MGT8033- Leading Organizational Change Assignment 2
VRD Industries
Get help for this assignment within next 24 hours at just $100
Contact us now
assignmenthelpuk@yahoo.com
Assignment 2
Description
|
Marks
out of
|
Wtg(%)
|
Due
date
|
Individual
case study 1 (write between 2000 – 2400 words)Global InformationSystem CIS8000
|
100
|
45
|
19
September 2014
(11.59pm AEST). |
You should write the case study in such a way that you start
your answers from line 1. That is, there is no need for large introductions
that we see in essays. You should apply the principles you have learned from
lecture material/tutorials/readings that are specific to the case study. Case
study 1 answers should be written in narrative form (i.e. sentences not bullet
points), and should be 2000 words long, single spaced. Each case study should
be referenced by including these at the end of the case. More marks are gained
by the quality of research applied in practice and the overall quality of the
answer.
Task/Questions for the case can be found at the conclusion
of the case.
Problem Statement:
You need to consider how you will identify the range of
issues and problems in the following problem statement.
Lee Bineesh is a highly qualified but aggressive Singaporean
CEO educated in Sydney who has just taken over as CEO of a company we shall
call VRD Industries located in Singapore. Lee had a track record of working in
fast cycle markets and achieving above average growth in developing industries.
Lee’s arrival at VRD was greeted with much initial surprise followed
by a steely resolve to change things. For over 40 years, the company
manufactured component parts for the auto industry in both Europe, GM in the US
and other US automakers. Recently, VRD has also exported to GM in China which
has been identified as a growth market. VRD operated as three
product-divisional strategic business units (SBUs) all located within the same
industrial complex: 1) Automotive Parts 2) Infotainment and 3) Electrical &
Energy. Each SBU has its own Divisional General Manager with a small office
staff, a manufacturing manager, Quality Control Engineers, Process Supervisors,
leading hands and upwards of 150 staff working within each factory centre. The
three SBUs shared the normal Head Office functions of R&D, Technical, HR,
Sales & Marketing, Accounting and Warehouse and Distribution. The top
management team comes from the main VRD Head Office structure (8 senior managers).
Middle management consists of about12 managers in each factory. Functional or
line managers consist of another 6 managers.
Lee took over from Frank Delacy who had worked his way up in
the business from the factory and had retired at age 70. For over 30 years,
Frank had a steady team of managers at each of the SBUs including middle
managers. Staff turnover was low with most managers (functional staff included)
having been with the company for over 20 years. Staff loyalty to Frank was
extremely high. Changes had been few. Despite discontinuities within the auto
industry, Frank and some senior sales staff had built up long-term
relationships at Detroit resulting in a fairly consistent sales growth with
consistent supply contracts to Europe. Recently, discontinuities and the
relentless pace of competition from China, Taiwan and Vietnam for component
exports placed heavy pressure on VRD to compete. A new line of managers at
Detroit following the GFC and aggravated supply contracts out of Europe meant sales
had halved. This coincided with Frank’s retirement placing
heavy pressure on Lee and the top team. Lee also appointed a change manager,
May Wong, to assist the divisional and manufacturing managers to implement a
change agenda. After some weeks of constant review, Lee realised that the
company was too slow in production, had old job design methods and that
conflict existed between the SBU divisional managers and their teams and
between each SBU.
The basis of the conflict related to maintaining the current
processes and systems that had held the company in good stead for many years
and the type of change being imposed by Lee. For his part, Lee wanted an agile
company, highly responsive to shifting markets, a cooperative team, and a
highly efficient production process. It was no surprise then that each
divisional manager had been advised that a staff reduction of 10 per cent had
to occur within the next 6 months. This was difficult for senior management who
had long-standing friendships with lower managers and line staff dating back to
the 1990s and in some cases, the 1980s. Indeed, some factory staff had been on
the same machine and processes for over 20 years. That processes needed to
change and that manager’s had to “get off their backsides and do some real
work” had suddenly become the ‘new’ culture. This
shocked the senior team as they were more familiar with Frank’s easier fine-tuning
and collaborative style. The problems and issues facing VRD came to a head for
Lee after May’s quite detailed interviews and assessment of staff practices and
policies. Mays exit polls consisting of qualitative questionnaires and several
focus groups revealed further issues. Warehousing and Distribution staff
accused sales and marketing of imposing unrealistic delivery estimates. Sales
and marketing accused warehousing of being ‘too slow’. Fractious lines of
communication started to appear within groups in each factory since more
pressure was being placed on divisions for more efficiency. Also, following
Frank’s departure, the impact of less capital expenditure and funds for
resources appeared to create conflict between each SBU manager competing for a
decreasing slice of the pie. This led to falling morale, a clash between
managers for updating technical processes, and lower-level staff accusing
managers of ruining a perfectly good company. After 6 months of constant
conflict and falling sales, Lee asks May to also hire an outside change
consultancy firm to assist the organisation deal with its next phase of growth.
Lee was struggling for control and May was being flooded with an increasing
list of day-to-day issues.
Task -required: Based on less than
perfect information supplied about the VRD problem statement, you are required
to act as an external change consultant to assist the firm to:
1. Develop a set of
realistic assumptions that you can add to the issues and problems expressed.
These might typically be related to each other at: a) the organisational level,
b) the group level, c) the individual level. For instance, you might develop
assumptions about leadership, about teams at each level, about creative
thinking or lack of creative thinking, about innovation. List each assumption
and discuss in a paragraph why you have chosen this assumption. (Total 150–200 words)
2. In reference to the
classic article by Larry Greiner, explain what is happening between growth and
change in VRD industries. (150–200 words)
3. May Wong advises Lee
that the experiences of the company relate to incremental change and that
solutions will gradually come to be realised. Is that right? Why or why not?
Explain your answer with reference to three or more readings cited in the
course
4. Why is the company
finding it difficult to change given the theory-to-practice link? (100–150 words)
5. Using the open system
model outlined in your study book and text, identify the issues (from the
problem statement and from your own assumptions) by redrawing and populating
each connecting box. Complete this exercise for as many times as you see
connecting systems within (or external to) the company that is influencing
change. (600–700 words excluding boxes)
6. Evidence: From point
5, use theory to justify your selection of the open systems identified. Here,
you should use at least 7-10 separate references from the study book that
support your selections and systems’ linkages. (900–1000 words).
Note: Please use all theory based on the readings in Module
1 and 2 including your texts and references included on the StudyDesk. Please
use the Style Guide below for listing and quoting references. More marks will
be gained by students showing adequate evidence of readings in their case
answer by using theory in ways that solve the problem. Please see marking
criteria and guidelines below. Note: these marking criteria will be used to
assess your case study.
Please note the course ‘Leading
Organisational Change’ is an advanced Masters course and requires much reading and
study on your part. We expect to see evidence of your readings in the case
study answers.The main guidelines for case study 1 are stated below. In
addition to these, please note the following:
1. Please write between
2000 to 2400 words. Words in Tables and Figures are not included in the total
word count;
2. Please quote from the
references for module 1 listed on page 30 of module 1
particularly reading 1.2, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 or 4 references in total. From
module 2, chapters 5, 6, 7 & 8 of Waddell, Cummings and Worley (your text),
Di Pofi (2002) or reading 2.1, Stace & Dunphy (2001), Burke and Litwin (1992),
and Harvey and Brown (2005).For Module 2, you need to refer to at least these
eight (8) readings. Since case study 1 is addressing systems issues, please pay
particular attention to Chapters 5 and 6 of your text Waddell, Cummings and
Worley. Please also note the following references that are specific to case
study 1 which are included throughout module 1 of your study book
a. Greiner (1972)
b. Tushman & O’Reilly (1996),
c. Gersick (1991),
d. Brown &
Eisenhardt (1997),
e. Murray & Donegan
(2003),
3. To reflect a minimum of
readings expected at this level, please quote and use a minimum of at
least 12 references from the ones listed above. You should use these
references in ways that inform and assist the case problem related to VRD
industries. Case study assessment criteria can be found below. Good luck with
your case study and I’m looking forward to reading it.
Extensive
<----> Minor level of evidence
|
|||||||||||||
Possible
Mark
|
Criteria
|
10
|
9
|
8
|
7
|
6
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
YourMark
|
|
1
|
10
|
Quality
of assumptions linked at different levels
|
|||||||||||
2
|
10
|
Interplay
between growth and change
|
|||||||||||
3
|
10
|
May
Wong’s statement and
explanation
|
|||||||||||
4
|
10
|
Theory-to-practice
link
|
|||||||||||
5
|
20
|
Open
systems approach across levels
|
|||||||||||
6
|
25
|
Evidence:
Discussion of theory linked to open systems and change
|
|||||||||||
Communication
aspects of your presentation
|
|||||||||||||
7
|
5
|
Referencing
(if applicable)
|
|||||||||||
8
|
5
|
Writing
clarity
|
|||||||||||
9
|
5
|
Tertiary
standard: does your analysis reach a high standard of research?
|
|||||||||||
100
|
TOTAL
FOR ASSIGNMENT
|
||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment