Managing change at Cox's Container Company - Case Study Example

Risk Management Problem Identification Cox’s Container Company is facing several challenges. They include stiff competition, declining profits, and problems on cultural issues. The company also faces the issue of inadequate training. The managers and employees do not cooperate. For instance, the general manager of the company (Erica Wilson) does not include her workmates in the survey. She found that the company lacks actual cost and operational controls. She recommends the company to employ financial and managerial specialists. In addition, when the new employees are employed to work on budgetary control, others do not support them. Abdul Aziz is one of the opposing workers of the organization. Analysis The above problems that are facing this group need to be analyzed. The analysis can be carried out in two ways. The first approach involves analyzing all the employees affecting the performance of the company (Jacobides 2007). These employees include the senior managers, middle managers, and business expert such as accountant. Failure of an organization can be linked to the failure of the employees. In this company, the employees are unconcerned with each other. They do not cooperate, communicate, or consult each other (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994). Harold Cox is the senior most executive in the Cox’s Container Company. He is politically and financially involved with people’s affairs. His leading job is to develop strategic and long-term decisions of the company (Jacobides 2007). This involves planning the long-term profitability of the company through increasing sales. In addition, he is responsible for delegating some powers to his juniors. For instance, he has assigned Erica Wilson to evaluate the actions of the company. Erica Wilson is the general manager of the company. She is responsible for making operational decisions of the company. In this case, she has been assigned to investigate the operations of the company for a positive change (Schermerhorn 1996). However, her style is not participative. She does not require other managers to do right decisions. She can be termed as a monocratic leader. In addition, she does not consider the fact that the success of the company is based on interdependence. There should be interdependency of people, technology, and the association for the company to acquire. Erica Wilson does not use the principles of goal setting in her management style. According to the goals setting theory, goals should be chosen either by the manager or both managers and employees (John 2000). Involving employees in goal setting makes them feel motivated. This facilitates the implementation of those goals. Erica Wilson appointed John Straw to do the actual reviewing of the company operations. These operations included accounting procedures and improving cost controls. All of these were under the central administration department (John 2000). John Straw had a good working experience from local government office. This experience could be used to improve the company accounting procedures. Furthermore, he could implement new methods from his background. He applies the same principles used by Erica Wilson. Eric Long is another new employee in central administration unit. His role is to change the existing informal process in budgetary implementation. However, the new budgeting department manager is not willing to change. He develops a similar budgetary structure of his former employer (Jacobides 2007). This might not raise a positive change because the two organizations are different. Eric Long does not communicate just like his fellow managers. Forming a new budgetary control is complex work and should include a team. During his presentation of his new budgetary system, there is no objection (Schermerhorn 1996). This is because the workers do not know the whole system. However, Abdul Aziz strongly opposes the change. He claims that the new system is undermining their culture. Simon Pedder is also recruited in the same department. He is responsible for systematic review of the company operation. In addition, he uses his research skills in the company. This is a disadvantage of the company. This is because the company is supposed to have a harmonizing assessment system, which considers its goals (Jacobides 2007). Abdul Aziz is another manager in the production department. He is among the old managers of the company and advocates for the preservation. He strongly opposes the new scheduled managers and their leadership styles. He claims that the new budgetary process will depress the working style. Over the years, he has gained popularity in the company and, therefore, he can lead to separation of workers. His opposing character is mostly out of protectiveness of the autonomy he has gained (Jacobides 2007). Abdul Aziz lacks capacity etiquettes because he uses abusive language to the managers. He is the only manager that does not attend the meeting to implement the new budgetary system. Therefore, he is not coordinated at all. Organization Over the last five years, Cox Container Company has been facing various challenges associated with the organization. The company’s framework is usually depended on the objective in which it is meant to fulfill. There is a need to identify the way in which responsibilities, powers and other related duties are delegated. The process puts together various departments of the company to enable them to achieve a common goal. For instance, the threats of completion that this company is facing are crowded (John 2000). The organization must develop self-innovativeness in order to survive these challenges. This company is also interacting with many outer environments and must maintain self-identity. However, it is not an easy task to maintain well-structured organization culture while interacting. This is a major aspect in an organization and only made possible by an experienced managerial team (Jacobides 2007). An effective organization will require sufficient resources to enable it to fulfill its vision, mission, and purpose (Jacobides 2007). The Organizational of Cox Container Company (CCC) includes environmental setting, organization maturation, technological perspective and the general size of the company. Company Size In the course of organization development, it increases in size. The structure becomes more complex and thus difficult to manage. The number of employees in CCC currently stands at three hundred and eighty. The method of coordinating such a large number of employees needs to be upgraded. If direct management of employees is applied, the result will be overworking some junior managers. Upward and downward communication need to be improved (John 2000). Company Technology Supervision, coordination, and performing various tasks in the company require technology. Technology facilitates an easier, accurate, and progressive way of production. The sector is one of the most dynamic and sophisticated in the industry and requires constant update. CCC produces containers in large quantities. Without technology, production is halted (Jacobides 2007). At the same time, mass production depends on time and efficiency. This mechanism increases cost if technology is not availed. On the other hand, technology is costly and expensive to maintain. This calls for an integrated process, which will involve employees of the company (John 2000). Cost of training and upgrading will also be incurred. Organization Development The company was founded in 1946. Harold Cox who is the owner managed the company for a long time. An effective company will depend on members, how it develops, and evolves with time (Schermerhorn 1996). The organization governance, rules, and the way in which work is distributed are fundamental. This is concerned with the policy maker, the policies, and the way they are distributed to employees. The strength of the company relies on the organizational culture. For a long time, direct management and central management led to success of the company. For instance, basic rules and lack of complicated procedures improved the organization’s image (John 2000). Central management, budgetary system, information processing and production department need to be defined. However, it needs to be done as far as communication and innovation are concerned (Wagner & John 1995). Environmental Background Cox’s Container Company was established and developed to a big company. Extension in terms of needs and cost has been recorded. The company serves the needs of the local and other people’s needs. With such progress, the company should evolve with time, needs, and other aspects of the society as a whole. The environment is complex and, thus, needs competent management to cope with it (Schermerhorn 1996). Mechanistic structures seem to be stable and successful, but immediate needs to upgrade the system are required. Standard procedures and rules should govern market certainty, culture, and ethical values of the company. Employee commitment and productivity can be halted by lack of ethnic consideration. Alternatives Doing nothing With the retirement of Harold, the company will require a leader. These leaders probably will come up with new approaches. Doing nothing cannot be considered reasonable ways in this case. The company enjoys rapid expansion and growth. This then calls for innovative approaches of both leadership and operations (John 2000). The needs of the market may change within a remarkably short time, and mechanization is expected to change. External challenges threaten the company and thus, change of structure needs to be done. Involving Other Agent of Change An effective structure as seen above is depended on teamwork. A change needs other people involvement. Other people need to be consulted and included for the common good of the company. A progressive company needs to be consultative and valuing other people’s contribution and ideas. This involves all pieces and putting them together. Different ways of viewing and facing problems can be embraced (John 2000). The custom of the group is governed by its purpose and its daily practices. The formal structure can be preventative of external expectation. Running an organization will require to be espoused and reformed to the group purpose. Combining efforts from various sources forms a fundamental basis of decision making (Wagner & John 1995). Harold also enjoys support and backup from the ethic community. He helped transform the community by improving their standard of living. Additionally, a lot of the credit goes to him for such a helpful approach. However, there is the need to assist all the ethnic groups in the area. This is because the targeted market includes all ethnic groups. Going Ahead The company’s organizational structure shows incompleteness. Priority goes to observant examination of the amount of desirable changes required (Jacobides 2007). The company seems to be in hard times. The profit decrease threatens the company. Changes opposed by Mr. Abdul are critical for the existence of the company. The knowledge possessed by Erica is fundamental and needs to be adopted. Authoritarian techniques should be used in this state of affairs (Schermerhorn 1996). Open and Participative Management Style This style supports contribution of other managers and employees toward decision-making. The management should encourage an interactive communication among the workers. This will enhance diversity and uniformity in changing Cox Container Company. The style can be adopted in two approaches. The general manager (Erica Wilson) may present the problem to the junior managers and share with them. Then, she can obtain their suggestions on how to solve it. Afterwards, she makes decisions considering the applicable ideas presented. In other words, the decisions made by the manager should be out of influence of the junior managers. On the other hand, Erica Wilson should share the problem with the juniors and obtain possible solutions with them. In this case, the decision should reflect and represent the overall opinions of the whole group. In both cases, cooperation and effective communication toward a positive change are enhanced. Recommendation The survival of the company is critical and thus, change of Erica Wilson’s authoritarianism and open management will be preferred (John 2000). This approach will enable the company to achieve the long-term goal. However, there are also challenges with this method. For instance, Wilson’s method may face a lot of opposition. The chances of losing her job and power are also high. This is because the owner will see her as a rogue employee. Participative and openness method finds a lot of application and, thus, is highly preferred (Schermerhorn 1996). Plan for Action Open and participative management style involves incorporating all the departments of the company. It also involves effective communication to all employees (Jacobides 2007). These are the vital tools to use in managing a short and long-term change. The plan of action should be as follow: First, the general manager should prove that the company requires change from simple to mechanistic structure. This should be supported by the fact that the company is facing a stiff competition. The competition needs to be addressed in order for the company to survive. Second, Erica Wilson should communicate a superordinate goal, which will change the employees’ old conduct toward the new phase of the organization. Third, this goal should be communicated to all employees. Fourth, decision-making should involve all the managers. Fifth, the company should train employees on how to apply new procedures (John 2000). Sixth, the employees should be empowered to achieve the goal. Seventh provides a positive feedback of their efforts in order to enhance a short-term goal. Lastly, constantly review the implementation process and adjust where necessary. The first three steps do not consume a lot of time. The last five steps will consume a lot of time because they involve integration of the whole company (Wagner & John 1995). For instance, decision-making involves the collection and analysis of data. Training will consume company’s time and resources. Employees will need some time to change their behaviors (Schermerhorn 1996 References Heckscher, C & Donnellon, A 1994, The post-bureaucratic organization: new perspectives on organizational change, Sage Publications. Jacobides, MG 2007, ‘The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: lessons from a near-war,’ Organization Science, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 455–477. John, R 2000, Managing organizational behavior, 4th edition, Blackwell, Massachusetts. Schermerhorn, J 1996, Management, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, NY. Stone, J 1998, Human resource management, 3rd edition, Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, Milton. Wagner, JA & John, R 1995, Management of organizational behavior, second edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Read More