- What lessons do you draw from this case regarding change management?
One of the lesson’s I draw from the case is that leaders should be flexible in their management style, that is, they should be able to apply the contingency approach to leadership when necessary. As DuBrin (2010) asserted, group leaders become most effective when they are able to” make their behavior contingent on situational forces” (DuBrin, 2010, p. 133), which include group member characteristics. In particular, the leader should be able to influence and emphasize the behaviors that are necessary for the organization to be able to effectively respond to the changes in its internal and external environments. In addition, the leader should be flexible enough and refrain from sticking to old ideas that no longer apply to the organization’s current situation. For example, even if Andrea Jung did not want to reduce Avon’s workforce as it was something that she never had to do in the past, she recognized that given the company’s current situation, it was necessary for her to do so. Even if she felt bad about do it, she knew that she had to do it.
Another lesson is that the implementation of change within the organization must be supported by the organizational members in order for the initiative to succeed. As John Kotter suggested in his eight-step process for leading change (“The 8-step Process for Leading Change,” 2012), the vision for the change must be communicated across the organization in order to obtain buy-in. This means that a leader should make sure that as many as possible accept and understand the vision. In the case of Andrea Jung, she made the sacrifice to fly to the countries where Avon operated in order to communicate to the people what changes the organizations would go through; what occurrences led to the need for the change; and what she hoped to accomplish from implementing this change. By making sure that everyone in the organization understood these, there are higher chances that the employees would be committed to the change and would not resist it.
A third lesson that I got from the case is that a change in organizational culture is needed in order for the change to be successfully implemented. For example, while autonomy is good, this can lead to things getting out of hand. Such was the case with Avon. To put things in order and to solve the problems that the company was experiencing, the culture had to be changed from decentralized to centralized. This allowed management to have more control over the operations of the various country offices, which ensured that all the offices were aligned and were using the same strategy for achieving a common objective. This can be likened to the change management strategy implemented by the Environ MegaProject where the culture was changed from decentralized and autonomous to one that was centralized and bureaucratic in order for management to gain more control over the organization and ensure that the organization’s operations went smoothly (Marewijk, 2006).
- How effective are Machiavellian tendencies in a change effort? Give an example to support your answer.
According to the Machiavellian leadership style, a leader must do everything to preserve the state, even if it meant resorting to deception and cruelty (Hill, 2009). If we look at history, some of the Machiavellian leaders included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. They were cruel and did everything to achieve their goals. However, in the end, it led to their downfall as well as that of their subordinates. As such, a Machiavellian leadership style in its truest sense won’t be effective in implementing change.
However, if decisions like implementing reductions in force and removing managers and leaders who resist the change would be considered Machiavellian in some way, then these actions may prove to be helpful in ensuring the effective implementation of a change management initiative. For example, if reducing the work force will lead to the company becoming more financially healthy then the reduction in force can be considered reasonable and proper. In the same manner, if some managers resist the change then it may also be reasonable to remove them as they might just influence more people to resist the change. If these examples can be considered partly Machiavellian in their approach then yes, they can be effectively used to implement change. However, Machiavellian tactics can be effective only as short-term solutions to change management problems and cannot be used to sustain the change. Especially in our present time when people are used to democracy, they will likely resent the harsh conditions presented by a Machiavellian-style leadership if it were implemented in the long-term.
References
Dubrin, A. J. (2010). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Mason, OH: Cengage
Learning.
Hill, H. (2009, August 8). Machiavellian-style leadership. Retrieved from
http://thetandd.com/news/opinion/machiavellian-style-leadership/article_c8ea4911-839a-
5c48-b1d9-c7e80ed3734f.html.
Marewijk, A. V. (2006). Managing project culture: The case of Environ Megaproject.
International Journal of Project Management, 25, 290-299.
The 8-step Process for leading change. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps/changesteps.
