DB FPX 8610 Assessment 3 Aligning Frameworks B FPX 8610 Assessment 2 Evidence For Gap In Practice

Name

Capella university

DB-FPX 8610 Leadership Theory and Practice

Prof. Name

Date

Kensington Auto Parts: Business Story

When change management is poorly managed or ignored, the result is the project and organization jeopardize an increase in costs and risks (Creasey, 2022). This can be easily observed with the Kensington Auto Parts company. Quality of work is reduced; valued talent is at a loss and productivity is low (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). In turn, the risks decline morale and impact, customers and suppliers. In addition, a legacy of failed change persists. These costs and risks are not only felt by the project team but also by the entire company (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Many of these costs and risk impacts extend well beyond the lifecycle of a given project. Nonetheless, when valuable employees leave, the consequences can be extreme. So, why are Kensington Auto Parts ignoring all their warning signs?

The problem

A problem that Kensington Auto Parts is having is directly linked to emotional intelligence and leadership. To be specific, Kensington Auto Parts’s problem is their change management is poor. If managed correctly, change management can be a risk mitigation tactic and a cost avoidance technique (Creasey, 2022). In the case of Kensington Auto Parts, evidence that failing to deliver results and outcomes are as follows:

• Market shares decrease by 3%
• Expenses are high
• Global investment opportunity loss

When a company applies change management effectively, it can mitigate risks and prevent risks tied to how employees adjust to change (Creasey, 2022). This goes without saying, Kensington Auto Parts’s change management strategy will need to include its business roadmap and guiding principles (Creasey, 2022). Furthermore, all their business leaders need to reflect and echo the goals of the change management strategy (Shin, 2013). Without a doubt, if Kensington Auto Parts and their leaders are not prepared to effectively follow and influence their change management strategy, the results could be detrimental (Shin, 2013). As proven in last year’s market share loss, Kensington Auto Parts’s position declined 3% due to several contributing factors (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). So, the gap in practice needs to be bridged immediately.

Researching articles to support a problem and a gap in practice

Kensington Auto Parts’s gap in practice is that leadership fails to understand the importance of change management. Knowing how to lead and navigate through uncertainty and chaotic changes can make or break a company (Shin, 2013). Moreover, change management is a collective effort (Shin, 2013). Therefore, when it comes to the change management plan there cannot be only one person driving it. Leadership must have support from all levels of management (Shin, 2013). More importantly, leadership must understand that change management is at the core of progressively managing and implementing ongoing change (Creasey, 2022). According to research, for change management to be effective, leaders at all levels in the company need to be involved in managing change (Hitt, 1995). This is to say, all leadership at Kensington Auto Parts must understand the impacts and how to recognize failing change management. Senior management sets the tone, middle management plays the frontline, and team leaders all have important roles (Hitt, 1995).

Whether expected or unexpected, change can either lead an organization to success or failure (Hitt, 1995). Therefore, to be effective in change management, leaders at Kensington Auto Parts must be aware of the “meaning” status of their organization (Ericson, 2001). For instance, the way Kensington Auto Parts make sense of why a new process or change is being implemented may differ from the actual meaning of why the change is being instituted (Ericson, 2001). Such as Kensington Auto Parts not moving the company’s market reach beyond U.S. territories, is being interpreted as let’s not move away from how things have always been done (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Consequently, if the leaders at Kensington Auto Parts do not understand the impacts of their poor change management skills, the risks are going to continue to be damaging (Ericson, 2001). For a company to reinvent itself such as Kensington Auto Parts, must be willing to do away with outdated business models (Tran & Anvari, 2014).

DB FPX 8610 Assessment 3 Aligning Frameworks B FPX 8610 Assessment 2 Evidence For Gap In Practice

Doing things, “the way it has always been done” doesn’t allow for change to occur (Media.capella.edu, n.d.). A company that aims to position change management as a risk mitigation and cost avoidance technique understands the importance of managing change (Muralidharan, n.d.). For example, Kensington Auto Parts must be willing to meet the market head-on (Tran & Anvari, 2014). Meaning, they must be prepared to either stay where they are or go where the market is going. Currently, Kensington Auto Parts has failed to form any global marketing partners and the recruitment of young creative talent has declined (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Both contributing factors could have easily been mitigated and avoided if change management was used correctly. With trends growing steadily and expanding, change management must be discussed regularly (Tran & Anvari, 2014). Part of that discussion should involve utilizing frameworks to help implement change management efficiently. Frameworks will allow for the appropriate planning and structure to be used as a guide to drive organizational success.

In the past, organizations were able to rely on traditional frameworks (Kunnanatt, 2016). Today, issues are more complex forcing leadership to have to be more thorough and strategic in choosing the correct framework approaches that will fit with the company’s goals (Kunnanatt, 2016). This said, two frameworks, Sensemaking and Sustainability, provide proof that Kensington Auto Parts’s failure to understand the importance of managing change will continue to lead them to unsuccessful results. A sensemaking framework is more of a conceptual framework as opposed to a more theoretical sustainability framework. Both are designed to help organizations with their decision-making pursuits as they solve problems and deal with complexity. Through a sensemaking framework, a company can engage in the sensemaking process related to understanding emerging contributions (Ericson, 2001). In particular, an organization must understand how employees create meaning and make sense of their organizational goals (Ericson, 2001). The workforce is changing every day as seen through the eyes of the pandemic. Kensington Auto Parts can also attest to the shifts in the workforce. As they are losing in the market as their competitors venture out globally (Media.capella.edu., n.d.).

DB FPX 8610 Assessment 3 Aligning Frameworks B FPX 8610 Assessment 2 Evidence For Gap In Practice

This said an organization help must get its workforce to embrace new technology and business ideas. To further elaborate, a sensemaking framework helps an organization work through confronting dramatic changes that could easily lead to reconstructed meanings (Ericson, 2001). While a sensemaking framework will allow Kensington Auto Parts to apply sensemaking in a rigorous and structured manner, a sustainability framework will allow Kensington Auto Parts to manage and encourage their wider impacts long term in a structured manner. For a sustainability framework to be successful, it must be built into the business strategy (Doppelt, 2017). This way, transformation can be changed from top to bottom (Doppelt, 2017). Case in point, when it comes to Kensington Auto Parts, if a sustainability framework approach was active then their everyday decision-making will define their short-term and long-term accomplishments (Doppelt, 2017). As it stands, Kensington Auto Parts is suffering because their vision of being at the top of the industry does not align with its sustainability goals (Media.capella.edu., n.d.).

Frameworks explained

The two frameworks were selected because they properly align with Kensington Auto Parts’s problem and their gap in practice. Both support evidence that change management is important to the ongoing success of an organization. In addition, they both prove that it’s equally important that Kensington Auto Parts understand what managing change looks like. Moreover, both prove that understanding change management is practically a requirement for ongoing change. Lastly, they both prove that without a change management framework in place, risks will not be mitigated, and costs will not be avoided. As observed at Kensington Auto Parts, risks and costs are up (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Kensington Auto Parts’s costs of not expanding globally have posed a risk in generating new revenue. Moreover, the costs of not positioning themselves to be a company that emerges with change have risked them losing young and innovative talent (Media.capella.edu., n.d.).

In turn, this cost has raised the annual budget for employee turnover (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). In the end, Kensington Auto Parts’s future is in jeopardy so changes must be made soon (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Instead of choosing frameworks that were more traditional and common such as McKinsey 7-S or Lewin models. McKinsey’s 7-S model is designed to understand the current business structure, what needs to change, and why (Team, 2021). Lewin’s model, on the other hand, is simpler, it follows a 3-step process (Team, 2021). Although both of these models would be equally effective for Kensington Auto Parts, the two selected allows for a more untraditional approach. Known for doing things the old way, needs to shift to let’s do things differently. Both a sensemaking and sustainability framework reflect that Kensington Auto Parts are prepared to do things differently.

Project of interest/eliminating personal biases

Change is inevitable (Doppelt, 2017). It is going to happen whether an organization is ready for it or not. For instance, employees will come and go, leadership will shift here and there, products and services will change, etc. This is to say, a change will be made at some point. However, the consequence of poorly managed change is risky for any business (Doppelt, 2017). Based on the topic of change management and the gap in practice: understanding the importance of change management, I can identify a business problem and project that addresses a need versus a want.

For example, a company that plans to move their entire operations out of the United States within a year will need to invest in proper change management techniques to manage their risk and cost avoidance. Because change management is so broad, the project of interest should focus on a high level of change that aligns with business goals and has an immediate impact (Shin, 2013). For example, using change management to identify a new location within 3 months would not be effective if the project plan is for a year (Shin, 2013). This said, I have an interest in a project that addresses change management related to remote work post-pandemic. During the pandemic, companies had no choice but to shift to remote work (Shin, 2013). In contrast, some companies have reverted back to in-person work without an effective change management plan to address the risk and cost of this change (Shin, 2013). Due to the circumstances, remote work is a topic that will generate lots of discussions and engagement (Shin, 2013).

DB FPX 8610 Assessment 3 Aligning Frameworks B FPX 8610 Assessment 2 Evidence For Gap In Practice

A perfect example of a company that has and still is shifting through remote work is Google (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). During the pandemic, Google shifted all their employees to remote work (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). Because they effectively managed this change, they were able to navigate through the crisis. Post-pandemic, Google had to use change management to effectively decide who would stay remote versus who would return to in-person work (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). The impact and risk were mitigated and avoided. In relation to change management, when it comes to remote work companies will need to engage in the overall change management process (Hitt, 1995). For instance, does the project of a company moving to permanent remote work align with its business goals and strategy (Hitt, 1995)? Some employees work better remotely and some don’t. For example, if an employee is more productive and their deliverables are being met remotely, that change should be considered permanent for that employee (Hitt, 1995).

Therefore, when dealing with a project of this magnitude, a company should be prepared to think long-term and what the impact will be overall (Hitt, 1995). For companies that only consider short-term change management, they risk poor engagement, employees feeling devalued, and work quality declines (Tran & Anvari, 2014). So, change management will look different for a company that looks at long-term goals. The project of interest will need to consider that for some employees remote work may not work (Hitt, 1995). This is when the gap in practice comes into play. As a researcher, I am prepared to explore the problem that poor change management can have long-term effects (Hitt, 1995). In addition, to eliminate any personal biases, I plan to interview employees and leadership to gain a better understanding from all perspectives. The goal is to get employees to see how change management can work and how to effectively manage it (Hitt, 1995). From a leadership perspective, it’s important to understand what remote work will look like for the company post-pandemic. Likewise, I plan to explore the risks and costs. For example, if the project of interest is remote work, what does that look like to the overall budget (Hitt, 1995)? Meaning, as remote work saves money, how will those savings be allocated elsewhere?

Summary

For a company to be successful, they must understand the importance of managing change. This means understanding the risk and costs of failing to do so (Creasey, 2022). When it comes to change management, the company should be able to determine the difference between resistance to change and fear of change (Creasey, 2022). Resistance means that employees refuse to adapt to new changes while fear means employees are reluctant but are not willing to change at that moment (Creasey, 2022). When a company effectively manages change, they can quickly recognize the difference between the two. As observed with Kensington Auto Parts, they are afraid to go global because they fear this will shift how things are done (Media.capella.edu., n.d.). In turn, they resist the change because they do not understand it. This said, if employees feel supported in change management and there is open and honest communication, it becomes easier to navigate (Creasey, 2022). As observed, change is not going away and managing it effectively can mean a company’s success.

References

Creasey, T. (2022). The Cost and Risks of Poor Change Management. Retrieved from https://blog.prosci.com/the-cost-and-risks-of-poor-change-management

Doppelt, B. (2017). Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government, and civil society. Routledge.

Ericson, M. (2001). Sensemaking in organizations: Towards a conceptual framework for understanding strategic change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1), 109-131.

Hitt, M. A. (1995). Reframing strategic leadership: The role of organizational meaning systems. Human Relations, 48(9), 1053-1078.

Kunnanatt, J. T. (2016). 3D leadership – Strategy-Linked Leadership Framework for Managing Teams. Economics and Business Review, 2(2), 67-88.

Media.capella.edu. (n.d.). Leading Change: The Case of Kensington Auto Parts. Retrieved from https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/SB/FP5008/LeadingChange/wrapper.asp

DB FPX 8610 Assessment 3 Aligning Frameworks B FPX 8610 Assessment 2 Evidence For Gap In Practice

Muralidharan, R. (n.d.). The importance of change management in an organization. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334259744_The_importance_of_change_management_in_an_organization

Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M. (2013). Resources for Change: The Relationships of Organizational Inducements and Psychological Resilience to Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Organizational Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727-748.

Team, M. (2021). Lewin’s Change Management Model: Understanding the Three Stages of Change. Mind Tools. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_94.htm

Tran, H. T., & Anvari, F. (2014). Organisational Resilience and Change: A Case Study of Changing Organisational Attitudes to Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 56-66.