HRMT20028 Organisational Change: Case Of Lakeland Wonders

Organizations nowadays require changing to remain relevant. It is imperative that organizations respond quickly to both technological advancements and emerging competitions. Besides, the primary goal of the organizational change is to develop and improve organizations to enhance competitiveness of external forces. Through evolution, organizations improve employee management, strengthen competency, enhance communications, procedures and structures. However, it is worth noting that many factors contribute to the effectiveness of change within organizations. In spite of whether the transformation process is unprompted and irregular, set and vital, or incremental or progressive, they have significant ramifications for people management and development. Change of any type summons the prerequisite for improvement, creativity, learning and ethnicity shift, all of which lie genuinely within the sphere of enthusiasm of staff and development.

The purpose of this study is assessing aspects of Lakeland Wonders change programme and the approach to organizational change that has been taken. The report will critique the way Cheryl Hailstrom, the CEO of the organization has communicated the change that she is seeking to implement and make recommendations for improvement.

Organizational Background and Perceived Need For Change

For this assessment, we focus on a toys company named Lakeland Wonders. Lakeland Wonders manufactures high-quality wooden toys; has a population of 5,000 employees and three plants in Minnesota. Lakeland Wonders has a new CEO Cheryl Hailstrom, who is hired to steer the company to higher levels regarding revenue and size. Cheryl strongly believes in accomplishing this vision; the company needs to diversify its market from upscale market to mid-scale market. In doing this, Cheryl is convinced that Lakeland will attract more customers and grow its market potentials. One of her main aims is for Lakeland to be the exclusive supplier of wooden toys to Bull’s-Eye Stores, who want to purchase the toys at a lower price than what is offered by Lakeland. Cheryl is persuaded that the company can meet Bull’s-Eye Stores pricing requirements if Lakeland can manufacture the toys offshore and ship them in time during holiday season.

According to Cheryl, the change will have tremendous benefits in Lakeland. First, the company will gain recognition in offshore manufacturing companies. Secondly, the company will expand its market by lower-priced line. Thirdly, by manufacturing offshore, the company will increase capacity regarding branches, employees and products. Cheryl has visions for change. She has the right intentions for the company besides meeting the board’s target. Her critical senior team thinks Cheryl is pushing for too much change very quickly. Even though she registers a legitimate sense of urgency and all the primary indicators support her midmarket change strategy, she is frustrated at the speed of the change process. She already has a ready market, and her sense of urgency is legitimate. If the company wants to capitalize on the holiday season, then it has limited time to manufacture the toys, secure a production company offshore and come up with a marketing message that tackles care of all the branding issues. Unfortunately, she is burdened with a group of top officials who are resistant to change and only incline to their old way of doing business.

Critique on the Way Cheryl Hailstrom Has Communicated the Change that She is Seeking to Implement

Cheryl has an excellent idea of increasing revenue in Lakeland. She is determined, motivated and aggressive. I agree it is because of her business demeanor and capability of steering an organization to greater heights of achievement that the board hired her in the company. She has a massive target in her hands that she needs to accomplish for both personal, career and organization development. However, I agree that her strategic vision for the company is not influential. She is leading by example but frustrated because it seems she is working with a team who are clinging to their old culture of doing business. Nobody in the company including the former CEO seems to see the change and its benefits from her point of view. I support that Cheryl has a perfect and practical vision, but she is taking a wrong direction in communicating the change that she expects to see (D’Ortenzio, 2012). In addition, I propose that Cheryl needs to be critical about change and the change management process. She should understand that she is now a leader, part of Lakeland and not a partner as when she was in Kids&Company. In this regard, I suggest, as the head of the company, and the primary driver in the proposed change, Cheryl should take into account employee’s understanding of change and their view of the change process (D’Ortenzio, 2012; Del Val and Fuentes, 2003).

I note that her style of leadership in the change process is wanting. Indeed, she is the CEO of Lakeland, but she is not working alone. She depends on the other employees as much to affect the change process (Terry, 2001). I agree with Smith (2005), employees are central to the success of any change in an organization. Employees’ skills, experience, attitudes, motivation and knowledge create a favorable organizational environment in which change can take place. I perceive Cheryl style of leadership, “leading by example’ as intimidation, coercion and domineering.

I see Cheryl is losing terribly for failing to align the vision of the change with Lakeland’s culture. Through her leadership style, Cheryl has been unable to identify that instead of promoting urgency (Rune, 2005), she has instilled panic and annoyance among her supervisory group. If she fails to change her directing approach, she risks losing the confidence of her stakeholders. Wally, who was once her great cheer, is beginning to lose faith in her. Wally cautions her to be careful to avoid tearing the company apart. If she loses Wally’s confidence, she will ultimately lose the board’s approval.

Cheryl has fallen short in establishing a sense of urgency in her change process as well as examining the market and competitive realities. She expects her employees to effortlessly and quickly buy into her idea of change, but she puts down their concerns about the reform and only acknowledges the opinions working in her favor. She fails to give room to her colleagues for identifying and discussing the potential crisis. From my perspective, things have to work out, and they have to go her way. Cheryl practices authoritarian leadership style in her change process (Smith, 2005). She fails to exercise the rule of engagement and participation in her change process and instead prefers dragging employees to the change. I share the same sentiments with Del Val and Fuentes (2003), resisting change will continue unless Cheryl learns to factor in the ideas of her employees and bring them on board in the change process.

There is no clear and articulate operating direction for Lakeland in Cheryl’s change. It is because of this that the former CEO Wally reminds Cheryl to go slow on her change process. Wally suggests to Cheryl that the company has been in existence for 94 years. The people she is working with, for example, Mark has been in the company for the most extended period. Therefore, he understands the dynamics of the market about the company. In this regard, I suppose Cheryl will need to first convince the CEO, together with the other long-term employees of how structural or behavioral changes can be constant with the company’s most cherished principles and norms and advance performance (Eby, Adams, Russesl & Gaby, 2000; Armenakis& Harris, 2002). I believe Cheryl should do this to create transformational readiness. 

Recommendations for Improvement

Employee perception towards the Change

Employee perception towards the perceived change is critical for successful change readiness. Moreover, employees’ perception towards the company readiness on the change is a critical factor in resistance to change (Eby et al., 2000). Therefore, instead of being authoritative, an emphasis on motivation, negotiation and persuasion will work better for Cheryl. I support the idea of Armenakis& Harris (2002) which Cheryl must start being open-minded about hearing the concerns and views of others about her idea of offshore manufacturing and mid-market customers. Also, I propose that she engages in constant communication with both external and internal stakeholders concerning how her change tactic will serve all their welfare. In my view, resisting change will proceed unless she masters the technique of linking the stakeholders’ interests and expectations with her change strategy (Del Val and Fuentes, 2003; Bienerth, 2004). Fortunately, it is possible for Cheryl to link their personal and career needs with her vision of expansion.

Creating a Clear Vision

Cheryl needs to create a clear idea for her change strategy. The vision will clarify the course in which Lakeland requires to progress. Devoid of a clear outcome, the change strategy will disorient the company’s goals and which can easily sway the organization to the wrong direction (Kotter, 1995). Thus, Cheryl needs to be very clear about how the perceived change will compliment the company’s values and culture as well as improve performance. She can be able to bring employees onboard by first affirming what they treasure most about the company while at the same time, challenging them about being comfortable in their current state. To effect cultural and performance transformation, I recommend Cheryl needs to appoint a team for her mid-market development program (Jones, Jammieson & Griffiths, 2005: Kotter, 1995). After that, she needs to charge each member of the team with identifying the obstacles to change and recommendations on how to overcome the barriers. Involving employees will encourage employee engagement, participation, and speed up the change process (Goodman, Devadas and Hugheson, 1988).Establish Rules of Engagement.

Cheryl should understand that she is no longer a partner to Lakeland but the CEO. Therefore, she needs to establish the rules of teamwork (Dawson, 2003). I add that management capability is mainly required for effective change (Senior, 2002). In support of Bamford & Forrester (2003), Cheryl as the boss needs to move Lakeland from the present status to a new condition for her to see any change. To do so, Cheryl must explain to her team how she works and how she expects them to respond. In doing this, according to Eldrod II and Tippett (2002), Cheryl will move the employees from a comfortable position to where she wants them. Once the ground rules are clear, The CEO should then communicate openly about the desired change strategy as expressed by the board. She should then give an opportunity for each employee to share their views, opinions and concerns about the desired change goal and come to a consensus. If Cheryl is not precise with the team about her change goals, it will be tough for her to move ahead.

Teamwork

Cheryl needs to understand that “there is more than one way to rope a calf.” One mistake that Cheryl is doing is looking at her employees as if they are the “great unwashed” (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). They have never ventured into offshore marketing. They do not know anything about the mid-market program. They are not technologically advanced. In her mind, even the key executives have no idea of ways to launch a plan to meet the company’s great objectives. In this regard, Cheryl needs to learn how to accommodate other people’s point of view (Luecke, 2003; Beugelsdijk, Slangen & Herpen, 2002). It is disturbing that Cheryl has not yet found out from Mark, her crucial manufacturing manager, for his opinions especially because they have worked together before and he delivered. In addition, Cheryl will be better off working hand in hand with the Union and try to solicit their assistance in making Lakeland more competitive.

To regain Wally’s confidence in her, I suggest she rectifies her association with Mark and persuade him to adjust his views and perceptions to acknowledge her change plan. When Cheryl and Mark work together as a team, the high chances are that they will both come up with better growth goals that perfectly suit Lakeland’s culture (Sundstrom, DeMeuse and Futrell, 1990). It is clear that Cheryl has set goals that she wants to achieve, but I point out that she cannot meet them alone. Sadly, Cheryl is yet to convince the senior team and must if at all Cheryl wants to emerge as the winner of her change strategy. Without the support of the leading company officials, it does not count how promising her vision is; it will not kick off until she effectively persuades her senior team that her change plan is a right course (Eby et al., 2000).

Recalibrate the Board’s Expectations

Finally, I recommend Cheryl to adjust the board’s expectation. The expansion is crucial, but the laid down goals must be realistic. “Growth at any cost” mindset is prawn to failure. Cheryl has a great leader personality. Her exposure and experience are working to her advantage in the whole change process. Indeed the board has set aggressive targets. Cheryl is working tirelessly to achieve the goal's objective. Unfortunately, she feels as if she is the only one motivated in attaining these goals. Everyone else in the company seems to lag behind or rigid at the company’s status. She is frustrated and weighed down. Thus, she needs to communicate clearly to the board about her speed and intensity to transform the culture of the organization (Zeffane, 1996), if she fails to do this, she will feel pressurized which might end up being disastrous to her and the entire company.

Conclusion

Lakeland is a successful company and has been for the last 94 years. However, the business environment is continually changing, and if the company wants to maintain its competitive edge, it has no choice but to adjust to the current business environment. Lakeland has already realized that by bringing onboard a competitive CEO, Cheryl to steer the company to greater heights of achievement. Cheryl like any goal-oriented leader has a change plan to see Lakeland to another level.

Nonetheless, the change plan is not the only ingredient for practical success. Notably, there are many mistakes that leaders make while initiating change in an organizations. Fortunately, there is a guide to the productive and successful change process.

There are seven parts of change readiness as per investigates, which incorporate recognition toward change endeavors, vision for change, shared trust and regard, change activities, management support, acknowledgement, and how the association deal with the change procedure. At its centre, change status includes a change of individual cognitions over an arrangement of employees. The people are the genuine wellspring of, and the vehicle for, change since they are the ones who will either grasp or oppose change. In this way, it is essential to survey a person's status recognition preceding any change endeavor.

Leaders of an organization need to understand that in spite of them being the leaders of change they cannot cause the change by themselves. They will need the skills, efforts, experience and knowledge of other employees. Thus, like Cheryl, in my opinion, leaders should persuade, negotiate and fully engage other employees in their vision. Self-Managing team increase group productivity and in turn translates to success in the change process. In the same way, leaders should communicate clearly to ensure that only realistic goals are set to avoid creating pressure and unnecessary anxieties for employees.

References

Armenakis, A. A., and Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183.

Bamford. D. R., Forrester.P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), 546-564, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310471857

Bernard Burnes. (2004) Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The case of XYZ construction, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24( 9),886-902, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410552108

Beugelsdijk. S., Slangen. A., Herpen. A. (2002). Shapes of organizational change: the case of Heineken Inc, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (3), 311-326, https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429336

Bienerth, Jeremy. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource Development Review, 3(1), 36-52.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness, research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.

Dawson. P. (2004).Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience of People: The contemporary experience of people at work. London: Sage Publication.

Del Val. M. P., Fuentes. C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study, Management Decision, 41 (2), 148-155, https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310457597

D’Ortenzio. C. (2012). Understanding change and change management processes: a case study. Retrieved from https://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/81c02a90-6a15-91ae-c7a2-ff44c96d60b2/1/full_text.pdf

Eby. L.T., Adams. D.M., Russel. E. A., Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness: factor related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team based selling, Human Relation, 53(3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700533006

Elrod II. P. D., Tippett. D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change, Journal of Organizational Change Management,15 (3), 273-291, https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429309

Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R. and Hughson, T.L. (1988). Groups and productivity: analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J.P. Campbell and R.J. Campbell (Eds.) Productivity in organizations: new perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology, pp. 295-327. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones. R. A., Jimmieson. N. L., Griffiths. A. (2005). The Impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness for change, Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 361-386.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, 73(March), 59-67.

Luecke. R. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. United States: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Rune. T. (2005) Organisational change management: A critical review, Journal of Change Management, 5:4, 369-380, DOI: 10.1080/14697010500359250

Senior, B. (2002) Organisational Change. London: Prentice Hall

Smith. I. (2005). Continuing professional development and workplace learning 11: managing the “people” side of organizational change, Library Management, 26(3), 152-155.

Sundstrom, E.S., DeMeuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: application and effectiveness, American Psychologist, 45 (2), 120-133.

Terry, R. (2001). Seven zones for leadership: acting authentically in stability and chaos, Palo Alto: Davis Black.

Zeffane. R. (1996). Dynamics of strategic change: critical issues in fostering positive organizational change, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 36-43.