Free essays 0 Comments


Case Study Analysis

StrategicChange Context Analysis: Rowling Energy

An organization has to change the orientation of culture fora for change to be considered effective. The magnitude of the change,which is required, is often influenced by the kind of change planned.For instance, Dosi et al. (2005, p.19) noted that would need agreater change in culture that adaptation. More often than not, theculture in existence, for example within an organization, can be areason as to why there is resistance to change to which it becomes&quotembedded.&quot In this regard, the changing context at thebeginning of January 2014 saw the new CEO, Jay Jameson, for RowlingEnergy, set about changing the organizational style and cultureacross the organization`s hierarchy.

The introduction of Jay Jameson at the helm of the energy companysaw a change strategic plan set out within the 30 days in office.After 30 days of consulting, Jay Jameson concluded that it wasimportant to keep the costs incurred low while maintaining the sharesprices. However, he saw it fit that there was a need to change thewhole approach. Balogun and Hope Hailey`s change model emphasizesthat for change to be effective and successful, efforts for theimplementation has to fit and align with the organization`s context.According to Kinicki &amp Williams (2008, p.65), the kaleidoscopechange model was developed to assist the managerial team in designinga context sensitive change approach to executing change,successfully.

First, Rowling Energy`s strategic context change started with thescope and based on the kaleidoscope change model, which emphasizesthat the organization`s structure and style need to change. Forexample, Jay Jameson applies the scope of the change model by firstsitting down with the Executive Board members to buy-in the supportand set out priorities for the coming weeks. The model considers thisstructure and style changes as a transformation (Terziovski (2007,p.30). Jay Jameson came into the company and created changeawareness, which became the first stage of the company`s change. Andfrom this first stage, there was the identification of contextualchange enablers and constraints.

For example, these contextual features regarded as the enablers ofchange are scope, capacity, and diversity, readiness and preservationbeing the main constraints, and both capability and power asneutrals. In the case study, the enablers of change, and in thisregard the capacity, was that the CEO spoke to over 120 importantemployees from across the entire organization about the projectedchange involving the organization`s culture (Beech &amp Macintosh,2012, p.5). Here, this enabler was that what was to change quicklyand significantly was the safety and health culture. What followedwas the introduction of new systems and processes for monitoringsafety and health with the scope being for reporting and carrying outearly detection of specific problems within the organization.

The capacity within the organization began to impact positively onorganization`s structure. As earlier stated, the scope, which is oneof the enabler aspects of contextual change, saw Rowling Energyundergo improvements within the first three months. The structure andstyle change drastically, which was in contrast with the previousCEO`s regime under Samson Steele where the employees feared themanagement and were anxious about the cuts did without notice. Basedon the Kaleidoscope change model, diversity refers to a delegation oftasks. The organization`s (Rowling Energy) diversity saw specificdepartments under Jay Jameson carry out an informal style ofmanagement with little bureaucracy. Again, there was the introductionof management training courses, which shifted the management indifferent departments from being instruction-givers to coaches andproblem solvers.

In the Rowling Energy case analysis, both the organization`spreservation and readiness are the major constraints. Thepreservation exhibited by the state of the company as from January2014 became a constraint to change since Rowling Energy topmanagement had to be preserved after the exit of Samson Steele. InKaleidoscope Change Model, the question raised is about the aspectsof culture, working, competencies and people should be retained. Forexample, top managerial positions had been lost, but under JayJameson, the appointment of small tweaks saw the structuralimprovement (Beech &amp Macintosh, 2012, p.4). Three of the topsenior executives formerly from the company`s subsidiary werereplaced, and two from within and one from external were appointed.Others were retained since they were dedicated enough to lead some ofthe key initiatives in the company.

The capacity and power, according to Kaleidoscope Change Model, arepart of the neutral aspects of contextual change. The change modelemphasizes that with the high volume experienced due to employeepreservation, the directors in an organization, for example, areimposed on a change that is limited on the consequential neutralityof power mark (Terziovski (2007, p.35). Additionally, Pollack &ampPollack (2015, p.60) noted that the change model regards capacity tobe affluent enough for purposes of investment in the change programwithin an organization, and is involved in the implementation ofdevelopmental programs.

For example, the above two change neutrals are shown in the casestudy when the CEO, Jay Jameson, opted to move from a &quottop down&quotmanagement style to a &quotbottom up&quot management style. Inturn, he broke down his power and distributed it at the organizationlevel (Beech &amp Macintosh, 2012, p.6). This way, his managementexecutives can own up and make the necessary key decisions withouthaving to consult the CEO. Again, the consequential neutralityresulting from capacity aspect is that Rowling Energy, despite allthe changes made, still maintains a platform for strong investmentcapacity. For example, consistency of capacity supply and costcontrol are still core improvements in the organization, which inturn, continue to focus shareholder investment value.

CaseAnalysis: Johnson`s Cultural Web Model

Culture in an organization exists, whether it can be defined ornot. Dosi et al. (2005, p.12) describes it as an ethereal something,which hangs in the organization`s air and works towards influencinghow work is handled, affects the success or failure of theorganization, chooses who fits in or not, and determines theorganization`s overall mood. Culture becomes the main focus duringorganizational change periods, especially when organizations mergedor clashed.

Johnson`s Cultural Web Model is used to compare and contrast theRowling Energy`s culture during Samson Steele`s regime at thebeginning of 2014 and towards the end of Jay Jameson`s regime as ofMarch 2016. Johnson`s Cultural Web model is characterized by sixinterrelated elements, which include stories, symbols, rituals androutines, organizational structure, power structures, and controlsystems.

The organization`s culture during Samson Steele`s regime as ofJanuary 2014 saw the model and culture of operations shift and leantowards the smaller company, Bantam Power, and was therefore regardedas the actual &quotdefense position.&quot Here, the difference fromJay Jameson`s time applies in one of the elements of the Cultural Webmodel for change is the control systems. Kinicki &amp Williams(2008, p.69) describe control systems as the organization`s ways ofcontrolling operations. For Rowling Energy, during Steele`s tenure,the control systems include looking back at Bantam Energy about howits financial systems, rewards, and quality systems were structuredand distributed within the company.

Again, the company`s earlier rhetoric was targeted at sharing boththe merging companies` (Bantam and Goliath) best practices. Theculture around the organization was characterized by macho managementstyle with shouts and orders thrown around during working hours. Suchcultural position taken by the company is a reflection of powerstructures element. The model describes such situation as having realpower within the organization (Rowling Energy). Here, Kinicki &ampWilliams (2008, p.71) noted that the culture of the organization isthat of having one senior executive (Simon Steel) at the helm withthe greatest influence regarding making decisions about strategicdirection and operations.

The working atmosphere in the organization was stiff and full of fearfrom the staff members. Again, one of these lements of the CulturalWeb model – rituals and routines – represent the daily behaviorexhibited in an organization, which is either considered acceptableor unacceptable, what are the expectations, and the value generatedby the management style shown by the leader. For example, SamsonSteele, in Rowling Energy, ensured that he cultivated a culture of amanagement style that ensure orders and decisions are made from thetop moving down and not down moving up.

On the other hand, the culture surrounding the organization duringJay Jameson regime at the end of March 2016 was different from SamsonSteele`s. For instance, Jay Jameson encourages the kind of culturethat was positive. A positive culture is described in Johnson`sCultural Web model – Organizational Structure – which, accordingto Pollack &amp Pollack (2015, p.62), includes the defined structureby the chart within the organization. It also has the unwritten rulesof influence and power, which indicate that all the people involvedare encouraged to the organization`s growth since their contributionsare highly valued.

The organizational structure also explains the extent in whicheverything that happens within the organization points or reflects onthe amount of power that the organization (Rowling Energy) has andthe kind of relationships, which exist between both individualemployees and groups. In Rowling Energy, a good relationship betweenthe top executives and the subordinates, for example, were evidentcompared to Samson Steele`s time at the helm, where there was nohealthy relationship. According to Terziovski (2007, p.37), thiselement (organizational structure) offers an indication of culturalaspects like power development, a sense of responsibility for allthose involved, and authorities.

Jay Jameson also introduced an informal style of leading whereby itwas more of an organic approach and that the hierarchy within theorganization was able to make crucial decisions without having toconsult and with little bureaucracy. Additionally, the company wasable to make succession plans within the company. The cost controland supply consistencies became the company`s core capabilities, andthat the external purpose remained intact.

Below is a table that shows the application of Johnson`s Cultural Webmodel once from January 2014 (Samson Steele`s regime) and 2016 (JayJameson) both being at the helm of Rowling Energy.

Cultural Web model – Similarities

Cultural Web model – Differences

  • Between 2014 and 2016, one of the significant similarities was the introduction of organizational structure, which mirrored the functional lines within the company in those two periods. Again, internal concerns about health and safety in the two periods remained internal since the two CEOs shared a sense of responsibility.

  • Based on Johnson’s Cultural Web model, one element that is shown by these similarities is the organizational structure. The element emphasizes on the need for a CEO, for example, to have a power of influence about taking crucial decisions, while ensuring the contribution is valued despite emerging problems.

  • In 2014, the atmosphere around the organization was negative and in 2016, it was positive.

  • In 2014, the CEO used macho style of management and in 2016 the new CEO used interactive style.

  • In 2014, the culture was that of “top towards bottom,” while in 2016, the culture incorporated “bottom up” style.

  • In 2014, a lot of managers had left, but in 2016, the new manager had established management training courses.

ChangeEvaluation Change: Kotter’s 8 Change Steps Model

Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model include creating urgency, forma powerful coalition, creating a vision for change, communicate thevision, remove obstacles, creating short-term wins, building on thechange, and anchoring changes in corporate culture (Dosi et al.,2005, p.13). In the current world, the &quotbusiness as usual&quotis considered as a change. For instance, new initiatives, technologyimprovements, project-based working, and staying ahead of thecorporate competition, all come together for purposes of drivingcontinuing changes to the manner in which businesses operate.

To begin with, the introduction of Samson Steele at the helm ofRowling Energy at the start of 2014 saw the introduction of a machostyle of management. He immediately forced affinity with those doingmanual joins but acted differently and in an antagonistic way towardsthose working in offices. Based on one of Kotter`s 8 Change StepsModels, what seemed not to work well is the removal of obstacles,which Samson Steele contributed in adding them. The model emphasizeson having a well-thought vision and re-structuring buy-in from theorganization`s levels to allow the staff to realize theorganization`s goals, which is something that did not work well inRowling Energy.

In Steele`s tenure at the top of Rowling Energy, he created thekind of working atmosphere that did not augur well with theemployees. For instance, the CEO was feared by many coupled with hisrife behavior and pugnacious image not going well with most of thetop executives, which saw many of them resign from the company (Beech&amp Macintosh, 2012, p.6). The CEO also used an autocratic approachto his leadership, which when based on Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model,what failed to go well within the organization is the inability ofthe CEO to create short-term organizational wins. These wins wouldhave been creating the right environment to work in, adopt adifferent leadership approach, and engage his top executivesextensively while shunning his macho style of management.

Thirdly, Simon Steele operations as the CEO did not follow Kotter`s8 Change Steps Model, especially concerning forming a powerfulcoalition of top managerial executives. For example, Steele, afterthe merger, started to reorganize both companies and integrate theminto one. The model did not work well because Steele introduced thekind of hierarchical divisional structure, which worked towardsmirroring that of Bantam. Since Goliath had all along been structuredalong functionality, it became difficult for the top executive headsto compete favorably to that of Bantam.

Again, the management style introduced by Steele was remote andelitist, only focusing on &quottop down&quot dictatorial approach.Here, one of Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model`s &quotforms a powerfulcoalition,&quot (Dosi et al., 2005, p.14) fail to work well duringSteele`s tenure because of his autocratic approach and failure totake advantage of the company`s finances. Moving on towards 2016,which also represent a shift in the organization`s top managerialposition, and the introduction of Jay Jameson as CEO, things changefor the better and Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model appear to work well.

One of the Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Models, &quotcreate urgency,&quotemphasizes that for change to happen the management within thecompany has to create a sense of urgency that focuses on the need forchange. In Rowling Energy case study, the appointment of Jay Jamesonas the CEO saw a sense of urgency and worked swiftly towardsdeveloping a healthy relationship with his managers and subordinates(Beech &amp Macintosh, 2012, p.5). Being an external appointment,Jameson moved with urgency and familiarized himself with RowlingEnergy`s accounts and stories. His creation of urgency was set aboutbecause he saw it fit to set about establishing the right culture andworking style within the organization.

The urgency with which Jameson executed also saw the organization`stop managers receive added training. The need for training reflectson two of Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Models, which is to &quotform apowerful coalition&quot and &quotcreate a vision for change.&quotAccording to Terziovski (2007, p.45), people directly impacting anorganization should be convinced to embrace change. They may notnecessary buy into the company`s vision, but through training, thesame way Jameson did with his team, the better for them to embracecorporate change in the long run. Jameson first thought about changeby having a lot of ideas for a series of that saw him engage one ofKotter`s 8 Change Steps Model, which is &quotcommunicating thevision,&quot by focusing on the management team in the organization.

Next, the first few weeks of Jameson`s tenure was followed by theintroduction of new management style, which focused on a &quotbottomup&quot style. This style was targeted at moving people`s vision andideas forward, which meant focusing on the attention to the problemsand opportunities within the organization. Pollack &amp Pollack(2015, p.65) noted that building on change based on Kotter`s 8 ChangeSteps Model requires running deep on an organization`s wins, andlong-term change can only be realized by not declaring change victorytoo early (Beech &amp Macintosh, 2012, p.6). To &quotbuild onchange&quot means that a top manager, for example, Jameson, requiresthat success should provide a chance or opportunity to establish theright path and improve on the small wins.

Towards the end of March 2016, the CEO, Jay Jameson, managed toestablish the kind of culture that regarded him has an available toboth his top executives and subordinates. Again, there were no moreconsultants from outside were employed and the organization was ableto establish a succession plan from within the managerial hierarchyin the organization. According to Kinicki &amp Williams (2008,p.73), Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model of &quotanchoring changes incorporate culture,&quot which is a representation of events towardsthe end of March 2016 in Rowling Energy, which saw Jameson make aneffort to guarantee change is felt across all the departments.


The paper is a Rowling Energy case study analysis, which ischaracterized by a shift in the management spanning a period of twoyears from January 2014 to March 2016. The case analysis is based oncorporate change, which bases its analysis on three change modelsnamely Balogun and Hope Hailey`s change model, Johnson`s CulturalWeb Model, and Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model. There three changemodels are divided into three sections of the paper respectively. Inthe first section, Balogun and Hope Hailey`s change model helps tobreak down the company`s leadership since Jay Jameson was appointedas the CEO.

A section of the contextual aspects of change examined include thescope, preservation, capacity, capability, readiness, and power.These aspects touch on the company`s enablers, constraints, andneutrals, according to the direction the CEO chose to lead thecompany. Secondly, the second part touches on Johnson`s Cultural WebModel is used to compare and contrast the company`s two regimes, thechanges implemented, and the kind of environment created by the twoCEOs. For instance, the change model chooses who fits in or not, anddetermines the organization`s overall mood.

The third change model used is Kotter`s 8 Change Steps Model, whichinclude eight elements that describe and critically evaluates theprocess of change since the beginning of January 2014 to the end ofMarch 2016 across the two CEOs leadership and management styles atthe helm. Here, the paper discusses what appears to work and whatappears not to work, while following Kotter`s steps of the model,which include, among others, creating urgency, forming a powerfulcoalition, and creating a vision for change.


BEECH, N. AND MACINTOSH, R. (2012) Managing Change: Enquiry andAction, Cambridge University Press, 1-8

DOSI, G., TEECE, D. J., &amp CHYTRY, J. (2005). Understandingindustrial and corporate change. Oxford, Oxford University Press,9-15KINICKI, A., &amp WILLIAMS, B. K. (2008). Management: apractical introduction. New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 67-73

KINICKI, A., &amp WILLIAMS, B. K. (2008). Management: a practicalintroduction. New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

POLLACK, J., &amp POLLACK, R. (2015). Using Kotter’s Eight StageProcess to Manage an Organisational Change Program: Presentation andPractice. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 28, 51-66.

TERZIOVSKI, M. (2007). Building innovation capability inorganizations an international cross-case perspective. London,Imperial College Press, 24-56