CASE STUDY
The director of a regional multinational corporation was upset when he heard from his divisional head that the morale of his organization was suffering and the discontent of his staff was being felt by multiple people who worked in the regional office. The discontent centered around the stress and strains of the rapid growth of the company but was expressed as dissatisfaction with the managing director himself.
The company was so caught up in the pressure of building an organization and meeting its revenue goals that it had been running in a perpetual crisis mode for two years. New staff were being added and the high-pressure, catch-up atmosphere stimulated them enough so that the short-term growth targets were being met. Still, the managing dirctor was responsive to the criticism from his boss, and combined with his own sense that something was a miss he decided something must be done.
CONSULTANT
He called in the consultants. The consultant’s first move was to conduct interviews with six key employees, five, “direct reports”, and the managing director’s personal secretary. These dialogue sessions allowed the consultant to build an initial bond of trust with key personnel. Confidentially was emphasized, as was honesty and the overall desire to help the situation. This dialogue allowed the consultant to build an initial bond of trust and to get an unfiltered impression of the organization. A diagnosis regarding the current adaptability and health of the organization confirmed that there was a great deal of discontent directed toward the managing director.
A leadership feedback session was held, and it resulted in several recommendations. They included a change in management style to alter the attitude of the staff. The change itself was less important than the fact that change was taking place. Still, the managing director was particularly interested in developing himself as an effective leader, so he underwent an extensive series of psychological test to determine how to change his behaviour in an effective way.
That change was indeed taking place was a signal to the staff that things were being looked into. As a result, people started wondering what would happen. Seeing the boss make an effort showed that he was willing to adopt new ways. That shifted attitudes towards a hope that things coluld be better, which in turn encouraged the staff to reciprocate by being adaptable themselves.
THE ATTITUDE CHANGE
They started to reinforce the attitude change by acknowledging the personal change in the managing director to each other. The boss himself quite enoyed the introspective process as he developed his unique leadership “practice”. The positive reinforcement by his staff made it easier. He was able to find new ways to encourage productivity without creating additional stress, and the atmosphere in the company began to change.
The real issue was still the pressure to meet targets without having to function in a perpetual crisis mode. The older staff members were getting burnt out trailing the new recruits. It took an intensive team-building session before all of these issues could be addressed effectively. However, staff dissatisfaction with the managing director became diffused so that more critical issues could be dealt with by the team. Along with the team-building exercise, a more honest and candid feedback loop was established between the managing director and his staff to avert further problems with office morale. Everyone felt the company had become a good place to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment