Leadership and Operational Management †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Leadership and Operational Management. Answer: Introduction All across the globe, todays organizations are witnessing more turbulent markets, more discerning consumers, and more demanding stakeholders, forcing them to restructure so as to meet such challenges. Change is always taking place and it never ceases (Argote, 2011). Regular and overlapping transformation has become a way of life in todays business setting. Those who want to maintain a competitive edge must learn to react to an increasing number of transformations in how they structure organizations, how they relate to workers and customers, implement technology, and carry out business. While a majority of organizations concentrate on what to change to improve organizational performance and value, the human component of carrying out these decisions is usually left unattended. Change is generally uncomfortable and adapting to it can prove to be quite messy. But it is important in any given organization. That is why people should learn to embrace it. A number of theoretical perspectives have in the recent past tried to explain how people understand organizational change. Objectivist and social constructionist perspectives are the two main ones. Objectivism refers to the idea that an objective reality is present and can be known through the amassment of more complete information (Raelin, 2007). It views knowledge as some entity that exists independent of the mind of people. Objectivism argues that there is a world independent of peoples minds to which their thinking must match up if their concepts are to be genuine and of practical use in living their lives, safeguarding their rights, and pursuing their values. On the other hand, having come about as an attempt to understand the nature of reality, social constructivism views knowledge as constructed rather than created (Alvesson, Hardy Harley, 2008). This means that it embraces the fact that there is an objective reality. Social constructivists place much emphasis on daily interactions between individuals and how they make use of language to construct their reality. From this perspective, humans are interpreters and perceivers of social and physical experiences, which can only be understood by the mind. In business, practical knowledge takes priority over theoretical knowledge (HMRC, 2010). Notably, when people are immersed within the organizational culture, they are learning about how to become part of that culture, on various levels. Objectivism defines organizational change as a process which takes place systematically, and that organizations are considered to be living systems that have ecological and organic features. This means that they can only be understood as dynamic wholes capable of learning. From an objectivist perspective, organizations are not machines, but actual living organisms (ODonnell, 2009). Organizational change means a shift to a higher purpose. Contrarily, social constructivism defines organizational change as a process of behaving or doing that is usually characterized by compromise between those involved. The main dilemma is perhaps the difficulty in bringing together these two perspectives overview of organizational change as social practice (Radnor Walley, 2008). However, objectivist and social constructionist perspectives are linked in that they both revolve around a persons response and behavior towards change. Eventually, these individuals act towards a common goal. Identification of a change in HMRC organization Her Majestys Revenue and Customs is a United Kingdom organization that funds various policies the UK government initiates (Radnor, 2010). Monies raised through taxation are utilized in funding the welfare state, the armed services, the health service, and other aspects of government activity. Taxation has been the main characteristic of virtually all civilizations, from the Romans and Egyptians, to contemporary democracies. Benjamin Franklin also cited that nothing in this world is as certain as taxes and death. Despite this, taxation is neither popular nor straightforward (Carter, et al., 2011). When the United Kingdom government chose to merge the Inland Revenue with Her Majestys Customs and Excise, this was considered to be the latest in a number of organizational transformations. The newly formed organization, HMRC, experienced the drawback of integrating two previously autonomous companies, each of which boasted of a long history. Changing the way of thinking of tax experts insi de the former Inland Revenue together with combining the culture of two distinct organizations to form HMRC, were the main challenges. HMRC was formed in 2005 and has a total of 105,000 workers, making this one of the largest non-ministerial government departments (Lapsely, 2009). This newly formed organizations vision is to close the tax gap which is the difference between the tax amassed and that which should be. In 2008, HMRC was forced to downsize its activities, reducing its workers to 80,000 in over 450 offices around the UK. By using lean technologies in an effort to minimize waste and make processes efficient, the newly formed organization has so far managed to minimize its operating costs. During this organizational change, HMRC had communicated and described a vision to its staff. However, 93% of the staff said that they were aware of the vision, but only 66% felt that they had understood what was expected of them (Radnor Bucci, 2007). Furthermore, a number of leadership and structural changes had compounded the effects of lean thinking and process improvements. These outcomes show that the change had bee n poorly implemented. The change agents in this particular case were the managers and other senior management personnel. These change agents failed in their duty to establish a climate for change by overcoming resistance to change and bringing together forces for constructive development. Evidently, the lean approach has been historically identified with car manufacturing, particularly the Toyota Production System, and is founded on the main principle that companies will secure effectiveness by getting rid of wasteful processes, the need for rework, and errors (Carter, et al., 2011). HMRC initiated the introduction of lean into the public industry with a reform programme known as Pacesetter (Pollit Bouckaert, 2009). This was in reaction to the challenges that its Processing Directorate would experience in the coming years, for instance, ensuring that the Processing in the newly formed organization is amongst the finest United Kingdom processors. The lean approach, through the Pacesetter, would enable a change of HMRC by transforming current management processes to establish suitable management infrastructure capable of sustaining improvement, redesigning service delivery processes to improve quality, productivity and minimize lead time, and transform actions and mindsets of front line staff and leaders to support the novel systems while delivering continuous improvement (Talbot, 2010). Notably, in the course of the transformation, there was an understanding of the programme by many senior managers, but this understanding grew less clear further down the hierarchy. Communication regarding the implementation of lean could have been better addressed by HMRC. Looking at these facts from an objectivism perspective, the approach that HMRC used during the organizational change was rational, depersonalized and concentrated on things such as systems, structure, and strategy. The Pacesetter programme was viewed as one that would eventually take the newly formed organization to meet its five-year challenges, where emphasis on development with the senior managers would be emphasized. On the other hand, the socially constructed approach tends to encourage individuals to be more involved in defining the issue and working out the solutions. This is something that HMRCs senior mangers failed at because they did not effectively communicate and ensure that the workers fully understood the programme and what was expected of them (Carter, et al., 2016). SWOT Analysis Strengths The lean approach would bring the reengineering of working practices that were in the past founded on professional judgment and autonomy. The lean programme would sustain concentration on fiscal concerns and efficient utilization of resources while intensifying managerial dialogue on competition (Carter, et al., 2012). It would attain value for money through delivery of a sustainable cost base while maintaining revenues. Weaknesses The application of lean methods would prove to be problematic, leading to double the effort and rework. That daily pressure to meet top targets would mean that other significant aspects of work are neglected. The skill content of jobs would be reduced since employees would no longer be allowed to think for themselves or apply common sense principles (Argote, 2011). Using detailed performance measurements would create a false impression at the level of cumulative data. Opportunities To become more attractive and fuel increased acceptance by senior management and government of leans applicability (Raelin, 2007). To ensure that HMRC is the UK governments most preferred processor. Be able to improve the experience of the organizations customers, minimize costs, and capitalize on revenues. Threats That the programme would not be well received by the employees. Possible tax office closures and staff cutbacks. That there would be minimal support for regular improvement as implemented at HMRC, and less chance to offer an honest critique of workplace changes and Lean (Alvesson, Hardy Harley, 2008). The revenues that are usually gathered by HMRC come in different forms, making the organization quite large and complicated. This means that it also deals with a diverse number of customers. HMRCs ability, as already indicated, to deliver on its mission has been limited by the harsh reality and public sector organizations are still under pressure to do more with less (HMRC, 2010). Following a 2007 review of how equipped government departments were to meet its future challenges while at the same time developing a culture of regular improvement and excellence, HMRC was once again subjected to another review that would evaluate its progress on issues raised during the initial review. This was an aspect of the organization that had been described as needing urgent action since HMRC was not well equipped to address the issue of poor management (ODonnell, 2009). From the review, it was found that the senior leadership team had failed in tackling poor staff participation and improving communications and visibility. It is here that the Pacesetter programme was introduced in an effort to redesign service delivery processes, transform the mindsets and actions of front line staff and leaders, and transform current management processes. Following this organizational change to reform the program in the newly formed organization, there is proof that the initiative has resulted to increased output per individual per day in addition to enabling reductions in staff (Radnor Walley, 2008). Increased productivity of at least 30% in offices where the Pacesetter programme has been implemented is also evident. A number of benefits and drawbacks (from both the objectivist/rationalist and social constructionist perspective) of using business SWOT Analysis, in general, to determine the need for organizations to change. Notably, an objectivist is more likely to understand this analysis as providing HMRC with clear reasons for change, while a social constructionist understands it as a partial picture of the situation that is based on imprecise data (Radnor, 2010). S/he also tends to disregard the human element involved. One of the benefits, from a social constructionist perspective, associated with using business SWOT analysis is that it is cost effective. This means that the person conducting the analysis does not require much training or any form of technical skill. There is also no need for an external consultant; all that is required is a staff member with prior knowledge of the business. Secondly, each of HRMCs employees plays a significant role in driving the organization to victory. That is why engaging in discussions of key strengths and weaknesses helps in the identification of threats while capitalizing on opportunities (Carter, et al., 2011). As already indicated, social constructivism is all about interactions between individuals and how they construct their reality. On the other hand, an objectivist would find the use of a SWOT analysis as a drawback in the sense that it does not provide any mechanism to rank the importance of one factor over another within any given list (Lapsley, 2009). As a result, a single factors genuine impact on the objective cannot be determined. Change agents A change agent is one who initiates, facilitates, or stimulates a change programme through being helpful (Radnor Bucci, 2007). Change is usually an outcome of strategic planning, and novel organizational direction comes about as a result of the environmental evaluation. With regards to a structural approach to change, managers are faced with the perennial issue of [re]structuring their organizations to something better, balancing the stress between the differentiation of work and its coordination, while at the same time maintaining an appropriate fit with the surrounding (Carter, et al., 2011). The structural approach is a representation of change as the sensible result of a systematic process. Change managers or key personnel are on a regular basis appointed and identified to enable the required transformations within the organization. Such individuals are the change agents. Most literature has in the past concentrated on the managerial or consultant styles, and the extent to which the change agents accentuate the efficiency of the organization, or looking after staff morale. The nexus between the person and the social is quite undiscovered, and fails to give suitable record of how transformation requires the participation of all individuals at all levels of an organization (Pollit Bouckaert, 2009). Notably, organizational transformation is more likely to demand revolutionary change, while organizational development is more focused on a more relational, evolutionary approach. A social constructionist approach tends to put more emphasis on the significance of relations and language. Theoretical lenses from this particular perspective can assist peoples understanding of the problems and issues that may hinder transformation (Talbot, 2010). The main role of a change agent is to establish a climate for planned change by overcoming hindrances and uniting forces for positive development. His/her role is not to do things to individuals to make them change, which might be the carrot/stick approach. From a social constructionist, dialogic perspective, the process is more subtle than that because it is about collaboration, encouraging people to want to change, and using more helpful approaches to encourage people to want to change. According to the Foucauldian perspective, a change agents role is present through dialogue with a power-resistance relationship (Carter, et al., 2016). Change agents are generally governed by organizational limitations that exert authority over them, and are, in turn, in a position of authority over the staff. Contrarily, an alternative way of understanding transformation and the change agents role is to look at Pierre Bourdieus work, and gaze through the lens of Habitus (Carter, et al., 2012). He suggests that Habitus is an outcome of history capable of producing collective and individual practices. It influences peoples presuppositions and they need to be aware of such influences on their behaviors and views. Habitus is able to ensure the active existence of past experiences which tend to assure the correctness of practices and their regularity over time. Bourdieu believes that Habitus constitutes what people are taught and learn when growing up, that has been learnt and taught to by their parents, friends, relatives, and others who are considered to be part of the social setting in which the individuals are raised (Argote, 2011). Various characteristics make a good change agent, for instance the ability to articulate desired state of affairs, involving others in the change process, being environmentally and socially sensitive, having self awareness and self knowledge, demonstrating out-of-the-ordinary behavior, and ability to tell the current state of affairs (Raelin, 2007). An effective change agent also has good judgment and wisdom, and is generally concerned with the welfare of others. Looking at the case study presented, there are a number of styles that the change agents in HMRC might adopt using the Hersey Blanchard model of situational leadership. The model states that leadership depends upon each individual circumstance, and that no single leadership style can be considered the most appropriate (Alvesson, Hardy Harley, 2008). The change agents at the organization will be able to adjust their leadership to the objectives or goals that need to be achieved. Blanchard and Hersey believe that leadership styles emerge from four main actions, namely Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating (HMRC, 2010). Transactional leadership methods are mainly operational in the Telling behavior, while in the Selling behavior, the leader makes an effort to convince team members that he/she should lead. Democratic leadership style is more in play under the Participating behavior. On the other hand, under the Delegating behavior, the leader or change agent is in charge but there is emphasis on keeping an eye on the ones delegated with the tasks (ODonnell, 2009). Senior management at HMRC need to be aware of the four maturity levels of employees as stated under the Hersey-Blanchard model. There may be employees who are unwilling to carry out the tasks or are basically incompetent, those who are unable to perform the task but willing to do so, those who are able to perform the task but do not believe they can, and employees who are willing, ready and competent to perform the task (Radnor Walley, 2008). Approaches to change In organizational change, diagnosis refers to the process of understanding how an organization is operating. The client together with the internal or external change agent or Organizational Development practitioner collaborates to identify the focus of the problem or issue. It is a process that incorporates the use of diagnostic models and different techniques for collecting information, and collecting and evaluating diagnostic information regarding the problem or issue. The processes used are quite systematic and whose aim is to reveal causes of current issues. Notably, the results of the diagnostic techniques lead to implementation and design of suitable interventions to solve organizational issues, in addition to enhancing effectiveness and efficiency (Radnor, 2010). Diagnosis within the problem-centric approach tends to focus on an environmental evaluation and the lining up of organizational systems design. It assumes that these systems can react to the results of the evaluation in an adequate and timely manner. To operate smoothly, the system needs to be synchronized and aligned (Carter, et al., 2011). This is because change in one part of the system will eventually influence how other parts function. The problem-centric approach aims at finding out how system ability can be optimized. For convenience, intervention and diagnosis might be studied separately, but there is no practical distinction between the two. A good illustration is the Total Quality Management which is a process of planning, acting, checking, and acting (Lapsley, 2009). Simply put, problem-centric approach concentrates on a conscious effort to determine causes and symptoms. It is supported by the objectivist theoretical ontology of organizational change. Diagnosis, as a social construct, is established through appreciative enquiry and discussion. As already indicated, social constructionism emerged as a response to the truth claims of positivism. According to peoples social experience and the influence of dominant societal dialogues, reality is understood differently. The dialogic approach tends to draw on this particular example, and is action and reflection in which judgement is suspended (Radnor Bucci, 2007). This approach does not adhere to the linear forward motion of planned change models and understands that reality takes on various forms. A significant approach to dialogic approaches to change is Appreciative Inquiry which is considered one of the more triumphant modern methods used by certain Organizational Development practitioners (Carter, et al., 2011). Given that the technique is founded on social constructionist philosophy, it should not be taken as a fixed recipe for change, but a process that builds on present realities to establish reasonable ways forward to tackle complicated issues. If HMRCs management can implement AI, the organization can greatly benefit in that staff would have a heightened awareness of change. It can also bring their observations and thoughts about the need for change to the attention of senior management who in turn may join this with external environmental information (Pollit Bouckaert, 2009). The organization will be able to practice incremental evolutionary, adaptive change rather than transformative, revolutionary change (Talbot, 2010). Appreciative Inquiry under dialogic approach constitutes four positive components. The first one is discovering and valuing which is centered on what gives organizations vitality. Secondly, dreaming and co-imagining the future identifies similar aspirations that the staff sees as significant. Thirdly, designing through dialogue where enhancing readiness, capacity building and co-development of strong proposals are done. Lastly, it constitutes the delivery and co-construction of the future, to attain meaningful ways of change implementation (Carter, et al., 2016). To manage the change previously identified in HMRC, I would use the dialogic approach because it is not only people-friendly, but also concentrates on the relationships between individuals. This approach pays attention to the significance of communications and conversations between individuals to identify and resolve issues. Here, HMRCs staff may change their understanding of a situation as per their conversations and relations with others. One major setback that I would consider when using the dialogic approach is that it is time-consuming. Conclusion Organizational change is inevitable and todays organizations are forced to change so as to keep up with current trends and markets. The paper has discussed organizational change with particular focus on Her Majestys Revenue and Customs organization based in the United Kingdom. This is a company which formed following a merger between the Inland Revenue and Her Majestys Customs and Excise. Recently, the organization underwent a change in form of the Pacesetter Programme aimed at introducing process improvement and developing the leadership and management of HMRC. The programme had been inspired by lean approaches to business enhancement. However, this change was not well received and its effectiveness was quite low. It is at this point that the senior management of the organization decided to re-evaluate and re-construct the programme to suit the current needs of the employees and stakeholders. The paper has also highlighted on the roles of change agents and the different approaches t o change, with regards to the objectivist and social constructivist perspectives. References Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45. Pp. 480 501. Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning, 42(4). Pp. 439 446. Carter, B., et al. (2011). All they lack is a chain: Lean and the new performance management in the British Civil Service. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(2). Pp. 83 97. Carter, B., et al. (2011). Lean and mean in the civil service: The case of processing in HMRC. Public Money Management, 31(2). Pp. 115 122. Carter, B., et al. (2012). Nothing gets done and no one knows why: PCS and workplace control of Lean in HM Revenue and Customs. Industrial Relations Journal, 43. Pp. 416 432. Carter, B., et al. (2016). Uncomfortable truths teamworking under lean in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (HMRC). (2010). Delivering our vision: Business plan 2010 11. London: HMRC. Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruelest intervention of the human spirit? ABACUS, 45(1). Pp. 1 21. ODonnell, G. (2009). HM Revenue and Customs: Progress and next steps. London: Cabinet Office. Pollit, C., Bouckaert, G. (2009). Continuity and change in public policy and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Radnor, Z. (2010). Transferring Lean into government. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21, No. 3. Pp. 411 428. Radnor, Z., Bucci, G. (2007). Evaluation of Pacesetter, Lean, senior leadership and operational management within HMRC processing. London: HMRC. Radnor, Z., Walley, P. (2008). Learning to walk before we try to run: Adapting Lean for the public sector. Public Money Management, Vol. 28, No. 1. Pp. 13 20. Raelin, J.A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4). Pp. 495 519. Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance: Organizational and service improvement in the public domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.