Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Case Study: Rapid Supply Electronics Components


The main focus of the case study “Rapid Supply Electronics Components” is on change management process which requires to be utilized by diverse organizations to achieve the expected market growth and one that is sustainable. According to Creasey and Stise (2016, n.p), currently, business environments have turned out to be very competitive and this calls out for a maximum utilization of the change management process. The organization in this case study (RSEC) mainly deals with the supply of electronic components. An acquisition also occurs in this case study where RSEC acquires Electronic Bits Fast (EBF) which is also a company that supplies electronic components. Rapid Supply Electronic Components Ltd initially has a decentralized system of operations with its head office located in Brisbane. RSEC has six business regional units where all its operational activities have been taking place. However, after the acquisition of EBF, the organization decides to initiate several changes in its structure of operation. Since conducting changes in an organization is not a simple task, RSEC decides to recruit a change manager whose main role will be to lead the way forward in initiating these changes. In the case study, it can be seen that the change that has been instituted in the management has brought several problems and more so to the employees and this has greatly affected them psychologically. The employees having been on the process of adapting into the acquisition made, a change that occurs in the operational management makes it very difficult for them to settle down in the newly introduced structure. The employees perceive things differently especially regarding their roles in the newly formed organization structure. The new RSEC also starts training some of its employees to make it easy for them to adapt to the EBF SAP system. There are two management official in this organization who realizes that the introduced change has not brought any progress in this organization – customer functions and logistic manager. For this new operational process to be fully implemented, it has become necessary to do a reallocation of some staff members. Due to this, there are several negative implications that occur especially on the operations of this organization through an increase in the employees’ turnover rate, job dissatisfaction, and absenteeism rate. Though the HR manager has knowledge of this whole issue, he has not yet reported to the relevant authorities.

The Organization’s Change Initiatives

Currently, RSEC has been in a position to institute a change in its executives. There are several impacts may be experienced by an organization that decides to change its interior structure (Andersson et al, 2019, p.40). According to the assigned case study, the organization involved- RSEC was mainly composed of a decentralized structure that had six business units which were located in different regions in Australia. After RSEC acquires EBF – a company which also deals with the sale of the same electronic components, the organization decides to institute some changes. Instead of the past decentralized structure, it decides to change its structure to a centralized one and its area of operation therefore changes with its head offices being in Cambridge. As part of this change, RSEC has confronted some issues that have been dragging its operations behind and which mainly come from its workers. A lot of pressure is put on these employees and this can have attributed to the poor working environment that develops within the organization. When a working environment is adjusted, there is an increased pressure on those who are working in it (Delaney, Fink, and Harmon 2014, n.p). The organization also decides to put several changes in its hierarchical structure and this only increased tension among its employees instead of improving the situation. Most of the staff members are in an agreement that the organization was even in a better position initially before the acquisition.

The board of management for RSEC has also agreed that it will be good to integrate its sales, logistic functions, and customer service by managing them from a centralized place and as a result Cambridge was seen as the most effective place. The organization however plans to do all this after finalizing the merger because it thinks that the integration will be very crucial especially after this achievement. RSEC’s business manager has also been requested to support the organization in enacting a change plan. In the change plan, it will design and implement a new structure in the organization where sectors such as sales, customer service, and logistics will be affected. There are plans to also introduce the EBF SAP system to the organization’s employees. A new IT network and a customer service facility will be created in the same centralized region –Cambridge. One of the most crucial in the RSEC organization is the former business system manager whom the organization believes has sufficient technical expertise to assist in instituting the change. The organization therefore appoints him as the new change manager. The newly appointed change manager manages to create a small team whose main aim was to assist him in planning and elaborating all the plans of the board of management (Hayes, 2018, n.p). The board of Management kept on pressurizing the selected team on completing the restructuring process. The main reason why the board kept on pressuring on this completion is because they wanted to show the shareholders that the acquisition process will be a good investment and with several benefits. The constant pressure therefore created a sense of urgency especially on the side of the change manager who decided that to cope with the current situation; a top-down directive approach will be the best. Due to this, very little or even no attention was given to the personalities whom this change was going to affect and none of them was even allowed to give their suggestions on the plan. RSEC decides to organize for a new program to train all the employees who were not resistant to the EBF SAP system. As a result, surplus employees are released and those who were mainly affected were those who were unwilling to adapt to the EBF SAP system as well as regional managers from the four regions. A relocation of the workers who were left in the organization also takes place and they are placed in different departments. The shareholders receive a report from the change manager who was responsible for this change institution on the successfulness of the change. However, the customer service, logistic, and sales managers are not contented and still thinks that this change did not progress in the right manner. It is evident that things did not flow as planned especially because the change manager is unable recruit more staff who were required to work in the customer service department that had now enlarged. Most of the workers and especially the permanent staff work for more hours than required and handle more tasks than usual because they are required to train the newly hired agency workers. Staff members continues become dissatisfied with their job because of this issue. It is now evident that there is now pressure in almost all of the organization’s departments and this has greatly compromised its image as well as raising customer complaints.

Reasons and significance of changes in an organization

Change is inevitable especially in the dynamic world we are living in currently. Due to this inevitability, it becomes very necessary for all organizations to be adaptive to the current changes for a failure to do so will see them being left some miles behind (Elias, 2009, p.42). Several reasons can be put forward to explain the necessity of change in organizations. In the first place, when there is need to improve on the performance of a given organization, change must be instituted. This is because organizations mainly have long-term goals which they desire to accomplish in the long-run. A poorly performing organization therefore demands such changes which guarantee it an improved competitive level in the environment and this continues to secure a place for it to continue thriving (Fernandez and Rainey, 2017, p.20). The second reason that explains the necessity of this change is to avoid unpleasant market surprises. Organizations that fails to accommodate change may be overwhelmed by the way the market works and if they continue operating in their normal way they may even be driven out of that market. Since such situations occur, organizations that are able to position themselves strategically through change accommodation are always guaranteed of better performance of continuity.

Sometimes, ones competitors may be performing better in a given environment while your organization is not and this is what may bring a desire for such a change (Huber et al., 1993, p.265). Since many organization wants to keep leading in the market, they have to be very accommodative which only occurs with introducing changes. One of the factors that can be used by organizations to determine whether they are in a good position in the market is their share performance. If the shares performance keeps on deteriorating, then change is the only thing that can be a solution to it. Inefficiencies that may occur in a given environment may also demand an organization to change (Beer and Walton, 1987, p.355). This is because such inefficiencies mainly make an organization less competitive as well as unproductive. For organizations to fully remain competitive in the market, they must therefore address such inconsistencies with a lot of care. Another reason that makes change necessary is the need to pursue new opportunities that arises in the environment. New opportunities will mainly occur when a gap is left in the market by the changing environment. When a gap arises in a certain environment, every organization should be willing to invest in such an environment for good returns (Kemelgor, Johnson, and Srinivasan, 2000, 135). Prioritizing on such a situation will always require the organization to institute several changes and specifically on both the internal and external environments where possible so that it is possible to take advantage out of it (Klarner, Probst, and Soparnot, 2008, p.23). Finally, organizations may have a desire for change when a new effective technology is introduced into the market (Huber, and Glick, 1993, n.p). An introduction of a new technology means that the same things can be performed effectively and in a better manner than it was before. It is therefore evident that investing in such a new technology will always generate several benefits for organizations. However, the most important thing when it comes to adapting to such a technology is change because remaining stagnant may bring no any benefits (DeCanio, Dibble, and Amir, 2000, p.1290).

From the above reasons, it is evident that change is very significant in any organization. There are some organizations that may change so as to cope with the external factors that make them thrive in the market (Kimberly and Nielsen, 1975, p.201). A good example of an external factor that has forced organizations to change is globalization (Macdonald, 1995, p.560). Organizations that have refused to cope up with it have been driven out of the market. For organizations to be in a position to implement their proposed ideas, they must institute the desired change. For proposed ideas to be fully implemented, the organization must change in many aspects including in its structure so that such a proposal can turn out to be successful. Cost reduction in any organization also relies on change. Most organizations suffer from unnecessary costs simply because they waste their resources. When such a situation is evident, it will be more than necessary to institute change in all possible organizational aspects (Lee, 2004, n.p).

An evaluation of the current management

It is very evident from the case study that change was well managed in some instances. A good example of instances where the change was well managed include: staff relocation, construction of a new service center, the design of a new training program, modification of the IT network, and the creation of a new integrated structure. There are however several other issues where change management did not succeed such as: giving more attention to the wants of the shareholders forgetting about other key stake holders, an increase in the level of dissatisfaction among the organization’s employees, a failure to involve those who were to be affected by the change in the process to get their feedback, and delayed communication before instituting such changes. From this case study, it is evident that RSEC has decided to go through these changes at a very high rate. Since the management led by the change manager wants to prove to the shareholders that this acquisition will be a good investment, they are going through these changes at a constant pressure. Cameron and Green (2019, n.p) concludes that exerting a great amount of pressure to the management institutes several changes on a given organization’s internal structure. Due to this great amount of pressure that has been exerted, the employees have been denied with an opportunity to express their views and opinions. For a change to be fully successful, it is always good to include employees’ perspectives in it so that they can feel as part of it (Kuzhda, 2016, p. 52). Change should also not be instituted rapidly for if done so, it may fail to be successful. For instance, due to a rapid institution of this change in the organization, the employees are not given a chance to air their views. Due to the demand of these changes in RSEC, the change manager decides to use the top-down approach of instituting the change and this method fails to incorporate all the needs of the employees. The employees are therefore worried about this acquisition for they thinks it will be difficult for them to fit in the newly instituted operational procedure. According to Hayes (2014, p.210), implementing too many changes in a given organization and failing to involve the employees, the end result is their dissatisfaction. Considering the case study above, the level of employees’ dissatisfaction has continued to increase leading to a very high turnover ratio and all this can be attributed to the instituted changes that are done without the employees consent.

Paton and McCalman (2008, n.p) states that it is only with a good understanding of the employees views that change implementation will become successful. A failure to do this may alter the working environment. For the organization in question, there are trials to use the top-down approach of implementing the change and this has only been done to justify that the acquisition of EBF will be of its benefit. However, the employees have no knowledge regarding this change and most of them think that it is not necessary. One of the things that make them think that the change is unnecessary is because the management fails to notify them of this whole issue in the right time. Centralizing this organization may make it very difficult to be in a position to manage all its functions which were previously done so in the several branches it had before the centralization. The centralized approach makes the employees to feel insecure since they believe that after this has been instituted, some of them will have to be laid off for it cannot accommodate all of them. The relocation approach that the organization adopts makes it difficult for the organization to be in a position of obtain effective team personnel. Due to this issue, the existing employees are forced to take up more responsibilities than they should and this pressurizes them. It is because of this issue that many employees start absenting themselves and the turnover rate increases. Customer dissatisfaction has also been an issue since RSEC is now not in a position to provide high quality products and services.

For organizations to achieve effectiveness especially in the operational process, they must be involved in strategy implementation (Van der Voet, 2014, p.380). However, RSEC fails to focus more on the implementation of such strategies. Due to this issue, it is clear that whenever the management fails to understand of the adverse effects change may bring to the employees due to a failure to involve them; it also becomes difficult for such an organization to succeed (Jeston, 2014, n.p). For RSEC to succeed, it must therefore implement the evaluation process. According to Langley et al (2013, p.32), while adapting to a new organization structure, employees must be provided with an ample time to see them adapt to the instituted changes. In the case study above, the management has not introduced an effective communication plan. An inadequate communication plan makes the employees fail to receive the guidelines required for them to adapt to their newly set roles. According to Cummings and Worley (2014, n.p), for employees to fully adapt to newly instituted organization structure, a communication must be made to them prior and during the change institution process.


The management should try to maintain stability in the future whenever they want to introduce a change to this organization by avoiding a rapid move as done in the case study. It will also be the role of the organization to train its employees adequately so that they will be in a position to cope up with the changes introduced. RSEC must also make sure that its leadership structure is organized in a way that makes the employees feel motivated. This can also be achieved by organizing several motivational seminars and workshops among the employees. The HR must also communicate on the present situation of this organization to the relevant departments.


Organizations must cope up with the rapidly changing environment for them to succeed. However, this can only be possible if several changes are instituted in such an organization. Change is very important in any organization for several reasons. These includes: improving the performance, to cope up with a new technology, and to become competitive in the environment. Though the change is very necessary, it must be organized in a way that the people who will be involved will not be adversely affected by it. This will try to reduce resistance among them.


Andersson, T., Cäker, M., Tengblad, S. and Wickelgren, M., 2019. Building traits for organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scandinavian Journal of Management35(1), pp.36-45. Retrieved from: DOI:

Beer, M. and Walton, A.E., 1987. Organization change and development. Annual review of psychology38(1), pp.339-367. Retrieved from: DOI:

Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2019. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.

Creasey, T.J. and Stise, R. eds., 2016. Best Practices in Change Management 2016: 1120 Organizations Share Lessons and Best Practices in Change Management. Prosci Incorporated.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning. Retrieved from:

DeCanio, S.J., Dibble, C. and Amir-Atefi, K., 2000. The importance of organizational structure for the adoption of innovations. Management science46(10), pp.1285-1299. Retrieved from:

Delaney, L., Fink, G. and Harmon, C.P., 2014. Effects of stress on economic decision-making: Evidence from laboratory experiments. Retrieved from: DOI:

Elias, S.M., 2009. Employee commitment in times of change: Assessing the importance of attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Management35(1), pp.37-55. Retrieved from:

Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H.G., 2017. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. In Debating public administration (pp. 7-26). Routledge. Retrieved from:

Hayes, J., 2014. THE theory and practice of change management (pp. 1–548).

Hayes, J., 2018. The theory and practice of change management. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Huber, G.P., Glick, W.H. and Glick, W.H. eds., 1993. Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance. Oxford University Press on Demand. Retrieved from:

Huber, G.P., Sutcliffe, K.M., Miller, C.C. and Glick, W.H., 1993. Understanding and predicting organizational change. Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance215, p.265. Retrieved from:

Jeston, J., 2014. Business process management: practical guidelines to successful implementations. Routledge. Retrieved from: DOI:

Kemelgor, B.H., Johnson, S.D. and Srinivasan, S., 2000. Forces driving organizational change: A business school perspective. Journal of Education for Business75(3), pp.133-137. Retrieved from: DOI:

Kimberly, J.R. and Nielsen, W.R., 1975. Organization development and change in organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.191-206. Retrieved from:

Klarner, P., Probst, G. and Soparnot, R., 2008. Organizational change capacity in public services: The case of the World Health Organization. Journal of Change Management8(1), pp.57-72. Retrieved from: DOI:

Kuzhda, T., 2016. Diagnosing resistance to change in the change management process. Economics, Management and Sustainability1(1), pp.49-59.Retrieved from:

Langley, A.N.N., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A.H., 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of management journal56(1), pp.1-13. Retrieved from: DOI:

Lee, S. and Lee, H., 2004. The importance of change management after ERP implementation: an information capability perspective. Retrieved from:

Macdonald, S., 1995. Learning to change: An information perspective on learning in the organization. Organization Science6(5), pp.557-568. Retrieved from:

Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J., 2008. Change management: A guide to effective implementation. Sage. Retrieved from:

Van der Voet, J., 2014. The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure. European Management Journal32(3), pp.373-382. Retrieved from: DOI


  1. Are changes really necessary in organizations?
  2. If change is ignored, would there be any effects in such an organization?
  3. Are there some global transformations that demands for the adoption of change?
  4. Describe the procedure of instituting organizational change
  5. Are there instances when change can result to failure in an organization?


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics