Case Study - Case Study: “I JUST CAN’T WORK WITH HER:” TEAM CONFLICT IN THE NORTHEAST SALES DIVISION" (pp. 98 - 102)

1 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Case Study 1: Sarah’s Snacks

ORGD 6360 Leading Change

University of the Incarnate Word

Dr. Garza

Presented by: Student

11 September 2022

2 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

How well did Sarah’s Snacks fit Nadler and Tushman’s congruence model before it

began its organizational change?

Nadler and Tushman’s congruence model is a tool for leaders to evaluate how well an

organization is aligned with its core mission, vision, and values. The congruence model is

concerned with four fundamental elements of a given organization: the work, the people, the

culture, and the formal organizational structure (Deszca et al., 2019, p.71). The better aligned all

four of these elements are with the organizational strategy and external market pressures, the

more successful the organization is likely to be.

Before its organizational change, Sarah’s Snacks executed a few of these fundamental

elements well. The tasks and culture of the organization were in congruence with its vision of

providing healthy, organic, environmentally conscious snack options. However, the most

important thing leadership at Sarah’s Snacks got right was to have the self-awareness and

humility to admit that they needed to change and that they couldn’t do it alone. When a company

finds itself in a changing environment, it must also change how it diagnoses itself to properly

identify the need for change and realign itself more clearly with the four elements of the

congruence model to reach its goals (Deszca et al., 2019, p.76).

Sarah’s Snacks was also lacking in a few key fundamental areas of the congruence

model. The people were not integrated well across the full spectrum of the work due to

inefficiencies within the formal structure of the organization. With different functions being

responsible only for their modular contributions to the finished product, each department had

little need or desire to integrate well with their coworkers along the various stages of completion.

3 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Presumably a sense of “that’s not my job” was pervasive in this kind of environment and is a

challenging norm to overcome once it takes root.

Why have the changes at Sarah’s Snacks not produced the expected results?

The changes at Sarah’s Snacks have not produced the desired results because of an

incoherent change implementation strategy, which did not establish a firm foundation from

which to properly organize, train, and equip its staff. The policy changes at Sarah’s Snacks were

hastily executed without the requisite training or communication to ensure their success and

proper implementation. An unorganized rollout of the change implementation led to multiple

lines of effort confusing and frustrating the staff. Rolling out change processes before the

prerequisite process had been firmly put in place created confusion and a reluctance to commit to

the new changes.

Furthermore, change implementation was severely impeded by a lack of a formal training

plan to adequately prepare their employees to use the new IT system. This shortcoming, coupled

with the availability of the old, disjointed, and unstandardized system meant employees

predictably reverted to what they knew and used the old inefficient methods. Additionally,

employees were reticent to accept the proposed changes when they were still unclear about how

they would be evaluated since the old performance management system was still in place. This

uncertainty created a risk-averse mentality among employees trying to maintain some sense of

normalcy and predictability.

4 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Sarah’s Snack’s change efforts were significantly stunted due to its inability to develop

capabilities and competencies among its employees that were aligned with the change strategy

being implemented (Deszca et al., 2019, p. 76).

Ultimately, each of these seemingly small failures contributes to the broken trust between

the organization and its employees. Foremost among these failures were the short-notice layoffs

of longtime loyal employees, all while continuing to recruit outside hires.

Change requires trust between change agents and their recipients. Frequent and clear

communication of ground rules, values, customer focus, the forecast impact on employees, and

reiteration of continuing values and mission will help to relieve some anxiety and enable the

adoption of change more quickly. Addressing these key areas candidly with employees will

assure organizational members who feel they may have little to no control over these changes

that the organization is still fundamentally the same even if certain tasks are changing (Hindle,

2010).

What do you recommend Woodley do? Which of your recommendations can be

implemented in the short term, and which are longer-term solutions?

First, reassure her team that they were right in identifying the need for change despite

imperfect implementation. Secondly, as CEO, she should take ownership of the current state of

the company, not pass the blame to the consultant or employees reluctant to change, and admit to

any missteps over the last 18 months. This is foundational to establishing a sense of trust and a

safe organizational environment where employees won’t need to fear being assigned blame.

5 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Transparency between management intentions and the concerns of employees helps to

build trust and undermine rumors and suspicions that inevitably circulate; Trust makes the

change process much easier (Hindle, 2010). This can be done in the short term.

Next, establish an organizational training plan that will allow employees to build

competence and confidence with the new IT system. This is likely a medium-long term solution

when considering time to train and equip employees, but this is a vital pre-requisite and should

be begun as soon as possible.

Then, establish organizational metrics that will data capture what is working and what is

not working with the new change being implemented. Additionally, prioritize making a

transparent evaluation system to eliminate uncertainty and employee anxiety. Monitoring

progress during the transformation will help change leaders address what is working and what is

not, as well as acknowledge when change has been fully incorporated into the organizational

fabric (Deszca et al., 2019, p.54).

Finally, Woodley should continue to scan her internal and external environment for

indicators of future change requirements (Deszca et al., 2019, p.52).

How does the Change Path Model help you analyze what should have happened at

18 months and what should happen now?

The Change Path Model provides a practical framework that lays out a linear process for

change. This helps to organize in a change leader’s mind the order of events or processes that

should be implemented first to bridge the gap between the current and desired end state. (Deszca

et al., 2019, p. 56)

6 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Using the Change Path Model, I’ve assessed that what Sarah’s Snacks should’ve done 18

months ago is focused on establishing a shared vision for change among management and

employees and encouraging others to share their viewpoints on what they think needs to be

changed before implementing a strategy. Once aligned Sarah’s snacks management and

employees could’ve enacted an effective Mobilization period that would likely have been more

productive than their current predicament.

Sarah’s Snacks would’ve benefitted from engaging others at all levels and soliciting their

input regarding what needs to change and as a result enabling others to take ownership of the

change process. Leaders sometimes assume the need for change is obvious to everyone simply

because its obvious to them; this is rarely the case and requires proactive dialogue to encourage

participation in the change process (Deszca et al., 2019, p.52). This is due to the lag that often

exists between what change leaders know and what is known by others in other departments of

the organization, which requires multiple communication channels of engagement to convince

change recipients of the importance of the proposed change and to resist the temptation of

continuing to operate as they have in the past (Deszca et al., 2019, p.52).

Additionally, I think Sarah’s Snacks leadership team could make changes now that would

help to get the change process back on track. First, leadership should pause and perform a

current-state gap analysis of where they are and where they want to go—incorporating an honest

assessment of successes and failures of formal structures and processes, identifying cultural

dynamics that are resistant to change, assessing how the recipients of change view the progress,

and producing a shared vision between management and employees (Deszca et al., 2019, p. 53).

7 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

Once this gap assessment is complete, leadership should overcommunicate with its

employees taking ownership of any shortcomings and encouraging their participation in creating

the vision and processes necessary to achieve their now shared desired end state.

8 Running head: Sarah’s Snacks

References

Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2019). Organizational change: An action-oriented

toolkit (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://full-

bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781544351391

Hindle, K. (2010). 14: Implementing business change (2nd ed. ed.). BCS Learning &

Development Limited.