UMODML-15-3: Organisational Change at Washdales Manufacturing

This essay critically evaluates the implementation of a planned, top-down organisational change at Washdales Manufacturing, focusing on the removal of the night shift and the subsequent implementation of a cellular layout. The analysis explores the leadership style employed, specifically the application of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership theory, and questions the ethical implications of the methods used, highlighting potential Machiavellian tactics. The essay contrasts the top-down approach with alternative bottom-up strategies, examining the roles of middle managers and employee participation. It considers the influence of Lewin's force field analysis and Fiedler's contingency theory in evaluating the effectiveness and social sustainability of the change process. The conclusion reflects on the lessons learned from this case study and their relevance to future change management practices.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
Critically evaluate the implementation of a specific case of organisational change.
Building on this, reflect on what you can personally learn from this case analysis
about change management and how you might benefit from these insights in the
future.
This essay will critically review the implementation of change at Washdales
Manufacturing, who implemented a planned top-down led change. The catalysts for
the implementation of change was the “inappropriate” working practices that had
become adopted by the night shift, which eventually resulted in the removal of the
night shift from the organisation. Following this, the management team wated to
implement a cellular layout throughout the organisation to improve efficiency and
help deal with external pressures. The essay will aim to critically evaluate the way in
which this approach to change was implemented, and how another method could
have been used instead.
Although the organisational change was successfully implemented, it has been
argued that the methods of change raised serious political and ethical concerns.
Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership theory will be used to analyse
the leadership method, which was implemented, along with recommendations of
what could have been done. They essay will argue that there were cases of
Machiavellian tactics implemented to coerce employees into change which question
the idea of social sustainability; which identifies the impacts of business on
employees and the significance of the relationships between organisations and
employees (Kandachar 2014). Finally, there will be a reflection on what has been
learned and how these lessons will be beneficial in later life.
According to King and Laeley (2003), planned approaches can be defined as an
approach which sees change as planned over a long-term series of steps. Planned
organizational change processes are of increasing need for organizations to maintain
their competitive edge in today’s global economy. In the case of Washdales, senior
management raised concerns about the performance which led the managers to
begin the planning for change. Hope-Hailey and Balogun’s (2002) Kaleidoscope
theory can be used to analyse the context of change. This highlighted contextual
factors which needed to be considered when formulating a change plan. In the case
of Washdales, the areas of preservation, readiness, and power should be considered.
According to Kotter (1995) many sources suggest that more than half of all efforts in
organisational change fail to accomplish their original goal. Lewin (1947), suggests
that this is because when organisations implement change to achieve higher levels
of group performance, it usually short lived. However, in the case of Washdales, the
implementation of change through a planned approach was successful. Referring
back to Hope-Hailey and Balogun’s (2002) Kaleidoscope theory, this success could
be credited to the level of power that the management team had when
implementing this change. This was highlighted in the case when a manager
commented to a resistant employee, “well, you might as well get on the bus because
it’s happening anyway”. This highlights the context in which this change process
took place, and opens the door to question the political and ethical ways in which
these processes took place. Furthermore, although the change process was a

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
success, there was still a level of resistance from employees. Resistance tends to
happen when marginalised and oppressed groups resist the aims and requests of
more powerful groups such as managers. According to Roethlisberger and Dickson
(1939), the alteration of the existing social organisation to which the worker has
become accustomed to will result in resistance. Resistance was most apparent in the
machine shop, where there was “a real culture” and “factions within one area”.
Management attempted to overcome the problem by supporting employee
contributions. However, the direct style that was used by managers only generated
more resistance (Clegg et al., 2016). With this in
mind, numerous studies how ‘democratic’ leadership encourages employee
participation in decision-making and leads to lower levels of resistance (Buchanan
and Huczynski 2013). This leads to the analysis and evaluation of the leadership
style that was adopted throughout this period of change, while also applying Hersey
and Blanchards (1982) theory on leadership style.
Throughout this period of change, Washdales adopted a top down management
style. According to Burgelman (1983), change can be conceptualised as “top down”
or “bottom up” based on the roles of managers in the hierarchy. Top-down
perspectives view top managers as initiators of change (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, and
Sanders, 2004). External pressures to change and or potential internal resistance to
change are cited are reasons to adopt a top down approach. The strong culture that
was present in the workshop presented management with the potential for
resistance, which led to the implementation of top down change. However, this also
led to what could be considered Machiavellian tactics to be employed as a way to
implement the change. This was seen in the way that Washdales managers
approached the workers union to agree the enterprise agreement. In the top
managers own words, “I deliberately used broad terms.. and then they had to
comply”. This once again opens the argument for the ethical and political
consequences of change when carried out in this manner. According to Buchanan
and Badham (1999), the use of devious political tactics can be considered
Machiavellian. Clearly this case shows the concerning degree to which employees
and the union were manipulated through a series of clever political manoeuvres that
serviced the aims of management and paid little real attention to the needs of
employees. Based on the model of Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four
reasons why groups resist change and six approaches to deal with this. In the case of
Washdales, manipulation and co-option were used. However, it could be argued that
a less devious approach could have been taken which would have prevented the so
called Machiavellian tactics being implemented. This could have been accomplished
through negotiation and agreement.
Using Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership theory, the leadership
style which was adopted at Washdales can be further evaluated. Managers at
Washdales chose to take a telling style towards leadership, in this style the leader
tells people what to do and how to do it. According to the model, this method of
leadership should be used for a group with a low level of maturity, where group
members “lack knowledge skills and willingness”. However, in this case it could be
argued that employees at Washdales were in fact in the M3 category; where
employees have the ability and skills but are unwilling to take responsibility.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
According to Clegg (2006) adopting a telling style that oozes control and
consequently generates resistance from employees. Furthermore, these “Hitler-like”
decisions (Dawson and Andriopoulus 2014) immobilises middle managers and
demotivates employees. This contributes to the suggestion that although the change
process at Washdales was successfully implemented, it came at the cost of initiating
high levels of resistance and questioned the ethical appropriateness of the methods
used. On the other hand, Washdales could argue that they used a participating
leadership approach, however, it is being argued that the attempts to gain employee
participation was simply a lip service exercise to gain power over the employees and
unions through the enterprise agreement.
With all of the following being considered, it is argued that there was another way in
which this change process could have been handled; which would not conflict on
ethical or moral grounds. There are several alternatives to the top-down approach.
For example, the bottom up approach creates conditions for employee participation
that top down change generally does not provide. Further to this, unlike manager led
teams, self-managing teams have significant responsibility for managing their own
work. This allows them to make decisions about goals, team structure and support.
The bottom up approach has been praised by Kanter (1983) who highlights the
importance of middle managers in challenging the status quo. This is supported by
Wooldridge’s (2008) middle management perspective which advocates the pivotal
roles of middle managers in driving change from the organisations core (Balogun
and Johnson 2004). The case study shows the importance of the relationship
between middle management and employees when it states that the workshop
supervisor would relay the concerns of employees to top management.
However, In most cases, middle managers are presented as impediments to change
(Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). When considering the case and Washdales, the
supervisor of the workshop, which presented the highest level of resistance to
change, was considered to be “a major block to change”. Kotter (1995) highlights
the fact that in most cases, the expectation that change is initiated by top managers
and executed by middle managers is rarely challenged. However, this assumption
can be credited to the overall constraint of understanding change. Top down models
tend ignore the idea of middle managers as change initiators and bottom-up
perspectives exclude the role of top managers as change executioners.
With this in mind, it should be considered that if the top managers at Washdales had
spent time working with the middle manager in the workshop, they could have delt
with the process of change in a much more socially sustainable manner. It should be
realised that employees are not passive recipients of change (Bartunek et al., 2006),
and factors such as accurate information, empowerment, and control in their
contribution all affect employee acceptance of change. Information provided by top
managers and middle managers can differ in depth and way that it is communicated,
this affects uncertainty for employees (Agarwal and Helfat, 2009). Additionally, top
managers have a stronger approach to get things done their way, which affects
sense of control. This is once again shown in the comments made by top
management when they stated, “you might as well get on the bus, because it’s
happening anyway”.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
Lewin’s force field analysis states that there are forces driving change and forces
preventing change (Lewin 1951). Where there is equilibrium between these two
forces, no change will occur. According to the framework, factors which prevent
change include misunderstanding for the need of change, fear of the unknown, and
different assessments of the situation. As previously stated, accurate information
empowerment, and control all contribute to employee’s acceptance of change. It was
also stated that a more bottom up approach can be used to combat these areas
which cause resistance. Therefore, understanding what causes employee resistance
to change along with the ability of middle managers to counteract these causes and
the use of Lewin’s force field analysis, It should be agreed that a more bottom up
approach could have been used within Washdales to implement a more ethical and
less politically driven approach to change. Which would in turn would be more
socially sustainable. However, according to Zaleznik (1977), hierarchy is brute force
of human nature. With this, Zaleznik (1977) argues that, “in study after study of
group formations in work and natural groups, leaders and followers align themselves
into remarkably predictable relationships with few at the top and many at the
bottom”. This debate over top down or bottom up approaches and traditional
hierarchy opens the door to the argument of contingency theory.
Fiedler’s (1962), contingency theory states that there is no one way or style that
leadership may be applicable to all situations. In other words, it identifies that there
might be variables influencing any particular situation, and a leader must choose the
right course of action. When applying contingency theory to organisational change
there is not one best way to manage change. Change needs to be suited to external
environment, internal environment and the change needs to work across all levels.
When linking this to the case study, it opens the argument to the fact that there are
aspects of an autocratic top down approach which would be suitable in some
situations and other situations where a bottom-up
democratic approach would be suitable. For example, a top down led approach could
have been implemented when dealing with the external pressures for change,
however, a more bottom up approach could have been implemented when managing
employees in the machine shop in an attempt to work alongside them and make the
change process happen more smoothly.
However, when considering the work of Abbott (2006) and the concept of managerial
pluralism, which states that workplace conflict is an inevitability. The idea of
pluralism views organisations as complex social structures made up of different
interest groups who have varying needs. In the case of Washdales, there were
groups of employees that supported the managerial led change process, but also
groups such as the machine shop who heavily resisted this change. Furthermore,
Abbott states that different sources of authority will often lead to conflict due to the
organisation of work and the allocation of rewards. Furthermore, from the
perspective of the integrative pluralist, the economic system is not politically neutral
or fair. Rather, it embodies the values and interests of a limited group in society: the
owners of capital and their agents in management. As Flanders (1975) put it,
‘Managerial initiative, even when it is intelligent and far‐sighted, is taken to suit the
aims of management and these do not necessarily coincide with the aims of unions
and the people they represent’. Once again, this was show in the implementation of

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
change at Washdales. The management devised a plan to force employees to
conform to they’re change and in doing so raised considerable political and ethical
questions. This opens to the door to alternative forms of organisational structure
which can be utilised to overcome areas of resistance and misalignment of wants
and needs, and therefore preventing the clash between employees and
management.
Considering the above, it could be argued that a Holarctic organisational structure
could have been implemented. Holacracy is an organizational structure, which unlike
traditional top-down management, authority is distributed throughout the
organization by self-organizing teams at the same time staying aligned with the
organization's mission and vision (Robertson, 2015). In the case of Washdales, the
machine shop would be placed in its own self managing circle. This would then
eliminate the tensions between employees and the top management which were
witnessed throughout the process of change. The idea of self-management would
also mean that the questionable tactics which were implemented throughout this
process would not be brought to light. This is supported by Cardoso and Ferrer
(2013), who state that Holacracy permits organization continuous learning and
innovation by distributing balanced tensions throughout the organization without the
invisible pressure from the form of direct supervision leadership. Further to the
benefits of being able to adapt smoothly and naturally to change, Holacracy can also
remove the conflict level between employees and managers by removing the
hierarchical structure (Robertson, 2015).
In conclusion, It has been argued that although a successful implementation of
change took place at Washdales manufacturing, it raised serious political and ethical
questions. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the methods used by
management were bound to cause resistance from employees, which in turn
resulted in Machiavellian tactics being used to make the change happen. Therefore,
after showing the areas of weakness in the approach which was used, it has been
suggested that a bottom up Holarctic approach be adopted. This which could have
made the implementation of change socially sustainable and not cause ethical or
political questions to be raised.
Reflection
When reflecting upon the implementation of change at Washdales manufacturing,
and the learning that I can take away from this experience, Gibbs (1988) reflective
cycle will be used. I will analyse how this learning will provide me with valuable
insights that will help me later in life. According to Gibbs (1998), it is not sufficient to
simply have an experience in order to learn. Without reflecting upon the experience
may be quick forgotten, or its learning potential lost. Therefore, to sufficiently carry
this learning experience forward with me to later in life, it is essential to reflect in the
correct manner.
Throughout the process of change at Washdales manufacturing, a top down
managerial led approach to change was adopted. In the case study, the manner in

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
which this was implemented was referred to as Machiavellian. It was stated that this
case provided a good example of “politically hard-lined and somewhat unscrupulous
approach to change management”. The reasons for these harsh criticisms towards
the management team at Washdales was down to how they manipulated the unions
through an enterprise agreement, the lack of regard for employees, and the
victimisation of other employees who should have been given a second chance
during the purge of the night shift staff.
In regard to personal feelings when considering the implementation of change at
Washdales, my initial throughs were that the total sacking of the night shift was the
proper and just decision, due to the “inappropriate” working habits that were being
adopted. However, after reading the case further, and gaining an understanding for
the subculture which had deep roots in the night-shift and the machine shop, I
started to understand that some employees may have fallen victim to these
measures.
However, from an operational standpoint, there was also the argument to be made
that the behaviour of the night shift and everyone that was involved was
inappropriate, and therefore deserved equal punishment. This was reflected in the
attitudes of other workers who were gave positive feedback and supported the
changes made by management. Furthermore, the lack of involvement from the
resistant groups within the organisation were not in response to any devious tactics
that had been implemented at this point. All the devious tactics took place after the
workers proved to be non-compliant. This taught me that in some cases it is
worthwhile to pre-empt areas of resistance and have a backup plan ready to
implement if necessary.
Upon reflection, if these methods had not been used, such as the enterprise
agreement with the union, the management team would not have been able to
implement change and the organisation would have carried on in an inefficient
manner. Most likely resulting in the organisation going out of business and everyone
losing their jobs. This would mean that the employees who embraced change and
did not promote inappropriate working behaviour would have fallen victim to the
choices made by the resistant groups. This has taught me that sometimes drastic
action has to be taken to ensure the longevity of the organisation and to protect the
workers who do not practice inappropriate behaviour.
In regard to evaluation, a Holarctic approach was suggested to manage the levels of
resistance in the organisation which in turn resulted in the use of Machiavellian
tactics to implement change. However, upon reflection the implementation of
Holacracy may not be fully suitable for Washdales.
Holacracy may present significant shortcomings in the context of Washdales.
According to Robertson (2015), Holacracy allows the requisite structure to emerge
over time. However, in the case of Washdales, the implementation of change needed
to happen quickly to prevent the organisation going out of business. Further to this,
the culture of the organisation has to be open to the implementation of Holacracy
and be able to self-manage. According to Integral theory (2006) that certain
competencies, such as high emotional and intelligence or highly developed phases of

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
human consciousness are necessary to do Holacracy well. This is supported by
Johnson’s (1999) cultural web, which gives reason to why organisations fail to adapt
to change as quickly as they need to. In the case of Washdales, it was routines and
rituals which was preventing this from happening.
I have learned that based on integral theory and Johnson’s cultural web, the
implementation of Holacracy at Washdales may not have worked. According to Wren
(2011) when discussing Taylor , the reasons behind the development of scientific
management was to battle “natural laziness”. Considering the amount of waste cycle
for labour at Washdales, I came to realise that perhaps the implementation of
Holacracy would not be suitable in this area of the organisation. This has taught me
that the is a necessity to have an understanding of the organisation when
implementing change due to the fact that what may work for organisation A won’t
work for organisation B due to the unique cultures and competencies found in
organisations.
In conclusion, the writing of this essay has opened my mind to different ways of
managing change, and that as stated by contingency theory (1962) there is no one
best way to manage change. The complex combination of internal and external
pressures means that often many different concepts of managing change need to be
implemented. The implementation of Holacracy at other organisations have shown
that in some cases it is not suitable in all areas of the organisation. Furthermore, in
some cases a democratic approach is viable and in others a more autocratic
approach is necessary. Finally, sections of the organisations may be more receptive
to different methods, highlighting the fact that a one size fits all throughout the
organisation is not always the answer. This has shown me the importance of
understanding the different needs of certain parts of organisations and the need to
be flexible to find the best solution for all.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
References
A. Wren, D., 2011. The Centennial of Frederick W. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific
Management: A Retrospective Commentary. Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 17(No. 1), pp.11-22.
Abbott, K., 2006. A Review of Employment Relations Theories and Their Application. [ebook]
Business Perspectives. Available at: <http://A Review of Employment Relations
Theories and Their Application>.
Agarwal, R. and Helfat, C., 2009. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science,
20(2), pp.281-293.
Balogun, J. and Hope Hailey, V., 2004. Exploring Strategic Change. 2nd ed. London:
Prentice Hall.
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G., 2004. ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING AND MIDDLE
MANAGER SENSEMAKING. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4).
Balogun, J. and Rouleau, L., 2011. Middle Managers, Strategic Sense-making, and
Discursive Competence. Journal of Management Studies,.
Bartunek, J., Rynes, S. and Ireland, R., 2006. What Makes Management Research
Interesting, And Why Does It Matter. The Academy of Management Journal,.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P. and Zigarmi, D., 1985. Leadership and the one minute manager:
Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Buchanan, D. and Badham, R., 1999. Politics and organizational change: the lived
experience. Human Relations,.
Burgelman, R., 1983. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from
a Process Study. Management Science, 29(12).
Carpenter, M., Geletkanycz, M. and Sanders, G., 2004. Upper Echelons Research
Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team
Composition. Sage Journals,.
Clegg, S., 2006. Managing modernity: beyond bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T., 2016. Managing and Organisations; An Introduction
to Theory and Practice. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing Change, Creativity & Innovation. 2nd ed.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fielder, F., 1964. A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Science Direct, 1.
Flanders, A., 1975. Management and Unions. London: Faber & Faber.
Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by Doing: A Guide to a Teaching And Learning Methods.
Oxford,Polytechnic: Further Educational Unit.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K., 1969. Management of organizational behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298
Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D., 2013. Organizational Behaviour. 8th ed.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring corporate strategy. London: Prentice Hall
Europe.
Kandachar, P., 2014. Materials and Social Sustainability. Materials Experience,.
Kanter, R., 1983. The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
King, D. and Lawley, S., 2013. Organizational behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L., 1979. Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business
Review, 57(2), pp.106-114.
Kotter, J., 1996. Why transformation efforts fail John P. Kotter,. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 13(2), p.170.
Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), pp.5-41.
Lewin, K., 1951. Field theory in social science. 1st ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Robertson, B., 2015. Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolishes
Hierarchy. New York: Penguin Random House.
Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W., 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Wilber, K., 2006. Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and post-
modern world. Boston: Shambhala.
Wooldridge, J., 2008. Introductory econometrics. 4th ed. South-Western CENGAGE
Learning, pp.300-306.
Zaleznik, A., 1977. Managers and Leaders: are they different?. Harvard Business Review on
Leadership, Harvard Business School, Boston, pp.61-88.

17048205
UMODML-15-3
Managing Organisational Change
Word Count:3298