Leading Change In Kfc (kentucky Fried Chicken)

Executive summary

Significant moments in organizations nowadays are very technical and strategic since it harbors the outright shift from the former operations in firms to a completely new one which has to be managed in its right frame and scope so as not to temper with the brand image and already growing metrics or better the comfort zone of the general stakeholders. This transformational task circulates around a change in corporate goals, processes or operational technologies representing all levels of the organization. In this light, such transitional period in corporate existence and operations requires the proper resources deployed for this period somas not to steer up resistance in any form as it announces. By deploying the right resources, we mean allocating the right people to manage the shift period with the right support and resources and a perfect communication to make abreast with the change announced. Leading organization change has as main duties planning the change, developing implementation strategies, control at all phases, aid to all stakeholders for easy adaptability.

KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) is one of the world largest and still growing fast food chain with an exquisite recipe and specialty in crispy and grilled chicken among others after McDonalds. With main operations in Louisville, USA, is feeds about 12 million customer per day from 1500 restaurants worldwide with majority in the US and UK. With an annual revenue of about $15 billion, Kentucky Fried Chicken as very much concern and optimistic of being world leader in the industry. This vision, has made them very conscious of their operating environment with pouring efforts on it revenue drivers which are his clients. They invest all efforts to make client have a stress free and healthy encounter with the brand.

At the three organizational level, KFC have in the past year invested resources in carrying out major transitions which began with a name change from Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC in 1991. This seems pretty in the 20th century but yet still significant. The name change at that time was very much significant cause at that time it was a risk since it employed changing the well-known brand for which it is known for. Market shares are a product of brand image and the change at that time could be a complete fiasco over a mere vision and positioning the product in the mind of consumers as not a chicken eatery but a general fast-food eatery with better menu other than chicken though chicken remains their star investment. Furthermore, the change of the company menu too though an operational change is a product of the change of time and taste/fashion of consumers.

First and foremost, the organizational concept called Change is very much an unavoidable process at KFC, because of the changing effect of the society especially with societal upheavals that are related to technology and the level of competition which is tough with the presence of great rivalries like McDonalds McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, and Domino’s Pizza, Taco Bell, they have to develop strategies that are different from their present strategy that will facilitate their operation and give them a competitive advantage among all odd competitors. This process is a change and the present of a consultant is necessary because they have an extensive study and specialty in managing such daring previous. Also, the activity of change is highly conceptual and technical since it harbors the performance of all stakeholders with the slight ignorance will lead to an applauded resistance. Consultant are like mediators to conflict situations where in they have a neutral stand on transition related matter.

They are dual focused and are unbiased as they with the help of their expertise report what realities. With consultants, apart from having a blended knowledge are the pre-auditors of the Board’s vision that could paint a picture and paint it with the perfect combination of all related resources to attain predefined results with no negative resistance that could totally diverge the change scope. In continuity, consultant were needed inn this transition so that implementation is swift and works as per requirement, budget, time and effect. Hence consultant highlight the change of name vision, work with leaders for better comprehension, engages a change management plan, work with stakeholders, Create a system/Infrastructure to Support Adoption of progress, measure changes progress and after implementation effect and give reports to right channels effectively and efficiently. In continuity, KFC have all invested resources in strategic transformational changes and the regional operational level.

Organization contextual features

Using the Kaleidoscope framework, the name change of KFC as per the change context revolved around Time, Scope, Preservation, Diversity, Capability, Capacity, Readiness, and Power. Beginning with time, KFC changed its name after 39 years of operation in 1991 and the brand name change was incrementally changed with an official release and a gradual rebranding that took over 48 months to effectively materialised. Looking at the scope, it was centred on changing the brand names from Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC and also get it trademarked while its retail outlets changed their legal and visual branding status. Going to preservation, the legal status was maintained, the brand colors wasn’t changed, the logo was held high in esteem with no touches.

Customer service and quality of the product did not change but the brand name came in with more promotional offers and with the help of sensitizing their external stakeholders, their rebranding was on capitalized to be acronym with a reason justifiable trying to make the brand name shorter, easy to pronounced since it was going international and easy to read, and memorized. Looking at the diversity of the brand name change, its diversity was plain from the stakeholders within the company but externally is was a catastrophic since it spurred the birth of rumors about the quality of chicken which had nothing to do with the chicken quality at the time but just to shorten the name. All stakeholders were affected by the change and since dietitians were part of the clientele values and norms restricting quality of meat reduced the turnover drastically all thanks to rumors.

Looking at Capability, management at the level of the internal operations was at its peak as the staff were not taken at blaze but management Communication at the level of the external stakeholders was weak which heavily affected productivity and stakeholders. The change implementation was abrupt and did not create a good product perception and brand image. It could have been an opportunity for KFC to teach its external stakeholders how valued they are since they wanted to shorten the name for them, offer them much more than chicken and at a stress free rate but they messed up and they reaped they reverse. As per corporate archives, after existing for about three decades, they were very much successful in their plough for new brand adventure. They had the financial resources to implement but they lacked the technical knowhow perhaps because the absent of a consultant. They lack the required technology and the proper timing and after implementation strategy to remind them of they change because they relied on their clients and staff to share the news without putting in considerate efforts. The Readiness of employees for the change could be on a positive strength since there was documented literature of any resistance perhaps because it did not affect them and their ancillary benefits. The for the change solely lied on the board and the CEO of the company since it touches all sector and it brand change is a strategic change and the top management have the key to its implementation while their subordinates work on their decisions at their respective departments.

Design or implementing choices

Using this scheme, the brand name change of KFC design choices were centered around; Change path, Change Start Point, Change Style, Change Target and Change Levers. With change paths, the brand name change focused on Evolution of the plan, Adaptation of the brand name change, revolution of the vision and reconstructing the damages caused by the change. In this case, the damages were caused by the external stakeholders. The change start point was a top-down change since it was initiated by the top management and had to followed by the corporate suburbs and to the lesser extent it was pilot site where in the head office first did the change and the retail centers and stands followed suit. With a change of style implementation choices, it was by, Education of the internal stake holders on the scope change. This is done formally and given them an opportunity to learn and clearing of doubts. Collaboration plays a dual role like education wherein the external stakeholders are not left out in educating and collaborating with them so that they can accept the change with little or no resistant. With the staff to get their point of view and answer queries so that they could be better ambassadors in/out of the corporate premises. Participation with other stake holder so that with all hands on deck, work will be done effectively and efficiently. With Direction, sub employees are told what to do. It sounds like giving orders and expected them met with all professionalism and respect of scope and hierarchy. Lastly, with Coercion, being a rare strategy, it was reserved for defaulters and employees who were resistant after all efforts to make them understand the positivity of the change.

Leadership style versus cultural paradigm

Following the Kaleidoscope scheme, the most favourable leadership scheme that could work here is the deliberative and the participative leadership skills. Once stakeholders feel included in decision making no matter their standpoint, they tend to feel that bond of inclusion in corporate analysis hence they tend to regard major decisions as part of their contributions. The KFC Saga was meant to boost them up if they had a democratic sitting in order to decide the faith of the company.


Strategies are envisaged and with this an unimaginable success is evident because a well communicated strategy or process will never give room for rumours especially when all nooks and crannies of the communication is taken into consideration. Following the cultural paradigm, any predetermined shift should not be an information but a result from a deliberation and with this, resistance and failures will be suppressed. Transformational and Transactional Leadership styles could actually be idea since its strategic and involve social interaction so as to understand all parties involved, their worries and a remedial decision which will be taken by the board while taken minority reaction into considerations.


First and foremost, in the further change implementations, KFC should make use of a change consultant who will guide them at all the change management process who will in turn study the draft out a change management plan and stick to it for failing to plan is planning to fail. Also, resistance should always be expected at all levels and all details matter in such a critical moment of change realization. Communication happens to be the life blood of all organizations, programs and project and should not be taken for granted for inadequate transfer of information is enough to spur resistance and a crisis. In this light in further processes implementation, official releases and education should be destined to all and the communication team should be ready at all times to debunk rumors and give the exact reasons for actions. The vice of seduction is very costly nowadays especially as all users are exposed to the digitalized world of happenings and wonders.

In case of failure and resistance, the root causes of these problems should be analyzed at full point rather than solving it at the face level. While attacking the root cause with the solutions, lessons are being learned and the occurrence of such shortcoming will never come to pass since the roots to such failure will be burnt with a long-lasting solution.

Finally, it should be noted that with constant change, KFC will always be ahead of competition since change is a strategic move to bring out a new process that could contribute to the growth and emergence of KFC. With Improved Changed modalities, KFC will be at forefront of the chicken et al venture due to the proactiveness of a change consultant.


  1. Adams, J., 2011. Managing people in organisations: contemporary theory and practice. Revised ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  2. Aguinis, H., 2014. Performance management. Third Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson: Pearson new international edition.
  3. Andrews, K., 1971. The concept of corporate Strategy. Homewood: :Dow JOnes Irwin.
  4. Balogun, J. a. H. H. V., 2008. Exploring strategic change. 3rd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
  5. Bass, B. M. A., 1996. A New Paradigm of Leadership: an Inquiry into Transformational Leadership.. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,.
  6. Begah, N., 2010. Exxon over the years. Los Angeles: The Times.
  7. Bouckaert, G. a. H. J., 2012. Managing performance: international comparisons. 3 ed. London: Routledge.
  8. Burnes, B., 2007. Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies: The Foundations of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2(43), p. 213–231.
  9. Czerniawska, F. a. M. P., 2006. Management consulting in practice: award-winning international case studies. London: Kogan Page.
  10. French, W. L. B. C. H. a. Z. R. A., 2004. Organization development and transformation: managing effective change. 6th ed. NewYork: McGraw
  11. Hill. H, A. S., 2012. Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), p. 764–782.
  12. Hope Hailey, V. a. B. J., 2002. Devising Context Sensitive Approaches To Change: The Example of Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Planning, 2(35), p. 153–178.
  14. Tushman, M. a. A. P., 2001. Managing strategic innovation and change: a collection of readings. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
  15. Wood A, M., 1998. Omniscient organizations and bodily observations: electronic surveillance in the workplace. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 18(5), p. 136–174.
  16. Zell, D., 2003. Organizational Change as a Process of Death, Dying, and Rebirth. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,, 1(39), p. 73–96.
14 May 2021
Your Email

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and  Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.

close thanks-icon

Your essay sample has been sent.

Order now
Still can’t find what you need?

Order custom paper and save your time
for priority classes!

Order paper now