Q-1 Why was the change thought necessary? AAL 1.Shrinking Margins in the products 2. need to stay competitive. 3. Cost cutting by the New ( CEO – Dick Gunderson ) $50 million. 4. Positive dissatisfaction – [ Can do Better] IPS ( Insurance Product services department) 1. Considered to be truly customer oriented 2. Decisions taken at a higher level,(-ve impact ) + Underutilization of manpower 3. Productivity was taken as a functional perspective not integrated. 4. Excessive Growth in the mind of top management.
Q-2 How did AAL- IPS change process influence and shape organization strategy? AAL change Process GAP closing -- Internal managers changed the structure ( 2 Management level through consciousness of top management) -- Technology Strategy changes -- Precise vision to of desired management style (employee evaluating the managers) Organizational Change Results -- early retirement Window ( 250 – positions) -- continued employment ( innovation with protective shield) -- skill judgmental array of work force and later IJP, transfer, or voluntary outplacement options given.
IPS change Process Identifying the needs Change process without approval of senior management in the department. IPS head was changed – with regionalized strategy. RISK averse culture changed -- to – calculated risk culture Setting Parameters Customer driven organization and team relationship was emphasized. Flat hierarchy and fewer supervision. Participative management style and tabbing the terms like. Agents = Primary customers policy holder = ultimate customers Design and development Communication -- communicating the change -- news letters and 100 people gathering to communicate change process or any reengineering to be done.
Design teams -- 10 teams were formulated (125 employee each) -- Distinct role clarity was given to all the teams.( readily decreased employee confusion and goof-ups) Decision Making and Implementation -- proper research was carried out for implementation of any policies. -- sociotechnical management that helped ( to get desired outcomes and mission) -- Flat hierarchy and full service plus self regulations was implied. Implementation -- Specific Implementation team was named from employees. -- even physical movement of employees was considered. Employee Assignment -- Timing and disbursement of employees was done. -- Storming]+[norming was given high frequency category for the same in group formation Security -- supervisory positions reduced. -- Employment assistance was provided. Self Managed Teams
Q-3 What is your Assessment of the positive and negative impact of the change itiative? Positive Impact Motivating to hard working employee less friction between the evolved teams clear job descriptions better organizational communication and control. power decimation would be proper and broad banding would help in it. Positive and negative outcomes for any change or strategy implementation could be forecasted in a much better way. Employee retention in the longer run. Development of Calculated Risk taking culture. More participation and better team cohesiveness less of a time spent in the norming and storming stages in longer run better adaptability and result oriented workforce. Negative Impact 1. Company Image may get a jolt at the start of the change. 2. Implementation and new work force compatibility in required. 3. Layoff and IJP will for sure break the group dynamics. 4. New departments and complete hierarchy changes are not welcomed by staff.
Q-4 What role did the HR play in the exercise? ORG redesign Behavior Changes MAJOR CHNAGE Communication Plan Successfully Transformed Transition Planning Employee Benefits Thank You