Student Number: 219280729

Programme: BA (Hons) Business and Human Resource Management

Module title: Managing and Leading Change

Module code: UGB371

Module tutor name: Sam Chan

(word count: 3218)

1
 Contents

Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Change Initiatives and Their Importance ------------------------------------------------------ 3

Evaluation of the Change Management Process --------------------------------------------- 5

Change Models Evaluation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Managing Change Resistance -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Ethical and Responsible Approaches ----------------------------------------------------------- 10

Recommendations and Action Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

References ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12

2
To cope with an ever-changing business atmosphere and to stay competitive in the
market, organisational change is common. Changes suggest ‘new ways of organising and
working’ in an organisation (Dawson 2003). This paper is looking into the change
process of RSEC, a UK electronic components supplier.

Change Initiatives and Their Importance

The original change initiatives in the RSEC case are identified and discussed, as well as
the reasons why the change was important to RSEC.

External Change Drivers

Loss of Market Share
EBF was emerging as a domestic competitor of RSEC. The business model of EBF was a
success that it had achieved a rapid growth in sales over the previous three years. It
provides similar products to similar target customers. The continuous growth of EBF
would result in RSEC’s loss of market share.

Competitors Challenge
In addition to EBF, there exist countless electronic components suppliers in the UK
(Anon, 2022). Each supplier has its edge which maybe more available SKUs, board
portfolio of manufacturers, providence of consultant services, or promise of speedy
delivery.

Internal Change Drivers

Structural Disadvantage
Being decentralised, RSEC was having six regional offices dedicated to respective areas
of the country. With a small corporate head office located in London, it could exercise
only limited control over the remoted offices. Communication between offices might also
suffer delay and efficiency is hindered.

Better Cost Control

With discrete offices across UK, RSEC had big operation cost to maintain the offices.
There were also redundant departments and staffs with each office working
independently as resources could not be shared. It was hoped that the operational cost
could be controlled effectively once duplication of activities were avoided.

Technological Progression
RSEC was looking forward to having a new SAP system, new phone and IT networks,
and constructing a new customer service facility, in order to facilitate the new customer
service centre which would be able to serve a growing number of customers.

Evaluating the Importance of Change

Lewin’s(1951) Force Field Analysis Model is applied here to identify the driving forces
and restraining forces:

3
 Forces for Change Forces against Change
Improving revenue (4) Staffs’ frustration (4)

Centralising power (2) Satisfactory performance

of current decentralising
Reducing cost (2) Integration of sales, structure (3)
logistics and customer
Increasing efficiency (2) service functions in Staffs’ resistance in
Cambridge head office relocation (3)

Unclear message delivery

(3)

Total: 10 Total: 13

Forces for Change

RSEC’s Board was attracted by EBF’s outstanding revenue performance. The admirable
future revenue served as a major drive. In the view of the RSEC Board, the centralised
business model in EBF might be much effective and cost efficient, creating better
consumer experiences, and building a stronger customer base.

Moreover, integrating departments could reduce the fixed cost such as rent, phone lines
and internet service in running several physical offices. There might also exist redundant
headcount which could be reduced.

With the departments being separated into different sections and locations, extra effort
was needed in communication and co-working processes would be slowed down, not to
mention miscommunication might make things worse. Integrating them would help to
increase the efficiency and accuracy of communication.

Forces Against Change

Opposingly, there are several factors against the change in RSEC. The major one was that
existing staffs were frustrated to adapt into applying the system of EBF instead of
keeping their own one.

Decentralised structure of RSEC had been running well, and regional units dedicated for
specific regions had the advantage of less hierarchy internally, and easier logistic
externally to customers. The department managers could not see the benefits coming out
of Centralisation.

Also, knowing that the relocation from London to Cambridge was inevitable, staffs faced
personal issue that they had to work out for a new living circle if they were to stay in the
job. This might be an uneasy step that less than half of customer service staffs agreed to
be relocated remained. Some staff did not have to relocate but this message was not well
delivered. It increased unnecessary against force.

4
In RSEC the forces against change were stronger than those for. In the coming sections, it
is to discuss how the unsuccessful tackling of the against forces made the change a
failure, and if there indeed existed other ways which could produce a better result.

Evaluation of the Change Management Process

How the change is managed is crucial as it determines the successful rate of the change.
This section evaluates the current management on whether making the change
successfully.

Assessment of Change Readiness

It is the ability to continuously initiate and respond to change in ways that create
advantage, minimize risk, and sustain performance in an organisation (Musselwhite and
Plouffe, 2022). Once an organisation formulates its plan to change, change readiness
shall be assessed and created before the change take place as it is crucial to how the
change is managed and where the change is directed to. Susanto's seven aspects in change
readiness (Susanto, 2008) is applied here.

1. Perception toward change efforts

Perception impacts change effort in employees’ belief that whether the change is an
opportunity or a threat, the value of communication efforts and the willingness to act
(Turner, 2022). In RSEC, staffs felt superior as the company was the acquirer, so the
merger was perceived as a threat when staffs aware the unexpected fact that it was them
to adopt into new working mode and condition.

2. Vision for change

An organisation should project a positive vision for the staffs before the change. If
employees could see a better future after the restructuring, both in organisation level and
personal level, they would be more willing to take part and overcome difficulties. In
RSEC case, the original logistics and customer service departments failed to see any need
for a centralised function as the existing structure was running well.

3. Mutual trust and respect

If key messages and goals are only shared at the top of the organisation, employees may
grow disinterested, lose enthusiasm and even become insensitive, that would negatively
affect the levels of trust and respect in an organisation (3 steps to build trust and respect
in the workplace, 2022). Unfortunately, in RSEC case, project team was under pressure
to complete the restructuring urgently. The business systems manager adopted top-down
directive approach that staffs’ opinions were not respected.

4. Change initiatives
Most successful changes begin when some individuals start to look hard at a company’s
profile, then observe an urgency to change. Once about 75% of a company’s management
is honestly convinced that business-as-usual is totally unacceptable, the urgency rate is
high enough for a reorganisation. Anything less can produce very serious problems later
on in the process (Kotter, 1995).
5
5. Management support
Common values must be created at the level of the chief executive officer and carried
down through the company. Leading and managing strategic change requires that leaders
have the capacity to learn from and adapt to change (Zeffane, 1996). In RSEC there was
no common goal in the change process. Many of the managers working in the RSEC
regional offices even anticipated that they would be surplus to requirements after the
reorganisation.

6. Acceptance to change
Many employees do not realize the benefit and advantage of change. They are only
concern about the immediate result (Smith, 2005). In RSEC’s situation, acceptance was
very weak that staffs found no beneficial motivation to change.

7. Managing change
One of the obstacles faced by RSEC was the high staff turnover rate along the
reorganisation, which at the end poorly affected quality of its service providence and
customers’ satisfaction. Indeed, this was predictable as it is common that relocation
would result in a considerably percentage of staff choose to quit.

Overcoming Change Resistance

Another crucial prerequisite to get a change plan successfully implemented is the
necessity to overcome resistance. In RSEC, the resistance force could be diagnosed into
three types:

1. Misunderstanding between management and employees.

2. Staffs assessed the situation differently from those initiating the change. They could
not see the benefits of the change

3. The centralising structure had been successful for years. Staff were unwilling to be
forced to change the way they work as they were fear to adapt or learn the new way of
working. This is called a low tolerance for change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008).

However, the RSEC change manager provided no solution to overcome these resistances.
The resistances were even unnoticed to the Board.

Approach Applied of the Change Process

In RSEC case, the change spanned years involving long term strategies and sequential
steps, and implementation of robust transition both on hardware and software. It is a
traditional planned change. In this scale of change, more rigorous designs, detailed risk
management processes, and quality assurance testing are essential to increase the
successful rate.

6
 Change Models Evaluation

This session will look into three different change models and evaluate whether any of it
fit the RSEC case best.

Kurt Lewin’s 3 Step Model

Kurt Lewin’s (1947) organisational change model, which is known as Unfreeze – Change
– Refreeze, is a model of three-stage process of change.

1. Unfreeze – Implementing the short-term change plan

This first stage of change involves preparing the organisation to accept that change is
necessary, which involves breaking down the existing status quo before you can build up
a new way of operating. Key to this is developing a compelling message showing why
the existing way of doing things cannot continue (Lewin, 1947).

2. Change – Implementing the medium-term change plan

People begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things, act in ways
that support the new direction. In order to accept the change and contribute to making it
successful, people need to understand how it will benefit them (Lewin, 1947).

3. Refreeze – Implementing the long-term change plan

Changes are taking shape and people have embraced the new ways of working. The
outward signs of the refreeze are a stable organization chart, consistent job descriptions,
and so on. This would be the long-term change plan, when the new structure has been
implemented, and the new ways of working begins to be stable. Staffs are more confident
and comfortable with a new sense of stability (Lewin, 1947).

Bullock and Batten Planned Change

The premise of this model base on the assumption that change can be defined and moved
towards in a planned way. In this model a change process is divided in four phases.

1. Exploration
This involves identifying the need for change, and acquiring specific resources necessary
for the change to progress. This is similar to “Unfreeze” in Lewin’s model.

2. Planning
This in an activity involving key decision makers and technical experts a diagnosis is
completed and actions are sequenced in a change action plan. The plan is signed off by
management prior to moving into the action phase.

3. Action
Actions are carried out according to the plan, with feedback mechanisms which allow
some replanning if things go offtrack. Together with Planning, these two are the step of
“Change” in Lewin’s Model. As in RSEC case, it is when the restructuring, relocation
and adaptation into new technologies take place.

7
4. Integration
This phase is started once the change plan has been fully auctioned. It involves aligning
the change with other areas in the organisation and formalising them in some way via
established mechanisms, same as the “Refreeze” stage in Lewin’s Model. Unfortunately,
the organisation didn’t seem reaching this phase successfully in RSEC case with high
turnover rate of staff and low morale.

Kotter’s 8 Steps Model of Change

Kotter’s 8 Steps Model also aligns with Lewin’s and Bullock’s change models above but
it subdivides the change stages much exquisitely. In addition, it regards vision a much
important role in the change process. Involvement and acceptability of employees for the
success in the overall process are respected in this model.

1. Create Urgency
General staff did not have the sense of threat due to growing competitor and potential
drop in revenue. Change manager should create this sense and let it be shared among the
organisation. It can be done by opening discussions to ring the alarm among all involved
parties.

2. Form a Powerful Coalition

A good coalition should have a good mix of people from different departments and
different levels. In RSEC, the business systems manager was appointed as the change
manager directly. He created a small project team to elaborate and implement the Board’s
plan. In view of general staff, the recognizability of this change team was on doubt.

3. Create a Vision for Change

Staff involved in the change should understand the reasons to change, then the directives
they're given would tend to make more sense. However in RSEC, the staffs’ perspective
was that their separate departments were performing well in every region. So there was
no shared vision for change, not to mention strategy to execute that vision.

4. Communicate the Vision

Once established, the vision should be communicated frequently otherwise it would be
diluted or overwhelmed by other day to day messages. Peoples’ concerns and anxieties
should also be addressed in this step. Unfortunately, due to lack of two-way
communication, the staff’s concerns about the relocation and adaptation were not known
to the change management team.

5. Remove Obstacles
Barriers to change are being checked continually in order to empower the people
involved to execute the vision. It can be done by recognising and rewarding people for
making change happen. For example, RSEC staffs willing to relocate are rewarded with
relocation subsidy and additional leaves. For those hesitated, change manager should
look into their concerns and suggest solutions.

8
6. Create Short Term Wins as the Strongest Motivation
This may be the most challenging period. Change has been taking place with efforts spent
but it still seems a long way to reach the goal. It is now better to work on smaller but high
success rate tasks to create a taste of success to boost team morale. Keep rewarding those
co-operate to make things happen. RSEC case failed in this, and staffs were only facing
frustration in the change process.It affected working performance and created high
turnover rate.

7. Build on the Change

Approaching the end, this is time to keep looking for improvements. Base on the small
success achieved in step 6, identify what are on the right track and what are offtrack and
make improvements.

8. Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture

Make continuous efforts like repeating success stories about the change process to ensure
that the change is respected and remembered in every aspect of the organisation.

Managing Change Resistance

Answering the Force Field Analysis done above, in RSEC case the change was
encountered by strong resistance. Incorporating with Kotter & Schlesinger’s six
approaches to deal with change resistance (2008), below may suggest a better way to
manage the resistances.

The approach of education and communication suggests that instead of notifying staffs
the merger through an email, the change manager should arrange a whole company
conference for the Board to announce the reorganisation plan and why it is important for
the future growth. Psychologically and practically prepare staffs for what is coming
ahead. Repeated communication may be needed here.

Participation and involvement should also be applied. Instead of a top-down directive

approach used by the change manager, and only a small project team to implement the
plan, RSEC should create a change task force composed of different levels managers
from different units of the company.

The approach of facilitation and support should do the job for staffs willing to remain.
Offering support on accommodation and relocation subsidy, additional seasonal holiday
break for staffs to travel to their home city, or accommodation for family relocation for
the experienced staff shall be available.

About Kotter & Schlesinger’s approach of negotiation and agreement, company may
consider offering incentives to encourage staffs’ compliance. Salary increases for those
willing to relocate would be an option. Setting up agreements to promise special bonus to
staffs for staying in the job long enough after relocation also works to gain co-operation
from staff.

9
 Ethical and Responsible Approaches

Throughout the reorganisation, it is very important that there is an ethical leader who
should shoulder the responsibilities on the change detail of planning and implementation
in the organisation. The leader should respect staffs, listen to their opinions, and reflect
on the useful idea to comply with the company policy. Employees will not embrace
changes simply because they are asked for by top management. In RSEC case, the
communication was top-down that no respect was shown on the staff’s ideas and
concerns.

In the long run, open and honest speaking with the staff would avoid misunderstanding
and gain trust from the staff. Supporting the good idea from staff would increase their
loyalty to the company, decrease turnover rate.

Recommendations and Action Plan

A complete change plan should provide clear recommendations which suggests the
change actions, and solutions to tackle obstacles in short, medium and long term. RSEC
case is a large-scale change. This scale of change should start with a thorough plan with
staff support in order to succeed. Here the Kotter’s 8 Steps Model is applied to study the
case as this model emphasizes on getting the early steps right.

Action Plan
Activities Details Owners Measurement Timelines
Create Hold series of internal Sales General staffs are Month 0
urgency conferences: managers, aware of the to 3
1. Introduce market trend customer potential threat
2. Discuss competitors’ services
strengths managers
3. Analyse RSEC’s position
and difficulties

Form Recruit staffs from different Change Reputational task Month 4

powerful department to form the manager force formed with
coalition change task force at least 2
representatives
from all working
units
Create 1. Campaign to Task force Over 70% of staffs Month 5
change communicate advantages (including believe the change to 6
vision and of restructuring change is beneficial to the
communicate 2. Small group forums for manager) company and
staffs to share ideas and personally
concerns
Remove 1. Questionnaire to The 1. Over 90% of Month 7
obstacles understand staffs’ Board, staffs who to 10
10
 concerns task force, don’t have to
2. Provide attractive existing relocate sign
relocation incentives EBF team contract to stay
3. Organise early training on in the job
new technological skills 2. Over 70% of
staffs who must
relocate willing
to relocate
Create short 1. Special bonus to staffs The High job Month 11
term wins staying on the job Board, satisfaction and to 12
2. Celebration party in new task force morale among
office staffs
Build on the Small group forums for staffs Task force Increase in job Month 13
change to share difficulties satisfaction to 14
encountered measured
Anchor the 1. Include the change story HR and Consistent turnover Month 15
Changes in in all on board trainings training rate onwards
Corporate 2. Relocation anniversary
Culture celebration

Conclusions

Research tells us that 70 percent of change programs fail to achieve their goals, largely
due to employee resistance and lack of management support (Ewenstein, Smith and
Sologar, 2015). Unfortunately, RSEC here was considered as one of the failure cases.
However, this case study reveals it is optimistic that change readiness can be created,
change resistance can be avoidable and performance can be sustainable. All can be
accomplished with a well enough change plan led by capable change professionals.

References

11
Anon, 2022. The 10 best electronic components suppliers in UK 2022. icrfq.net.
Available at: <https://www.icrfq.net/electronic-components-suppliers-in-uk/ >

Dawson, P., 2003 Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience

of People at Work.

Ewenstein, B., Smith, W. and Sologar, A., 2015. Changing change management. [online]
McKinsey & Company. Available at:
<https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/changing-change-
management>.

Kotter, J., 1995. Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business
Review, 73, 59-67.

Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L., 2008. Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7/8)

Lewin, Kurt, 1951. Field Theory of Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. (Edited
by Dorwin Cartwright).

Musselwhite, C. and Plouffe, T., 2022. Four Ways to Know Whether You are Ready for
Change. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/2010/06/four-
ways-to-know-whether-you>.

Smith, Ian, 2005. Continuing professional development and workplace learning 11:
managing the “people” side of organizational change, Library Management, 26(March),
152-155.

Susanto, A., 2008. Organizational Readiness for Change: A Case Study on Change
Readiness in a Manufacturing Company in Indonesia. International Journal of
Management Perspectives,.

Turner, D., 2022. Your Employees Don't Share Your Change Vision, How to Change
That - Think Transition. [online] Think Transition. Available at:
<https://thinktransition.com/the-power-of-perception-during-change/>.

Zeffane, Rachid, 1996. Dynamics of strategic change: critical issues in fostering

positive organizational change, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
17(Number 7), 36-43.

12