Which dimensions of the 7-S framework were not affected?
Before I answer the questions from the case study this week, I wanted to address something that I read. The case study mentioned that one on one feedback from employees resulted in anger directed at Collins. Rather than react negatively, he chose to listen and allow employees to share their frustrations. Throughout my last several MBA classes, my focus has been on organizational culture and leadership. Collins’ ability to actively listen, take that feedback and use it to make a difference, allowed him to gain respect and begin a series of events that eventually changed the culture at Nampak. I would have been interested in learning more about how he worked to change the mindsets in top management given they were used to making all the decisions, and the change would have impacted them significantly.
1. Which dimensions of the 7-S framework did Eric Collins and his senior management colleagues focus on in order to change Nampak’s culture?
Nampak focused on several dimensions of the 7-S framework to change the culture. First, Collins created a strategy that involved significant changes of many other framework attributes that ultimately improved outcomes and strengthened the company’s relationship with their customers. After Collins interviewed employees and analyzed trends and opportunities, he implemented several training and development processes which improved the staff component of the 7-S framework. Even with training and development, employees could still lack trust and incentive if they had issues with management. Another area of the 7-S framework that Collins focused on was style, in which he build a better leadership, training, and mentoring program for managers and required them to have regular and meaningful conversations with their staff. These changes significantly improved the relationships between management and employees. Lastly, I would also argue that the structure of Nampak was impacted from the organizational changes. Prior to Collins, only a handful of leaders were responsible for creating and implementing change. After Collins, there appeared to be more collaborations and engagement at all levels which is indicative of a change in formal organizational design.
2. Which dimensions of the 7-S framework were not affected?
The case study pointed out that there was a limited customer base. Although the customers were dissatisfied, there was no mention of issues with customer retention which makes me assume there are few competitors. Based on the summary, Nampak did not focus on improving systems as they had exhausted opportunities to obtain financial and productive gains from technological advancements.
3. Where does this culture change initiative belong on the “depth” scale in between shallow and deep change? In your judgement, would a different emphasis across the seven factors of that framework have produced deeper change, with better results, and how?
According to the depth of change chart (Palmer, Dunford & Buchanan, 2017), Nampak experienced a deeper depth of change. The case study noted a significant paradigm shift and Collins implemented significant process changes related to people, problem solving, innovation, and management. Based on the information we were given, Collins focused on the right things. His deep focus on people and engagement resulted in improved productivity, job happiness, and customer satisfaction (through a move to zero customer complaints). I would not have done anything differently.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Buchanan, D.A. (2017). Managing Organizational Change (Third ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Image preview for which dimensions of the 7-S framework were not affected?
APA
156 words