Ogilvy and Mather’s Success Path under Charlotte Beers

Ogilvy and Mather’s Success Path under Charlotte Beers

The vision of Ogilvy and Mather is to be the “Brand most valued by those who value brands”. The vision of the company is very clear. It is an advertising and marketing specialist. The company is built around the vision. Being a brand that others value is important in advertising business. In establishing the importance of having a reliable reputation, the vision of the company is clear and well crafted. Other companies that definitely value appropriate marketing like Coca cola have enlisted the services of Ogilvy and Mather which further validates its position in the market (Sackley & Ibarra, 2011).

The vision of the company fits the operations of the company perfectly. The company was built on value for quality. It was also majorly oriented towards success.  The company is the sixth largest advertising and marketing company globally at this time. This means that the vision strategically worked for the company and its stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are the employees that are concerned with developing business strategies and how to affect them profitably. The management also ensures that employees know they are stakeholders to the success of the company and co-exist cordially within the organization. The external stakeholders are the clients and the investors of the company. These are the people who view the organization from the outside and know the value of the company. The company value is measured by the quality of work done.

The company’s goal is to be a global trendsetter. The vision is in line with this goals and it makes the company look more established and aware of their role in the market. Being a brand that values quality in their services means working hard on a reputation. The company has focused on building their reputation and developing a solid brand name. The company is still well established even in the turbulent times like the Brexit movement (Birkner, 2016). Beers was a driven individual. She saw the need for change and went for it knowing that resistance cannot be avoided in the quest for change. Her approach was through and systematic. She may have faced hurdles along the way but her vision ensured the success of the change. She upheld the dream of Ogilvy for the company and made the company better and not different. 

The employees were involved in the change process. They gave their ideas, the ideas were evaluated and implemented as appropriately as possible. The employees were looped in right from the conception of the plan to effect change in the company to the final stage of actualizing change. The employees understood what she wanted done and why and took part in the process. All these was possible because she led by example. She was a hard worker.

The buy-in at Ogilvy and Mather was when by another advertising company and the buyer sabotaged all the operations of Ogilvy and Mather’s. The buyer was looking to monopolize the market. It was an unexpected turn of events for the company which was already successful and had the potential to grow further. When Beers was appointed to head the company she was aggressive in turning the reputation of a now defamed company back to greatness (Jick & Peiperl, 2011). She was thorough and hands on. She is the reason Ogilvy and Mather’s is a company big as it is at present. The Ogilvy and Mather Company needed fresh leadership to save the situation. The buy in and take over of the company was what is commonly known as a hostile takeover. It destabilizes the operations of the company and basically destroys the culture of the company. In the case of Ogilvy, the company did not fall, Beers rescued it (Lee). She realized the importance of giving clients value for their money. In the change process, she made it possible for the company to recover its status and be part of the global advertisers of today.

There was resistance to change and Beers dealt with it by ensuring the employees that were opposed to change understood why change was inevitable at that point. They were made aware of the cause for change the course for change. The resistance was neutralized by convincing the resisting parties to support the change. It was made known to all employees that there are many ways of achieving the same goal. Creativity was encouraged and appreciated. The globalization was also resisted but the management ensured that the employees also knew that the move was going to help make a better name for the company.

The Kotter’s eight step process of organizational change applies to the Ogilvy and Mather’s case. The process begins with the creation of a sense of urgency. At this point, the employees are made aware of the fact that change is necessary for the progress of the organization. The employees have to buy the idea of change in the organization. These process was started by Beers at the organization (Sackley & Ibarra, 2011). For Beers, the company had to grow into a better brand. Beers went and ahead to select the team that responded positively to the ideas of change in the company (Mulder, 2014). She ensured that she had people who understood why it was necessary to change the way things were done in the organization for the better.

The second step is creating guiding coalition. The team selected by Beers was crucial in effecting the process of change. It was crucial because, as she selected them, she knew they wanted change. The team was also very vocal about their desires to effect change in the company. The step Beers took in selecting this team relates perfectly to the Kotter’s second stage of the process. She selected people across the organization, no specific qualifications were required.

The third step is the creation of a vision for change. This stage requires that the organization identify what results are desired at the end of the process. In the process of creating a vision for the company, the vision ended up being that Beers wanted to company to create a brand that is valued by others who value brands. The forth step is closely related. It is communicating the vision. This process was enhanced by the critiques who pointed out the fact that communication was crucial. They found that Beers was the most knowledgeable about selling the brand. She had knowledge that was unmatched. The people in the organization realized that the vision was better explained by Beers herself (Jick & Peiperl, 2011). In the long run, the company was going to need more people who understood the vision as well as Beers. These two stages were very well executed. The recruitment process and the team action was effective. It helped bring the much needed change and actually helped in ensuring its implementation.

The fifth to eight stages are removal of barriers, creation of short term goals, consolidation of improvements and finally anchoring the changes.  Beers was very thorough in turning the company around and ensuring that it was set up for success for a long time after her departure from the company. Removal of barriers entails ensuring that the employees are in agreement with the suggested changes. There was a challenge in effecting the changes where many issues around money erupted in the face of the change process. The people in the departments were reluctant to work because they felt that the management was not open and clear with them. Beers had to find a way of making sure the change went well and she did not avoid the challenges but dealt with them accordingly (Jick & Peiperl, 2011). This stage was a bit unclearly defined and more could have been done. It would have paid off if, when designing the change strategy, the management would have factored in the impact a new system was going to have on the staff that was used to the old methods of doing things. 

The final stage of the process is anchoring the changes. At this point, problems are expected to come up with the implementation of the changes in progress. At this stage, Beers appeared not to have been very well prepared for the challenges that came up. She had an exceptionally big problem in getting the employees to agree on the strategies that would steer the company in the right direction. She handled it but it indicates that there was a problem in communication along the way. The employees failed to openly communicate their differences in speech but did it in action like when one office refused to work for a client because of a miscommunication about the fees.

References

Birkner, C. (2016, December 4). Global Agency of the Year: In Turbulent Times, Ogilvy Seamlessly Ushers in a New Era. Retrieved from ADWEEK AGENCIES: www.adweek.com/agencies/global-agency-year-turbulent-times-ogilvy-seamlessly-users-new-era-174894/

Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2011). Managing Change cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Lee, J. (n.d.). How Effective has Beers’ Leadrship Been? Retrieved from Word Press: jylee2050.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/how-effective-has-beers’-leadership-been/

Mulder, P. (2014, January 8). Kotter’s 8 Step Management. Retrieved from Change Management: www.toolshero.com/change-management/8-step-change-model-kotter/

Sackley, N., & Ibarra, H. (2011, September 21). Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy and Mather Worldwide. Havard Business School, pp. 1-18.