The fair process theory is an essential component Solomons task force requires to communicate the vision statement and implement change. The bedrock of the fair process theory, as described by Kim and Mauborgne (2003, p.132) is to build trust and commitment through engagement, explanation, and expectation clarity. Without fair process there is no trust, without trust, there is no commitment, and with no commitment, there is resistance to change and failure of implementation within Solomon. Likewise, Turkman and Berge (2011, p.185) says, When a fair process is utilized in decision-making processes, trust can be maintained and preserved.
The task forces mandate was to prepare a vision statement and strategy with an implementation plan; however, failure seemed inevitable. Lucey (2008, p.12) states to successfully enact change; it is important to not only have a clear vision but to get everyone in the organization engaged in the process and instill trust. While trying to avoid failure, Ford and Ford (2010, p.29) suggest, Consolidation of the two kinds of groups would bring together the best minds to solve new challenges. Solomon could gain a competitive advantage if new hires were included in the decision-making process, and task force; the junior faculty was recruited from top-tiered business schools. As Beer and Spector (1990, p.160) suggest, this could bring innovative thought, analytical skills, and interpersonal skills necessary to solve problems as a team at Solomon. Thus, without involving staff in the restructuring process and empowering them, the change process would break down. For these reasons, both tenured and junior faculty should come together. Indeed, when both parties interests are aligned, then they benefit from one another's contributions and trust is more likely to exist (Turkman and Berge, 2011, p.185).
The schools management has created a culture where scapegoating and alliances were the norm. The culture constituted unethical behavior and had created tension, low morale, lack of trust and other adverse outcomes; therefore, the "double effect" where one negative creates one positive is not applicable and such behavior cannot be justified by "overwhelming factors. In addition, Bryant (2006, p.3) observed when Professor Grover and the consulting firm presented their findings in an open forum; the "established faculty placed blame on the newer faculty" and "the newer faculty accused, the older faculty for having held back the School and refusing change. It is important to note that scapegoating and alliances create tension. Regarding the institution, the established faculty consisted of long members with long-term friendships with one another and made the new faculty feel inferior and undervalued. Furthermore, the behavior demonstrates control and preference for doing things the old way while creating resistance to change and minimizing trust.
The Solomon Business School could do a better job of utilizing their faculty members to help to improve the organizational culture and to facilitate the change process. In other words, faculty members who understood the vision and mission of the school and its values were more likely to facilitate the change process as opposed to their counterparts who did not have a clear sense of purpose and direction of the organization (Denison et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, Organization's culture has an impact on change process and business performance in a broad range of ways. More specifically, these methods encompass creating an organization' sense of direction and mission, building a high level of flexibility and adaptability, nurturing the engagement and involvement of their people, as well as, providing the consistency that is firmly rooted in a set of core values (Denison et al., 2012).
Politics is a source of power that if wielded wrongly can impede change process. Regarding Solomon School of Business, organization change issue was the alignment of structures, people, policies, and rewards. Most of the problems in the institution were as a result of complacency where the faculty was satisfied with their performances that they ignored the threat posed by competition. They never anticipated competition and never innovated (Bryant, 2009). In addition, members of the faculty who knew that there was a need for change never advised the management of the necessity. Thus, the general, because of the organizational politics increased the discontent between aspiration and realization. In fact, the faculty members never wanted to confront performance management issues with their colleagues as many of the individuals were friends as well. Hence, when clarifying the problems facing the change initiative, one must explain how the concepts of organizational politics impact the change.
Turf game tactics have often influenced change as the personal and professional links affected the objectivity of the task force. For example, Professor Grover was in charge of debates on policy and implementation but because the policies would affect most of the people, with whom he had a personal and professional link. His position as the Dean could have been useful to the change process, but because of the organizational politics and turf game tactics, he would have been prevented from persuading his colleagues about the need for openness (McCalman, Paton, & Siebert, 2016). Politics in the school was unethical as it lead to compromise. When there was a need for change, the management compromised change for the sake of their alliances, network cronies.
Beer, M., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Harvard Business Press.
Bryant, M. (2009). Solomon Business School: Implementing the New Strategy. Richard Ivey School of business
Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., Lane, N., & Lief, C. (2012). Leading culture change in global organizations: Aligning culture and strategy (Vol. 394). John Wiley & Sons.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 24-36.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. If you read nothing else on change, read these best-selling articles., 37.
Lucey, J. J. (2008). Why is the failure rate for organization change so high? Dr John J Lucey presents his research in the third part of his series of articles. Management Services, 52(4), 10.
McCalman, J., Paton, R., & Siebert, S. (2016). Change management: A guide to effective implementation. 4th edition. Sage: London, UK
Turkman, I., & Berge, Z. L. (2010). Preserving trust while downsizing. The 2011 Pfeiffer Annual: Training, 49, 185.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal: