and McKelvey’s Organizational Complexity Framework:...........................5
Suitability of the Change:...........................................................................................................5
Gaps:..........................................................................................................................................5
Recommendations:.....................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................6
References:.................................................................................................................................7
Bibliography:..............................................................................................................................8

3CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Introduction:
The modern business market is getting significantly competitive in terms of
generating revenue. Under such condition, the organizations are observed to try their level
best to restructure their strategies so that they be able to generate such an amount of revenue
that will enable them to survive in the industry for a longer period of time and also will
enable the organizations to achieve the desired growth (Carter et al., 2013). The paper is
focused in discussing one such event for a chosen organization in form of Lakeland Wonders.
Lakeland Wonders was a 94 years old organization which was a manufacturer of the wooden
toys. The organization was observed to have three plants in the Minnesota region along with
5000 employees operating in them. The organization was experiencing the leadership of
Cheryl Hailstrom as the Chief Executive Officer and Mark Dawson as the senior vice
president. The paper is able to identify the form of change that took place in the organization
and discussed the reason of the changes. The paper is also able to provide some
recommendations for this case as well.
Reasons of Change:
Faulty Operations of Various Departments:
The quality of the products of Lakeland Wonders was decreasing in significant
manner and that was one of the prime reason behind the organization’s incapability of
achieving the desired growth. The manufacturing department of the organization was not
interested in increasing their production and on the other hand the design department was
connected in unethical business conduct of protecting the ordinary firms. Hence the
recruitment of efficient employees of the concerned industry like Pat Sampsen or Cecil was
much needed for the organization (Hornstein, 2015).
Business Expansion:
Apart from that, the CEO was significantly focused in achieving the profitable Bull’s
Eye Deal which had the potential to take the organization much closer to the desired growth
of the organization. Cheryl Hailstrom was interested in mid-market manufacturing with the
outsourcing of the infrastructure to reduce the manufacturing cost (Ellram, Tate & Petersen,
2013).

4CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Discussion:
Nature of the Change:
It is visible from the case that the change recommended by Cheryl Hailstrom is
internal (Cameron & Green, 2015). The reason behind such nature of change is the CEO’s
wish to introduce efficient and new employees like Cecil or Pat Sampsen. The products and
services of the mentioned organization Lakeland Wonders was not reaching the desired level
of quality and that was significant in the reduction of the business for them. The wish of the
introducing new employees were the precautionary step for the above mentioned decline in
quality.
Van de Ven and Poole’s Framework of Change:
According to the Van de Ven framework of change, the case of Lakeland Wonders
was having a change imposed on multiple entities as the organization was going to be
prepared for a change which included recruitment and a change in the target market. The
change approach was significantly constructive in nature as the organization initiated the
process of change from inside the organization. Hence it is visible the organization
introduced a change initiative which was dialectic in nature (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017).
Burne’s Speed and Scale Framework of Change:
According to the change framework specified by Burne, the speed of the change was
rapid. The CEO of the organization, Cheryl Hailstrom wanted to introduce the new
recruitments with immediate effect and the implementation of the plan of Cheryl to shift the
focus on the mid-scale from the upscale market for the reduction in the manufacturing cost to
catch the lucrative Bull’s Eye deal was subjected to significant amount of urgency.
The scale of the change was turbulent as the organization was facing recruitment of
new employees along with a complete change in the business market. In addition to this, the
plan of change made sure that the concern of Mark Dawson, the senior vice president
regarding the infrastructure development in the new place is solved by the plan of recruiting
through outsourcing and along with that the organization’s shift of focus to the offshore
manufacturing was sufficient to state the change to be turbulent with large scale changes
(Castellani & Pieri, 2013). Hence the change was structural in nature (McMillan, Rodrik &
Verduzco-Gallo, 2014).
Alvesson and Karreman’s Metaphors of Change Framework

5CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Allen, Maguire and McKelvey’s Organizational Complexity Framework:
The mentioned changes specified in the case is punctuated equilibrium model of
change. The organization’s plans like the offshore manufacturing or the outsourcing of the
resources in the mid-market was following the concept of rapid and radical changes for the
organization (Christopher, 2016).
Suitability of the Change:
As observed in the case the change proposal from the part of the CEO, Cheryl
Hailstrom, was can be considered as partially viable. As it is pretty evident that Cheryl’s
proposal was focused in reviving the manufacturing and the design section of the
organization, yet Cheryl’s incapability of sharing the faults and the unethical business
conduction that the concerned sections were conducting to the employees of those sections
did not take place. With the concept of the manufacturing from the mid-market by the
outsourcing was a significant step from Cheryl in order to catch the Bull’s eye deal, but even
in that case the significant amount of speed that related with the change was associated with
considerable amount of risk as the probable contract expiry between the organization and the
labour union was approaching.
Gaps:
A major gap in the proposal of Cheryl was that absence of the communication
regarding the unethical and non-productive business conduction that the concerned sections
of the organization were conducting to the employees of those departments so that they start
improving.
The proposal of Cheryl was missing any sort of communication regarding the viability of the
proposals like the outsourcing of the infrastructure and the mid-market manufacturing.
Any sort of communication regarding the analysis of the quality in the manufactured products
is significantly missing in the proposal as well.
Recommendations:
The CEO of the organization, Cheryl Hailstrom needed to communicate the gaps in
performance of the departments which were blocking the possibility of achieving the desired
growth rate of the organization.

6CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Along with that, Cheryl needs to make sure that the quality of the products in the mid-
market gets improved and in order to achieve that Cheryl must focus on creation of effective
strategies. Apart from that, the CEO is liable to make a plan for the performance assessment
of the employees in making sure that the quality of the product is improved in the mid-market
manufacturing.
Conclusion:
On a concluding note, the organization was in need to trigger a change initiative in
order to make sure that they be able to fix all the internal issues. Apart from that, the
organization considered the plan of business expansion so that they be able to reach the
specified growth rate. Cheryl’s strategy was significant in this case to drive the organization
towards increment of revenue but the plan was significantly risky as well as the contract
between the labour union and the organization was approaching its end. Hence under such
condition the implementation of the plan was related to considerable amount of difficulty.

7CHANGE MANAGEMENT
References:
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide
to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational
leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous
incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-
958.
Castellani, D., & Pieri, F. (2013). R&D offshoring and the productivity growth of European
regions. Research Policy, 42(9), 1581-1594.
Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & supply chain management. Pearson UK.
Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Petersen, K. J. (2013). Offshoring and reshoring: an update on
the manufacturing location decision. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2),
14-22.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives
on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 319-339.
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2),
291-298.
McMillan, M., Rodrik, D., & Verduzco-Gallo, Í. (2014). Globalization, structural change, and
productivity growth, with an update on Africa. World Development, 63, 11-32.

8CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Bibliography:
Plugge, A., Bouwman, H., & Molina-Castillo, F. J. (2013). Outsourcing capabilities,
organizational structure and performance quality monitoring: Toward a fit
model. Information & Management, 50(6), 275-284.