Managing Change at Byfield Business College

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Problem identification
Analysis
Alternatives
Recommendation
Plan of action
References

Problem identification

In the case study, the main problem is based on the challenges and inabilities to predict the outcomes of change management that is considered to be a crucial component of any organizational development process. Not every member of a working team is ready for particular changes, and to comprehend the problems associated with managing change and offer reliable alternatives for an organization, it is necessary to overview some literary sources, consider the specific issues, and rely on personal ideas and suggestions.

Analysis

Change management is not a simple issue that leads to certain problems within a company. It is a complicated process, a combination of steps that result in a sequence of outcomes that change the way of how an organization and the people within it can and have to work. Reiss (2012) introduces this process as a combination of such “far-reaching, significant and sometimes dramatic transitions” as “dynamics, turbulence, transformation, or discontinuity” (p. 1).

The process of change management described in the case study about the work of the Byfield Business College shows how unpredictable and hard-to-control any kind of change may be in case it does not correspond or even contradicts the well-accepted management theories. In fact, there are three main theorists, whose models are usually discussed when the theory of change is mentioned.

These are (1) the John Kotter’s theory that consists of eight main steps according to which communication, focus, and empowerment have to be combined; (2) the Lewin’s three-stage model according to which a change is compared with an ice block; and (3) the Change Curve within the frames of which Kubler-Ross focuses on employees’ personal transitions, reactions, and possible outcomes of the implementation (Bourda 2013).

Each of these theories is a powerful contribution to change management and a true understanding of this concept. If a person or a group of people, who implements a change within an organization, fails to meet all issues of one of the theories, the success of the change will be hard to predict. Considering these three theories, the case of the Byfield Business College team will be analyzed.

Being appointed as a new director of the college, George Boon is not satisfied with the methods used by Jane Hacking, an experienced head of central records, and comes to the conclusion to change the whole system of work as soon as he finds out that the office “had been handling a workload almost 20 per cent beyond its theoretical maximum for the past six months” (Corbett 1994, p. 93) after Robert Mangers from the operations research department analyzed the situation.

Mr. Boon involves two more persons to work out the details of a new system on the basis of which loyalty and ownership could be the main concepts. Unfortunately, the results of the change turn out to be not as successful as they are expected. On the basis of the Kotter’s model, the change of the office work has to pass through eight main steps. In Bourda’s (2013) analysis, based on the Kotter’s model, it is necessary to:

Underline the urgency of the change (in the case, it is based on a new director’s inability to understand and accept the already working system);
Create a guiding coalition (in the case, there are only four people (none of the office team) generally involved in the change management);
Develop a change vision (in the case, no strategies are offered, just the order of the director);
Discuss the vision (in the case, no one from the office is aware about the possibility of change);
Implement the ideas (in the case, the ideas and changes are simply imposed by the leader);
Generate the benefits (in the case, it is hard to find a person, who can benefit from the change except the director, who gains a kind of control over the office’s work);
Continue working with the change (in the case, employees are not promoted or developed, they are just faced with the necessity to follow a new order);
Incorporate the change with the culture of an organization (in the case, the Jane’s team does not get a chance to introduce its own culture).

In general, almost each step of the model is present in the case, still, not all of them are implemented the way Kotter offered it to be. This is why it is wrong and even useless to believe that the change of the Byfield Business College central record office leads to success and benefits.

The Lewin’s theory of change talks about the importance to unfreeze (prepare the office for the change, consider the beliefs and demands, and provide clear explanations), change (implement changes involving each member of the team), and refreeze (evaluate the shortages and benefits of the change in regards to different aspects of the office work) the idea (Paton & McCalman 2008).

The mistake made by Boon is the inability to inform all members of the record office about the necessity to change or, at least, improve the conditions under which the work is organized. He does not provide the team with clear explanations of why something should be changed. What he does is he defines the problem for himself and makes the team accept it.

The point is that all changes are accepted within a short period of time by each employee. But this acceptance is based on the professionalism of the team but not on their desire or enthusiasm (that is lately explained by the head of the office). Even the Change Curve that is characterized by the obligation to accept the change cannot be properly identified in the case (Cummings & Worley 2014).

Kubler-Ross’ model consists of four main stages: status quo (when people are introduced to a change), disruption (when people understand the real challenges and necessities), exploration (when people have to accept the change turning their pessimistic behavior into optimistic ones), and rebuilding (when people embrace the changes and try to rebuild their working conditions accordingly) (Huczynski & Buchanan 2013).

According to this model, the team from the case just omits several stages and faces the last one, when they have to rebuild everything according to new rules. As a result, the emotions inherent to the previous stages are combined and can be shown with time.

Anyway, all these three theories offered by different people at different periods of time prove one thing – the change offered by Boon does take place. Still, the consequences of this change cannot be properly identified and supported by all members of the team that has to accept the changes.

The positive effects cannot be observed. To help the record office and the college in general overcome the challenges of the change, it is necessary to think about some alternatives taking into consideration the fact that the change has been already implemented and certain emotions do take place.

Alternatives

In fact, it is wrong and inappropriate to do nothing in regards to the situation described in the case study. The situation at the Byfield Business College and in the record office in particular can be changed and improved if a number of actions are taken. The following alternatives can be offered:

Consider employees’ opinions. It is possible to resolve the case study problems by paying more attention to the employees as the integral part of the college, whose opinions cannot be neglected. Questionnaires and personal meetings may be applied to understand how the director can pay more attention to the needs of the employees within the frames of a new order.
Use Jane Hacking as a means of communication between the staff and the director. In the case, it is seen that Hacking is in good and trustful relations with all workers in the report office. She may impact and control their work. The director should try to explain his intentions and expectations to the head of this office in a kind manner as it is used within the office.
Make everyone follow a new order. Though it is one of the cruelest alternatives, it may still be effective. The director may offer those, who are not satisfied with new rules and obligations, share their own opinions in a written form, evaluate their suggestions, and exclude those, who are not ready to cooperate and promote the development of the college. It is always possible to find a new worker, provide him/her with the necessary practice, and get a professional office manager, who obeys the orders.

Recommendation

Regarding the theories mentioned in the analysis, it is evident that Boon fails to follow one of the most crucial aspects of organizational change – he does not want to pay any attention to the workers’ opinions and suggestions on how the quality of work and working conditions may be improved. The case study shows that Jane Hacking has a certain impact on each worker.

Her opinion is respected. Her ideas are supported. Not to demonstrate his attempt to meet the demands of the workers and the inability to gain control over each office of the college, Boon may develop a good communication that can lead to a successful cooperation with the head of the office.

Taking into consideration the fact that the work of the office is based on trust and personal understanding of employees’ needs, Boon may organize a business meeting with Hacking in an appropriate place (not in his office, as it is too official). It is possible to choose a restaurant and try to develop a talk within the frames of which the current problems, possible improvements, and expected outcomes can be suggested.

Still, beforehand, it is necessary to discuss some ethical limitations and confidentiality of the conversations. In this case, the reputation of the director will not be affected, Hacking retains the position of the leader and a kind of guardian for her office, and the employees may come to a consensus on how to continue working respecting new innovations.

Plan of action

The implementation of the recommendation offered in the paper should be based on the following steps:

Identification of the people, involved in the change: Boon, the director, has to inform Hacking, the head of the record office, about the intentions to consider some opinions of the office workers using the professionalism of two or three organizational change managers.
Recognition of timing frames: one week is necessary before the meeting with Hacking to analyze the reaction to the change of the office; the day of the meeting; one week after the meeting is for the analysis of the possible improvements; two weeks are for the implementation of the change and control of the workers’ reactions and the effectiveness of the change. In general, one month is necessary for the recommended change improvement.
Attention to the examples of other organizations: Boon should ask the organizational change managers to find out the real-life examples that show how effective the offered program and a new order can be underling the benefits for all workers.
Evaluation of the work of the record office: the recommendation may affect several aspects such as the record office’s quality of work, Boon-office, Boon-Hacking, and Hacking-office relations may be also changed.
Analysis of the effects of the change: it may happen that the office cannot accept Hacking’s intention to follow the Boon’s order and define her actions as a kind of betrayal; Hacking may not accept the Boon’s offer to cooperate and improve the conditions under which the office has to work; Boon has to be ready to be persuasive, logical, and confident in all his intentions and ideas. The office as well as the whole college should realize that Boon is the head of the team that can combine such qualities like understanding and control at the same time.

References

Bourda, FM 2013, Change management: Theories and methodologies. Web.

Corbett, M 1994, Critical cases in organizational behavior, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Cummings, T & Worley, C 2014, Organization development and change, Cengage Learning, Stamford, CA.

Huczynski, AA & Buchanan, DA 2013, Organizational behavior, Pearson Education, Harlow, United Kingdom.

Paton, RA & McCalman, J 2008, Change management: A guide to effective implementation, SAGE Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Reiss, M 2012, Change management: A balanced and blended approach, Books on Demand, Norderstedt.

Click Here To Order Now!