Kenworth Motor Company and organization change
Assessment 3 individual report
1 Introduction
This report is an extension of theories and understanding demonstrated in the presentation in relation to Kenworth Motor’s case. The case is regarding an OD consultant visiting Kenworth Motor Seattle truck manufacturing plant, in which the consultant provided advices to Robert Denton, the plant manager of Kenworth Motor. The manager has some managing issues with his two new managers and wants to seek advices from an OD consultant. Nevertheless, the OD consultant related in the case was not well prepared with the meeting and has few understanding regarding the company and relationships between Kenworth managers. This in turn, leads to unsatisfactory results of consultation. The action research model employed in the presentation incorporates six phases, namely problem identification, consultation with behaviour science experts, data gathering, feedback to clients, and diagnosis of problems and joint action. The analysis of the Kenworth case follows the steps of the action research model and problems lie in each phases will be discussed. After the analysis, an implementation plan that provides insights into how to realise recommendations in the presentation is available. This report follows the steps of the action research model, starts with problem identification in the case. Then the consultation and feedback in the case will be discussed. Subsequently, solutions and an action plan as well as personal reflection on the theories regarding managing people at individual and organisational levels will be illustrated.
2 Problem identification
The scenario in the Kenworth case is that the plant manager Robert Denton, has issues with his new fellow managers and he feels that team work spirits are not entirely shown in his team. His two managers, one who is in charge of purchasing and inventory while the other coping with personnel’s, try to follow the style of Denton but Denton still holds that they are not bounding
1 Introduction
This report is an extension of theories and understanding demonstrated in the presentation in relation to Kenworth Motor’s case. The case is regarding an OD consultant visiting Kenworth Motor Seattle truck manufacturing plant, in which the consultant provided advices to Robert Denton, the plant manager of Kenworth Motor. The manager has some managing issues with his two new managers and wants to seek advices from an OD consultant. Nevertheless, the OD consultant related in the case was not well prepared with the meeting and has few understanding regarding the company and relationships between Kenworth managers. This in turn, leads to unsatisfactory results of consultation. The action research model employed in the presentation incorporates six phases, namely problem identification, consultation with behaviour science experts, data gathering, feedback to clients, and diagnosis of problems and joint action. The analysis of the Kenworth case follows the steps of the action research model and problems lie in each phases will be discussed. After the analysis, an implementation plan that provides insights into how to realise recommendations in the presentation is available. This report follows the steps of the action research model, starts with problem identification in the case. Then the consultation and feedback in the case will be discussed. Subsequently, solutions and an action plan as well as personal reflection on the theories regarding managing people at individual and organisational levels will be illustrated.
2 Problem identification
The scenario in the Kenworth case is that the plant manager Robert Denton, has issues with his new fellow managers and he feels that team work spirits are not entirely shown in his team. His two managers, one who is in charge of purchasing and inventory while the other coping with personnel’s, try to follow the style of Denton but Denton still holds that they are not bounding
References: Aladwani, A 1984, ‘Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation’, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 266-75. Burke, W & Litwin G 1992, ‘A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change’, Journal of Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 523-45. Callen, D 1993, ‘Individual and organizational strategies for coping with organizational change, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 63-75. Ford, J & Ford L 1995, ‘The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional Change in Organizations’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 541-70. Herold M, Fedor B, & Caldwell D 2007, ‘Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees ' commitment to change’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 942-51. Kavanagh, M & Ashkanasy N 2006, ‘The Impact of Leadership and Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger’, British Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 81-103. Kellogg, D 1984, ‘Contrasting Successful and Unsuccessful OD Consultation Relationships’, Group Organization Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 151-76. Spender, J 1996, ‘Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63-78. Worren, N, Ruddle K & Moore K 1999, ‘ ' From Organizational Development to Change Management The Emergence of a New Profession’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 273-86. Wiersema M & Bantel K, 1992, ‘Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 91-121.