1
Running head: SEAGRAMS
Consulting Proposal 1: Seagrams
Name
Liberty University
BMAL 504 – Leading Organizational Change
2
SEAGRAMS
Definition of the Project:
The aim of this project is to apply a concept called RIGS to the Joseph E. Seagram Sons,
Incorporated, in order to aid them in facilitating their goal of 15% growth and an objective of being the
“best-managed” corporation. RIGS is an acronym, commonly used in military urban operations, that
stands for reconnaissance, isolation, gaining a foothold and seizing an objective.
Reconnaissance will be used to identify where the friction points in the organization manifest.
This allow for future mitigation, or potentially avoidance, of any obstacle(s) in the way of the objective.
Likewise, reconnaissance is used to identify any positions or avenues that could prove advantageous to
goal completion.
Isolation essentially allows for definition of a problem and allows the team to focus on solving
said problem without unnecessary outside influence. This means that any negative influence should be cut
off or suppressed from the main objective so that it cannot influence the outcome.
A foothold is a point at which a leader can “flow” all their forces on an objective. It is the basis
for all other follow on operations. The foothold is a strong-point; if things do not go according to plan,
the team can fall back to the foothold.
Finally, seizing an objective is the control of the organizational terrain. In the case of Seagrams,
it is to reach the desired numbers and to be the “best-managed”.
It is important to understand that this is a continuous process and may not go to completion due to
unforeseen circumstances. For example, it may be impossible to completely isolate a problem due to
resources and inaccurate reconnaissance.
Diagnosis of the Current Situation
In the information provided by Jick & Peiperl (2011), Seagrams has been largely successful in
establishing their new value structure and by indoctrinating the senior leadership within most of its
conglomerates. Despite these efforts, some skepticism of leadership by the rank-and-file still remains.
Furthermore, the organization still has some friction in terms of how they should handle newly-acquired
Universal/MCA and what to do about violators of the Seagram’s values system. In general, these five
3
SEAGRAMS
questions remain: (1) How should suggestions from focus groups be implemented? (2) Should violators
of the Seagram’s values be punished? (3) How should “values champions” be rewarded/recognized (4)
What should be done about MCA/Universal in terms of implementing the Seagram’s values? (5) How can
the values be further indoctrinated in the organization? The answers to these questions remain
unanswered or, in the case of MCA/Universal, discordant.
Recommendations
Constant Reconnaissance. This is a must in order to understand how the organization is changing
and where new problems will arise. The feedback systems in the organization have afforded leadership
with valuable information and Seagrams has been able to isolate most of its issues.
Isolation. For the most part, the problems have been clearly defined by Seagrams leadership, with
the possible exception of the punishment “problem”. There is some ambiguity: are these values or are
these rules? For example, are you going to punish someone who is not innovative (one of the Seagrams
values)? How are you going to define the appropriate level of innovation? The suggestion would be to
thoroughly think through this process.
Gaining a foothold. The foothold are the Seagram’s Values, which you have chosen to base further
operations off of. These values are the guidance and fallback position for going forward. Because no
solution is ever 100% effective, entropy from change should be expected. Decisions being made at the
organizational level should be aligned with these values.
Seize the objective. Seizing the objective has to be done through individual actions and leadership.
When seizing a building, for example, the leader is highly reliant on individual actions of the team
members. It would be impossible for one person to direct every action taken by every member of a team;
instead, the leader inserts themselves at the points of friction. Seagrams must let their employees take
appropriate actions and insert leadership intervention where necessary.
Implementation Plan
Reconnaissance
4
SEAGRAMS
Continue with the 360-feedback. The fact that Seagrams is giving lower-level leaders and its
employees a voice is very positive. Symmetrical communication (communication up and down the chain
of command) has been shown to positively effect employee-organization relationship and employee-
employee relationships because it gives everyone in an organization a voice (Kang & Sung, 2017).
Currently Isolated Problems.
Addressing employee skepticism in leadership can be overcome by the evidence for symmetrical
communication asserted by (Kang & Sung, 2017). Furthermore, the values that Seagrams has chosen
must remain consistent in the organization and your leaders must remain consistent with them (Eberl et
al., 2015). Eberl et al. (2015) found that employee trust cannot be re-established by formal, legalistic
measures; instead the value inconsistencies have to be addressed directly. This means that leadership
must embody the values set forth by Seagrams, and you must select leadership that is on board with your
new values.
Implementing Suggestions. Implementing suggestion should be left up to the subordinate
leaders to use their ingenuity to test out the suggestions. Because Seagrams is a conglomerate, it may not
be advantageous to formalize a process of implementing suggestions. In order for the organizational
change to be effective, you must start operating with intent versus mandating change. An intent allows
you to describe the purpose and the end state of an objective but leaves the method up to the subordinate
leader. In general, the higher the level of leader, the less specific these need to be. Change mandated from
the top is less effective than letting teams come to their own conclusions (Jick & Peiperl, 2011, p. 272).
This is the big picture; big picture communication by the CEO will foster an environment of innovation
(Dedahanov, 2017). Therefore, implementing a decentralized approach to leadership will allow for
constant evolution and growth at Seagrams.
Punishment/Rewards. Rewarding values may be easier than punishing lack of certain values.
While there is evidence that extrinsic rewards can be powerful motivators, intrinsic rewards, like
promotions and recognition, go further in motivating employees (Kuvaas et al., 2017, p. 245).
5
SEAGRAMS
Rewarding employees with intrinsic rewards will allow Seagrams place the people who share the values
in leadership positions.
It could be argued that values are where rules are derived from; some of Seagrams values are
most easily translated into behavior such as being respectful/disrespectful. However, others like
innovation are not. Is the punishment for being disrespectful equal to the punishment of not innovative?
There is a plethora of different responsibilities in the organization. Is it realistic to penalize someone who
runs a machine that screws bottle caps of Ginger Ale for not being innovative? The idea between rules
and values at Seagrams is not clear.
As Eberl et al (2015) states “values and norms serve as a control mechanism that determines
when rules should not and cannot be broken” (p. 1222). Therefore, the focus should remain to deepen the
value structure into the organization until the associated behaviors become norms because those are the
behaviors that you desire.
MCA/Universal and Deepening of the Values Structure. As mentioned previously, values must
remain consistent in order to foster trust, therefore holding MCA/Universal to the same standard is
important (Ebrel et al. 2015). That being said, conversations should take place to see where
MCA/Universal and Seagrams already align and where they differ. If they differ, maybe it is not to a great
degree and the Seagrams values could essentially “take the place” of MCA/Universal’s values. Either
way, to implement this strategy, conversations need to take place with leadership.
Evidence suggests that leaders should provide their followers the opportunity to find their own
values (Illes & Vogel, 2018). Employees will eventually self-select into values established by the
organization (or they will leave) (Arieli et. al, 2016). Given time, and with the other measures in place,
the scene of individuals within the organization will likely mirror those of the organization. Senior leaders
in the company should continuously have conversations and be patient as value structures take time to
change (Illes & Vogel, 2018). Programs should be put in place that increase social connectedness as that
has been shown to increase the level of shared values between organization and individual because it is
6
SEAGRAMS
perhaps easier for an individual to identify with a group or people, versus a corporate entity (Illes &
Vogel, 2018).
Summary
Seagrams is on the right track in terms of positive change. The steps that have thus far taken
place should eventually foster organization-wide change. The main issues that arise are the additional
clarification of values versus rules, and maintaining a level of intent-based, big picture thinking in order
to let the employees work to their fullest potential. With these strategies in place, given time, Seagrams
will achieve the goals of “best-managed” and grow at 15%. Given time and consistency, the Seagrams
values will foster new norms of behavior. The best way to do this is to use the values as a guidance
system and empower subordinate leaders as the agents of change.
References
Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., & Cohen-Shalem, E. (2016). Values in business schools: The role of self-
7
SEAGRAMS
selection and socialization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 493-507.
doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0064
Dedahanov, A., Rhee, C., & Yoon, J. (2017). Organizational structure and innovation
performance. Career Development International, 22(4), 334-350. doi:10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0234
Eberl, P., Geiger, D., & Aßländer, M. S. (2015). Repairing trust in an organization after integrity
violations: The ambivalence of organizational rule adjustments. Organization Studies, 36(9),
1205-1235. doi:10.1177/0170840615585335
Illes, K., & Vogell, C. (2018). Corporate values from a personal perspective. Social
Responsibility Journal, 14(2), 351-367. doi:10.1108/SRJ-07-2017-0114
Jick, T. D., & Peiperl, M. A. (2011). Managing change: Cases and concepts (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780073102740.
Kang, M., & Sung, M. (2017). How symmetrical employee communication
leads to employee engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The
mediation of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Communication
Management, 21(1), 82-102. doi:10.1108/JCOM-04-2016-0026
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., & Nerstad, C. G. L. (2017). Do intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes? Journal of Economic
Psychology, 61, 244-258. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
