Strategic Management Assignment Questions and Answers
Assignment Details:-
- Document Type: Essay (any type)
- Subject: Strategy & Planning
- Number of Words: 3000
- Citation/Referencing Style: APA
Do you want to get the Strategic Management Assignment Homework Answers? We offer reliable experts writing services at Assignment Task. Always provide high quality content with 100% plagiarism free at affordable price. Students can avail of our Strategic Management Assignment Help. Our online support team is available 24/7 to help you and resolve any query to your assignment.
Ensure that you review the key points from Topics 7 – 10 for this essay.
When you are looking to identify an area of your organisation that needs change, conduct an environmental scan, and think about new or recently introduced government policy and how this will affect your organisation.
The balance of this paper should be on how you will go about implementing change, rather than the rationale for the change in the first place. As such, when preparing your answer do not focus on the development of the policy which has instigated the need for a change process, but the proposed strategic change process itself and the organisational changes required to implement the new policy.
This question has been framed in a way that allows you to demonstrate your understanding of the material covered in the Study Guide and your ability to apply this understanding to how your organisation works.
You may find it useful to use headings throughout your essay to provide some structure to the discussion.
Schneider and Goldwasser (1998) (as cited in Bovey & Hede, 2001) found that whilst management invests significantly in the creation of planned change, little is invested in communicating, training and follow-up needed to successfully implement the change. Leading an organisation through change involves constructively balancing human needs with those of the organisation.
Published studies on resistance to organisational change have focused more on organisational issues rather than individual psychological factors (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Many individuals go through a reaction process when they are involved in organisational change and the implementation of organisational change often fails due to managers approaching the change process from a technical perspective rather than recognising and understanding how the human element influences the success or failure of the change (Arendt et al. 1995 as cited in Bovey & Hede, 2001).
Bovey and Hede (2001) explores human resistance to change in more detail and underscores that implementing organisational change involves the constructive balancing of competing needs.
Harding believes that “…leaders are people who ignite change…that propels existing goals and actions to realisation” (2010, p.51). When considering change, a compelling case needs to be established as the more people who agree at the outset that the change is needed, the more likely they are to support the initiative. During times of change, a manager will oversight systems and structures, however a leader will innovate, develop and challenge the existent state of the organisation (Harding, 2010).
Kotter (2007) describes the eight steps to transforming an organisation and identifies the critical errors common to managers who do no more than create the illusion of speed and the achievement of results when implementing change. Whilst his work may seem dated, it is seminal in guiding managers to implement change in a structured, systematic and time proven manner.
Hall and Hord (2005) list a number of change principles that are widely recognised, including:
- Change is a process, not an event,
- An organisation does not change until the individuals within it change.
- Interventions are the actions and events that are key to the success of the change process.
- Facilitating change is a team effort.
- Although both top-down and bottom-up change can work, a horizontal perspective is best.
As you can see, there are a number of theorists who have their own ideas about how to implement organisational change. George and Jones (2012) introduces the aspect of behaviour and its impact upon the success, or otherwise, of organisational change.
Contemporary studies of organisational change have identified many change initiators. A study by the World Economic Forum (2019) analysed global risks in terms of impact, likelihood and interconnections, based on a survey of over 1000 experts from industry, government and academia. Of the top ten risks both in terms of likelihood and impact extreme weather events and the failure of climate change mitigation rank in the top three. These events continue to have a major impact on public safety agencies. All of these risks have an influence upon the way in which policing and emergency services will operate in the future.
Key to any change process is communication, and as such there is a need to understand in greater detail the barriers to effective communication. Any organisational change that involves the development and implementation of either new or existing strategies and activities should involve extensive delivery of information, copious amounts of clarification, dialogue, debate and discussion. But how is this best communicated? Elving (2006) highlights the importance of communication at all levels within an organisation. Whilst reading it consider whether organisational communication within your own organisation could be improved. Is it being effectively used to provide information? Is it two-way or top down?
After completing your readings, consider the following questions: 1. An individual with a high maladaptive defence mechanism is likely to have? 2. What stage of Pondy’s Five Stage Model of Organisational Conflict could describe verbal arguments between parties? 3. One reason for communication during organisational change can be to? |
People don’t resist change. They resist being changed!”
Peter Senge (1990)
Not all strategic management decisions require change within an organisation. There will be times when the best strategic course for an organisation is to maintain the status quo. However, this will be less common than circumstances where the organisation needs to make either minor or major changes in what service they deliver or how they are delivering that service.
In this topic we address a wide range of issues related to the process of managing the introduction of change within an organisation. The first point to make is that there will be very few organisations, or people who work for them, that are unfamiliar with change in the workplace. It has been central to most of our lives for some time. What may be less common is a familiarity with ‘successful’ change processes.
Second, measuring the success of a change process will vary depending on the perspective of those involved. Those who have no say in the change and feel that they are a victim of the process may be less impressed by the outcome than the person who initiated and drove the process to a conclusion. It’s always worth remembering that, once the change has been implemented, we have to get back to work with those who may be aggrieved by what has transpired.
Edmonds (2011) assists organisations to understand the importance of managing organisational change in today’s uncertain economic climate. It discusses how training in change management can help to provide a deeper knowledge of its principles and an understanding of how to implement and manage change in an organisation.
As a leader in your organisation you will be part of the change process. How you manage yourself and the tasks you are responsible for will have a long-term impact on your working environment. But more importantly, the way the change process is managed will determine whether the change is implemented successfully.
Pegg (2008) (as cited in Powe, 2010) noting the shifting demands on public service leaders in times of change, suggested that:
To meet the new and challenging model for public services, a new breed of public service leaders is needed. They must be masters of change management, able to motivate their teams to shift from delivering what they think should be offered, to a world shaped by customer requirements, with a focus on innovation and delivery by those best able to satisfy them. They have to be able to work together across government rather than in their silos, to influence change and listen to consumers rather than legislate and tell people what they can have. This requires a move away from the age of leaders who can enact an endless round of restructurings, reorganisations, mergers, name changes and initiatives, towards a new generation of leaders who can instead achieve real and enduring change in the behaviours of their teams. Increasingly, they need to develop a better understanding of themselves, why they behave the way they do, how they impact on others and how they might want to change their own behaviours and the behaviours of those around them (p. 10).
Whilst organisational change appears to be happening with increasing frequency and magnitude in both the public and private sectors, most of the major studies of change, focus on the private sector and tend to derive their approaches to change from that sector. From a review of the literature, it is argued that there is no “one best way” to manage organisational change but that public sector organisations need to adopt an approach to change which matches their needs and situation.
Agostino et al. (2012) provides a brief introduction to the issues in managing change within an organisation. Take particular note of the sections dealing with organisational culture. You may wish to revisit some of the readings from Topic 3 to refresh your memory in this area too.
Every organisation is made up of individuals. This is without doubt one of the greatest statements of the bleedin’ obvious you will ever read. Unfortunately, it is a statement that needs to be repeated often just to remind those involved in implementing change within an organisation that they are not dealing with some inanimate object; it’s not structures and systems that are being changed, its people and the way they work. We have already discussed the need to balance human and organisational needs in any change process, and have underscored that if you do not understand why individuals behave in the way they do, or why some groups of individuals respond differently to others, you are in for a tough time delivering your change program.
Understanding people’s motivation is central to understanding individual and group behaviour. There are a number of researchers and theorists who have examined the area of human motivation, each building on the work of those before them.
A fundamental part of managing within the organisation is the ongoing monitoring and review of organisational performance. Developing and implementing strategic plans and programs is only part of the process. The task is not complete until you have considered the outcome of your efforts to determine whether they actually delivered the results you were hoping for. It may well be pointless proceeding with a brilliant strategic plan if it resulted in an unexpected, unintended, or counter-productive outcome.
Monitoring and review systems are therefore vitally important. It is important that they generate accurate and timely information on which to base decisions. This means that managing performance is not something that happens after the process. It is something that needs to be built into the process so that you get as early a warning as possible if programs, processes or systems are not working. The other critical thing to remember is that when we measure any activity it needs to be against some standard, expectation or benchmark. Understanding what ‘performance’ was like before, is clearly then as important as measuring it after a change.
The standards and outcomes set for any strategic plan need to be relevant and easily understood. They also need to be phrased in such a way that they can be measured. The 2017 Queensland Government Performance Management Framework (PMF) is designed to improve the analysis and application of performance information to support accountability, inform policy development and implementation and create value for customers, stakeholders and the community. As you read it consider how your organisation measures performance, and what it does with the information that comes out of that process.
Choosing the right tools for monitoring and reviewing organisational performance will be critical to getting useful information from the process. There are many established processes that an organisation may choose to apply. Alternatively, they may choose to build systems specifically to suit the organisation and its role.
Core Business – Client Services and Activities:
Most organisational performance monitoring and evaluation tends to focus on services and activities. Monitoring in this area should include:
The extent to which the organisation is conducting appropriate services or activities.
Whether activities and services are having the desired impact or outcomes (effectiveness).
Whether the organisation is conducting its activities in the best way possible in terms of:
The organisation’s ethics, principles, and philosophy.
Resource use (efficiency).
Having the maximum impact or effect.
Client or constituent satisfaction:
The extent to which activities are conducted according to agreed or planned parameters (eg time frames, targets etc.).
Organisational profile: The profile of an organisation incorporates a number of performance factors, including:
How the organisation is regarded by other agencies, its clients, constituents and community, and other significant stakeholders.
How it is placed in its ‘market: whether its core business is appropriate and sustainable, and its capacity to attract its clients or conduct its business successfully.
How it manages its resources, attracts and allocates resources, and its sustainability in terms of resources.
Partnerships and external relationships: This monitors the extent to which the organisation maintains useful networks and strategic partnerships.
Management and Operations:
Organisations also need to monitor the stability, soundness and performance of:
Internal systems and processes (including administration, risk management and human resource management).
Financial management.
Organisational capacity (such as skills and knowledge, use of technology).
Governance:
The board or management committee has the responsibility of monitoring and reviewing its own performance. Monitoring of governance performance should include the extent to which the board or management committee is:
Providing active leadership to the organisation.
Ensuring adequate accountability and monitoring.
Ensuring effective risk management.
Ensuring sound financial management and human resource management.
Oversighting compliance with external legal requirements and other obligations.
Blackman et al. (2012) reconceptualises existing ideas of high performance and provides both a conceptual and practical robust foundation to ‘Strengthen the Performance Framework’, with particular emphasis on the concept of high performance government.
According to the UK Department of Trade and Industry (n.d.) the cycle of improvement is never-ending, and performance measurement is just one component of a feedback loop. It further proposes that performance management plays an important role in:
Identifying and tracking progress against organisational goals.
Identifying opportunities for improvement.
Comparing performance against both internal and external standards.
An organisational performance framework identifies results and performance measures for each main area of the organisation’s activities, including any results and performance measures identified in the organisation’s main plan. Reviewing the performance of an organisation is also an important step when formulating the direction of the strategic activities. It is important to know where the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation lie, and as part of the ‘Plan – Do – Check – Act’ cycle, measurement plays a key role in quality and productivity improvement activities.
The main reasons it is needed are:
To ensure customer requirements have been met.
To be able to set sensible objectives and comply with them.
To provide standards for establishing comparisons.
To provide visibility and a “scoreboard” for people to monitor their own performance level.
To highlight quality problems and determine areas for priority attention.
To provide feedback for driving the improvement effort.
Kramar et al. (2011) Download Kramar et al. (2011)examines a variety of approaches to performance management. It also identifies and discusses various sources of performance information and the means to reducing errors arising from subjective assessments of performance. This study has direct relevance to policing and emergency services.
iconmonstr-light-bulb-1-240.jpgReview Questions:
After completing your readings, consider the following questions:
What are the three levels of “high performance government?
What is the process called through which managers ensure that employees’ activities and outputs are congruent with the goals of the organisation?
What are the three purposes of performance management?
The objective of organisational performance management in a government context is to ensure that public policy is effectively implemented. It will only be sustainable where it achieves its key objectives of enhancing the performance of governments in the attainment of its policy objectives and keeping the electorate and key stakeholders satisfied. Similarly, organisations need to sustain their performance over time. The importance of sustaining the organisation’s people, financial, environmental and societal contribution therefore needs to be a priority for organisational leaders. The ability of an organisation to sustain the delivery of quality products and services is essential to its long-term success. Many believe this to be a learnable organisational competence (Owen et al. 2001).
The introduction of New Public Management (NPM) within the public sector from the 1980s onwards was done with the intention of making public agencies more transparent by applying performance management more traditionally seen in private enterprise. According to De Waal and Kerklaan (2004) the implementation of performance management within the public sector resulted in organisations being more likely to achieve their objectives, providing better services to citizens and companies, and improving their overall efficiency.
Notwithstanding the popularity of NPM, some scholars believe that it led to unintended negative consequences, particularly for policing. Hough (2010) argues that NPM and associated target setting led to a narrowing of the policing function in ways that led to a reduction in confidence in the police, and legitimacy. Hough’s contention was that NPM and target setting led bureaucracies to lose sight of the intention of performance management – to improve policing – and these indicators became outcomes in their own right. Thus, caution should be applied when considering which outcomes to measure, lest they end up being counterproductive to the overall organisational objective.
Continuing this line of thought, a study conducted by Tambulasi (in De Waal, 2010) found that implementing NPM reforms led to increased levels of corruption in local government. As an alternative to NPM, De Waal proposes the utilisation of what he refers to as the ‘High Performance Organisation (HPO) Framework’. In conducting his research, De Waal and numerous colleagues canvassed organisations across Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and South America. As a result of the work undertaken, De Waal lists five ‘High Performance Organisation Factors’ which are interrelated, and believes that when one factor improves, the other factors will also improve. He also suggests that the difference in HPO emphasis between the public and private sectors is consistent with the main differences between the two sectors, listing areas of:
Responsibility structure,
Resources,
Strategy and added-value creation, and
Clients and customer satisfaction
Of note is that the first two differences (responsibility and resources) relate to the HPO factor of quality of management, whereas the last two differences relate to the HPO factor of long-term commitment.
De Waal’s (2010) research identifies six themes which, he believes, public sector organisations need to do to raise their overall quality and, ultimately, prepare them for future challenges. Whilst reading this work, consider how many, if any, of those six themes are relevant to, or are being undertaken, by your own organisation.
You will note that the work of De Waal (2010) focussed on “High Performance Organisations”. Miller (2011) identified eight themes that are important for sustainable organisational performance, being:
Alignment – integration of values, behaviours or objectives of stakeholders with the organisation purpose.
Shared Purpose – takes the connection with the organisational purpose one step further to be shared by all employees and often beyond, to include external stakeholders.
Leadership – senior leaders articulating a future-oriented vision in an appropriate style that informs decision making and empowers employees to achieve organisational effectiveness.
Locus of engagement – people can be engaged at different levels and with various aspects of the organisation or the work and their engagement can be transactional or emotional in nature.
Assessment and evaluation – the processes that occur at different organisational levels to gather qualitative and quantitative information, to assess the impact of actions and inform decision making.
Balancing short and long term horizons – active awareness, management and communication of both known and unknown organisational issues and pressures affecting the short term while maintaining an active focus on long term priorities.
Agility – the ability to stay open to new directions and be continually proactive, helping to assess the limits or risks of existing approaches and ensuring that leaders and followers have an agile and change-ready mindset to enable them, and ultimately the organisation, to keep moving, changing and adapting.
Capability-building – equipping the people in the organisation with the skills and knowledge they need to meet both present and future challenges. Also identifying existing necessary and potential capabilities, ensuring that they are accessible across the organisation. Capability-building applies not only to individuals, but also to teams and organisations.
Studies in Australia and overseas indicate that sustaining high performance in public sector organisations has a number of common characteristics. A literature review with regard to Organisational Performance Management in a Government Context conducted by Mackie (2008) found that the characteristics of best practice for sustainable performance management in the public sector include:
High level public policy aspirations expressed as outcomes,
Strategic business plans,
Performance measurement tools and techniques,
Targets,
Implementation,
Monitoring,
Measuring results,
Verification,
Communication,
Review and evaluation,
Continuous environmental sensitivity, and
Ongoing commitment at all levels.
During the literature review, Mackie (2008) noted the findings of the Pew Center which highlighted the strategic direction and comprehensive monitoring and performance review undertaken by the State of Virginia (USA). Rather than focus on formulae or systems, the ‘Virginia Model’ utilises the “tin-opener approach”, preferring instead to ask why goals and targets are not being met and then addressing the underlying problems. Public Service agencies in Virginia have adopted a “unity of direction and process” approach whereby organisational performance management systems are complementary and a common performance management ethos exists across all government and public services.
Whilst undertaking the following reading, consider whether the listed characteristics of best practice for sustainable performance management are evident within your own organisation.
Shilston’s (2008) study of police performance regimes being measured using quantitative methodology highlights that such measurements do not capture the dynamics of police/public interactions at the micro level. He further discusses the differentiation between “citizens” (those persons with no direct contact with police) and “clients” (those with recent direct contact with police) when conducting public surveys. As he points out;
a large majority of people remain consumers of police services in a general sense (citizens) whereas clients are a fairly small minority…if general, undifferentiated satisfaction surveys are employed to gauge public opinion, one outcome is therefore statistically inevitable: any discordant note struck by the minority of people with direct personal experience of policing services will be swamped by those with no such experience but who hold conventional, supportive views of the role of police in society. That is a pity, as whilst what citizens think is important, what clients think is both important and instructive (p.361).
Shilston suggests that the way in which real performance by police can be assessed in terms of public trust and confidence may lie in further exploration of qualitative approaches. Whilst he agrees that traditional quantitative measures have their place, he also believes that the use of both quantitative and qualitative measures provide a more balanced picture of police performance, with emphasis at the micro level.
More recently, Davis et al. (2015) have conducted a literature review of research about measuring police performance. When reading this paper consider how you could effectively measure your workplace or functional areas performance.
Recent debates about public sector performance management have suggested that instead of a NPM-like approach of treating the public as ‘customers’ that a New Democratic Governance approach might be more fitting in the public safety environment (Newbold & Terry, 2008). This is particularly pertinent in today’s economic climate and the shrinking of the public purse, and the consequent need for public safety organisations to consider themselves in ways more aligned with business. If markets and networks replace traditional public sector bureaucracies, then there is a need to ensure that they remain true to their ‘democratic’ roots. A governance and accountability performance system built around New Democratic Governance might be one way to do this. What do you think?
For REF… Use: #getanswers2002427