Change Management Simulation: Strategy Execution
Being not only the CEO but also the founder of Spectrum Sunglass Company, my decision was influenced by various factors. The decision itself is twofold: Business oriented and sensitive about the society in general. From a business perspective, it was very important for the business to position itself competitively in the market and continue realizing a profit. This is especially true considering that profitability is one of the key objectives for any successful organizations. However, the main focus of the decision revolved around how the business could be environmentally sustainable and still realize good profit margins. This entailed making decisions and formulating a strategy that would take into account the interests of protecting the natural world and those of the society in general. This would then become part of the organization’s overall Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
Occurrences, Incidents, and Adopted Adjustments
My legacy as the CEO and Founder of the organization was one of the factors influencing my decision. Having just turned 60, it was the perfect time to execute a change that would impact the company positively, and one that I would be remembered with after my departure. Promoting environmental sustainability across the organizations was a point of interest especially considering the threat posed by global warming, a construct that is a major consequence of human activity. Making the operations of the business more environmentally sustainable would present a huge leap in dealing with climate change and, in extension, impact my legacy positively.
Company profitability, while not a current threat, also presented a key point in the strategy formulation. BigMart, a major distributor of the company’s glasses, had already put forth a proposal to make our goods more sustainable. Heeding to the proposal would translate to better promotion strategies for our products as promised by the distributor. Currently, sales through BigMart account for 30% of Spectrum’s total sales. As such, maintaining good relationships with the distributor would be good for the company sales and profitability. A research by BigMart had also indicated that most of the price-sensitive consumers visiting the store were more inclined towards green products. Leveraging this new crop of consumers would widen Spectrum’s target market thereby impacting the firm’s profitability positively. BigMart had also threatened to cancel Spectrum’s contract if the firm would fail to reduce its dependence on petrochemical raw materials from 90% to 50% in three months.
Resistance to change was a major factor affecting the decision to be more sustainable. Some executives felt that the timing of the change was off and others felt that it was totally uncalled for. The CFO, Paul D’Arcy, seemed convinced that the change was being instituted just because of the demands by BigMart, and to him, this was simply not enough. He felt that the company was already in a tight spot as it was currently levered and that adopting the change would impact its ability to service its debts. More resistance was experienced from Luke Filer, the vice president of operations. Luke felt that the production operation would find it difficult to support another major change in raw material input seeing that they had just spent the last 6 months undergoing an exhausting Six Sigma quality certification process.
An adjustment to the decision-making strategy entailed adopting a systematic approach to the entire process. This involved bringing decision-making and problem-solving strategies together which, in turn, reduced the likelihood of overlooking critical factors (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble, & Strickland, 2016). The first step entailed creating a constructive environment that would help in the weighing of available options. A stakeholder analysis played a large role in determining who to involve in the process and who to sideline. Investigating the situation in detail helped in understanding the situation and communicating the same to relevant parties. Good alternatives were generated through creativity tools such as brainstorming. After exploring all the options, the team helped in coming up with the best solution. The final step involved communicating the well-thought-out decision to everyone affected by it and engaging them in an inspiring manner. This played a major role in diluting the initially experienced resistance to change since the new strategy had put into consideration everyone’s interests.
Strategy Success and Adjustment Criteria
One successful approach to strategy execution involved communicating and clarifying the organizational values. These values represented a blend of the firm’s principles that would be preserved after the change was adopted. This was appealing to most parties and boosted the adoption of the strategy significantly. Having a congruence of the firm’s values and the behaviors of the members is indicative of a healthy and productive firm. While successful in creating awareness, issuing email notices failed in enhancing adoption. This could be attributed to the absence of a personal touch in this form of communication. This shortcoming was resolved by holding more private interviews with members and holding town hall meetings. This involved communicating directly with the members to convince them of the strategy and had more success in bringing more members onboard. The overall criteria in making the adjustments entailed attaining behavioral control by balancing culture, rewards, and boundaries (Dess, Lumpkin, Eisner, & McNamara, 2014). The culture led to an improved engagement, the rewards enhanced motivation among the members, and the boundaries helped in focusing the priorities of the members on strategic priorities.
Simulation vs. Organizational Decisions
Decisions made in the simulation were different from those made in the chosen organization since those of the simulation were strategic whereas those of the organization were operational. Decisions in the simulation considered the whole firm and represented a complex aspect of decision making. Unlike operational decisions which entail the daily activities of the firm, strategic decisions seek to achieve long-term goals in a firm. A single decision in the strategic decision-making process had an impact on the entire strategy. For instance, making the decision to walk the talk and lead by example affected the acceptance of the change proposal significantly. This is the case even in real life experiences. Managers who assume the strategic approach to decision making are always actively seeking for ways to bring their members onboard. This can involve decisions such as revising the reward system which can, in turn, motivate the members towards accepting and adopting the proposed change.
References
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., Eisner, A. B., & McNamara, G. (2014). Strategic management: Text and cases, global edition (7th ed.). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Inc.
Thompson, J., Peteraf, M. A., Gamble, J. E., & Strickland, I. I. (2016). Crafting & executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases (20th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
