Reassessment and adjustment in organizational practice

Management

Initially, the problem was identified as being related to the new manager, who brought with him a leadership style and ideas about marketing that did not align with the prevailing culture within the marketing department. The result was that despite an increase in budget, the performance of the marketing unit regressed, losing sales rather than meeting the target of increasing by 20%. Another problem was that the company's marketing seemed oriented at internal issues, rather than meeting customer needs. I feel that on review, both factors have contributed to the problems. In essence, there are two problems at Capellon. The first is that the marketing department has become dysfunctional, with constant conflict between department veterans and the new leadership. This must hurt sales, but the problem with sales is more to do with the approach that the company has taken towards sales -- not focusing on the client's needs but on their own. So there are two major problems, not one and not some combined problem. So I think when I reflect on this, I realize that the two problems are probably more distinct than I had originally realized.

This leads to the question of the solutions. There were a number of solutions identified. One was to have more realistic goals in the first place, another was to implement a continuous improvement program, and the final one was to do more with less by cutting some of the staff with bad attitudes. Another thought was to increase training and development. Realistically, that is probably the best option, though elements of the others can probably be implemented. You have to tackle this as though there are two distinct problems. Yes, the sales objectives need to be more realistic, but that's an easy problem to fix. The bigger issues are the issues at the leadership level and with the culture of the marketing team. Training can help the team to understand the new leader's approach to sales, for example. Clemmer (2008) notes that the people within the organization need to embrace the change process in order for the change process to be successfully implemented. The need to be sold on a vision, and the leader needs to establish credibility. Neither of these things occurred. The new leader might still need to prune the old tree a bit, shedding dead wood, but that should be focused on those who are the most resistant to change. Set an example. Let the people who embrace change be the key leaders within the marketing organization, so that they can help to communicate the new vision and spur the training program that helps install the new systems within the marketing department.

If we look at the progress map, the strategy failed last year because it fit into Cell #1. The plan was a little unrealistic, especially given the turmoil in the marketing department, but also it was implemented poorly. Start with a smarter plan. Then make sure that there is a vision and buy-in before proceeding with this plan (Kent, 2008). The important thing to remember with this change process is that it is already ongoing. The leadership issues brought about this change. Now, there is renewed impetus for the change because of the poor performance of the organization. This should further remove a barrier to change. Beer and Nohria (2000) note that changing an organizational culture can only be done with a clear vision, training and buy-in from the entire organization. Thus, one of the implementation errors was to try to change the marketing department with an inexperienced manager and no real support from the rest of the organization. Getting buy-in and support from the CEO and other leaders is going to be critical to convincing the people within the marketing department that change is necessary and that they want to be on the right side of that change.