Blog

Successful Change versus a Dismal Failure

Successful Change versus a Dismal Failure

Introduction

Change management helps in maintaining a competitive advantage of a company against its rivals. When working to implement change in an organization, barriers arise. These barriers comprise of organizational politics, fear, lack of trust, failure to perform among many others. To resolve these barriers, successful change initiatives needs to get employment by the affected companies. Such strategies include training and employees’ development, a clear focus on the objectives of the organization, and the use of excellent communication skills. Change implementation is challenging but achievable. In this assignment, successful and failed change initiatives of two different companies will be discussed. Further, the study will compare and contrast the implementation theories that these two firms employed to implement change management.

Successful Change Initiative

Kraft Foods had been striving to enhance its growth and sustainability in the market for years. In the company’s endeavor to implement change initiatives, Kraft experienced barriers immediately their managers started decentralizing the approach in which decision making was undertaken in the firm. Top management realized decision making was not done by knowledgeable and competent people. The management, therefore, decided to recruit knowledgeable, competent, skilled, and experienced people to handle decision making roles for the company (Rosenfeld, 2009). By this doing, Kraft Foods was able to remove the procedure, structures, policies, and strategies that were derailing its performance effectiveness. Also, Kraft empowered the middle-level managers by providing them with the opportunity to take risks associated with the new role. As a result, Kraft established a conducive environment through which top leadership could trust the mid-level managers.

Failed Change Initiative

J.C. Penny is a retail firm that has been servicing its customers for decades. In 2012, Ron Johnson the CEO unleashed the company’s new vision of revising the company’s pricing methods and limiting promotion services. Traditionally, the company had been relying on discounts and coupons to increase sales. According to CEO Ron Johnson, implementing this vision would simplify customers shopping practices and attract more customers. A new three-tiered pricing scheme was launched (Hall, 2013). The company eliminated work “sales” from their promotional campaigns to consistently emphasize on low pricing. The vision looked promising but however, the intended results were not realized. The vision failed because the company tried a complete change of its brand promise to customers and yet the CEO failed to undertake a market research to get customers’ opinions and understand the merchandising, customer service, and marketing factors demanded by the target customers. Also, employees were not consulted about the change.

Implementation Theories

Contingency theory stipulates that the choice of an implementation strategy depends on the style of change, specifically change management style which depends on the rate of a proposed transformation and the stakeholders’ readiness to accept it. Kraft Foods employed a developmental transformation approach in implementing the transition. The management acted by recruiting competent decision-making employees making the company compete effectively in the market. Here, the organization as a whole was involved hence the success of the strategy.

On the other hand, J.C. Penny’s CEO employed charismatic transformation model to implement the change. Under this transformation model, individuals acknowledge that a company has to meet market demands and that revolutionary and radical change is required. The company aimed at establishing an advanced identity through pricing methods. However, the change method collapsed since the CEO attempted to utilize his positional power position in forcing through a transition that was not demanded in the market. If the vision was clarified and communicated to other employees, it would have been a success.

Conclusion

The approach taken by managers in implementing a change initiative determines whether the company will succeed or fail in its new strategy. Effective change management requires effective communication between the top management, employees, and other interested stakeholders in order to succeed. In the case of the two companies, their management possesses a vision for change but one failed due to the employment of charismatic transformation before consulting with the interested stakeholders.

References