MMPC-001 Solved Assignment

Case context

XYZ Corporation is a mid-sized consumer-electronics company facing external pressure (market shifts, stronger competition, fast technology changes). To sustain competitiveness, the CEO has initiated four major moves: (i) organisational restructuring for efficiency, (ii) adoption of new technology for product development, (iii) entry into international markets, and (iv) building a stronger online presence.

Question A) Management Functions in the XYZ case

a1) What core management functions are relevant here?

In the course, management work is often explained through core functions such as planning, organising, directing/leading, and controlling. Planning comes first because it clarifies objectives and the course of action; organising creates the structure and relationships needed to execute plans; directing/leading focuses on getting people to contribute willingly and effectively; and controlling ensures actual performance stays aligned with plans by identifying deviations and taking corrective action.

Planning

• Meaning: Planning is deciding objectives and choosing actions in advance (what to do, how to do it, and who will do it). It is forward-looking and based on scanning the environment and forecasting to prepare for the future.
• Why it matters in this case: XYZ’s market is dynamic, so management must anticipate technology and competitive moves and choose a clear direction (e.g., international expansion, digital presence).

Organising

• Meaning: Organising involves creating the structure of roles, authority relationships, and coordination mechanisms so that people can work together toward objectives. It includes grouping activities, delegating authority, and establishing relationships among jobs and departments.
• Why it matters in this case: Restructuring is an organising exercise: redefining units and workflows so efficiency improves and new initiatives (technology, online, global markets) have clear ownership.

Directing / Leading

• Meaning: Leading is the process of influencing people to work willingly for group objectives. In organisations, this includes motivating, communicating, guiding, and aligning people with organisational goals.
• Why it matters in this case: Strategic change requires employee commitment (learning new tools, adapting to redesigned roles, executing market-entry plans). This is impossible through structure alone; leadership is needed to influence and energise people.

Controlling

• Meaning: Controlling helps ensure results match plans. It makes planning meaningful by requiring measurement, comparison with standards, and corrective action (using budgetary and non-budgetary mechanisms).
• Why it matters in this case: New technology and international expansion raise execution risk; control systems are needed to track milestones, quality, cost, timelines, and market outcomes so deviations are corrected early.

a2) Where do we see each function in XYZ’s actions?

Planning examples from the case

• Strategic direction-setting: Choosing to expand internationally and build a stronger online presence reflects setting objectives and selecting future courses of action.
• Environmental scanning logic: The trigger for change is external pressure (competition, technology, market change), which aligns with planning’s emphasis on preparing for uncertainty and future conditions.

Organising examples from the case

• Restructuring for efficiency: Redesigning the organisation is a direct organising step—rearranging tasks, roles, reporting relationships, and coordination so work flows with less waste and better accountability.
• Creating capability “owners”: Introducing new technology usually requires new roles/teams (e.g., product engineering systems team, digital marketing/e-commerce unit). This is organising work around new priorities.

Directing / Leading examples from the case

• Change initiative sponsorship: The CEO initiating a “series of strategic changes” signals leadership action—mobilising the organisation toward new goals rather than maintaining the status quo.
• Influence requirement: Technology adoption and restructuring demand guiding employees through new ways of working (training, motivation, communication), which falls under leading as an influence process.

Controlling examples from the case

• Tracking product development improvement: After new technology is introduced, XYZ must monitor whether development cycle time, defects, cost, and launch timelines improve (standards → measurement → correction).
• Managing global expansion risk: International entry needs controls for compliance, partner performance, customer satisfaction, and budget adherence—otherwise “growth” can become uncontrolled cost and inconsistency.

Question B) Management theories relevant to XYZ’s strategic changes

b1) Two theories that fit this case and why they matter

Theory 1: Scientific Management (F.W. Taylor) for efficiency-focused restructuring

Scientific management developed to improve efficiency through a systematic study of work. It emphasises replacing rule-of-thumb methods with scientifically developed methods, selecting and training workers scientifically, cooperating to ensure work follows the developed methods, and dividing responsibilities so management handles planning and workers execute tasks. This is directly relevant when an organisation restructures to improve efficiency, because restructuring typically aims to reduce wasted effort, clarify responsibilities, and standardise work processes where appropriate.

Theory 2: Contingency Approach for competing demands (technology + global markets + online growth)

The contingency approach argues that no single managerial style or principle works best in every situation. Managerial practices should differ based on context because organisations vary (size, scope, environment), and people also differ (needs, perceptions, experiences). This is highly relevant to XYZ because the company is not dealing with one uniform environment: product innovation, international markets, and digital channels each create different conditions, requiring different structures, leadership behaviours, and controls.

b2) How XYZ can apply these theories to strengthen its management strategy

Applying Scientific Management in a practical, modern way

• Process mapping and standard-setting for repeatable work: In restructuring, XYZ can identify routine, repeatable processes (e.g., quality checks, documentation, procurement flows) and define “best known methods” to reduce variation and delays. This matches the idea of developing a “science” for elements of work rather than relying on habit.
• Capability building through systematic training: New product-development technology requires training and development so employees can perform effectively in redesigned roles, consistent with the emphasis on scientific selection and development rather than leaving learning to chance.
• Management–worker cooperation to reduce friction: Technology adoption fails when employees feel it is “imposed.” Taylor’s approach highlights cooperation to ensure methods are followed—practically, XYZ should combine clear process design with two-way feedback so work standards are realistic and adopted.
• Use with caution (human side): The course also highlights criticisms of scientific management (risk of reducing creativity, fragmenting jobs, making work repetitive). Therefore, XYZ should apply standardisation mainly where it improves quality and speed, while protecting innovation work (R&D creativity, design thinking) from overly rigid rules.

Applying the Contingency Approach across the four change streams

• Different structures for different needs: International expansion may require region-focused teams and compliance capability, while online presence may require agile digital marketing and analytics. A contingency mindset supports using different coordination mechanisms instead of forcing one structure everywhere.
• Different leadership behaviours by situation: During a crisis or tight deadline, more directive leadership may be needed; during innovation and adoption, participative leadership may work better. The “no one best way” logic helps management choose the style that fits the phase and the team’s maturity.
• Controls tailored to uncertainty: International markets have higher uncertainty (regulation, demand variability), so controls may focus on early-warning indicators and learning loops, whereas internal efficiency initiatives can use tighter process metrics and budgets.

Question C) Leadership style of the CEO and a better-fit recommendation

c1) What leadership style does the CEO’s behaviour most resemble?

Based only on the case text, the CEO “has decided” to implement strategic changes. This indicates that the initiative is top-driven and directive at the decision stage (a strong sign of an autocratic/authoritarian tendency in initiating the change). At the same time, the case does not explicitly describe whether he involved managers and employees in discussion, planning, or decision-making. Therefore, the strongest defensible conclusion is that his approach appears more autocratic in initiation (top-down decision), while the implementation style is not specified and could still be participative if he chooses to involve teams later.

How the course differentiates these styles (for justification)

• Authoritarian/autocratic style: Leader is highly directive, tells followers what to do and how to do it, and does not allow participation in decisions.
• Democratic style: Leader encourages discussion and participation, shares leadership responsibilities, and involves people in planning and execution.
• Laissez-faire style: Leader provides little/no leadership, gives complete freedom, and does not establish policies/procedures for the task.

Given the CEO is actively driving major initiatives, the laissez-faire option does not fit. The limited evidence points more toward an autocratic tilt at the start (decision is announced from the top).

c2) Recommended alternative leadership approach for navigating change

Recommendation: Move toward a democratic/participative style during implementation (supported by clear direction on goals)

Large strategic change is not only a technical project; it is a people transition. The course’s leadership research summary (Iowa studies) shows that democratic leadership was strongly preferred by group members and was associated with less hostile/aggressive reactions than authoritarian leadership. While adult workplaces are more complex than the study setting, the core insight remains useful: participation reduces frustration and improves acceptance when groups must work together under change.

What “participative implementation” could look like at XYZ

• Involve cross-functional teams early: Use structured workshops with engineering, marketing, supply chain, and customer support to co-design the new workflow after restructuring (democratic involvement in planning/execution).
• Adopt Theory Y assumptions where appropriate: Treat employees as capable of responsibility and self-direction when goals and support are clear. This improves ownership—important when adopting new technology and building online capability.
• Keep clarity on outcomes (avoid confusion): Participation should not mean “no direction.” Management should clearly communicate the non-negotiables (targets, deadlines, quality) while allowing teams discretion on how to achieve them. This balances structure with involvement.

Question D) Change management: likely challenges, resistance handling, and a suitable model

d1) Challenges XYZ may face while implementing these changes

Operational and design challenges

• Strategy–structure–systems mismatch: A redesign that changes structure but does not build supporting systems (processes, technology, coordination routines) is less likely to succeed. Restructuring and new technology must be aligned, not treated as separate projects.
• Project and programme discipline gaps: Multiple initiatives running together (technology + global + online + restructure) can slip in timelines and outcomes if project management capability is weak.
• Training and skill gaps: Insufficient training (technical skills, leadership skills, new process knowledge) weakens adoption and performance.
• Communication breakdown: Poor communication or late communication increases confusion and resistance, especially if employees perceive change as imposed.

Employee resistance challenges (what it may look like)

The course explains that resistance can range from subtle undermining and withholding information to active resistance, and it can be passive or active, individual or collective. Often, organisations face resistance to the content of change and/or the process of change.

Key reasons employees may resist at XYZ

• Fear of the unknown: Employees may worry about what the change means for their future roles.
• Loss of control: If change is done “to them” with little voice, they may resist because they feel powerless.
• Loss of competence: New technology can make existing skills feel outdated, creating anxiety about learning demands and performance.
• Need for security: Restructuring often triggers concerns about status, reporting lines, job continuity, and career paths.
• Comfort zone and timing effects: People get used to routines; frequent change waves can create fatigue and resentment.

How management can address employee resistance (course-aligned strategies)

The course outlines several strategies organisations use to overcome resistance, and XYZ can combine them depending on the situation and stakeholder group.

• Rational–Empirical (persuasion through benefits): Make the business and personal benefits clear (why technology helps product quality, why online growth protects competitiveness, how new roles build employability).
• Normative–Re-educative (shift beliefs and norms): Use training, coaching, and cultural reinforcement so people internalise new ways of working (e.g., data-driven decisions, digital-first mindset).
• Action-centered (problem solving): Treat resistance signals as problems to solve (tool issues, workload overload, unclear roles) and implement practical remedies quickly; position change as an opportunity, not only a threat.
• Power–Coercive (use sparingly): Where compliance is non-negotiable (e.g., security protocols, legal compliance in international markets), management may need authority-based enforcement—but overuse can intensify resistance.

In addition, the course notes that continuous learning, effective communication, understanding the rationale for change, and using informal structures positively can improve acceptability and reduce pushback.

d2) A suitable change management model for XYZ and how to apply it

Proposed model: Kotter’s change model (focus on making change “stick”)

The course discusses Kotter’s model as a structured approach that emphasises sustaining change and embedding it into the organisation’s culture (“make change stick”). This fits XYZ because the company is not making a single adjustment; it is executing multiple strategic shifts that must become part of routine operations, not temporary projects.

Applying Kotter’s model to XYZ (practical mapping)

• Create urgency around the external threat: Use market and competitor signals to explain why change is necessary now (competition + technology shifts), so employees understand the business reality behind the change.
• Build a guiding coalition: Form a cross-functional change leadership group (operations, R&D, HR, finance, digital) to coordinate restructuring, technology adoption, online growth, and international entry as one integrated programme.
• Clarify vision and strategy for each change stream: Translate “strong online presence” into measurable objectives (customer experience targets, digital lead targets, service KPIs) and translate “technology enhancement” into product development outcomes (cycle time, quality).
• Communicate consistently and early: Prevent resistance caused by poor or late communication by using repeated, consistent messaging and open forums for questions.
• Empower action through training and support: Close skill gaps with training plans and on-the-job support so employees do not experience “loss of competence” and “lack of support.”
• Build on change and institutionalise it: The course highlights “build on change” and “add to the core”—use early wins to improve confidence, refine goals, and embed the new behaviours into culture, systems, and routines. This is essential so restructuring and digital initiatives do not fade after initial enthusiasm.

Closing integration point (why this is cohesive)

XYZ’s situation requires management to combine: (i) strong planning (clear objectives and choices), (ii) organising (structure and coordination), (iii) leading (influence, motivation, and participation), and (iv) controlling (measurement and correction). Scientific management can strengthen efficiency work if applied thoughtfully, while contingency thinking ensures the company adapts management practices to different contexts (technology, global markets, digital channels). Finally, a structured change model like Kotter’s helps ensure the changes become durable rather than temporary.