Intersect Investments Benchmarking
Essay Preview: Intersect Investments Benchmarking
Report this essay
Running Head: GENERIC BENCHMARKING: INTERSECT INVESTMENT
Generic Benchmarking: Intersect Investment
TEAM A–MBA 520
July 9, 2007
Analysis:
Like the companies that we researched on, Intersect Investments transformation started with a new vision. Leaders either saw weaknesses in current operation or realized that the company can become more profitable by looking at other opportunities. Most of the companies were under pressure to turn their business around or face the dire consequences of declining sales. As with Intersect Investment, these companies are often faced with the arduous task of implementing these changes–from communicating to actually putting it in place.
Competition is intensified when there are a number of similar products or services available to consumers. Thus, companies will have to be innovative enough to set themselves apart from their competitors. Take BMW, dealership can attract more buyers by merely changing the look of their showrooms. The fact that clients preferences are also ever changing requires that companies should be quick to offer products that will answer these too, if they want to remain competitive. And just like their clients preferences, companies should be able to quickly change as well. This necessitates the need for organization to function as an “open system which depends on constant interaction with the environment for survival” (Kreitner & Kinicki, Organizational Behavior 6th Edition, p. 638). Levi Strauss had done that by creating a completely new division that will target discount buyers. It requires great leadership which is “a process of social influence in which the leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organizational goals” (Kreitner & Kinicki, Organizational Behavior 6th Edition, p.596) and the presence of effective leaders throughout the company will contribute for the new vision to become a success. Frank at IIC was highly regarded and an excellent leader. Paul at Barquette on the other hand, was popular among his peers but was very inexperienced in his leadership skills. His style was good but due to his inexperience, he was not able to have set aside the issue of likeness (popularity) when it was time to enforce discipline or by letting go of Kari or in choosing someone else to have headed his change theory. This caused him more harm than good with his intentions for implementing his change. Frank at IIC on the other hand was able to make that separateness right at the beginning by letting go of his long term “Executive Vice President” of Marketing. His leadership style was revolutionary and visionary and Pauls was passive but visionary. Frank immediately went outside the company creating separateness through professionalism by recruiting Janet who was a good pick. Paul on the other hand did not want to be revolutionary even though Kari communicated her reluctance to the change both verbally and non-verbally. This lead to him not been successful in implementing his change but rather been penalized by his superiors for the high turnover or low employee morale and Kari connived with fellow employees with long standing and criticized his leadership style.
But great leaders know that transforming a company does not happen without encountering resistance. Just like with Lyn Chen, individuals are not motivated to discard old thinking or ways because “it is hard for people to achieve the objectivity needed to question and change their daily routine while they are still actively immersed in it” (Corporate Transformation Without A Crisis). Sometimes this is due to uncertainties, fear of learning a new way of doing things, or job security issue. Leaders should anticipate this opposition and find ways to minimize, if not eliminate it. One way to do it is to get their employees input prior to implementation. Although time consuming, when a leader allows employees to be heard, it shows that consideration is given to the employee since the new process will affect them. With Unisys, their CEO, Larry Weinbach knew that his new vision for the company was going to be accepted easier by his employees, if he can gain their trust. I believe that this is what Janet, as the new EVP of the sales department, is trying to accomplish. Everyone involved in the companies which we looked into also emphasized the importance of communication. It was through good communication that the companies were able to convey what needed to be changed, why the change was necessary and work out their differences. It was also through communication that they were able to get employees excited. Managing employee concerns such as the one-on-one and group meetings that Janet had done are ways to open up the communication conduit. The car dealers were able to convey that the need for a new computer system was unnecessary as they barely used it.
The mere mention of companys survival depending on the ability of the company to implement change is often sufficient to motivate employees to work towards the companys new strategy. Employees are driven to perform depending on what they can get out of it. Greater effort will be exerted, if there is a high-expectation involved. It is therefore important for the company to use motivational tools and put a reward system in place to help rally employees behind the vision. Intersect, as well as other companies by employing goal setting can motivate their employees. By setting goals, attention is directed towards achieving it through action and persistence. Feedback should then be administered to signal how one is doing in relation to his/her goals. Unisys, Levi Strauss, BMW, all got their feedback through their financial reports. This was a good measure of whether their changes were fruitful, needs adjustment or a complete failure.
It is inevitable that implementing changes results in layoffs or job cuts. This would have to be addressed as this affects employee morale. This could also lead to low productivity, conflict and ultimately, job dissatisfaction. This will then result in the companies losing their talented employees. For Unisys, the tactic they used to keep their talented individuals was through stay-on bonuses or transferring them to another division of the company.
As our research shows, transforming a company is not as simple as a leader saying “lets change”. Changes will affect everyone within the organization. Negatively affecting them will mean negative result for the company. Affecting