writing in the context of sales organizations the point is valid universally for change management. Expectations of the proposed changes need to be clearly articulated from the leader to his senior staff in order to secure their buy-in. The senior staff and senior management (not necessarily the same individuals) then need to begin work on strategic plans for implementation and action plans that must be clearly communicated to subordinate managers and workers. Failure to secure this buy-in and clearly communicate outcomes is likely to stymie implementation. In the case of ORG, as already described, the commander began by incorrectly assessing the core issues. This naturally caused issues with coalition formation, but because this is a military organization the senior staff were ordered to execute the commander’s direction regarding the organization, regardless of buy-in. Such a maneuver will predictably cause issues, but more importantly in this situation, no one on the senior staff understood the intent of the proposed change. There was simply a directive to realign desks into the RSC configuration.
Final Paper: MGMT603 Many staff meetings were held discussing the logistical and communications systems requirements for affecting the move, but when the question of “why” would be broached, the seniors could only shrug their shoulders. There were a few attempts by individual RSC members to guess at the intent, but all such attempts only earned the ire of the commander. He could tell the employees what he didn’t want when they tried, but could not articulate his desired end state. Eventually they would stop trying to guess and just went back to business as usual, albeit in new desks. c. Team Formation. As alluded to previously, the lack of clear guidance led to ineffective implementation of the project. The seats changed, but none of the processes were modified. The ambiguous intent was for better focused operational guidance and oversight to detachments. Ostensibly this would be facilitated through the fo5mation of the new RSCs. The new team design was meant to fuse the analytical, management, and production capabilities to provide tailored support, but no one was certain just how this would occur, or why it would occur any differently than in the previous configuration. Key sections under both CUOPS and OPSPT had regional focus prior to the reorganization, to include the RSO and Production sections. Each section was staffed and managed independently, under its parent S3 function. Flowing from the need for clear guidance at the outset, Don Warrick instructs that high-performing teams require “compelling reasons to focus on teamwork.” (Warrick, 2014) The new organization did not intuitively provide such a compelling reason, especially given the absence of accompanying changes in process or management.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 13 pages?
- Spring '19