A511.6.3.RB_MalvoisinLeon

             There are many reasons leaders must create a “cause” or “meaning” in the workplace.  Some of them are listed on this article, “Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work”; furthermore, looking deeper onto the article, what it means when its says that leaders must create a “cause” or “meaning” is interpreted as such to my opinion.  As identified by Ulrich, D. and Ulrich, W. (2010), those who are successful at developing meaning with the help of others or on their own tend to work harder, more creatively, and with more endurance, giving the company that hired them an advantage in the marketplace.  Certainly, that is a huge advantage for the company especially if it’s a company that is in a rivalry with another company.  Inducing an idea that would give the employees the meaning of their job role and how important they’re to the company would absolutely increase the productivity and encourage the employees to work better. When leaders successfully creates a “cause” or “meaning”  for the employees that indirectly boost the employees moral and therefore helps create a higher yearly profit for the company as the employees will provide better quality services that would as a result attract more customers. As stated by Ulrich and Ulrich (2010), “What’s more, study after study suggest that when employees experience meaning, their employers enjoy higher rates of customer commitment and investor interest” (para. 3). Hence, more revenue for the company yearly earning and allow them to stay in business longer.

 In relation to the theory of leading change, one crucial point is when the change is not properly explained to the employee or they were not part of the decision making process.  Even if a change would benefit the organization, it may be resisted by people who would suffer personal loss of income, benefits, or job security; major changes in organizations invariably result in some shift in power and status for individuals and subunits (Yukl, 2013).  Indeed, some jobs may be eliminated or modified, resulting in layoffs or transfers to new locations. This will cause employees to lose interest in the company and no longer have a meaning to work there or provide good customer service.

For example, Michelin the world largest tire manufacturer (Michelin, 2015), the company’s number one priority has always been its customers and trying to adapt to its customers’ needs while creating and maintaining a competitive advantage in the market.  Hence, that drove the company to a change, into a new business of giving services as a product.  That philosophy created the Michelin Fleet Solutions (MFS).  In Bitner, Gremler, & Zeithaml, (2013) with promising growth visions, Michelin Fleet Solutions was deployed by Michelin in 2000 with a complete tire- management solution for hefty European transportation companies, for example Schenker, TNT, Geodis, or Norbert Dentressamgle.  Certainly, knowing the time frame when MFS was deployed, that was the best business move by Michelin to entice more customers and progress his position in the marketplace. However, while conceptually appealing, the deployment of the MFS service encountered difficulties internally and externally because of the change. 

One MFS sales man said "...This is a new job, and my tire expertise can hardly help me...I find it difficult to show the clients the value of this solution offer.  We also face real problems in pricing: clients don't immediately see why they should pay more for tire managment solutions than they should pay when they only bought tires! They do not see the value brought by the extra activities we perform and the scope is so large that i find it difficult to list all these benefits. This solution is verry complex to sell" (as quoted in Bitner et al., 2013). 

            While MFS failed to make connection with its customers, it appears they had an even bigger problem internally because of the change.  The sales person wasn’t trained enough about the product service to be able to convince the clients of purchasing the service.  While, this could be a critical impact on the promotion of the service, the customers would not buy the service if the salesperson doesn't know or trust the service. 

            Furthermore, there was a heavy rivalry between the product salesperson and the service salesperson.  Product sales person can't tolerate the solutions sales- person promoting the solutions service with their biggest clients; the product salesperson candidly condemns the MFS service (Bitner et al., 2013). 

Hence, disagreement between the traditional product salesperson and the service salesperson could have contributed to the failure of the FMS service because the employees lose the meaning of their job role and are no longer satisfied to provide good services to customers.  Customers pay attention to details when they're buying something new, and any form of conflicts from the company representatives will tip the clients to decline the offer and that would eventually impact the company as a whole.

References

Bitner, M., Gremler, D., & Zeithaml, V. (2013). Introduction to Services. In Services Marketing:Integratin Customer Focus Accross the firm (6th ed., pp. 549, 550, and 551). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Michelin. (2015, November 18). Retrieved November 28, 2015, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin#History

Ulrich, D., and Ulrich,W.,(2010). Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-engagement-to-c

Yukl, G. (2013). Leading Change and Innovation. In Leadership in organizations. (8th ed). (pp. 81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall