Mullins L.J. Management and organisational behaviour, Seventh edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

CHAPTER 22 ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (CULTURE, CONFLICT AND CHANGE)

925

more turbulent the industry and change, the more urgent the

need for transformation.

Discussion in the workshops frequently refers to US cases

when describing the ways in which highly entrepreneurial

companies deal with change. Initially, participants responded

to such cases with scepticism, explaining that it is easy to be

entrepreneurial when one is in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Companies there are surrounded by some of the world’s

most entrepreneurial organisations with easy access to talent,

capital and technology. A more rigorous test, they decided,

was whether the transformation towards entrepreneurship

could succeed in Germany – the logic being that success in

Germany would mean success was possible anywhere.

One of the sponsors of the change workshops, Siemens

Nixdorf, accepted this challenge. It operates in the high-

technology arena and competes directly with its Silicon

Valley counterparts and therefore faces the challenge in any

case. This article will address the key elements of the trans-

formation to entrepreneurship using Siemans Nixdorf as a

case study.

Siemens Nixdorf is the result of a merger between Siemens

computer unit, Siemens Information systems and Nixdorf

Computer in 1990. The merger produced significant expecta-

tions concerning the new company’s ability to be both

disciplined and innovative, but these expectations were not

realised. Between the time of the merger and the summer of

1994, the company lost hundreds of millions of Deutschmarks

every year.

In response to the mounting losses and a ‘loser image’ in

the marketplace and within the Siemens parent, the company

retreated into precisely the sort of behaviour that made it diffi-

cult for it to compete in its marketplace – bureaucracy,

command and control, parochialism and inward focus. Finally,

in the summer of 1994, top management at Siemens hired a

new CEO for Siemens Nixdorf, Gerhard Schulmeyer, and

asked him to restore the company to competitiveness.

Schulmeyer had been responsible for the Americas opera-

tions at ABB where he had established a highly effective

matrix organisation. He had previously been a key executive

at Motorola, the US electronics group, where he was instru-

mental in the creation of Motorola University and a Motorola’s

cultural shift towards quality and process improvement. The

combination of his experience of cultural and structural

change uniquely positioned Schulmeyer to lead Siemens

Nixdorf’s transformation.

The agenda for change was clear – create a highly prof-

itable, entrepreneurial enterprise capable of operating in the

global, high-technology marketplace. To accomplish this,

broad-based cultural and structural changes were required,

based on four key dimensions:

■ a shift in the organisational culture to first nurture and later

demand entrepreneurial behaviour from all employees;

■ a new organisational architecture that would facilitate

entrepreneurial behaviour;

■ investment in developmental activities (focusing on both

behaviours and skills) that would prepare individuals at all

levels of the organisation to operate in the new culture and

structure;

■ new systems (management and information) to support

the transformed organisation.

Pursuing this required committed and visible leadership from

the top. Schulmeyer reshaped the company’s top team,

recruiting executives who were role models of the type of

behaviour required for the new company culture and who

could advise others in the use of the tools and techniques of

entrepreneurship. The new top team consisted of more than a

dozen executives from some of the most entrepreneurial and

successful companies in Europe. However, a dozen execu-

tives, no matter how talented, cannot lead transformational

change alone. They require the proactive support of senior

managers from across the company.

The new top team convened a group of more than 100

senior managers from every part of the company and asked

these managers to lead the transformation in partnership with

them. This group became the company’s executive manage-

ment team.

They met regularly (roughly quarterly) to monitor the com-

pany’s progress and held themselves accountable for progress

from meeting to meeting. This represented an important step

towards the performance and results orientation that world-

class entrepreneurs invariably learn and demonstrate.

CULTURE CHANGE

Siemens Nixdorf’s programme mobilised thousands of

employees as co-producers of the company’s new culture in

partnership with executive management. The programme was

punctuated with four meetings in Hanover between

December 1994 and October 1996. Each meeting was

attended by 300 to 400 (different) employees interested in

helping to shape and catalyse the cultural change. The four

meetings were organised around distinct, but related, themes:

■ Hanover I – ‘the voice of the employees’. This provided

employees with an opportunity to reflect on the new

values and behaviour that were needed by Siemens

Nixdorf and then to establish action teams (59 in total) that

would move the company towards these values.

■ Hanover II – ‘the voice of the customers’. It added 54 key

customers to the gathering of 350 employees, ensuring that

customers would have a voice in the company’s transfor-

mation. The customers also participated in the follow-up

work of the 20 action teams launched at Hanover II.

■ Hanover III – ‘the voice of the partners’. The meeting

added 40 key business partners to the event, ensuring

their voice in the transformation process. This was impor-

tant in the light of the company’s commitment to

dramatically increasing its partner-related revenue. Again,

as in Hanover II, the partners were full-fledged participants

in the event and the follow-on action teams.

■ Hanover IV – ‘institutionalising the capability to change’.

This focused on preparing the 400 employees in attendance

to institutionalise the skills and tools that the first three

Hanover events and introduced into the company.

Each of these events prepared employees to behave in a

highly entrepreneurial manner and to accept the responsibili-

ties and accountabilities inherent in entrepreneurship. For

example, each action team committed itself to achieve some

results within 90 days of the Hanover event and substantial

business impact within 180 days.



926

PART 8 IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

VENTURE FUND

In parallel with the Hanover events, the company launched an

‘innovation initiative’ designed to discover, assess and fund

innovative business ideas. This included the formation of an

internal venture capital fund for use by internal entrepreneurs

with business plans for new products, services and solutions.

A key element was the development of a network of internal

resources that could support entrepreneurial business devel-

opment. For example, an employee with a business idea but

no financial background could be linked with an entrepre-

neurial financial analyst.

A key characteristic of successful entrepreneurs is the

ability and courage to reflect, learn and adapt. To encourage

this behaviour across the company, Siemens Nixdorf

launched a ‘Friday forum’ in which natural workgroups across

the entire company would meet regularly (generally once a

month) to discuss matters of mutual interest.

These forums regularly provided opportunities to learn

from successes and failures and to modify business areas

and change activities. These sessions also enabled employ-

ees to learn to support one another more effectively and to

draw on the resources and knowledge in the workgroup.

Because successful entrepreneurs have keen insight into

the business environments in which they operate, Siemens

Nixdorf also launched benchmarking activities focused on the

best companies in the market. This included numerous visits

to companies around the world, including regular visits to

Silicon Valley.

The Hanover events and related initiatives introduced the

new behaviours that Siemens Nixdorf required for its transfor-

mation to entrepreneurship. These activities also mobilised

employees to drive the transformation itself.

NEW ORGANISATIONAL ARCHITECTURE

The new organisational architecture at Siemens Nixdorf was

based on a high degree of decentralisation and conformed to

these principles:

■ One face to the customer. Customers want a direct

answer to a simple question: ‘Who is my representative at

Siemens Nixdorf?’ They should never be confused by the

company’s internal organisation.

■ Unbroken processes that begin and end with the

customer. There will be no more internal negotiations over

transfer prices.

■ Any salesman the customer sees has to be part of a unified

process that does the total job from design to delivery.

■ Delegation of authority and responsibility to the lowest

level.

■ The real decision makers must be the business-unit

entrepreneurs in the field. The regional managers and

world-wide business leaders are primarily coaches, men-

tors and enablers.

■ Bet the future on businesses that have a defendable core

competence.To prosper, a business unit must hold a clear

leadership position in Germany, be one of the market lead-

ers in Europe, and be a player elsewhere in the world.

■ Customers of equal importance have equal access to the

company’s resources. This does not mean that all cus-

tomers – regardless of size or needs – have an equal

claim on the company. One of the legacies of the com-

pany’s German orientation was that strategic customers

outside Germany did not always enjoy the same access

to the company.

■ Different business units require different structures. The

company consists of service, solution and product busi-

nesses, each with distinct structural requirements. The

structures for these different businesses should be

designed on their unique requirements (consistent with the

other five principles).

Adhering to these design principles resulted in a network

structure of about 250 business units – each with a geo-

graphic customer focus and a line of business focus (for

example, on the Spanish personal computer business). This

two-dimensional structure was intended to be a first step

towards a dynamically reconfigurable network model.

The organisation would first learn how to operate in a two-

dimensional matrix and then the static matrix structure would

be relaxed and business units would be dynamically reconfig-

ured in response to customer demands and innovation.

Unlike many matrix organisations in which those in the

middle of the matrix feel caught between two managers with

relatively little real authority, the unit manager for each busi-

ness unit was given full profit and loss responsibility for his or

her unit. The regional manager and line of business manager

above a unit manager served as a virtual board of directors,

coaching the unit manager while empowering him to manage

his business unit.

An interesting lesson learned when first preparing the

matrix involved the risk of using ‘entrepreneur’ as a title. The

original plan was to name each manager responsible for a

business unit an ‘entrepreneur.’

Initial testing of this idea indicated that those named as

entrepreneurs would protect this as a special label – resulting

in no more than 250 entrepreneurs in the company. The title

was therefore shifted to unit manager so that any employee

could become an entrepreneur. A key mark of an effective

unit manager would be ability to develop new entrepreneurs

within the business units.

DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES

The greatest concern was the question ‘do we really have

250 middle managers capable to behaving as entrepreneurs

and experienced enough to manage their own business unit?’

Part of the answer came from the culture change pro-

gramme, which demonstrated that a broad cross-section of

employees were capable of behaving entrepreneurially when

given the chance. The other part of the answer came through

the introduction of an ‘entrepreneurship development pro-

gramme’, attended by every prospective unit manager. The

programme was led by faculty from Babson College, Insead

and IMD and was conducted in a highly experiential format.

Participants carried out self-assessments throughout the

Management in Action 22.2 continued

CHAPTER 22 ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (CULTURE, CONFLICT AND CHANGE)

927

programme and decided whether they were ready to assume

unit management responsibilities during the final week. Another

important activity was the management development pro-

gramme, a week-long programme open to any key manager

and designed to prepare managers to operate in the entrepre-

neurial company that Siemans Nixdorf was becoming.

NEW SYSTEMS

Entrepreneurial management often requires better information

than other forms of management. Moreover, moving from a

two-dimensional matrix to a dynamic network model also

requires sophisticated information systems. At Siemens

Nixdorf there were four key system improvements that

accompanied the transformation towards entrepreneurship

and a dynamic networked organisational form:

■ introduction of an integrated financial management pack-

age to provide business unit profit and loss information;

■ development of a business assessment methodology to

be used throughout the company for portfolio manage-

ment (across business units) and business model

optimisation (within a business unit);

■ introduction of balanced scorecards of performance and

new incentive systems across the company, which empha-

sised business performance and behavioural competencies;

■

development of new channels to make information and com-

munication available across the entire enterprise in order to

encourage networking across business units and to support

the dynamic nature of the organisational model. This

included advanced Intranet work and placing of new media

(including electronic discussion forums) on the Intranet.

At the end of 1996, Siemens Nixdorf’s transformation towards

entrepreneurship had been underway for about two and a half

years. During this time, it had achieved break-even, dramati-

cally improved its customer orientation and image in the

marketplace and conceived and developed many new busi-

ness opportunities.

An important example of the pursuit of new business

opportunities is the creation of an array of Internet-enabled

lines of business. Several groups of entrepreneurial employ-

ees launched new lines of business in the Internet arena. One

group provides customers with Internet-related services,

leveraging the competencies that the company developed to

meet its own needs. Customers are given the opportunity to

benefit, in an accelerated manner, from the Internet learning

curve that Siemens Nixdorf mastered. Other groups devel-

oped service and solution offerings in the areas of Internet

security and electronic banking.

In Siemens Nixdorf’s mainframe business, a team of natu-

ral entrepreneurs launched a new product, code-named

‘Sunrise’, that would transfer the BS2000 operating system to

a client server platform – a vital issue in the diminishing main-

frame market. Soon after launch, the product had attracted

substantial interest.

Such successful entrepreneurial developments are evi-

dence of the possibility and reality of change within the

company. While at the time of writing the journey may not be

complete, it is clear Siemens Nixdorf has substantially met

the challenge of entrepreneurial transformation.

Note: Subsequently, in October 1999, Fujitsu Siemens

Computers (Holding) was founded in order to provide innova-

tive IT products and services to both large and small

enterprises and consumers. In December 2001, Adrian v.

Hammerstein assumed the position of President and CEO.

The company is based in Maarssen, The Netherlands, and

has 35000 sales partners and 7000 employees.

(Reproduced with permission from the Financial Times Limited, © Financial

Times.)

1 Explain fully what you understand by the meaning and nature of organisation develop-

ment (OD).

2 Suggest how you would attempt to explain the concept of organisational culture. What

factors might influence the development of culture?

3 Discuss the importance of organisational culture for effective organisational performance.

Give practical examples from your own organisation.

4 What do you understand by organisational climate and what do you think are its main

characteristic features? From your own organisation, give examples of features that have

contributed to and/or detracted from a healthy climate.

5 Explain the concept of employee commitment and suggest how it might actually be cre-

ated. Give examples of factors which have contributed to your own strength of

commitment in a work situation.

6 To what extent do you accept the view that conflict is an inevitable feature of manage-

ment and organisational behaviour? Suggest how management can attempt to avoid the

harmful effects of conflict.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS



928

PART 8 IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

7 Discuss major changes confronting management today and their implications for a spe-

cific organisation of your choice.

8 Debate critically the need for, and strategies of, planned organisational change including

the role and responsibilities of top management.

9 Why do individuals and organisations tend to resist change? Explain instances of resist-

ance to change in your own organisation and discuss critically the effectiveness of

management actions to overcome the resistance.

10 Explain fully what you believe are the most important features in the successful imple-

mentation of organisational change.

Rate your readiness to change

A QUIZ

The left-hand column lists 17 key elements of change readiness. Rate your organization on

each item. Give three points for high ranking (‘We’re good at this; I’m confident of our skills

here’); two for medium score (‘We’re spotty here; we could use improvement or more experi-

ence’); and one point for a low score (‘We’ve had problems with this; this is new to our

organization’). Be honest. Don’t trust only your own perspective; ask others in the organiza-

tion, at all levels, to rate the company too. The consultants at Symmetrix believe – no surprise

– it helps to have an outsider do the assessment with you.

Readiness scoring

How to score: High = 3 Medium = 2 Low = 1

Category Score

Sponsorship The sponsor of change is not necessarily its day-to-day leader;

her or she is the visionary, chief cheerleader, and bill payer – the

person with the power to help the team change when it meets

resistance. Give three points – change will be easier – if

sponsorship comes at a senior level; for example, CEO, COO, or

the head of an autonomous business unit. Weakest sponsors:

midlevel executives or staff officers.

Leadership This means the day-to-day leadership – the people who call the

meeting, set the goals, work till midnight. Successful change is

more likely if leadership is high level, has ‘ownership’ (that is, direct

responsibility for what’s to be changed) and has clear business

results in mind. Low-level leadership, or leadership that is not

well connected throughout the organization (across departments)

or that comes from the staff, is less likely to succeed and should

be scored low.

ASSIGNMENT

Review and discussion questions continued

CHAPTER 22 ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (CULTURE, CONFLICT AND CHANGE)

929

Category Score

Motivation High points for a strong sense of urgency from senior management,

which is shared by the rest of the company, and for a corporate

culture that already emphasizes continuous improvement.

Negative: tradition-bound managers and workers, many of whom

have been in their jobs for more than 15 years; a conservative

culture that discourages risk taking.

Direction Does senior management strongly believe that the future should

look different from the present? How clear is management’s

picture of the future? Can management mobilize all relevant

parties – employees, the board, customers, etc. – for action?

High points for positive answers to those questions. If senior

management thinks only minor change is needed, the likely

outcome is no change at all; score yourself low.

Measurements Or in consultant-speak, ‘metrics.’ Three points if you already use

performance measures of the sort encouraged by total quality

management (defect rates, time to market, etc.) and if these

express the economics of the business. Two points if some

measures exist but compensation and reward systems do not

explicitly reinforce them. If you don’t have measures in place or

don’t know what we’re talking about, one point.

Organizational How does the change effort connect to other major goings-on in

context the organization? (For example: Does it dovetail with a continuing

total quality management process? Does it fit with strategic

actions such as acquisitions or new product lines?) Trouble lies

ahead for a change effort that is isolated or if there are multiple

change efforts whose relationships are not linked strategically.

Processes/ Major changes almost invariably require redesigning business

Functions processes that cut across functions such as purchasing, accounts

payable, or marketing. If functional executives are rigidly turf

conscious, change will be difficult. Give yourself more points

the more willing they – and the organization as a whole – are to

change critical processes and sacrifice perks or power for the

good of the group.

Competitor Whether you are a leader in your industry or a laggard, give

benchmarking yourself points for a continuing program that objectively

compares your company’s performance with that of competitors

and systematically examines changes in your market. Give

yourself one point if knowledge of competitors’ abilities is

primarily anecdotal – what salesmen say at the bar.

Customer focus The more everyone in the company is imbued with knowledge of

customers, the more likely that the organization can agree to

change to serve them better. Three points if everyone in the

work force knows who his or her customers are, knows their

needs, and has had direct contact with them. Take away points

if that knowledge is confined to pockets of the organization

(sales and marketing, senior executives).



930

PART 8 IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Category Score

Rewards Change is easier if managers and employees are rewarded for

taking risks, being innovative, and looking for new solutions.

Team-based rewards are better than rewards based solely on

individual achievement. Reduce points if your company, like most,

rewards continuity over change. If managers become heroes

for making budget, they won’t take risks even if you say you

want them to. Also: If employees believe failure will be punished,

reduce points.

Organizational The best situation is a flexible organization with little churn – that

structure is, reorganizations are rare and well received. Score yourself

lower if you have a rigid structure that has been unchanged for

more than five years or has undergone frequent reorganization

with little success; that may signal a cynical company culture

that fights change by waiting it out.

Communication A company will adapt to change most readily if it has many

means of two-way communication that reach all levels of the

organization and that all employees use and understand. If

communications media are few, often trashed unread, and almost

exclusively one-way and top-down, change will be more difficult.

Organizational The fewer levels of hierarchy and the fewer employee grade

hierarchy levels, the more likely an effort to change will succeed. A thick

impasto of middle management and staff not only slows

decision-making but also creates large numbers of people

with the power to block change.

Prior experience Score three if the organization has successfully implemented

with change major changes in the recent past. Score one if there is no prior

experience with major change or if change efforts failed or left a

legacy of anger or resentment. Most companies will score two,

acknowledging equivocal success in previous attempts

to change.

Morale Change is easier if employees enjoy working in the organization

and the level of individual responsibility is high. Signs of

unreadiness to change: low team spirit, little voluntary extra

effort, and mistrust. Look for two types of mistrust: between

management and employees, and between or among

departments.

Innovation Best situation: The company is always experimenting; new

ideas are implemented with seemingly little effort; employees

work across internal boundaries without much trouble. Bad

signs: lots of red tape, multiple signoffs required before new

ideas are tried; employees must go through channels and are

discouraged from working with colleagues from other

departments or divisions.

Assignment continued

CHAPTER 22 ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (CULTURE, CONFLICT AND CHANGE)

931

Category Score

Decision-making Rate yourself high if decisions are made quickly, taking into

account a wide variety of suggestions; it is clear where decisions

are made. Give yourself a low grade if decisions come slowly

and are made by a mysterious ‘them’; there is a lot of conflict

during the process, and confusion and finger pointing after

decisions are announced.

Total score

After completing your total score compare and discuss your response with those of

your collegues.

Reprinted with permission from Thomas A. Stewart, ‘Rate Your Readiness To Change’, Fortune, 7 February 1994,

932

PART 8 IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVES

Completing this exercise should help you to enhance the following skills:

 Relate classifications of culture to different types of organisations.

 Assess influences on the development of culture.

 Evaluate the appropriateness of culture for specific organisations.

EXERCISE

Using the classifications of organisational culture proposed by Handy, and by Deal and

Kennedy, you are required to:

1 Compare and contrast the influences on the development of culture in any two different

types of organisations. Your two organisations could be, for example:

Private and public sector; For profit and not for profit; Service sector and manufacturing

sector; Production and academic.

2 Suggest, with supporting reasons, which of either the Handy or the Deal and Kennedy

typologies you would try to foster if you were appointed as a senior manager in any two of

the following organisations:

– wheel clamping contractor;

–research laboratory;

– battleship;

– private hospital;

– second-hand car business;

– high-fashion clothing store;

– fast-food chain;

– advertising agency.

DISCUSSION

■ How important is organisational culture? How would you attempt to foster a change in the

prevailing culture of an organisation?

■ To what extent do textbook classifications aid our practical understanding and analysis of

organisational culture?

■ Should there be/is there a most ‘suitable’ culture for specific organisations?

Visit our website www.booksites.net/mullins for further questions, annotated weblinks,

case material and Internet research material.

PERSONAL AWARENESS AND SKILLS EXERCISE

CHAPTER 22 ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (CULTURE, CONFLICT AND CHANGE)

CASE STUDY 22.1

It’s tough at the top: managing conflict in the Wakewood

organisation

The Wakewood organisation comprises seven units,

each of which has been managed autonomously over

the last five years. Each unit is managed by a General

Manager and comprises one or more product/ service

departments and other staff departments. Each unit

is, in effect, an autonomous division of Wakewood.

The chief executive has managed the organisation

from a small headquarters building using a participa-

tive style. He has become increasingly concerned

about the performance of one of the seven units. The

unit employs 700 people and accounts for 20 per cent

of Wakewood’s activities. He perceives the following

internal and external pressures on this unit and

believes that the general manager responsible for it

cannot deal with the problem. The chief executive

has been unable to devote much time to this unit

during the last years because of other pressures on his

time. During the last four years, he has achieved sig-

nificant changes and improvements in other units

within the organisation. This has absorbed much of

his time but has created a very positive reputation for

him throughout Wakewood. He is seen as up-to-date

and concerned for his employees.

External pressures

Increasing client/customer dissatisfaction

New technology

Increasing competition in the provision of the prod-

ucts/services provided

Rapidly increasing costs

Internal pressures

– Fear of change

– Limited management skills in the introduction of

change

– Lack of experience with new technology

– Low productivity and quality

– Poor staff morale

The unit is managed by a general manager with func-

tional managers responsible to the general manager for

three product/service departments, an administration

department, finance and a small personnel department.

The general manager has worked with Wakewood

for 18 years now. His approach to managing the

unit has been always to control costs and activities

fairly tightly and to concentrate on developing an

efficient and professional team working for him. He

has paid little or no attention to the needs of

clients. There has been a growing number of com-

plaints from clients about the service provided by

the unit. Long waits are often involved and staff are

said not to handle clients too well.

New computer technology is being deployed by

Wakewood. However, progress in this unit has been

slow. The general manager seems largely disinter-

ested and the staff reluctant to adapt. However, the

pressure to introduce the technology is strong. Staff

costs are high and many routine tasks seem likely to

be capable of computerisation.

The chief executive wishes to introduce market-

ing and quality audit ideas into the unit as a means

of responding to some of the pressures identified

above. Moreover, he believes that new technology

must be introduced over the next few years, particu-

larly in the product/service departments. To do so

he has concluded that three major problems must

be faced, as follows:

■ attitudes to change and the organisation must be

changed;

■ attitudes to, and knowledge of new technology,

must be improved dramatically;

■ the organisation structure must be reviewed in

order to introduce marketing and quality audit

ideas into the unit.

YOUR TASKS

You have been asked to advise on how to proceed.

Outline a strategy for change designed to achieve the

following objectives:

(a) to prepare people for change, convincing them that

significant organisational changes are needed;

(b) to plan and monitor a programme of organisational

change;

problems of change;

(d) to achieve improvement in the unit’s performance.

(You may deal with this case study from either a private

sector or a public sector perspective. If you adopt a

public sector standpoint you can interpret ‘marketing

and quality audit ideas’ to mean to develop an approach

in which concern for the client and the quality of services

provided becomes more important than previously.)

933

934

PART 8 IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

CASE STUDY 22.2

Getting political: management in local government

This small district authority was to undergo consider-

able change in its direction, culture and management

style. Central government had reduced its financial

balances and had sought to control the authority

through various departmental guidelines and regula-

tions. Politically, the local election had seen a swing

in voting patterns from the previous Labour author-

ity to a Tory administration. The new administration

had a very different political manifesto and agenda

for the council. Politicians saw there being much

more involvement of the private sector with the

county council taking an ‘enabling role’ rather than

continuing to be the sole or direct provider.

The Chief Executive Officer, John Hoames, was

charged with the task of implementing some of the

changes and told to do so quickly – within the follow-

ing year. He had decided to use management

consultants to help in the process but was considerably

anxious about the nature of the task and often said so

when not in the company of his other managers.

The Strategic Management Group (SMG) meeting

was about to start. Its members included the top

team and their direct lines. The meeting was a regu-

lar monthly event and its declared aim was to be the

body of the organisation to implement strategic

decisions. The group numbered 15 in total.

John: Well, the next item on the agenda concerns

our change management directive. This item has

been on the table before. Various members of this

group were involved in the brief and final selection

of the consultants, who are here today to go

through their proposal.

Jane (the consultant): Thank you, John. We are very

pleased to be working with you on this proposal and

I’d like to go through the key phases of the work.

(Jane and her other two male colleagues go on to

describe the main phases of the work. This included

process consultation, workshops and an intergroup

event of the top team and their managers. After a

formal presentation of overhead slides the group is

invited to ask questions.)

Jerry (Assistant Director of Social Services): I thought

the main idea of the consultancy was to provide us

with information on management style. I did not

think to look at the whole organisation.

(There are murmurs of agreement.)

Griff (Assistant Director of Human Resources): Yes. I

saw it as a training and skills workshop so that we

could improve our interpersonal communication.

Harry (Head of Finance and Corporate Services): I still

do not see exactly what we hope this will do. We

will need to justify what we are doing to elected

members and staff, especially given the cuts in other

areas of our work.

Gary (Assistant Director – Contract Services): I don’t see

why there is so much concern. We already have

undergone competitive tendering in the manual areas

of our services such as leisure and refuse collection.

And now we need to think about ‘white-collar’ ser-

vices and this programme will enable us to do it.

Jennifer (Director: Planning and Environmental Services):

Well, I think it’s really about how we work as a team.

We never seem to make decisions, we’re rarely sure

about the agenda, our communication is something

to be desired and I feel we’re re-creating the same

cycles that we go through in every meeting.

John: I really do not understand! We all saw the

brief, agreed the selection of the consultants and

now we seem to be backing off.

Jennifer: Well, it’s typical of the way we work. And

again it shows that we thought we’d made a deci-

sion when we didn’t. The meeting is unwieldy, our

role as a group is ambiguous to say the least and

people are getting their bit in and not really listen-

ing to other suggestions or ideas. How can a group

of 15 make effective decisions anyway!

Jerry: Yes, I think we should look at the brief again.

There clearly is some confusion here. We’re really

sorry about this (looking at the consultants).

(There is a pause.)

Jane: It seems there is a lot to consider. Perhaps we

should look at the brief again and consider what has

just taken place.