You are on page 1of 9
Managing Change at Cox’s Container Company (C.C.C) 1| Page Name : Tameem ALZOABI
Managing Change at Cox’s Container Company (C.C.C) 1| Page Name : Tameem ALZOABI

Managing Change at Cox’s Container Company (C.C.C)

Managing Change at Cox’s Container Company (C.C.C) 1| Page Name : Tameem ALZOABI

1|Page

Name

: Tameem ALZOABI

Table of Contents

Abstract

3

Introduction

3

Analysis

4

Alternative Solutions

5

Participation/Role Definition

5

Steering Group

5

Communication

6

Structural Change

6

Recommended Action

7

Conclusion

8

Bibliography

9

Abstract

Organization face problems from time to time various from management decisions to human management and financial issues, some manufacturing organization faces major issues in implementing changes. This process (change management) has many angels to deal with and problem solving depends on the organization point of interest. In this paper to consider Outline and analyze the problems confronting Cox’s Container Company (C.C.C) in the short and long term and offer some suggestions and recommendations for the organization.

Introduction

Change management is a systematic and continuous process in organizations approach to

deal with change, both from the perspective of an organization and on the individual level, many definitions can be found 'the coordination of a structured period of transition from situation A to situation B in order to achieve lasting change within an organization'.

(BNET Business Dictionary). To make it easier; Change management is the process, tools and techniques to manage the people-side of business change to achieve the required business outcome and to realize that business change effectively within the social infrastructure of the workplace. (Change Management Learning Center).

In Cox’s Container company C.C.C the threat of evolution of the business environment and increased competition growth in the size of the business with no changes in organizational structure; derived Chairman Harold Cox to implement a new strategy, hiring new senior management, based on analysis to increase profitability of the company and solve varied problems in C.C.C. Those changes are in organization structure, teams, leadership and individual people.

Burnes (2009) identified the two dominant managing change approaches as identifying the strengths and weakness of organizations, and situations designed to address. Burnes (2009) also states that both planned and emergent changes have benefits both practically and theoretically but they neglect other approaches. So a framework built to fit change is a better option and making it flexible for future changes goes even further. Every company has a growth cycle as to Greiner’s Organizational Growth Model, within C.C.C the growth and creativity had led to crisis of leadership and through the years with new market entries new technologies, internal problems without the knowl edge of Harold Cox.

Reasons for Changes and Problems facing Cox's Container Company (C.C.C) were because the plan for retirement of MD Harold Cox, Margin Reduction, lack of training, no consultancy, communications between departments, Cultural, Market Competition, Erica Wilson survey entirely on her own without sharing employees nor the department and managers . In addition, to the new employees John Straw, Eric Long and Simon Pedder analysis, to implement a new budgetary and control system, that had some reasons made this implementation not successful.

All of the above reasons led to two questions:

Are people ready to change?

What is the best strategy for change?

Changes need some initial steps, Kotter's 8-Step Change Model Implementing Change powerfully and successfully 1 ,

1: Create Urgency 2: Form a Powerful Coalition 3: Create a Vision for Change 4: Communicate the Vision 5: Remove Obstacles 6: Create Short-term Wins 7: Build on the Change 8: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture

Analysis

Cox Container Company C.C.C has a national and international large sales with about 380 people and 2/3 of them works in one department (Production Department). Most of them are from ethnic minorities, with lack of new fresh experience, this had effect the growth of the organization internally this lack of professional capabilities and new leadership techniques; had slow down the learning and stay behind in developing with the new globalization era. The company seems has some difficulty with integrating the departments. As the production department has been supervision by one of the oldest employee in C.C.C ( Mr. Abdul Aziz) had made this department with less innovation. In addition the creation of internal rivalries among the old managers like Abdul Aziz and new managers like Straw and Pedder after the wise decision from the founder Harold Cox to improve the company, has given rise to an “us VS them” in organization (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998, p.106). Erica Wilson attempts to implement a new full-integrated system within all departments pose problem knowing that production manager ( Abdul Aziz) is supported by major workers within C.C.C, and this change agent that she try to create has failed to get the trust of abdul Aziz and hence failure to develop a new strategy. Furthermore, Straw's (new general manager of C.C.C) meeting to announce the new system, was greeted by no interest of major managers. As Grint (2000) suggests, without backing, change lacks real leadership; "without followers there are no leaders". The absence of Abdul Aziz from Straw's meeting worsens the likelihood of this change being successful. Abdul Aziz is the leader with an influential figure amongst the majority of C.C.C.'s employees. This act and unwillingness to attend those meetings reflect to a feeling of threaten by this new change (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001: 599). Such change design and operation of an organisation's information system, will affect the distribution of intra-organisational power" (Bariff & Galbraith, 1978: 15). And it should be

1 http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm

taken in transformation in the current way of employees thinking, and behaviour of individuals. The C.C.C’s new change agents must devise an effective operational strategy to cope up with resistance to change as described by Lewin in his “Force Field Analysis” (Lewin. 1951, p.102). Within C.C.C., where external appointments are rare, suspicion is often aroused. "People do not usually like 'their' territory entered by someone they do not know, and whose motives are probably unclear to them" (Mullins, 1999: 819).

Alternative Solutions

C.C.C could Instead of the new managers coming up with systems to improve performance independent of the department heads, they could include them in coming up with cost measurement and management systems for which the department heads would be responsible. This would ensure that the autonomy currently enjoyed by the workers is not lost, however the ‘informal system’ of operation would be replaced by a system that requires accountability from those responsible for the various tasks.

Participation/Role Definition

Amongst the list of drivers relevant to C.C.C., new personnel (i.e. Straw, Long & Pedder), changing markets and increased competition, all apply. Restraining forces against this change (Lewin, 1951) include loss of status (for Aziz), habit/fear of the unknown (little change for many years), strength of culture (strong traditions, long-serving employees), rigidity of structure (functional organisation) and strongly held beliefs (role of production department, recruitment policy, etc.) For the change to be successful, as Lewin (1951) defined, these forces must be balanced, by process of "quasi-stationary equilibrium", the first stage of which is for restraining forces to be removed. The benefits for change should be clearly explained to employees (i.e. because of a tougher market place - the change will safeguard the business and employment). More specifically, for Aziz his crucial role in implementation should be explained and his involvement sought (addressing issue of power.

Steering Group

The leadership of Harold Cox was sufficient for the organisation during its entrepreneurial stages. C.C.C could look to improve its ‘crisis of leadership’ through improving its corporate governance by setting up a board or a steering committee,. Duck (1993) suggested employment of a "Transition Management Team (TMT)". This board m ade up of executive and non-executive directors. This will enable integration at the strategic decision making level which can be cascaded down to the operational level of the organisation. This could also eliminate costs that can arise due to departments not taking advantage of economies of scale and efficiencies that could arise from integration.

Communication

Relationships between team members must be addressed (particularly Aziz and Straw). At C.C.C. Straw expresses his exasperation at the existing relationship with Aziz. As Belbin suggested, the main problem this causes is that the problem is often overlooked - an oversight that proves costly in the future. By use of a neutral yet influential third party (e.g. Cox) Straw and Aziz must meet and overcome their differences. In doing this openly both individuals' criticism as Harrison (1972) suggested, could be put to constructive use. However, further secrecy (such as that involved in the formulation of the change plan), will tend to "eat away at the strength of an organisation and then to erupt when it is most dangerous to organisational health" (Harrison, 1972: 128). At C.C.C. failure to address the issue of relationships between Aziz and Straw (and their respective departments) will have the obvious impact that the new system fails to be implemented successfully and the business suffers, under threat of advancing competitors

Structural Change

The current functional structure, where expertise ar e grouped, has caused individuals (e.g. Aziz) and departments (e.g. central administration) to become too focused on their own goals and activities. A product-based structure has the advantage of increasing responsibility and accountability so that should problems occur in the future they can be tackled directly, rather than departments aimlessly blaming each other. Ultimately, this also removes the inter- departmental rivalry currently evident at C.C.C. and ensures all departments play a more active role in achieving the goals of the organisation. In a product-based, structure "markets, not processes, get the employees' undivided attention" (Mintzberg, 1979: 127). A product- based structure also adds greater flexibility and permits a faster response to change (arguably, a slow response to changed market conditions has put C.C.C. in this position). However, no single organisational structure is perfect and no one best suits C.C.C

Recommended Action Recommend the use of Leavitt’s Diamond, which suggests that changes in one variable may

Recommended Action

Recommend the use of Leavitt’s Diamond, which suggests that changes in one variable may have a knock effect on other variables within the organization. For example, improved technology could have a knock on effect on say people, as there may no longer be need individuals, which may have knock on effects on tasks performed as these may also have been replaced by technology leading to a need for a change in the organizational structure. The external environment also needs to be looked at as reduced margins c ould be due to

changes in the tax regime on C.C.C’s products. The external environment is important as globalization has resulted in competitively priced products from places like China which not only pose a competitive threat but could offer cheaper outsourcing alternatives for C.C.C which could improve the company’s profitability.

The managers together with the appointed facilitator need to do a n information gathering in addition to PEST analysis as well as a SWOT analysis to provide a starting point to address the problems at hand. This gathering of information that addresses internal and external factors should create the ‘sense of urgency’, that is needed to start the process of change as proposed by Kotter.

Suggest In the short-term, concerning change implementation, adoption of a steering committee or TMT (Duck, 1993) and more visible leadership to back the change. If this effort is to be successful, it is essential to gain support, which will only be achieved by virtue of involvement and persuasion by a team of influential individuals (i.e. management team & chairman). This team, also to include representatives from throughout the organisation, should then collaboratively implement the new system by taking into account the needs of each department in addition to those of the organisation. In the long-term a change in organisational structure is required if C.C.C. are to avoid similar problems repeating themselves. The suggested structure would address issues of departmental rivalry and ensure all departments work collaboratively to achieve organisational goals, removing the over-specialist approach currently evident. This process would require the backing and involvement of C.C.C. chairman and managers who can communicate clearly the reasons for the change to other employees.

Conclusion

C.C.C can be profitability and distinct position in a sophisticated market of drastic competition by adapting a radical, professional and innovative approach towards modifying its prevailing organizational structure. A fine change management blend of influential and motivating leadership with effective monitoring of operational ele (Belbin) (Mullins)ments at every level can pace the ground for C.C.C’s success in the long run. C .C.C has to work out the inadequate arena of communication prevailing in it to develop an ample intimacy among the personnel for guiding their individual actions into collectivism and teamwork.

(Marchington)

Bibliography

A, David A. and Andrzej. Organization Behaviour. Pearson, 2010. ADKAR, Prosci and. Change management - the systems and tools for managing change. 2012. <http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-change- process-detailed.htm>. Belbin, R.M. " Management Teams." 1981. Duck, J.D. 'Managing Change: The Art of Balancing'. 1993: Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1993, n.d. Harrison, R. Understanding Your Organisations Culture. Harvard Business Review, 1972. Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D. Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text (4th ed), . Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001. Kotter, J.P. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 1995. Marchington, Mick Bresnen & Mick. People, Managemenet & Organizations study guide. Manchester Businss School, n.d. Mintzberg, H. "The Structuring of Organisations." 1979. Mullins, L.J. "Management and Organisational Behaviour(5th ed)." 1999. Wilson, D.C.,. "A Strategy of Change: Concepts and Controversies in the Management of Change." 1992.