1|Page

NAME: COURAGE SHONIWA CA (Z)

STUDENT NUMBER: 77435834

EMAIL ADDRESS: shoniwac@ta.co.zw

PHONE NUMBER +263 772 366 257 (ZIM)

LECTURER: PROF PP MNGUNI

SUBJECT: MBL93AR – CHANGE MANAGEMENT (MBL 3)

ASSIGNMENT ONE: TRANSFORMATION OF XYZ CONSTRUCTION

2|Page

Table of Contents
QUESTION 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 3
A bias for action ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Closeness to the customer ......................................................................................................................... 3
Autonomy and entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................... 4
Productivity through people ...................................................................................................................... 4
Hands-on, value-driven ............................................................................................................................. 5
Stick to the knitting ................................................................................................................................... 5
Simple form, lean staff .............................................................................................................................. 6
Simultaneous loose-tight properties .......................................................................................................... 6
QUESTION 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Lower Morale............................................................................................................................................ 8
Lessened Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 9
Disruptive Work Environment .................................................................................................................. 9
Ways to reduce resistance to change: ....................................................................................................... 9
Minimizing resistance to change............................................................................................................. 10
QUESTION 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Management style ................................................................................................................................... 14
Organisational Culture ............................................................................................................................ 15
Changing an organization’s culture ........................................................................................................ 16
QUESTION 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 19
South African context ............................................................................................................................. 19
Unilever SA ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Trencon Construction.............................................................................................................................. 21
Group Five Company. ............................................................................................................................. 22
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 23
3|Page

QUESTION 1: Evaluate and comment upon the extent to which XYZ can be said to have
adopted the Culture - Excellence approach to running its business.

The Culture – Excellence approach is one of the three main approaches involving managing and
structuring companies. The proponents of the approach Tom Peters and Robert Waterman carried
out a research project in 1977, while working for McKinsy, a management consultancy firm. In
quoting Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982), Burnes (2009) noted that there are eight key
attributes that organisations need to demonstrate if they are to achieve excellence.

These eight attributes are at the core of the Culture – Excellence Approach. To evaluate to what
extend XYZ has adopted the Culture – Excellence approach it is of paramount importance to
analyse each one of the attributes and identify how XYZ has approached that attribute.

A bias for action - This involves creating an environment that promotes active decision making by
removing the bureaucratic tendencies that characterizes most organisations. According to Tom
Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) habits and attitudes are difficult to break thus making it
challenging for organisations to adapt to changing market conditions. Thus bias for action involves
creating an organization that promotes innovation and quick decision making. XYZ embraced this
initiative by creating internal partnerships and team work which created an environment conducive
for quick decision making and action.

In addition the new MD introduced new practices and techniques that helped management in
changing their attitudes and behaviors within the organisation. XYZ adopted this part of the
Culture - Excellence approach to a greater extend in that the new practices and techniques were
aimed at removing the bureaucratic tendencies and creating an environment which fosters quick
decision making and action.

Closeness to the customer – This involves listening and learning from customers and clients. The
customer is the king and thus it is of significant importance to listen to what the customer is
demanding. By listening to customers organisations are able to improve their service by provided
tailored products and services to the customers’ satisfaction. An organization should have adequate
mechanisms to harness feedback from customers and clients. According to Tom Peters and Robert
4|Page

Waterman (1982) success companies seem to focus more on the revenue – generation side of their
services rather than to concentrate on being a low cost producer. XYZ introduced new practices
such as customer care and customer partnering. Not only does this improve customer service but
also gives the company valuable feedback that allows them to develop innovative products tailored
to meet customer expectations. XYZ embraced this Culture - Excellence theme of being close to
the customer through launching the customer care programme in October 1996 and further
extending it to the construction sites in September 1997. The new MD highlighted that the future
of the company depended on working with customers to understand what they wanted and to give
it to them. This highlights that XYZ had embraced the Culture - Excellence theme on closeness to
the customer

Autonomy and entrepreneurship – This involves promoting innovation and nurturing

entrepreneurship spirit within the organisation. According to Tom Peters and Robert Waterman
(1982) success companies gave their employees autonomy in the decision making process and
allowed them the independence to make blunders and learn from their mistakes. This promotes
innovation, easy flow of information and exchange of ideas. The new MD of XYZ broadened the
senior management team to include employees who were not directors. This created an
environment which fosters autonomy and entrepreneurship.

The construction industry is a specialized business and as such it employees a sizeable numbers of
people with different specialized skills. By opening up the decision making to non-director level
employees XYZ created an opportunity for more employees to demonstrate their entrepreneurship
capabilities. These people are closer to the core of action and as such there are more in touch with
reality than directors and senior management. Based on the information in the case study and the
analysis above, XYZ has adopted this particular Culture- Excellence theme to a larger extend.

Productivity through people - Involves treating people with respect because they are a source of
quality. Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) noted that where employees were treated with
respect, there was a positive co-relationship to the fortunes of the organisation. When employees
felt that they were part of the company and shared in the rewards there was more motivation to
work harder and improvement customer satisfaction.
5|Page

The new MD of XYZ implemented a new management style which was more participative in
nature. To further improve the involvement of staff in decision making he implemented an
initiative called “investors in people”. This initiative realizes that people are the backbone and
corner stone of an organisation and as such they should be treated well to improved customer
service. XYZ redesigned the supervisors’ role to ensure that the post holders had the adequate
skills and competencies to improve quality and productivity. In addition XYZ encouraged the
promotion and development of a more team-based culture in the organisation. This embraces the
theme on productivity through people in that it recognizes that people are the engine room for
productivity and customer satisfaction.

Hands-on, value-driven - Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) placed the involvement of
management in all aspects of the organization as a key contributory involves management factor to
its success. This approach embraces the management philosophy that guides everyday practice and
showing its commitment to the organisation and its stakeholders. The new MD of XYZ change the
working practice of the staff so that every internal process is earmarked towards value creation for
both internal and external customers. In addition the MD upgraded the managerial competencies
on the construction sites thereby creating a more hands on approach to management.

Stick to the knitting - Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) noted that conducting business in
areas in which the business is most knowledgeable contributed more to its success than branching
out into something riskier and unfamiliar. Thus it is important for organisations to stay within the
business that they know best and avoid venturing into unchartered territories.

The new MD of XYZ did not change the structure of the organisation nor did he attempt to
implement a blue oceans strategy to the company. Instead he ensured that the company remained
in its specialized field of construction where it concentrated and specialized on one aspect of the
construction process. Internally he also ensured that everyone remained where he or she had a
competitive advantage. Where he thought that the relevant skills were lacking he encouraged staff
to acquire new skills so as to remain relevant to the organisation.
6|Page

Simple form, lean staff - According to Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) successful
organisations kept away from complexity by having fewer administrative layers which made it
easier for employees to understand what was required of them and how to implement it. Recent
research has also concluded that some of the best companies have a leaner corporate structure.
Previously XYZ was a very hierarchical and status conscious company. The new MD although he
didn’t change the structure of the organisation he managed to simply the structure of the
organisation by removing the hierarchical nature. This he did by overhauling the company’s
operations and culture. The original set up was top heavy and the new MD managed to create a
much learner management structure without reducing the overall number of employees.

Simultaneous loose-tight properties - Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) noted that
successful companies allowed their employees the freedom to make decisions while working
around and maintaining core company values. This involves management maintain control but at
the same time allowing and encouraging autonomy and innovation. Although the new MD allowed
staff the space to be autonomous and innovative he realized that the new culture needed to be
formalized and consolidated. As such the core values of the company needed to be maintained by
everyone.

Based on the analysis above, XYZ adopted the Culture – Excellence approach to a greater extend.
According to Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982), the Culture – Excellence approach is based
on the McKinsey 7S framework (Strategy, Structure, Systems, Staff, Style, Shared Values and
Skills). Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) concluded that it was the four “soft” Ss (Staff,
Style, Shared Values and Skills) that held the key business success. From the case study the new
MD of XYZ concentrated on the four Ss (Staff, Style, Shared Values and Skills) during the first
three years on taking the helm of the organisation. He didn’t change the structure of the
organisation but managed to change the four Ss that shape the culture and fortunes of the company.
This agrees to the philosophy of the Culture – Excellence approach thereby further strengthening
the view that XYZ adopted the Culture Excellence approach to a greater extend.
7|Page

Although XYZ adopted the Culture – Excellence approach to a greater extend it also borrowed
some of the implemented techniques from the other two approaches namely the Japanese
Management approach and the Organisational Learning approach. The Japanese Management
approach involves the following key elements:

PERSONAL ISSUES BUSINESS PRACTICES

Lifetime employment Long term planning
Internal labour markets
Seniority based promotion Timeliness
and reward systems
Teamwork and bonding Quality
Training and Education
Company Welfarism

Adapted from Burnes, B. 2009

XYZ adopted the Kaizen practice on continuous improvement. This is a Japanese practice that is
incorporated in the Japanese Management approach. Kaizen is a continuous process, the purpose
of which goes beyond simple productivity improvement. Given the fact that XYZ implemented 3
phases of the Kaizen approach signify that the company also embraced the Japanese Management
approach to some extend with the resultant approach being a fusion of both approaches. This is
further strengthened by the above table which shows the key elements of the Japanese
Management approach. Some of these elements can be traced to some of the programmes and
events implemented by XYZ.
8|Page

QUESTION 2: The transformation of XYZ appears to have taken place with very little
resistance or opposition from staff and managers. Discuss why this should be so.

Despite the fact that resistance to change is inevitable it should be reduced at all costs because it
can be counter - productive. All change agents should understand that there will always be some
levels of resistance to change. This understanding will help them to anticipate resistance, recognize
its sources and motives, and adjust their efforts to manage the issues of change successfully. The
transformation of XYZ took place with very little resistance from staff and managers. This was
mainly due to the participative management style implemented by the new MD. Staff are warmer
to change if they are involved and consulted before and during the change process. Resistance to
change does not come without a cost and we will discuss why resistance to change should be
reduced at all costs.

Some costs of resistance include:

 Project delays
 Objectives missed
 Productivity declines
 Absenteeism
 Loss of valued employees

<http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-neutralizing-threats-mod3.htm> [Accessed 21
April 2014]

According to Lynda Moultry Belcher (2012), there are a number of costs of resistance to change
and thus change should be implemented with very little resistance. The costs of resistance are
discussed below:

Lower Morale
When staffers resist a change taking place at work, they may feel less optimistic and hopeful about
their professional future with the company. This is particularly so if there is a lack of
communication regarding the change. Among other negative effects of resistance to change,
lowered morale can spread throughout the entire staff, which can in turn cause issues with both
recruiting and retention.
9|Page

Lessened Efficiency
When employees spend time focusing on resisting the changes taking place in the workplace, they
become less focused on doing the daily tasks associated with their jobs. This leads to a reduced
level of efficiency and output among staff, which can affect the company's bottom line. In fact, a
reduced level of efficiency may fly directly in the face of the reason for the changes in the first
place, as changes are often made to become a more effective and productive company.

Disruptive Work Environment

Another negative effect to resistance among staff to changes may be a more disruptive work
environment. Employees resisting changes may cause commotions with outbursts regarding the
changes or a combative attitude with management staff. They may spread that same negativity
among other staff members, encouraging them to act in a similar manner, which can, in turn, end
up causing greater unrest among staffers.

According to Susan Lee (2010), as the leader, you must take the time to understand resistance and
you may have to come at it from several different angles before it is conquered. You must
understand what your employees are feeling, as well as thinking.

Ways to reduce resistance to change:

 Involve interested parties in the planning of change by asking them for suggestions and
incorporating their ideas.
 Clearly define the need for the change by communicating the strategic decision personally
and in written form.
 Address the "people needs" of those involved. Disrupt only what needs to be changed. Help
people retain friendships, comfortable settings and group norms wherever possible.
 Design flexibility into change by phasing it in wherever possible. This will allow people to
complete current efforts and assimilate new behaviours along the way. Allow employees
to redefine their roles during the course of implementing change.
 Be open and honest with all concerned.
 Do not leave openings for people to return to the status quo. If you and your organization
are not ready to commit yourselves to the change, don't announce the strategy.
10 | P a g e

 Focus continually on the positive aspects of the change. Be specific where you can.
 Deliver training programs that develop basic skills as opposed to processes such as:
conducting meetings, communication, teambuilding, self-esteem, and coaching.

<http://www.bia.ca/articles/chng-managing-resistance.htm > [Accessed 18 April 2014]

Minimizing resistance to change

In an organization that has a culture of trust; transparent communication; involved, engaged
employees; and positive interpersonal relationships, resistance to change is easy to see - and also
much less likely to occur. Employees feel free to tell their boss what they think and to have open
exchanges with managers.

When a change is introduced in this environment, with a lot of discussion and employee
involvement, resistance to change is minimized. Resistance is also minimized if there is a wide-
spread belief that a change is needed. Find out more about how to reduce employee resistance to
change. Any change will have its proponents and its opponents. Preparation for change includes
not only generating enthusiasm for the change process and working with the early adopters and
converts, but being prepared to challenge and win-over the sceptics.

<http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryr/g/Resistance-To-Change-Definition.htm>
[Accessed 18 April 2014]
11 | P a g e

Classic psychological reactions to change:

<http://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/change-management/12-reasons-why-people-resist-change/>
[Accessed 20 April 2014]

As can be shown by the diagram above, at the end of the day all sources of resistance to change
need to be acknowledged and people’s emotions validated. According to Lynda Moultry Belcher
(2012), there are numerous ways organisations can mitigate the negative effects of resistance to
change among the staff. These include holding all-staff discussions in which everyone can air their
grievances regarding the changes, providing extra training and resources to help staff adapt, and
taking the steps to make employees feel more comfortable with changes.

Resistance is actually healthy. Management should try not to react against it defensively. It is good
for you because it makes you check your assumptions and it forces you to clarify what you are
doing. You must always probe the objections to find the real reason for resistance. Many times, it
comes down to personal fear. According to Ken Hultman (1998) management need to build a clear
presentation of the psychological factors that determine whether individuals embrace or resist
change, they need to know how to identify the source, intensity, and focus of a person's resistance
to change in organizations and devise the tools for overcoming individual resistance and increasing
team effectiveness.

A solution which has become increasingly popular for dealing with resistance to change is to get
the people involved to “participate” in making the change. But as a practical matter participation
as a device is not a good way for management to think about the problem. In fact, it may lead to
12 | P a g e

trouble. The key to the problem is to understand the true nature of resistance. Actually, what
employees resist is usually not technical change but social change—the change in their human
relationships that generally accompanies technical change.

According to John Scherer (2012) people resist change for a variety of reasons. Their resistance
can be reduced when change leaders truly understand, appreciate, acknowledge and address the
factors and the forces behind that resistance. By not taking these factors and forces into
consideration or worse, by riding roughshod over the resisters, change leaders leave themselves
and their changes open to sabotage – intentional or unintentional. At best, they will realize no
more than a partial or flawed or tardy implementation.

According to John Scherer (2012, resistance to change however serves several important purposes:

• Resistance tests the commitment of those initiating the change. Are they really serious this
time? Sometimes they are not.

• Resistance is often based on valid viewpoints and important grains of truth that should be
heard, understood and taken into account if the change is to succeed. There is almost always some
value in the resistor’s perspective. Even though resistance to change doesn’t – nor should it –
dictate what you as a change leader do, the reasons behind it should be taken into account and
reflected in your actions.

• Resistance can weed out bad ideas that are have not been thoroughly vetted or that might
be little more than impulsive reactions to external events. At the very least, some flaws in the
grand ideas can be identified.

• Resistance slows down the pace of change, buying time for the people and the organization
to adjust more fully and to put in place the necessary infrastructure and systems needed to support
the new, post-change reality.

• Resistance provides an outlet for people’s emotions and energy during a time of intense
pressure; it is a convenient and useful safety valve. Shutting down this safety valve allows the
pressure to build unnecessarily, perhaps to explosive levels.

Resistance to change is neither bad nor is it necessarily a problem. Resistance is evidence that
people care about something and want to protect it. Instead of finessing, suppressing or steam-
13 | P a g e

rolling over resistance, try working to understand the basis of any resistance. Doing so can actually
improve a change effort’s chances of success. According to Thomas Harvey (2010) resistance is
at the heart of the change process, yet it is often overlooked or perceived as a negative
force. Richard Bevan (2011) also agrees with this notion when he said that it's ironic that while
most people know what conditions enable change to be effectively managed, these straightforward
needs are often missed. The intent gets the attention; the details of execution are forgotten. Yet the
elements are simple: listen to the stakeholders, learn about the issues, lead with clarity and
involvement, align systems, communicate relentlessly, and do constant follow-up.
14 | P a g e

QUESTION 3: To what extent and why do you agree with the following statement: the new
managing director has not changed the culture of XYZ but has merely introduced a new
management style.

The culture of an organisation is a very broad term that encompass how things are done within an
organisation. One can actually say that a management style is only a subset of an organisational
culture. Managers have to accomplish many duties and tasks in an organization and how they
handle various situations will depend on their management style.

Management style

According to Brooks and Ian (2009) management style involves the ways managers behave
towards their subordinates and the manner in which tasks and functions of management are
conducted. Thus a management style relates to how organisations are run by management and how
the various management functions are interlinked to each other. Schleh (1977) agrees with this
notion, and states that a management style is the adhesive that binds diverse operations and
functions together. The new MD of XYZ changed the management style from autocratic to a more
participative style. However he also changed the systems and processes that govern how things
were done at XYZ. He introduced the Kaizen way of continuous improvement, in addition he
launched a customer care programme. Thus one can say that he not only changed the management
style but implemented a phased approach to changing the organisational culture of XYZ.

Another author, Khandwalla (1995) considered management style as the distinctive way in which
an organization makes decisions and discharges various functions of goal setting, formulation,
implementation of strategy, corporate image building, dealing with key stakeholders and other
basic management activities. From the above definitions a management style is not just how
organisations are managed but is an all-encompassing term that include how all components in an
organisation relate to each other. Thus changing the management style is a means to an end in
terms of changing the organisational culture of an organisation. The new MD changed the
management style and also the underlying policies and processes. Thus not only did he change the
management style but also changed the organisational culture of XYZ. For us to understand if the
new MD of XYZ changed the management style only and not the culture of the organisation we
also need to have some in-depth definitions on what organisational culture is about.
15 | P a g e

Organisational Culture

Ravasi and Schultz (2006) state that organizational culture is a set of shared mental assumptions
that guide interpretation and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various
situations. According to Needle (2004), organizational culture represents the collective values,
beliefs and principles of organizational members and is a product of such factors as history,
product, market, technology, and strategy, type of employees, management style, and national
cultures and so on. Culture therefore gives an organisation a sense of identity and purpose.
Therefore culture is difficult thing to change since it’s something that guides an organisation over
time. According to Schien, (1985) organisational culture can be defined as that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Thus over time the organisation will develop
'norms' i.e. established (normal) expected behaviour patterns within the organisation. The
established norms can be depicted in the diagram below:

Organisational Culture

Adapted from <http://www.nhorizons.ca/en-change-culture-change.asp> [Accessed 1 May 2014]

16 | P a g e

Organizational Culture is marked by the deeply embedded beliefs and values that are shared by
members of an organization which become visible in the way work gets done on a day to day
basis. These elements fit together as a mutually reinforcing system and combine to prevent any
attempt to change it. According to the case study, the new MD of XYZ set out not just to upgrade
the XYZ’s management style but to undertake a root and branch overhaul of the company’s
operations and culture. Thus the new MD changed the shared beliefs, values and assumptions held
by the employees of XYZ. These values and behaviors contribute to the unique social
and psychological environment of an organization. Thus one change conclude that the new MD
changed more than the management style of XYZ. Introducing success programmes as Kaizen,
and Customer Care programmes leans towards changing the culture and fabric of an organisation.

Changing an organization’s culture

Changing an organization’s culture is one of the most difficult challenges faced by management.
This is because an organization’s culture comprises an interlocking set of goals, roles, processes,
values, communications practices, attitudes and assumptions. This is deep rooted in the way an
organisation confirms to its mission statement. From the case study the new MD of XYZ came
and changed the goals, roles processes, values, communications practices, attitudes and
assumptions. He introduced new practices and techniques, he changed attitudes and behaviours
and broadened the senior management team. This shows that the new MD of XYZ changed the
organisational culture of the company.

Changing an organisational culture is a large-scale undertaking, and should be done in phases for
it to be successful. The new MD of XYZ noted this and thus implemented it over a four year
period. According to Daft (2010), organizational culture exists at two levels

 Observable symbols
 Underlying values

This can be show below:

17 | P a g e

• Values, norms, guiding beliefs, and understandings that are shared by members of an
organization

• Managers want a corporate culture that reinforces the strategy and structural design the
organization needs to be effective within environment.

In trying to understand if the new MD of XYZ changed the organisational culture or merely
introduced a new management style it will be important to assess the different scales of changing
an organisational culture. According to Dunphy and Stace (1993) there are four different scales of
change of culture that can be identified. These are discussed below

Fine Tuning: this involves an ongoing process of adapting and refining aspects such as processes,
policies, procedures, and methods in order to ensure that there is an ongoing fit or match between
various organisational subsystems. The new MD of XYZ transformed the operation, culture and
structure of the organisation over a four year period. He however did not replace employees he
retained all of the current staff. He believed that the staff would need to change their attitudes and
behaviours and upgrade their managerial skills if the company was to implement the desired
change. The new MD was embracing fine tuning through changing and refining the current policies
and processes. Thus from this assessment one can conclude that the new MD was in the process
of changing the culture of XYZ and not merely implementing a new management style.
18 | P a g e

Incremental adjustment: involves distinct changes to strategies, structures, or business processes

in response to changes in the external environment. This might include changing internal
configurations to improve service delivery or changing certain production technologies to bring
about production efficiencies. The new MD of XYZ introduced new practices and techniques in
order to improve customer service. The launch of the Customer Care Programme in October 1996
can also be identified as an incremental adjustment to the culture of XYZ. In addition to that the
introduction of the Kaizen approach is also an indicator of a distinct change to a business strategy
and process. This is a Japanese approach of continuous improvement in quality, technology,
processes, company culture and productivity. This approach highlights that change is a gradual
and methodical process. The MD of XYZ embraced this approach to cultural change by
formalizing the process and taking time to implement the change. For example the Kaizen
approach was implemented in three phases over two years. Thus from this discussion one can reach
a conclusion that the new MD of XYZ not only changed the management style but implemented
an incremental change to the organisational culture of the organisation.

Modular transformation: Involves a major realignment or a radical change of significant parts

of an organisation. Thus the scope of the change is limited to sub parts of the organisation.
However the depth of the change is dramatic. Over the four year period the new MD of XYZ
targeted various parts of the organisation to implement the required changes in processes and
policies.

Corporate transformation: This involves a revolutionary change that occurs across the
organisation. This includes a total change of the business direction involving a new mission
statement and adoption of a new set of core values. According to Senior (2002) this is referred to
as frame- breaking change.
19 | P a g e

QUESTION 4: Highlight the various issues discussed in the case study, the transformation of
XYZ Construction and analyse them in the South African context. Give specific examples in
South Africa.

South African context

According to Waddell, Cummings and Worley (2007) understanding and successfully managing
change has become one of the most important issues for South African managers. They argued
that the major challenge facing South African organisations is to develop a management style and
culture that will enable them to cope with the challenges and opportunities that change brings
about.

According to Swanepoel (2010), due to the history of industrial relations in South Africa, a lack
of trust is prevalent in many South African organisations. It is often found that staff (non-
management and their representatives such as unions) and management don’t trust each other.
Thus in most South African organisations, whenever organisational change is implemented it is
often met with resistance, the rationale is questioned and attached and the intended processes are
resisted.

Unilever SA
There are various issues discussed in the XYZ case study that are also prevalent in the South
African context. On organisation that went through the same change as XYZ was Unilever SA.
Unilever SA had are eight factories located at six sites in two provinces. It was one of the largest
fast-moving consumer goods companies on the continent with more than 3 000 employees based
across two offices and five manufacturing locations. In the early 2000, Unilever SA management
style had led to higher levels of frustration, overtime and absenteeism amongst workers and a
generally negative atmosphere at the most of its factories. In addition, of great concern to both
workers and unions was the on-going threat by management to shift the Unilever SA operations
overseas (Brazil, Indonesia, India or Egypt). In an effort to improve efficiency and productivity,
the union had on a number of occasions asked for a thorough examination of the production
process, people, machines, lines, management, quality of inputs, but management had not made a
concerted effort to do this.

When new management was engaged the management style at Unilever SA changed to a more
participative style. Unilever started in believing in developing its workforce and started paying its
20 | P a g e

shop- floor workers some of the best packages available. Their values changes to incorporate a
shared commitment and responsibility to treat each other with mutual respect, offer equal
opportunities through training and development, respect freedom of association and to promote
open communication. These facts are consistent with what happened during the transformation of
company XYZ. Both companies promoted open communication with a view of creating a
conducive environment for transformation.

One aspect that also changed was team participation in problem solving and decision making at
Unilever SA. In addition Unilever SA created a less hierarchical structure and each factory unit
and production line had a teamer leader chosen by workers to represent them in decision making.
This approach provided more direct lines of responsibility to facilitate great clarity of purpose. As
part of the change management process Unilever SA also encouraged workers to become multi
skilled so that they can do other tasks including quality control.

In 2012, management continued to make good progress in the transformation of Unilever SA to a

sustainable growth company. Thus the transformation on Unilever took a long time and
management implemented a phased approach to transformation. This is the same method that was
applied by the new MD of XYZ. Research has shown that people are less likely to resist change if
it is applied gradually over a period of time. According to their 2012 Annual Report Unilever SA’s
core valued now included sustainable, profitable growth achieved with the right people working
in an organisation that is fit to win, a culture in which performance is aligned with values. It also
stated that they are increasingly an agile and diverse business with people motivated by doing good
while doing well. In addition they Unilever SA is building capability and leadership among its
people and attracting some of the best talent in the market place.

Thus Unilever is placing emphasis on its people and capacitating them by training and
development. The same can be said with XYZ, which aimed to retain its staff and launched an
investors in people programme in March 1997.
21 | P a g e

According to a PWC report, the South African construction industry was particularly hard hit when
the infrastructure development highs leading up to the 2010 FIFA World Cup were followed by a
global recession and/or depressed growth. This led to a number of problems between contractors
and subcontractors as project specifications had to be modified to match the revised funding
budgets. Thus the problems highlighted in the case study are also prevalent in the South African
construction industry. In fact, the problems between contractors and subcontractors was more
prevalent in the South African context considering that subcontracting is very common in the
South African construction industry, with up to 70% of building and 30% of civil construction
projects subcontracted out. While formal contracts are generally signed between the two parties,
contractual relations between the contractors and the subcontractors are often governed on an ad
hoc basis or by using less sophisticated documentation, this further complicates the issues between
the two parties.

<http://www.pwc.co.za/en_ZA/za/assets/pdf/sa-construction-december-2013.pdf> [Accessed 2
May 2014]

Trencon Construction

One of the South African construction companies that went through the same transformation as
XYZ Construction was Trencon Construction. The company was formed in 1995 and is currently
one of the largest black owned construction company is South Africa. In the process of
transformation is realized that its great asset was human capital. In order to transform the company
placed a great emphasis on attracting and retaining highly skilled and competent staff. This has
helped the company in reducing disputes between itself and the subcontractors over the past 5
years. Trencon Construction implemented a client satisfaction programme and currently
differentiates itself from competitors due to the hands on approach and involvement of its top
management in most of the issues involving clients and sub-contractors. In addition Trencon
implemented a flat organisational structure that facilitated top level management interaction with
clients and opened up the channels of communication with decision makers. To enhance quality,
Trencon implemented quality assurance procedures that enforced ISO 90001;2008 procedures.
22 | P a g e

Although this quality standard is not as powerful as the Kaizen approach implemented by XYZ
Construction, it is a step in the right direction.

<http://www.trencon.co.za/> [ Accessed on 1 May 2014]

Group Five Company.

Other South African company which was in the same boat as XYZ Construction was the Group
Five Company. The company has transformed through transparency and open communication. In
light of the challenging conditions in the South African construction industry, the company took a
decision to focus more on disclosure and transparency both internally and to the external
stakeholders. In light of the transformation the company won an international quality crown award
for commitment to quality, leadership, technology and innovation. Group also discovered that
continuous training of their employees was of paramount importance. The company ensures
continuous development of its employees through the group’s in-house corporate university, The
Group Five Academy

<http://www.g5.co.za/au_achievements.php> [Assessed on 22 April 2014]

According to Swanepoel (2010), the organisational culture in most South African organisations is
changing as a result of organisational life cycle evolution, the redesign of core structures and
processes, changing expectations of workers and the role of the unions in the workplace. While
both external and internal changes are forcing South African organisations to continuously reassess
their strategies and operations, it can generally be said that the methods and timing in which
employees all over the world respond to change differ. Numerous organisations in South Africa
are embracing the type of change that is needed in the society. However we have only discussed a
few examples but there is enough evidence to show that South African companies are undergoing
a transformation of their organisational cultures.
23 | P a g e

LIST OF REFERENCES

Belcher, L M. 2012. Negative Effects of Resistance to Change to an Organization. Houston:

Demand Media

Bevan, R. 2011. Change making: Tactics and resources for managing organizational change.
New York: Independent Publishing Platform

Brooks, I. 2009. Organizational Behaviour. 4th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Burnes, B. 2009. Managing change: strategic approach to organisational dynamics. 5th edition.
Harlow: Pearson Education.

Cascio, W F. 2010. Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. 8th
edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Dunphy, D and Stace, D. 1993. The strategic management of corporate change. Sydney: McGraw-
Hill Book Company

Harvey, T R. and, Broyles, E A. 2010. Resistance to Change: A Guide to Harnessing Its Positive
London: R&L Education

Hultman, K. 1998. Making Change Irresistible: Overcoming Resistance to Change in Your

Organization. Denver: Davies-Black Publishing

Khandwalla, P. 1995. Effectiveness Management Styles: An Indian Study. Journal of Euro-Asian

management, I (7).

Needle, D. 2004. Business in Context: An Introduction to Business and Its Environment. 5th
Edition. United Kingdom: Cengage Learning

Ravasi, D and Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role
of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, No.3, pp. 433–458.

Richard L. D. 2010. Organization Theory and Design. 11th Edition. United Kingdom: Cengage
Learning
24 | P a g e

Schleh .E.C. 1977. A Matter of Management Styles, Management Review, 8.

Senior B 2002. Organisational Change. London: Prentice Hall

Swanepoel, B, Erasmus, B, Van Wyk, M, & Schenk, H. 2010. South African human resource
management: Theory and practice. 4th ed. Pretoria: Juta.

Waddell D M, Cummings T & Worley G. 2007. Organisation Development and Change, Asia-
Pacific. 3rd edition. Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

Yukl G. A.2006. Leadership in organizations. 6th edition, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice
Hall.