Organizational Change Example

Organizational change can be a very delicate matter within some organizations, but any organization can navigate the change with the right model and team. An organizational model is a representation of an organization that helps us to understand more clearly and quickly what we are observing in organizations (Leadersphere, 2008). The 6-box model that was proposed by Marvin Weisbord is the simplest model in my opinion.

It gives attention to issues such as planning, incentives and rewards, the role of support functions such as personnel, internal competitions among organizational units, standards for remuneration, partnerships, hierarchies and the delegation of authority, organizational control, accountability and performance assessment (Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, Carden & Montalvan, 2002). The Six Boxes model is relatively uncomplicated, easy to understand and to visualize by clients.

It reflects the essential activities and key variables in an organization, and has been successfully implemented to assist clients in their change programs (Shaw, 2013). The 6-box model consists of six steps which are purpose, structure, rewards, helpful mechanisms, relationships, and leaderships (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009). The six steps each have their purpose in the model, which each step has to be completed before you can move to the next step. The first step is purpose, in which there are three categories to complete this step; goal fit, goal clarity and goal agreement.

These three components all revolve around the overall goal of the organization. In each of these components there are questions that need to be answered in order to move onto the next step. Structure is the second step in model. The structures are focused on drawing the organization chart, determining the project, assessing the rate of change, and check the rationale behind the change. The third step is relationships. In this step the organization assess the quality of relationships between the organization members, the technologies, the different teams, and the methods of operating.

Once the relationships have been properly addressed and corrected the organization can move onto the next step. Rewards help the organization decided what they need to reward, what type of reward they will give, and what the circumstances to getting rewarded are. Leadership is very important in this model. In order for leadership to be successful, the leadership style needs to fit the organization’s image. Leadership’s main tasks are to scan the environment, set goals and align the internal organization to fulfill the defined objectives. Mechanisms are the final step of the model.

Mechanisms are helpful when they assist in the coordination or integration of work, assist in monitoring the organization’s work, and help deal with issues from scanning and diagnostics activities (Shaw, 2013). Ford motor company used this system very well when incorporating the changes needed to keep the company from falling in the economic crisis. Ford started making changes well before the economic crisis, which helped them get through the crisis. Ford started by mortgaging the company’s assets which was approximately $24 billion dollars worth (Hall, 2013).

Ford also hired a new CEO to run the company. The structure of the company is very different from others as the Ford family is still ultimately in control. The structure is very well thought of as it goes from top down and also the communication between everyone is very good. The purpose that Ford had was to make sure that they did not have to go bankrupt like other competitors. Ford was successful in making sure that their organization was able to get through the economic crisis. The relationships at Ford are very open and it makes everyone feel like they are part of the company and not just a “number.

” At Ford the leadership roles are influenced by the Ford family. Leadership at Ford was changed in order to help Ford navigate through the economic crisis and to help them focus more on their company rather than trying to be like all the competitors. Ford used different mechanisms in order to make sure that their organization was able to stand on its own without needing to borrow money from the government. Ford decided to focus more on Ford, get rid of other brands that they had, mortgage against themselves, and start change from the top down.

This allowed everyone to see that Ford was making the changes needed in order to ensure the livelihood of Ford, and ensure that they did not “go under” when the economic collapse happened. GM was not very successful with this method. They did not have any clear purpose or structure; also the relationships within the organization were not very well established and were not working together. GM allowed the government to step in and take charge of a situation that could have been avoided if they worked together to make sure that the organization survived.

GM had the tools they needed to make the changes within the organization, but they did not have the leadership to help navigate them through the changes. Both organizations have felt environment pressures to change because consumers are looking for more environmentally friendly vehicles. These pressures are external pressures that affect the organizational as a whole because the car market is trying to improve the vehicles to help with pollution in the air. These changes have a great affect on both organizations because they have to reconstruct the way they manufacture vehicles as well as reconsider their marketing strategy.

|SWOT ANALYSIS | | |FORD |GM | |Strengths |1. Strong position in US market |1. Global presence | | |2. ECOnetic initiative |2. New vision and strategy | | |3. Sound financial performance |3. Strong brand portfolio | | |4. ‘One Ford’ approach |4. Strong presence in China | | |5. Significant growth in China |5. Knowledge of home market | | | |6. 4 well performing brands | |Weakness |1. Poor environmental record |1. High cost structure | | |2. High cost structure |2. Brand dilution | | |3. Unprofitable Europe operations |3. Bureaucratic culture | | | |4.

Car recalls | |Opportunities |1. Positive attitude towards “green” vehicles |1. Positive attitude towards “green” vehicles | | |2. Increasing fuel prices |2. Increasing fuel prices | | |3. New emission standards |3. Changing customer needs | | |4. Growth through acquisitions |4. Growth through acquisitions | |Threats |1. Decreasing fuel prices |1. Fluctuating fuel prices | | |2. Rising raw material prices |2. New emission standards | | |3. Intense competition |3. Rising raw material prices | | |4. Fluctuating exchange rates |4. Intense competition | | | |5.

Exchange rates | (Jurevicius, 2013) According to the SWOT analysis, the two companies are quite similar in many ways and quite different in other ways. There are not many resistances to change, but the two that they both have in common are the exchange rates and competition. Both Ford and GM, may negatively be affected by fluctuating exchange rates as it earns more than half of its profits outside the US. The profits may be lower due appreciating dollar against other currencies. Another resistance to change is also the competition.

Ford faces more intense competition from other auto manufacturers more than ever, especially in small cars segment with hybrid engines. GM for 77 years from 1931 to 2007, GM led global sales of vehicles, but lost its position in 2008 due to increased competition of cheaper and better quality cars, especially from Japan and South Korea (Jurevicius, 2013). In order to minimize the resistance of change you can help by educating and communicating the changes as well as have the employees participate and be involved in the change.

By educating and communicating the changes you are informing the people of the rationale for the change and providing them with the information of the changes. Employees’ participation is very crucial in the change process as it makes them feel like they belong within the organization (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009). The recommendation that I would have for GM is to make sure they are accurately monitoring their organizations methods of communication and ensuring that they have a strategic plan to help them get through any other economic collapse.

GM needs to focus more on their organization and get feedback from the employees about what they feel can be improved. Ford did a very good job in handling change within their organization, but the only recommendation that I would have is for them to make sure that they take always have a strategic plan for helping them get through any major changes in the future. In conclusion, even though change is always going to be present within an organization, it doesn’t always mean that the change will be negative; it only means that the organization saw something that needed to be corrected in order to continue improving.

Change doesn’t always have to mean that you completely re-do the organization, you can change a certain product, department, or portion of the organization. References Hall, J. (2013, February). The Detroit three after the big whoa: An examination of domestic carmakers. Retrieved from http://www. caranddriver. com/features/the-detroit-three-after-the-big-whoa-an-examination-of-domestic-carmakers-feature-ford-recreates-itself-page-3 Jurevicius, O. (2013). Strategic management insight. Retrieved from http://www. strategicmanagementinsight. com/index. html Leadersphere. (2008). Organizational diagnostic models: A review and synthesis.

Retrieved from http://www. leadersphere. com/img/OrgmodelsR2009. pdf Lusthaus, C. , Adrien, M. , Anderson, G. , Carden, F. , & Montalvan, G. (2002). Organizational assessment: A framework for improving performance. Ontario, Canada and Washington, D. C: International development research centre and Inter-American development bank. Palmer, I. , Dunford, R. , & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Companies Inc. Shaw, A. (2013). Six boxes. Retrieved from http://www. provenmodels. com/23/six-boxes/marvin-r. -weisbord/