Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 1
Consulting Proposal #2
Mark Peterson
Liberty University
BMAL 504 – Leading Organizational Change
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 2
Definition of Project:
The Price Waterhouse group does not have Goodwill with the society and the global
environment, at least not which is assigned a value on paper and accounted for in the corporate
ledgers. The purpose of this project is to increase revenue, recruit the best and brightest, increase
goodwill among the shareholders and communities in which Price Waterhouse operates, with the
impending merger with Coopers and Lybrand.
Building Goodwill is a monumental task with a company as old and established as PwC
and it will require intensive training and changes in the way the business operates. PwC will
have to begin taking on socially and environmentally sound business practices. Goodwill is “the
value of a business or practice that exceeds the combined value of the net assets.” “Essentially,
goodwill is “the favor which the management of a business has won from the public, and
probability that old customers will continue their patronage.” (Jerrold & Richards, 2005, p 390)
Gaining and sustaining Goodwill is a difficult task, especially if the company is an older one.
The policies and practices of the older company are better known in the public and overcoming
the stigmas are difficult, but public opinions can be changed over time and with very public
changes within the company in the form of transparent responsibilities and public accountability.
The benefits of having Goodwill within an industry comes with a lot of lucrative benefits
for the company. Goodwill increases loyalty from the staff and the clients, reduces negative
actions by regulators or nongovernmental organizations, and increases operational and financial
effectiveness. (Jick &Peiperl, 2011, p 465)
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 3
Diagnosis of current situation:
James Shaw and Amy Middelburg wanted to answer two questions, 1. “How does PwC
want to be seen by the community? And 2. “What is the difference we want to make in the
world?” (Jick &Peiperl, 2011, p 464) The impending merger with Coopers and Lybrand, PwC
would measure its business success not only by its financial goals but also by its effects on
society and the global environment. (2011, p 464) Their proposal which was written in the form
of a 10 page report known as ‘NewCo Values and NewCo’s Value’, proposed that the firm adopt
certain practices and services for clients, being economically viable, but we also socially
responsible and environmentally sound. They focused on sustainability. The integration of
Goodwill into business decisions and the addition of Sustainability to the requirement meant that
PwC would now have a triple bottom line, Economic, Social and Environmental. (2011, p 465)
This was a new concept of sustainability and started a firestorm in the industry. “The modern
sustainability movement, as it emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, suggests three
dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social.” (Sustainability, 2012)
Recommendations:
The first step is to establish the corporate values which will enable the stakeholders and
customers to have a tangible, visible set of standards in which to judge the company by. The
values should be incorporated into a firm mission and vision statement. “Values are basic
convictions that a specific mode of conduct, is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or
converse mode of conduct.” (Robbins &Judge, 2009, p 117) Putting the mission and vision with
values on paper, allows for the largest dissemination and guiding doctrine to which all decisions
can be judged. “The mission's unit of definition is important because the mission creates and
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 4
communicates a sense of shared purpose. Any differentiation of missions within an organization
must harmonize with the organization's overall purpose.” (Keeling, 2013)
There needs to be a recurring review of the progress, to discern if the values are being
sustained, and incorporating corporate responsibility in business decisions. This can be done by
establishing a sustainability team, and using a feedback system to ensure the corporate values are
effective and being adhered to.
There should be in place, assurances that the sustainability team does not become a choke
point for the company. The team only makes suggestions and recommendations based on the
corporate values and mission. This team should also be a sounding board for stakeholders and
the public to address concerns. This approach will reduce the bureaucracy and make access
easier.
Using these recommendations and implementing a ‘building goodwill” policy, the
sustainability will be more accessible. The company’s Goodwill will grow with the public and
among the stakeholders, this in turn will make recruiting much easier, as people will naturally
want to come to work at PwC.
Implementation Plan:
Design the value systems, with the established mission and value statement, if there is to
be guidance in what will need to change to build the goodwill and social responsibility. Develop
the mission and value statement with stakeholder input. The values should be intrinsic, not only
in the corporation, but a value system the stakeholders want to take home. They should focus on
social responsibility, world environment, financial benefits and sustainability. The values should
be the basis for the advising of clients, to become more sustainable, not just more profitable or
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 5
efficient. Become the market leader of sustainability products, which are based on the Value
system and the three tiered bottom line.
Summary:
The biggest challenge to Shaw, et al, was the old way of doing business was not failing. It
was still successful and still making a profit. Many of the old regime did not see the need to
change, and often would placate the team with verbal agreement and no action. It took a lot of
time, but eventually the senior executives began to see the plausibility of this new product and
value line of business. Being able to help clients build goodwill, remain profitable and be
socially and environmentally aware, was going to be a strong business model.
Shaw and the team had lots of tenacity, they sought out those who could help, and by passed
those who would hinder. They kept notes on them, and focused efforts on those who were
interested to help and shared the vision that they had.
My personal experience in the Navy is that very little happens in a bottom up scenario. Being
a maintenance chief, everything that is done is in a methodical, scripted way, unless there are
extenuating circumstances. A maintainer does not deviate, at least on his own authority. There
have been suggestions that are written, and submitted, most of which are reviewed by engineers
and either incorporated into the maintenance requirements or discarded. I find that taking control
and making decisions as I see them. I then am willing to take the reprimand for the actions, and
try to filter any repercussions from the junior Sailors. The heaviest decisions I have made
involved technical directive changes from the Engineers at VX-9. We were installing a software
and hardware modification, the kits that were provided did not have all the necessary items.
Seeing as we were simply hours away from executing the first flights into Iraq in 2003, it was
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 6
imperative we accomplished the modification, we performed the calculations and incorporated
the necessary items and the missions launched as required. But even then, the solutions were
presented and the decisions made by the Commanding Officer, and the Commander of the
Carrier Air Group, or CAG. So in the Navy, any change may originate from the lower grades, but
is never incorporated until approved by the higher ranks.
I personally believe everything that Oshry is saying about systems and that interaction of
them. The systems evolve to meet current need, like a live, breathing object. The controllers of
the systems are the innovators, the investors and the free thinkers. The middle space, were most
of us reside, is where the work gets done. The middles, like Oshry states, going between the tops
and the bottoms, lots of opportunities to fail, very few to succeed. My personal experience in the
Navy can fit very nicely into this structure. As senior enlisted, I am neither top nor bottom. I
ferry the information between the two, and do what I can to inspire, motivate and accomplish
work. I find most of my time is spent fixing problems that could have otherwise been avoided,
through the simple thought process of logical reasoning. Many, many times there is chaos and
adversity brought upon the middles by the tops, in the guise of fixing something that is not
broken, when the true problems and solutions to them are filtered by other middles from the
bottoms to the tops. Keeping real change, and necessity from being corrected, because of the
limited opportunity, some of the middles feel they gain an advantage. They do not bring the
issues to the top, and present them with solutions, they simply suppress the information and
prevent it from coming to light with the idea, think it makes them look bad or incompetent. His
principles and tactics are sound and are familiar. I have taken many leadership courses in the last
22 years and the tactics and ideas are always presented. Where the problem lies, is not with the
advice, it is with people executing the advice. As a career middle, I have found that if one has the
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 7
competence, to leader, inspire and fix the problems as they arise, the opportunity to rise to the
top increases. The higher in the middle one gets, the more and more politics play a roll, and
eventually it is no longer about leadership or mission accomplishment. But more so, who knows
who and who has been around the longest. The leadership is a piece, but the politics is a much
bigger role as one rises up in the middle and eventually to the top.
Running head: CONSULTING PROPOSAL #2 8
References
Jerrold, L., & Richards, K. (2005). Goodwill. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics, 27(3), 389-392. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.005
Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2011). Managing change: Cases and concepts (3rd ed). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Keeling, M. (2013). Mission statements. Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 30-36. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1437351980?accountid=12085
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sustainability. (2012). Facilities, 30(9/10). Retrieved from doi: 10.1108/f.2012.06930iaa.001
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
