Change Management Theory and RIM leadership
The stepping down of Research In Motion’s co-CEO’s Mike Lazardis and Jim Balsillie has brought to the fore concerns that the company which has for long been seen as one of the most successful technology firms might be disintegrating. This is largely because the two turned the fortunes of the company and managed to turn it into a formidable presence in the mobile communication sector largely redefining the smart phone. However, in recent times, it seems the company is faced with deep set challenges characterized by dysfunction which has seen investors and the general public unconcerned about the billions in revenue that the company is bringing in. Moreover, the company’s recent innovations have been net with little excitement in the market which has forced the company to make a massive amount of lay offs (Castaldo, 2012). This paper therefore critically examines the notion that Research in Motion needs to undergo revolutionary change if it is to become successful again looking into theories that the RIM leadership can use to ensure that the change process is successful.
It has been seen that the management of Research in Motion largely ignored the onset of competition in the smart phone market (Weidman, 2002). This was largely attributed to the fact that for years the company’s products were seen as largely superior to those of their competitors like Motorola and Nokia. This essentially means that management focused less on coming up with products that would keep up with the competition but rather focused more on their core competencies (Eisenbach et al, 1999). Moreover, the company was perceived as being increasingly complex producing multiple and thereafter customizing the same device as opposed to their competitors who would produce one model every year. In addition, the new operational staff members were not given the correct amount of freedom to carry out their jobs being forced to adhere to aggressive deadlines that were unrealistic (Joffe & Glynn, 2002). With the above problems in mind, challenges did ultimately start to crop in. there is therefore a need for the leadership of the company to look to change management theory to ensure the return to its former reputation as the foremost leader in mobile communications. The leadership at RIM can act as change agents in the company and therefore create a state of organizational regeneration. It is also important for the leadership to clearly define as well as understand the competition they are facing and therefore understand the need for change (Landrum et al, 2000).
There is also a distinct need to re-evaluate its structure as well as its strategies and core mission and emphasize on participation from all the levels of the organization (Moran & Brightman, 2001). In this respect, the leadership of the company should recognize their presence in effecting change is vital to ensure the success of the process. It is also important for leadership at RIM to ensure that subordinates are motivated through a series of reward strategies that will go along way towards cultivating respect and trust for the leadership (Northouse, 2000). This therefore means that they will be more willing to work harder for the overall benefit of the company (Gordon, 2002). Leadership should also carry out more delegation of duties and ensure that the company cultivates a culture of openness that encourages positive dialogue between the management and subordinates (Green, 2004). In this respect it will be much easier for the company’s leadership to create a vision for change that will be more acceptable by the subordinates (Potter, 2001).
Conclusion
Research in Motion has for decades enjoyed a reputation as a leader in the mobile communication field paving the way for innovation within the field of smart phones. However, in recent times, the company has been plagued by challenges that have largely been blamed on the leadership within the company. By employing the change management theory, the company’s leadership can act as change agents which will encourage a rejuvenation of the company. Moreover, the leadership needs to clearly define as well as understand competition in order to better articulate to the subordinates the need for change.
References
Castaldo, J (2012). How management has failed at RIM. Canadian Business. Available at:
<http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technology-news/how-management-has-failed-at-rim/ Accessed 13 May 2013.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., Pillai, R (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2) pp. 80-81.
Gordon, J (2002). Organizational Behavior: A diagnostic approach (7th Ed). New York: Prentice Hall. pp.5-6.
Green, M (2004). Making sense of Change Management: A complete guide to the models, tools, and techniques of organizational change management. New York: Kogan Page Publishers. p 4.
Joffe, M., Glynn, S (2002). Facilitating Change and Empowering Employees, Journal of Change Management, 2(4) pp., 369-370.
Landrum, N., Howell, J., Paris, L (2000). Leadership for strategic change, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21-3, pp. 150-151.
Moran, J.M., Brightman, B (2001). Leading organizational change, Career Development, 6(2), pp. 111.
Northouse, G, P (2000). Leadership: Theory and Practice (2nd Ed). New York: Northouse pp. 15
Potter, J (2001). Creating a passion for change – the art of intelligent leadership, Industrial and Commercial Training, pp. 54-55.
Weidman, D (2002). Redefining Leadership for the 21st century. Journal of Business Strategy, 23(5) pp. 16-17.
