Essay About Charlotte Beersððžð And New Courseððžð

Ogilvy Case Study
Essay Preview: Ogilvy Case Study
Report this essay
Charlotte BeersÐЎЦ Aspiration
With declining revenues and gloomed outlook facing Ogilvy, Beers was determined to seek a ÐЎЧnew courseÐÐŽÐЁ to inspire client confidence and restore glory of the ÐЎЧbeleagueredÐÐŽÐЁ brand.

Main forces in the industry challenging Ogilvy (Robbins p644) included reduced advertising budget, growing competition, and demands for centralized global campaign (p2-3). OgilvyÐЎЦs struggles with the new economy were exemplified by losing several key accounts. Also, lack of financial discipline and cost control and absence of collaboration between headquarter and local offices exacerbated the situation (p5).

Beers was tapped by WPP as an external change agent (Robbins p647) to lead Ogilvy through this critical period. Although disadvantaged by an inadequate understanding of the agency, Beers quickly established her presence in an organization that ÐЎЧrejects outsidersÐÐŽÐЁ with her enthusiasm for the brand (p5-6).

Beers recognized that to revitalize the Ogilvy brand, a planned change (Robbins p646) is needed to shake up a complacent organization that had a tendency for working ÐЎЧwithin the old frameworkÐÐŽÐЁ (p5). To manage such planned change she aspired to develop a vision, forceful enough to improve OgilvyÐЎЦs ability to adapt to the changes associated with the new economy and change employee behavior.

Vision-Developing Process
In crafting a new vision, Beers and her team initially failed to effectively implement change in the ÐЎЧunfreezingÐÐŽÐЁ stage (Kotter, Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail). Beers and her team shared the view of taking ÐЎЧno baby stepsÐÐŽÐЁ (p8) at the outset, which created an illusion that the agency-wide vision can be easily developed.

Examining KotterÐЎЦs eight-step plan for implementing change, Beers first failed to create a powerful enough guiding coalition. Although Beers catalyzed the initial urgency and rallied people who accept change (Robbins p649), only ten senior executives attended the 1992 Vienna meeting. Given the size of Ogilvy, such small number of participants is far less than sufficient to fuel enough power for the guiding coalition (Kotter). Moreover, attendants of the 1992 Vienna meeting had ÐЎЧnever met before for such a purposeÐÐŽÐЁ and ÐЎЧwere both tentative with each other and elated to share their perspectivesÐÐŽÐЁ (p8). The absence of history of teamwork in BeersÐЎЦ handpicked group also hindered the efforts to form a powerful guiding coalition (Kotter).

Second mistake made by Beers and her team during 1992 was the inability to create an appealing vision. A vision that is easy to communicate and appeals to its audience is essential to successful transformation (Kotter). However, the idea of ÐЎЧbrand stewardshipÐÐŽÐЁ was initially described as ÐЎЧembryonicÐÐŽÐЁ (p9) and merely a tool for achieving the next, yet identified stage (p11). An undefined ÐЎЧbrand stewardshipÐÐŽÐЁ did not help clarify the direction in which Ogilvy should move under BeersÐЎЦ leadership, and any efforts such as ÐЎЧbrand auditÐÐŽÐЁ and formulating short-term goals cannot substitute a vision. Without a sound, sensible version, no successful change can be achieved.

Two mistakes during the vision-developing process slowed the momentum in BeersÐЎЦ pursue and resulted in unsatisfying repercussions. Not until over one year after the Vienna meeting Beers and her team rectified these errors by organizing a larger-scale meeting at Doral Arrowwood in fall 1993, involving the entire O&M Worldwide board along with eight other local presidents, to generate a powerful guiding coalition (p11). Beers turned the discussion from a ÐЎЧchat sessionÐÐŽÐЁ into serious, active participation among different groups in 1993, and finally delivered a viable, long-term vision (p11-12).

BeersÐЎЦ Change Initiative and Challenges Ahead
Under-communication, unresolved resistance to change and power struggles within Ogilvy impeded