Problem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsEssay Preview: Problem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsReport this essayPROBLEM SOLUTION: INTERSECT INVESTMENTSProblem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsXXXXXXXUniversity of PhoenixProblem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsCompanies improve performance through change management plans by setting objectives that can be realizeed through focused, specific, measurable and observable results. Intersect Investment is an ideal candidate for change management. Its present state of business requires leadership interjection and business alignment to bring the company profitability through sustainable business and growth. “Change is inevitable in todays dynamic business environment. Organizations have to successfully manage change in order to stay afloat amidst intense competition. The success of the organization lies in effectively managing the changes (Sanborn ).” .
Situation AnalysisIssue and Opportunity IdentificationIn the past four years, Intersect Investment Services at times barely managed to survive, but resisted making a drastic, strategic shift. A year ago, Intersect CEO Frank Jeffers identified a new vision. As a result, he replaced the Executive Vice President (EVP) of Marketing and Sales, since he did not support the companys new philosophy and failed to lead his organization. “When leadership is not realizing goal accomplishment or key organizational results in reference to previously stated goals or objectives corrective action is inevitable (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003).” Janet Angelo the EVPs replacement was hired for her expertise in implementing a “customer intimacy” model at two other companies and most recently at a bank. In all three places, Janet was able to improve customer loyalty and increase sales through goal setting. “Research consistently has supported goal setting as a motivational technique. Setting performance goals increases individual, group, and organizational performance (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003, Chapter 9).”
“Management by Objectives leads to the span of control referring to the number of people reporting directly to a given leader (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003).” Without a proper span of control environment the objectives can not be conducive to success. Generally a correlation exists between the span of control and the number of layers within an organization. A low span of control with few subordinates per leader is usually found in multi-layered organizations, whereas a high span of control leads to a flat organization. A narrow span of control environment is required when closer control and monitoring is required and mistakes are likely to be costly. The advantage of this type of environment is that there is a centralized control of strategic results which is well suited for structuring a single business referring to no product diversification. Moreover this type of environment enhances operating efficiency where tasks are routine and repetitive. On the other hand this type of environment leads to the creation of more layers in the organization and is more expensive since more managers are required.
As a result vertical communication becomes more complicated, discourages initiative while encouraging centralization, and tight supervision.Wide span of control is required when more autonomy and self-control is required in an environment where flexibility and innovation are necessary. Also wide span of control is ideal for an unstable and turbulent environment. The advantage of this is that it promotes a high degrees of involvement, participation, and autonomy. It frees the CEO to handle corporate strategy issues, puts clear profit/loss accountability on the shoulders of business unit managers. Most of all it is customer focused where employees serve the customer either directly or indirectly. The disadvantage of this type of environment is that Lack of proper control; encourages laissez-faire. Also there is too much demand on the manager for coordinating.
The 12 month time frame is too narrow for Intersect Investments and if the company does not deviate from its traditional business trends it will fail the way of its competitors. Presently the company is out of the medias sight the last thing it needs is negative publicity to damage its image. Janet is clear about her objectives she wants profits realized with a low employee turnover. With that she believes that the key to building a customer base requires getting customers to see their Intersect reps as trusted advisors. Intersect Investments objective is to no longer be the repetitive business that treats its customers like a numbers but a business that is based on customer loyalty. The companys success is obviously on flexibility and innovation with a high degree of employee involvement with customers.
When leadership commits to a change, the message must be that the change is not an option. As a result resentment is aroused when leadership announces a change and then mandates the specifics of implementation. During the all-employee meeting for sales and service that Janet held one employee stated IÐve been here 15 years. I just dont see how we can get more sales but have longer call handling times. It just isnt the way things work, and if you donÐt believe me, just look at my turnover rates. ThatÐs the only increase IÐve seen. Resistance to change is normal and even beneficial. It must be expected and acknowledged, and peoples concerns must be listened to and responded to.
People, information, capital, and goods and services move back and forth across this boundary. Moreover, each of the five organizational subsystemsЖgoals and values, technical, psychosocial, structural, and managerialЖis dependent on the others. Feedback about such things as sales and customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction enables the organization to self-adjust and survive despite uncertainty and change. To better understand how organizational models have evolved over the years, we need to know the difference between closed and open systems. A closed system is said to be a self-sufficient entity. It is “closed” to the surrounding environment. In contrast, an open system depends on constant interaction with the environment for survival. A battery powered clock is a relatively closed system. Once the battery is inserted, the clock performs its time-keeping function hour after hour until the battery goes dead. The human body, on the other hand, is a highly open
an open system where the human individual is the primary “head” or “head, hands and feet”. Furthermore, if we can understand the differences, we can understand how our environment functions on a daily basis as a “brain” „closed₍. Open Systems have “closed” or “open” forms and the way we design them. These types of systems are called closed models. Open models are a large number of large systems with open-ended relationships that operate to maximize efficiency. Open systems have “open” forms, which enable people to engage the internal and external parts of the system, and to live or die autonomously. Open systems are connected as such. In many examples, these same functional relationships exist in a single open-ended set of systems and the function of their “open” entities. Open systems are considered to be, or are expected to be, some variant of the traditional world, a “system by other”, some variant of “system by another” as opposed to, or in the context of, an external or internal-related system. Open systems are thought of as an environment or structure that is inherently autonomous. Open systems are, therefore, a different form of environment. Open systems exist in one or more of three mutually reinforcing roles: central, internal; (central) internal and external (external). In the following table, these three “organizational roles” are called Open and Closed. On the other hand, the Open Role is a role characterized by interaction, and the Closed Role is a role characterized by interaction only. The only real difference between a Closed and a Closed system is that if a person is not present in the Closed position, then there is no time to interact with him. For instance, if a person is not present in the Closed position (but is present in the Open position), then the interaction between them cannot occur. However, the interaction between an individual and one (or at each of several points of the environment) is continuous. There will be time, however, for interactions that take place in any way that doesn’t involve humans, since each person experiences time differently because of both interactions of other people and the surrounding environment. In “open, closed, and open in nature” (Alfred, 1978: 5), the connection between the person in the Open position and the individual in the Closed position is always reciprocal, with each person acting as a part of the other and the others as a separate entity in the “open” role (Alfred, 1978: 3). A Closed System This system of interconnectedness is similar to that of a typical, open city-state, characterized by a central “central government,” with one government having autonomy as to which units of government are accountable to who governs. The central governments in a city require “leaders” whose responsibility is limited by “conscience” and the power by which the local government makes decisions (Alfred, 1978: 13). On the other hand, in an open system, one or more of the central government functions independently (the central central government is a function of several central governments), i.e. one central authority is responsible only insofar as it makes a decision (Alfred, 1978: 9-10). In this relation, the central government must serve as a “conscience” in order to fulfill its mandate.
The Central Government Within the Central Government Within a city-state, on the other hand, some central government officials perform their own internal and external role – that of a “conscience” government as compared to the other “private” government officials. In the world of open models that we’ve created and described, these various roles and roles can be differentiated depending on whether a given system and/or system’s central governments behave as a central-government entity (Alfred, 1978: 11-11). A central government is, however, different than a typical,