Corporate management is a complex task that involves encountering several changes, analyzing corporate problems and seeking ways to develop solutions for the persistent dilemmas (Lindgren 2012).
We will write a custom Case Study on Managing Change in CAR specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Among other management concerns, managing corporate change, managing employee problems, and balancing between the internal operations and the external issues such as market competition are complex issues for the top managers.
One of the most troublesome issues that seem to affect the modern organizations is the concept of corporate change that has been requiring strategic plans to be efficient.
According to Lindgren (2012), Chief Executive Officers (C.E.O) and other top managers face ethical, legal, organizational, and decision-making dilemmas when solving various problems associated with an organization.
With the increasing corporate changes and challenges, identifying the prevailing management problems and fixing them appropriately are becoming important management components (Lindgren 2012).
This essay intends to analyze several management concerns in the Case of CAR and its C.E.O, Megan, provides potential solutions, and recommends an implementation plan for the chosen solutions.
The Identified Management Problems
Lack of Strategies for Proper Financial Management & Product Marketing- the first management lapse that was eminent in the case of CAR is the lack of proper financial management.
According to the issues raised in the case study, the monetary resources of CAR went to unimportant commitments such as treating the C.E.O extravagantly with an excess pay.
This lack of proper financial control and planning is what resulted to fallen stock values, due to the lack of enough financial backing in the marketing department. The CAR Company also fell short of the ideas that would support significant marketing techniques and the distribution of the CAR products.
This is eminent in the scenario where their Research and Development (R&D) department could only come with meager ideas that could not support the creation of new products or innovations.
According to the case, external competition from the Chinese investors was increasing, while the marketing ideas were still lacking in the CAR Company.
Lack of a Strategy for Talent Management & Employee Retention – two key issues that enhance effective productivity in the modern organizations are talent management and employee retention (Lindgren 2012).
Talent management and employee retention are other two management factors that revealed the weaknesses in the CAR management systems. As an identified problem in the case, Megan received testimonies about the unjustified sacking of former productive managers and engineers.
Due to the persistent problems of dismissing the talented workforce and failing to attract and manage the new talents, the CAR organization failed to remain innovative and attractive to the labor market.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
The management literally failed to address the issues of unfair job dismissals, the unexplained early retirements, and the forced retrenchments.
According to the case, while the clients continually demanded for innovative products, the innovators remained scarce due to the poor strategies of managing the talented workforce and retaining the skilled engineers and managers.
Ineffective Innovation- product innovation currently stands out as one of the most respected and desired production techniques in most of the contemporary businesses (Booz, Allen, & Hamilton 2004).
The case of CAR reveals some lapses in the innovation strategies of the company, which were either disorganized or lacking completely in the production and marketing sectors of the company.
The management of CAR repeatedly failed to consider the need to cease from the traditional innovations and the need to adopt the modern engineering innovations that would make their products to have a competitive advantage in the car industry.
The automobile industry is complex and a persistent revamping of innovations and production techniques is a vital issue (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis 2011).
Combined with the lack of a stable innovative workforce, the CAR management could not maintain a reasonable product innovation that customers would cherish. CAR’s consumers complained of the failure of the company to provide new and innovative products.
Critical Review of Relevant Literature
To meet the growing consumer demands, market expectations, production technological changes and human resource complexities, organizations must keep changing to fit in the modern business world (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004).
A critical issue that continues to destabilize management and cause collapses in the modern organizations is improper management of positive or negative changes (Booz, Allen, & Hamilton 2004).
Both the negative and the positive changes in organizations result to tensions and skirmishes in the organizations because the organizational employees and the top managers may feel inferior to any approaching change.
As Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004) point out, when changes are happening, new leaders will step in, and some will receive promotions, while others will face unprecedented retrenchment shocks.
They further add that some jobs will change, and some job positions will emerge, new talented and skilled workforce will join an organization, and transformative agendas will arise (Lindgren 2012). Such sudden alterations during an organizational change cause confusions and tensions, which require strategic plans.
Discussion of Potential Solutions to the Problem
In an organization, according to Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis (2011, p. 45), “changes will occur as organizations revise their practices intermittently in the light of experience.”
The first perfect solution for Megan in the CAR Company is the implementation of a leadership change and restructuring of the leadership command.
According to the ten principles of change management of Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004), leadership plays a significant role in change management because a change normally starts from the top management before the subordinates adopt it.
The case of CAR involves the presence of rigid leadership structures with highly maintained status quo that extends from the top management to the subordinate members.
A massive transformation in CAR would require an overhaul of leadership crises, an analysis of the main lapses, and a restructuring of the leadership structures and leadership techniques.
As a solution, Megan may first need to revamp her leadership techniques from a democratic leadership style to an authoritarian leadership.
CAR must focus on attracting new talents and retaining some experts
Using an authoritative power that will serve for a short while, Megan should retrench the underperforming workforce, set strategies to retain the productive workforce, and design strategic means of attracting new talents from the labor market.
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004, p.) state that a long-term structural transformation, by magnitude, involves significant alterations from the status quo and by duration, the change process must last for a long time to demonstrate a strategic importance.
According to Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004), a transformation in an organization begins with overhauling the human resource capital where breaking the rigid corporate cultures and structures becomes the first stages of initiating a transformative change.
In the case of the CAR organization and Megan, some workers tended to despise the leaderships that intended to effect transformative changes. To implement changes, Lindgren (2012) advises that such a workforce needs some significant reshuffles.
CAR must focus on redesigning the production and marketing strategies
In the case of CAR and Megan, there were dilemmas of confusion in the product design and confusion in the marketing techniques.
As a strategic move according to Lindgren (2012), redesigning the production techniques, and changing the marketing strategies are two imperative management factors that Megan needs to consider.
After strategically revamping the workforce and changing the rigid corporate cultures, corporate structures and management systems, dealing with the production dilemmas and the marketing complexities are the next strategic moves (Lindgren 2012).
In the production and marketing system, Megan will have to implement a holistic framework that will enable efficient adoption, adaption, and execution of the strategic plans.
In the dilemmas of production and marketing, the strategic system of high innovation, massive production, and low-pricing techniques could match a market penetration strategy (Lindgren 2012).
Integrating the model of 4ps of marketing mix, which include product, place, price, and promotion, will help Megan to market CAR products.
Implementation Plan for the Chosen Solution
Given the complex situation in the case of CAR, Megan will definitely face some implementation challenge that will probably need a strategic implementation approach.
After overhauling the management systems, the entire workforce, the production and marketing systems, Megan will require a strategic implementation plan (Lindgren 2012). Perhaps two modern strategic planning and implementation techniques can aid in solving the dilemmas that Megan is encountering.
The first business model is the 4Ds strategic business model that must work collaboratively with the Business Model Innovation (BMI).
The 4Ds paradigm is a business model that helps managers to effect a transformative change through incorporating the four dimensions of change implementation, which include Deciding, Designing, Driving, and Deploying (Booz, Allen, & Hamilton 2004).
On the other hand, the BMI strategic change management model involves seven technical and logical dimensions of effecting a change in a highly disturbed workplace. Getting a perfect solution from the two business management approaches requires an in-depth knowledge of how the concepts work.
The 4Ds process of implementing the above change may occur in a sectional and sequential process to avoid mishaps in the implementation processes.
According to Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004) change management and implementation process is a pragmatic process that requires the understanding of emotional reactions of the workforce, and other significant factors that determine an efficient change adoption.
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004, p.1) state that change management and implementation process requires “an intimate understanding of the human side, as well as the company culture, values, people and behaviors that must remain changed to deliver the desired change.”
As portrayed in the diagram, the first phase of the implementation process will begin with the identification and definition of the existing opportunities where changes can take part.
The first opportunities that were clear in the case of CAR included the financial strength of the company, the available workforce that was yearning for changes, and the growing demand for the automobile products.
A Diagrammatic Representation of the Implementation Procedures
Going forward, design, and redesign, while adapting to the plans
The first process of implementing changes begins with strategic decision-making, which is the guiding step towards a change (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004). Developing new corporate cultures of changes need ethical leadership and moral reasoning to avoid workplace conflicts and misunderstandings.
In the case of CAR, the willing workforce that felt tired and frustrated by the performance of the firm in the stock market could easily allow for meaningful transformations.
In these two concepts of opportunity identification and decision-making, Megan should first think of developing independent departmental goals, set the desired vision for each department, and design developmental forums with the workforce to explain the need for immediate transformations (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004).
This is the phase where the fifth and the sixth dimensions of the Business Model Innovation fit. The fifth dimension of BMI is realization of the networks and the sixth dimension is the identification of relations.
Breaking old employee bonds and creating new logical relations would spur an easy change adoption and adoption.
From deciding, the second aspect of the 4Ds paradigm is the designing phase, where real technical support, capacity building strategies and strategic production techniques will fit in the reform agenda of the CAR Company (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004).
This second phase is where capacity building occurs to empower the change management processes. In this stage, Megan will translate each respect vision in the departments into specific and actionable strategies that can yield effective change results.
It is in this second phase, where Megan will design and redesign the business models, revamp the production processes, reform the information technology systems to boost product innovation, and reorganize the product design processes.
An overhaul and change in these systems will help the newly absorbed employees and the incumbent workforce to develop workplace a motivation, and understand the new procedures of modern innovation (Lindgren 2012).
Employees will feel the impact of the new environment and would definitely struggle to show their competence in the new business paradigms.
From designing the change processes, driving the change processes is another significant 4Ds change factor that Megan should consider in the strategy implementation process.
According to Amagoh (2008), the main drivers of changes in an organization include financial backing, understanding of the main business variables in the production and marketing processes, and identifying the market opportunities that can spur product growth and innovation.
With enough financial backing to the change processes, Lindgren (2012) advises that Megan should understand the first, the second, the third, and the fourth dimension of the BMI paradigm, which are the variables of value propositions, customer groups, value chain, and competencies respectively.
In the third phase known as change driving, Megan should analyze all the above four dimensions of the BMI paradigm and allocate equal efforts towards their efficiency.
In the last phase of the 4Ds paradigm, the last practice is change deployment (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004). This is the phase where Megan will engage change-driven personnel in breaking the success barriers, monitoring the plan progress, and evaluating the success of the plan through systematic approaches.
Justification for the Chosen Implementation Plan
Organizational change is a sensitive management aspect that requires an understanding of various business facets and factors and how they interrelate with each other in a real business environment (Amagoh 2008).
Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis (2011, p. 45) believe that, “behind all organizations, roles, relations, and responsibilities, are rules.” Each of these aspects is sensitive in a change management process.
The 4Ds business model and the BMI seven paradigm business models are practical systems that can boost quick decision-making and implementation in businesses.
The two business models can offer strategic management options for CAR because they have perfect strategic solutions that cause minimal alterations of the corporate culture and systems of the company.
According to Amagoh (2008), organizational members often resist to changes and remain uncertain especially when the changes require them to leave their longtime culture and adopt an unknown corporate culture.
The scenario of CAR and the dilemma of Megan involved a balancing of several business management complexities that were sensitive to make decisions.
Scope for Further Research
With the complexities seen in the management of human resource, finances, marketing, and production of products in the corporate world, it is important for the business analysts and business philosophers to consider how individual interests in a business influence organizational success (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis 2011).
What came up clearly in the case of CAR and Megan is how business lose their targets in the midst of independent interests.
According to Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (2004), the behavior of the employees and the incumbent officials where status quo is a corporate culture is a disturbing issue in many organizations even as solutions towards dealing with status quo remain minimal.
The case of CAR reveals that when top management is perpetuating status quo, it becomes difficult for the incoming top officials to effect any meaningful changes (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2004).
Researchers and management experts should delve into researching the impact of a top-down status quo and the solutions that can serve the interest of incoming top managers in firms.
Change management is definitely a complex issue that requires an in-depth overhaul of several business dilemmas and the manner in which the business paradigms might affect the present situation and the progress of a firm.
The case of CAR and dilemmas of Megan required a strategic solution plan that would have a humanistic approach to the problems and an understanding of the corporate culture that prevailed in the company.
The 4Ds strategic management and implementation plan and the Business Model Innovation are two business models that can provide a suitable solution to the problems of financial management, employee retention, high turnover, poor innovation, and poor marketing and production plans in CAR.
Combined together, these two strategic management business models can effect logical changes that have holistic approaches that demand a minimal straining to the workforce. Understanding the 4Ds of a strategic plan and the seven dimensions of the BMI paradigm can be sufficient solutions to the dilemma of Megan.
Amagoh, F 2008, ‘Perspectives on Organizational Change: Systems and Complexity Theories’, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1-14.
Booz, E., Allen, J. & Hamilton, M. 2004, Ten Guiding Principles of Change Management. Web.
Clegg, S, Kornberger, M & Pitsis, T 2011, Managing and Organizations: An introduction to Theory and Practice, Sage Publishers, London.
Lindgren, P 2012, ‘Business Model Innovation Leadership: How Do SME’s Strategically Lead Business Model Innovation?’, International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 14, pp. 53-66.