Recently, the topic of organization change management has become more introversion. Because most of the business people have realized the significant effects of change to their organizations, and change is unavoidable in this dynamic environment (Harvey & Brown, 2001). This essay will demonstrate some theories about organization change management by reviewing three business cases. By analyzing the effects from the three different organizations’ changes, it will focus the reasons and strategies for these changes.
Part 1 Articles identify PAW, Grimacing to merge into $b giant 1 OFF agreed to a multimillion-dollar merger to compete against larger rivals in an increasingly consolidating global agribusiness sector, which has surprise many business people in this industry, because their combination will become Australia’s largest grain marketer and rural services provider with a $2 billion market capitalization and expected revenue of more than $7 billion. Moreover, for the success of this merger, they will restructure the operations by combining the two boards from PAW and Grimacing (The Age 30 July 2010).
The rationale, I. E. The reasons provided by the organization for the change, including external and internal pressures. The change in this case is operation restructuring for the merged company. There are several major rationales can be addressed for this change: 1. Operation restructuring is a guarantee of a successful merger, which aims to make the operations more centralized. 2. Operation restructuring can improve efficiency and effectiveness of management by removing operation layers. 3. Paw’s top management is facing the trust dilemma due to the Iraqi oil- for-wheat kickbacks scandal.
By restructuring operation, they can minimize the effects of that event. 4. Operation restructuring can enhance the unity of the new company. The change strategies used by Grimacing and PAW The form of this change between Grimacing and PAW is restructuring, which belongs to structural strategy. According to Harvey ; Brown (2001), structural strategy is a method to improve organization’s competitiveness by modifying the lines of authority, span of control and arrangement of work functions. In this operation restructuring, Grimacing and PAW will exchange their shares, and reorganize their management.
By utilizing structural strategies, the merged company can reorganize their resources, and then get a lot of benefits as the rationales listed above. DEAL loses Adelaide office DEAL Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australia, and it has developed many offices in Australia and New Zealand. However, DEAL Phillips Fox will break up with its partner Adelaide office. And because of this breaking up, Adelaide office will restructure with a local tax and corporate law boutique Ranking Tucker to form a new company which is named Fox Tucker (Boswell and Hatch , 2010). External and internal pressures. It is a good opportunity for Adelaide office, because it can develop as its own strategic objectives. By restructuring to Fox Tucker, they can achieve the following benefits, which are also the reasons of this restructuring. 1 . Because both of Adelaide office and Ranking Tucker are small companies, their brand influence in the market, which can assist to enlarge market areas. 3. The new merged company- Fox Tucker can be more competitive and active, because small firm is easy to handle on overheads and management (Boswell and Hatch, 2010).
The change strategies used by DEAL Phillips Fox and its partnership- Adelaide office. For survival and development after the breaking up with DEAL Phillips Fox, Adelaide office chose to restructure with Ranking Tucker, which is also a structural strategy. For DEAL Phillips Fox, the breaking up with Adelaide office is not a big loss. Due to the limited size of the Adelaide market and the brand effect of DEAL Phillips Fox, DEAL doesn’t need an office in Adelaide. However, the breaking up is a big influence for Adelaide office, because Adelaide office is to not strong enough to work independently.
Therefore, it is a smart choice for Adelaide office to restructure with Ranking Tucker. No limits: Freewheels bonus scheme In the May of this year, Freewheels introduced changes to bonus arrangements for the firm’s lawyers effective from the start of the 2010-11 financial year. The new bonus scheme may be much more challenging to the lawyers, because they may see fewer bonus queue. However, it may be pretty encouraging, because some lawyers may obtain much more substantial bonus payments (Lawyers Weekly, 26 May 2010). External and internal pressures. There are several rationales why Freewheels carried out this new bonus scheme. . The current bonus scheme is not as generous as that offered by our competitors, which caused the high turnover of lawyers in Freewheels. 2. The new scheme will be more encouraging, which can retain and attract the best people, but with a similar cost as the previous scheme. 3. The new scheme will encourage lawyers to do something exceptional, which can benefit the company. The change strategies used by Freewheels. Freewheels used behavioral strategy in this organization change. It is an approach which can be easily neglected by management layer, but it is indeed an effective method.
It emphasizes the use of human assets. By increasing the morale, motivation ND commitment of members, the organization can improve their performance (Harvey & Brown, 2001). Apparently, Freewheels wants to motivate the lawyers and increase the morale by using the new bonus scheme. According to Teddy (2010), lawyer is a very high turnover Hence, it seems Freewheels is doing a positive reform. Part 2 Compare the rationales and strategies of the organizations. Are there commonalities that emerge? 1. In the three cases, HRS has been involved in all the changes.
In these three cases, all the changes have referred to HRS. HRS management always has critical effects to organization change. According to Dooryard and Benches (2003), the success and failure of organization change depends on the contribution of HRS to the change process. Moreover, change has always been part of the fabric of HRS. In ‘Starting the HRS and change conversation with history, Gillie and Stork (2003) considered HRS and change management can affect with each other, and HRS management is an effective tool to reduce the risk through organization change.
Indeed, in the three cases above, all of the changes involved refer to HRS. For example, in the first case, PAW and Grimacing organized a new board. Also, in the breaking up between DEAL Phillips Fox and its former partner, the new company Fox Tucker also had an adjustment on HRS. Especially, in the case of Freewheels, the top management utilized behavioral strategy, which is a typical case of utilizing HRS to lead a change. 2. The goal of organization change is for surviving and developing All these three changes are implemented for a same goal—organization survival and development.
According to the research of Ramekins and Harris (2009), there is no organization has ever been immune from implementing organizational changes, and or the leaders of organization, they must be knowledgeable about how to implement appropriate organizational changes, because they are responsible for organization survival and development. Indeed, changes for organization are inevitable in this dynamic environment. For PAW and Grimacing, to restructure the merged company is necessary for enhancing the operation which can help them to resist the threats from international giants and develop their oversea business.
Similarly, the restructuring between Adelaide office and Ranking Tucker can improve their strength to survive and expand their markets. Moreover, for Freewheels, they utilize behavioral change strategy to improve organization’s performance. Apparently, in these three cases, the implementers of the changes have the same goal. Are some rationales and strategies presented as more legitimate than others? In your option why might this be the case? The rationales and strategies by the restructuring of merged PAW and Grimacing is more legitimate than the other cases above.
First of all, both of PAW and Grimacing are very positive in this merger. And they have Strengths- PAW is still a giant on wheat exports in Australia. Weaknesses- PAW is cake on its financial status. Opportunities- PAW has an ambition to enlarge its markets. Threats- The pressure from international giants. Next, because the good relationship between the top managements. The restructuring of the new company is very smooth, which increased their reputation and enhanced the confidence of their supporters.
Furthermore, the change strategy which they have been applied is very suitable to the new company. According to Head, Yeager and Sorensen (2010), for a truly effective organization development, the management must concern the efficiency of the organization structure. Indeed, by restructuring of the merged company, the operation has been centralized, which will be more efficient to manage this giant. Conclusions can you draw from these? In the cases above, the rationales and strategies are not limited in a narrow area, but related to different knowledge.
For instance, for the case of PAW and Grimacing, the rationales of their change refer to finance, marketing and management. Furthermore, in the case of Freewheels, the rationales of change involve HRS, marketing and management. On the other hand, for the strategies, there are two different strategies n the cases, which are structural strategy and behavioral strategy respectively. According to Harvey & Brown, structural strategy is for changing structures and design, and behavioral strategy focuses on attitudes and values.
Apparently, from the rationales and strategies they have utilized in different situations, change is a huge topic, and it contains many fields of knowledge. Indeed, from the research of Simian and Institutors (2006), the reasons for strategic change are related to many areas, including changing policies or legislation, technological change, top management placements or reorganizations such as the Joining together or the breaking up. And these kinds of changes aim to regain congruence between the organization’s goals, the environment and the organization.
