Question 1

There will be a number of realistic assumptions that will be added to the issues and problems
expressed in this case. As it is noted from the case, Tommy and Khadija have made a number
of recommendations for growth of the company. However, these recommendations can give
rise to a number of problems. These are discussed here in terms of assumptions.

The first assumption involves the problems related to the management. It is noted that the
changes that are being proposed are likely to cause disruption to the management’s status quo
and how the management is carrying out its current managerial activities (Hersey, et al., 2008).
The second assumption involves the change processes in the organization and the proposed
changes are already being resisted by many parties in the organization, thereby causing the
change program to experience difficulties (Holmes, 2012). The third assumption involves the
managerial information systems used at the company. It is likely that the changes made would
result in an increase in the IT related requirements and it is likely that the present information
systems being used at the company cannot handle the changes that are to be implemented
(Gomez-Mejia, et al., 2008). The fourth assumption has to do with technology and the need for
adoption of more advanced technology in order to cope with the proposed changes (Hill &
Jones, 2012). The fifth assumption is related to competitors and it is believed that competition
is likely to increase when the proposals are implemented mainly because of the entry of the
company in a number of new industries which it previously has not competed in (Miner, 2005).
The sixth assumption has to do with customers and in relation to all the proposed changes
made, it is likely that the company has to reassess its segmentation, targeting and positioning
strategies in order to ensure that it is able to establish an effective target market for its new
business line and products (Gomez-Mejia, et al., 2008).
Question 2

In reference to the classic article by Larry Greiner, there will be an explanation about what is
happening between growth and change in BTS. The company is growing at the moment but
there are proposed changes that are being planned in the company. Greiner’s organizational
growth model is viewed as a very effective growth model in literature (Gomez-Mejia, et al.,
2008). Greiner had proposed six phases of growth in his model. The first phase is known as
growth through creativity and at this phase the organization is growing very fast and it becomes
difficult to control (Holmes, 2012). In BTS, the growth being proposed would make it difficult
for the present management to carry out coordination and internal control because of the new
requirements that might arise (Kiechel, 2010). The second phase is the growth through
direction and as the organisation grows and becomes larger, there might be an autonomy crisis
that comes about because middle managers in the company would look for more autonomy
(Kiechel, 2010). The next phase is growth through delegation and the growth of BTS would
mean a larger presence of divisional managers, thereby making it more difficult for the
management board to coordinate all the divisions that operation independently in the company
(Robbins, 2009). The following phase is growth through coordination and control. As the
company grows, the staff will start having more power and when there is too little scope for
the divisional managers, there would be a red tape crisis that might arise at BTS (Robbins,
2009). At the sixth phase, there is growth through alliance and at this phase, BTS would be
focused more on its alliances with other companies in the industry and not focused on its core
business and this is likely to give rise to an identity crisis (Wagner & Hollenbeck , 2010). This
model provides insights into the various growth phases in the organization and the Greiner
growth model can be used as a tool for BTS to address growth related issued when it starts
implementing changes that are being recommended by Tommy and Khadija.

There will now be a comparison of this with what Malhotra and Hinings indicate on continuity
and change (Miner, 2005). According to Malhotra and Hinnings, there is a lot of evidence
which suggests that organizational transformations would take place through a process of
continuity and change, and not as disruptive upheaval (Holmes, 2012). They claim that as a
response to change initiatives, the stronger the degree to which the competing values for
continuity and change are expressed, it follows that the stronger the simultaneous forces that
would pushing back and push for the change, and this would produce a kind of energy which
is able to propel the change process at a company like BTS (Wagner & Hollenbeck , 2010).
According to them, energy would permeate through emotions which are provoked. Secondly,
the energy that is develop by expressing competing values is channelled into awareness
building at BTS, and this would then compel the parties involved to confront and debate the
different contradictory perspectives that pave the way for there mutual exploration of the
change initiatives at the company (Kiechel, 2010). In contrast, if the energy that is suppressed
would lead to awareness blocking, there would not be any debate and the fight between the
different competing values would become more intensive as though was in competition (Miner,
2005). Thirdly, the concept of mutual exploration would shape continuity and change to come
about as a synthesizing pattern, while the competition between different competing values
would invoke a polarizing pattern at BTS (Wagner & Hollenbeck , 2010). The synthesizing
would then create a much greater potential for BTS to achieve the intended change. It was
found that when there no strong expression of different competing values, there is very little
energy that is produced in order to fuel the process of transformation, however, it is likely to
generate pre-emptive defensiveness from those who are tending towards continuity in relating
to the prevailing values (Whetten, 2002). According to Malhotra and Hinnings, continuity and
change merely drift along with very little drifting away from the status quo (Robbins, 2009).
Question 3

In this part, there will be a discussion about how this problem statement for BTS resembles
what Gersick indicates about a systems deep structure. There will be a discussion about the
consistencies that exist between the facts in BTS and the descriptions of deep structure by
Gersick (Hill & Jones, 2012). In essence, there are three main components in Gersick’s models
and these comprise of deep structure, equilibrium periods and revolutionary periods. Deep
structure describes the fundamental and highly stable elements of a particular system which
define the system’s basic units of organization and the activity pattern that is needed to maintain
the existence of the system (Hersey, et al., 2008). Deep structures are the fundamental choices
which the organisation would make and these are known to determine the basic activity pattern
of the organization which maintains their existence (Gomez-Mejia, et al., 2008). Deep
structures are very stable because of the trail of choices which rules out any kind of options
that are detrimental to the existence and rules within those options that are meant to maintain
its continuity (Hill & Jones, 2012). It is also suggested that the deep structures of BTS would
reinforce the entire system because of its mutual feedback loops. In essence, there are five
domains which are meant to represent BTS’s deep structure and these are culture, strategy,
distribution of power, structure and control systems (Miner, 2006). When it comes to an
organizational group like BTS, this deep structure comprises of interpretive frameworks that
would describe patterns of interactions, performance strategies or assumptions about the
group’s tasks or the external environment (Wagner & Hollenbeck , 2010). According to
Gersick, deep structure are the rules of the game and the equilibrium periods as the game in
play. At BTS, Tommy and Khadija want to bring positive changes to the organization and to
help the company grow (Miner, 2006). They intend to implement a number of changes that are
meant to help the company achieve success for the long term. However, many of these changes
would result in dramatic staff decreases and management restructuring in order to streamline
cost and efficiency, two-way product stretches between the old and the new production, while
simultaneously tackling competition that comes from other suppliers. The proposed changes
are likely to cause mayhem in the management ranks of BTS. Hence, it is apparent that such
changes might be too radical and too complicated to be implemented altogether and that such
changes might disrupt the deep structures at BTS. If these highly stable elements of the
particular system are disrupted, the organization might plunge into chaos (Kiechel, 2010).
Question 4

With reference to the article by Dailey and Browning, there will be an explanation about how
and why narratives and storytelling is useful for BTS (Gomez-Mejia, et al., 2008). According
to Dailey and Browning, scholars have made an exploration of the narrative repetition for its
very rich conceptual depth (Robbins, 2009). They claim that there are three dualities that are
usually produced through repetition, and these are essentially grounded in various cultural
issues of sameness and difference (Robbins, 2009). For an organization like BTS, these kinds
of dualities, namely control/resistance, differentiation/integration, and stability/change, are
known to generate a greater and more sophisticated understanding of the inherent complexity
of narrative as a way of interpretation and it also offers a transformative view of the narrative
which describes the way that the meaning of stories would change over a period of time
(Whetten, 2002). When the same story is repeated, there are certain people at BTS, such as the
management team, who might interpret the narrative of stability, but others might sense a hint
of change (Hill & Jones, 2012). In addition, narrative repetition is a contemporary methodology
used for organizational research and the recommendation made by Dailey and Browning is that
BTS must use the recurrence of a story as an essential starting point for inquiry into the cultural
life of the organization and it paves the way for a greater understanding of the changes that are
being proposed at the company (Miner, 2006).

Dailey and Browning state that because narratives are very interesting, both within their initial
and repeated telling, stories are usually retold in organizations (Montana & Bruce, 2008).
Whether it is the story about the launch of a new product or changing the way the organization
is managed, people would tend to tune in when the story is repeated (Wagner & Hollenbeck ,
2010). Because attention is a very scarce resource in the organization, retelling the story is an
effective method of garnering it in BTS and gathering support for the change (Gomez-Mejia,
et al., 2008).
Question 5

With reference to Hayes (2014), there will be a discussion of the different modes that change
agents in BTS can use and the reason why. It will also be determined as to who the change
agents in BTS would be if the change occurs (Hill & Jones, 2012). Hayes presented a process
model of change and the management of change is conceptualized as being purposeful,
constructed and contested, and requiring a number of core activities that need to be attended to
(Montana & Bruce, 2008). According to Hayes, (2014), the leadership is a process that involves
influencing others in order to achieve certain pre-set goals (Kiechel, 2010). The first step in the
change model by Hayes (2014) involves the recognition of the need to change. According to
Hayes, (2014), the recognition of the need for change is a very complex process that involves
skills of perception and interpretation and at BTS, this phase must be properly managed in
order to ensure that the change program succeeds. The second phase involves the start of the
change process phase and this phase is about generating the desire for change (Robbins, 2009).
It is claimed that at this phased, the support from the stakeholders of BTS cannot be forced
during the change process and it must come voluntarily from them (Montana & Bruce, 2008).
The next phase involves generating the desire for the change among the main stakeholders of
BTS possibly by highlighting the need for change and the benefits that it would bring in the
long term. The next phase involves the diagnosis phase of the change process and this is a very
integral part of the change process. At this phase, the current and future situation of BTS must
be reviewed in order to assess the direction and the intensity of the change process (Miner,
2005). This would make the main stakeholders at BTS to become more engaged with the future
direction of the change. The next phase is the planning and preparing for the implementation
of change and this would provide the blueprint for the subsequent phases of change at BTS and
it would also ensure that key elements within the change process are not overlooked (Montana
& Bruce, 2008). The implementation of change is the next and it is here that the main activities
relating to the change process would be implemented. It is here that the focus at BTS changes
from planning to action (Miner, 2006). The last step of the change process is the review process
and it is here that the change would be assessed to determine whether the change related
objectives have been satisfied (Miner, 2005).

At BTS, the main change agents would be the proponents of change and these include Tommy
and Khadija. They are the persons who want to bring about changes in the company and it is
them who have the most knowledge and information about the nature of the change in the
company. Hence, the are the persons who must take the lead as change agents and convince
the other main stakeholders in the organization about the need for change.

Question 6

Given the Typology of Organisational Change, there will be a discussion of the typology which
is able to best describe the approach that BTS might adopt and why. Generally speaking, there
are different typologies of change and these include a combination of continuous and
discontinuous change with the way the organization responds to change (either proactive or
reactive). For this change process, it is recommended that the change agents embrace the
gradualist paradigm for change (Miner, 2005). According to this paradigm, BTS the change
must not be implemented abruptly and it must be a slow process. It involves change being
implemented over a period of time so that proper structural changes can be implemented in the
organization to accommodate the change. This would involve a process of change and
development via a continuous process of incremental adjustment at BTS (Montana & Bruce,
2008). These kinds of adjustments would accumulate over a time in order to ensure that the
organization is always aligned with the variables in the external environment (Wagner &
Hollenbeck , 2010). Such a change strategy would ensure slow and gradual change in the
organization with minimal problems and maximum effectiveness (Robbins, 2009). It would
also ensure that the stakeholders can see the positive results of the change as it unfolds and to
cease the changes in the event of negative outcomes (Kiechel, 2010).
References

Gomez-Mejia, L., David, B. & Balkin, R., 2008. Management: People, Performance, Change,
3rd edition. New York, New York USA:. s.l.:McGraw-Hill.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. & Johnson, D., 2008. Management of Organizational Behavior:
Leading Human Resources. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hill, C. & Jones, G., 2012. Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. 10th ed.
s.l.:Cengage Learning.

Holmes, L., 2012. The Dominance of Management: A Participatory Critique. Voices in

Development Management. s.l.:Ashgate Publishing.

Kiechel, W., 2010. The Lords of Strategy. s.l.:Harvard Business Press.

Miner, J., 2005. Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and
Leadership. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Miner, J., 2006. Organizational behavior, Vol. 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations,
and the future.. Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.

Montana, P. & Bruce, H., 2008. Management. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational
Series, Inc.

Robbins, S., 2004. Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 4th ed.
s.l.:Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S., 2009. Organizational behaviour. Cape Town: Pearson.

Wagner, J. & Hollenbeck , J., 2010. Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage.
New York: Routledge.

Whetten, D., 2002. Developing Management Skills. s.l.:Prentice Hall.