There are two main outcomes from the causes of actions to implement change one which is pursuing everyone to take on board the new idea of change or the workers resisting change and ultimately going on strike.
By clearly communicating and negotiating with the resisting side they can learn that there is also a positive side to the change where everyone has something to gain which may lead to them liking the idea of change as Cheryl just wants to help with organisation grow whilst keeping jobs of the workers in Minnesota. The resistant could also be educated on how there is also a negative side to not changing to pursue them that change is for the better, such as if they don’t offshore to China, Philippines and Indonesia that they wont meet the new sale targets, not be able to keep competing with other toy manufactures who offshore their manufacturing for cheaper prices and fall being as majority of companies are globalizing.
Force Field Analysis
By dividing the two different groups triggers and resisting to change force field analysis sets up the stage for making change possible. But if either sides are equal or the workers resistant to change have a majority than change will not occur. For change to be possible the triggers must overcome the resisting group.
1. Naive approach to change
If the Naïve approach to change was used it would create a lot of tension within the company as they would just be ignoring the resistance. This would make their upcoming negotiations with the union a lot more difficult as well as workers slowdown in production or even have a strike. Although the end result would lead to Cheryl having what she wants she would ultimately lose the respect of majority of the employees as she just ignored them.
2. Planned approach to change
By using behavioural phycology and implementing change-using techniques to overcome resistance and bring about attitude to change it allows all employees to get agree with the change without any conflict as well as meeting the new sale targets.
3. Emergent approach to change
As this approach usually has everyone involved in the direction of driving success for the organisation there is an aim, which is understood by everyone, which is to meet the new sale targets.
Through the Force Field Analysis Kids&Company will be able to meet the boards new growth targets as well as allowing the business to grow in new markets such as supply of wooden lower-priced toys to the midmarket. It will also allow them to close the deal with Bull’s-Eye as they can provide them with a cheaper exclusive line of wooden toys in time for the holidays. But although offshoring the manufacture of the toys would benefit the business in lower cost of productions and emerging in new targets there is also a possibility that they will loose customers as one of the companies main catch was ‘hand crafted with pride from the USA.’ Luckily it was one of the first main issues present where if Cheryl implements the change of offshoring with quickly by hiring Pat Sampsen who could market and package the toys in a convincing manner then the effects of offshoring may be minimalized.
Which is the most desirable one and why?
In our opinion predominantly all of them would be a desirable choice for Cheryl to implement this change apart from The Naïve Approach as in that approach she would just ignores everyone who is resistant without communicating, pursuing them on why change is a better option.
Force Field Analysis Planned approach implements resistant to change in the most rational manner as by using behavioural phycology to change it will help improve the ability of orgainisation to adapt to change, by changing the behaviors of individuals and groups in the organisation. As change is controlled it indicates clear objectives and benefits towards the vision of the future of the company. Such as how it will allow the