Blog
MBADM 814, SP19, 001, 002 Whole course
Lesson 2 Team Activity: ChangeU
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Lesson 3 Discussion: The 7th Phase
Overview
The change model for this lesson is anchored in the idea that organizations must go through periods of growth (evolution) as well as periods of crisis (revolution) in order to advance. This progression involves a deliberate and strategic management of change based on an awareness of placement on the growth chart. The organization’s ability to respond proactively to the evolutionary and revolutionary phases dictates the pace and quality in which organizations manage change. Greiner’s idea stresses the fact that it is not only critical, but imperative, that management understand where they are in the evolution/revolution phase in order to effectively manage change.
Base Discussion
Given your understanding of the Evo/Revo model, integrated with your knowledge and experience, and your survey responses on this topic:
- Discuss the critical factors that you considered when you were deciding on the 7th Phase. What were the external (industry, regulations, etc…) and the internal (unique to your organization) factors that you considered to arrive at your response for the 6th Growth Phase?
- Same question for the next phase of Crisis. Was there something specific about the changes in the contemporary environment that led you to your response regarding the next Crisis Phase?
My Evolution – Automation for Innovation – The End of Busy Work
My Crisis – Burnout and Replacement – Strategic Use of Human Resources
Higher specialized knowledge as a requirement for even the most entry level of positions will become standard in the developed world. The Masters is the new Bachelors. According to Greiner most mature US companies find themselves in the 5th stage of evolution under a collaborative model that, while producing long-term growth for business, has wreaked havoc on work life balance. Over leveraged employees in need of constant knowledge refreshment while working across multitudes of teams and tasks has led to burnout and capped innovation, a key requirement for company relevance in a planned obsolescence future.
Email, the cloud, and company smart phones have followed every employee home and will lead to rebellion, some CEO’s carry flip phones (Links to an external site.) to avoid death by email. Greiner talks about companies reacting to the life work balance and discusses an important idea of a dual structure workplace: Habit vs Reflective. Now, I believe Greiner thought humans would run both Habit and Reflective tasks, switching back and forth like crop rotation in the 1700’s, to provide relief from over cultivation. But, post what I think will be a work-life balance crisis, I foresee companies prioritizing human resources for reflective/innovative tasks while the habitual is completed cheaply by Artificial Intelligence.
Time cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be shifted between priorities. So how do companies prioritize time for employee learning and rest, gaining the needed skills of Masters and Doctors while keeping their innovative ideas fresh but allowing time for life? -> By using AI to run every administrative/habit task possible. Amazon Alexa already controls my home lighting, manages my incoming and outgoing calls, stores my calendar, buys and has my groceries delivered, briefs the morning news, and takes out the garbage (ok it can’t do that… yet). AI’s replacement can always go too far, and workers who once thrived in the habitual could find themselves pitted against machines for the existence of their livelihood, leading to the next possible crisis….
1. My critical factors for deciding on the 6th phase involved how to deal with the age of automation and how displacing workers with automation may affect company profits long-term. If unemployment rises to a point that companies no longer have customers to buy from them, then it kind of defeats the purpose. I think company’s should definitely consider this trade off and factor it into their profit sustainability and whether long-term automation will have diminishing returns.
2. My critical factors for deciding on the 7th phase involved how to deal with the age of automation and how innovative AI systems may end up displacing workers faster than companies and society as a whole can react to. Elon Musk has spoken out (Links to an external site.) several times about the dangers of AI and what companies and humans as a species will need to do to avoid disaster. While discussions on the topic often sound like something out of a science fiction movie, it’s important to have a plan to deal with some of the ethical dilemmas we will face as a society in the future.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
I chose optimization as my next phase and complacency as my next crisis. Prior to the Alliance phase organization’s face the crisis of internal growth; ideas are limited, competition is growing, and little energy is left for motivation. In order to solve that alliances, mergers, and acquisitions are made. Once the crisis of identity is overcome an organization is left with an abundance of talent and skill in their particular field. In order to continue to evolve they need to streamline and optimize in every aspect of their organization. They need to identify the best processes, remove redundancy, and find the best way forward. This could mean automation, getting rid of superfluous positions, or defining strategy for the way forward based on the assets in hand. This period of growth is the optimization phase and is a re-assessment of how the organization will function effectively.
An organization reaches a crisis in this phase when they become complacent, thus entering the Crisis of Complacency. By this point an organization has succeeded in its niche, taken on a competitor, and streamlined its business process. If the organization is not careful to continue to strive for new innovations or new answers to problems they fall into crisis. Growth slows, competitors catch up, employees start to burnout or leave, and the organization lacks direction.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 2 Scaffolding Activity #1: Managerial Practices Table and Narrative
The Organizational Structure of the US Navy can fit into the Phase 4 where there is line staff and product groups. We can easily capture the line staff that goes from the highest chain of command known as The Commanding Officer followed by The Executive Officer, Department Heads, Division Officers, Chiefs, The Leading Petty Officer, and The Work Center Supervisor. Each Command has the line staff described. However, in the US Navy we can find many Commands in each base that works for specific goals as a group independently from other Commands.
Analyzing this, we realize the US Navy Organizational Structure is under a coordination phase with formal systems where the high-level executives are responsible for their subordinates. But also, it is clear that to reach or become a high level executive, the US Navy has created this lineal staff structure that demands growing in level while growing in experience and development inside the same organization.
For this exercise, we’re only focusing on horizontally analyzing on one of the five categories. We’re ignoring the vertical portions because we don’t want to jump to conclusions. For example, you would look at management reward emphasis and give examples how the Navy uses individual bonus’s to incentive its employees. We don’t want to get a head of ourselves and pick a conclusion then base our narrative on that conclusion. Trust the process and keep up the good work!
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Lesson 1 Discussion: Why isn’t this working?
Overview
John Hamm (Lesson 1 article) has laid out some fundamental messages of leadership communication that appear to be essential for success in today’s business environment. However, you may have noticed that although you agree with the focus of the messages, they appear somewhat elementary. Which is true, however, most leaders just don’t get it! I would like to know why, in your opinion, so many leaders are missing the mark?
So that we can address the contemporary challenges associated with leadership communication, let’s see if we agree on what defies communication and if they are related to the fundamental messages noted. Of course, we do not have to agree, this is your opportunity to discuss your experiences with leadership communication and help to set the stage for our discussion over the next 16 weeks.
Base Discussion
- Provide a problem statement (one sentence) defining the reason for ineffective leadership communication, based on your experiences. Remember to stay focused on communication, as leadership has many facets.
- Provide a brief explanation that offers reasoning (if there is any) or provides further insight.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: There are 2 main reasons for my notation of “brief” blog posts. The first reason is somewhat obvious; the lengthier your post, the less chance that your colleagues will read it. This goes for discussions as a whole. Secondly, in the spirit of leadership communication, the more clear and CONCISE your message, the more effective it/you will be. Throughout this course, we will work on developing clearly stated messages in a brief context, regardless of the forum (writing/speaking). This will be one of the most important aspects of this course.
As a benchmark, your post should not exceed 2 paragraphs, ever. If it does, slice and dice your message to a “short/sweet/powerful” format.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Leadership is ineffective at communicating with their organization when they do not properly understand the limitations of their audience.
In many cases, it is difficult for leadership to put into perspective what impacts their words are having on the organization beneath them. Different functions may value certain things more heavily than leadership does, especially if communication is not timely and open.
A classic example of this is leadership celebrating the awarding of a large business contract that an organization is not currently staffed to take on. Focusing solely on the positives of winning new business without also communicating how leadership plans to satisfy what it has promised to a customer sends a mixed message depending on what function is hearing it.
Ineffective communication occurs when leadership makes an important announcement but withholds too much information as “sensitive” or “confidential.”
Not knowing enough details can invoke fear in an organization about its future, resulting in an unproductive workforce. One example, that has been used this week are company reorganizations. Experiencing one myself, I have seen firsthand how implicit communication and an unclear vision can lead to a production standstill. Leadership may try to avoid divulging too much information (e.g. number of positions affected) to avoid inner office turmoil but when employees don’t know what to expect, their fear can halt their ability to work effectively.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Lesson 2 Discussion: What triggers your change?
Overview
Based on the Changing Organization of the 21st Century model (in Lesson 2), take a moment to think about your own organizations and change management in our contemporary era.
Base Discussion
Identify the primary (top 2) influences/factors triggering organizational change at your organization. It is important to remember that in the discussions you must demonstrate knowledge of the content, as well as integrate your own experiences with the topics. Given this, be sure to use the model as your anchor in your response by categorizing within New Competitors, Changing Consumers, Technology, or Competitive Uncertainty. Explain, based on the subcategories within each category.
Lesson 4 Team Activity: Does it Really Matter?
Your group is tasked with discussion on two main topics as listed below. You are required to submit one summary sheet outlining the outcomes as noted in each of the topic discussions.
Part 1 – Poor Writing
- Each group member is asked to share an actual example of “bad writing” with the group. This should be the poor writing examples that you reflected on in the Lesson 4 narrative. NOTE: please remove all names or confidential information before sharing with the group.
- BRIEFLY discuss with the group why the writing was deemed as poor writing. During this discussion, draft a summary sheet (one per team) that lists the specific reasons why the various writing samples were viewed as inadequate.
- The Part 1 summary should be no more than 1 page.
Part 2 – One Unbreakable Rule
- Each member is asked to share their ONE UNBREAKABLE RULE, as it applies to effective business writing. Explain to the group the reasoning behind your answer.
- List the UNBREAKABLE RULES as the second section of your summary sheet.
- The Part 2 summary should be no more than 1 page.
To share your experiences with the class, ONE MEMBER OF EACH GROUP will post their summaries to this discussion, either as a single attachment to your post or by copying/pasting the summaries into a single post. All group members should take a look through the class’s posts and share any related information, stories or insights.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Team 6
Poor Writing
The style and accuracy of a piece of writing is just as important as it’s content. In the compilation of poor writing examples gathered, the team discussed a number of requirements for well-written communication. Perhaps most important but often forgotten is tone. Lacking in-person clarity of audible voice, body language, and other physical cues, the tone of writing can run awry based on audience interpretation. In one of our poor writing examples, we identified the tone to be authoritative, belittling, and insensitive. With an improper tone, or lack of care in crafting an intentional tone, writers can quickly lose their readership.
Additionally, structure is just as key to keeping readership. That is to say, are the ideas constructed in a logical order and are all pieces relevant to the message being conveyed? This includes structure within a single sentence as well as the overall piece of writing. Two of our poor writing examples are filled with fragmented or run on sentences making it complex to read and difficult to comprehend the writer’s message.
Punctuation and grammar brought our team discussion on bad writing to an end. While there are guidelines to tone and structure, the rules for punctuation and grammar are more concrete. Every error stops the flow of a reader, breaks concentrations, and detracts from the point of the piece. It’s like looking at a Picasso only to notice a blemish on the bottom right side of the frame.
After reading with brevity and hilarity these sample bad pieces, our team discussed golden rules for writing. Many of our standards stand as the antithesis to these examples of bad writing. In sharing our own unbreakable writing rules, focus by all was made on forming concise arguments, stating them upfront, editing for grammar and syntax, and establishing clarity as to who was being written to and why.
Our Unbreakable Rules
Clearly stating a communication’s purpose upfront is key, and since it is the start of any good writing, it is our #1 rule. A reader’s time is precious, when making a point, come to it. Lack of clarity in message leads to ambiguity, ambiguity leads to missed results, lost readers, and the dark side. Ok maybe the dark side is a bit far, but readers are led astray. In today’s world of mass communication failure to hook a reader by the end of paragraph one ensures paragraph two will not be read. State your argument upfront with conviction and keep the supporting evidence relevant and concise.
Communication needs to follow a logical structure in order for it to be understood. A clear opening will let the reader know what the message is about, grounding themselves in the content they are about to read. A well communicated message will have a smooth flow with a concise introduction, meaning, and closing. Throughout the message, punctuation, word choice, and grammar need to be used correctly to support the structure and not detract from the message by merging or garbling incorrect ideas. Properly structured communication will serve as the catalyst for a message to be fully received.
Know your audience. In order to communicate effectively, you have to speak the language of your reader by understanding how they want to receive information. A great author will recognize and accommodate intended audiences interests to capture and hold their attention. Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model (Links to an external site.) points out what you say or “encode” as a writer is not the same as how the audience reads and “decodes” the information. Keeping the perspective and language of the intended audience at heart will help communication take place.
And finally, Edit, edit, edit, and edit some more. Conveying messages clearly without any grammatical errors is key to winning over the reader’s confidence. As Garner states, ‘your audience will form an opinion about you from your writing’ and if it’s sloppy, they may not want to do business with you. Error-free communication connects readily and rapidly with audiences, staying on point with minimal distractions. Trust between reader and writer is also brokered through use of proper syntax and punctuation, mitigating whiplash of the reading eye. Poor and sloppy editing detracts from core messaging and inhibits the formation of a positive relationship between the writer and audience.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Team 5
Poor Writing
In most cases, the point of writing something is to communicate a thought. In trying to get your message across, it is necessary to make your content concise, clear, and error free. Aside from grammatical errors, there could be misspelled words due to a simple lack of proofreading. When engaging in a written document about general topics (global warming, politics, sports, etc.), writers/authors should consider how they want themselves and their message to be perceived. An individual writing something can automatically be discredited due to having a poor writing style. However, if the content is well thought out and well written, they would have more credibility and the audience would be more receptive to considering their points.
Many factors contribute to readers losing interest. A redundant message can quickly turn an engaged reader to a distracted reader. Establishing the personal connection is crucial for gaining the reader’s attention. In one of the examples discussed, the writer failed to consider the audience, and thus, resulted in little reader engagement. Giving the reader a feeling of importance as they are required to get a task completed would not only prompt a reply, but it could motivate the individual to put forth their best effort.
By the same token, brevity and delayed response to a form of communication that has clear substance, purpose, and individualism hinders the meaningfulness of the work put into the original email. This type of response highlights a lack of interest and intent in the viewers’ mind that will inherently decrease the motivation to continue with efforts in finalizing the topic discussed. Contrarily, answering people with care and timeliness presents a sense of importance to the reader and helps to create a meaningful interaction – especially when working in a virtual environment.
Unbreakable Rules
As a business professional, focusing on clarity and conciseness prevents communication from being vague. Clear and concise writing translates expectations explicitly and acknowledges the fact that the readers’ time is valuable. By structuring thoughts with clarity and conciseness the reader is more likely to understand the intended meaning and leave a positive experience from the interaction.
The use of mutually accepted terminology helps to transcend language and other communication barriers. If you are speaking with someone that is not in your department or at your company, you must monitor the use of oversimplification. The more awareness you have of the recipient and how they operate, the easier it is to understand what or how to say something. A good rule of thumb when first communicating with someone is to use as formal of communication as possible and then mirror that individual in terms of the use of acronyms or shorthand. This will help to bridge communication gaps between colleagues with different backgrounds.
Be considerate when drafting communication. The understanding that there is a clear ask or purpose to your email could become unimportant to the reader if the language is overblown, unnecessary or unprofessional. Especially when working with someone virtually, it is crucial to dictate the relationship and how you write will be the first thing someone notices. How you write can consist of multiple factors like length of email, tone and someone is more likely to respond when you are considerate of their time and role within the organization.
Considering your audience is not restricted to who you are writing to, but rather it is about thinking of how the recipient would view or understand the message. For this rule, the idea of whether the message is clear to the recipient drives the general tone, content and style of the communication to ensure that it is easy to understand as the reader. By taking the thought processes and environment that the recipient exists into consideration, you can offer clear and concise information that uses mutually accepted terminology in a considerate manner. Essentially, the notion of considering your audience when drafting communication can encompass the entire set of our unbreakable rules and lead to quality interactions between sender and recipient.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Team 3
Amanda Durk, Gabe Mejia, Kwesi Bartels, Kyle Rademaker, Brandon Taylor
A recurring theme that existed in several examples of the bad writing reviewed by Team 3 is the issue of assumption of the reader’s knowledge. Whether it is to fill in omitted words, actions, or ideas, the writer blatantly missed the mark and left the reader in a position requiring inference to close the gap. On the other end of the spectrum, writing can be too technical, which would mean that the writer did not have the “nonspecialist” in mind as suggested by Bryan Gardner in the HBR – Guide to Better Business Writing.
- Do not make assumptions on your reader’s knowledge.
- The author needs to ensure the right tone is being struck based on the nature of the writing and audience to effectively convey the idea.
- In written communication it needs to be apparent “What’s In It For Them [the reader]”.
In our modern world, consumers demand information that can be digested in a minute or less. The target audience will dismiss information that feels convoluted or if the message lacks personal relevance. During our team’s zoom session, each member elaborated on how their writing example made them feel disconnected. Demonstrating the importance of understanding what your audience expects, and framing the message to those preconceived notions.
- For serious topics make sure your message is presented well – know your reader.
- Make sure you’re not bogging down the audience with back to back
questions.
Finally, the organization of a message is just as important as its content. In this case, organization not only encompasses the overall structure of a message but includes continuity of information (i.e. ensuring there are no conflicting ideas) as well as attention to spelling and grammar. Preparing and writing a well-structured document allows the reader to better understand the intended message; this can be emphasized by using consistent formatting, categorizing information with headings, using bullet points, and limiting sentence length.
- Limit overuse of punctuation like exclamation points and question marks.
- Reread paragraph to ensure it flows well.
- Proofread for consistency and correct conflicting information.
- Structure a message so the reader better understands the flow of information.
The Team’s Unbreakable Rules
1. Conciseness
When delivering your message, ensure that the key information is easily identifiable and everything that is said serves its purpose. Make sure not to have any clunky or hard to read information. Allow your message to flow so your reader can read it quickly.
2. Objectivity
Be an objective writer by leaving personal opinions out of informational emails. Back your statements with facts so your reader can regard your words more.
3. Attention to Detail
Develop a clear understanding of the purpose of your writing before composing. Maintain focus on the writing and do not multitask. Always proofread the document for spelling and grammar mistakes.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Team 7
Part 1 – Poor Writing
With all communication, it is important to deliver the message in a way that your audience understands and is then able to respond to or take action on as necessary. With written communication, our errors and miscommunications are easily identified, and the tone is often left up to interpretation. During our team discussion we reviewed multiple examples of poor writing. Writing that does not contain all relevant information, contains inconsistent or confusing statements, lacks appropriate flow, and poor use of visuals are all examples of poor writing we discussed.
Writings that ramble on tend to be difficult to understand, this is another example discussed by our team. The misuse of appropriate adjectives or innovative language to describe what you are trying to convey or express can leave the reader wanting or confused. It is important for the writer to use the correct language and vocabulary for each particular audience. Lastly, it is acceptable to change font color, type, size and style, but it needs to be appropriate based upon the context and purpose of the writing. We determined all the identified issues can lead to writings that ramble on and must be identified by the writer to prevent the issue.
An example of bad writing the team discussed was a peer manager’s communication regarding the direction their team was taking within a project. The format of the writing was consistent, a paragraph followed by bullet points to outline thoughts, concerns, and next steps. However, as we reviewed the communication, there was confusion and concern around the communication. The email was out of order, used incorrect verbs, and incorporated incomplete and unclear bullet statements. The email forced the team to re-read it multiple times trying to determine the intent of the writer. It led to additional confusion about the project and even raised questions regarding their capacity to lead. This example displayed the importance of clear and organized thoughts when writing to the team.
If a leader does not take the time to re-read their writing to effectively articulate their statements, how could we expect them to communicate tasks and objectives to their team for the duration of the project? The response to the email would not be about actions or next steps, rather, it would focus on clarification and validation of their statements. Time is wasted, confusion is introduced, and potential team impacts can be created by a manager not taking the time to re-read and confirm their thoughts were being articulated to others. Writers must thoroughly review their work before sending it out to the team. As a team we decided it is extremely important to review your writing for these errors before hitting the send button.
Team 7’s One Unbreakable Rule From Each Member
Ensure the intent is clearly defined and communicated. The intent of communication should occur early on as to set the tone and purpose of the material. If the objective is to inform, discuss, debate, etc. it should be stated in such a manner that there is little to no interpretation of the intent. An added benefit of providing intent early in the communication is it can provide context to the remaining elements of the email.
Avoid using definitive terminology. In any type of communication, be it written or verbal, definitive terms, such as ALWAYS and NEVER, should be avoided whenever possible. In many cases it just isn’t true. When you are making statements that aren’t 100% true, it reduces credibility and trust in the speaker/writer. The audience automatically loses focus on what the attempted communication is because they are greeted with this underlying negative vibe or attitude right from the get go and reduced sense of trust. In other cases, like with the term “final”, when it really isn’t the final decision or the final draft, it’s can cause unnecessary confusion and frustration.
Have your bottom line up front. This rule states to put the subject or idea you are presenting as early as possible in your writing. If you are proposing something, then state the proposal right away, there is no need to build up dramatically when time is important. Supporting your proposal is important but the reader may not need all that information to agree or commit.
Have a clear tone when delivering your message. We have all, at some point in our personal or professional lives, fallen victim to a misinterpretation or miscommunication in the tone of voice we hear in something that we have read. Take for instance the phrase “I never said she stole my money”. If you read the sentences seven times through, emphasizing a different word each time, you get seven different interpretations of the sentence. If a very clear tone is conveyed in the message, it is less likely that miscommunications will occur.
Add a picture/diagram/table where possible. This is only to complement the writing and act as a visual aid and descriptor to the writing where appropriate. In order to demonstrate this we decided to add our own visual aids to the top of our discussion.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Team 4
Poor Writing
Accuracy and clarity of any writing is critical to its effectiveness. Without it, confusion arises, readers become frustrated, and too much is left to interpretation. Ambiguity in communication leads to mistakes, which can be costly in both time and money. A single core document for a process that contains a single but substantial error may result in dozens of man hours lost, as well as damage to reputation among partnered groups.
Further, specificity is overlooked by writers all-too-often. In a multi-disciplinary office environment, it may be something as simple as a writer taking for granted that not everyone receiving an e-mail knows who is being referenced by first name only. In an engineering environment, a failure to specify the units on a figure can have dramatic downstream repercussions. This issue is amplified in virtual teaming.
Good writing should drive to a concrete point, and quickly. A common element of poor writing is the inability to establish this point, exacerbated by needlessly verbose and meandering prose throughout the message. Particularly in high tempo settings, from military to healthcare, communication must be highly objective-oriented and streamlined.
Of course, the importance of correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and structure cannot be overstated. Even if all information without the writing is relevant, accurate, and specific, a writer risks “losing” the reader if it’s not presentable or professional. Poorly written messaging can become “white noise” to exceedingly busy individuals who have a constantly filling inbox.
The course of discussion surrounding our team’s varying examples of poor writing all lead quite naturally to firm positions on unbreakable rules. Members shared major themes, particularly in clarity, brevity, and accuracy.
Unbreakable Rules
Necessary Content, Minimum Words
Business writing is not the place to show off your vocabulary or your imaginative writing style. Each communication should contain all, but only, necessary content and should be as direct and concise as possible. It can be difficult to understand what is necessary, but once you know you can be extremely effective in your communication. Most emails and texts I get from executives are 6 words or less.
Appropriate Punctuation, Spelling, and Word Choice
Word choice may include something as simple as you’re/your. It might not seem like a big deal, but it does tell you a lot about a person. When I receive a document from our business partners (primarily in Asia), I often see people write like this:
Hello , Andrwe. We are a P CB manuf-
acturerin Shenzhen,China.。You’re company is in america, right?!? Callme fore details pls.”
So the rule: use proper phrasing, punctuation and grammar to the best extent possible as a sign of respect to the person who is going to read your messages. Read the message yourself before sending it.
Clarity and Specificity
Particularly in a professional environment, all communication should be concise and specific, with little room for interpretation. If it’s possible for a reader to ask a basic contextual question of the message and the writing itself does not contain the answer, the writer dropped the ball. (“Amy who?”, “20,000 what per year?”, “July of what year?”). It’s extremely easy for a writer to make assumptions of his or her audience, but simple oversights like this can result in a multitude of avoidable consequences.
Be clear, concise, thorough, and use plain English
Include all necessary details, but keep things clearly written and to the point. People should not be questioning the opportunity or next steps after reading a communication, but also should not spend time reading a novel when the key information can be said in a few bullet points. Someone mentioned above, but this is not the time to show off your vocabulary; verbiage should be commonplace.
Don’t get to the point – start with the point.
Too often I waste time reading long emails that don’t pertain to me or most of the important information is at the very end. This requires I go back, with context now in mind, and reread the entire email. I hate wasted time at work as do most. In the military we often start with a BLUF (bottom line up front). Make sure the reader knows the subject, purpose and context upfront. And don’t neglect the subject line!
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 2 Scaffolding Activity #2: Placement on the Six Phases Growth Chart
In my opinion the US Navy is on Phase 5, focused on management action through teams. The team manager who works only as the director of the team by giving guidance assigns each team to a particular project leading and giving instructions on how to get the results needed but is the team the one who make that happen.
Nevertheless, there are some area where the progression of the company doesn’t seem to show as much mixing procedures that were part of preview phases.
The Management is focused on problem solving and innovation. Each problem will be quickly solved through team action. For this, team can work independently or in cooperation with other teams. Managers also encourage new practices and innovation into the organization.
The Organizational Structure of the US Navy is still the same one as it has been since 1775. Where there is line staff and product groups. We can easily capture the line staff that goes from the highest chain of command known as The Commanding Officer followed by The Executive Officer, Department Heads, Division Officers, Chiefs, The Leading Petty Officer, and The Work Center Supervisor. Each Command has the line staff described. However, in the US Navy we can find many Commands in each base that works for specific goals as a group independently from other Commands.
Analyzing this, we can realize that the US Navy Organizational Structure is under a coordination phase with formal systems where the high level executives are responsible for their subordinates. However, it is clear that to reach or become a high level executive, the US Navy has created this lineal staff structure that demands growing in level while growing in experience and development inside the same organization.
When it comes to the Top-management style we can define it as the “watchdog”. Even if the management focus requires collaboration and that includes being participative into the teamwork, the manager tends to just observe, give line guides, and control the procedures.
The US Navy has a Control System with mutual goal settings. This means that it combines singles multipurpose systems to meet their goals. This control system is handle by the managers in cooperation with other teams managers if needed.
There is one aspect in which I consider the US Navy is quite behind and that is the Management Reward Emphasis. Even, if the recognition for a successful work cold be assigned to a team, the US Navy gives emphases on individual recognition usually by generating competition and giving awards to that one person who stands out from the team while working on projects. The way this is established not only considers a particular project but it does also evaluate the overcome of each particular team member who end up competing with each other for that Individual award. The individual honor usually aids in the possibility to pick up in rank, which does not only provide an economic reward but also a career development.
Analyzing the Managerial Practice we can realize that the US Navy has been developing most of the areas of the organization while maintaining and old structure that, considering the mission and vision of the company, works combined with the evolution in progress.
In my opinion there are still some fields where the organization is still in crisis if not about to get into on as a result of an uneven development of the managerial practices.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 2 Scaffolding Activity #3: The Concept Map
- US Navy-Management Action through temas (Phase 5)
- Innovation
- New Ideas
- Inside and Outside
- Problem Solving
- Team actions
- Focuse on solutions
- Individual Recognition
- Competition
- Career development+ Economic compensation
- Control by Cooperation
- Mutual Goal System
- Team Management
- Top Management
- Guidelines
- Policies
- Control and Observation
- Line Staff & Product Groups
- Growth by experience
- Coordination
- Formal System
- Commands
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 2 Deliverable: The 6 Growth Phases
Introduction
To asses Greiner’s 6 Growth Phases Model, I will be analyzing the US Navy. It Age and Size, the impact of industry related factors, and the specific growth phase we could find it at.
The United States Navy (USN) is the maritime service branch of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and one of the five uniformed services of the United States military. It is the largest, most dynamic navy in the world, with the highest taskforce and the largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world, currently eleven in service, and two new carriers under construction. With roughly 320,000 personnel in the fleet and around 99,600 in the reserves, the Navy is the third largest of the services. It has over 280 deployable combat vessels and more than 3,700 operational aircraft as of March 2018, this makes it the second largest and most powerful air power today. (Reynolds & Shendruk, 2018).
The Navy is organizationally managed by the Chief of Naval operations, which is headed by a civilian, Secretary of the Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the most senior naval officer serving in the Department of the Navy. The Department of the Navy is itself a division of the DOD, which is headed by the Secretary of Defense. The current mission of the Navy is to recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready Naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterrence through sustained forward presence (Navy, 2019).
To examine the US Navy’s growth since its origin we are going to investigate Grainer’s 6 Growth Phases Model described in the article “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow”. Grainer explains how the “behavior of individuals is determined primarily by past events and experiences, rather than by what lies ahead” and analyses how every company goes through different phases of grow that will “begin with a period of evolution, with steady growth and stability, and ends with a period of substantial organizational turmoil and change”.
Managerial Practices
On October 13th, 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the Continental Navy, known today as the U.S. Navy (History, 2019). Congress also authorized the purchased the Navy’s first six ships the USS Constitution, USS Chesapeake, USS Constellation, USS President, USS United States, and the USS Congress. By the end of the century, the Navy’s size was only at three ship due to the peace agreement with Algiers. (Cutler, 2009)
This background information helps us realize that the US Navy had a very complicated slow growth during the first years of existence. However, the ships they had by the end of 1794 were either fully commissioned or in process of being constructed as President Washington asked Congress for guidance on construction of the final three ships. During the first 25 years of existence the US Navy overpassed a high phase of growth and a rapid phase of revolution with the establishment of its very own ships. (Cutler, 2009)
During the early ages of the US Navy, the evolution and revolution phases of the organization were based on the amount of ships and personnel working for it. However, a modernization program began in the late 1880s when the first steel hulled warships stimulated the American steel industry, and “the new steel haul navy” was born, generated a rapid expansion of the U.S. Navy and its easy victory over the Spanish Navy in 1898 brought a new level of appreciation for the American brand of quality. Thru 1911, the U.S. had begun building the super durable dreadnoughts at a pace to compete with England. In the early 1900s we also saw the first naval aircraft with the navy which would lead to the establishment of United States Naval Flying Corps to protect shore bases. (Cutler, 2009)
The US Navy went from six ships to an organization on a much bigger scale with deferent departments from the U.S. Marines to the flying corps to protect shore bases in just 116 years. The growth of the organization is undeniable. However, it has been a steady and slow grow that included many ups and down in the organization, several loses during these years, many changes in management procedures and personnel. All this has helped the organization become the enterprise it has become now a days.
Greiner explains in the “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow” the different managerial practices that happens during the organization’s development path as follow.
Managerial Practices Table
With this table we can analyze the different phases and focalize in the current Managerial stage of the US Navy.
The Navy has always had a management action through teams. Over the years with the modernization of the Navy this has grown to a complex system. There are team managers who work as Commanding Officers of units and carry out the mission under the guidance assigned to each command to a particular project leading and giving instructions on how to get the results needed, they know collectively it’s the team/organization that make it happen.
Nevertheless, there are some areas where the progression of the organization doesn’t seem to show as much mixing procedures that were part of preview phases. Greiner describe this as “mini-phases within each evolutionary stage”
Management is focused on problem solving and innovation in the mission. Each problem will be quickly solved through team action. In this case, teams can work independently or in cooperation with other teams. Managers also encourage new practices and innovation into the organization.
The Organizational Structure of the US Navy is still the same one as it has been since 1775 (Cutler, 2009). Where there is line staff and product groups. We can easily capture the line staff that goes from the highest chain of command known as The Commanding Officer followed by The Executive Officer, Department Heads, Division Officers, Chiefs, The Leading Petty Officer, and The Work Center Supervisor. Each Command has the line staff described. However, in the USN we find that many commands follow this structure within each base that works for specific goals as they work independently to accomplish the mission statement.
Examining this, we can realize that the USN Organizational Structure is under a coordination phase with formal systems where the high-level executives are responsible for their subordinates. However, to reach or become a high-level executive, the US Navy has created this lineal staff structure that demands growing within the organization while gaining experience and development inside the same organization.
When it comes to the Top-management style we can define it as the “watchdog”. Even if the management focus requires collaboration and that includes being participative into the teamwork, the manager tends to just observe, give line guides, and control the procedures.
The US Navy has a Control System with mutual goal settings. This means that it combines singles multipurpose systems to meet their goals. This control system is handled by the managers in cooperation with other team managers as needed.
There is one aspect in which I consider the US Navy is quite behind and that is the Management Reward Emphasis. Even, if the recognition for a special achievement could be assigned to a team, the US Navy gives emphases on individual recognition usually generating competition and giving awards to that one person who stands out from the team while working on projects. The way this is set up undermines tasks, it creates an environment of competition and hostility as everyone wants these awards to be able to move up in rank as it helps in identifying the best most qualified members. Since the individual honor usually aids in the possibility to pick up in rank, which does not only provide an economic reward but also a career development it easy to compromise the overall integrity of the mission.
Growth Chart Placement
Growth Phase Chart
Considering the large history that the US Navy has, its size and age, and its rapid growth during the first century, we could think that the organization is far beyond the 6th evolutionary path. However, I see the US Navy over floating the 5th path and incurring in some mini-phases as well as some stagnation in some areas. The US Navy has a management action through teams what positions the organization under the 5th path of growth. Nevertheless, the organizational structure as well as the top-management style did not reach this phase yet. Neither did the managerial Reward Emphasis, which is still working under individual bonuses and recognition.
The reason I believe this organization has not reached its biggest growth potential are some counterproductive practices.
Counterproductive practices
Even if the U.S. Navy is a big successful organization with centuries in experience and development, we also can see how a long history has a counterproductive effect when trying to overcome difficulties while looking into past successes and trying to copy from it. As Greiner says: “too often, it is tempting to choose solutions that were tried before but that actually make it impossible for the new phase to emerge”. The military in general has a very archaic system. Just consider the rank system, a person that enlisted in the military has 10 plus years of service and a degree will remain enlisted. The process for them to receive a commission as an officer is more difficult that a newly graduated college kid. Not to mention, the majority of Officers are Caucasian (Reynolds & Shendruk, 2018).
Analyzing the Managerial Practice, we realize that the US Navy has been developing most of the areas of the organization while maintaining and old structure that, considers the mission and vision of the company, works combined with the evolution in progress. In my opinion there are still some fields where the organization is still in crisis if not about to get into on as a result of an uneven development of the managerial practices.
References
L.E. Greiner, (June 1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1998/05/evolution-and-revolution-as-organizations-grow (Greiner, 1998)
G.M. Reynolds and A. Shendruk, (April 24, 2018). Demographics of the U.S. Military. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military
T.J. Cutler, (May 15, 2009). The Bluejacket’s Manual. Naval Institute Press; 24 edition
F. Ramirez, (October 13, 2017). The U.S. Navy turns 242 years old this week, see how its ships have changed. Retrieved from https://www.chron.com/national/article/U-S-navy-how-old-is-founded-anniversary-birthday-12277100.php (Ramirez, 2017)
History.com Editors, (February 17, 2019). Continental Congress authorizes first naval force. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/continental-congress-authorizes-first-naval-force (History, 2019)
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Lesson 7 Discussion: Artifacts, Shared Values, Basic Assumptions
Overview
There are several critical components discussed in the Young article that suggest culture has a direct and important impact on the implementation and success of organizational change. However, this is just Young’s opinion. So to start this discussion, let’s see if, collectively, we are “taking away” a similar message from this article.
Base Discussion
Let’s begin this discussion by having you clarify your “Take Away” from the article. What was the overarching message that you took away from the Levers article? Briefly state what you feel is a critical message that you took away from the article as it relates to culture and organizational change. This clarification will help lay the foundation for further discussion on this concept.
After this initial discussion to help clarify the article’s message, let’s branch off of this main idea and discuss the true application of this concept. Is there validity to what Young/Schein present in this article? Do you see benefit to assessing the Levers in an organization? Would this type of assessment be beneficial for your organization? If so, why? or, Maybe you are not buying it! What are your thoughts on applying this model and the use of the information derived from this assessment.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Sample of an answer from our experts
My initial take-away from the article was that there is no one hard fast rule for changing the culture within an organization. While I think this message is true, I’m not sure it was communicated in the most effective way. The beginning of the article focuses on the three basic aspects of culture and seems to emphasize that basic assumptions are more critical to individual organizations than shared values and artifacts because they are more implicit. The article then transitions into describing six levers for affecting culture change within an organization and describes different ways that these levers can have an impact on upper management and the organization as a whole.
I don’t think the article did a good job of tying these levers back to the original point of basic assumptions being vital to the culture make-up of a company. It came off as contradictory to me to start with the statement that there is no hard fast rule for changing culture in an organization and then launching into a very formally structured description of six levers that can be pulled. While I think each section had very interesting and useful information, it made the discussion feel like silo thinking.
My first take away from the article was that changing culture is not something that has a direct method, and the path to culture change is multi-faceted. I agree with this statement, and have experienced two organizations going through culture change with very different paths forward, so can validate there are multiple ways to accomplish culture change.
I do not think this article was the easiest to follow, however, in spelling out the possible methods for culture change. As I was reading, I found myself questioning how Young would tie the concepts back to each other, and after reading the article in full I still find myself wondering that question. I do think the concepts are relevant, but I find this to be a very plain way to influence culture in dynamic organizations, much as something that may be suggested by an outside consultant rather than internal leadership. I think this could lead to missing the transition that is sought after because following this directly could lead to the team analyzing the culture to look at things biased or with blinders, and miss relevant details. Culture is not something that can simply be changed because the communication or memos say it is, rather, it truly has to be accepted and lived by management to get buy in from and transition into lower-level employees.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
My main takeaway from this article is that a company’s culture is most highly influenced by the “shared basic assumptions” of the employees—or as Young states “the invisible but identifiable reasons why group members perceive, think, and feel the way they do about external survival and internal operational issues.” In my opinion, this explains a common reason why change management efforts fail within organizations, because too much attention is given to the elements that are much easier to change, like “artifacts” and “shared values” or drawing up new programs and documents. My takeaway is that to enact change, the “shared basic assumptions” are where management should apply most of their time and efforts in both figuring out what the shared assumptions are and then coming up with an effective plan to address and/or change them.
I felt that there was validity to the concepts that Young/Schein presented in the article. I was left wanting a little more description of some of the levers as well as examples for each category to aid in my understanding of it. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention that there were a few spelling and grammatical errors in this article. As discussed in our recent lesson, this can lead to reduced credibility, and it did from my perspective.
I do see a benefit to assessing the cultural levers present within an organization. In my opinion, any activity that causes management to take a good, hard look within and to analyze the firm from a new learning-oriented perspective will result in a benefit to the organization. According to an article from Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-culture (Links to an external site.)), “If we can define what organizational culture is, it gives us a handle on how to diagnose problems and even to design and develop better cultures.” My own firm would benefit highly from an assessment of this sort. At this very moment, we are two months deep into being acquired by another firms and the next 1-2 years will be a time of great change for the firm.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Take Away – Organizational culture is defined by its most significant lever(s) and Values are evidence of that lever.
I read the Levers article with the backdrop of my own organization in my mind to consider which organizational levers were identifiable in our culture. Far and away, the most dominate lever for my organization is “Customer Management” and all other decisions flow from there. My organization designs and manufactures business jets with a product lifespan of more than 50 years. We do not simply sell and aircraft, we form a relationship with our customers to support their investment. Parts, service, education and fleet updates are integral to managing customers. Values of the organization are evidenced in our investment in the customer experience through global seminars for operators, alerts detailing potential issues and cures, and easy access to senior executives among others. The other five levers pivot from that customer experience.
Authority and Influence are driven by our most senior leaders taking feedback from customers and applying the information to future designs. These decisions are fed top down through the organization. Motivation for employees is not material for our organization as most of the employees are in France and enjoy a more socialistic sense of employment. Conflict management among responsibility centers is managed between the units unless the conflict arises due to a customer concern.
I did not find the Levers article to be particularly helpful in suggesting tools for change, but it was helpful in assessing key drivers of our organizational structure. This assessment must vary greatly from industry to industry and may provide assistance is determining where one lever is negatively influencing organizational culture for those organizations interested in making changes.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Discussion/Individual Participation Self Assessment #2
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
The U.S. Navy (USN) has a very strong organizational culture that have been established since the foundation on the organization in 1775 and hasn’t been modify much. However, in recent years a lot has been addressed regarding equality. The core of the U.S. Navy’s Culture is represented by strict Artifacts, Shared values, clear and delimited Basic Assumptions. Notable Artifacts are represented by dress codes such as standard uniforms and formal wear with insignias that represent ranks and achievements. They also have distinctive behavior patterns such as the way they refer to each other by rank and last names, the way they salute, and even the way they walk. When it comes to the Shared Values, the Navy has their norms and codes of ethics that the organization manifests and promotes. The organization is disciplined when it comes to these norms and codes. To assure that all members of the Navy follow them they have recruit trainings to all new of the organization. The USN has a very strong concept of values as referenced in their Navy core values that create an atmosphere where everybody will be held accountable, building a structure of trust, and enforcing team work. All of these are what Schein describes as Shared Basic Assumptions. A perfect example of this is the shared belief when it comes to meetings or events. All members participating in a meeting or an event are expected to show up at least fifteen minutes earlier that the expected beginning time set for such event.
As we can see, the core culture of the U.S. Navy is strict, and the organization makes sure that all service members and family are not only aware of what is expected from them but also put it into practice.
It is easy to conclude that the Navy’s organizational culture does not only work for them but also has a long history of success considering the mission and vision of the organization. The organization has been and still will be keeping the culture as it is. To reach this goal the U.S Navy dedicates a lot of resources and effort in training their members, this ensures that they represent their culture successfully.
Module 3 Scaffolding Activity #2
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 3 Scaffolding Activity #3
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 3 Deliverable: Cultural Levers
Lesson 11 Discussion: May the Force Be With You
12 12 unread replies. 169 169 replies.
Overview
This discussion will serve as a lead in to our upcoming application of the Force Field Analysis (FFA), which is linked to the type of assessment conducted by the Change Agent Practitioner Role.
Please begin by viewing Episode 156: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, discussing the framework of the FFA:
Episode 156: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis (Links to an external site.)
Episode 156: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis
Base Discussion
After review of this video, apply the Force Field Analysis by speculating on the perspective of online education in the U.S.
Let’s consider the Desired State to be “that online education in the U.S. is accepted as the same quality education as face-to-face programs.”
The Current State is that “online education is viewed as a ‘lesser quality’ education than face-to-face programs” (ha..yeah right!)
Carefully consider the specific Driving Forces, the factors that support or drive quality online education, and the Restraining Forces, the factors working against this change from taking place.
Be specific and logical in your post. Identify ONE or TWO Driving and Restraining forces that need to be considered for this change initiative.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
According to Lewin’s force field analysis, driving and restraining forces must be considered during change initiatives. In the case of online education, one of the major driving forces encouraging change toward the desired state, “that online education in the U.S. is accepted as the same quality education as face-to-face programs,” is the growing number of online education programs being offered and the increasing number of student enrolled each year. For example, the number of students in the U.S. enrolled in at least one online course rose from 1.6 million in 2002 to more than 6 million in 2016 (Selingo, 2018). As more students utilize online education, the perception will inherently begin to change, albeit slowly, until online education is universally accepted as equal, or even better, at some point in the future.
One of the restraining forces that is maintaining the status quo of the current state, that “online education is viewed as a ‘lesser quality’ education than face-to-face programs,” is the existence of low quality, unaccredited online degree programs that are still tarnishing the reputation of all online education programs. Also known as “diploma mills,” these organization provide illegitimate degrees for a fee, and continue to harm the public perception of online degrees overall.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/04/college-online-degree-blended-learning/557642/
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Perceptions about all advanced education options are driven by perception of quality, regardless of whether brick and mortar or online. A restraining factor is the lack of relative data when comparing traditional physical education platforms to online platforms. Considering Penn State University alone, in-person courses began in 1855 as compared to the World Campus launch in 1998. 164 years of data can be tabulated to account for quality of education as compared to its 21-year-old online sibling.
Alternatively, a driver in support of online learning is the increase in technology allowing an ever-expanding platform for an educational experience, to include face-to-face communication. Having attended PSU undergrad many years ago, I can compare my own experiences in large classrooms as to virtual classrooms. I can hear and see the material more easily in a virtual environment. With over 6 million students attending online courses, there is an increasing amount of data to compare the two experiences, the results of which show the quality of education can be at least comparable, if not, better.[1]
[1] https://www.northeastern.edu/bachelors-completion/news/are-online-degrees-respected/
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
People are afraid of change, and online education represents a departure from the familiar. As Lewin talks about in his Force Field Analysis, restraining forces will maintain the status quo unless driving forces, a disruptor like the smartphone above, can overcome the inertia to change.
Whether due to distance, a need to continue working, the high cost of a full-time program, or simply wanting to take advantage of learning in your bathrobe, there are several driving forces supporting growth in online education. Online students want and expect their hard earned diplomas to represent the same value as those attending programs in the traditional fashion. Unfortunately, society has not fully accepted this, with scam universities, watered down online curriculum, and most detrimental – a desire by the traditional university system to maintain market share restraining society from accepting online schooling as equivalent to lucrative in-person programs.
Interestingly, the traditional University’s exploration into the online realm, not the least of which is Penn State’s World Campus, has helped lessen restraining forces exhibited by traditional universities. As name-brand institutions like Penn State successfully implement their own online programs, driving forces in support of quality and name recognition for online diplomas is bolstered. So often, it comes down to $$$ as the greatest driving force.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
A driving force behind online education is the ability for students to attend universities and programs that best align with their needs and career goals. Having to live near your university limits your choice. Having the student and university being a better career goal match greatly increases the chances that students will find success after completion of their program. Another driving force is the reduced chance for a student to miss a lesson or instructive session. For acceptable and unacceptable reasons, students miss class on campus, but online courses provide 24 hour access to the lesson and diminish the chance for students to miss a course. This increase in ability to absorb each lesson is a great benefit for students.
A restraining force is employers which may view online degrees as unequal. I’m not sure there’s a great way to measure this restraint but there are certainly many people making hiring decisions that view online education as lesser quality. With degrees mostly related to career advancement, getting to the point where nearly all companies view online and traditional programs on the same level will ensure online programs are accepted as the same quality.
According to Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, I believe a major driving force to move from the current state of online education to the desired state of equal quality education is the reality that the use of virtual teams is the norm in the job market. Online education requires a higher reliance of technology and virtual interactions between faculty and students alike, allowing them to be confident and competent in their virtual skills when they enter the job market. Being forced to use media platforms and programs to develop deliverables along with the applied stress of time management in online education gives the online student an advantage over a face-to-face education. The face-to-face student does have the luxury of having someone who is constantly reminding them of due dates and is there to help you when you raise your hand or have problems with technology, vice an online student who needs to use their resources to solve their problem.
A restraining force for online education is the accreditation process. The market of online education is saturated with different calibers of accrediation. Some educations are well known and held highly, and some are viewed as pointless and do not carry an approved and recognized accreditation. This variance in standards is making it difficult for all online educations to be played on the same playing field. For example, a trade skill doesn’t need to be accredited like a MBA program should be, but to gain the same respect as a face-to-face school, they should be accredited to the appropriate standard of their concentration.
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 4 Scaffolding Activity #1
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 4 Deliverable: Force Field Analysis
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 5 Scaffolding Activity #1
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Module 5 Deliverable: Organigraph
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order
Introduction
Throughout the course, we have been afforded the opportunity to learn different ways to analyze how businesses operate and adapt to the peaks and valleys of the market environment. Some tools were more useful than others. Team 8 found the “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow” model by Larry Greiner (“Greiner Model” or the “Model”) the most challenging. This paper focuses on the limitations of, and potential improvements to, the Greiner Model.
Benefits to the Greiner Growth Model
To understand the limitation of the Greiner Model, one must first have an appreciation for the goals and benefits of the model. According to Larry Greiner, organizations are quite like a living organism in relation to their growth phases commencing with birth and maintaining sustained growth until reaching maturity. Greiner proposes that a business undergoes six growth stages and requires suitable business strategies and models that promote and cope with the growth: existence, survival, growth, take-off, and then maturity. According to the Greiner Model, time is the only variable, which determines the size of the organization. Greiner advocates the need for businesses to understand appropriate management styles, coordination of business activities, organizational structures and management styles and how they affect the developmental phases of the business. (Greiner, 1972).
The Greiner model provides a framework to consider different aspects impacting business operations. Application of the Greiner Model helps users to anticipate the various business needs that arise with each level of growth. Understanding the stage where a business is on the model may provide direction to overcome the various crisis experienced when the enterprise expands to a larger market scope (Buono, 2005). Therefore, the Larry Greiner Model is not intended to be a remedy for business strategy design, but rather, acts as diagnostic tool that scrutinizes and analyses the business prospects and its sustainability in the marketing, thus assisting in preparation for the next business stage.
This popular model has been used in business management for many decades as a tool to support making strategic decisions appropriate to the stage that a company is in; however, while it has many benefits, it also has problems that make it irrelevant or inadequate for certain organizations or applications.
Main Problems with Larry Greiner’s Evolution/Revolution Growth Model
While the Greiner Model is a useful tool for analyzing certain companies, we found that it had limitations in applicability across all industries and is presented in a linear path, without considering that an organization may not progress in a linear fashion but may find itself in a variable state along the Model.
Limited Applicability
Originally written in 1972, the article/model is not entirely relevant to professional services and knowledge-oriented industries. The “Revolution is Still Inevitable” addendum made to the article in 1998 comments on this fact, but does not give a detailed enough addition to truly make it useful. For example, in Phase I, Growth Through Creativity, the phase assumes a small number of people are forming the company in concept and getting it off the ground. While this may be the true start, the crisis stage, identified as one of Leadership, may not be applicable. There are various influences that might drive a small start-up organization to a point of “crisis” or preferably “transition”. For example, small-business exemptions may no longer be applicable, and there may be loss of some marketability or preferential treatment in contracts or taxes resulting from growth. Further, if a company exceeds a certain number of employees, different employment laws will be triggered. In addition to the legal realities, the practical realities of communication will present. It may no longer be feasible to have a full audience for all communication, but rather the need to stratify communication appropriately will be triggered. For some organizations, that number seems to be around 150 employees (Delaney). For pension planning, that may be under 100 employees (IRS). These are simply facts that any organization may face, and a strong leader will be able to predict and plan when an increase in employment is worth the regulatory compliance obligations.
Second, the Model implies business is growth-driven and self-sustaining once started. Two types of growth are contemplated in the Model: an increase in volume of employees and an increase in sophistication of business operations. The implication being that an increase in volume of staff leads to the need for an increase in sophistication, not necessarily a crisis, but again a transition. Also, an increase in the volume of staff is not always required for growth. In fact, simply throwing bodies at a job may have a detrimental impact if the volume is past the point of marginal productivity (Young).
Third, Greiner seems to imply that acquiring other organizations in the sixth phase is necessary for growth in the collaboration and alliances phases, which does not apply to all industries (Hakutizwi). Some organizations, like McDonald’s, seek to expand market share and simply beat the competition in the marketplace.
Forced Sequencing
The five phases of growth depict business operations with respect to age and size of organization as linear. The model does not appropriately acknowledge product life cycles and the need to reset the business or product and continue to innovate and be creative. By using a linear model, this suggests that business growth model would lead to a decline as the business stagnates. The model suggests that a company cannot reinvent itself through innovation, but rather must move on to acquisition in order to grow beyond its current state.
The growth model also assumes that all firms follow the same stages in the growth process—it assumes a sequence of stages. However, research has indicated that it is not necessarily possible for firms to follow the same sequence of growth (Mintzberg, 1981). Sometimes, firms tend to jump between stages and may go back to a former stage.
The six growth sources identified in the model assumes discretion. The model assumes that all the stages exist independent of each other and that implementers “should expect discrete sets of variables that are repeatable among different firms in the same stage” (Greiner, 1998). However, growth is supposed to be continuous in nature and the set variables should constantly overlap from one stage to another. It also implies that if you do not pass through the phases, the organization will perish (Churchill).
Changes to Make the Model More Effective/Applicable
Limited Applicability
In addressing the point that the model has limited applicability and is not relevant to all industries, Greiner made a brief addendum to his model in 1998. A better option would have been to revise the graphics and table to be more reflective of the services and knowledge industries, especially since they were becoming so relevant and prominent at the time of the update. To address this multibillion industry more effectively, more attention should be given to external factors and technology. Many industries are heavily driven by external factors like competition and regulations, and the model should be adapted to acknowledge these factors as important influences on the stage of business growth or crisis.
Forced Sequencing
A simple change to address that fact that business growth is not always linear, would be to present the Model as a circle. A circular cycle would acknowledge that business is a process and would more effectively tie management practices with product and service lifecycles and would acknowledge that, in some cases, after passing through the Alliance phase, a company may revert back to an earlier stage in the model due to changes in business or in consideration of the current stages of both organizations. The six stages should not be treated as separate sets of variables in the process of a firm’s growth. Instead, an applicant of the Model should understand that the stages overlap between sets of variables for effective application.
By presenting the Model in a circular fashion, where a company could move fluidly throughout various cycles, this would better reflect the true nature of business growth. For example, a company (like McDonald’s as mentioned earlier in the paper) may exist in the collaboration phase, and then reinvent a product or service or present innovations which return to an earlier phase in growth, thus making alliance, or acquisitions, unnecessary for growth.
Conclusion
We believe that the Greiner Model would be more logical if presented as though the process were not linear because the contemplated usage of the model is more circular and adaptive. Since an organization can find themselves repeating steps, even in growth cycles, a circular presentation would be a better representation. We also believe that the transition phases should have broader definitions to include regulatory and other realities of organizational growth within the article describing the model. Additionally, we believe competition in the marketplace is a factor that is ever-present regardless of the stage of growth and should be included into the model as a force that may push a transition to a different phase at any given time. Our variation to Greiner’s model, shown on the following page, presents the changes, as described above, that would make the model more suitable to the realities of business growth.
References
50MINUTES.COM. (2015). The Greiner Growth Model for Organisational Change: Anticipate crises and adapt to a changing business world. New York: 50Minutes.com.
Buono, A. F. (2005). Consulting to integrate mergers and acquisitions. Handbook of management consulting: The contemporary consultant – Insights from world experts, 229–249.
Churchill, Neil C. and Lewis, Virginia L. (1983) The Five Stages of Small Business Growth. Entrepreneurial Management accessed at: https://hbr.org/1983/05/the-five-stages-of-small-business-growth
Delaney, Kevin J. (2016) Something weird happens to companies when they hit 150 people. Accessed at: https://qz.com/846530/something-weird-happens-to-companies-when-they-hit-150-people/
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard: Harvard Business Review.
Greiner, L. E. (1988). Power and Organization Development: Mobilizing Power to Implement Change. Michigan: Addison-Wesley.
Greiner, L. E., & Cummings, T. (2009). Dynamic strategy-making: A real-time approach for the 21st century leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hakutizwi, Bruce (2017) Should you buy your biggest competitor? Business.com Accessed at: https://www.business.com/articles/growth-through-acquisition/
Papadakis, V., & Barwise, P. (2012). Strategic Decisions. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Richardson, I. (2006). Journal of Management Development. Integrated Performance Management: A Guide to Strategy Implementation, 295-296.
Young, Julie (2019) Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity. Investopedia accessed at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-diminishing-marginal-productivity.asp
Need an original paper done on this topic?
click here to Order