Change managers that use the contingency approach believe that no one approach will suit every situation.  Unlike other approaches that believe there is one best way.  The contingency approach works on the belief that the style of change depends on, the openness to change of the members of an organisation and the size of the desired change (Andrews, Cameron & Harris, 2008).  This approach is rarely used some reasoning for this is that while good in theory it is hard to apply in practice (Palmer, Dunford, Akin 2009).   
Contingency Theory represents a departure from the classical and human relations schools of management and teaches that the structure and behaviour of any organisation is based on certain situational factors (Andrews, Cameron & Harris, 2008). The contingency theory suggests that researchers need to identify and classify the particular organisational strategy a firm adopts before they examine the relationship between training, organisational strategy and firm performance (Thang & Buyens, 2008). The contingency perspective in contrast suggests that universal theories cannot be applied to organisations because each organisation is unique. Instead, this approach assumes that managerial behaviours in a particular situation is dependent on a variety of contributing factors (Davidson et. al. 2009) For example, as an organisation grows in size, for example, management style must be altered often for the company to survive.

Contingency theory can provide a platform or paradigm for successful leadership, particularly in the global marketplace where the market remains volatile and ever changing. Given the right circumstances this style of leadership can promote cost reduction if it takes into consideration the environmental and situational factors that drive organisational performance (Thang & Buyens, 2008).

Palmer et al (2009) states that the main focus of contingency approach is on the specific style of leadership match to the scale of required change, rather than on a specific set of change action steps.

Senior managers may find the contingency approach less attractive to practice as they may lack the skills to adopt to different modes of leading depending upon the change in the organisation, but overall it is imperative that managers and organisations alike engage organisational staff in the change to ensure a smooth transition and furthermore that the scale of change be matched to the needs of the organisation.

Palmer, I , Dunford, R & Akin, G 2009, Managing Organizational Change 2^nd edn, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York.

Andrews, J, Cameron, H & Harris, M 2008, ‘All Change? Managers’ experience of organizational change in theory and practice’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 21 no. 3, pp. 300-314 (Online Emerald).

Thang, NN & Buyens D 2008, “Training Organisational Strategy & Firm Performance”, Business Review, vol. 11, iss. 2, pp.176 (Online Proquest). 

Davidson, P, Simon, A, Woods, P, Griffin, RW 2009, Management core concepts ad applications 2^nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.

According to Palmer, Dunford and Akin (2009) Organisational Development (OD) has dominated the organization change field for over half a century and is mainly developed upon a core set of values and emphasize that change should benefit not just organizations but the people who staff them.  The development of OD in the 1940’s by developers such as Lewin, McGregor, Blake and Beckhard has over the years focused on interpersonal relationships and team building to 1980’s onwards to the developers Beckhard and Worley’s focus which is on the need for change to be strategic whilst aligning organizational, technical political, cultural and environmental influences.

It is recognized that traditional practice of OD focuses on people and is not necessarily meant to be solely focused on the interests of management or the profitability of the firm (Palmer et, al. 2009). This is evident in the DuPont case where plant manager Tom Harris states, ‘His interests lay in introducing his mangers to new ideas and in applying those ideas to improving the plant, he was not looking for solutions to specific problems, but rather improving overall organization effectiveness”. Akins invitation to spend time at DuPont demonstrates support from the top organization which is a characteristic of the OD method.

Palmer et.al (2009) described the OD approach as being planned, aims at improving organizational effectiveness, is long term, is action orientated and ‘top’ management are committed to the change process.  When Gib Akin was invited to spend time at DuPont his goals were; to give DuPont more perspectives on work and the organization as a whole which would in turn develop people and continually improve the plant and overall result in a desire to continuously improve, this was another characteristic of the OD model as Akins visit to the company was planned. But most important it was the goal of Akin to help DuPont appreciate and develop what goes right, assist in the building strengths and to make the plant better for all involved, this was DuPont’s demonstrated support for OD and implementing it as a change model within the company.

Change was welcomed to DuPont in the form of members of the so-called “Leadership Core Team” introducing change as an experiment from here the change would be watched closely and if after time it didn’t work out then it would be ceased, as Akin (2009) reiterates “ Even if things don’t go as hoped, what does happen can yield learning. All experiments are success at one level or another”. The changes made to DuPont will benefit the company as well as the employees and DuPont have made the first step in negotiating such changes in the form of adapting to the OD model.

Reference:

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin G 2009, ‘Managing Organisational Change: a multiple perspective approach’, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York.  

The resistance to change….. is brought upon my employees who ‘dislike change’. Maurers (1996) states “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.” But this is not always the case for all employees. Employees react in different ways to organisational change one of the most common being ‘Dislike to change”. Managers find change one of the most difficult things to manage within an organisation. As humans we have a natural characteristic, where we feel perturbed by changes in our job situation, the uncertainty of the unknown and ‘change’ become magnified by the lack of confidence, skills and abilities that we have to cope with and adjust to the ‘post change’ situation (Palmer, 2009). People associate change with a number of factors: firstly, failing to covert change and initiative into supporting action at their level of the organisation, lack of a clear understanding of what supportive action would ‘look like’, secondly, it is easy to perceive how a change could effect your job position and thirdly mental barriers that are associated with change – like both passive and active resistance. Other associated signs of resistance are lack of conviction, the ‘change’ is inappropriate and the effect it may have one’s life. The biggest reaction to change is how we perceive change and our experience from previous employers and organisations where change has been implemented and failed. When implementing change managers should consider what effect such changes will have on the organisation overall and implement them gradually whilst recognising resistances and support the reasons that employees can feel at the implementation of change. According to Palmer (2009) before proposing changes managers should carry out a ‘resistance profile’ that identifies resistors, and the likeliness of these, the strength of the resistors and the likely manifestations and the potential for the resistance to undermine the change initiative. From this mangers should be able to identify ahead of time the likely situation they will face in the event of a change within the organisation.

 References

 Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2009, “Managing Organisational Change”, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New Work. Maurer, R 1996, “Beyond the walls of resistance”, Bard Books, Austin Texas.

The Boeing Case

This weeks blog looks at the Boeing Case and the need for an adaption of one of the diagnostic models from chapter 5 of the text book. After reading all the diagnostic models which look at different areas of change the model that I am going to adapt to and of which I believe is going to work best for the Boeing Case is the 7-S Framework. This model was developed by McKinsey & Company in the late 1980’s the McKinsey 7-S Framework has seven variables which all begin with the letter “S” (Palmer et. al, 2009).

These seven variables include structure, strategy, systems, skills, style, staff and shared values. These cover all the aspects of business and all major parts of an organization that’s why this model is the most appropriate for the Boeing Case. This model successfully used will assist Boeing in seeing their weaknesses, lack of structure and direction, realise their rivals developments, the diversification plan would be a lot more successful, the outsourcing of services more welcomed, exceptional customer service, efficient production, streamline communication between customers and staff, quality control and most importantly the development of Human Resources into the organisation and improved management skills.

Boeing faced incredible pressures and could see that changes had to be made to be able to sustain themselves. By adapting the 7-S change model into Boeing this could help determine the organisations future. However, it is important that all seven factors should be taken into account to ensure the successful implementation of the model. Either a small or large component also known as a hard or soft components (Palmer et. al, 2009) each one is just as important as the other and if proper attention isn’t paid to each one then the model will fail.

The Boeing case has many challenges still to face and obstacles to overcome but by adapting a model such as the 7-s Framework Boeing as a basic tool in everyday management the successfulness of Boeing could be as it was.

References

Palmer, I, Dunford, R & Akin, G 2009, “Managing Organisational Change”, 2^nd edn, McGraw-Jill Irwin, New York.

Scandals associated with the leading sports brand ‘Nike’ have brought to the attention of all business leaders the importance of ethics. “Doing the right thing” in the business world. When discovered that Nike were exploiting working conditions by having over 700 contract factories overseas, which were better known as ‘sweatshops’ and paying employee’s poor wages (Davidson, et.al. 2009).  Nike’s decision to use a personal relations campaign to repair its social image was established (Nike 2004). 

Nike addressed these issues by going onto present assertions of fair employee treatment, good factory conditions, and equitable companywide standards to the public through many mediums, including a labor report, its statement of corporate responsibility, personal letters, website segments and newspaper releases (DeTienne & Lewis 2005).  Nike in addition went on to implement six new standards for its manufacturing facilities these included; factory monitoring, minimum age requirements, environmental safety standards, employee education programs, expansion of its micro-loan program, and greater transparency of corporate responsibility practices (Nike 2004).  To ensure compliance with these standards, Nike established a code of conduct to be enforced in all Nike manufacturing facilities by safety committees and trained supervisors. The company indicated that this code of conduct was displayed in a prominent place on factory walls to ensure all employees would be aware of their rights. These codes answered many of the lingering criticisms of Nike’s practices and were designed to ensure a safe, humane future for its production factories (Nike, 2004).

Nike’s decision to ethically adopt practices that are in the best interest of both employees and the organisation at large have seen this company go from strength to strength, save their company from reputation and credibility damage, build a positive relationship between both the organisations ethics and socially responsible behaviour which ultimately has lead to the organisations revenues soaring to $3.5 billion per year (Nike, 2004). Nike acknowledged their downfall and amended this which in turn resulted in a myriad of changes and has ultimately resulted in multi million dollar profits and an organisation where their employees are now treated fairly, work in suitable environments and both the organisation and stakeholders are benefiting considerably.

 References

Davidson, P, Simon, A, Woods, P, & Griffin RW 2009, Management core concepts and applications, John Wiley & Sons, Milton Qld. 

De Tienne, KB, Lewis LW 2005, ‘The Pragmatic & Ethical Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: The Nike Case, Journal of Business Ethics, Issue 60, pp.359-376 (online ProQuest). 

Nike 2004, Nike Annual Report & Proxy Statements, viewed 25 March, 2009, www.nikebiz.com