1

2018

ORST POE

Tasha maree 15015786

BCM3
 2
Question 2
Conflict can be defined as a situation where there are differences in power, values and
viewpoints that may result in a misunderstanding, animosity between two or more groups of
people. Conflict management deals with techniques to alleviate these issues within an
organisation. This essay will focus on the issues and the conflict management strategies
used within the Brand Challenge 2018 context.

Conflict is not necessarily categorised to be a solely bad occurrence, if properly managed It

can be incredibly vital. Effective leaders manage conflict through some level of confrontation.
Conflict unfortunately cannot just be ignored as it often leads to greater issues that can
impact the functions of the organisation. Therefore, conflict needs to be categorised into
functional or dysfunctional conflict. Functional conflict can be understood as the result that
leads to an open discussion, understanding the differences of others and innovative
solutions. Conflict in this case becomes a driver for the team. Dysfunctional conflict is
considered to be conflict that is focussed on emotions rather than the goal of the team. This
type of conflict branches off from personality clashes or emotional interactions. During our
brand challenge experience, we faced team conflict where members within our team
disagreed on how to achieve various goals or miscommunicated what was needed and
expected from each team member.

One of the greatest actions towards creating an environment that minimises conflict is
creating a strong culture. It’s important to build a culture that encourages giving and
receiving feedback. Using my brand challenge experience as an example we attempted to
minimise conflict from the beginning of our encounters by each team member discussing
their strengths and weaknesses. This was done specifically to have a better understanding
of one another so that each team member would be able to each other. This would therefore
minimise the conflict as all team members were aware of the weaknesses each of have. We
did initially struggle with confrontation as none of the members of the team desired to voice
their grievances. However, our weekly team meeting became a platform for us to encourage
one another and to also shed light on issues to therefore reduce the conflict in the long term.

Although this was our initial approach to brand challenge in hope to reduce our team conflict
we still faced many obstacles due to goal differences and miscommunication. Although our
common goal as a unit was to produce the best work we could for our client we struggled
since each member of our team had different expectations. Our team did not consist of all
distinction or academic driven students therefore conflict arose when team members were
3
working twice as hard as other individuals. We had some team members who were willing to
spend late nights at Vega to accomplish tasks, those who were willing to push themselves
out of their comfort zones and then those who were lazy and unmotivated. Our
miscommunication stemmed from our creative team members who were unable to translate
our strategy into a visual execution.

Although these frustrated members of our team these causes of conflict lead us to adopt our
conflict management style; avoiding conflict. Since we were a majority female team,
confrontation was not a path we all particularly enjoyed we therefore avoided conflict by
adopting the work ourselves. However, before we reached this stage as a team, we
attempted to communicate our grievances in a non-invasive or scrutinising manner. We
assisted our creative members by guiding them, we told them the tone that our creative
executions should embody as well as what the visuals needed to communicate through the
use of colour and various other elements that were stipulated in our brief. However, after
continuously indirectly approaching the situation through idea suggestions and assistance,
our barrier was still there. We had even attempted to use an individual from another team to
play devil’s advocate but the changes simply did not meet the standards of the team.

Our creatives simply lacked the initiative to fully understand and represent the client as well
as our proposed strategy. Therefore, strategists immersed themselves in creative work in
order to avoid conflict and to have executions that met their own personal standards.
However, this was not the correct approach and our conflict management strategy could
have been improved. We needed to take a direct approach where all members sit around
the table and voice their grievances. Each member of the team needed to suggest how to
make the team successful and what did they feel we were failing to do as a team. From
there each of us needed to be vocal about our situations with the communication and the
poor executions that did not meet standards and expectations.

We needed to create a safe space and be honest with one another without making members
of our team feel despondent or breaking their self-esteem. We also should have made use of
our buddy team and the campus councillor who could have facilitated our meeting to ensure
that no member of our team felt attacked. We did have sensitive members of our team
especially those within a creative specialisation who were very specific towards their craft
and could only create a certain style of work. Since brand challenge is a learning experience,
we should have encouraged each member of our team to learn. Because our creative team
members often felt their personal style could not match that of the client they became lazy
4
which also stirred conflict in our team.

A huge improvement we could have made as a team is that throughout our brand challenge
experience we became divided due to our conflict, it became a strategist and them
(creatives) mentality. The strategists spoke among themselves in an unconstructive manner
about their issues. Instead of gossiping about our issues we should have discussed it as a
group so that improvements could have been made.

The time factor became an issue as team members lacked commitment and would leave
campus early. A compromise needed to take place to assist with this conflict issue. Parts of
our team would leave early due to having other commitment or because they were simply
ineffective when working at Vega. Other members of our team wanted the entire team in one
specific area so that communication could be more effective and there was more control on
the work being produced. Therefore, we should have created a formal schedule to create
structure where all team members were required to be at campus from e.g. 8-2pm and after
that they could carry on with work in their personal spaces but they must be able to be
contacted. Once a week we should have opted to work in a different space to effectively
work together as a team.

Towards the end of brand challenge as our final presentation was approaching we would
often have petty conflicts via online group chats. Although these minor disputes were
unnecessary they did play a part in work being accomplished. These petty conflicts were
centred around creative changes that needed to be made, however our creative team
members would complain as changes would take too long. This behaviour reinforced our
issue that team members had different expectations, where some of us were aiming for a
distinction other were merely happy to simply pass.

To truly alleviate this conflict issue, we should have motivated our team to therefore produce
the best work possible. If we motivated our team to reach a common goal which was not
only to produce the best work, we could for our client but to be specific in the sense where
we aimed to have a gold ranking each week this could have potentially resolved our conflict
issue. If we were all driven individuals this expectations conflict we faced could have been
resolved in a better manner than just our initial approach to avoid conflict. A huge point of
learning from this brand challenge is that everyone is different and not everyone thinks or
has the same standards. This is the reality of the working world therefore we need to learn to
interact and understand the way in which people operate.
 5
If were open and honest with all members of our team and initiated constructive face to face
feedback with the ability to handle criticism in a mature manner our conflict could have easily
been resolved and we would have functioned better as a team. If we had a better and more
effective conflict resolution result we would have a better understanding of each team
member and how to communicate with one another as well as increased cohesion. We
would have worked more efficiently as a team.

Question 3

Leadership is vital for any unit or team to function. It provides a team with direction and
organises them into their tasks and duties. Its purpose is to add structure to the team and to
be an assistant in team dynamics. Leadership has the ability to truly inspire and motivate
team members to produce their best work and to create a culture of unity and positivity.

Leadership is defined as the social manner in which individuals are influenced to function in
a voluntarily, driven and motivated to achieve the team purpose and goal. It provides the
organisation with a clear path to move from its current position to its desired destination.
Leaders play a role in providing the necessary steps to reach incremental objectives that will
lead to the ultimate goal. They align the efforts of their team members with the organisation
vision through the use of strategy, services and building relationships to achieve the end or
long-term goal. Leadership focuses on mapping out where the organisation needs to go to
ultimately become successful as an organisation.

In context of my brand challenge experience, our team had two leaders who worked side by
side and complimented each other. Originally our group opted to not have a leader as they
felt that it would be unnecessary and most individuals in the group were unwilling to take on
that responsibility. However we found in the beginning stages of our brand challenge
experience that the lack of leadership displayed our lack our lack in direction and inability to
accomplish tasks.

Through our lack of direction, two leaders emerged to give our team better structure and
focus. Our honours team member (Kat), and myself took on the role to lead and guide or
team to success. Kat has a trait leadership perspective, although she has never been
involved with brand challenge in the past, she quickly took on the role to organise our group
and delegate tasks. Her phenomenal organising skills allowed us to have a clear vision in
the objectives that needed to be obtained each day. I was able to assist Kat to lead by
helping her understand the process of brand challenge and what each stage required.
6
Through this we were able to relay the tasks needed to each group member to better
function as a team.

Kat can be identified to have a trait leadership perspective to her natural ability to organise
individuals and tasks in an efficient and effortless manner. It was through this skill we were
able to work well as a unit for most of our brand challenge experience. Katherine’s personal
competencies consisted of high energy and willingness to succeed as well personal
effectiveness. Her social competencies focussed on her ability to influence, when she gave
direction and set out tasks for each individual these tasks were achieved. Acknowledging the
behavioural leadership perspective, Katherine can be considered to be a team leader. She
attempted to boost team morale through rewards for e.g. team treats as in confectionary
goods as well as team coffees. She did this to create an environment that would make our
team desire to work together and be within the same working space. Her focus on goal
attainment is why she can be categorised as a team leader. She attempted to listen to all
communication channels and acknowledged the opinions of team members during decision
making. Ultimately Kat wanted the very best results as possible from her team but they
lacked drive and motivation. She encompassed team spirit and offered incentives to our
team while striving and making sure the daily objectives were met.

Fiedler’s contingency leadership theory suggests that a leader can only be either task or
relationship orientated and they need to be placed in an environment suited to their style. I
however disagree, I believe that a strong and capable leader is one that has the ability to
adapt. It is noted that in this case Katherine is a task-orientated leader who is highly self-
motivated and goal driven therefore, according to Fiedler’s theory, Katherine would be most
productive and successful working in a structured environment where team members would
be receptive to this specific style.

I however can be considered to be the more emotional leader and therefore we both
complimented each other well. Where Katherine’s strengths lied in her abilities to organise
and plan, my strength lied in my ability to empathise and understand people. I therefore
categorise myself to be a servant leader. I constantly tried to promote a sense of purpose
and belonging among the group so that every team member felt that they were adding value
to the team. An example of this is, is when a member of our team felt lost and did not
understand her role as a copywriter according to the brief that was given. I took the time to
try and motivate her by conversing with other copywriters to understand what her role entails
and to encourage her to produce work. It was simply taking the time to understand the
situation and her feelings so I could motivate her. It was through this encounter, our
7
copywriter found a sense of purpose and started attempting to get involved in the creative
process. She was able to incorporate her flair and strengths into the client brief for an aspect
of our strategy.

The value-based leader is the leadership style I identify with the most. I always aim to
promote and carry myself with a sense of integrity and honesty. I lead our team in
accordance to my own personal values which is what defines a value-based leader. Value-
based leadership is not about the personality traits of leaders but rather their underlying
values and attitudes that actions and influence their interactions. I was often the mediator
through our brand challenge experience, when topics of interest became heated I reminded
each team member that respect is a key value we share not only as individuals but also as a
team. When our team would become divided in a case of strategists versus the creatives, I
did my best to try and understand both parties. An example of the value based leadership
style being used is when members of our team would sneer or make impolite comments
about team members I would step in to remind our team members that, this type of
behaviour is not necessary and will create animosity among us. I encouraged unity by
reminding our team that we succeed by uplifting others not tearing each other down.

Remaining ethical and honest has always been a huge part of who I am as individual, I
brought this aspect of myself to my brand challenge experience by being mindful, engaging,
and authentic. When asked my opinion on decisions that needed to be made, I always made
sure to take a moment to evaluate the situation and the options I had when making a
decision. How will my decision impact another individual? This is a key question I ask myself
during a decision-making process. An example of this, is as team we struggled to often
bridge the gap between creative and strategists. This would result in the strategists within
our team asking for assistance in how to handle a certain situation with the creative
members of our team. I would therefore take a moment to find a decision that would result in
both happy parties. Initially, embracing the diversity of our thinking as individuals was an
obstacle for me as a leader. However, I learnt that my embracing the diversity I could be
empathetic and understand my team better. I attempted to use each person’s strengths to
help tackle our daily objectives. This is also a display of authentic behaviour. Unfortunately,
this did not always translate positively as some of our team members strengths creatively did
not match the voice and feel of our client.

Katherine would have been seen as the sole leader to the rest of the team because of the
manner in which she carried out tasks and herself. I however was pleased to be a silent
leader, one that assisted my team in any way possible but may not has been as vocal in
8
comparison to Katherine.

As a team there were two types of leadership methods that needed to be better adopted:
transformational leadership and authentic leadership. A transformational leader is one that
plays an integral role in creating a dynamic organisation. The influence of the
transformational leader makes followers believe that change offers the opportunity to grow
and develop to new heights. If we had a transformational leader during our brand challenge
experience, they may have had the potential to inspire the creative students to change and
branch out so they can better align their work with the desires of the client. They would have
understood the vision and been motivated to get on board to produce work that collectively
as a team everyone would have been proud of. Although I value authenticity as an
individual, I needed to promote authenticity better in order to create group solidarity and to
potentially better persuade team members. The lack of these two leadership approaches
and characteristics may have also burdened us as we struggled with how to deal with
various scenarios.

Overall I believe our leadership was well received and good, we managed to have tasks
equally distributed and understand our team members. However by adopting other
leadership tactics we may have been able to improve our productivity and outputs as a team.

Question 4

Organisational change focuses on the stages that a company will encounter as they evolve
over time. Organisational change occurs in reaction to an event or circumstance in order for
the organisation to move forward and exist. It refers to an alteration that takes place in the
working environment where businesses need to adapt to change in order to stay relevant.
This essay will focus and compare three models of organisational change: Kurt Lewin’s three
stage model of change, A systems model of organisational change and innovation and
Kotter’s model of change.

Models of organisational change are simplistic representations of complex organisational

change and development functions. These models however enable us to understand
organisational change. Kurt Lewin’s organisational change model consists of three stages:
unfreezing, movement and refreezing. The first stage unfreezing is focussed on preparing
the organisation for the change that is to come. This can include the environmental changes
that are being anticipated or forecasted that may ultimately affect the organisation,
investigating the organisation’s ability to handle this change and then creating the motivation
9
to carry forward this change. The second stage is movement and this stage is concerned
with organisation moving towards its desired position by introducing various strategic plans.
An example of this could be the learning of new procedures and new behaviours that will
need to be adopted by the employees of the organisation. The third stage refreezing implies
cementing and making sure the changes that have been introduced become permanent.
This stage stabilises the organisation’s manner of operating and the new desired behaviour
is promoted and encouraged.

The systems model of organisational change and innovation is based on the concept that
the organisation is an open system that routinely interacts with all that’s around it. The
organisation consists of subsystems that influence each other. This model focuses on the
factors that influence the organisation also known as the inputs, the transformation process
and then the outputs. The inputs are regarded as anticipating a need to change,
transformational leadership, vision, change agents, SWOT analysis, diagnosis, analysis and
feedback. These are eight factors that can potentially influence an organisation and have the
ability to spark desired change.

The transformation phase consists of two parts: planning and implementation. Within these
two parts there are three main approaches to organisational change: structural, technical
and behavioural. Structural and technical approaches affect the organisational behaviour
and attitudes of the employees where as behaviourial approaches are aimed specifically at
individuals, teams, management and the organisational culture. It’s important to note that
these subsystems are interrelated therefore a change in one area will have a domino effect
and affect various areas within the organisation.

The outputs are measures to achieve the desired end results. Hard measures e.g.
production levels and revenue can be used to measure the operation success of the
organisation. The outputs are measured at regular intervals in order to determine whether
the goals are being achieved.

Lastly Kotter’s model of change is an eight step systemic process that emphasises the
importance of change. His model consists of:
1. Establish a sense of urgency
2. Create a guiding coalition
3. Develop a vision and strategy
4. Communicate the change vision
 5. Empower broad based action
10
6. Generate short term wins
7. Consolidate gains and produce more change
8. Anchor new approaches in the culture

Using this change model, organisations will need to create a sense of urgency by having an
open and transparent conversation about what is happening within the organisation and the
market place. If people start talking about the change, the urgency can build and feed on
itself. A sense of urgency can be accomplished through displaying various scenarious that
could take place if change is not introduced as well as new potential opportunities.

By convincing people that change is necessary a powerful coalition can be formed. To bring
coaition an effective team with a high levels of influence need to come together to promote
and embrace the change so that a positive outlook on the change can be filtered throughout
the organisation.

A vision that is attractive will ultimately result in a buy-in from all the stakeholders within the
organisation. Developing a direction as to why this change is necessary is vital as this
provides employees with context as to why this change must occur. The vision and strategy
must therefore be communicated to all members of the organisation so they are made aware
of all the changes and have an understanding of the purpose for this change.

Removing the obstacles that may provide barriers to stakeholders buying -in to the change
can result as a stumbling block for both the organisation as a whole and the indoviuals who
are driven o carry out the change. Therefore management needs to be aware of the
obstacles that may occur and prepare for them. Create an organiation of problem solvers
who are ready to embrace the change.

Creating public triumphs to acknowledge and reward the success and to then use the
success to propel the organisation into a greater scale of change. And then to lastly reinforce
the new changes so that they ultimately become habits.

These three models can be regarded as similar as each step or intial phase starts with an
initiatior of change. Kurt Lewin’s model focuses on unfreezing which prepares the
organisation for change, a systems model focuses on the inputs which influence the
organisation and Kotter believes in urgency which is an understanding for the reasons of
change. Both Lewin’s and the systems model have a very similar process with the use of the
three phases that ultimately have the same outcome. The systems model however has a
11
more global approach regarding the inputs that affect the organisational change. It is also
more specific, pointing out clear factors that will potentially affect the organisation. Where as
the unfreezing stage in Lewin’s model focuses on preparing the organisation for change.
Kotter’s organisational change model is a detailed process and takes both Lewin’s and the
systems model into consideration.

The first step is focussed on the reason to change which links to the systems model’s input
“anticipating a need to change” and the unfreezing stage in Lewin’s model. All three models
also end in a similar manner with a focus on creating a new sense of efficiency and making a
habit of the new behaviourial changes of the organisation. This can be seen with the freezing
stage in Lewin’s model which aims cement the new way of operating into the company. The
outputs in the systems model focus on creating an environment that creates satisfied
customers and employees. The last step in the Kotter model is to reinforce the new
processes and behaviours to elevate them a level of habit.

The models differ in the sense that Kotter’s steps are not a linear process like the other
models and needs to be applied concurrently to various situations within the company. This
model is also simple with regards to the steps that need to be followed however the steps
can’t be skipped and the process can be very time consuming. Kotter’s model also is a top
down approach which gives minimal options for co-creation or true participation. With
regards to Lewin’s model though the idea of the model is substantiated it ultimately lacks the
consideration of human feelings and experiences. Although the Kotter model is detailed and
encompasses most aspects on how to achieve organisational change, the Lewin model is
ultimately shorter and is most likely to be adopted by organisations when facing
organisational change.

There are pros and cons to every organisational change model however organisations need
to choose a structure that best suits their situation at hand. They need to understand
holistically the various models and how they can be implemented into the organisation. The
systems model provides a global viewpoint on the factors that may affect the organisation,
Lewin’s process lacks human understanding and the Kottler model is time consuming. Each
has their pro and con therefore the organisation must decide based on the changes that
needed to be made in the company.
12