BISHOP’S UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Change Management Case: 4 Bob Gal!n an" Moto#ola In$% Cameron Swinton 002131573
P#esente" to P#o&esso# Robson &o# BMG '((
What impact do you think Galvin’s officer meeting will have?
Galvin’s officer meeting is likely to confuse surprise and possibly promote a feeling of fear among the managers he addressed. This is evidenced by managers moving out of the room confused about the meaning of Galvin’s speech. This may cause them to further entrench their position with the organization’s status quo, and/or be surprised by and actively resist a change effort due to the confusion created by Galvin with regards to the etent of the change. !ue to the participative management culture and the culture that emphasized service length and management succession, some employees may feel un fairly treated. !ue to the unilateral nature of the speech, some of the chief management may also feel unfairly treated and alienated. These factors contribute to a lack of management buy"in. Galvin also failed to create a sense of urgency for change creating resistance due to a yearning for the status quo. #lthough he may have been deliberately vague, this vagueness contributed to the uncertainty and fear felt by managers, possibly undermining his credibility. $n spite of these possible outcomes, Galvin’s speech may prove to be an effective catalyst for supporters of change as they now have support from a critical member of senior management. What should Galvin do next? What should human resources do next?
Galvin failed to establish the need for transformative change, and foster the required urgency so that key managers and employees bought into the need for transformative change. Galvin should be more specific with regards to why he believes substantial change is necessary, and how his proposed changes will enable the organization to address the reasons for change. %e must also clarify the ambiguity concerning the degree of change he is proposing the commitment from his senior leadership team, who would be the key change agents and how such changes will affect different elements of the organization. &vercoming resistance stemming from the people based culture that emphasizes long service, and the culture among the management with regards to managerial succession would also be critical for implementing the changes Galvin is proposing. &vercoming the status quo mentality with regards to the organization’s management and productivity measures will also be something Galvin and his leadership team will need to address. These issues can be addressed in a series of follow up meetings among key management personnel and employees to clarify a vision which can subsequently be communicated to all employees. These meetings should also focus on implementation, and the implications of the vision for the organization’s culture, and strategy. &nce of the primary concerns from the human resources department overcoming resistance for the proposed changes through communicating a clearer, more focused vision. &vercoming cultural resistance with regards to the key assumptions and values of organizational members is also critical for human resources. 'ith regards to %(, the culture’s emphasis on seniority, and the security brought about b y long service are of particular concern as they could prevent them from competitively sourcing human resources. The mentality of doing things themselves and the mistrust of systems and bureaucracy are also key obstacles. %( questions Galvin’s structural focus for change and elements of the culture he had helped build. %(’s position of importance within the organization will enable it to participate actively and meaningfully in the aforementioned process. %( should put most of its efforts into designing an action plan to implement the change structurally as well as culturally. )ompanywide education and training programs, such as those implemented by *ritish #irways may prove effective. Is Galvin’s leadership philosophy and practice a model for “visionary leadership?”
•
•
•
•
•
•
# vision may be defined as an attempt to articulate a desired future state of an organization that stretches the imagination and motivates people to rethink what is possible. # vision provides a conceptual framework for understanding the organization’s purpose and includes a roadmap, and has the emotional appeal to motivate people and promote identification with the vision and organization. To accomplish this, vision must be+ o )lear, concise, and easy to understand o emorable, -citing and inspiring, o )hallenging o -cellence centered o $mplementable, and tangible o table, but fleible. o isionary )-&’s are critical to formulating, articulating, and motivating the implementation of the vision throughout the organization. $nspiring a shared vision is a key element of visionary leadership. isionary leaders appeal to a common purpose, communicate epressively, and sincerely believe in what they are saying. #lthough Galvin’s leadership philosophy and practice clearly enabled him to search for ideas and concepts to formulate a vision by making contact with, and attempting to understand the concerns of employees at various organizational levels, Galvin failed in clearly articulating the vision in a manner that integrated the organization’s strategic direction and culture. This is evidenced by the overly ambiguous manner in which he articulated the vision, leaving many members of the organization confused with regards to the meaning of the vision and Galvin’s sincerity concerning changing the organization. Galvin also failed to motivate key managers and employees as the manner in which he articulated the vision lacked urgency. %e also failed to adequately relate the vision to a reason for being for each employee as evidenced by the uncertainty with regards to what the vision meant and how it applied to their cares concerns and work. Galvin’s unilateral action with regards articulating the vision was inconsistent with the organization’s culture, which emphasized participation as well as length of service. The unilateral nature of his actions also created doub ts with regards to the degree of commitment of the two other key eecutives. The strategic emphasis of the company on technology development, and the emerging threat to the company’s competitive position were not addressed in the vision. #s a result of these various elements Galvin’s leadership philosophy and practice falls short of being visionary.
