HR Case Study: Unitel Vision 2022 Cultural Change Analysis
This case study identifies and analyzes key human resource and employee relations issues arising from Unitel's introduction of Vision 2022, a cultural change initiative developed with an external consultancy firm following privatization. The paper examines eight distinct issues spanning cultural change readiness, poor employee relations, weak management performance, and strained industrial relations with union members. Drawing on Kotter's change model, soft HRM principles, McGregor's Theory Y, participative leadership frameworks, and the pluralist theory of employee relations, the paper recommends actionable solutions aimed at improving employee trust, inclusion, communication, and organizational alignment to support the successful implementation of Vision 2022.
- Introduction: Unitel background and Vision 2022 overview
- Cultural Change Issues and Recommendations: Employee readiness gaps and Kotter's change model
- Poor Employee Relations Issues and Recommendations: Communication failures, exclusion, and soft HRM fixes
- Poor Management Performance and Recommendations: Participative leadership models to rebuild trust
- Weak Industrial Relations and Recommendations: Union exclusion and workplace partnership solution
- Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations: Consolidated recommendations across all issue areas
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically structures its argument by identifying discrete issues, analyzing each one, and then providing targeted theoretical recommendations — creating a clear problem-solution architecture throughout.
- Multiple HR and organizational behavior frameworks (Kotter's model, soft HRM, McGregor's Theory X/Y, motivational and exchange-based leadership models, and pluralist ER theory) are applied with explicit reference to the Unitel case, demonstrating applied theoretical literacy.
- The conclusion effectively synthesizes all recommendations in a concise bulleted format, reinforcing the paper's practical orientation and making it easy to reference for decision-makers.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: each theoretical framework is not merely described but explicitly mapped onto Unitel's specific circumstances. For instance, Kotter's three-phase model is not summarized generically but translated into concrete actions Unitel's management should take at each phase. This technique — anchoring theory to case-specific detail — is central to graduate-level HR and management writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an executive summary and introduction establishing Unitel's context. It then proceeds through four issue clusters — cultural change, employee relations, management performance, and industrial relations — each subdivided into named issues followed by recommendations. A concluding section consolidates all recommendations in a bulleted summary. This layered structure mirrors standard professional HR reporting formats and keeps analysis organized and accessible.
Introduction
One of the largest telecommunications companies in the Asia-Pacific region, Unitel faced intensifying competition from foreign and local firms following its privatization. To cope with these competitive demands, senior management concluded that a cultural change — an inevitable consequence of privatization — had to be pursued. Several problems emerged when Vision 2022 was announced with the assistance of an external consultancy firm. This change strategy was designed to transform how teams work, how decisions are made, and how possibility thinking should be implemented across the organization. The sections below examine the key HR and employee relations (ER) issues that would affect Unitel's operations and competitiveness, and present recommendations for each issue.
Cultural Change Issues and Recommendations
Issue Identification: Cultural Change
With the introduction of Vision 2022, there was a clear shift in the company's culture, as an outside consultancy firm recommended that Unitel position itself as the best enterprise in the region. This brought some positive developments, including standardization, improved communication between senior and lower-level workers, enabling decisions to be made at lower levels, developing a customer-needs tracking facility, and formulating the U-test decision-making process. However, employees did not feel a sense of inclusion when an outside firm was engaged to lead the change, and they were not motivated as a result. Cultural change cannot be achieved through a top-down approach; rather, it should create an environment that draws on employees' hearts and minds and builds a shared perception of how things should be done (Walker & Soule 2017).
Issue 1: Employees' Readiness for Adapting to Change
According to Kotter, employees resist organizational change for several reasons: the formal structure, lack of discouragement from upper management against pursuing the new vision, insufficient skills, and difficulties with personnel or information systems (Adiratna, Fahmi & Kuswanto 2018). In Unitel's case, the formal management structure — which appeared to be imposing change from the top down — and the standardization initiative, which was not fully acceptable to all employees, were the primary reasons for low change readiness. Employees believed that Vision 2022 was exclusively about refreshing lower-level staff rather than implementing change across the whole organization, from bottom to top.
Issue 2: The Inability of the Change Strategy to Build Employee Trust and Inclusion
The role employees were expected to play in the change should have been valued, and management needed to demonstrate appreciation while instilling a sense of belonging. This was absent in Unitel's case. Rather than soliciting inputs from workers, the company relied on an outside source for change implementation, which generated negative perceptions about both Vision 2022 and senior management. The cultural change appeared to have been imposed on employees rather than developed with their participation, leaving them feeling dejected and unready. Adverse attitudes proliferated — including the view that the initiative was simply a waste of money.
Contemporary employee relations research holds that worker trust is essential for successful organizational change implementation (Lines et al. 2005). When trust exists between management and employees, it becomes a primary indicator of organizational success — particularly when both stakeholders belong to the same organization undergoing cultural change, as at Unitel. Information sharing becomes more fluid, organizational citizenship behavior aligns with organizational goals, and both parties become more receptive to incoming change. None of this was evident at Unitel. Organizational change is a critical juncture at which trust is either built, developed, retained, or destroyed, and managers can only make effective decisions when they have earned the confidence of their subordinates.
Recommendations: Cultural Change
The collective cultural change issues can be addressed using Kotter's eight-step model for cultural change (Carman et al. 2019). The first phase involves creating a sense of urgency, building a guiding coalition, and developing a vision and strategy. Here, Unitel should ask employees to identify potential threats — such as increased market competition following privatization. As the organization's internal strength, employees have intimate knowledge of the company, and their inputs should be valued. The second phase involves communicating the change vision, empowering employees to take required actions, and defining short-term wins. Incorporating employee feedback and ideas at each level of Unitel's hierarchy would be beneficial; even when external consultants are engaged, including and empowering staff is essential. The third phase involves consolidating gains and anchoring the change. Monitoring the successful implementation of communication processes between senior and lower management would help sustain the change. New and existing priorities established following Vision 2022 should be embraced equally across all levels.
Reference List
Abbott, K 2006, 'A review of employment relations theories and their application,' Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 4, no. 1, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Adiratna, A, Fahmi, I & Kuswanto, S 2018, 'Factors that affect employee readiness: an insight from bank NTB transformation,' Global Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 6, no. 4, viewed 7 October 2020, <
Bowen, D E & Ostroff, C 2004, 'Understanding HRM firm performance linkages: the role of the "strength" of the HRM system,' The Academy of Management Review, vol. 29, no. 2, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Carman, A L, Vanderpool, R C, Strasman, L R & Edmiston, E A 2019, 'A change management approach to closing care gaps in a federally qualified health center: a rural Kentucky case study,' Preventing Chronic Disease, vol. 16, viewed 7 October 2020, <
Creighton, K 2018, What HR needs to know about working with labor unions, HR Daily Advisor, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Geary, J & Trif, A 2011, 'Workplace partnership and the balance of advantage: a critical case analysis,' British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 49, no. s1, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Huang, X, Iun, J, Liu, A & Gong, Y 2010, 'Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates,' Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 31, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Ihuah, P W 2014, 'A review of soft and hard approaches of human resource management and the success of real estate development in Nigeria,' Journal of Business Management and Economic Development, vol. 1, no. 1, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Kopelman, R, Prottas, D & Davis, A 2008, 'Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y: toward a construct-valid measure,' Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 20, no. 2, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Landry, L 2020, Why managers should involve their team in the decision-making process, Harvard Business School Online, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Lines, R, Selart, M, Espedal, B & Johansen, S T 2005, 'The production of trust during organizational change,' Journal of Change Management, vol. 5, no. 2, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Nicholson, N 2003, How to motivate your problem people, Harvard Business Review, viewed 8 October 2020.
Sadia, A, Salleh, B, Abdul Kadir, Z & Sanif, S 2016, 'The relationship between organizational communication and employees productivity with new dimensions of effective communication flow,' Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, vol. 2, no. 2, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Saif, N, Razzaq, N, Rehman, S, Javed, A & Ahmad, U 2013, 'The role of workplace partnership strategies in employee-management relations,' Information and Knowledge Management, vol. 3, no. 6, viewed 8 October 2020, <
Walker, B & Soule, S A 2017, Changing company culture requires a movement, not a mandate, Harvard Business Review, viewed 8 October 2020, <https://hbr.org/2017/06/changing-company-culture-requires-a-movement-not-a-mandate>
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.