ROVER GROUP
Learning Objectives
 Understand how real life organizations
manage change
 Describe how attempted to change internal
relationships and attitudes across functions
and between hierarchical levels
 Examine why and how the particular
decisions relating to change were taken
 Knowing the resultant implementation
change programmes could be described as
Planned or Emergent
Background
 In 1970-1980, many of industrial companies have
bad relations and serious financial problems,
including Rover group
 1988, Rover was sold to British Aerospace for 150
millions pounds.
 Between 1989-1994, Rover’s transformation
continued apace with collaboration with Honda
 In June 1999, BMW invest over 3 billion Pounds
in its Rover plants.
 But in 2000, BMW announced the dismember of
Rover and sale of.
The Genesis of a Learning
Business
 Since 1978 – 1986, Rover was knowing as
industrial militancy. Its priorities had been profit,
products, procedures and people, in that order
 1986, with the appointment of Graham Day as
chairman, Rover change priority, people came
first, profits came later.
 From 1986 onwards, a whole policies design to
promote learning. In to facilitate this process and
create a corporate learning environment, the
company remove barriers which separate one
employee to another.

This commitment was demonstrated in 1992,
with the launch of “ Rover Tomorrow – The
New Deal” :
–
–
–
–
–
–
a company undertaking not make compulsory
redundancies
the harmonization of terms and conditions between
white collar and blue collar staff
the coining of a new term -”associates”- to describe
all Rover employees
The expectation that white collar should prepared to
be redeployed onto assembly line work
All new graduate recruits had to spend their first three
months on production lines
All Rover employees, even directors, should wear the
same gray overalls
Rover Learning Business
 Rover Learning Business (RLB) was launched on
May 14 1990, with 30 millions Pound budget, and
have following objectives :
– To distinguish Rover group as the best in Europe for
attracting, retaining and developing people
– To emphasis the view that people are greatest asset
– To gain recognition by its own employees that
commitment to every individual had increased
– To unlock and recognize employee talents
– To improve the competitive edge of the company
 Philosophy RLB which announced in open
conference 1993 by Graham Day is :
“Neither the corporate learning process nor the
individual one is optional. If the company
seeks to survive and prosper, it must learn. If
the individual, at a minimum, seeks to remain
employed, let alone progress, learning is
essential”
 In 6 years until its demise in 1996, RLB
expanded its activities to car dealer and
supplier.
 RLB was supported by all Rover senior
managers
 RLB main focus was on internal activities and
relations within Rover. Its core learning products
are :
– REAL (Rover Employee Assisted Learning)
This programmed provided employees with money to
spend on personal development
– Personal Development Files (PDFs)
A result of the inadequacies of traditional approach to
appraisal and performance review.
– GLEN (Group Learning Exchange Network)
An extensive computer database of information and
case studies to improve & develop the manner of their
work
– The Change Management Process
The approach was based on teamwork, and stressed the
need of seeking information and benchmarking, and to
involve those most closely affected
The Demise of RLB
 The beginning of the end for RLB seemed
to coincide with the takeover by BMW
 In 1996, six years after launch, RLB was
closed and its staff transferred elsewhere
within Rover
 The official reason for RLB’s demise was it
had served its purpose in energizing the
learning process throughout the Rover
Group
 There are 3 explanations for its demise :
– Failed to deliver the goods. It was excellent at
publicizing itself, but in terms of instilling a
learning culture that would provide competitive
edge for Rover, it failed.
– It lost the political power struggle within Rover.
RLB had the support of key senior managers.
By 1996, most of these had left.
– Takeover by BMW and the separation of the
link with Honda. BMW was skeptical with
RLB, they wanted to see hard evidence for
RLB’s effectiveness which its difficult to
demonstrate !
The Outcome
 The strategic development of Rover as learning
organization emerged over time with specific
needs as perceived by senior managers
 The move to change management – worker
relations was driven by commercial reality
 In effect, Rover chose to compete on different
grounds, to focus on different competences, to the
opposition
 Though driven by management, this strategy also
required changes to management
 Though this was an emergent process, it was
neither ad hoc nor unplanned
 The takeover by BMW, an end to the managerial
and philosophical continuity at RLB.