New Mandate Leadership In Murray's Save A Lot

The Organizations have evolved over the years and from the Concept of people management they slowly have moved towards the concept of System managements and this is how an organizations needs to aim to grow and to succeed in growing complex market environment.

The main reason for this is the radical changes put in place so rapidly with immediate effect. This resulted in lack of structure and consistency throughout the whole chain stores, as you gave each store manager to much autonomy to change the store i.e. decor, food menu etc., the business culture values as a whole was lost and that was what made the business a success before. I understand some changes had to be made but not so drastically. The loss of business culture and lack of dimension of structure had a lot negative effect in the business especially demographic and sociology factor wise as regular customers dislike the changes and constant change in staff router, the reason for this was staff/managers never has any incentive target to

Implementing change in an organization is complicated. It is important that a manager understands their role and responsibilities for which could very well be the success or failure of an organization. A manager should know how to handle staff resistance, and the areas that require change. There are processes that help management with assisting their staff members with adjusting to change and concentrate on the areas of importance. This process includes planning, assessment, implementation, and evaluation. The difference between a failed organization and a successful manager is when the manager has the ability to implement change with little disruption to

Some employees resisted the change which happened during the prior restructure where management was downsized

Lack of new ideas because the current employees will continue with the current business management structure

Because of the hasty decision to implement the change there is a very high risk of employee resistance to change. The upper management had no investment in the decision and will feel a resentment and lack of control that could trickle down through the organization. The dangers her are that original companies will become infected with a negative attitude toward the new parent company causing

I was one of the few employees that were willing to ride the waves and give the new changes time to develop and work themselves out. The leadership could have avoided falling into the same trap of employee turn over, if they had put the effort to provide the necessary support during the stages of change and refreezing. (Nahavandi, p. 284)

I believe that a key to leading through, and accepting, change can be effective communication. Although everyone may not be able to accept change, they should make that decision with proper information on hand. Fullan (2015) stated that "Consistent communication during implementation is essential to getting the collective clarity and energy necessary for success. Communication sticks best when it is close to action in time and place and is frequently

Excellent question, I would assume that I have seen the three types several times. However, I will to be concise I will comment on the third problem, since by far it is the most vital and acute issue. As the old say “always blame the boss “or “fix the head, everything else will fix itself”. As I explained in prior posts, in the change process we have the change sponsor or the top layer management such as CEO or COO, VP. When it comes to effective and successful implementation of any change, it is all about the change sponsor behavior and actions. One of the main roles of the change sponsor is to select the change agent, to lead the change or be the change “agent.” In the sense, that talented people must be put in charge of implementing it and

Because the store is 15 years old it need a lot of work, like painting walls, shelves, and polls, changing tiles and consistently doing these when noticed that it needs to be done. This was a timely process in the beginning because many people had to work hard to accomplish one goal for the store. Everyone had to put their time in while still doing their daily tasks as usual. Once the initial cleaning was done it would just be something that would be an easy task to do possibly not more then once a week, but the employees did not like what they had to do when beginning and many of us managers had to deal with a lot of unhappy employees. The basic reaction from most of the employees is that they hated the extra duties, they felt that they should have hired employees for that job alone to make the store look like new and to keep it that way. During the start of the project Wal-Mart is in its off season, after the holidays and before the spring. During this time we have to cut hours back for employees and are really unable to hire extra people that we don't need, because this is kind of a time were we make up for our losses because we don't sell as much merchandise during January al the way through March. Most of the full time employees at this time are already mad, because of that they start to get even worse. We had a few people quick because they felt like they were going backwards as employees and wanted

Also, a few members left the company because their views of CHN were not similar to others. This constitutes problems for another who takes on the position. They need to learn the new job responsibilities and all of its steps, some of which are by trial and error or recreating the steps, which happened in the past. This process takes time, errors, etc. The organization require a solution to make transitions easier, efficient, and with the know-how to continue.

Any kind of change in an organization may be challenging as it may demoralize employees and minimize performance. Therefore, main concern for DSS was how to ensure the employees maintain the same level of commitment, for it to achieve its strategic goals. There was a lack of clear concise during the communication of the new organizational strategy to all levels in the organization. The management failed to provide a detailed implementation plan that was to be followed in order to achieve the desired results. The employees themselves also did not receive the communicated information in a favorable manner. Both Meg and Chris did also not communicate effectively during the organizational change. As a result, Chris did not fully grasp what was expected of her as a leader and her team. The management should aim at ensuring the communication within the organization is successful. Successful communication is achieved when both the sender and the receiver have a common understanding of the communicated information. Both Meg and Chris should set up regular structured information. For instance, through the use of memos, emails, written updates, or setting up periodic meetings.

The people-first management philosophy that attracted and retained key managers and employees would be scrapped to align with the new company hierarchy. Observers inside and outside the company could see the brewing bad fit, but the decision-makers moved forward anyway. By all accounts the actual results were disastrous.

In an effort to rid the oversupply of inventory, we sold some our capacity and we underutilized our plant hours by not maximizing our work force. Our management team thought this was the most productive way to reduce excess overstock, not to create more supply, but it hurt us in the end. Within a year, demand had increase and we did not have enough to supply our wholesale segment, therefore we ran out of supply for our retailers and resulted in a massive loss in revenue. Our major competitor had purchased our capacity and gained sales and market share in those regions. By this time, it was too late to build capacity because it would not be made available before the final year ended.

Rather than the owners understanding the reason for following the change process in bringing in a new general manager it eradicated the special considerations that had made the store unique. One employee who quit after working there 18 years had a hard time understanding how the dispute got out of hand but by the old staff leaving the store just becomes bookshelves and carpets (Spector, 2010, p. 3). In limiting the chance of employees working to develop new skills and competencies by participating in deciding how the store would be run the owners ensured that the change would occur but fail.