Over the last five years, the company has gone from an environment of cultural and financial stability to one comprised of political infighting and repeatedly missed financial targets. Employees who once participated in regular profit-sharing and annual bonuses are now faced with reductions in pay and enterprise-wide layoffs. Unfortunately, the company has experienced a slow, downward spiral that can most directly be attributed to an ill-fated and ill-timed attempt by our president and CEO to implement a change initiative affectionately known to the entire organization as Project GENI. GENI was an acronym which stood for “Good Enough, Never Is.” Simply put, the initiative asked us to challenge ourselves and our respective employees. Our
…show more content…
Weiss calls this an organizational diagnosis of change. According to Weiss, this process refers to “understanding the current state of how an organization functions and providing necessary information to design change interventions” (Weiss, 2016. p. 61). This step was not performed at Mizuno USA. Consequently, Project GENI, as a change initiative, failed considerably. In the beginning, it seemed as if it were some secret project made visible to only a select group of high-potential employees. Meetings were held offsite and behind closed doors. There was little transparency. When it came time to implement the resultant recommendations, the remaining employee base was less than enthusiastic. At best, they were confused. They questioned why we were changing so much, so quickly. Leadership, more specifically, our president and CEO, failed to communicate. This was his opportunity to create a compelling vision that would inspire, motivate, and define a future goal (Weiss, 2015, p.213) and he missed it. He missed a fundamental component of organizational change …show more content…
Of the five teams formulated to support the project, one team had considerably more power. The infamous fifth team was tasked with developing an organizational structure that would implement the recommendations put forth by the other four. Our president was fond of saying “structure follows strategy.” This idea was not his alone. Rather, it is a theory put forth by Harvard University business history professor Alfred DuPont Chandler. In his book Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (1962), Chandler found that managerial organization developed in response to a corporation's business strategy. In other words, the strategic vision of a company provides the framework for how it should be organized. In short, structure follows strategy. Unfortunately, the infamous fifth team, which was comprised of the CEO, CFO, and VP of Human Resources, had previously agreed upon a new organizational structure that had little to do with the recommendations put forth by the members of Project GENI. The selection of this pre-determined structure was, at best, demoralizing to the rest of the organization. At its worst, it was highly suspicious and a seemingly unethical misuse of power. Our president’s integrity was in question. He became damaged in the eyes of our employees. “Organizational goals, morale, and follower satisfaction were thwarted through the abuse of power and self-interest of the leader”
Weiss calls this an organizational diagnosis of change. According to Weiss, this process refers to “understanding the current state of how an organization functions and providing necessary information to design change interventions” (Weiss, 2016. p. 61). This step was not performed at Mizuno USA. Consequently, Project GENI, as a change initiative, failed considerably. In the beginning, it seemed as if it were some secret project made visible to only a select group of high-potential employees. Meetings were held offsite and behind closed doors. There was little transparency. When it came time to implement the resultant recommendations, the remaining employee base was less than enthusiastic. At best, they were confused. They questioned why we were changing so much, so quickly. Leadership, more specifically, our president and CEO, failed to communicate. This was his opportunity to create a compelling vision that would inspire, motivate, and define a future goal (Weiss, 2015, p.213) and he missed it. He missed a fundamental component of organizational change …show more content…
Of the five teams formulated to support the project, one team had considerably more power. The infamous fifth team was tasked with developing an organizational structure that would implement the recommendations put forth by the other four. Our president was fond of saying “structure follows strategy.” This idea was not his alone. Rather, it is a theory put forth by Harvard University business history professor Alfred DuPont Chandler. In his book Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (1962), Chandler found that managerial organization developed in response to a corporation's business strategy. In other words, the strategic vision of a company provides the framework for how it should be organized. In short, structure follows strategy. Unfortunately, the infamous fifth team, which was comprised of the CEO, CFO, and VP of Human Resources, had previously agreed upon a new organizational structure that had little to do with the recommendations put forth by the members of Project GENI. The selection of this pre-determined structure was, at best, demoralizing to the rest of the organization. At its worst, it was highly suspicious and a seemingly unethical misuse of power. Our president’s integrity was in question. He became damaged in the eyes of our employees. “Organizational goals, morale, and follower satisfaction were thwarted through the abuse of power and self-interest of the leader”