The Collins Organisation
1.0 Background:
The Collins organisation comprises of nine divisions, each of which is autonomously managed since last ten years. Concerns are growing in last three years regarding one of the divisions which employs 832 people and is responsible for 18 % of total output of the company. According to CEO of the company; the General Manager is not coping with the challenges faced by the division. General Manager has worked with organisation for twenty two years and has used company’s resources on production and costs at an expense of customer focus and communications. Implementation of new technology has been slow as well in comparison to other divisions in group. This shows clear reluctance in adaptation of new technology and according to CEO it is vital for all divisions of the company to implement new technology to stay competitive in the market.
2.0 Force Field Analysis:
Current state relative to this change: Slow progress of new technology implementation, rising customer complaints, low productivity and fear of change from employees.
Desired state relative to this change: Desired state relative to this change: Changing the attitudes towards the change in the division, Implementation of new technology in the division, overhauling the structure of the division to make it more efficient, low cost, high quality and customer focused.
| Resisting Forces | Score | Supporting Forces | Score |
| Fear of change from employees | 2 | Customers want new products | 4 |
| Lack of experience with new technology in its use and implementation | 2 | Improved speed and quality of productio | 2 |
| Environmental impact of new technology | 1 | Retaining current and acquiring new customers | 3 |
| Loss of staff overtime | 2 | Division survival | 2 |
| Low staff morale | 1 | Developing competitive edge | 2 |
| Lack of change management experience within the management team | 2 | Becoming a customer focused organisation | 2 |
| Total | 10 | Total | 15 |
*Scoring is from one (weak) to five (strong).
This analysis clearly shows how important it is for the Collins Organisation to implement changes to keep the division competitive, profitable and customer oriented. The forces against the change have the score of ten in comparison to the forces in favour of change which have the score of fifteen Dezieck, J (2009).
3.0 Strategy for change:
It is rapidly becoming clear to the CEO of the Collins Organisation that to do nothing was not an option; the result would be to go out of the business for division. The two main options must be considered whether to sell the division, or, in some way, change it to secure a viable future. Without exception second option should be considered, if only because it is clear that it would be difficult to find a buyer for the division. In the quest of finding out what is needed to do to change the fortunes of the division a force field analysis has been carried out and main findings are listed in the table above. These findings provide options which clearly show that the future for the division does exist and possibly a very profitable one.
Some major changes will be required however. Having identified the solution for the division, the next step is to implement the strategy for change. Beginning with the structure of the division, which includes general manager, finance, marketing, HR, admin and four product departments. The division should abandon the concept of being a formal organisation. Formal structures, job descriptions and policies normally create barriers to co-operation, innovation and teamwork rather than facilitating it. The division should also get rid of everything which is associated with the traditional organisations, including the budgets Burnes, B (1996).
The intent here is to see what happens when staff are ‘librated’ to do what they thought best. Everyone in the division from secretaries to technical experts, should work much closely together to make things happen more creatively, more quickly and more cost effectively. The main reason for beginning with general manager is relatively simple: he is the head of the division where bulk of the division’s problems lie but, more importantly, the leadership lays with general manger. The belief is that if the general manager could start functioning effectively, the rest of the division would follow the same. The concept of creating chaos out of division and expecting anything other than a disaster to follow seems far-fetched, if not downright lunatic. CEO also have to recognise the dangers in the course the division is embarking upon and another factor which should be considered is if the success was to follow, above all else, there are two more elements which are needed to be right: direction and human values Burnes, B (1996).
Direction Division’s management should be convinced that without a clear direction which everyone understood and believed in, the division would fragment and collapse into a disoriented mass of individuals each pursuing their own course of action. To avoid this, the management and staff should openly and at length discuss and debate the new strategy for the division and the implications for how division would be structured and operate.
Human Values as well as a consensus about the strategy, CEO must realise that the division also needed to get a ‘fundamental consensus about the basic human values’ of the division. These human values could be summed up one sentence:
“This division is been put together on the assumption that only the adults are the employees, and everything which will be done in this division will based upon that assumption, so the employees are not like children but they are treated as the responsible adults” Burnes, B (1996).
4.0 Implementing the strategy:
The new approach for the division to operate should be a project based. Anyone can start a project, provided they have the permission of the senior managers in their division. Some projects can also be initiated by management as well. Wherever the idea comes from, the main criteria for acceptance should that the project is customer focused. Anyone can join a project, provided they have obtained project leaders approval. The basic idea here is that division treats everyone as an adult, and that it is the individual’s responsibility to fill his or her day usefully. If people don’t have anything to do, it’s their job to find something useful to do – either by starting a new project or joining one Burnes, B (1996).
The individual offices should be a thing of past, corridors and walls should also go as well and everyone should work in the same open plan office. Staff can gather wherever they wish to work. Instead of having individual offices everyone should have a little filling cabinet on wheels. Staff can come in the morning, pick up their mobile office and take it with them wherever they are working that day.
Staff will not take this new way of working overnight, as they were not originally recruited for their skills in project based work and some will find it hard to cope with this new arrangement. Furthermore, there will be competition between the project leaders for the best staff. Some groups of staff may found it much more difficult than others.
Bibliography:
Burnes, B (1996). Managing Change. 2nd ed. London: Financial Times Management. p 199 – 300.
Dezieck, J. (2009). Planning the Change: The Force Field Tool. Available: http://web.mit.edu/hr/oed/learn/change/tool_forcefield.html. Last accessed 10 January 2010.
Word count: 1,035 (One thousand and thirty five).
...(download the rest of the essay above)