Business Finance Homework Help

All organizations must always be prepared for change. Circumstances make companies review their standard operating procedures (SOPs). These firms understand that operating under the set rules can be disadvantageous sometimes. Overall, institutions should work towards ensuring that they operate according to the rules set in the countries in which they operate. While change is a good thing, it might not achieve the desired intentions if all people in the organization do not operate in harmony. Specifically, all employees must understand the need for change. If they do not, the firm will not perform as expected. The changes will also not help the company to grow better. I have worked in an organization that required urgent change. However, the moderation made did not achieve the desired results because many people in the organization did not understand the need for the new measures.

The organization was experiencing a challenge in its system. Many people, including customers, argued that the firm’s services were slow. Upon investigation, the management realized that the systems being used were leading to the situation. Hence, the board of management decided that the firm needed to change the system it was using. While the decision was good, it did not work due to several factors. This challenge resulted in poor performance and many shortcomings for the organization. While the company was ready to outshine its competitors, many people did not understand the new system. This problem led the company to operate differently from its competitors. The slow system’s challenge was also not solved, leading to further complications for the firm.

The Cause of the Challenges

While the changes were well-intentioned, they did not work as expected. Many of the employees were not involved in the acquisition of the new system. Furthermore, they were not adequately trained on how to use it. Overall, workers should be involved in a firm’s changes. They should be given specific roles to play to ensure that they understand the alterations and work towards the achievement of the set goals. Without involving them, they will be confused and fail to operate according to the organization’s needs. In this case, the company did not involve all people. The changes were decided and executed by the managers. This move made many people in the organization think that the managers had some sinister motives. While almost every person agreed that the system needed to be changed, they did not expect the organization to operate without involving them. Hence, many refused to operate as they were told. They failed to heed the training calls despite the requests. Overall, the system did not work as expected as many people did not understand how to use it.

What Change Leaders Could Have Done Differently

All people in the organization understood the need for a system change. However, they did not know what to do. The management needed to involve all people in a discussion about the system. Effective communication is key in such a process (Johnson, 2; Ashford & Detert, 1; Akindele, 2). However, the managers decided to impose a new system on the employees without involving them. This act led to resistance from many of the stakeholders in the firm (Furxhi, 30; Jones & Van de Ven, 482). People are bound to refuse changes when they are not involved. In this case, the leaders in the organization could have ensured that all people participate in the system’s procurement. They should also have trained the employees on its need. Overall, the workers should have adopted it if they had been involved.

References

1.1. Elsbeth Johnson. 13 June, 2017. How to Communicate Clearly During Organizational Change. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/06/how-to-communicate-clearly…

2.2. Susan J. Ashford & James Detert. January-February, 2015. Get the Boss to Buy In. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/01/get-the-boss-to-buy-in

3.3. Dele Olufemi Akindele. 2012. Enhancing Teamwork and Communication Skills Among First-Year Students at the University of Botswana. TESOL Journal, 6, 2-15. https://tesol-international-journal.com/wp-content….

4.4. Gentisa Furxhi. 2021. Employee’s Resistance and Organizational Change Factors. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(2), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.24018/ej bmr. 2021.6.2.759

5.5. Stephen L. Jones, & Andrew H. Van de Ven. 2016. The Changing Nature of Change Resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(4), 482-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316671409

Hello Professor and class!

Share an example from your own experience where you have seen a change initiative start off with great promise and then fail to achieve long-term adoption. If you don’t have a personal example, post a link to an article from the Wall Street Journal or other reputable sources about an organization that was unable to sustain a significant change initiative.

Article: Tarsus Distribution: How Tarsus Distribution Went from RPA Naysayers to RPA Evangelists. https://www.uipath.com/resources/automation-case-studies/tarsus-distribution. (1).

This article outlines Tarsus Distribution change initiative failure and recovery. Tarsus is an IT distributor in Africa that attempted to increase productivity and decrease manual data entry by implementing Robotic Process Automation (RPA). RPA is a process that utilizes technology, often robots and AI to complete basic and repetitive tasks. The idea was to decrease the workload on employees to avoid employee burnout, however, there was a lack of communication that made employees fearful that the robots were there to “replace” them and take their jobs. In the beginning stages of the pilot, there were also technical issues with the pilots creating incorrect invoices. This creating more resistant employees, who were already skeptical of the accuracy that the robots could produce.

What caused things to slip back to the old ways? Was it primarily driven by insufficient infrastructures for the new processes? A flawed design? Lack of training or accountability? Something else?

The lack of employee buy-in led to the initial implementation of the change initiative not reaching its full potential (2).

What could the change leaders have done differently to consolidate the initial wins and identify additional supports were needed to sustain the change? Think about both “carrots” – rewards for continuing to implement the change and “sticks” – deterrents that make using the old ways unpleasant. Include references to this week’s materials to support your response.

The company could have properly explained the “why” behind the initiative and properly conveyed the goal across the entire company. There was confusion and no internal support from necessary key leaders. Luckily, in this case, the change leaders observed the issue immediately. After losing 4 employees the company began to self-analyze their initiative and adjusted their approach with their staff. Management was able to recover from this failed pilot by:

• Listening to the employees’ concerns and redesigning the software to make data entry and capturing more accurate
• Having one on one conversations with key team members and departments to explain how the robots could benefit their daily job duties
• Constant reassurance

The employees needed intrinsic motivation and empowerment to be convinced that they were still needed alongside the new machinery. In the end, the company was able to improve accuracy by 100% and increased processing which essentially saved the employees about 5 days of work. (1).

Thank you,

Breana

References

1. https://www.uipath.com/resources/automation-case-s…
2. Gupta, D. (2020). Change Management Strategy Failures to Learn From. Whatfix.com
3. Malik, L. Six Factors for Making Change Stick: https://www.thoughtensemble.com/six-factors-for-ma…
4. Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.