Xavier at WGU who didn't pay for the work

Table of Contents

A. Need for Change (Systems Contingency Model)

According to the system contingency model, organizational performance and success are defined by the synergetic fit of internal elements such as strategy, structure, and culture with external contingencies. The misfit between the two creates a chain of events that harm the stability and coherence of the system, leading to its decline and necessitating change (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012). The present scenario reflects how a centralized approach worked for a small scale efficiently, but failed to accommodate the necessary changes to align internal organizational design and its external environment. Thus, the company structure and management style no longer fit its size, complexity, and environment.

The internal analysis of the company shows a rigid structure with a top-down hierarchy, which performs better in a smaller organization. Previously, it was easier for the leadership to strategize for all and ensure growth with control. However, it limits employees' creativity in the long run as they are unable to innovate, suggest, or experiment. Moreover, the absence of any development and training opportunities exacerbates the crises. In addition, the inventory management process and software have also not been updated as per the growing sales and global reach.

The company has achieved massive growth from $1million to $100 million in sales over the last ten years and international reach with 500 employees. However, it still operates on a top-down hierarchy, which slows decision-making and limits employee adaptability. The current system can no longer accommodate the dynamic global environment with a rigid structure.

A situation reflects a critical need for implementing change to remain competitive, supported by innovation. The company won't be able to respond to dynamic global markets and their respective requirements with a top-down model. Inventory management will have to be upgraded and supported by continued employee training in order to fit the environment as the company continues to scale. Given the contextual elements, the organization requires a transition from traditional hierarchy to a learning organization where decision-making and innovation drive the growth rather than the central control.

B. Differences between Learning Organization and Traditional Organization

A traditional organization operates with centralized control, hierarchy, and limited employee involvement in decision making, while a learning organization focuses on continuous learning and knowledge sharing, adaptation, and employee involvement in the key processes (Halmaghi, 2018). Traditional organizations follow a top-down decision-making approach, which limits employees' contribution and involvement, while learning organizations follow a shared decision-making approach, which is inclusive and improves problem-solving and adaptability. Thus, in traditional organizations, employees follow directions in a mechanistic way, while in learning organizations, employees have room for creativity and improving the process to enhance efficiency. Traditional organizations can act as a barrier to growth by missing opportunities for innovation and improvement.

Consequently, experimentation and risk-taking are discouraged in traditional organizations, in contrast to a learning organization. Moreover, the flow of information is limited in traditional organizations, while learning organizations follow an open knowledge sharing, which facilitates improvement in operations across different departments of the organization (Halmaghi, 2018).

Lastly, traditional organizations are inclined to preserve the established practices and routines, while learning organizations are lenient in adapting and embracing internal change in accordance with their external environment.

1. Identification of Woolner’s Stage - Current Stage

Given the present circumstances, the company fits in the second stage of Woolner’s model, i.e., developing organization. The company is not nascent and at an early stage, as it has already achieved scale and expansion with $100 million of global sales. However, the company also doesn’t demonstrate characteristics of mature learning organizations, following its top-down structure and lack of employee training and empowerment culture. The growth of the company shows it has moved from the reactive stage, and the scale of the company requires structural and performance improvements. Although the company has achieved great success, it has not invested in employee training and infrastructure development. It shows the company is yet to institutionalize learning across the organization, which aligns it with the developing stage rather than a mature learning organization.

2. Implementation of Sene’s 5 Disciplines

Personal Mastery

The company can apply Senge’s five disciplines to become a learning organization. Firstly, personal mastery needs to be implemented to facilitate employees with regular training on problem-solving, innovation, management, and operations skills. It will develop competencies to contribute and adapt while improving processes (Senge, 1990). These trainings might incur financial pressure initially, as leadership may view it as an unnecessary cost following their history of growth without it. However, this should be framed as a strategic investment that will improve their competitive advantage and enhance innovation. Moreover, the training programs should be properly phased in order to regulate cost-related issues.

Mental Models

Secondly, the mental models principle should be applied to ensure a cultural and mindset change in the leadership, which encourages them to rethink their centred decision-making process and hierarchy. This mindset shift will help them to support employee involvement, leading to creativity and innovation. There may be resistance from leadership following a decade of centralized control, which can be addressed with leadership development and change management training for them. This training will promote collaboration and trust among employees and their competence.

Shared Vision

Thirdly, the Shared Vision principle should be applied, which clearly communicates a vision to become a learning organization. It will enable employees to recognize and understand the meaning, goal, and process of change. Since employees were previously not involved in decision-making, an initial disconnect from the company’s goals may exist. This can be addressed by rationalizing the transition and creating a shared sense of vision for innovation and collaboration.

Team Learning

Fourthly, the principle of team learning can be applied to create cross-functional teams across different departments to address specific niches. It will improve knowledge sharing and solve problems effectively and in a timely manner. The inventory issues and international expansion will benefit from this practice and enable teams to work closely.

System Thinking

Lastly, System Thinking remains the most crucial for the company, as it enables them to evaluate their shortcomings and lackings, such as outdated inventory management systems, lack of training, etc (Fillion et al., 2014). It will enable the company to respond to challenges systematically by addressing the root cause rather than being reactive to each challenge individually. In this context, the company may focus only on more visible issues, such as updating the inventory software without realizing how this change will be incorporated within the structure and culture of the organization. Systems thinking will ensure problems are sorted in a coordinated manner.

C. End Result and Nature of Change

Following the Balogun and Hope Hailey framework, the given scenario fits most in the evolution quadrant. The end result should be transformational; however, given the scale and expansion of the company, the nature of change should be incremental.

1. Appropriateness of the Selected End Result and Nature

The end result is transformational because the company requires a broad change in terms of its structure, operations, and culture rather than a minor adjustment or realignment. The company’s top-down hierarchy and traditional style need a transition to a learning organization. Presently, the culture of the company is not inclusive and lacks opportunities for professional development; thus, the employees must be trained and involved in the decision-making and innovation process. Moreover, the inventory management system also requires an upgrade, which can’t be done in isolation.

The nature of the change should be incremental, given the large scale and 500 employees to handle the international operations. The big bang or abrupt change is not suitable, as it will complicate the system by introducing new challenges without solving the previous ones. Such as a sudden change to leadership style and organizational culture can create confusion and resistance, which may translate into disruptions in operations (Balogun & Hailey, 2004). An incremental approach will enable the company to phase out employee training and development and system upgrades while ensuring stability and sustainability. This pace of change is more realistic and manageable for the company.

Given these characteristics, evolution quadrants prove to be most appropriate and fit the long-term transformation needs of the company. However, it is important to note that this transformation must be gradual so the company can adapt accordingly without facing any decline. This approach gives leadership and employees the depth to embrace the culture and move from a traditional organization to a learning organization (Hailey & Balogun, 2002).

D. Research Action Model

A research action model can facilitate comprehensive support for change from a traditional to a learning organization in the context. The approach investigates the company rather than assuming the hierarchical structure as the issue, especially when it has produced significant growth for the company.

Diagnosis

Firstly, the current situation should be diagnosed to identify current problems through extensive data collection and analysis. Comprehensive surveys, interviews, performance reports, and reviews can help the company understand how structural elements are resisting or limiting innovation or learning. The identification of the root cause for adaptability and innovation crises helps devise the goals and objectives.

Feedback to Stakeholders

Secondly, the findings must be shared with key stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of the problem and consequent support for change. It is essential in the given context because the massive growth to $100 million sales and international operations limits the recognition of how the existing structure and practices may harm the company in the long run.

Intervention Implementation

Thirdly, devising interventions and their implementation based on the findings can ensure a company's transition to a learning organization. It can include training development, modernization of inventory systems, and information flow mechanisms to involve employees in the process.

Evaluation and Review

Fourthly, research is a cyclic process; thus, reviewing the results of the intervention to evaluate their effectiveness is crucial (Powell Jr, 2002). The review process will help the company understand how those interventions are improving performance and learning. It can include developing performance metrics for each intervention to keep track of introduced changes. It will enable the company to adjust and strategize according to the results and reinforce successful changes.

E. Two Recommendations

Technology Innovation

The company should implement technology innovation and develop an innovation incubator. The first strategy will fill the gap in the company’s inventory management process and software system. The change not only fulfills a basic tool requirement but can help them develop an ecosystem that improves access to operational information across departments. The flow and access to information and operational data are crucial for a company's transition to a learning organization, as they provide the infrastructure required to support learning and collaboration.

Innovation Incubator

Secondly, the company can establish an innovation incubator, such as an Idea Lab. It can be a dedicated space or a program where employees can propose, suggest, and test new ideas without the fear of failure.

1. Use of One Innovation Strategy – Innovation Incubator

The development of a formal space will bring employees from different departments with the motive of showcasing their creativity and testing solutions. It will change the organizational culture and enhance employees' engagement and creativity, in contrast to the existing organizational culture, where experimentation and contributions aren’t appreciated. The initial pilot projects can be focused on the existing problems faced by the company, i.e., the inventory system, communication barriers, and process inefficiencies. Managers can support this process by providing time, resources, and guidance, which will not only facilitate knowledge sharing but will also bridge the communication gap and decentralize the decision-making process. Thus, the innovation incubator will directly address the structural and cultural limitations of the company and help it transition from a traditional organization to a learning organization.

F. Kotter Model

Kotter’s 8-step model offers a structured and practical approach to leading and managing organizational change. In the given context, it guides the company’s transition from a traditional organization to a learning organization by helping leadership build urgency, alignment, and support for change (Nestorenko Koinash Maryna et al., 2025). The four most appropriate steps for the given scenario are establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful coalition, developing a vision and strategy, and empowering others to act on the vision.

Create Urgency

Creating a sense of urgency instills the need for change now and its necessity for the organization. It can serve as a wake-up call for change. The company's success despite a misfit of internal system and external contingencies demonstrates a long-term weakness that can erode its competitiveness. Leadership needs to show that the current top-down structure doesn’t fit the size and scale of the company. Moreover, creating a sense of urgency will help employees and managers internalize the desired change and acknowledge that the current structure limits innovation and future growth.

Form a Powerful Coalition

Secondly, a powerful coalition should be formed consisting of senior leaders, managers, and respected employees. The change process is a team effort and requires support from diverse stakeholders rather than just top executives. The coalition will support change and guide transition while building trust across the organization. It will facilitate a cultural change rather than an operational change, which is crucial for a transition to a learning organization.

Develop Vision and Strategy

Thirdly, companies need to develop a vision and strategy that defines their future state and the roadmap to it. In this case, it should become a learning organization that encourages and grows based on employee involvement, knowledge sharing, and innovation. The strategy should include an action plan, such as training development, modernizing infrastructure, and a reward system for contributions.

Empower Others to Act on the Vision

Fourthly, the organization should empower others to act on the vision. Once the vision and strategy of the company are clearly communicated and understood by the employees, it becomes more important to give them resources and space to participate in the change. Existing practices of the company prevent and resist change; thus, training and regular employee input in problem-solving are crucial in this regard. These steps can help the company initiate the change in a structured and sustainable manner. It caters to the diverse requirements of the transitions.

G. Five Pillars of Sustainable Change

The sustainability of the learning organisation environment is a continuous process rather than a one-time change. All five pillars of the organization have to collectively sustain and refinance the new environment. These five pillars include leadership, strategy, culture, structure, and system. The synergy of these pillars acts as the sum of all the units, which is greater than their individual effort. Leaders are required to continuously support the new environment. Leaders will continue to support the employees' involvement in the decision-making process and innovation in order to prevent returning to the previous centralized control. Leadership keeps the commitment visible and thus sustains the learning organization.

The company has to make learning and continuous improvement a part of its long-term strategy rather than a temporary initiative. Such as in the present case, the profitability reinforced a central decision-making, and the company could not invest in training and development, which would have supported improvement. As a learning organization, the company should include employee development and growth as a strategic priority rather than as an operational need. It ensures that learning is connected to business growth and competitiveness

This strategy must be reflected in the daily behaviors and values of the organization as the overall culture of the organization. These values must support collaboration and experimentation. The recognition of employee contribution and encouraging teamwork as a part of routine work embeds the new environment and sustains learning modalities. In addition, sustaining the structure of the learning organization requires active collaborations and shared decision-making. Cross-functional teams and reduced reliance on the previous top-down hierarchy will help employees to continue active participation rather than moving to previous passive and mechanistic roles.

Lastly, the system should act as a binding force for the other pillars and define key practices, processes, and limits in terms of training, communication, performance evaluation, and the reward system. To sustain a learning organization, the company in question will need ongoing training programs, updated systems, and feedback channels to support innovation and continuous improvement. Systems, as a pillar, can make permanent changes and align the metrics of the learning organization with operations.

In conclusion, all these pillars are adjacent and facilitate each other. If the company changes culture but not system, stakeholders will move back to their previous roles. Similarly, if the system is changed but the leadership is not, employees will not trust the commitment to change. In addition, if the leadership is changed but the structure isn't, employees will not be empowered enough to act.

References

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change. Prentice Hall/Financial Times. https://archive.org/details/exploringstrateg02edbalo

Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change Agents, Networks, and Institutions: A Contingency Theory of Organizational Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891

Fillion, G., Koffi, V., & Ekionea, J.-P. B. (2014). Peter Senge’s learning organization: A critical view and the addition of some new concepts to actualize theory and practice. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Management Information and Decision Sciences. Proceedings, 18(2), 10–14. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1f1116cd463ec1bbf067d3a9a3fa0371/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=38751https://search.proquest.com/openview/1f1116cd463ec1bbf067d3a9a3fa0371/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=38751

Hailey, V. H., & Balogun, J. (2002). Devising context sensitive approaches to change: The example of Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Planning, 35(2), 153–178. https://itmporgchange.pbworks.com/f/Balogun.pdf

Halmaghi, E.-E. (2018). From the traditional organization to the learning organization. Journal of Defense Resources Management (JoDRM), 9(1), 98–103.

Nestorenko Koinash Maryna, T., Kravchyk, Y., Nestorenko, O., & Koinash, M. (2025). Applying kotter’s 8 step model of change in the displaced university’s management. https://elar.khmnu.edu.ua/items/90689ab3-3eb4-476c-99e7-614bfd9c18a9

Powell Jr, W. R. (2002). Organizational change models. Futurics, 26(3/4), 20. https://www.proquest.com/openview/e1c318874a5adf9700a0542be0c3a255/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=31167

Senge, P. (1990). Peter Senge and the learning organization. Dimension, 14, 1–13. https://alisalmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/the-learning-organization-by-Senge.pdf

Search This Blog

People who didn't Pay and Ranawat