Reference no: EM132714819
CASE STUDY The Reluctant CEO
To reduce cost and improve customer service, a financial group wanted to consolidate its customer contact centers across several divisions. A consultant was hired to support the effort and to prepare implementation plans. The project no more than began when rumor spread through several departments that this organizational change was not good for the company.
Supervisors and key managers in the existing customer care centers began resisting the change. In some cases they would not show up for design reviews or miss key decision-making meetings. Information requested by the consultant and the design team was withheld or half-complete. At breaks and around the coffee pot, employees complained about potential leadership changes. Both employees and managers were distracted from their day-to-day work and productivity suffered. Key managers were rumored to quit if the change was implemented.
The consulting firm met with the CEO, repeatedly warning that this resistance would undermine his change and would ultimately begin to affect customers. The CEO, however, was reluctant to become personally involved. He viewed change management as the job of his project team and the consultant, and not the responsibility of the head of the company. After several months of difficulties and delays, the consultants finally declared the consolidation in jeopardy.
With the project at a stand-still, the CEO requested an emergency briefing with his leadership team. To prepare for this status report, the consultants conducted interviews with key managers throughout each department. They quickly identified a manager in an existing customer care center who viewed his job at risk with the potential change.
Arguments against the change initiated by this manager were spreading throughout the ranks. His supervisors were the same people who were presumably threatening to leave the organization.
Even armed with this information, the CEO remained reluctant to take definitive action. The only recourse at this stage was reassignment or termination of this manager. Both options could have negative fall-out for the company and the affected manager. The CEO was faced with a stalled project and a potentially lose-lose decision for a long-tenured manager.
Questions:
Q. What mistakes CEO has made in this case?
Q. What solutions do you provide to reduce resistance to change?