The VC Breaks/Andrew Ryan case study is a fairly typical example, based on my experience in medium to large size companies/corporations, of how corporate cultures are mishandled. This is yet another example of an improperly managed, yet much needed, culture change. From the beginning Ryan was put in a very difficult position where success was unlikely without a great deal of support from senior leadership and buy-in at all levels. What ends up happening is what Bridges warns about when he said “without proper transition, people and organizations end up mentally and emotionally back where they started and the change doesn’t work.”

WHAT WAS THE SITUATION RYAN FACED IN HIS ASSIGNMENT AT VC BREAKS? It was clear that VC Breaks needed to make significant changes to maintain market share and relevancy industry wide. Externally, the economy was dramatically shifting consumer needs for VC’s current product line. Internally, weak executive leadership had not only allowed but fostered resentment between two critical departments that must collaborate to be successful. Bridges would categorize these changes as both reactive and developmental. It is also clear that VC Breaks had no corporate culture prior to being acquired by Crossroads. Departments were allowed to develop their own cultures and suited the personalities of their leadership, not the needs of the company or customer. After being acquired by a new parent company, VC is being forced to adopt and implement a new, more modern corporate culture under immense pressure with a challenging timeline.
Before Ryan even started his journey towards a company wide TQM culture he faced some pretty difficult obstacles. First, Engineering leader Medved (Ryan’s boss) and his counterpart in Operations, Baynard, allowed their personality differences to dictate how their teams interacted. Second, and even more challenging, VC not only had no culture, they had conflicting cultures between to internal groups. Third, Baynard was selected by Crossroads as the chairman of the TQM committee, which allowed for even more animosity between Operations and Engineering, specifically because Engineering already had implemented TQM into their culture. Next, all of this change was happening in a reactionary environment where external pressure was already high. Finally, the last and most common barrier to change was a complete lack of buy-in on all levels of the VC organization.

WHY DID THINGS GO WRONG? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? From the beginning it is clear that a lack of buy in on all levels played a significant role in the failure to develop a TQM culture within VC Breaks. Bridges tells us that people resist transition because we cannot accept letting go and giving up on things. This is very apparent in the way that Baynard approaches the TWM committee at VC Breaks. According to the case, VC had been known for being very autocratic and having a top-down management philosophy. This mentality is very contradictory to the open environment necessary for TQM to work properly. But when Baynard selected his committee he only chose management to take part. TQM requires a change in this philosophy and committee members should have been selected from all levels. Next, Crossroads didn’t take the current situation and climate at VC into consideration before implementing a new TQM culture. This made adopting any change significantly more difficult. There is a lot of animosity between Engineering and Operations that MUST be addressed before you shock the ecosystem with a culture change. This is challenging and Bridges reminds us of that when he discusses institutional memory during week 4’s readings. Kotter’s 8-step model for change outlines a great system to institute change. While I think that Crossroads was able to complete many of the changes they fell short in a couple of areas. While they attempted to develop a clear shared vision the initial training of management clearly fell short as many of the leaders in attendance left with a murky understanding of TQM. The vision also should have been communicated clearly by senior leadership prior to the training sessions. Initially, it appeared that they were empowering people to act through the TQM philosophy but leadership wasn’t being held accountable to follow through on the suggestions. This lead to a failure of Kotter’s next step, short term wins. There were no short term wins at VC because leaders failed to pick the low hanging fruit that Baynard was referring to. Without this step being successful that was nothing to consolidate and build upon and no change to institutionalize. I also think that Crossroads failed in their choice for a leader who is responsible for instituting the TQM culture at VC Braks. Camaron and Green tell us that leaders must be flexible and well rounded. Baynard is neither of theses things based on his history. Choosing Baynard as the champion of this change doomed it from the beginning. He failed to break the top-down mentality in favor of a TQM friendly top-up approach. The failure to make this initial leadership culture change also doomed this endeavor. Ultimately, I feel that the failure to implement TQM at VC Breaks falls on the parent company Crossroads. They failed to select the correct leaders to champion change and then failed to enforce the change by holding the selected leaders accountable to success and failure. I like that he put someone opposed to the change in the champion position but they didn’t keep on him and monitor his progress. They only empowered him to impose his will and maintain the status quo by paying lip service to a cultural change thus allowing it to fail. ,
WAS ANDREW RYAN EFFECTIVE? No, I don’t think Ryan was effective but I do not believe that it was his fault either. He was excited about this change and clearly inspired many people to join in his battle to change the VC culture and implement TQM but in the end it fell flat and it appears that a return to the status quo is on the horizon.

WHAT SHOULD RYAN HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? I think that Ryan and Kante needed to first implement a team mentality before even beginning to address the implementation of TQM. Operations and engineering were not on separate pages of the same book; they were in two different books. This wasn’t an environment that would have accepted any change easily. I would have liked to see the TQM committee work with Ryan, Kante, and Baynard to change the status quo and build a team mentality using the 4-phase approach outlined by Bevan in week 3’s readings. Once the entire company was on the same page and working together, adopting a new culture would be much easier. I would also have liked to see Ryan adopt Kotter’s 8-step approach to change a little more than he did. He could have been more proactive in following through on the recommendations made by employees and gone to the sponsor, Baynard, sooner to ensure that middle management was empowered and supported to implement the “low hanging” fruit. This would have significantly improved buy-in amongst lower level employees. I wish Crossroads had brought in someone from the outside of VC that was respected industry wide to sponsor this change. The existing climate at VC made selecting a sponsor without alienating either operations or engineering nearly impossible. An outside influence may have made leadership buy in more difficult but may have give the TQM culture more validity and broken down some of the walls that had been build between internal teams.

SHOULD RYAN RETURN TO VC BRAKES? Ryan needs to move on. The culture at VC has completely crumbled and there is no trust within the company any more. Those that jumped on the TQM bandwagon are now completely alienated and seen as “troublemakers” by their management and no one will trust Ryan going forward. Baynard is now the president of the company and it is clear that TQM is a buzz word and not a philosophy to him and his is 100% invested in returning to the top-down style that allowed him to be successful.