Change Images: Image Analysis HRM 587 Managing Organization ✓ Solved

CHANGE IMAGES Change Image Analysis HRM 587: Managing Organizational

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast recent changes at two public companies, Tesla and GM. It will demonstrate how the management of each organization integrated one or more of the six images of managing change, how effective the change was, and what management could have done differently to increase the probability of successfully implementing the strategic change initiative.

Overview of Changes Tesla. Amidst concerns from investors for Tesla to turn a profit in the second quarter of 2018, CEO and founder, Elon Musk, predicted the company would do so by increasing its production rate of Model 3 sedans from 2,270 units per week to 5,000 per week. Such a feat would require intense re-engineering of their production processes, and so Musk and his team decided to invest heavily in automation, betting that robots would be more capable of achieving the increased line speeds over humans. The production problems that would ensue would be casually referred to as “production hell” by Musk himself. Tesla would ultimately overcome their production challenge by building a brand new assembly plant under a semi-permanent tent structure next to their existing assembly plant in Fremont, CA, and backing off the automation. This proved to be a successful venture, as Tesla was proud to report weekly production exceeding 5,000 cars multiple times during the second quarter of 2018 and turning Model 3 gross margin “slightly positive.” Many of the decisions made throughout this tumultuous journey came amidst dramatic turnover in Tesla’s corporate ranks, and as Musk reorganized Tesla to have a flatter corporate structure. Musk also built a reputation within the company for firing engineers who couldn’t match his expectations on the spot.

GM. Comparison of Change Images The three images selected are Director, Caretaker, and Nurturer. Both Director and Caretaker change images are controlling management styles, whereas Nurturer is a shaping management style. Furthermore, the Director change image has very intentional outcomes, whereas Caretaker and Nurturer have unintended outcomes. In effect, the Director and Nurturer change images are polar opposites of each other; Director being intended control, and Nurturer being unintended shaping. In the case of Tesla, the organization’s challenge was to quickly become profitable. The path that Elon Musk decided to take to get there was by increasing revenues through increased production capacity, and by reducing costs through a flattened management structure. Both executive actions were handed down hastily, leaving the organization feeling much more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

GM, on the other hand, under the leadership of Mary Barra as CEO, put forth a vision that radically changed course from its existing business model, but did so cohesively in a manner that considered the interests of all stakeholders, even if that meant making some unpopular decisions to shut down its underperforming operations.

The Director change image, if executed properly, provides clear direction on who needs to do what to accomplish a very specific outcome. In a time of crisis, where the organization is in need of urgent change to survive, the Director change image is well-suited but depends heavily on the competence and clarity of mind of the person leading the change. Elon Musk has proven himself to be a highly competent individual. However, in this time of crisis and extreme stress, Musk’s competence as a leader of people was questionable, resulting in hundreds of professional casualties along the way. In GM’s case, the Director change image could stifle innovation.

GM set out a bold vision of “a world with zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion through the creation of electric, self-driving, connected vehicles and shared mobility services that will transform how we get around.” This is a vivid description of GM’s vision, yet the necessary steps to get there are still relatively unclear. A company as large and diversified as GM would struggle to realize that vision under tight controls relayed through numerous management layers. If there was a clear instruction manual on how to achieve that vision, then a Director change image may be more suitable.

The Caretaker change image is well suited for changes in which the organization has little control over internal and external forces. The caretaker accepts the challenges faced and decides how to redirect efforts for the greatest chance of survival. Caretakers provide strength and resilience by unifying the organization through established norms. In Tesla's case, external forces had little significance, as they were primarily their own worst enemy due to over-ambition and fiscal irresponsibility. The Caretaker image might have worked well for Tesla if Musk had allowed another leader to regain the confidence of employees.

Since GM’s change is taking place over a longer timeline, there is less certainty as to what may impede or accelerate their mission. Factors including economic cycles, pandemics, legislative policies, climate change, and organized labor can significantly influence their path. A Caretaker change image is more suited for GM's changing environment compared to Tesla's.

The Nurturer change image fosters desirable qualities, allowing individuals to succeed in their own way. This approach would be better suited for organizations seeking long-term goals, focusing on developing talent. It does not fit well with crisis management as seen in Tesla’s situation. As Tesla has emerged from crisis, now might be a better time to adopt this image.

In summary, the comparison of change images reveals that the Director and Nurturer approaches each have strengths and weaknesses depending on organizational context and goals. Tesla’s management faced challenges requiring a more directive style, whereas GM could balance a more nurturing yet structured approach to drive innovation and direction.

Paper For Above Instructions

The analysis of change management at Tesla and GM provides valuable insights into how organizations navigate crises and implement strategic initiatives. Tesla's dynamic approach under Elon Musk's leadership contrasts sharply with GM's more measured strategy under Mary Barra. Each company's experience illustrates the importance of selecting appropriate change management styles based on organizational circumstances.

Tesla, founded in 2003, has rapidly evolved from a niche electric vehicle company to a leading force in the automotive industry. Under Musk's direction, the company embraced innovation and aggressive growth strategies. During the tumultuous production phase of the Model 3, Musk's reliance on automation showcased the urgency for immediate profitability. The decision to scale production from 2,270 to 5,000 units per week exemplified the Director change image, emphasizing direct control and outcome focus. However, this approach led to significant internal struggles and dissatisfaction among employees due to the intense pressure and high expectations placed upon them (Debord, 2017).

In contrast, GM's strategic shift towards electric and self-driving vehicles reveals a fundamental understanding of stakeholder interests and long-term vision. CEO Mary Barra's leadership style and the company's focus on a collaborative environment enabled thorough communication and input from various parties, aligning with the Caretaker and Nurturer images (General Motors, 2018). This inclusive approach not only improved stakeholder buy-in but enhanced morale within the workforce as GM announced plans to reduce its carbon footprint and transform the automotive landscape.

As Tesla faced “production hell” characterized by setbacks, Musk's unyielding push for automation left many in the organization feeling undervalued (Duhigg, 2018). Nonetheless, the ultimate construction of a second assembly plant allowed Tesla to regain ground, although questions remained about the sustainability of its workforce morale and innovative culture. Musk's inability to adopt a more nurturing or nurturing image during the crisis may have hindered his team’s creative potential and long-term loyalty.

On the other hand, GM displayed effective adaptability by considering broader industry transformations, diversifying from traditional combustion-engine vehicles to electric and autonomous technologies. This strategic foresight acknowledged the realities of change in a highly regulated and competitive market (Hawkins & O’Kane, 2018). The company's vision to transition towards a zero-emission future projected an ambitious roadmap, signaling a strategic embrace of responsibility towards environmental and societal needs (General Motors, 2018).

The juxtaposition of Tesla's aggressive production-focused strategy and GM's visionary adaptations highlights the role of management in executing organizational changes. While each company employed distinct change management styles, they both faced their unique challenges. Tesla's challenges under Musk's directorship raise questions about balance in leadership and employee engagement, while GM’s transition emphasizes the importance of aligning the corporate vision with stakeholder interests.

The comparative analysis underscores that a singular approach to change management may not be viable in all contexts; flexibility in adapting strategies to suit prevailing conditions is essential for success. Organizations facing existential threats must assess their internal dynamics and external demands thoroughly to align their change images effectively. Ultimately, as seen in the cases of Tesla and GM, the capacity to adapt while maintaining core values will determine future success in the evolving automotive landscape.

References

• Debord, M. (2017). Elon Musk on Model 3: 'We're going to go through at least 6 months of production hell'. Business Insider. Retrieved from [businessinsider.com]

• Duhigg, C. (2018). Dr. Elon & Mr. Musk: Life Inside Tesla's Production Hell. Wired. Retrieved from [wired.com]

• General Motors. (2018). Proxy statement and notice of 2018 annual meeting of shareholders. Retrieved from [generalmotors.com]

• Gibson, K. (2018). Tesla reorganization comes as top executives depart automaker. CBS News. Retrieved from [cbsnews.com]

• Hawkins, A., & O’Kane, S. (2018). Tesla built a giant tent to expand production of the Model 3. The Verge. Retrieved from [theverge.com]

• Tesla. (April, 2018). Tesla First Quarter 2018 Update. Retrieved from [tesla.com]

• Tesla. (July, 2018). Tesla Second Quarter 2018 Update. Retrieved from [tesla.com]

• Vincent, J. (2017). Tesla buys automated manufacturing firm as it struggles with production. The Verge. Retrieved from [theverge.com]