Implementing_Leadership_Change

Implementing Leadership Change LDR/531 November 2, 2011 Implementing Leadership Change Changing leadership within an organization can be hard to implement. In an organization when leadership changes so do the goals of the organization. In the Gene One organization they have made some leadership changes and now except them to bring the organization to the targeted goals. The board has that asked that the management to come up a proposal that will cover ways that leadership and management control the changes in the organization. The proposal will give strategies to implement the changes; the proposal will also give strategy for innovation. The proposal will also cover the change effect on organizational culture and political power impact. Organization Overview In 1996, Gene One entered the biotech industry with groundbreaking gene technology that eradicated disease in tomatoes and potatoes. As a result, farmers no longer needed to use pesticides when growing these plants and consumers were pleased to buy homegrown products untainted by chemicals (Gene One scenario, 2011). The win-win situation helped Gene One grow to a $400 million company in just eight short years. At Gene One, the CEO and his Board believe that in order to keep pace with demand and realize conservative annual growth targets of 40%, Gene One will have to go public within the next three years. The time seems right, but the company needs IPO capital for development, advertisement, and marketing if it is to remain successful (Gene One scenario, 2011). Working toward a 36-month maximum deadline, the CEO and his Board have devised a clear strategy with the help of key members in the investment community. It is their hope that implementing it will help Gene One realize its growth targets, establish the company as a strong competitor and show Wall Street that Gene One has the leadership and organizational capabilities to succeed as a public entity (Gene One scenario, 2011). Leadership and Management Control When implementing a change within an organization the leaders and the management can control the way change is handled. In an organization change is either planned or unplanned in both of these changes there will be some resentment to the changes. In an unplanned change the entire organization is at loss because no one knew it was going to happen. In a planned change management and leadership knows what will happen so they can prepare the organization for the change. The leadership and management also control the communication of the change. When management and leadership know of a change and fail to inform the employees of the organization there will be resent to the change. Open-communication is the best way to implement change within an organization. With the communication comes the educating employee of the change. All levels of employees should be educated on the change. Management and leaders need to be educated first, that education passed on to his or her subordinates. Another thing that leadership and management control is the success of the change within the organization. Lewins suggest that leadership and management can have a successful change in his or her organization if he or she follows his three-step model. The three-steps in his model are unfreezing, moment, and refreezing (Robbins, 2011). In Unfreezing the leadership and management is taking away the status quo. The status quo is an equilibrium state, to move from equilibrium is to overcome the pressures of both individuals and group conformity. The next step is movement. Movement is to transform the organization from the status quo to the desired end state. The final state is the refreezing, which is the stabilizing change intervention by balancing driving and restraining forces. If an organization can overcome this process quickly they are more likely to have a successful change. Strategies to implement change There are several strategies that Gene One can use implement the change which is occurring in the organization. The transformation strategy is the best one that fits Gene One’s organization. There is the top-down strategy where the organization implements the changes in an eight step process. There is also the bottom-up strategy, which the organization makes the changes in a six-step process. Since we know the two strategies that Gene One can use lets see how they would work for Gene One. Top-down strategy Top down strategy is an eight-step process. The first three steps of strategy are described as a three-act drama awakening, envisioning, and rearchitecturing (Mintzberg, 2011). The other five steps in the top-down are described as the hardware and software they cover strategy, structure, system, employee behavior, and mindset (Mintzberg, 2011). Their description begins with restructuring, by which they mean downsizing and delayering, followed by bureaucracy bashing, to “get rid of unnecessary reports, approvals, meetings, measures,” and the like. Then there is a stage of employee empowerment, which gives raise to one of continual improvement, before, as “an outgrowth of the other four,” the culture is fundamentally changing (Mintzberg, 2011). This strategy will work for Gene One because the company is looking to overhaul the entire organization from top to bottom. This strategy will work for Gene One also because it is a transformation for all of the management as well. Bottom- up strategy The bottom-up strategy is a six-step process. This process is an effective change for managers at the business unit or plant level. The bottom-up strategy suggests that small changes within the organization drive the change process. Bottom-up also suggest that the change to people is an exploratory journey rather than a predetermined trajectory more of a learning process than a planned or driven one (Mintzberg, 2011). The six- steps in the bottom –up strategy are mobilize, develop, foster, spread revitalization, institutionalize revitalization, and monitor, and adjust when an organization uses these steps with the general management of the organization to implement change the change moves well. Bottom-up suggest allowing the lower-level management to implement the change while monitoring them throughout the process, and taking the department that implements the change the best to be the models for change throughout the organization. Bottom-up would work with Gene-one because of the different departments the organizations has the leadership can put the strategy in motion and allow each department to implement the change (Mintzberg, 2011). Strategy Effect on Innovation Innovation means to break away from established patterns. The Gene One organization has been on the forefront of innovation with their work on crop genetic research. With Gene One exiting as apart of a discontinuous world, strategy innovation is the key to wealth creation (Mintzberg, 2011). The strategy effect on innovation is the capacity to preconceive the existing industry model in ways that create new value for customers, wrong-foot competitors, and produce new wealth for all stakeholders (Mintzberg, 2011). When an organization such as Gene One redefines the metric of corporate success the innovation is endless. The Gene One organization being an organization that does a plant research and is a part of the bio-agriculture industry makes the change in innovation a little easier. That being stated Gene One wanting to move into medicine to stay innovation is something the organization must do to stay in competition with competitors. Change effect on Organizational Culture Organizational culture a system of shared meanings held by others of the same organization. There are seven characteristics that exist on a continuum that range from highs to lows. The characteristics are as follows, and are done in degrees. “Innovation and risk taking, a degree that employees are encouraged to innovate and take risks” (Robins, 2011, p.14). “Attention to detail employees is expected to exhibit precision, analysis, and attention to detail” (Robins, 2011, p.14). “Outcome orientation is when management focuses on results or outcomes rather than on the techniques and processes use to achieve them” (Robins, 2011, p.14). “People orientation, degree to which management decisions take into the effect of outcomes on people within the organization” (Robins, 2011, p.14). “Team orientation is a degree to which work activities are organized around teams rather than individuals” (Robins, 2011, p.14). “Aggressiveness, the degrees to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than easygoing” (Robins, 2011, p.14). Stability, the degree to which organizational activities emphasize maintaining the status quo in contrast to growth” (Robins, 2011, p.14). Should any of these systems become compromised this will cause major effects on the organizational culture. Organizational cultural has a large effect on how a company will run. For example, an organization “heavily structured, formalizes, and mechanistic organized, the employees will enjoy the more non-freedom or flexibility structure” (Robins, 2011, p.20). They enjoy the satisfaction of a more formal pattern of being told what to do and how to do it. The employee can be from China, Mexico, or the United States, the culture will be very different but the organizational culture of employee will be the same. This type of worker is known for being more comfortable in the routine and repetitive jobs and making a mark on “minimal intellectual demands” (Robbins, 2011, p.28). The change of Gene One became somewhat hectic, when changes in the top leaders were being introduces. This was causing concern for employees in the company who were established and were being resistant to the changes. Political Power Impact The more the managers has to manage, it is problematic that “a manager’s job satisfaction increases as the employees supervised increases” (Yuki, 2010, p.151). This type of increase will arise, however, is looking for the intent outcome, and can be influenced by three different distinct outcomes. Commitment, “describes an outcome in which the target person internally agrees with the decisions or request from the agent” (Yuki, 2010, p.153). Compliance is the target is willing to perform the request of the agent, being more apathetic than enthusiastic about it. Resistance is an “outcome in which the target person is opposed to the proposal request, rather than merely being indifferent about performing an act” (Yuki, 2010, p.153). There are six, but listed are four definitive reasons, or excuses used when a target “refuse to carry out the request, make excuses about why the request cannot be carried out, try to persuade the agent to withdraw or change the request, or, ask higher authority to overrule the agent’s request” (Yuki, 2010, p.153). Listed are three types of leadership styles, which also fall under the heading of political power impact, “power, useful for understanding how people are able to influence each other in organizations” (Yuki, 2010, p.153). They are A-authoritarian or autocratic, B-participative or democratic, and C-delegator or free reign (Leadership, 2010, p.1). When necessary, leaders use all three styles at one time or another. The authoritarian-autocratic leader uses this style when he or she want employees to do what they want done and how they want is accomplished. This type of leader wants the tasks to be done without the input of others. The authoritarian-autocratic style is known as “bossing people around” and is not good for a leader’s repertoire. This style is known also as a leader abusing their powers, abusive, unprofessional, and primarily used as yelling at employees. On a positive note this style can be used on a new employee learning a job, the leader, a good coach, and the new environment of the employee in a new situation. Each is a style of leadership political power over adverse groups of people in cultural organizations. In Gene-One they had to make a decision to examine their top 50 executives to make sure they have the right leadership levels at the same level, and below. Conclusion Implementing change in an organization is always difficult on some levels. In the Gene One scenario one had to implement a plan that would cover innovation, management, and leadership controls, strategies to implement changes with the organization. As well the effect the changes had on the organizational culture and the political power of change. However, leadership needs to share the vision of where the company is going with the employees of the company, the reason for this will help to motivate the employees to do what they normally do with more zeal, this can increase revenues due to the less turn-over and increase in productivity. References Gene One Scenario (2011). Retrieved from the University Of Phoenix, https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/gbam/xmba520.1/File24.asp Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J. B., & Ghoshal, S. (2011). The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Yukl, G. (2011). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education