Introduction
The world is changing, and with it come several changes in the organizational setting. According to Ferrell (2011, p. 75), change is one of the factors that cannot be avoided within the organization. It defines an organization and society at large. As Gerber (2008, p. 32) puts it, change is the most constant factor in human life and any organization. As controversial as this statement is, the change would always come with many controversies.
Every member of an organization will always appreciate the fact that change is the main driver of an organization. The mission statement of an organization and the vision would always state what the firm plans to achieve, and where the firm sees itself in a few years (Spulber 2007, p. 113). This is a clear indication that the entire firm, from the top management to the junior-most employees appreciates the need for change within an organization.
It is, therefore, intriguing that most stakeholders would try to oppose change. People would feel uncomfortable changing the set structures. A manager who is used to a certain way of doing things will feel challenged when forced to use a different strategy due to the pressures of change (Hill & Jones 2010, p. 112). Technology itself is a change, and many firms have failed due to their inability to adapt to the changes brought about by technology.
Kodak was displaced by Fuji Film as the market leader due to its inability to implement changes that were brought forth by technology. It is, therefore, an obvious fact that change cannot be ignored. It should be embraced to gain a competitive advantage in the firm (Hooley 2008, p. 82). This research is focused on change management and the strategies that are appropriate in managing change in the contemporary world.
The Drivers of Change
Change is driven by several factors, and as Graetz, Rimmer, Smith, and Lawrence (2011, p. 67) note, the drivers of change can broadly be categorized as external or internal factors. A transformation can be driven by the macro or micro factors within an environment. To have a clear understanding of the external drivers of change, PESTEL analysis would be appropriate.
The political environment is an external driver of change. A change in the political structure will have a direct effect on an organization. As Frynas (2011, p. 50) observes, if there is a radical change in the political structure of a country, the effect will be felt within the organization. Economical status of the external environment will also act as an agent of change. For instance, the economic recession of 2008/2009 was a serious change driver. Because of the recession, firms were forced to come up with a changed management structure to suit the prevailing market conditions within the environment (Kratschmer 2011, p. 67).
The social structure of society will always act as an agent of change. The societal changes can be caused by the changing trends in society. This will act as a driver of change within the society for it will be forced to adjust to being in line with the prevailing societal conditions. Technology is probably the biggest driver of change. The world is changing due to the changes brought about by technology. Scientists are under constant pressure to make life easier and more entertaining, and as Evans (2012, p. 18) notes, they have not disappointed. Technological changes within society have resulted in massive changes in the way various organizations are managed.
Technology has been the main driver of change in various organizations. Environmental issues can also act as a driver of change. When there are changes in the environment that have a direct impact on an organization, or the immediate environment in which it operates, there will be a need to change the strategies to suit environmental conditions (Norton 2011, p. 59). Legal factors can also drive change. When there is a change in the legal apparatus that has a direct bearing on an organization, there will be the need to ensure that the organization adjusts its system to reflect on the new laws and regulations.
The Agents of Change
The agents of change within an organization are the stakeholders whose actions will have a direct impact on the organization. The internal drivers of change may also be considered as the agents of change. The agents of change are the forces that would carry out the change. The case given about Clemenger BBDO is a clear demonstration of what internal forces can do to bring change within an organization.
Rob Morgan was both an agent for a negative and positive change within this firm (David 2008, p. 32). When appointed as the chairman of this organization, there was an unprecedented fall in the profitability because he failed to offer an approach of leadership that was expected by various stakeholders. Peter Biggs was an agent of a positive change within this firm. He came up and challenged all the existing structures within the organizations, and fostered new approaches regardless of the opposition that was given by various stakeholders within the firm (Daft 2009, p. 45). This resulted in an upward trend in the profitability of the organization.
The agents of change will include the top management of an organization, as was in the case of Clemenger BBDO; it can be the middle level or junior employees, or the shareholders of the firm. These agents will work as a unit to ensure that they achieve the ultimate goals of the organization despite the changing environmental factors (Wells 2011, p. 93).
The Perspectives on Managed Change that is most appropriate to this Case
The case of Clemenger BBDO is a clear demonstration of what change can bring to an organization. The perspective of change demonstrated, in this case, starting from the psychological perspective, then the cultural perspective, and finally the systems perspective. Peter Biggs started by changing the psychological approach that employees had towards the industry and towards the firm. He challenged the existing systems and made the employees believe that they could perform well above their current capacities. He was able to dispel the belief that was already sinking among the employees, that this firm was destined to fail.
After transforming the psychological approach of the employees, he developed a culture where employees believed that they had to be creative in all their actions. He made them believe that they had a responsibility to transform the firm and made this a culture. This resulted in a massive change in the existing system. A massive transformation of the firm ensued as the management struggled to ensure that the systems were made to reflect the new organizational culture.
The Evidence from the Case that Managers Are Faced with Dunphy and Stace’s Five Dilemmas of Change
This case demonstrates the Dilemmas of change as observed by Stace and Dunphy. Coulter (2009, p. 35) argued that change comes with dilemmas that managers should put into consideration if success is to be achieved. Before Peter Biggs joined this firm, there was a clear lack of rational strategic planning. This is demonstrated in the strategies that were taken by the top management. This changed when he joined. There was a cultural renewal and empowerment of employees irrespective of their positions in the organization. This resulted in a radical transformation of the firm to achieve both economic and social goals.
The Form of Strategy Evident in the Case
The case demonstrates several strategies that were applied by Biggs in transforming this firm. One of the most conspicuous strategies applied by Biggs is cultural renewal. He changed the culture of the organization by having a hands-on management strategy. He was also less formal with employees, a strategy that was meant to improve the relationship between employees and the top management unit. This played a major role in the transformation of the firm.
The Evidence of Strategic Intent and Strategic Thinking
The case also demonstrates evidence of strategic intent and strategic thinking by the top management. There was clear intent from the actions of the top management, to create a culture where employees would feel free to express themselves within the organization and share their views about the necessary transformational actions within the firm. This shows strategic thinking by the management who knew that this was the best approach to achieve the strategic objectives of this firm.
The Role of Organizational Culture in the Management and Implementation of Change in this Case
This case also demonstrates the role of organizational culture in the management and implementation of change. The performance of this firm before the arrival of Biggs was on the downturn because there was no properly structured organizational culture that would guide the actions of the employees. This changed when Biggs arrived. One of his first tasks was to develop a strong organizational culture within this organization that would guide every action of the employees. It is with this strong organizational culture that Biggs was able to implement change within the organization with much ease.
The Empirical Evidence for the Causes, Processes, and Consequences of Change in This Case
The case of Peter Biggs fits well in a prescriptive model of how change should happen within an organization. The case presents a clear case of causes, the process, and the consequences of change. The cause of the change was the need to revert the downturn performance of the firm. The process involved the change in organizational culture and the perspectives of the organization (Anderson 2011, p. 52). Finally, the consequence was the increased profitability of the firm. This case is a clear demonstration of the path that change would take in transforming an organization.
Conclusion
The world is changing very first, and with these changes come several responsibilities to the management. It is clear that change cannot be ignored by firms if they are to survive. Technology is one of the key drivers of change that always affect various aspects of an organization. The case of Clemenger BBDO is a clear demonstration of how the management can bring a new beginning to a dismally performing organization.
List of References
Anderson, M 2011, Bottom-Line Organization Development: Implementing and Evaluating Strategic Change for Lasting Value, Elsevier, Burlington.
Coulter, M 2009, Strategic Management in Action, Pearson Higher Education, New York.
Daft, R 2009, Organization Theory and Design, Cengage Learning, New York.
David, F 2008, Strategic Management: Concepts, Pearson Higher Education, New York.
Evans, D 2012, Social media marketing an hour a day, Wiley, Indianapolis.
Ferrell, C 2011, Marketing Strategy, Cengage Learning, New York.
Frynas, J 2011, Global Strategic Management, University Press, Oxford.
Gerber, K 2008, Marketing communication, Pearson Education, Cape Town.
Graetz, F, Rimmer, M, Smith, A & Lawrence, A 2011, Managing Organizational Change, 3rd Australasian edn, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.
Hill, C & Jones, G 2010, Strategic management theory: an integrated approach, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hooley, G 2008, Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Kratschmer, P 2011, Organizational Culture is Highly Resistant to Change: Discuss, GRIN Verlag, New York.
Norton, M 2011, “Marketing Strategies”, Harvard Business School, Vol. 1, no. 4, pp 11-91.
Spulber, D 2007, Global Competitive Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wells, G 2011, Sustainability in Australian Business Fundamental Principles and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.