Final Exam assignment

Team members: Aigerim Niyetova, Nurbek Kadylov, Meruyert

Serikova, Zhaniya Kenessova, Alisher Kazhymukhanov

Case study #1
1. Steve Jobs has achieved a great deal of success. What were some possible
negative consequences of the level of power that Steve Jobs hold at Apple?

It is obvious that Steve Jobs reached one of the highest levels of achievement during his
work in Apple. His innovative discoveries changed the whole world, almost every person’s
life. But this kind of approach, that he used at that time, caused negative consequences
during his journey in this corporation. Some examples of such consequences:
● Coercive power. He used this kind of approach in work, intimidation of his employees
was very cruel from his side, so it affected almost everyone who worked with him,
and not everyone responded well about Steve.
● Referent power. Those who work with him say Jobs was very hard to please. So all
of the employees must work very hard to please him, otherwise Steve would be mad
and angry, and it may cause serious consequences, even until firing of the employee.
● Autocracy and drive for perfection that can make him tyrannical. In a pursuit of
success, Steve build a corporation that was laying on his shoulders, so autocracy in
the Apple was on the highest level, and this is one of the reasons, why his journey in
Apple was tyrannical.

2. Why do you think Steve Jobs’s level of collaboration is so unusual for top
executives?

Steve Jobs had extraordinary personal power and charisma, both of which he used to
persuade and inspire his followers. He recognized that it was critical for people to be able to
work well with each other if they wanted to succeed, and he worked hard to create a positive
work environment where conflict could be resolved quickly through open and honest
communication. By contrast, most CEOs simply issue directives and expect that people will
follow without question.

Most CEOs control their employees through threats and intimidation rather than cooperation
and encouragement. They hold decision-making power in their hands and use that power to
maintain order and keep their employees in line. This kind of leadership only works when all
employees are completely loyal to the leader and will do whatever they are told without
question. When employees become dissatisfied or feel that they are being unfairly treated,
their loyalty will often evaporate and they will begin to work against the leader’s interests.
Steve Jobs preferred a more collaborative approach and recognized that his staff would be
far more productive if they worked together rather than against each other.

Steve Jobs was a visionary who understood that long-term success requires flexible
strategies that adapt to changing market conditions. He encouraged his employees to be
creative and encouraged them to come up with new and innovative ways of doing things. He
was not afraid of change and never expected his team to work exactly the way he did. On
the contrary, he saw change as an opportunity to grow and flourish and did not discourage
his people from questioning his authority. This fostered a sense of trust between him and his
employees that greatly contributed to the company’s success. By contrast, most leaders are
reluctant to embrace change and do everything they can to keep things the way they are. He
believed in the importance of having a strong corporate culture that was defined by honesty
and integrity. In the early days of Apple, the company was notorious for treating its
employees poorly and refusing to pay its fair share of taxes. Instead of trying to cover up its
misdeeds, Jobs made the company’s practices public and put the onus on himself to change
things for the better.

3. Apple is a global company. What kind of power structure can be best followed
by CEO to improve the company in modern times?

In modern companies, employees are treated very carefully. Take even the same Google.
How did CEO's decisions change the company that all programmers dream of working in
Google? Because the best conditions for workers are created there. Free food, free
workouts, free travel to and from work, no hassle with paperwork, no dress code and much
more. This not only makes you feel love for your work, but also increases productivity and
the quality of the work done. It turns out this way modern companies increase performance.
Conversely, we see a strong outflow of developers from Twitter after the arrival of a new
director. He distinguished himself by introducing harsh processing, firing a weighty part of
the employees, loading the rest with a lot of work. He tries to make decisions independently
in all areas of the company. It's no secret that this company is beginning to experience not
the best times for itself. If we compare it with the power structure of Steve Jobs, then you
can use all the structures here, but slightly modifying them, let's go through each;
1) Legitimate power. In my experience, the best solution is to take into account the opinion of
each employee, not just managers. But the right of the last vote should be reserved for the
CEO.

2) Expert power. There are no questions. Every CEO should be an expert, a leader, in order
to have authority and the ability to make the most correct decisions.

3) Encouraging strength should work for all levels. It is necessary to encourage not only the
best employees, but also not to forget about those who are making progress and may
become the best in the future.

4) Just as in the second point, every CEO should be able to leverage information in his field
of work. The best example for this is Nokia. After the change of the head, very controversial
decisions began to be made, which even ordinary people criticized. Without insufficient
knowledge, the management tried to change the operating system of the phones, which led
to the collapse of the company.

5) Certainly determination is the best tool in the modern world, where information is
changing every second. At any moment, the manager must be able to make difficult
decisions.
6) Every CEO should be an example for his employees. This is indisputable.

Case Study #2
1. How would you plan and implement the change? Explain using Kurt Lewin’s
three-step framework.

Kurt Levin's three-stage structure is used for the safe implementation of changes and
consists of three stages - unfreezing, change and freezing.

Unfreezing - preparing members of the organization for changes. We need to make sure that
all members are ready, and the changes will be painless.

The best example in my opinion is traffic lights in Kazakhstan. They are put at new
intersections, but they are not turned on immediately, they allow drivers to get used to the
fact that they are there, and that they will be turned on in the future. Most likely, we need to
do the same for our system, we need to configure all systems so that users can use their
IDs, but also leave an alternative, familiar old way of entering the campus, portals, etc. Users
will see and remember where they can use IDs, maybe some will even start using them
completely.

Change. Here you need to partially disable alternative login methods. For example, to enter
the portal, you must use an ID. Since users have already seen and most likely tried to use
their ID, it will be as easy as possible for them to use these systems. In a certain period of
time, it is worth gradually disabling the alternative method of entry on other resources.

Freezing. Here it is already worth switching completely to idi. Without IDI, students can no
longer perform most actions.

Another good example in Kazakhstan: Ashyq. They first put qr codes everywhere, then
obliged people to scan qr codes in state institutions and hospitals, then in all public places.

2. How would you deal with employees who are resisting change because their
habits are threatened? How would you deal with them if they are resisting
because of a fear of failure?

How would you deal with employees who are resisting change because their habits are
threatened? How would you deal with them if they are resisting because of a fear of failure?

Changes are an integral part of the development, evolution that is present in every company.
Everyone can react to changes in different ways. Not every step in the changes can be true,
because all employees must participate in the decision-making. Since it is impossible to see
the whole picture, looking only from my side and using my vision.
The first step on the way to solving the situation is to talk to an employee. Find out what is
the reason for his resistance to change. Perhaps there are weighty justifications for this,
such as the inefficiency of this method or the problems that arise during its execution. The
most important thing in the company is people. Therefore, you need to try to listen, because
perhaps in their words there will be a hint, advice on improving or automating processes and
productions.
The second step is to look for an approach to each employee. Due to the reasons for the
resistance.
If the resistance is caused by the fear of failure, you need to show the employee that his
fears are not justified and you are ready to help him in this situation. Fear can be caused by
the fact that a person loses confidence in the next day. The main task here is to give hope
and confidence to the employee.
If the resistance is caused by threats of habits, then it is important for each employee to
explain that changes are an integral part that should not be missed. No company will survive
without development.

3. What are the benefits of employee participation in change management?

Change management itself is one of the essential and important things in organization's life.
So, the participation of employees is also very significant, since when employees set their
changes themselves, it's easier to rebuild the whole system, and also easier to adapt to the
changes. The benefits of employee involvement or input to change include increased
acceptance of change, reduced stress, and a greater sense of control:
● Increased acceptance of change - it is clear that, when people are involved in the
changes themselves, it’s more likely to accept those changes by others and among
teammates also.
● Reduced stress - this kind of approach is the best way to reduce stress among
people, since the changes that were made by the employees are less likely stressful,
and this is one of the benefits.
● Greater sense of control - increased sense of control is also very essential and
beneficial, since controlling every change, which are made before, is more adaptive
and more likely to use them in further organization life.

4. Why are successful companies less likely to change? What should companies
do in order to make organizational change part of their culture?

Successful businesses are less inclined to change because they have a well-established
structure and are unwilling to risk failure as a consequence of adopting the change. Big
companies usually will not take the risk and try to find ways for only small changes. That is
why rather than changing completely, big and successful companies are more likely to
change the rules and norms gradually.

If there are cultural changes that are needed to be implemented, the organization should
perform these steps to ensure a "painless" process.
1. Involve the entire workplace in the cultural changes.
2. Make it a secure and trustworthy place for individuals to express their ideas and feelings
about the change.
3. Show and communicate your shared vision for the future.
4. Assist individuals in discovering their own personal reasons and benefits for the change.
5. Explain how individuals may participate in the process.
6. Implement lenient rules to establish an open-minded view of the shifts in culture.