A Critical Analysis of the Change at Stanley Australia

A critical analysis of the change at Stanley Australia

Introduction

In today's dynamic environment, change is the only constant (By, 2005). Under this condition, organizations have to change themselves and effectively manage such changes in order to survive and sustain in the dynamic environment. Otherwise, they are likely to be quickly omitted by the market (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Burnes, 1996). Stanley Australia should not be exceptional. In 1997, Stanley Australia introduced a series of changes in order to meet the strategic change of the parent company with the purpose to sustain the company in the changing environment. Such changes included the merger of the two Australian branches into one, the shift from the focus on manufacturing to import and sales, and the change of its previous divisional structure to a matrix structure (Andrews et al, 2011, p608). The purpose of this essay is to critically analyze and discuss the changes in the company. In the second section, the type of the change in the company will be identified and justified. In the third section, it will critically analyze and discuss the change and the global and sustainability implication of the change from the perspective of the parent entity with a focus on four major components of the company, namely people, process, structure and technology.

Type of the change in the company

This section is to identify and justify the types of the change in the company with a focus on whether such change is revolutionary change or evolutionary change. Revolutionary organizational change is defined by Gersick (1991) as the frame-bending change in organizations and such frame-bending change makes organizations different from the existing orientations that had been in equilibrium for a long term. In contrast, evolutionary organizational chance refers to the change in a slow and continuous process with increasing involvement based on consensus building.

In reality, it is usually difficult to tell whether one change is revolutionary or evolutionary because of the unclear boundary between them (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Amis, Slack & Hinings (2004) suggest two dimensions for the identification, namely the scope of change and the pace of change. The scope of a change determines whether it is radical or not, and the pace of a change determines whether it is revolutionary or evolutionary. Following these two dimensions, it should say that the change in the company should be radical change. On one side, the change in this company has a broad scope. As expressed above, the change in the company include the merger of two previous independent entities, the shift from the focus on manufacturing to import and sales, and restructuring the previous divisional structure to a matrix structure (Andrews et al, 2011, p608). Obviously, these changes are the organizational wide change and affect almost all aspects of the company, ranging from people to process to strategy. As a result, the change in the company is radical. On the other side, the change in the company was completed in around one and half year. It should say that the pace of the change in the company was quick, and such change should be revolutionary. Furthermore, abundant evidence from the case materials reveals that the change in the company is consistent with characteristics of a revolutionary change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). For example, the change is mainly forced from the use of the authoritative power from the US parent company and the top management of Stanley Australia, the change is relevant to the emergent situations perceived by the company such as the continuous loss of market share and clients and the increasing competition pressures, the change has clear and measurable goals such as the number of redundant workers and the merger of the two branches in a designated period.

Critical analysis and discussion

People

The role of people in change is never overestimated. On one side, people are directly responsible for the tasks associated with a change, ranging from initiating, planning, implementation, evaluation, and correction. As a result, without people, no one change is likely to be successful because effective change relies on them to accomplish the associated task (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). On the other side, people are emotional being with differences in various aspects, such as interests, preferences, and personalities. As a result, people are likely to bring out various difficulties and problems for change, such as resistance, conflicts, and non-cooperation. Failing to effectively deal with the consideration of people is less likely to lead to successful change (Senior, 1997).

Specific to the change from the perspective of the parent entity, it should say it generally performed well in dealing with people associated with the change. First of all, the company adopts good humane approach to deal with people involved in the change. The humane approach is reflected in various aspects. For example, it promoted the equal policy in human resource management after the merger in order to avoid the embarrassment for the members from Stanley Bostitch; it respected employees by allowing them to know the restructuring information before outsiders (Andrews et al, 2011, p612). Obviously, the humane approach is helpful to reduce the resistance of people to this change and ensure their morale and commitment to the company and thus facilitate the implementation of the change. Furthermore, the company has good preparation for the change in terms of dealing with the issues related to people, such as the negotiation with the related unions half years before, replacing the CEO who was in line with the change, having clear policies and criteria to deal with the redundancy, and the specific skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the employees in the future (Andrews et al, 2011, p609-610). With those abundant preparations, the company effectively dealt with the issues related to people during the change. But there are also imperfections in dealing with people during this change. Obviously, during a revolutionary change in the company in a short period, people's emotion and psychological response to it should not be easy to be smoothened quickly (Amis, Slack & Hinings, 2004). Though few dissatisfactory issues arose up to the writing of the case, how to ensure people to effectively integrate into the company after the change requires further efforts and takes time.

The effective handling of people in the change has significant implications for the company. First of all, it allows the company