Company History, Development and Growth
The Whole Foods of the past is just like any typical traditional supermarkets– focusing on tangibles such as products and place, while ignoring the intangibles such as customer care and service. While this traditional business approach had once its days in the sun, Whole Foods quickly realized that the whole supermarket industry is changing as globalization peeks to everyone’s doorsteps. Truly, success breeds failure because companies such as Whole Foods started to see that the older methods will not work anymore. Drops in profits are becoming obvious and UK supermarkets have to do something about it.
There are basically many factors to consider as mentioned above. Based on records, Whole Foods managed to change its organization for the better as far as the issues mentioned above are concerned. However, one distinct and innovative move of the company was its decision to shift its focus on the intangibles or customer care – a variable that had been ignored by the supermarket industry for years. In 1990, Whole Foods built on its success by developing new store concepts and new customer-focused initiatives. Organizational Structure Whole Foods is established based on functional aspects rather than product lines.
The functional framework teams of Whole Foods specialize in the same capabilities in individual units. This framework is best utilized when establishing particular, uniform goods. A functional framework is best for companies which possess a solitary or dominant central good since each sub-team becomes well-informed at completing its specific part of the procedure. They are financially effective, but lack versatility. Interaction among operational units can be hard. The leaders of Whole Foods know that they need to implement functional organizational structures in order to survive and there are many programs for launching such efforts.
However, experience has shown that over the long haul most change initiatives for functional organizational structures do fail. They are expensive to implement, offer a poor return on investment and fall short of achieving the organization’s goals to better enhance good business performance. This happens because organizations don’t plan for sustainable change into a functional organizational structure. In other words, they succumb to what employees often refer to as “program of the week” syndrome. Most change initiatives, no matter how carefully planned, and are doomed before they even begin because they are designed as one-time events.
They do well enough in temporarily focusing excitement and energy around a given program, and the initial results can seem very promising, but the lack of long-term follow through is their fatal flaw. The problem with functional organizational structure is that the employees of Whole Foods get the message that they have a job to do but that they must also pay attention to the program and that don’t see the change as something integral to their daily activities but as something quite outside of it). Change Management at Whole Foods
It can be mentioned that company change in Whole Foods is one of the essential indicators in its triumphs and defeat. Based on Lientz (2003), significant change is happening in majority of companies and firms at present. Probably the gap between the new company framework and applying it into reality is the entire coverage of company change and development. Individuals are mentioned to be very capable of coping up to developments. Nevertheless, appropriate skills must be available from the agents of change at Whole Foods in order to victoriously apply their desired change.
Therefore, managers like me need to possess the needed skills not only in determining the sectors of Whole Foods that needs development but also on the manner to properly introduce such developments within the workers and employees of Whole Foods. How can developments be controlled and handled in order to prevent the employees of Whole Foods from feeling overpowered and helpless? Lientz (2003) mentions that there is various resistance to development. Individuals fear what is not identified.
In the similar way and in Whole Foods, the manager must properly implement the desired developments in a way that will not disturb or negatively impact the outputs of the employees at Whole Foods. Nothing in this world can be forecasted. Everything looks like it will tread a path of its own. People maybe correct in saying that planning is important all the time, but there also exists a false claim that planning does not produce good outcomes all the time. Planning plays a very critical responsibility in applying developments. It is a basic fact to consider that each development that needs to be applied is planned.
Planning is normally known as the procedure of establishing in advance as systematized initiative or effort. While there is some truth that individuals do not organize their efforts all the time, it is imperative for Whole Foods to plan. Nevertheless, whether talking about the context by which planning is happening, may it be on the personal or company stage, the procedure happens based on the existing behaviors, perspectives and missions of Whole Foods. Planned development is normally development by the inability of individuals to establish a consistently coping Whole Foods (Kotter, 1990).