Analysis and Recommendation for the Mod Iv Product Development Team

As noted, brokers and innovators are the leadership roles associated with this model. The role of the broker is to build and maintain a power base, negotiate agreements, and present ideas. The innovators role is to be creative, initiate change, and sustain new ideas and changes. In this case, Langley exemplified leadership roles by single handily changing the mentality of the department soon after he took the position. Although this was a much-needed change for the departments personal, he did not show innovative characteristics by failing to create change regarding the production of tubes. Major change is needed in the process of the tube production. It has been noted by Harold Singer, “ The products and process here now are what they’ve traditionally been from almost the start”. This indicates that Langley needs to innovate and create new tactics and processes for the tube assembly. This would help American Radiotronics Corporation reach its goal of making the department a model show play for the company. Langley’s ability to quickly change the mentality is proof that he has innovative managerial skills. He must keep using these skills to help develop the department.

To successfully implement change, employees need to understand how this will benefit them and impact their daily work. One of the things is that something might look good on paper can have drawbacks that are not realized by the planners, but can be easily identified by the employees who must implement the change. Therefore as a manager you need to bring the idea to the employees and get their feedback and continue to empower the employees to make the change that will work for them. Since change doesn’t happen overnight a manager needs to continually in monitoring the process and to assist the

| One of the main learning points that I read was that communication needed to be thorough and maintained through the course of the changes to ensure that complacency didn’t set in or any regression in the implementation of the changes. Another is that consideration should be given to the concerns of the individuals that will be directly affected.  It is important to note these because these are sometimes the breaking points for an unsuccessful implementation. Especially considering the individuals affected, it so simple just a little extra time understanding how and what the change will affect will ease the process in the

Alan brought many changes to the table, with those many changes, came great trials. Employees were not receptive to their new leader and his

Not establishing and communicating a consistent change message: A change message and goal was not agreed on by all stakeholders early on in the process. This eventually led to an end product that no party was completely satisfied with. Furthermore, communication with end-user stakeholders was often inconsistent and perceived as unauthentic. Instead of generating important feelings required for change readiness such as enthusiasm, this created feelings of anxiety, frustration and resentment within and between the different parties

The old crew began to hate the new supervisors. The supervisor’s attitude towards the employees were close monitoring, giving orders, and yelling. This caused stress and frustrations among employees, reducing their job performance. The supervisors made changes from the previous year that resulted in job satisfaction. The supervisors decided when to eat, how they wanted to do the job, and always drove the truck. They didn’t allow employees to talk to each other or to the customers on the job. This negatively affected customer service and customer relations.

Not only were the leaders impressed by the employees insights, they took action to address all of the problems. As a result, participation increased, communication improved, relationship between employees and management improved, and access to training and development opportunities were wide-spread. But most importantly, once the original change initiatives were introduced, employees embraced the initiatives, offered insights on how to improve their outcomes, and ensured their success.

Consolidating gains and producing more change—Kotter (1996) stated that many change programs failed because the victory was declared too early. Companies should build trust to employees and customers through the success of short-term objectives and continue to work hard until the end of the strategy. In May 2011, BA

Personal impact and fear of change are not the only causes of resistance by individuals during a change to business practices. The lack of respect and negative attitudes can also lead to employees resisting business change. If an employee lacks respect or has a negative attitude towards a person or department leading the change, then there are more likely to oppose the new ideas being implemented. Poor communication greatly impacts individuals’ accepted to new practices in a company. Typically if an employee is given new behaviors to adopt, but is given no reason, then that employee may reject the change. Upper management must effectively relate the value, need and benefit of the change to help get employees on board with new changes. The lack of individual input can also lead to resistance. Some individuals feel the need to be included in new ideas. When employees are not asked to be involved in changes, they may lack the vision of importance or will to change. A heavier workload can also cause opposition among employees. Employees may not embrace more systems and requirements needed

The authors were successful on this step by creating a valuable and diverse team that complimented each other, which was a necessity to ensure they had mixed points of views and opinions. Next, the team must create the approach they are going to take, and to be sure each team member has a clear understanding of the benefits for the future of everyone involved. This step was evident by the group meetings. Fourth, it is imperative for the team to demonstrate impeccable communication skills and the ability to influence others to comprehend the significance of the change (Kotter and Rathgeber 2006).

In a recent study of major change, it was found that employees are highly critical of even well thought-out attempts to communicate change and multiple communication channels are preferred when communicating a change vision, plan and process (Elving, 2005;

b. Heterogeneous goals and priorities. Each function’s different goal and subunit orientation causes it toview problems differently. Subunits have become competitive as the attempts of one to achieve goalsthwart the attempts of another.c. Bureaucratic factors. Rondell’s structure has evolved historically and status inconsistencies havedeveloped among different groups and managers—between the heads of R&D and engineering. Althoughthe head of R&D, “Doc” Reeves, formally reports to Frank Forbus, the director of engineering,informally Reeves has more status and power. The manufacturing manager is concerned about his lack of a degree, which he believes lowers his status, so he deliberately causes problems for other managers toincrease his power and status.d. Incompatible performance criteria. Each function is evaluated according to its goals, so when slowengineering design raises manufacturing costs or results in lost customers or penalty clauses in customer contracts, functions come into conflict.e. Competition for scarce resources. Some functions, such as R&D, can command whatever resourcesthey want. Engineering services is running very lean, its engineers stretched thin, and no resources for aneffective preproduction unit. Given that profits have fallen, competition for resources might increase,which will worsen the

First, the contingency paradigm, a closed system, considers uncertainty and how changes in the environment affect the internal aspect of the firm (Tolbert & Hall, 2009, p. 162). The elements can include items such as size and technology, as it relates to customer demand to name a few. Another example might be that a small firm would function better in a centralized fashion verses a large firm that would benefit more from a decentralized method, whereas, fast paced environments may require high technology and slow paced industries do not. The point here is that there is not one best practice for leading or structuring a firm, hence, the company should fit within the environment depending on internal and external factors (Long, 2014). It is important to note, hhowever, coordination can become problematic in this theory. For illustration, let’s say some environmental factor cause a company to change structure from a simple structure to a more complex one. Problems with coordination in the separate departments could present itself as communication and interaction is vastly different. The key here is for the firm to adapt to the environment, as well as, integrate the activity to make a seamless whole and reduce uncertainty. In fact, the best way to organize should be contingent upon

Change implementation entails identifying the structure as-is, present problems, current process and its resources as well as how resources are coupled to the system. Deep thought process needs to be undertaken to see the impact of replacing systems, process, and resources with another one. Furthermore, before that an analysis needs to be performed identifying the possible alternative and how that will address the issue and improve the overall mechanism (Creasey, 2014). However, these analyses were not performed in this NASA episode. The recommendation was just laid over. As mentioned in the case study, there was a lot of pressure on the contractors and staff by keeping current schedules instead of revising and reducing some of the pressure. This statement clearly states that the primary issue of (as-is issue) unrealistic flight schedules were retained, resulting in less focus on quality and heavy pressure on employees to perform. The managers still were the same and added outsourcing process, which became disastrous as they were not monitored and controlled enough. Did the change actually happen? The answer is a typical no. There was one more disaster, now Columbia shuttle. The Primary reason behind that is again unrealistic schedule planning, leading to low focus on quality and high pressure. Management did not encourage people to communicate about

motivation for the employees to take part in this change. Unfortunately, this vision did not