Sorry, your browser is not supported.

For an improved experience, please update your browser to one of the following:

For urgent assistance, please contact us:
contact@friisberg.com

Case Study Capital Equipment

Management Audit

Capital Equipment

 

Management audit is used for the evaluation of the upper and top management levels. It is a useful tool for companies wanting to get a clearer picture of what is really going on within their organization.

Organizations with diverse, inclusive leadership teams consistently attract the best talent, deliver superior customer experiences, and outperform the competition.

 

Our task:

To identify areas of improvement and elicit better performance from a site in the U.S which had been acquired two years earlier.

The parent company was not satisfied with the resulting performance or culture.

They had suspicions, but needed to fully understand why corporate integration was being so overtly resisted.

 

Methodology:

Initially we evaluated how the company had developed, how the strategy for the future had been defined and what the present organization looked like.

We interviewed over 15 managers together with key people on site.

We asked them about their background and education, their professional experience, their current responsibilities and their career aspirations.

Based on these interviews and 360 feedback, we analysed the competence and the potential of each person relative to their current role and the strategy of the company.

We actively sought their criticisms and suggestions for improvement as well encouraging them to articulate a vision for the future of the firm.

We remained alert for similar feedback from multiple sources.

 

Our conclusions:

The organisation was basically autonomous and objected to everything that Corporate tried to implement, consistently referring to the old ways being better, and that their customers did not want any change.

We discovered that there was a misplaced cultural nostalgia with a deep mistrust of the new corporate methodologies.

The Site manager, from the old organisation, surrounded himself with very loyal managers, who in this small community were either good friends and neighbours or relatives. Nepotism was the overriding issue.

We found that employees lied, or at least hoped to make the situation look better, by actively trying to hide things from us when we interviewed them.

Some key people were clearly not in the right roles, some needed additional training and other talent had been deliberately overlooked.

It was an unhealthy organisation and those people who had been placed there by cooperate after the acquisition were firmly kept as outsiders.

 

Our recommendations:

To plan and create a task force with clear objectives and a mandate to replace the existing site manager with someone from Corporate to realign much of the existing management.

To create a new organizational and aligned corporate structure.

 

Results:

Working closely with the new site manager, we acted as his sounding board and trusted advisor for over two years.

We worked to help him appoint the right people into key roles.

Today the site has its best ever results. It has become an effective production unit and is now considered the exemplar of a well-functioning and performing unit.

Because we understand the DNA of the organisation, we remain trusted advisors, but there is no further need for any interaction on site.

 

Peter Strandberg
President, Friisberg
Partner, Sweden

Our People
Want To Know More?
Picture of Case Study<i> Automotive</i>
Picture of Case Study<i> Capital Equipment</i>
Picture of Case Study<i> BioTech</i>
Picture of Case Study<i> Aerospace</i>
Picture of Our <i>Case Studies</i>
Picture of Here’s Why<i> Our Clients…</i>
Picture of Our <i>Posts</i>