AN ANALYSIS

OF

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

AT

CACTUS RAIN MANUFACTRUING

COMPANY
 INTRODUCTION

Cactus Rain is a candle manufacturing company that operated 37 years ago in Winnipeg. The
company was started by Susette Dushand, after the homemade candles that she had been
making for her friends continuously grew in popularity. As a result of this popularity, the
business expanded its daily operations, and the candles were soon being sold by major retailers
across Canada. Susette retired, leaving the company to her two sons who hired an external
CEO, Laurie Boxer, to run it. Cactus Rain had over 500 employees spread across the various
sectors of the company, including human resources, finance, procurement, sales, distribution,
and manufacturing.

Despite its growth and success, Cactus Rain kept small business frame of mind and maintained
a company culture that fostered empowerment, teamwork, and integrity. These values were
the thing that had drawn Laurie Boxer to the company in the first place, and she continued to
nurture them during her tenure as CEO. Boxer maintained an open-door policy for all her
employees, regardless of their position within the company. In addition, she set expectations,
welcomed ideas, and fostered accountability, all while encouraging employees to try out new
things, make mistakes, and learn from them. This approach made the individuals who worked
at Cactus Rain feel valued and earned her the respect of the entire company.

As operations expanded, the company began to face challenges with recruitment. Although
Daisy Lee, the Senior Lead in Human Resources, had made several attempts to address this
problem, she soon realized that change in the existing processes would not be welcomed with
open arms. She was faced with push back from functional managers, as well as her from within
the human resources team.

This paper will examine the root cause of the recruitment problems that Cactus Rain
experienced, as well as consider how changes at the individual, team, and organizational levels
may come into play. It will explore the question of how leading a change management initiative
could be used to address the internal resistance that Lee experienced and increase buy-in by
those colleagues who were resistant to change.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
From the case study, we understand that one of the major problems that Cactus Rain faced was
difficulty in recruiting skilled workers due to the expansion of its operations. This resulted in a
shortage of skilled employees, which in turn affected the organization’s efficiency.

To explore Cactus Rain’s recruitment issues further, we must break the problem down into the
key factors that contributed to it. These factors include the following “sub-problems” that the
organization was faced with:

 Recruitment cycle timeline: The company’s recruitment cycle took 80 days or more to
complete from the time a vacancy was posted to when onboarding for the position
occurred. This extended timeline caused Cactus Rain to lose promising candidates to
other organizations, whose shorter recruitment cycles allowed them to secure the
candidates before they could complete the recruitment process at Cactus Rain.
 Wrong Hires: Due to the issue mentioned above, the company was forced to fill vacant
positions quickly and resorted to hiring substandard employees. This led to high
turnovers, which in turn affected the company’s productivity and profitability.
 Resistance to Change: As seen in the case study, Daisy tried to create a process to tackle
the issue of recruitment but was met with resistance from stakeholders within and
outside her team. This resistance was demonstrated in a variety of ways, such as:
o Extra workload: Johan, a junior recruiter, perceived the change as an increased
workload for the team and complained that there would be no subsequent
increase to the team’s capacity to implement the change.
o Envy/Jealousy: Crimala felt slighted that Abdel was selected to be on the new
process project instead of her, which prompted her to react negatively to the
new process.
o Exclusion: Eslie was resistant to the new process simply because she felt
excluded from the new process development. This is primarily because she was
part of the development team for the current process in use.
 Change Agent: Another problem encountered in this case was the issue of the change
agent used. Daisy decided to hire an external change (Marissa Berklockoff) agent
whereas Elsie had been involved in the recruitment process previously.
ROOT CAUSE

To identify the root cause of the recruitment challenges detailed above, it is important to
examine the underlying issues that led to those challenges. Two of the most significant
underlying issues faced by Cactus Rain include:

 Lack of Continuous Recruitment Process Review: The recruitment process was not
continually reviewed to ascertain its efficiency and review its ability to meet
organizational goals. The case study indicated that the recruitment process had not
been reviewed during the three years that Daisy had worked at the company.
Additionally, the most recent review had been initiated by Elsie, an employee who had
been with the company for more than 20 years.
 Personality of top-level stakeholders: Top-level stakeholders play a critical role in
ensuring that the objectives of an organization are met. It was made evident in the case
study that Cactus Rain’s stakeholders had adopted a perspective of “if it ain’t broke,
don't fix it” (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator™), which was counterproductive to the
company’s need introduce new recruitment policies and processes. To remedy this
mindset would require a huge shift towards a more intuitive team that is capable of
being futuristic and innovative (Meredith Berlin's team types ,1981).
ANALYSIS

Having examined Cactus Rain’s recruitment challenges, as well as the underlying issues that
contributed to them, we must now explore the ways in which individual, team, and
organizational change each influence this case study.

Individual Change Perspective

Many of the employee behaviours witnessed throughout this case study align with the
assumptions described in McGregor's Theory X (1960), including the idea that people dislike
work, avoid taking responsibility, and do not use their imagination. Using this theory as our
framework, employee resistance to organizational change in the context of the Cactus Rain case
study can be explained as follows:

 People Dislike Work: One of the reasons that staff showed resistance to procedural
changes was the belief that said changes would add to their existing workload. Elsie’s
attitude towards the proposed changes clearly demonstrated this, as she was content
with the existing process and argued against the changes due to the belief that they
would create unnecessary work for everyone. Johan also expressed displeasure
regarding the additional pressure that would be placed on the recruitment team, as he
believed the operations team should be the company’s primary concern.
 Avoid Taking Responsibility: Although many managers had positions that needed to be
filled, only one manager set aside time to work with the talent acquisition team to
accomplish that goal. While the manager who set aside time was successful in filling
those positions, most of the other managers were not. Rather than take responsibility
for ensuring the talent acquisition team was adequately equipped to fill those vacancies,
these managers claimed that their schedules were too busy to accommodate a meeting
with the recruiters.
 Do Not Use Imagination: The case study showed that Cactus Rain’s stakeholders could
not envision the big picture, and were instead focused on personal, functional issues. As
a result, they neglected the larger goals that project was trying to achieve.
  Cognitive: Beck’s cognitive therapy (1970) suggests that the way an individual thinks will
determine how they feel and react. If the case study is examined through the lens of this
assumption, Elsie’s reluctance towards the new changes to the recruitment process
becomes more understandable. As an employee that had been involved in the creation
of the original recruitment process, Elsie felt sidelined when the external recruiter was
brought in. She did not want to see the process changed due to the amount of time she
had invested in creating it and believed that the new process demonstrated that the
company did not appreciate the work that had gone into the original one (rational
analysis). In a similar case, Crimala was also reluctant to welcome the new process
because she was overlooked for a position on the project team in favour of her
colleague.

Team Change Perspective

Teams are made up of individuals. Therefore, understanding the collection of individual

personalities that make up a given team is essential to effective change management. Each
team member will bring their individual preferences to the table and react in differing ways.
Based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (pg51), Cactus Rain had individuals who were “IS
Thoughtful Realists” - i.e., pragmatic, with little tolerance for change. They would prefer to
maintain the status quo as opposed to welcoming change; an approach that would be adopted
by those considered to be “Action Oriented Innovators.”

It is important to note that, in any group, both the propensity to initiate change and the
propensity to adapt to change is dependent on said group’s composition. The group
composition, in turn, is dependent on the collection of individual preferences and personalities
that exist within it.

Organizational Change Perspective

To manage an organization effectively, it is crucial to first understand how the organization in

question operates. As described in Morgan’s Metaphors (1986), organizations operate much
like a machine, wherein the introduction of significant change will be perceived as a major
overhaul. Due to this perception, the changes are considered highly disruptive and therefore
meet resistance from employees.

In the case of Cactus Rain, adopting the perspective of one of Morgan’s Metaphors – more
specifically, the idea that an organization is like a political system – could help resolve the issue
of change resistance.

 Organization as a political system: If an organization is to be viewed as a political

system, then the most effective way to introduce change would be to gather support
from the organization’s major stakeholders. Once the highest-ranking members of the
organization have bought into the new process, measures would be quickly adopted to
ensure the process implemented and normalized.

Additional solutions to consider are the strategies put forward by Prosci (2003-2018), which
include the following:

 Communication and Employee Engagement: Communication cannot just be top-down

or one-way. It should reinforce the why and how of change to reduce uncertainty. From
the case study, there is a lack of communication surrounding the changes introduced
and the reasoning behind them. Effective communication fosters a sense of involvement
among employees, which helps create a buy-in mentality in return.
 Support: When proposing change, it is important to consider employee emotions to
better understand their reasoning for resisting change. Understanding the emotional
angle allows organizations to provide the necessary support enhance buy-in.
 Negotiation: This is good to use when other strategies have not been successful. The
major stakeholders in any change process would not wholeheartedly jump on the
process due to certain reservations. In this case, Daisy would have benefited from
running her ideas for change through Elsie who was part of the current recruitment
process.
LEADING CHANGE
After considering the perspectives listed above, we would look at how leading change can help
Daisy with the problems she is facing in the company. Leading change refers to the process of
adapting your leadership approach to suit the context and challenges you face to achieve the
change your organization requires. It is a management style that helps an organization adapt to
changes in the business landscape and fosters growth and adaptability among its employees.
(B. Tom Hunsaker and Jonathan Knowles, 2021).

Bringing the concept of leadership to the case study, Daisy’s approach to achieving the
necessary change is subject to her leadership style. When considering the leadership style, we
first must consider the emotional intelligence required for that style of leadership. It would be
best to adopt a mix between the affiliative and democratic leadership styles. (Goleman, 2000).

Affiliative leadership can help her build an emotional connection, repairing broken relationships
and reestablishing trust. This can be done mostly by putting herself in the shoes of the
employees to get a sense of the stress levels they would go through. Communication is very
vital for this style of leadership.

In addition, Daisy could also adopt the Democratic style of leadership, where the stakeholders'
input is considered while formulating the new process. This would boost buy-in as the reason
for the change has been identified with them so that the decision is by consensus, and
everyone is invested and accountable.

A combination of these two-leadership styles would enhance collaboration, communication,

and commitment which will help with the institutionalization of process change.

 Communication: Ask what and why (explain purpose of change, connect to objectives or
benefits.
 Collaboration: Successful change leaders worked across boundaries, encouraged
employees to break out of their silos, and refused to tolerate unhealthy competition.
They also included employees in decision-making early on, strengthening their
commitment to change.
  Commit: Successful leaders made sure their own beliefs and behaviors supported
change, too. Change is difficult, but leaders who negotiated it successfully were resilient
and persistent, and willing to step outside their comfort zone. They also devoted more
of their own time to the change effort and focused on the big picture. Unsuccessful
leaders failed to adapt to challenges, expressed negativity, and were impatient with a
lack of results.

CHANGE AGENT
A change agent is anyone who has the skill and power to facilitate, stimulate, and coordinate
the change effort. Simply put, a change agent is an individual or group that helps to facilitate
change within an organization. They are responsible for identifying areas where change is
needed, developing a plan for implementing the change, and working with stakeholders to
ensure that the change is successful. (Fred C. Lunenburg, 2010).

In this case, the role of a change agent would be consultant. Daisy who was responsible for
leading the change management process. Daisy decided to hire a consultant, Marissa Berlockoff
as an external change agent to oversee the process. Marissa’s success as an external change
agent was dependent on the quality and workability of the relationship between her and the
key stakeholders, which was not the case. It would be ideal for Marissa to have worked closely
with Elsie who previously developed the current recruitment process in identifying, evaluating,
and formulating the new process. The reason for this is to ensure that Marissa understands the
company’s history, operating procedures, and personnels.

The consultant would be responsible for;

 Structure: is the ability for the agent and organization members to plan and organize
their activities concerning the new recruitment process.
 Empathy: gauging the feelings of the stakeholders to ensure they are committed to the
project.
CONCLUSION

To address these issues, the company needs to revamp its recruitment process, focus on hiring
qualified candidates, and create a culture of change for the organization. This can be achieved
by empowering employees, building trust, and fostering open communication channels. By
doing so, Cactus Rain can attract and retain skilled human resources, improve its efficiency, and
achieve its business goals.
REFERENCES
Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2020). Making Sense of Change Management 5 th edition.

T. Brown (2022). Cactus Rain. MIIT Change Management and Practices of Leadership.

B. Tom Hunsaker and Jonathan Knowles (2021). Leading Change Means Changing How You
Lead. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/leading-change-means-changing-how-you-lead/

Fred C. Lunenburg (2010). Managing Change: The Role of the Change Agent.