Due to the poor performance of the organization I worked for, the board of directors decided to change the management by sacking the managing director and reorganizing departmental heads. The company had failed to meet is objectives in the last three year due to poor sales, which was occasioned by low productivity by the salesforce and other employees in the organization. The other factor that contributed to the poor performance is the lack of motivation. It is the responsibility of the leadership to motivate its employees by rewarding performance using different strategies. Allegations of favors in awarding rewards to employees were rife in the organization. Some believed that the most deserving performers were ignored by the management and the reward system was not fair. However, the current leadership had failed to recognize the effort of employees, which led to low morale and the lack of commitment. The lack of motivation was also associated by the employees’ failure to be creative and come up with ideas to solve the challenges facing the company.
Another factor that contributed to the poor performance was mismanagement of resources. Employees felt that the management allocated resources to projects that were not a priority to the organization. These factors contributed to a negative work place environment that was not conducive for high productivity. Even employees who were initially unaffected by the low morale started to report low productivity and loss of commitment as low morale gradually spread across the entire company. It reached a point where employees did not have any ownership in the organization as they felt the decisions made only served the interests of the management. Ultimately, the managing director was sacked and a new one from outside the company was hired.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Following the appointment of a new managing director, he first reorganized departmental heads by demoting some incumbents, promoting other employees, and moving some across departments. Although these changes were done at the management level, it had far-reaching implications on the entire reorganization. It was a time of upheaval in the company because some employees felt that the changes were radical and discriminated against them, while others felt that they were necessary to rescue the company from poor performance. Considering that the managing director was sourced from outside the company, some employees claimed that he did not understand the organization’s culture, and the changes at the leadership level were radical and fast. A combination of these factors complicated the change process, while the conflicting interests of making the necessary change to boost productivity and resistance to change were also additional factors. But since change always faces challenges when implementing, it was bound to bring much success to the company.
At first, the management experienced challenges in instilling the changes and winning the support of the employees. Although employees desired change in leadership, they started to resist the changes implemented under the new management for various reasons. Considering that they were tired of the previous management, I expected them to welcome the changes with glee and happiness, but at first, this was not the case. There is however, the aspect of comfort zone, which some of the employees had been subjected to. The drastic changes seem to have got them unprepared. The new management did not anticipate resistance to the changes due to the notion that the employees desired the changes and would welcome them.
I believe that one of the reasons for the resistance is the fear of the unknown. The rapid changes implemented by the new management created an atmosphere of uncertainty because employees did not know what was going to happen next. Some of the changes were surprising and it caught some employees off guard. One factor that contributed to this fear of the unknown was the lack of effective communication from the company’s leadership. Communicating the change process to employees is important to prevent rumors from taking over. The failure to communicate what needs to be change, how to be changed, and the benefit of the change leads to resistance from employees. It reached a point where rumors circulated within the organization about some departmental heads who would be sacked. Some thought that they would be demoted from their positions because of new reassignments. These rumors affected the performance of the organization because employees were worried about their careers. Although they understood that change was necessary for the organization to go forward, the rapid implementation of the changes without effective communication created an atmosphere of fear. The other factor which complicated the change process was the lack of trust in the new management team. It is not that the new manager had committed any crime to lose the trust of employees, but the fact that he came from outside the company made employees distrustful. Finally, job loss was another factor that contributed to the resistance. The new manager understood that for the company to work efficiently and improve turnaround times, he had to change departmental heads. However, the anticipated changes and the fear of job loss or demotion contributed to resistance. When employees fear that they would lose their jobs, they become uncommitted to the company and reduce their productivity.
Nonetheless, the resistance to change waned after a short period because the management realized its mistakes in implementing the changes and started taking measures to minimize employee resistance. The management started communicating the need for the changes using company emails and during face-to-face meetings. Initially, the company had implemented the changes without the input of the employees. When it started to be truthful and straightforward about the importance of the changes, the initial resistance started to decrease. Communicating the need for the changes were effective because it helped employees see the big picture and the benefits of the changes. The organization used both formal and informal communication techniques to ensure that all employees received the change message in one way or the other. The communication process also flowed from top to bottom and the subordinates were convinced by those at their top about the change process.
I also believe that the fast implementation of the changes contributed to the resistance. The management started to implement changes in stages and the resistance started to diminish. The company had failed to prepare for the changes and its response to poor performance was a knee-jerk reaction. When it started to make plans on how to manage the changes and implementing them in stages, the fear of the unknown drastically reduced since employees were aware of the changes the company was planning to implement.
Six months down the line, the company’s performance had improved significantly and the negative environment at the company had changed. Even skeptical employees who were wary of the changes were now convinced that there was need for the change and the Company was in the right direction under the new management team. Furthermore, the management team had learned its lessons on change management. Some changes may be necessary, but how they are implemented may determine the success or failure of the changes. The quick reaction of the new management was instrumental in saving the change process from failure. Nonetheless, it was an important learning experience for the company, its leadership, and other employees.
