This paper aims to support the statement that a team is more efficient in leading of organizational changes in comparison with just one person.
From a personal perspective, a team is more efficient in this process than a single person. It goes without saying that collective leading has particular limitations, such as a lack of control over its members and potential differences in members’ strategic views that may lead to serious disputes and confrontations (Dodgson, Gann and Satter, 2008; Goffin and Mitchell, 2017; Hayes, 2018). However, these barriers may be overcome, and the leading of organizational changes by a team has more substantial benefits.
Regardless of potential conflicts, the differences in team members’ approaches, opinions, perceptions, and perspectives traditionally lead to more effective solutions and ways of change implementation. In addition, the organization of processes and total control by a single person may be suitable for the slow-moving companies of the past (Gleeson, no date). In the present day, a highly competitive environment and the complexity of business aspects make individual approach almost impossible as one person cannot have enough knowledge, skills, and experience for to solve of all corporate issues (Clegg, Harris and Hopfl, 2011; Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015). Finally, a collective approach is essential for preparing people for changes. In a considerable number of organizations, innovations meet employees’ refusal due to a lack of understanding in relation to their purpose (Galbraith, 2018; Warrell, 2017). In turn, several team members may facilitate the spread of awareness and attract people to new organizational principles, strategies, and activities.
The advantages of the collective approach may be observed using the example of Starbucks. In 2008, the company experienced a significant earnings loss and the closure of multiple locations (Periyasamy, 2022). However, Starbucks initiated a campaign attracting its consumers and asking them to share their ideas on how it may be improved (Starbucks celebrates five-year anniversary of My Starbucks Idea, 2013). The implementation of some suggestions allowed Starbucks to regain its popularity. Although the company’s approach cannot be regarded as a team’s leading in the classic sense, it demonstrates how the involvement of people positively impacts change management. In addition, the same approach is essential in PowerDoc, in which changes were initiated by a single person – the finance director (PowerDoc, no date). In turn, the process would be more efficient if the necessity of change and various options were discussed between directors and secretaries.
Reference List
Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015) ‘Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change,’ Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp. 234-262.
Clegg, S. R., Harris, M. and Hopfl, H. (2011) Managing modernity: beyond bureaucracy? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Satter, A. (2008) The management of technological innovation: strategy and practice. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Galbraith, M. (2018) Don’t just tell employees organizational changes are coming — explain why. Web.
Gleeson, B. (no date) Organizational change, and why you can’t go it alone. Web.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2017) Innovation management: effective strategy and implementation. New York, NY: Red Global Press.
Hayes, R. (2018) The theory and practice of change management. Basingstone: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Periyasamy, R. (2022) 4 successful enterprise change management examples. Web.
PowerDoc: a case study examination of information technology, strategic choice and the management of change (no date) pp. 1-4.
Starbucks celebrates five-year anniversary of My Starbucks Idea (2013) Web.
Warrell, M. (2017) How the best leaders get people on board with change. Web.