ATTN: Ultimate GEEK
Trimble 9
Diagnosing Change: Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman
HRM 587 Week 4 Assignment
David Trimble
Professor: Dr. Derek Crews
Diagnosing change
Introduction
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, have both undergone some changes over the years. These changes were different and each had its main objective. The objective was coined by the management with hope that improvement that would come due to the effected changes would result into the two companies recording a better performance. Lockheed Martin changed some of its policies in leadership. They effected new requirements to help better select their leaders and abolished their old way of selecting leaders. Northrop Grumman, at the end of 2015 announced that they were undergoing some major organization and leadership changes also. ("Northrop Grumman Corporation: News And Events - News Release")
In order to proper analyze the change, an application of the "Seven S" model framework by Peter and Waterman is chosen since it best fits the kinds of changes that were associated with the two companies as it encourages systems thinking and it best functions as an organizational analysis tool when it comes to accessing and monitoring the changes that the firm has gone through in their internal structure as is the case.
Outline of the 7-S Framework
When it comes to the 7-S Framework, the model is mainly used in circumstances where the elements of the organization facing the change are interrelated. This is effective since the model ensures that the wider impact that comes with a change are considered when a change is made.
The model primarily functions on the principle, for an organization to have top notch performance, the elements of the 7-S Framework all need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. The model helps determine the things needed to improve performance and maintains an organization alignment.
The seven categories of the 7-S Framework include:
1. Structure
2. Strategy
3. Systems
4. Style
5. Staff
6. Skills
7. Shared Points
Figure 1.1 7-S Framework
Staff
Style
Systems
Structure
Skills
Shared
Points
Strategy
The two organizations using the 7-S Framework
Structure
Both companies have a similar basic structure since they are virtually similar companies since they both deal with two American global aerospace and defense technology companies.
They are both also undergoing changes in the same that is leadership, just in different levels.
Strategy
The companies use different structures to influence their change in the leadership. That was due to the difference in the path through which the management think would be most appropriate to improve the management of the two companies. Lockheed mainly concentrates on leaders that are capable or who have the ability to effect change in the firm by themselves. This is through their decisions, their effect on the employees and such while Northrop Grumman concentrates and believes better change in their leadership would bring changes to the organization. Northrop Grumman does not fully believe in the power of the employee but the measures put forth policies that will serve to guide the leaders to what the management.
Systems
In terms of systems, Lockheed changed its systems for selecting employees while Northrop Grumman changed their systems for the measures and processes that should be followed by the new management.
Style
The style in, Lockheed has changed much. The new elected leaders ran the show. They are the ones that steer the company to success while in Northrop Grumman, the new measures that were put in place are the ones that are steering the company to the levels they wanted to arrive at.
Staff
When it comes to staff, Lockheed has switched to selecting staff that have all round qualities in order for them to run the show and steer the company to greatness, while in Northrop Grumman, the staff follow the set policies which further function to steer the company to greatness also.
Skills
In Lockheed, skills is the number one priority. The management belief that the skills of the employees is very crucial and the changes revolve around being in a place where the skills of the employees dictate the performance of the company while in Northrop Grumman, skill is not as important. In Northrop Grumman, however, concentrated on looking at employees whose skills, mainly revolve around their ability to be innovative and come up with useful technology that we will help the organization thrive.
Shared points
Both companies aim at bettering their position in the market and improving themselves. The changes although different aim at the same thing eventually and both measures and paths have a chance of succeeding and helping the organization achieve their objectives.
SWOT analysis
| ORGANIZATION | Lockheed Martin | Northrop Grumman |
| STRENGHTS | Employees are world class and efficient. | Trains and shapes employees to be to their exact specifications and skills. |
| WEAKNESSES | Recruiting employees is a long process, may result in lacking employees with required features. | Employing is expensive due to the training that has to be conducted before employing the employee |
| OPPORTUNITIES | Better employees have possibility to drive the company to greater heights. | Having a company that is built from employees that are handy and can come up with game changing innovations. |
| THREATS | Quacks who pretend to have the required qualities but actually don’t can affect the company greatly. | Employees not turning out as expected after training, |
Comparison
Both company’s approach seem viable. They both seem to target the same thing and are both means to the same end. I would consider both approaches as workable and both seem to get the job done. The difference however, would be when it comes to the challenges that are faced or the amount of effort and finance used for each method. In conclusion, between the two, the best approach is one that best fits your objective.
Potential areas of resistance
In Northrop Grumman, the employment procedure may end up being way too expensive for the company. To curb this, the company can embrace mass employment where they employ several employees at a go to reduce the cost per head.
In Lockheed Martin, the company can get quacks who may fake their qualities. This can be handled through developing tests that ascertain the employee truly has the qualities he or she claims to have.
Recommendations
From the two approaches used by the companies, I believe a sync of both, an exchange of some concepts between the two approaches would better the odds of both companies. To Lockheed Martin, more stringent and specific features for each position should be developed. Introduction of further training to the already skilled employer would result in a more efficient employee while a combination of both well skilled and trained employees before taking them to training in Northrop Grumman would also result in better results.
Work cited
B.V., Copyright. "6 Images Of Managing Change (Palmer, Dunford And Akin) - Forum". 12manage.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
"Importance Of Management". Managementstudyguide.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
"Lockheed Martin: Changing The Culture Of Leadership". Bloomberg.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
"Northrop Grumman Corporation: News And Events - News Release". Investor.northropgrumman.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
9
