Leading Change: Good Sport
Essay Preview: Leading Change: Good Sport
Report this essay
Leading Change: Good Sport
University of Phoenix
Leading Change: Good Sport
In the Good Sport simulation, the use of power and politics demonstrated the effectiveness of transformational leadership. While Good Sport is an organization with the common mission of providing a superior exercise product, unique cultural and structural characteristics that could easily hinder their future success. This is not an uncommon finding within an organization, and is naturally occurring as organizations divide tasks into distinct components (McShane and Von Glinow, 2005, p. 446). A leader is responsible for identifying how to use the power and politics to maximize productivity and return to stakeholders.
Organizational Structure and Culture
Good Sport operates under a hierarchal based organizational structure with executive, middle, and junior management leading the companys major functions of Production, R and D, Sales, and Finance. While the Chairman capitalized on his professional athlete status during the start-up period of the company, its structure has since evolved. McShane and Von Glinow (2005) describe how organizational structure evolves from a centralized structure to one that more accurately describes Good Sport: “Most organizations begin with centralized structures, as the founder makes most of the decisions and tries to direct the business toward his or her vision. But as organizations grow, they diversify and their environments become more complex” (p. 449). Each department is characterized by a distinct work culture. The Sales department operates under an informal work culture, whereby team members prefer to be self-sufficient, working informally to achieve the demands of the customer. The Production department however, takes a more formal approach to its work. Team members base their decisions on facts and research, and enjoy tackling challenges in the early stages of a products development. The structure and culture of Good Sport are related in that each department prefers to work independently with little interference from one another.
Since relatively few levels of hierarchy as described above at Good Sport, its structure could best be described as organic with a large span of control. Span of control refers to how many individuals report to the next level of hierarchy (McShane and Van Glinow, 2005 p. 447). Kandalle and Krishnan (2004) describe the advantages of an organic structure: “An organization that is low on configuration will have a flat structure and the number of levels in the organization will be few. Those at higher hierarchical levels are approachable for anyone in the organization” (2004, p. 18). However, research has shown that such a structure will normally have a positive effect on the culture of the organization. Kandalle and Krishnan (2004) hypothesize that an organic structure leads to increased job satisfaction and performance, due to less distortion of messages through management layers (2004, p. 19). The situation at Good Sport is that departments do not communicate with one another, do not share information, and difficulty developing new products has been the result Had the culture been aligned with the structure that is in place, the scenarios presented in the simulation would have had different outcomes.
Power and Politics
Several levels of the power structure at Good Sport were identified during the scenario. From the Production Vice President perspective there were three levels in the power structure: subordinates, peers, and CEO. Within the subordinate group, concern exists amongst the subordinates of the production department who were loyal to Matt Fernandez, while production department subordinates remain aligned with their work culture. Since the work culture of that department values loyalty and respect for superiors, it has created apprehension. Additionally, CEO Eartha Simpson has created an additional power structure, since as a former production VP she is accustomed to being self-sufficient and is unwilling to relinquish some of her former responsibilities.
While navigating through the simulation, there were alternatives to the problem that were not presented as options that may have been effective. Each department is characterized by a distinct work culture that limits the flow of information and ideas between departments. With an organic structure like that of Good Sport, there is a wealth of information and intelligence available at every level of the organization however, the work cultures limit any exchange. The Production department maintains a professional culture, and wants input at prototype stages based on facts and research available to them. On the contrary the Sales department is more informal, focusing on customer demand and work independently without direct oversight. One option that was not available in the simulation was the development of cross-functional teams between departments. McShane and Von Glinow (2005) describe how co-locating departments and forming platform teams support informal communication (p.447).
Resistance to Change
McShane and Von Glinow write that “Change creates uncertainty and ambiguity as the company moves from an old set of rules and practices to a new set. During these times, employees act politically to protect their valued resources, position, and self-image”(2005, p. 448). Strategies that could be implemented that were effective during the simulation include soft tactics of integration and consultation, whereby employees have a part in the change process, while remaining informed. Inspirational tactics are also effective because they appeal to emotions, ideals, and values. Trader-Leigh (2002) identifies that resistance to change may be encountered if it results in any competing values between work groups: “programs that satisfy one group often reduce satisfaction of other groups because the survival of one set of values and visions may be at the expense of the other” (Trader-Leigh, 2002). In the Good Sport example resistance to change can be managed