Evaluate and recommend a model of change that might be utilised in order to develop an environment that would allow the organisation to be competitive

0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written

• Assessment RESIT - Coursework (Written Assignment)
• Assessment code: 010
• Academic Year: 2021/22
• Trimester: 2
• Module Title: Leadership and Change Management
• Module Code: MOD004062
• Level: 6
• Module Leader: Shahriar Daudpota
• Weighting: 60%
• Word Limit: 3000
• This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
• Assessed Learning Outcomes:
  • Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change;
  • Develop a plan to effectively manage a specified change. 
• Submission Deadline: Please refer to the deadline on the VLE

WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.

In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – up to five working days after the published submission deadline - will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.

Work cannot be submitted if the period of 5 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.

2 Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64- 6.73: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

Mitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team - DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 – 6.141: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

Written Report Instructions

Healthcare Case Study

Patient care at the Mid Staffordshire hospitals

The board of the Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) embarked on a major change programme directed towards achieving the elite status of a foundation trust. Foundation trusts have greater autonomy than other hospitals, are less dependent on government funding and have the right to borrow money from banks. In order to achieve this sought-after foundation trust status, the Trust was required to prove its financial competence, balance its books and achieve a range of government targets such as those relating to waiting times. As the push for change gathered momentum, the Trust set itself the target of £10 million savings (8% of turnover). It achieved this by pursuing a tough top-down change strategy (see Chapter 16) that involved eliminating 150 jobs, some restructuring, an 18% reduction in the number of beds and a range of other cost-cutting measures.

The Healthcare Commission, the NHS watchdog in England, became aware that death rates for patients admitted as emergencies at the Mid Staffordshire hospitals were significantly higher than at comparable hospitals and initiated an investigation. Attention was focused on the accident and emergency (A&E) department, the emergency assessment unit and the surgical and medical management of emergency admissions.

The problems that were identified are documented in the Healthcare Commission’s report (2009). Problems were found at every step along the emergency care pathway. For example:

• Because of a shortage of nurses, when patients arrived at A&E, the seriousness of their condition was assessed by a receptionist who was not clinically trained. Patients were then moved on to a reception area that was out of sight of reception staff.
• There were shortages of essential equipment such as cardiac monitors.
• Because of the shortage of doctors and nurses, assessment and treatment were often delayed.
• Junior doctors were pressurized to make decisions quickly.
• Doctors were diverted from treating seriously ill patients to deal with more minor conditions in order to avoid breaching the government-imposed target that 98% of patients arriving at A&E should be seen and either admitted to a ward or discharged within four hours. 4
• Another tactic to ‘stop the clock’ and avoid breaching this target was to move patients out of A&E to the emergency assessment unit. Once there, because of staff shortages, they were not properly monitored.
• Nurses had high workloads, and many were under trained. Cases were reported where nurses turned equipment off because they did not know how to use it. • Because of staff cuts there were too few consultants to supervise junior doctors.
• There were too few operating theatre sessions at weekends.
• Patients had to wait for medication, pain relief and wound dressing and sometimes the wrong medication was administered.
• The care of post-operative patients was so poor that signs of deterioration were missed or ignored.
• Relatives reported that patients were left for long periods in soiled bedclothes and were left without food or drink (there were even reports of thirsty patients drinking water out of flower vases). 

The top-down change strategy targeted at winning foundation trust status was successful, but only in so far as it delivered this narrowly prescribed outcome. The trust was awarded foundation status but this ‘success’ was short lived. The publication of a damming Health Commission report led to further investigations into the quality of care delivered by the Trust. The last of these was a lengthy public inquiry that led to the eventual dissolution of the Trust.

The Stafford Hospital was renamed and taken over by a newly constituted NHS Trust. Jeremy Hunt, the Minister for Health, stated in his introduction to the government’s response to the public inquiry that ‘a toxic culture was allowed to develop unchecked which fostered the normalisation of cruelty and the victimisation of those brave enough to speak up. For far too long warning signs were not seen, ignored or dismissed.’ (Patients first and foremost, 2013, p.5). Senior managers prioritized cost-cutting and cascaded orders down the hierarchy that failed to support patient care. Systems designed to draw the board’s attention to clinical issues failed to function and senior managers paid little or no attention to concerns expressed by staff, patients and relatives about the quality of patient care. ‘Targets and performance management … overwhelmed quality and compassion.’ (Patients first and foremost, 2013, p.21). Patients, their families, nurses, junior doctors, former employees, the local community and the NHS were all let down by irresponsible managers who were pursuing their own agenda.

TASK

To ensure that the top management achieves success, you are expected to produce a 3000-word report. In this report you will be required to evidence the following with reference to the Seven-Step Transformation Process above:

Task 1: Evaluate and recommend a model of change that might be utilised in order to develop an environment that would allow the organisation to be competitive. (60%)

Task 2: Analyse what might be the major resistance from employees on the recommendations made above and, using appropriate change models and interventions, how might the CEO mitigate this employee resistance? (40%)

Learning outcomes assessed

2. Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change

4. Develop a plan to effectively manage a specified change

Hospitality Case Study

Company background

The Palm Riviera Resort (The Resort) is a hospitality organization, a subsidiary of a global resorts group headquartered in Europe. The group serves a diverse array of patrons with highly skilled chefs and other staff. The group’s strategy is the high focus on exceptional customer care, and smooth customer experience. The Resort is one of the flagship brands and sites of the group.

The resort has been established 12 years ago in the suburbs of Shanghai to serve the Group’s clients in the quickly growing Chinese market. Thanks to global key accounts and cheaper airfares, the business grew fast, and the Resort quickly became profitable and was more profitable than the group’s similar sized resort in Cappadocia, Turkey. Things were going well, until the competitive pressure started to erode profits. The management and stakeholders looked towards the General Manager (GM) who was now looking more anxious than ever. The was consistently failing to meet the profitability expectations of the owners. The ownership eventually lost confidence in the management at the time and decided to make a change. The GM was replaced with a younger GM. Clients wanted a wider range of services but at competitive costs. Costs of doing business were increasing; staff cost was increasing; while holiday and normal sales were shrinking, causing the resort incur losses. Two previous GM’s have already failed to make the turnaround and got fired. Now it is the third General 6 Manager, who is hired with the mission of making the turnaround. Failing to make profits in the last three years made the owners cautious about further investment, so the turnaround should be achieved with a low budget.

Why is the Resort in crisis?

Based on the industry and economic factors, the Resort should still be profitable. Why is it in the red then? According to the HRD who has been hired one year ago, it was caused by bad leadership, by top management complacency, neglecting continuous improvement and development for many years. Realizing the ineffectiveness of top management, the owners made a major personnel change one year ago, replacing not only the General Manager, but also most of the Directors. The new Management Team – the GM and the Directors – agree that change is needed, and it is needed now.

Plans for the turnaround

The Management Team discussed about and decided the following changes:

• The workforce will be reduced to 600 (250 people will be laid off);
• Staff will be trained to handle more positions, so that they could be deployed more efficiently
• Business processes will be streamlined; there will be more detailed new KPIs introduced; P/L will be calculated for each service offered, and managers will be hold accountable for them
• Currently, overtime fee is a “standard employee benefit”, regardless of the actual need for overtime. This practice will be changed: overtime pay will be reduced to the necessary minimal. 

The other changes must be implemented within the next 12 months, but there is no detailed schedule yet.

Current situation and challenges

According to the HRD, there are major roadblocks standing in the way of successful transition:

• The Management Team has consensus about the direction, but the new business processes and the future organizational structure have not been clarified and worked out in details, and it is not sure whether they will be able to come up with a convincing solution.
• The Middle Managers are not supporting the change. It seems they don’t want to understand the new direction. They are passive in the meetings, and skeptic or opposing one-on-one. They started as porters in the company for 10-12 years ago and have been gradually promoted to become managers. According to the observations of the HRD, many of them show very low managerial and leadership competencies. Many of them show little capability for independent thinking and decision making 7 in general, and don’t have much influencing power with their staff members. Some of them may lack the potential to adapt to their expanded future managerial roles.
• The General Manager and the Directors are all task focused people with low “people” awareness and communication skills. They underestimate the resistance of the people. They don’t recognize the competency gap of the Middle Managers. They don’t think much about the communication strategy and the human aspects of change management.
• The morale is already very low in the entire resort. The planned changes would put higher demands on staff, while their income would decrease, or in best case equal their current income. This will very likely further undermine their motivation and productivity. 

TASK

To ensure that the top management achieves success, you are expected to produce a 3000-word report. 

In this report you will be required to evidence the following with reference to the Seven-Step Transformation Process above: 

Task 1: Evaluate and recommend a model of change that might be utilised in order to develop an environment that would allow the organisation to be competitive. (60%) 

Task 2: Analyse what might be the major resistance from employees on the recommendations made above and, using appropriate change models and interventions, how might the CEO mitigate this employee resistance? (40%) Learning outcomes assessed 

2. Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change

4. Develop a plan to effectively manage a specified change.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Ensure you use the correct report format:

• Cover page with index
• Executive summary (a ‘summary’ of the key recommendations for the CEO)
• Introduction
• Tasks – main body including analysis and evaluation
• Conclusion
• Recommendations
• References
• Appendices 

Please note:

• The word count should be 3000 words (+/- 10%)
• You may include appropriate graphics to support your points if you consider they will add value to your answer
• This is not to be written as an ‘essay’
• Cover page, Exec Summary, References and Appendices are NOT included in the word count)
• You must use academic theory and other robust sources to support your text, and any theory used should be applied to the context of the scenario
• You must use in-text citations to evidence your work, in addition to producing a full list of references in the bibliography. All of these should conform to Harvard Referencing format.
• The bulk of this text should be your own original work and should not be excessively paraphrased.

Marks will be awarded as follows:

A poor answer (39% and below (Fail) misses the point of the task and fails to address the requirements listed in the brief, either entirely or to a significant degree. Expression is simplistic and vague. The answer is unstructured and also fail to use any academic support, with no citations or reference list in evidence. Answer demonstrates no analysis question and is simply a templated solution taken from other sources. Answer lacks significant originality

A basic answer (40 – 49%) addresses some of the issues and demonstrate limited knowledge of appropriate theory, but at a superficial level. It demonstrates difficulties with structure and contains some gaps in understanding. Expression lacks maturity and use of professional terminology. The material is not arranged in a user friendly, logical format. The delivery system of the programme is be unclear and there are minor 9 inaccuracies in any financial information

A satisfactory answer (50-59%) addresses a large amount of the questions and demonstrate a sound, basic knowledge of theory, but with some minor omissions in content and minor inaccuracies in expression. Structure is largely logical. There is an attempt to analyse and evidence that the solution has been tailored to a fair degree. Use of theory and evidence is reasonably good but with room left to strengthen the credibility

A good answer (60-69%) adopts a logical structure and address almost all of the questions using virtually all appropriate theory that relates. Knowledge appears be sound. The report is supported by a good variety of robust academic and industry sources. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor. Analysis and evaluation is done well, but lacks some depth, detail and sophistication

An excellent/outstanding answer (70%+) identifies all the key issues within the question and make extensive use of appropriate theory in providing a credible solution. Structures is logical and the proposal easy to follow and digest. Relevant theory and industry practice is used to produce well-supported recommendations. Grammar and academic skills is of a high standard, and analysis and evaluation is consistently delivered throughout, with sophisticated use of materials. An extensive range of sources have been uses in a highly sophisticated manner

An exceptional answer (80%+) Faultless work in terms of presentation and academic skills, and the overall credibility of the proposal is extremely high, to the extent that it might be used as a template for a future industry document. The level of detail included in the plans and schematics is exceptional without being overcrowded or confusing

The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric, Table 1, that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards: Level 6 reproduced in Table 2.