Who are the Customers of Mitchell and his HR Staff?
The customer’s of Mitchell and his HR staff could be considered to be every employee of the Bank of Montreal. This would include Executives, Directors, Line Managers, and even the employees. Secondarily, he would have customers at the parent company of the Bank of Montreal, SBC. Finally, Mitchells’ staff would also be responsible directly to the end customers of the Bank of Montreal. According to Shurtleff (1998), the customer of HR is anyone that is a stake holder in the organization. However, Shurtleff (1998) further breaks down those individuals into the following four groups: 1)
Customers: Are those that make a buying decision. That is to say, a individual that can decide to utilize Mitchell’s bank or another bank. 2)
End-Users: These are individuals that, in the case of the Bank of Montreal, are already customers. 3)
Influencers: These are essentially Mitchell’s management, and other executives in the organization. They are responsible for giving Mitchell the power to affect change. 4)
Employees: These are the line managers, and day-to-day employees that will be affected by any organizational change made by Mitchell and his HR staff. Whether or not the stakeholder is directly or indirectly affected by Mitchell’s decision is irrelevant; it is because they are affected that makes them a customer. 2.
What did Mitchell have to do so that his staff could do the things necessary to reposition and customize?
It was absolutely critical that Mitchell got buy-in from the top echelons of the organization. This was so important to ensure that HR was in sync with the organizational mission, visions, and values. In Mitchell’s case, he needed this type of buy-in in order to affect the change the SBC wanted in all facets of their organization (Bennet, 2012 p. 3). He needed it so that he could have the funding necessary to make the changes, utilize resources outside of his organization, and finally, to have the full power to alter protocols to fit the new mission of SBC (Bennet, 2012 p. 3).
Furthermore, as outlined in the Case study, Mitchell needed to ensure that he had a plan. His plan consisted of gathering information about the current environment, both internally and externally (Jackson & Schuler, 2006, p. 167). He utilized the best practices he learned to begin the process of creating agendas for their implementation (Jackson & Schuler, 2006, p. 167). It was these plans that were written to help reshape the policies and procedures of the organization. Thirdly, Mitchell needed to implement the new plans. He had to meet with the individual stakeholders and ensure they understood the agendas, and could implement them accordingly (Jackson & Schuler, 2006, p. 167). Lastly, Mitchell ensured that he evaluated and revised his agendas and implementations (Jackson & Schuler, 2006, p. 167). He didn’t accept that everything was going to work perfectly, and made sure that his department agendas were flexible enough to ensure success for all stakeholders. 3.
Do you think the line managers would cooperate with Mitchell and his staff? What would it take to see that they cooperate? Why might they resist a partnership with the HR Department? According to Heathfield (2012), resistance to change is a natural reaction when employees are asked, alter their environment. She further states that change is uncomfortable and requires new ways of thinking and doing some of their old task and some new ones. People have trouble developing a vision of what life will look like after the change, and for that reason they would rather not embrace it. Furthermore, change produces anxiety and uncertainty. Employees and line managers may be afraid that they are going to lose their sense of security (Heathfield, 2012). It is due to this concern that they react, whether positively or negatively to the change. I believe in Mitchell’s case, he is going to undergo the same...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document