1.0 Introduction
This essay explores a real-life organisational change initiative at Marks & Spencer (M&S), a prominent UK-based retailer. Specifically, it focuses on M&S’s strategic transformation under the ‘Plan A’ sustainability initiative and subsequent restructuring efforts to address declining performance in the early 2000s and beyond. This case analysis presents a critical evaluation of the change management strategies employed, drawing on leading and change management theories. The essay outlines the background of the case, evaluates the application of theoretical concepts, and concludes with recommendations for future actions to sustain change effectively.
2.0 Background of the Case
Marks & Spencer, founded in 1884, is a major British retailer known for clothing, food, and home products, with a strong presence across the UK. The company faced significant challenges in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including declining sales and profits due to outdated business models and failure to adapt to market trends. In response, M&S launched ‘Plan A’ in 2007, a sustainability-focused strategy, alongside store closures and digital transformation initiatives to regain competitiveness. These changes aimed to address financial struggles and reposition M&S as a modern, customer-focused brand (M&S, 2023). Research highlights issues of stakeholder resistance and leadership alignment during this period as critical barriers to success.
3.0 Evaluation of the Case
The organisational change at M&S can be critically analyzed through the lens of change management theories, particularly Lewin’s Change Model and Kotter’s 8-Step Process. Lewin’s model, which includes unfreezing, changing, and refreezing stages, provides a framework to understand M&S’s approach (Lewin, 1947). Initially, M&S faced the need to ‘unfreeze’ entrenched practices, such as over-reliance on traditional retail formats, by raising awareness of declining performance among stakeholders. Leadership played a pivotal role in communicating the urgency of change, aligning with Kotter’s first step of creating a sense of urgency (Kotter, 1996). However, resistance from employees and long-term suppliers, accustomed to established processes, posed challenges during this phase.
In the ‘changing’ stage, M&S implemented ‘Plan A,’ committing to sustainability goals like carbon neutrality and ethical sourcing, alongside closing underperforming stores. This strategic shift aimed to rebuild customer trust and adapt to digital retail trends. Kotter’s emphasis on developing a clear vision and strategy was partially evident here, as M&S articulated long-term sustainability goals (Kotter, 1996). Yet, the pace of digital adoption lagged behind competitors like Next, suggesting a lack of agility in executing the vision. Additionally, cultural differences across M&S’s global supply chain required nuanced leadership to manage diverse stakeholders effectively, highlighting the importance of cross-cultural competence in a global context (Hofstede, 2001).
The ‘refreezing’ stage involved embedding changes through revised policies and performance metrics. However, inconsistent leadership styles—ranging from autocratic decision-making on store closures to insufficient participatory approaches—hindered sustained commitment from employees. Transformational leadership, often advocated for inspiring change, was arguably underutilized, as staff morale declined during restructuring (Burns, 1978). Furthermore, the impact on individuals was significant; job cuts and store closures created uncertainty, aligning with literature on change-induced stress (Cummings and Worley, 2015). M&S’s limited focus on employee support programs reflects a gap in addressing human factors during change.
Applying the IDEAL framework by Ruane and Chappel (2018), M&S’s initiative shows strengths in identifying change needs and defining objectives but weaknesses in engaging stakeholders effectively. For instance, during tutorial discussions, a comparable case of retailer change illustrated that inclusive communication mitigates resistance—a lesson M&S could adopt. The case also underscores the relevance of contingency theory, which suggests adapting leadership styles to situational demands (Fiedler, 1967). M&S’s mixed success indicates that rigid approaches failed to navigate complex, dynamic challenges, particularly in engaging diverse teams across borders.
4.0 Recommendations and Conclusion
In summary, M&S’s organisational change through ‘Plan A’ and restructuring reveals both strategic foresight and implementation gaps. While the initiative addressed market demands for sustainability and digitalization, resistance from stakeholders and inconsistent leadership limited effectiveness. To enhance future change initiatives, M&S should prioritize transformational leadership to inspire commitment and invest in employee support mechanisms to address individual impacts. Adopting Kotter’s focus on consolidating gains through short-term wins could also sustain momentum (Kotter, 1996). Ultimately, aligning change strategies with situational needs and cultural nuances remains critical for M&S to navigate global retail challenges successfully.
References
- Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. Harper & Row.
- Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015) Organization Development and Change. Cengage Learning.
- Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
- Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications.
- Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
- M&S (2023) Plan A Sustainability Report. Marks & Spencer Corporate Site.
- Ruane, P., & Chappel, L. (2018) The IDEAL Framework for Academic Writing. Journal of Business Education, 12(3), 45-60.
