Industrial Relations and Workplace Change - Essay Example

Industrial relations and workplace change Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Change models Introduction Every organization will occasionally experience the need for change in the management or organizational structures of the company. Proven application procedures need to be applied in the management of the changes that are likely to be implemented as such. Using a relevant approach to management of the same will ensure its successful management. According to Anderson (2009), change management entails a clear thought plan of methodologies and approaches, which are implemented sensitively. It further emphasizes the need for a clear approach and consultation with all the stakeholders involved in change or those who are affected by change. Palmer et al (2006) points out the fact that clear goal setting need to be exercised in any change management process. Each organizational management need to clearly identify changes that need to be done and define the limits of the change. In this paper, a discussion has been given focusing on the change management models that are in existence today. The paper puts its focus in one model based on top/down approach, which has been identified as the key model that is best for analysis. SWOT (strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of this mode is also done in the paper. It aims at giving clearer understanding of this select model. As one reads along a case study of a selected company that has employed this change model in the past is also analyses in depth. The last section of this paper tries to justify the selected model as the appropriate models. Discussion is also given in this part focusing on the presented arguments as well providing a summary of potential limitations that this model might present in practice. Top-Down/Systematic Model John Storey was the founder of the top down systematic model (Burke 2007). He identified this model as type one under which changes can happen in an environment or organizational scenario. The other models developed and advanced together with this model are the piecemeal, bargaining for change, systematic jointism and mixed models (Burke 2007). The Top-Down approach describes a well-organized model that is based on systematic approach to change. The model focuses on identification of procedures and application of the same procedures in a systematic manner using appropriate tools that would see to it that a desired change is realized. Systematic change model begins with the setting of goals or vision identification for the process of change. The need for change should be clearly described and defined. The model is a proponent of a well defined target of change that emanates from an organized group of management. It has few people involved in the decision making of change process and as such, this can be a cause for conflict. It, however, counteracts this setback by allowing constant reviewing and monitoring of the activities involved in the change process. A next stage is systematically entered after the achievement of the desired results in the current stage of change execution (Hellriegel, & Slocum, 2010). The other forms of change model also describe change procedures but put their focus in different perceptions. Type two models also referred to as the piecemeal describe a change in an organization in which different forms of communication practices are applied. Some of these communications forms include team briefings and open communication. Piecemeal approach describes the need in which the implementations and applications that are coordinated in a transparent manner. Bargaining for change or type three models is a proponent of accessions that describe working practices and conditions that are secured from different groups, which in turn are compensated well. As the name describe, it involves a lot of bargaining and use of negotiation techniques with opposing numbers. The aim is to arrive at an offer that is agreeable to both parties. There is no much difference between bargaining model and systematic jointism. In systematic jointism, bargaining is also done but differs in the form that a total package is put together after negotiations. The last model which is described as type-five describe a model in which no discrete initiatives or total packages are negotiated upon as in the case of type three and four models. This model proposes the continuous incremental and change of organizations structures and cultural elements until the desired change is arrived at (Hellriegel, & Slocum, 2010). Workplace change example In this paper, a case of Whitbread breweries has been used to illustrate this type of change process. Whitbread Breweries was a brewing company in the 1970s, which was in the verge of losing its market share due to poor management decisions. A change therefore was necessary and the need for the same was conceived and developed by senior line managers. In this case, there was little room for negotiations, as the management did not involve the lower management effectively in the change process (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). The problems that were seen in the company at the time stemmed from poor management of affairs. In 1968, the company built one of the leading jumbo breweries in Europe located in Luton. The human resource and senior management insight was poor as the retired breweries’ were alleviated to managerial positions just to make their lives easier and comfortable. There was also massive employment of staff from neighboring engineering firms in Luton. Due to poor management and sales strategies, the company was losing slowly. Coupled with the high number of staff recruited, the company started a roll on a downhill enforced by its poor distribution network and management. In 1978, a new senior management was appointed to oversee the eminent closure or resurrection of the fast dying company. Together with human resource chief and two other production managers, the managing director embarked on a clear-cut mission to streamline activities in the company. Junior staff were not adequately involved in the management strategies as evidenced by a strike triggered by firing of six hundred out of the initial nine hundred workers. Many rules were introduced and as such, this added grumbling amongst workers. Over time, work was abolished, production workers were taken off day rates and had they put on salaries. In addition, to be noted was the fact that supervisors were abolished and first line managers were made responsible for dispute handling (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2006). It was seen as if the change that was being witnessed in the company came from two people within the upper management. This approach employed by senior managers at Whitbread Breweries lacked agenda of items. It was devoid of other stakeholders’ participation. Though the downside of the approach is seen in this scenario, the fact that it needed hard decisions to be made by the senior management makes it the best model for approach. Consider the outcome of involving employees in a decision making venture that would see two thirds of them laid off. This scenario could have resulted in chaos had the management not adopted this model. Hard times therefore call for hard decisions (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). SWOT ANALYSIS Strengths There are a number of strengths depicted by this model as evidenced in the case discussed above. Some include: Effective monitoring and control In the change process, there was need to monitor the extent of success realized by the change management at any point. This model of change management therefore offers and still offers a clear framework for change management (Jellison, 2006). The approach describes a model that ensures that constant monitoring and follow up is done. In the case of Whitbread Breweries, it is evident that the management was constantly monitoring the change activities to see that the desired effect is realized ultimately. At first, three hundred employees were laid off in a bid to curb unnecessary expenses. This was later followed by another retrenchment of further three hundred employees. It is for this reason that it can be argued that after the company management realizing that the desired change had not been realized; it necessitated the laying off. Easy planning Top-Down/Systematic model offers an easy way to plan for change in an organization. The technicalities experienced in large groups of people planning are eliminated in this case. This process of change ensures that at early stages of change, the extent of change desired is defined. A planning team of a small number is involved in the planning process. The Whitbread Breweries had a team of top management in the change planning process. This gave it the advantage of easy planning. The model furthermore allows risk management plan development. A budget is crafted by the planning team ensuring that all the activities that will be carried out in the change process stay within the limits of the intended budget. Simple execution The aim of Whitbread breweries change was to ensure profitability and progress in the company proceedings. The execution of change therefore was simple. In systematic model, there is simple execution of plans that are down to the point. The model allows for simple plan that is better in its implementation and as such easy to manage. Determination of roles is done and therefore improved communication and execution of change activities. Decision-making is easier Decision-making is made simpler and easier in this change process. Each individual is made aware of his or her responsibilities in the change process activities and tasks. In the case study above, a new top manager was brought in the year 1978 to ensure that the company made the right decisions with regard to closing its operations or changing the approach of operations. The objective is clearly stated here. Line managers were given the responsibility of resolving disputes and ensuring harmony among workers. This allows quick decision-making, as the stakeholders involved understand their responsibilities and mandates clearly. Weaknesses Poor participation of stakeholders The biggest weakness experienced by this model is the poor or lack of involvement of all the stakeholders in change process. There is limited consensus and idea sharing regarding the whole process. The Whitbread case clearly demonstrated this weakness. Only a few top managers who included the managing director, the chief of operations, human resource manager and two production managers were involved in decision making and execution of the plan. Low participation of employees in the change process reduces the sense of ownership that is desired in employees. Employees might tend to pull down the efforts of the decision makers by rejecting the expected change. Non-involvement of local ground managers Research shows that involvement of team of people in the management of affairs in any industry is prerequisite to success. According to Cummins and Worley (2009), non-involvement of local supervisor or line manager in the change process is bound to create problems in any organizational change plan. This is because the lower level managers are instrumental in change tasks implementation and if the same do not take their responsibilities seriously, achievement of the set goals is bound not to be realized. This approach of change management therefore has this weakness associated with it. Adversarial relationships can be created between employees due to tactics that may be employed by the non-involved staff. No ownership incentive Employees at Whitbread ended up striking at some point. Though the reason for striking was triggered by the laying off, and strict working conditions introduced, the core reason can be attributed to non-involvement of junior staff in decision-making. Any ideas imposed on them were seen as alien ideas. It therefore contributed to loss of morale by the staff and lead to destroying of the real intention of change in the organization (Cummins &Worley 2009). Non-involvement of employees in idea generation and decision making lead to them not trusting the authorities and decision-making organs in place. Opportunities Control systems Every single step of the change process can be thoroughly scrutinized by application of models that can be used in the management of the same. Budget can be kept track by use of Information software that allows simulations into impossible scenarios. There is the possibility of changing the budget in the change process to suit the prevailing conditions without worry of overstretching (Hellriegel, & Slocum, 2010). A review can be done at any step of the change process on order to ensure that the right track is maintained. Risks can be identified in time and plans to counteract them developed. It allows management of time, human resource, risks, and costs among other factors that contribute to realization of objectives. Technology application Software tools and other IT applications can be applied in change process to monitor and control. Project management tools are available for planning and scheduling. Change management can also be considered as another form of project management and therefore application of technology tools in the process (Holman et al. 2007). Threats Leadership change There was leadership change in the Whitbread Breweries as new breed was brought into salvage the situation. Leadership change is not in all cases a key to solving organizational problems. Leaders may find themselves in situations where their initiatives are alien to the culture and custom of the organization. Change of these cultures without consultation is cold lead to non-realization of the desired change or objectives of change at all. Inadequate knowledge With new leadership comes the need for more knowledge. Due to the desire to have change in organizations, there is the tendency to introduce new leaders or top management managers who are seen as the key to change. This can sometimes be a problem. Lack of important information or misinformation for that matter can cause the new management to make decisions that can cause a company to be in jeopardy. Making decisions with inadequate information or basing the decisions made on other scenarios can be a prerequisite to change failure (Jellison 2006). Conclusion In this paper, a discussion based on Whitbread breweries has been developed. From the analysis, it can be noted that the company employed the best choice for change management. The approach offered an easy decision-making and planning not forgetting the fact that it is easy to execute manage and control plans. Though this is the case, it can be noted, however, that the best results were not immediately realized based on this model of Systematic/Top-Down approach. This is due to the weaknesses exhibited by the model. Some of them having been discussed in the paper included non-involvement of the lower level managers in decision making, imposition of ideas by the upper management and poor participation of stakeholders in the process. Top-Down approach remains the best model for change process due to its cut down systematic procedure of change implementation. It allows constant reviewing of change process and in addition, provides a flexible way for changing the plans in the process. The opportunities exhibited by this model are also a plus to it. There is, however, need for further research and development of criteria that will revamp the model and give solutions to the weaknesses associated with it. Reference Anderson, D 2009, Organizational development: The process of leading Organizational Change, Sage Publications, New Jersey. Burke, W 2007, Organizational change: Theory and practice, Sage publications, London. community: How to implement successful change in our personal lives and professional careers. Prosci Research. Cummins, T, &Worley, C 2009, Organizational development and change, Southwestern publishing, Thomson. Hatch, M, & Cunliffe, A 2006, Organization theory, Oxford University Press, London. Hellriegel, D, & Slocum, J 2010, Organizational Behavior, Cengage learning, New Jersey. Hiatt, J, M 2006, Adkar: A model for change in business, government and our Holman, H, Devane, T, &Cady, S 2007, The change hand book, Berret-Koehler. Jellison, J 2006, Managing the dynamics of change, McGraw-Hill, New York. Palmer, I, Dunford, R, &Akin, G 2006, Managing organizational change: A multiple perspective approach, McGraw-Hill, New York. Read More