Woodlands Community Center Corporation Case Analysis Essay Example for Free

Woodlands Community Center Corporation Case Analysis Essay The Woodland Community Center Cooperation (WCCC) had been established in 1926 by a social worker who thought that Woodland, an East Coast seaport town, would benefit from a variety of social and human services. Alain Yates, the longest serving executive director, was a long standing icon in the organization for many years, and due to a mixture of longevity and assertion, had shaped the organizational culture of the agency during his time of leadership. He had established a culture that didn’t necessarily reward what would be considered the â€Å"norm†; such has hard work and excellence. Instead he rewarded seniority and loyalty to the organization, and above all, loyalty to him. Employees advanced through becoming Yates’ â€Å"pet† employees, and received perks such as parking and expensive trips to out of state conferences. This preferential behavior created a rift within the organization and its employees. If people complained, then they were slowly trickled out by Yates, and replaced by more loyal employees. After 25 years of service, Yates retired, and while naming his suggestion for a successor, the board quickly and surprisingly undermined his influence and hired Fred Chambers. Fred was a man of substance and experience, and they needed someone to come in and not only change he organizational culture, but improve it. Fred’s wife had advised against taking this appointment, yet Fred took on the challenge, and in this case analysis we meet Fred just as he is beginning to take in the breadth of this challenge. Organization culture at Woodland Community Center Corporation was based on the values imposed by Yates. He believed that â€Å"seniority was sacrosanct, and neither creativity nor hard work replaced it† (McShane 539). This created a dominant organizational culture that believed that loyalty to Alan Yates was all that mattered, considering that the employees enjoyed a secure work environment as few employees ere fired for poor work ethic. â€Å"The key to employee survival and its attendant rewards was loyalty, not competency. Furthermore, loyalty was the sole way to advance in the agency or to receive pay increases for the agency’s over 100 employees† (McShane 539). As Yates continued his tenure, the organization was becoming more incestuous and a breeding ground for a groupthink mentality. â€Å"the agency had one characteristic in common: they swore undying loyalty to Yates† (McShane 539). Although Yates dominated the organizational culture with his own values, there was still a certain subculture that opposed him. The employees who were not impressed by Yates created the counterculture considering that they directly opposed the dominant values in the organization. They tried to maintain the organization’s standards of performance and ethical behavior as one employee stated â€Å"we are committed to working for the betterment of the agency and its clients, and we will stay despite Yates preferential treatment of pet employees† (McShane 539). They tried to maintain the values that kept the firm aligned with the needs of the society and other stakeholders. The subculture opposed to Yates could have been helpful in changing the dominant culture upon his retirement, but the executive director was able to suppress it over time. Employees that were part of the subculture began to retire of slowly trickle out because they could not longer tolerate â€Å"employment injustices† (McShane 540). Each employee that left would then be replaced by a loyal Yates supporter, which made in the more difficult for the New Executive Director Fred Chambers to change contaminated culture. In reading about organizational cultures, our text places images of strong, adaptive cultures. Cultures where the employees strive to improve customer focus and carry on long standing traditions that have carried the success of the companies. However, in this week’s case study, we find a great example of what a weak organizational structure is. Alan Yates has instilled a weak organizational culture during his tenure at WCCC. While at WCCC Alan Yates has allowed an organization culture that has slide away from customer services and has not become adaptive. The organizational culture has become one were loyalty and servitude has more value than ability and knowledge. â€Å"The key to employee survival and its attendant rewards was loyalty, not competency† (McShane 539). From this quote, it is clear to see that Alan Yates has created a culture of â€Å"yes† people, loyal to him and unable to correctly serve their client base. Furthermore, the organizational culture is being eroded as â€Å"adaptive† employees leave the company (McShane 467). As stated before, the organizational culture is further weakened by Mr. Yates as more experienced and â€Å"adaptive† employees are alienated and replaced by â€Å"in-crowd† employees. As the experienced employees leave, they erode the company by taking away many of the â€Å"rituals, legends and ceremonies† of the company (McShane 464). As the more experienced employees leave the company, many of the rituals, legends and ceremonies that had made WCCC successful will be lost, as they will be lost in the transition to new employees. The text also describes the three important functions of a strong culture, â€Å"Control system, Social glue and Sense making† (McShane 466). Again, it is interesting to see how a weak organizational culture works. Looking at WCCC’s control system with Mr. Yates, it is evident that a â€Å"deeply embedded form of social control that influences employee decisions and behavior† is present in the company (McShane 466). The only problem is the control system is too strong and influential. An example from the case study cites â€Å"Both, regardless of how they arrived at the agency, had one characteristic in common: They swore loyalty to Yates† (McShane 540). As more employees became loyal to Yates, the control system became to strong. The weakest part of the culture is tied to the â€Å"social glue† (McShane 466). â€Å"Organizational culture is the â€Å"social glue† that bonds people together and makes them feel part of the organizational experience† (McShane 466). The case study talks of a â€Å"growing rift† among employees that are loyal or not to Yates (McShane 539). The organizational culture suffers from a split in the employees as more experienced employees feel left out by Yates. This effectively shows a lack of â€Å"social glue† within the organizational culture of WCCC. Overall, it is easy to see that the organizational culture during Mr. Yates tenure has been significantly decreased at WCCC. The company lacks any â€Å"social glue† that could improve employee moral and it further harmed by the overbearing control of Mr. Yates. During his 25 year stay at WCCC, Mr. Yates has turned the organizational culture to nothing more than a â€Å"yes† culture. Fred Chambers is well aware how much organizational change is needed at the Woodland Community Center Corporation. There are both driving and restraining forces for change found in this case which will make Fred Chambers’ new position of executive director a difficult one. It is his goal to effectively manage these forces in order to successfully point the Woodland Community Center Corporation into a new direction. Alain Yates left a divided and unhappy workforce for Fred Chambers to fix. â€Å"Yates had encouraged policies of â€Å"double standards† that de-motivated some long-term and industrious agency employees. (McShane 532) Yates had his favorite employees and those who were within his inner circle. Certain people had reserved parking spots, whereas others had to park far away and take the long walk to the building from their car in inclement weather. Others were not allowed to go to training sessions to further their knowledge while they stood buy and watched certain employees go to expensive out of state conferences. â€Å"Yates’s actions resulted in a small but noticeable agency fissure that led to a growing rift between employees who sought to excel and those who just got by on their loyalty. ( McShane 532) Employees wanted to be rewarded for their work ethic and not their loyalty. People would no longer go the extra mile if they weren’t in Yates’s inner circle. This is a definite driving force for change. Fair and equal treatment needs to be implemented throughout the corporation. Despite all of the negative practices that Alain Yates implemented, those employees who were not treated fairly did not leave WCCC. They were paid very well and had a drive to help the clients that the agency worked with. Eventually, most of these employees left and were replaced by loyal supporters of Yates. Chambers needs to drive home that sense of loyalty to Woodland Community Center Corporation’s clients to those employees who remained despite not being in Yates’s inner circle. These employees need to still be competitively paid and reassured that their work will be appreciated. On the other hand, most of the employees of WCCC are loyal to Alain Yates and Fred Chambers will have an up road battle to convince the supporters of Yates that he will do a great job. Fred Chambers will most likely face many restraining forces for change. In some situations employees may be worried about the consequences of change, such as how the new conditions will take away their power and status. In other situations, employees show resistance because of concerns about the process of change itself, such as the effort required to break old habits and learn new skills. †(McShane 490) Fred Chambers needs to set a standard of equality. Yates’s inner circle no longer exists, and these employees need to know that they have to step up to the challenge and prove themselves. One resistance to change is the fear of the unknown. Employees do not know what is in stored for them. People resist change out of worry that they cannot adjust to the new work requirements. †(McShane 491) Workers might not have performed up to their potential because they were favored by Yates. Another resistance to change is when a routine is broken. â€Å"This means employees need to abandon behavioral routines that are no longer appropriate. †(McShane 491) Employees will not be used to the style of Fred Chambers. He most likely wants to do things differently, and they will have to adjust accordingly. Fred Chambers needs to approach organizational change from an evolutionary perspective. Alain Yates had run the WCCC for twenty five years. Many of the employees had been there for a long time and have been accustomed to his leadership style. Fred Chambers needs to implement certain changes right away, but at the same time, one does not want to rock the boat too much. He must create a more equal and level playing field for all employees. Chambers must gain the trust of all his workers and prove to them that he is dedicated to them, the organization, and most importantly, the company’s clients. By being too aggressive in his actions, Chambers will not give off a good impression and turn a lot of people off. He needs to use tact and apply his experiences to his new position. Over the next year or two, employees will realize that they are valued by the work they do and not by the personal connections they may have. Fred Chambers is required to make a lot of changes, and to convince a staff who has been conditioned to be loyal to a man who is no longer at the helm of the ship. Additionally, it seems that decisions had been made that weren’t pro-business, only pro-Yates. These will need to be reversed, which will naturally result in push back from the employees who had had these perks-who wants to give up a good parking spot? We believe that change really needs to begin at the bottom with the employees. First, Chambers should hold a meeting, outlining some initial changes within the organization, as well as explaining what in the world would make the board make such decisions. Providing some transparency at the top would help build some trust from employees. It would be important to not dwell on the past, but to focus on the future. He should talk about how important it is that people focus on the increased productivity and services of the organization, as opposed to the past which was riddled with preferential treatment and poor business decisions. The opportunities here far outweigh negativity brought by employees entrenched in the previous culture. This is an opportunity to have the employees really concentrate and recommit to the mission and vision of the organization. Perhaps he could do a workshop outlining goals, and the mission/vision of the organization. The future of the organizations fiscal and organizational health lies in Fred’s ability to gain the trust of the employees and then steer them towards good work product output, expectations of advancement when warranted through good work, and perhaps some leaner times financially, if there need to be lay offs. Fred needs to make the employees feel as though they belong to an organization who works well together. Create a sense of belonging. This is how Yates succeeded in turning the culture in his way, and it won’t be too difficult to do the same. Chambers also has a leg up when it comes to cost cutting. He will be able to outline to the entire organization that expenses such as trips, far away conferences and training will not be available to anyone, regardless of the reason or connection. This will allow people to see that Chambers will not play favorites, which has been an issue of concern in the past. It also tells the employees that there are financial concerns, and they should be cognizant of where they spend money. While there will be some initial push back, Chambers can and we believe will succeed. He has experience in running non profits; he is a seasoned professional in dealing with non-profit staff. Chambers should approach this challenge with the belief that what one poor leader had done can be undone by a strong leader with a good understanding of the culture, the people, and a strong commitment to the success of the organization.