Organizational Acquisition Challenges Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.Describe two types of resistance senior management may encounter from this organizational change and how you might address these? 2.Discuss the decision-making problems that may have prevented the consultant from recommending the best site location? 3.Identify the sources of conflict that best explain this conflict and describe ways to reduce dysfunctional conflict in this situation 4.Based on your knowledge of organizational subculture, what potential problem is the CEO creating? Answers: 1. Fear of failure is one of the types of resistance, which will be encountered by the management due to this acquisition. The managers that were previously handling the geographic areas will fear to fail as they are now expected to handle sales alone. The managers who will be in charge of various product lines and now different locations also fear to fail as product failure reflects on their management. When managers have self-doubt, it will interfere with their self-confidence and hence affect their growth. The company may experience low output in the first few months before the managers end up adapting and living with the changes being implemented by the company (Appelbaum et al, 2017). Loss of status will also lead to resistance from the managers. The upcoming structural and cultural changes are threatening to alter some powerful positions and this will lead to a negative reaction from the managers. Since some managerial jobs are being stripped of some roles, these managers will feel like they are being stripped of authority and the status that they are used to enjoying (Stahl et al, 2013). This will lead to resistance, as the managers will feel that they are being short-changed and that the new acquisition has come to destroy rather than build them. To address the above issues, the Bow Valley Manufacturing will have to carry out some change management initiatives. A structured change management approach has to be taken from project initiation. Managers should be made aware of the coming changes and explained to why things are being done in a certain way. The benefits will have to be explained too. The organization can engage leaders as agents of change. This way they will not feel that they are being short-changes but will embrace the change process. The company will have to communicate change to all those affected (Appelbaum et al, 2017). The communication plans must be effective and the managers in the geographical regions have to be engaged directly. 2. The consultant that was hired by Bow Valley Manufacturing to advise on best location for production met with a number of executives and this could have led him not to make the best decision. The consultant may have gone to the company with an already biased position hence affecting the decision that was made. Sometimes people have biased positions towards certain tasks that they are to carry out. The consultant may be fond of some top executives hence his decision may have leaned towards the location that the executives thought was best. The consultant may also personally know the owners of one or some of the locations that have been proposed by the company hence this may cloud their judgement (Zsambok, 2014). This is because he will lean towards favoring the people that he or she already knows. Another issue that may prevent the consultant from choosing the best site location is lacking a clear criterion for deciding which the best decision is. The criteria used to chose the production facility might not be correctly prioritized. Another issue is that the consultant may fail to take into consideration the current organizational strategy. This may lead to poor decision-making, as the production facility chosen by the consultant may not be the most effective for the activities that the organization would like to carry out (Beach, 2014). The consultant may also have faced an issue as the level of status and influence of the top executives may be unbalanced. Some people may have failed to speak up and say what they feel about the different facilities. Some executives may also have dominated the conversation hence not giving others a chance to give their views (Beach, 2014). This may have led the consultant not have a full scope of views before making the final decision. 3. The major source of the conflict between the managers of Bow Manufacturing and Elbow Manufacturing was the differences in organizational culture. The cultures of the two companies are completely different hence making it difficult for employees to work together. The employees have different ways of working and different values. They are also used to different working environments. The leaders of the two organizations also seem not to have motivated their employees as regards to the changes that were to take place. The two companies had different structures hence it was not easy for Elbow Manufacturing employees to adapt into the structure at Bow (Marrewjik, 2016). Bow employees were also not used to the leadership and working style of the employees who had come from Elbow. The managers can be able to solve this dysfunctional conflict by trying to adapt the different cultures of the manufacturing companies, Elbow and Bow. The two groups can interact with each other if the management follows the following steps (Angwin et al, 2016): Assimilation-One of the companies will give up their culture and practices. In this case, Elbow manufacturing is the one being acquired hence they will give up their practices and adopt those of bow manufacturing. Integration-Integration can occur if Bow Manufacturing maintains its culture but allows Elbow to come into the company with parts of its culture. This is done to achieve an overall culture that will be favorable to the whole company. Separation-This will happen if both Bow and Elbow manufacturing companies decide that they will maintain their identities and none of them will change (Marrewjik, 2016). Management however has to make sure they come up with a way of ensuring the two cultures can work together without conflict. 4. The CEO is dominating over the employees and wants only his culture of lean efficiency and hard work to be adopted. He does not give employees a chance of expressing their views and punishes those who fail to conform. This is a form of sub-culture but it has negative effects to the organization. The potential problem that the CEO has created is fear and intimidation among staff. Staff will not be able to communicate freely and they will conform to the CEOs values due to fear (Naeem, Maleek Bano, 2014). This will lead to poor communication within the company and this can affect the way people work, especially those that do not conform to the CEOs ways. The CEO is also creating a potential problem of high turnover rate in the organization. Employees will not be happy and will keep looking for greener pastures and this will lead to high turnover rate and lack of stability in the organization (Lehman Seitz, 2016). This will eventually lead to poor organizational perfomance due to constant changes hence lack of proper handover and take over. The CEO is also creating a potential problem of lack of open communication between managers and employees (Naeem, Maleek Bano, 2014). Employees will always be fearful of managers hence there will be no transparent communication and this may negatively affect issues like strategy implementation. References Angwin, D. N., Mellahi, K., Gomes, E., Peter, E. (2016). How communication approaches impact mergers and acquisitions outcomes.The International Journal of Human Resource Management,27(20), 2370-2397. Appelbaum, S. H., Appelbaum, S. H., Karelis, C., Karelis, C., Le Henaff, A., Le Henaff, A., ... McLaughlin, B. (2017). Resistance to change in the case of mergers and acquisitions: part 1.Industrial and Commercial Training,49(2), 87-92. Beach, L. R. (2014).Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective. East Sussex,Psychology Press. Lehmann, E. E., Seitz, N. (2016). Creativity and Entrepreneurship: Culture, Subculture, and New Venture Creation. Marrewijk, A. (2016). Conflicting subcultures in mergers and acquisitions: a longitudinal study of integrating a radical internet firm into a bureaucratic telecoms firm.British Journal of Management,27(2), 338-354. Naeem, B., Malik, M. E., Bano, N. (2014). NURTURING ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOURS BY OPTIMISM SUBCULTURE: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan.Pakistan Economic and Social Review,52(2), 175. Stahl, G. K., Angwin, D. N., Very, P., Gomes, E., Weber, Y., Tarba, S. Y., ... Durand, M. (2013). Sociocultural integration in mergers and acquisitions: Unresolved paradoxes and directions for future research.Thunderbird International Business Review,55(4), 333-356. Zsambok, C. E. (2014).Naturalistic decision making. New York,Psychology Press.