4. Leadership style applied in the organization and in support of the project

The leadership style of the organization was dissonant, more like a departmental dictatorship with democratic sub-departmental collaborative teams. This meant that departmental and cross-departmental teams communicated among themselves and with each other freely for discussing subjects. Decisions or suggestions had to be passed on to upper management for approval or rejection. Decisions were often made base on misinformation that led to incorrect decisions that had to be changed later on.

When errors in decision making occurred usually decision makers and those that passed on information in support of the decision making were unaccountable. These people were normally not able to be held accountable, much like the untouchables. Fault was usually passed on and pushed downwards, preferably cross-departmentally. As a result each department and the department chief in the Marketing Division appeared rather defensive and always wanted to emphasize on department-performance appearance: “…Just as long as we look good and not we are blamed for a problem…”

 

5. Change Process Methodologies applied to get the project completed

 

The organization did not apply specific change process methodologies in order to deal with the marketing material adjustments. The project, if at all, was announced to a market before. In most case, about 50% of the markets did not even know of the project progress until the project was about completed. The legal department had started making regulatory modifications to various literature and translations were completed. The project manager who was supposed to coordinate the literature was not even aware of this until after 10 different languages of an $ 8,000 translation per each language was completed. In order to utilize the $ 80,000 spent on translations, the project manager then tried to salvage the material.

In order to analyze this Change Process Methodology, as is the problem in many organizations, change is not specifically identified as a project that normally might need special attention. Change is normally treated as a side effect to the daily activities. The subject organization believed that the people should just respond and comply with it as dictated. And the attitude, just like with the leadership style applied, was that the headquarters was to dominate decision powers over local-market requirements and cross-departmental activities.

Overall, it was common that one department was unaware of the other departments’ involvement requirements. And mostly all, including all the way up to the executive management level, people were ignorant to change project methodology requirements. Apparently people believe that change will manage itself.