Harvard Business Review Case 2: Perils and Pitfalls of Leading Change PDF

Preview

Summary

HBR Case 2: Perils and Pitfalls of Leading Change

Working at Clothes and Accessories as store manager, Daniel Oliveira was faced with several major stumbling points. His main problems stemmed from his employer’s unrealistic expectations, having overconfidence in his abilities, and makin...

Description

Eric Metselaar William Fanizzo Management 318 June 11, 2018 HBR Case 2: Perils and Pitfalls of Leading Change Working at Clothes and Accessories as store manager, Daniel Oliveira was faced with several major stumbling points. His main problems stemmed from his employer’s unrealistic expectations, having overconfidence in his abilities, and making several key mistakes early on both in communication and change management. This lead to his employees being fundamentally dissatisfied with his management and growing disrespectful towards him and the changes he wished to implement. Though his changes might have been valid solutions to their problems, he was unable to create meaningful change due to the unanimous employee resistance. To begin, it should have been more apparent too Daniel that the expectations of his boss were not considerate of factors that were not in Oliveira’s control. Though the overall economy in Brazil was soaring, Oliveira’s location in Vitoria was experiencing a major shift in the consumer market. As the departing manager states, the company is ignoring the changing metropolitan area where transit and consumer populations continues to decline and governmental institutions and offices relocated (Cates). Furthermore, the company “expected Oliveira to not only stop the declining performance, but also to increase performance to the levels of other stores with better locations.” Even if Oliveira had been a more experienced

manager, he would likely still have come short of these goals because they attempt to ignore reality and impose universal store standards to a dysfunctional degree. To solve this problem, a separation must be made between the variables that are within Daniel’s control and those that are not. The declining performance and happiness of his employees is a manageable problem and is well within Daniel’s control. However, the declining economy in the city of Vitoria and loss of government facilities have drastic impacts on the overall store performance and should be dealt with carefully and appropriately (Palmer). Once Oliveira understood the magnitude of the problem, he should have immediately scheduled a meeting with his superiors to discuss managing expectations and creating solutions. Maybe, a very drastic solution like relocation of the store might have been necessary if their projection were overwhelmingly negative. However, that may not be necessary if alternative solutions like downsizing to reduce the incurred costs would be able to curb the effects of the declining sales. Overall, a fundamental reassessment of management’s expectations and strategy is crucial to Oliveira’s success. The next area of concern was Oliveira’s communication with his employees. Like his predecessor warned, “the first and most important thing you have to do is to get to know your people. Get closer to your team before you try to change anything” (Cates). Though Daniels did attempt to connect with his team, his efforts to not meaningful enough to his employees, directly resulting in blatant disrespect and unwillingness to change. His attempt to meet personally with each employee was genuine, but felt superficial due to the nature of the discussion, Daniels inquired “about basic information such as their name, experience, and role at the store.” While this way be a good starting point, it by no means feels personalized or builds

connections. Daniel again must approach this situation using shaping rather than controlling managing. This was a key moment for Daniel, where he should have engaged employees in a discussion about the changes they would like to see implemented and what he can do to return a smile to their face. Because this was his first fatal mistake, it is where he should begin reparations. Fundamentally, Daniels problems stemmed from his inability to create change and gain buy-in form his employees. As M.S. Cole articulates in Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change, “A three-way interaction between change vision clarity, change appropriateness, and change execution was found to predict managers’ job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and role ambiguity” (Cole). Daniel had a strong vision and his confidence in his ability to create change was reinforced by his previous success and training, however this lead him to largely overlook other key factors. He lacked both change appropriateness and a system for change execution. It should have been more apparent to Daniels that his inability to sustain his change vision was directly fueled by his staff’s culture and attitude. Without respect or meaningful twoway communication, the changes had no traction and were destined for failure. If Daniels takes a more “shaping” management approach as opposed to “controlling” he could benefit from his employees being involvement in decision making. Not only would they be more inclined to respect the changes and the manager, they will also have a stronger personal connection to the vision and changes (Palmer). This would have drastically impacted the change execution and ultimately could have prevented losing his staff to his competitors.

Several smaller key changes could have had a positive impact. Firstly, when noticing that the changes he wished to implement to the stores operational problems were falling through, he should have appointed someone to take charge of ensuring that these goals are met. Additionally, much of Daniels time was wasted continuously chasing the symptoms of the problem while ignoring the reality, it was not working. This ultimately burned out his motivation and lead him to need a vacation at a time that would prove pivotal to his success. In the future Daniels must be more conscious of his time management and where he chooses to invest his energy. As K.V. Ramaswamy shows in Technological Change, Automation and Employment it is always crucial to be utilizing modern technology to solve problems, however this was a tool largely overlooked by Daniel. The use of technology might have saved him from several of the major discords amongst his staff. But, instead of creating a more efficient approach, Oliveira overworked himself. Specifically, in instances where he was being stretched thin over his multiple departments Daniel could have had more success if he created meaningful personal connections and communication utilizing technology as a reinforcement (Ramaswamy). Overall this could have created a more cohesive team under his management, consequently uniting to achieve common goals and reducing the resistance to change. (Palmer) In conclusion, Daniel Oliveira must fundamentally change his approach to change management if he wishes to be successful in implementation. He lacked an established communication network with his employees and was continuously struggling to maintain his change vision. Ultimately, this must be solved from the bottom up, using the lens of a shaping management, genuine meetings with employees to discuss core values and issues are

fundamental for building trust and respect. Additionally, Daniel must be more direct and proactive in communication with his superiors regarding his progress and their expectations. The downfall of the Vitoria location might be imminent and Oliveira needs to take the proper precautions to ensure that he does not receive all the blame. Overall, Daniels must entirely change his perspective and his approach to creating and sustaining change.

Works Cited Cates, K., Reiderer, G.. (2018). The Perils and Pitfalls of Leading Change: A Young Manager's Turnaround Journey. HBS No. KEL768. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University. Cole, M.S., & Bernerth, J.B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of product innovation management, 23(1), 19-25. Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2006). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Ramaswamy, K. V. (2018). Technological Change, Automation and Employment: A Short Review of Theory and Evidence....