Leading Change

Leading Change

Leading change in an organization requires creating a vision of the future, justifying the benefits of altering the current systems or processes, and supporting an environment or company culture that is adaptable and can readily accept change. This paper will explore the simulation "Managing Across the Organization" by analyzing the relationship between organizational structure and culture, assessing the influence of organizational structure on power and politics, developing strategies to manage resistance to change, and assessing the dynamics of leadership styles and change.

Company Overview

The simulation involves a company named Good Sport. Good Sport manufactures fitness equipment. The simulation has four departments; production, research and development (R&D), sales, and finance. The organizational makeup is a standard, formal chain of command with team managers at the lowest leadership level reporting to senior managers, who report to vice presidents. The vice presidents report directly to a Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The simulation covers a 10-year span, 2004 Ð'- 2013, and follows the leadership growth of a senior level manager, who through a series of promotions, and positions in various roles in different departments, ultimately becomes the new CEO. For ease of understanding, this manager will now be referred to as Ms. Lane, who leads the R&D department.

Relationship Between Organizational Structure And Culture

"Organizational culture is a basic pattern of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs considered to be the correct way of thinking and acting on problems and opportunities facing an organization" (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005, p. 476). In 2004, the CEO, Marvin Wallace supported a company culture that was performance driven, and innovation along with creativity was encouraged. According to Malaviya and Wadhwa (2006), "creativity and innovation will only be sporadic occurrences and will not thrive without a supportive environment and culture" (Malaviya & Wadhwa, 2006, p. 2). Through Mr. Wallace's tenure, investments in sales, production, and R&D proved fruitful and the Company was able to expand its market share to neighboring states. Contributing to the Company's success was Mr. Wallace's support of the subcultures that existed in the various departments. Mr. Wallace realized that organizational subcultures could exist within company departments or divisions, and can even contribute rather than hinder a company's success. For example, in the simulation, Samuel Olsen in the Sales department created an informal work environment where employees worked independently, had freedom to express his or her ideas, and holding meetings outside the office was encouraged. In contrast to the Sales department culture, the Production department shared a distinct work culture where roles were clearly defined, and rules were strictly adhered to within the department. For example, professional distance was maintained within the department, and ideas were only allowed to be expressed that were fully supported by facts. Personal opinions were not welcome, unless expressed during the initial prototype stage. According to Parsons and Newcomb (2007), "Effective role clarity provides a foundation for positive interprofessional relationships and joint collaboration" (Parsons & Newcomb, 2007, p. 1217). Mr. Wallace realized that subcultures support the organizational culture by maintaining performance standards and ethical behavior; but also "act as spawning grounds for emerging values that keep the firm aligned with the needs of customers, suppliers, society, and other stakeholders" (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005, p. 478).

Between 2008 and 2011, the company structure and culture remained about the same while under the guidance of CEO Eartha Simpson. However, the organizational culture changed in 2011 when a new CEO, Karl Andersson, was named. Mr. Andersson had a dictatorial leadership style, withholding information while attempting to increase his personal power within the Company. His autocratic leadership style hindered creativity, and resulted in production declining. In Xavier's article (2006), he negates this leadership style stating that

Many executives labor under the belief that they and they alone can get the job done. They employ a "bunker" mentality where they lock themselves in their "bunker" (office) and work 15 hours a day to "save the company." In fact, what happens in these situations is they stop communicating with their employees and order them around, including peers who provide significant job support through networking and resource sharing. Working it out alone demoralizes staff and undercuts executive productivity. (Xavier, 2005, p. 37).

Good Sport suffered under Mr. Andersson's reign and in 2013, Ms. Lane was named the new CEO.

Ms. Lane settled into her new position in hopes of instilling a new cultural philosophy of empowerment. Ms. Lane examined the different management levels within the Company and only distributed power with an appropriate amount of responsibility equal to each manager's capabilities and requirements. If Ms. Lane closely monitors the Company culture, and increases or decreases responsibility as each situation warrants, Good Sport should rebound from the decline in performance and will no longer suffer in production.

"Organizational structure refers to the division of labor as well as the patterns of coordination, communication, work flow, and formal power that direct organizational activities" (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005, p. 446). The organizational structure at Good Sport changed as each CEO changed and resultantly, the Company culture changed under each CEO's tenure as well. This researcher believes a direct correlation between structure and culture exists, and the environment that top leaders enforce as the organization's structure definitely affects an organization's culture. The reign of Mr. Andersson as CEO clearly demonstrates the relationship between structure and culture by showing the impact of his leadership style, and the resulting decline in productivity. Although the Company's structure and culture was not compatible under Mr. Andersson, the structure and culture was compatible 2004 Ð'- 2008 under Mr. Wallace's leadership, and 2008 Ð'- 2011 under Ms. Simpson's leadership when the Company structure supported employee communication, and the culture allowed for employee information sharing and the exchange of new ideas.

Influence Of Organizational Structure