Appraising Formally

Organizational Change

An Ethical, Means Based, Approach to Organizational Change

Does the End Justify the Means?

JPC Training and Consulting

©1995-9 JPC Training & Consulting LLC

Rev D 8/5/2002

The series of events which I have just outlined (see cover page) troubled me for a number of weeks after the quality engineer was promoted. On a personal level, I did not like the production manager who got fired. On the other hand I was troubled by the means which led to his firing. Was his firing really necessary to improve the operation of the organization?

I have come to the conclusion that the answer is no. The changes to the organization which occurred after the production manager was fired could have happened while he was still in charge. The product quality had improved with the institution of an inspection program. The program, however, decreased productivity. The quality engineer had the power to correct this condition prior to the firing of the production manager.

Assume that the decrease in productivity was, at least initially, unintentional. The quality engineer could have corrected this situation in the same manner as was done after the production manager was fired when the decrease in productivity was initially noticed. At this moment in time the quality engineer was thrust into the role of change agent. In this leadership function he could act as he did and end up gaining the credit for improving the organization or he could have acted to simply improve the organization.

If the quality engineer had acted simply to improve the organization, I believe that he would not have received the credit. Upper management's understanding of the situation was limited to the knowledge that the organization was not meeting ship dates. If this situation, from upper management's perspective, began to improve, the credit would most likely go to the production manager. In this organization, the production manager was quite hostile to the ideas the quality engineer...