The change of organizational behavior requires that organizational structure is changed from hierarchical to a more horizontal structure (Dalkir & Liebowitz, 2011). The horizontal structure allows front-line and junior workers to play a more central role in management while at the same time they become more accountable for their actions (Beycioglu et al. 2015). Horizontal structure is only more effective if the top management employs the hands-off approach to business management. This strategy will allow top management to delegate most of the duties to front-line employees as opposed to hierarchical structure where the top management makes almost all the decisions (Chandler et al. 2007).
When top management moves aside to create a vacuum, employees are given an opportunity to fill the vacuum. Employees tend to be motivated when they have a chance to lead and carry out some managerial functions. To achieve a growth target of one billion dollars by 2020 requires a lot of motivated employees. One of the ways to motivate employees is using of hands-off management approach where most of the tasks are delegated by the top management. Through delegation, employees feel appreciated and part of the organization rather than when all the main decisions and tasks are carried out by the top management. Therefore, it is logical that Bison employs hands-off approach management approach at MeatPack as a motivation for employees to take more responsibility and be accountable for their performance.
MeatPack Company is undergoing cultural and performance changes and senior leadership change which require that all the departments and employees should be actively involved in the process. To bring all departments on board cannot be achieved by the efforts of the manager alone because the organization is large and complex. For this reason, Bison needs to employ hands-off management approach by forming teams headed by leaders and delegating some of the management duties to team leaders. By delegating some of the duties to team leaders and giving them targets to be achieved, Bison will have an easy time running the company.
Hands-off management facilitates creativity, development and growth among employees. By giving team managers and employees more responsibility and an opportunity to be leaders in their departments, employees exploit their talents and abilities fully. Employees under such management reveal skills that top management never knew they possessed thus accomplishing greater things than anticipated by the management. Full potential of employees can never be realized when top management keeps interfering with the working of employees. Therefore, Bison will benefit from employees’ full capabilities by using the hands-off management approach. There are some things that Bison cannot do them by himself but when employees are left on their own to explore their skills, they will not do them the same way Bison would them but they might achieve tremendous results that the company never expected to achieve. Every employee has some hidden skills and talent which most leaders do not discover because of the interference and regulations that management has over them (Haines, 2016). In such a case Biro should not be involved in the day to day details of work that employees do but rather He should play the role of a facilitator and orchestrator to show team leaders on how some tasks should be carried out. This approach will help Bison to exercise more effectively his leadership and management skills. This is because best managing leaders help people to reach their full potential by allowing them to do as much as they can in the best way possible. Reaching targets is virtually impossible if top management employs hands-on business management in the operations of the company (Haines, 2016).
Hands-off approach will allow Bison to concentrate on larger projects and duties such as decision making at top level management. Subordinate roles, responsibilities and decision making at lower levels without having to consult with the top management. This strategy will save on time because Bison and his senior management team will focus on creating ties with other business partners and holding high-level consultative meetings with board management. Save on time will translate to saving on company's financial resources.
Hands-off approach gives other junior employees some leadership responsibilities and accountability which forms the basis for future leadership of the enterprise (Tour et al. 2014). Any business growth and development comes with additional leadership responsibilities and the ability of a company to maintain its growing capacity depends on the preparedness of the management (Brulin & Svensson, 2012). Preparedness includes but not limited to having good leadership in place to spearhead the organization to another level even after the current management is long gone. Therefore, hands-off management strategy by Bison will help the company groom future leaders to take over the company’s leadership long after the current management is gone (Brulin et al. 2012). Without such leaders, even the growth that the company aims to achieve by 2020 will not be sustainable at all.
Since Bison is on the way to implement senior management changes and performance changes, he needs efficiency in compartmentalization of roles. Hands-off approach provides effective allocation of roles amongst different teams because everyone knows the exact role and responsibility to play during the change implementation process (Tour et al. 2014). Bison will have easy time in managing change because most of the feedback about the progress will be given to him via reports by team leaders which will enable him to determine whether the company is making progress or not (The Globe and Mail, 2012). Such strategy will make sure that top management does not need to go through all these tussles of knowing everything about the progressive change which the organization undergoes.2. By changing the structure within the organization, all members of the senior leadership play a major role in policy making (Anderson et al. 2010). This move also ensures that senior leadership focuses on some key projects and they make larger decisions while leaving other functions to be carried out by other employees. Therefore, the senior leadership of MeatPack has become more efficient in executing leadership roles.
Senior leadership change has been able to make significant changes in the human resources' structure of the company to allow for transition. The company has succeeded in designing of the whole company leadership development program to lay a foundation in anticipation of the new major senior leadership changes to be made (Kirkpatrick, 2009). This is positive because wider organizational leadership is one of the most crucial tools that are necessary for organizational change. Since senior strategy team is in charge of setting long-term goals of the company and designing necessary strategy to achieve the goals, consultative coaching is very necessary for the team (Shani et al. 2014). Through consultative coaching, the team becomes more efficient in making important strategic decisions because they have fast hand knowledge about the market and future of the industry. Without consultative coaching, senior strategy team cannot make sound strategic decisions that propel the company forward towards its long term goals (Shani et al. 2014).
The senior leadership change has been able to create a general positive dynamic amongst members of the senior strategy team (Beycioglu et al. 2015). This implies that before the changes, members of the senior strategy team did not coordinate well but since senior leadership changes were initiated, the mood and response among company’s senior leadership changed (Palmer et al. 2009).
Through senior leadership change, Bison has initiated open discussion and dialogue between him and other senior strategy team members. Through this dialogue, members are encouraged to give out their views in an open manner amongst themselves and to him during company meetings (Bremer, 2012). Through such open forums and one on one basis where other senior strategy team members are given an opportunity to openly discuss their pressings issues, Bison is able to get crucial information to assist in decision making process (Kirkpatrick, 2009). Bison together with his senior strategy team are able to hold important discussions about the mandate of the team, composition of the team and how the team can be effective in delivering its mandate (Burnes, 2009).
Senior leadership change has been able to initiate major structural changes whereby some new Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) were recruited to carry out different roles within the company. These structural changes shifted the line of command and there were new roles created for the senior strategy team. Most of such structural changes come with a lot of benefits and one of the benefits is that they increase efficiency within the company (Palmer et al. 2009).3. First, the structure has changed the method of communication between employees and management. Before the flatter structure was adopted, forms of communication were aggressive, abusive and staff was supposed to work as per the commands from the above. There was a long chain of communication from the top management to employees. Top management was only but obsessed with making things to happen without even understanding how tasks are carried out (Kru?Hler, 2012). However, when flatter organizational structure was introduced into the company, mode of communication changed because employees are supposed to report to few authorities in the company. Furthermore, there is more understanding amongst employees because management shifted its focus from making things happen to understanding how tasks are carried out. Communication has also shifted from top-down to become more collaborative where employees comfortably speak up their minds (Bremer, 2012).
The structure has empowered managers and supervisors to be more responsible and accountable for their respective duties. For instance, line managers play a role in recruiting new personnel and carrying out performance appraisals for employees. By Bison giving more responsibility to managers and supervisors, culture of management is being eroded and replaced by the culture of leadership. This is because leadership comes with more responsibility and accountability rather than looking up to the top management to make decisions (Cummings et al. 2009). The culture is having different people to report to has changed because Bison advocates to have six to eight people for every report to make sure that supervisors and managers are clearly accountable.
Flatter structure has made it necessary for Bison to invest heavily in team leader and management courses so as to have trained shift leaders that have been newly promoted. The company has also changed performance by shifting focus from top-down management approach to a line focus where front line employees are directly involved in the development of efficiency (Lawler et al. 2011). This move has made front-line employees feel appreciated and valued part of the company (Burnes, 2009). The structure has also allowed managers and employees to sit down and discuss various pertinent issues affecting the performance of employees. Managers are also authorized to take some time and relax while reflecting on how to solve some situations within their departments (Franz, 2012).
Managers in the company are more open minded, fresh, young and close to employees more than before which acts as a motivation to junior employees. It is a motivation because employees can comfortably engage their managers on many different issues and managers listen to them attentively as opposed to top-down structure where managers were the ones issuing commands and directives to employees (Shani et al. 2011).
Barriers to cultural change within the company
Some top level and middle managers are opposed to changes being implemented on how tasks are carried out. For instance CFO and COO feel that the hands-off strategy being implemented by Bison is not appropriate and thus should be changed. They feel that Bison should be exemplary to managers and other employees rather than giving almost all the responsibilities of supervisors and managers within the company.
Given that some employees have been with the company for as long as more than 15 years, there is a tendency of reluctance to embrace new cultural changes (Hoffmann, 2011). The employees are used to doing things in their own way and thus become a hard task for management to change these people’s culture (Reiss, 2012).
Organizational change is very critical for any organization because it defines the future where the organization is headed and determines whether the organization will attain its long-term strategic business objectives or not. In the case of MeatPack, Bison should employ hands-off approach because it is large company and given the strategic business objectives to achieved by 2020, delegating duties is the most effective way to manage (Reiss, 2012). Senior leadership change is effective because it has managed to change human resource structure, created positive dynamism and initiated open discussion forums. Lastly, flatter structure implemented by Bison has increased accountability among employees, simplified method of communication and initiated open-mindedness among managers.
Recommendations for senior leadership
Senior leadership should lead outside the lines. Senior leadership change takes place more efficiently in an organization if the top management involves everyone who has authority and influence over the operations of the company (Anderson et al. 2010). There are people of influence within a company that do not have formal positions but play a very central in the company either because of their network, their expertise or personal qualities. These kinds of people are called informal leaders, and they might include experienced employees, innovative project managers or some high-profile consultants. Research shows that most companies that succeed in implementing senior leadership change identify these informal leaders early enough and bring them on board when implementing change within their organization (Bilney & Pillay, 2015).
Senior leadership should continue to engage and consult widely amongst them and other partners whom they deem can provide important insights to spearhead top leadership change. Carter et al. (2005), says positive and sustainable change within an organization especially at the top management requires constant communication throughout the process of rolling out change and even after major plan elements have been put in place. By engaging different groups throughout the organization, senior management will get some important information about what other partners think of the change (Kru?Hler, 2012). This information gives senior leadership a blueprint on whether the change they are implementing is bound to succeed or fail.
Senior leadership should carry out an assessment and adapt accordingly. For any company to succeed in implementing high leadership change, it must measure its success before embarking on the change process (Bilney & Pillay, 2015). Senior leadership should take time to discover what is working and what is not working in their change strategy so as to effectively adjust their next steps in order for them to be aligned according to the prevailing conditions. Failure to regularly carry out an assessment and adapt denies the organization crucial information on how to support senior leadership change.
Senior leadership should make both emotional and rational cases together. Top leadership should relate strategic business objectives and emotions because strategic business objectives alone cannot be achieved unless the emotional part of other leaders is engaged (Carter et al. 2005). Genuine commitment to change begins by top most leader reaching out emotionally to other leaders about the desired change within the organization. Human beings are created such that their hearts and minds respond calls to change when their emotions are engaged (Franz, 2012). This is the case because emotional involvement will make leaders feel they are part of change.
It is the senior leadership within the company comprising of the CEO, operations manager and all the departmental managers. Implementation period should take a period of six months to one year. The estimated cost of implementing the senior leadership change is $250,000.
Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. S. (2010). Beyond change management: how to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. San Francisso, Pfeiffer.
Beycioglu, K., & Pashiardis, P. (2015). Multidimensional perspectives on principal leadership effectiveness.
Bilney, C., & Pillay, S. (2015). Public sector organizations and cultural change.
Blazey, M. L. (2013). Insights to performance excellence, 2013-2014: understanding the integrated management system and the Baldridge criteria. Milwaukee, Asq Quality Press.
Bremer, M. (2012). Organizational culture change: unleash your organizations potential in circles of 10. Zwolle, Kikker Groep.
Brulin, G., & Svensson, L. (2012). Managing sustainable development: a learning approach to change. Farnham, Gower.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change. Harlow, Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Carter, L., Ulrich, D., & Goldsmith, M. (2005). Best practices in leadership development and organization change: how the best companies ensure meaningful change and sustainable leadership. San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
Chandler, S., & Black, D. (2007). The hands-off manager: how to mentor people and allow them to be successful. Franklin Lakes, NJ, Career Press.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development & change. Australia, South-Western/Cengage Learning..
Dalkir, K. and Liebowitz, J., 2011. Knowledge management in theory and practice. MIT press.
Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions: understanding and improving team performance. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.
Haines, S., 2016. The systems thinking approach to strategic planning and management. CRC Press.
Hoffmann, E. A. (2011). Co-operative workplace dispute resolution: organizational structure, ownership, and ideology. Farnham, Surrrey, England, Gower Pub.
Kenny, G. (2005). Strategic planning and performance management: develop and measure winning strategy. Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., 2009. Managing change effectively. Routledge..
Kru?Hler, M. (2012). Managing business portfolios effectively: on the explanatory power of the parenting advantage concept. Wiesbaden, Springer Gabler.
Lawler, E. E., Worley, C. G., & Creelman, D. (2011). Management reset organizing for sustainable effectiveness. San Francisco, Calif, Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G., 2009. Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Reiss, M. (2012). Change management: a balanced and blended approach. Norderstedt, Books on Demand.
Shani, A. B. R., & Noumair, D. A. (2014). Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bradford, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Shani, A. B., Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (2011). Research in organizational change and development. Bingley, UK, Emerald.
Smallbusiness.chron.com. (2016). Benefits in a Flat Organizational Structure. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Oct. 2016].
The Globe and Mail. (2012). The hands-off approach to leadership. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Oct. 2016].
Tour, P., WorkZone?, W., Customers, O., Pricing, D. and Us, A. (2014). Hands-on Managers vs Hands-off Managers | WorkZone. [online] WorkZone. Available at: [Accessed 8 Oct. 2016].