Automakers change Organizational change is mixture of evolutionary and revolutionary evolutionary because they are improving the quality

of their product making the most of their structure while keeping the existing functional structure changed certain meetings among different managers in the organization revolutionary because they introduced two new models of their product adopted a culture that challenged their old culture thus seek new equilibrium in the cultural change Reasons for organizational change problems -not making money -lose in sales -quality of the product decreased stakeholders -shareholders not happy since the share price dropped dramatically new strategies -consultant advice the change to be done to improve quality of product, quality of life for the employees Failures of changes (six silent killers) unclear strategy and conflicting priorities -there is no full understanding of the changes and reasons for it -level 1 managers were changed priorities yet no knowing exactly what was their task -unable to delegate responsibilities, all levels below level 1 were uncertain of their priorities as well -level 3 managers were not sure about the change at all -priority after the change was to reduce cost, improve productivity and quality, yet since there was unclear strategy of how to achieve that at the lower level, thus they still remain the priority of sustaining quantity in production poor vertical communication -the joke about to find out information about level 1 management was to ask the sweeper of the 1st level managements floor -a information gap between level 1 and level 2 managers -level 3 participants were not even well-informed of the changes made, thus they still adopt the old management style -level 3 assumes the new management style is just a repackage of the old management style, different way of getting back to the old means too top down management style -the organizational structure supports functionality -thus more top down management style is inevitable

-employees have to obey their orders yet not given any chance to give their opinions about problems -no reward for questioning, addressing problems, or repairing defects -however, top down is good because the individual who served the organization for long years made an initiative to change according to the new management style also brought his subordinates to the change. This also encouraged other departments and groups to change following their leaders -punish offenders for their mistakes thus people are threatened and humiliated when they makes mistakes Inadequate down the line leadership -level 3 managers were inadequately trained for the new skills needed for the change -no information was exposed to them about the theme and objective of the change -falsifying reports if new format is not met cheating, lying and stealing still exist -managers did not fix the problems on the spot because they had to stop the machine at the moment to correct those mistakes. Doing this would decrease productivity and they are more motivated to get their bonuses for productivity, so problems were not addressed immediately when it occurs -failed to provide much resources to 2nd level managers to support the changes -no persistency in the change, inconsistent management style used each day ineffective senior management -managers still embrace the old culture because they assume the culture was more performance driven, punishes failures and reward for competition was a better environment -frustrated with the abandonment of the old management style, yet not sure of the changes being made -their task was to arrange authority in the organization to perform down the line operation properly -because the fact that they are less participative in operation management, thus, 2nd level managers are taking more responsible on operation management. -this in turn make them assumed that there is more authority allocated to them from the level 1 managers -consultants think that managers have lack of trust in the program, thus ineffective implementation of the program arise -difference in consultants objectives and level 1 managers objectives -after the change, operation management were more allocated to 2nd level managers, yet they do not have adequate skills and training, thus their ability to handle the operation of the organization failed to meet consultants expectation poor coordination across functions -level 1 management and level 2 management were not coordinating properly -level 2 managers were unable to get sufficient information from level 1 managers -they hide tools so that the next shift would not have access to the tools -passing mistakes across departments -even

AUTOMAKERS - culture Identify culture: strong culture: o Aggression o Competition o Lying, cheating and stealing

Integrationist Evidenced by aggressive macho mgt style 2x4 mgt come from using a size of wood hitting someones need Intensive verbal abuse (yelling and screaming), becomes the myths Dramatic confrontations and figuratively beating up an offender Telling past stories in the org: 2x4 managers jumping up and down on a piece he doesnt like, yelling and screaming Differentiation People think: it is funny, like John Wayne movie ridiculous, like a game instead of workplace appealing, some prefer this straight forward approach Critical It is dysfunctional, as it results to lying, cheating and stealing culture. People dont want to take responsibility when things go wrong. Stories/ rituals from workers: Workers/ supervisors usually deny the problem and blame others, or they delate the problem. Competition Integrationist approach, strong competitive culture Intense competitiveness in T-plant b/w shifts (shiftitus) Differentiation approach:

People think: Dysfunctional, as rivalry goes to the extreme Its good, clean competition A part of fun, like street fighting world Critical approach Results to lack of cooperation People go to extreme competition as to lock up tools so that other shift cant get it to work Conflicts is built b/w shift Lying, cheating and stealing Integrationist, and critical: Culture is competitive, 2x4, blaming others This culture is hence passing down to individual, and produces lying, c, s culture Employees cover ass, playing cards, problem never get resolved. Passing poor quality product from one dept to another Failing to take responsibility for product defects Rushing faulty product out the door to beat other shift (concern about qty, but not quality) No trust, not willing to fix problem even if they have the skills

Managers: Hide personal and functional problems and failure, By trying to win/ to be competitive Hiding falsifying reports concerning injuries, defects and manpower Therefore, they make waste in the system Differentiation People think: These behaviors are necessary to get the job done Perceived as part of fun-represent kind of freedom to wheel and deal, see as a game Like the excitement and subterfuge as they think they were good at playing a game that required considerable skill and personal toughness

Ambivalent about the culture Cultural change: Through Participative mgt style Hard to change at the beginning: Reasons: (in culture point of view) Culture is reinforcing, a strong aggressive, competition, and lying, c, and s culture is difficult to change as managers are frustrated about asking workers to share same priorities by patting their back instead of 2x4 traditional mgt style. They felt that changing the style is tough. People have different view about the new culture: Some are willing to relinquish abusive behaviour Some have some regrets over the loss of excitement and control Some managers do not agree with the new culture and dont think it will lead to quality improvement and cost reduction Two culture in Auto b/w management and consultants Management: task managing technology information is power one big brain controlling people segmentation competition coercion Consultants: role, managing people, information is process, many little brains, controlling systems, integration, cooperation, participation New culture: Tough, competitive but also resented and enjoyed

The new culture must be reinforced by reward, training, authority pattern, and reporting relationship Automakers - communication Functional approach: relationship function - improve existing relationships among managers from all levels o reduce conflict among workers o eliminate 2x4 approach, reduced punishment o workers have more autonomy now but less motivated o empire building and shifititus behavior less obvious change function o change culture of the existing management from performance driven to quality focused o change employees attitudes towards a better outcome o productivity and quality management

Communication networks being used: formal o o o o

consultants have been brought in to conduct interviews on its employees different managers hear and interpret messages differently workers at lower levels did not have exposure to the committee meeting newly formed committees are formal but they didnt send out the message to lower levels

Channel being used: face to face interviews on employees from all level, foreman, middle managers and senior managers 3 levels of committee members are assumed to be present in the large group meeting whereby all managers attended o advantageo disadvantage -

Direction of the message: downward from headquarters instruction to hire consultants then to senior level then to middle and lower levels, pass down blames and duty etc horizontal msgs were delivered across all departments upward after the change, lower level managers are supposed to report back to level 1 managers external consultation between the organization employees and the consultants

Information load:

under loaded messages that consultants trying to deliver to all 3 levels of committees are unclear, they failed to explain why and how to make the change work o at the same time lower level employees have no idea what the change is about as the higher level managers failed to react correspondingly to the proposed change plan as suggested by the consultants

Main causes of distortions: the targeted network, channel and audience are too generic there is a need to consider the diff audiences from 3 levels of committees and to target diff networks using more channels are needed encoding and decoding went wrong among committee members because everyone are not clear as to what they are supposed to do because the information is inadequate (insufficient load), managers feel performance driven attitude is more appropriate since there is no obvious change there is a need for more feedbacks between consultants and managers, this can be accomplished by more frequent meetings with diff dpt as well as with 3 levels of committees

Meaning centred approach: how does comm shape organizing and decision making: comm appears to reflect organizing and decision making that is very top down decision making is impaired because of no opportunity for feedback

how does comm shape power and influence: consultants have the info/exp power with which they should use it to better communicate so the org gets the message authority power has been abused by managers reflected in verbal punishments on its employees by swearing at them frequently

how does comm shape culture and socialization: the old culture embraces competition and cheat lying stealing, the lack of official communications mean a lack of trust in the company lack of comm->lack of info->consultant need those info in order to implement the change

what metaphor is the communication and what are its effects? machine o what is the analogues subject o who is the change agent

o what is the issue transitional transformational