Outline and analyze the challenges facing Mellon Investor Services in their organizational redesign and assess how well the company have dealt with those challenges in how they are approaching and managing the change.
Delong, T. and Vijayaraghavan, V. (2002) Mellon Investor Services (ECCH case reference 9-402-036, Harvard Business School)
Mellon Investor Services (“MIS”) is an investment management and investment services company, focused to help clients manage and move their financial assets and succeed in the rapidly changing global marketplace. Between 2000 and 2001 MIS underwent a substantial organizational redesign, which will be critically considered in this essay. Wittington and Mayer (2002) suggest that organizational performance is driven by the company’s ability to redesign structures frequently, however the change requires participation of people leading the change i.e. agents, organizational structure that welcomes the change and appropriate managements styles.
The Chief Financial Officer of MIS, Jim Aramanda led the company for few very successful years, during which MIS was providing new offerings for transfer agent services including issue services, employee plans and direct services, broker / dealer services. The company had five years of successful growth and MIS was meeting and exceeding its financial goals.
In Autumn of 2002 Aramanda’s became concerned for the successful future of the company and he recognised few areas that required closer attention: •
different business units were not consolidating their offerings and taking advantage of various products, which resulted in two Requests For Proposal coming from one client whereby both RFPs were replied to separately, as opposed to a combined and unified response, •
current successful offering of core products did not guarantee that MIS would grow in future, •
MIS staff were not building long-term relationship with the clients therefore business opportunities may not be spotted in good time, •
requirement for new measures of performance and progress, •
lack of focus on hiring and rewarding talented people,
lack of focus on product development, which was manifested in product being offered by the sales department without confirmation that the product may actually be delivered to the clients, •
Some of the groups, such as technology, were too achievement oriented without being focused.
In order to address the above concerns and mould the company to his new vision, Aramanda hired a number of experienced consultants to support his structural redesign of MIS. Aramanda realised that the change would also involve a dramatic shift of vision and attitudes to introduce new systems and subsystems, with the likely result of clash of wills. Buchanan & Badham (2008) argue that such a change can be successful if it involves one person influencing the organization according to their values, and Aramanda had the clear vision and skills to gather a team of knowledgeable people to fundamentally amend and adjust MIS future capabilities. The change that MIS underwent could be classified as ‘strategic’ or ‘transformational’ (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010) and it aimed to redefine the boundaries, methods of problem-solving and doing business in the company.
Aramanda acted on his vision in a very organized manner, as he instantly hired experienced, independent and talented consultants, Mary Davis and Jeanne DiFrancesco, and empowered them to accurately assess how the change should be conducted whilst keeping disruption of the day-to-day business activities to the minimum, design a four-phase project that was consistent with Aramanda’s aggressive deadlines, and work alongside all business units to manage the organizational change smoothly and efficiently.
Although the organizational change instigated by Aramanda and facilitated by the consultants proved a great success, there were certain areas that should have...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document