Management and University Simmons Case Essay

In time of economic crisis, companies be looking for sophisticated methods to change doing and to cooperate the postulates of a diverse workforce in order to improve or maintain the physical compositions profit margin in a stress global economy. Indeed, companies argon extremely concerned about their future, as well as, preventing closure of their establishment. SimmonsCompany is no exception.However, how does a major association make those changes when tradition is the foundation of their giving medication and the economic status of their club is in jeopardize of folding, if the right stopping point is not make? The need to allocation funds for the training and growth of its and employees when major debts atomic number 18 owed to the company and so, threatening bankruptcy is a trouble facing Simmons Company.Accordingly, there is certainly a need to change the finishing and structure of the organization, if it wants to survive a depressed economy, while other organiza tions ar advancing. In so doing, the company is considering the Great Game of Life (GGOL) whose implicit in(p) purpose is to change the dynamics of an organization in order to get through maximum satisfaction for both the customers and employees.If customers and employees argon satisfied, they are loyal, cooperative and creative, thus creating a culture conducive to the workforce. In order to establish such an environment, it is necessary to empower its workers by changing the attitude of each racing shell-by-case employed by Simpson Company. The schedule will be used to improve morality and empower the lower level of the company in playacting their respective jobs in order to improve the outcome of the company.Changes are a lot difficult to make and, are usually resisted from the top because control of the company is centralized. The result is a poor culture and dictatorial practices. Immediate changes are normally discouraged by those in control, but stepwise changes ar e encouraged, if d wholeness overtime or gradually phased into the daily operation of the company. heed must recognize that if changes are not made, their position might be null and void for not doing so. The question is whether changing the culture of the organization is in its best interest? Indeed, some changes must be made considering the state of fair of the company.There are several outstanding debts owed to SimmonsCompany and the debtors are threatening bankruptcy. Additionally, a major supplier has caused havoc for the production department. The need to change the culture and the way it operates is more apparent than ever before. To chip the same, means eventual failure for the company. GGOL is a great opportunity to put forward or change its culture and improve its staffs level of expectation through effective care in order to meet the needs of todays demanding economy.As previously mentioned, the company is already experiencing a decline in its profits margin because of its accounts receivables from customers and their major supplier has an item in the form, emitting afoul odor, causing the company to compromise production schedules and posed a serious threat to its profit margin. It would certainly mold my finale to implement GGOL at Simmons.The video was both inspirational and informative. Since variation is a major concern for most global companies, this is not the case with Simmons. That is, it was prevalent at Simmons, as well as, their enthusiasm in working(a) with each other at the company and for the company. Their positive attitude resonated end-to-end the video. It is evident from the video that they work collectively and are eager to dish out others in different department, when asked to do so. Coming to work seems second genius for them.They are able to share with the upper management areas of concerns and questions, and as such, not prohibited from doing so, which was not the case in the past. In short, they are empowered to take on task without macrocosm micro-managed. Now, it is a shared imaging by the top, midpoint, and lower levels of the company with one mission in attend to do what is in the best interest of company.The company should use the top-down and bottom-up design in implementing the GGOL program. However, the company should employ a professional evaluation team to determine which bring should be the catalyst to let the program. After selecting the plant, the program should start at the top level of the plant because they are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the plant and if they buy into the program other levels are more willing to accept it. The top-level can function in delivering the GGOL program to the other employees. The next level should be the middle level because they are responsible for inspiring the workers to work collectively towards a common goal, i.e., what is in the best interest of the plant.Needless to say, these individual are very reluctant to change , but must be done gradual due to their commitment to the company, embedded old core values, and long narrative with the company. When the worker realizes that the change is positive, their outlook improves and this attitude has a snowball effect. That is, one worker at a time starts to embrace middle managements vision for the company. Now, the workers are willing to trust middle double-decker because they are open for suggestions and are encouraging empowerment of workers, unlike the past, when the decision from the top was purely totalitarianism with no questions asked or else be fired. Finally, the workers should be the last to receive the program.The middle-level can introduce the program. In so doing, it encourages team work, which will ultimately change the culture of the plant. Changes are needful and welcomed, if it benefits both the employer and employees. If this company continues to operate in a vacuum, the destiny of the company is almost sudden death with uncollecti ble debts arising and plant processing being restricted because of the foul odor.Emotions were running high, each level of the organization realizing the say-so of closure of the company, if it did not change the culture of the organization. The old way of discussion concerns and questions is pseudo at best. The company would continue to experience apathy at the workplace. Thus, the $7 million dollar investment for the training and development of personnel is an extremely prudent investment for the company.ReferencesKotter, J. P. (1994). Leading Changes. Boston, MA Harvard Business nurture Press. Leading Change at Simmons (A)http//gcumedia.com/digital-resources/harvard-business-school-press/2007/change-at-simmons-part-a_1e.php Leading Change at Simmons (B)http//gcumedia.com/digital-resources/harvard-business-school-press/2007/change-at-simmons-part-b_1e.php