6 images of Managment Excel
Please Fill in the Project Grid by 4PM tomorrow 1/23.
RUNNINGHEAD: Change Images
CHANGE IMAGES
Change Image Analysis
HRM 587: Managing Organizational Change
January 2021 Session, Week 3 Assignment
January 24, 2021
Purpose
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 (Tesla, April, 2018). Such a feat would require intense re-engineering of their production processes, and so Musk and his team decided to invest heavily in automation (Vincent, 2017), 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 “production hell” by Musk himself (Debord, 2017). 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 (Hawkins, O’Kane, 2018). 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” (Tesla, July, 2018).
Many of the decisions made throughout this tumultuous journey came amidst dramatic turnover in Tesla’s corporate ranks, and as Musk re-organized Tesla to have a flatter corporate structure (Gibson, 2018). Musk also built a reputation within the company to go on firing spree’s, taking his frustration out on engineers who couldn’t match Elon’s wit, and firing them on the spot (Duhigg, 2018).
GM.
Comparison of Change Images
The three images our team 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, in the broadest sense, was to quickly become profitable. The path that Elon Musk decided to take to get there was by increasing its revenues through increased production capacity, and by reducing costs through a flattened management structure. Both executive actions were handed down hastily, and left 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 bold vision that radically changed course from its existing business model, but did so cohesively in a manner that considered the interests of all of it’s stakeholders, even if that meant making some unpopular decisions to shut down its underperforming operations.
Director.
The Director change image, if executed properly, provides clear direction on who needs to do what in order 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 it 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. He has, afterall, revolutionized multiple industries for the better. However, in this time of crisis and extreme stress, Elon’s competence as a leader of people was highly questionable. His management style resulted in hundreds of professional casualties along the way.
In the case of GM, 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.” (General Motors, 2018). This is a vivid description of GM’s vision, and 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 layers of management. If there was a clear instruction manual on how to achieve that vision, then a Director change image may be more suitable. The Director change image is more suitable for Tesla’s change.
Caretaker.
The Caretaker change image is well suited for changes in which the organization has little control over the internal and external forces it is contending with. The caretaker accepts the forces thrown at his or her organization, and decides how they should redirect to provide the greatest chance of survival. Typically, caretakers provide strength and resilience to an organization by unifying them through well-established norms, providing a safe identity that makes them collectively resilient. In the case of Tesla, external forces had little significance on affecting their current situation. They were their own worst enemy, if not Elon Musk himself, by being overly ambitious with automation, and by being fiscally irresponsible. The Caretaker image may have worked well for Tesla if Elon Musk would have agreed to hand over the reins of his operations and let another leader win back the confidence and support of his employees. In which case, a caretaker would have let the organization naturally redefine itself, but would have come at the risk of giving up Tesla’s market-leading competitive edge and vision that Elon Musk so passionately worked to create.
Since GM’s change is taking place on a much longer timeline, there is much less certainty as to what lies ahead that may impede or accelerate their mission. Economic cycles, pandemics, legislative policy, climate change, organized labor, trade agreements, and foreign policy are just some of the factors that can have significant influence on how they go about reaching their mission. A Caretaker change image is well suited for such an environment, and is a better fit for GM’s change compared to Tesla’s.
Nurturer.
The Nurturer change image would be an unlikely approach to solving the profitability problem for Tesla, given their sense of urgency to quickly become profitable. Nurturing change fosters desirable qualities in individuals to allow them to succeed in their own way. This would be a good change image for an organization looking to achieve long term goals of general success, because you are developing your people, which generally takes time. This doesn’t fit well with near-term crisis management. As Tesla has emerged from the crisis, now would be a better time to take on a Nurturer change image. Imagine if all of the engineers at Tesla had been groomed to solve technical problems like Elon does. They truly would have the potential to drastically change our way of life!
Since GM has clearly stated objectives in their triple-zero vision, the Nurturer change image would not be a very good fit either. Nurturer change image would be better suited for GM if they weren’t trying to upend their entire business model. This may have been a good fit for GM 10 years ago, when they were still planning on how to make a better internal combustion engine with a car in every household. In which case, you’re just trying to do what you’ve always done, only doing it better. Nurture the people of the organization to be as valuable as possible, and let your people lead the change. The Nurturer change image is not well suited for either GM’s or Tesla’s change.
Best Change Images
Leader’s Actual Change Image
Conclusion
References
Debord, M. (2017). Elon Musk on Model 3: ‘We’re going to go through at least 6 months of production hell’. [businessinsider.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-model-3-faces-production-hell-2017-7
DeBord, M. (2018). GM will stop building cars at 3 North American factories and cut its salaried workforce by 15% in 2019 as it shifts to electric and self-driving cars. [businessinsider.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.businessinsider.com/gm-to-2018-11?utm_source=markets&utm_medium=ingest
Duhigg, C. (2018). Dr. Elon & Mr. Musk: Life Inside Tesla’s Production Hell. [wired.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-life-inside-gigafactory/
General Motors. (2018). Proxy statement and notice of 2018 annual meeting of shareholders. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2020 from
https://investor.gm.com/static-files/4d125c19-2bc1-41c9-bbf8-a6192d507208
Gibson, K. (2018). Tesla reorganization comes as top executives depart automaker. [cbsnews.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-reorganization-comes-as-top-executives-depart-automaker/
Hawkins, A., O’Kane, S. (2018). Tesla built a giant tent to expand production of the Model 3. [theverge.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17488372/tesla-model-3-production-tent-expand
Tesla. (April, 2018). Tesla First Quarter 2018 Update. Retrieved from
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/8ZSX5X_TSLA_Update_Letter_2018-2Q_4ABIGE
Tesla. (July, 2018). Tesla Second Quarter 2018 Update. Retrieved from
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/8ZSX5X_TSLA_Update_Letter_2018-2Q_4ABIGE
Vincent, J. (2017). Tesla buys automated manufacturing firm as it struggles with production. [theverge.com]. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16627528/tesla-perbix-acquisition-automated-factory-machine-builds-machines
Sheet1
| Change Image | Basis of Image | Application to Tesla | Application to General Motors | Pressures for Change | Differs From Others How? | Unintended Consequences From Image |
| Director | ||||||
| Navigator | ||||||
| Caretaker | ||||||
| Coach | ||||||
| Interpreter | ||||||
| Nurturer |