The Merger of Construct Engineering and MechElec Engineers to create CEME Engineering Construct Engineering (CE) was a good solid Australian structural engineering company that had a steady flow of work but needed a growth spurt to go from boutique local firm to national engineering concern. In the previous 18 months, they had made a strategic acquisition of another local interstate engineering firm, MechElec Engineers (ME), who specialised in mechanical engineering, with the view to diversify their collective expertise and geographical influence. Twelve months after the merger and acquisition, CEME's joint client base hadn't grown much and their diversity into other areas of engineering wasn't quite as successful as they had hoped. Driving force Head office in Adelaide made all the big decisions, even though most of their on-the-ground expertise resided in Melbourne. The board in Adelaide decided to make a strategic decision: bring in new blood. They recruited a female architect consultant with the right business development skills to shake the place up. This was a brave decision, as the team in Melbourne and Adelaide were all male engineers and subject matter experts who knew their clients and were comfortable with what they had. They received work by reputation, not by solicitation. Mary Doomore saw her work as 'a renovators delight', but didn't realise just how hard it would be to turn the place around. She was determined to draw on her business development skills, honed from many years as a business executive at a large telco. Her role was to shift CEME Engineering from local advisers to national ground shakers and to be a brand name in all things engineering. She was savvy, with the ability to make things happen with a calm but firm manner. She was on a mission and needed to work with the engineering specialists to be successful. 'Six months later': Mary Doomoore's strategic plan Mary had started to make her mark. Half the engineers were wary of her fast-paced changes, the other half were on board, in principle, but not doing much to change their everyday routine. Mary was in the process of making three major changes:

setting up offices in two other states (Sydney and Queensland), which entailed hiring new staff and leasing offices

deciding which engineers should be moved on and which should stay as part of the newly evolved national firm

designing new systems and ways of working to help influence the changes and create 'one direction for all'.

Resistance to change Mary was no pushover. She arranged weekly management meetings both in Adelaide with her bosses and in Melbourne with her team to discover ways to grow the business while still keeping everyone on board. The meetings were not always well attended due to 'work commitments', and she met with some resistance but saw this as a useful indicator that she was doing her job well. The main resistance, she believed, came from the personality conflict of engineering staff versus her broad architectural design style. She also felt that her lack of knowledge in engineering was a benefit as she let the experts do what they did best. Some thought she didn't appreciate the technical side of the business and was aiming too high. However, her colourful and unusual style of dress made the statement that she didn't care whether people liked her style, and that she was on trend and ready to bring the firm into the future. This was reinforced by her strong industry network and her close friendships with some media moguls who could help broadcast press releases when needed. What Mary didn't anticipate Mary hit a wall when she realised the merged CEME Engineering group hadn't quite been integrated. She had a good team of specialists but each still had their own culture, fiefdoms and systems. No one person had focused on blending systems between the two entities before she joined the company and this disconnection appeared as tiny cracks during her first six months that eventually widened to fissures, leaking at all ends. An example of this was a meeting she called to discuss how the two groups were working together. She received messages that smacked of trouble. The main problem she resolved to fix was the inability to upsell from one group to the other. Each saw their area as separate and didn't want their clients poached. They also expressed concern that even if they wanted to introduce the others to their clients, they didn't know enough about their work to start the conversation. Mary tried to change this 'them' and 'us' mindset so they could start to think as one entity with a combined sense of direction. After 12 months in her role, she realised she needed some support from head office but as their location was in Adelaide all she got was questions as to why things weren't happening quicker, despite the fact that interstate offices had been set up and a slow trickle of new clients meant they were making some progress. She was a very positive person, but sometimes felt that it was one step forward and two steps backward, especially when she was confronted with responses like 'I knew this growth spurt wasn't going to work', and 'please let me get on with my work, changing directions is your job'. The more senior members of the old ME Engineering, however, thought she was a breath of fresh air and sung her praises to the Adelaide board members at a pre-Christmas company cocktail event. Mary was approached at the cocktails by a seasoned organisational consultant who talked about freezing and unfreezing states and asked at what stage she believed her change management approach was, acknowledging that change is a messy thing. Mary wondered whether she needed to commandeer some external support or whether this would make her look inadequate. She was unsure how to respond.

1. Identify two (2) change metaphors used in the case, and use these to explain how different people are understanding and interpreting the change situation differently