Change Management Simulation - Essay Example

?Change Management Simulation A. The first level that was implemented was conducting private interviews with Paul D'Arcy, Luke Filer, Mary Gopinath, Leslie Harris. The rationale behind this decision was that these were the individuals most vocal after the project was announced. The impact of this decision was that these four individuals entered the awareness stage of the project. An additional consideration was that grouping them in private interviews would limit the amount they could influence each other, effectively gaining less biased and more direct perspectives. The lever that was pulled in week 1 was to tell a success story to Deborah Edge, Luke Filer, and Bob Ingram. The effect of this lever was that 2 people entered the awareness stage, and 1 person entered the interest stage. The rationale for this step was that these individuals were previously opposed to the process and such a move would gain their confidence. The next step was to get the CEO’s public support; the target was the entire organization. The effect was that four people entered the interest stage. The rationale behind this was that it would shift the organizational culture in favor of the project. The next step was to get consultant support. The effect of this was no noticeable effect. This was rationalized, as it would improve the project’s feasibility. In week 6 a pilot project was conducted; specifically targeted were Henry Adams, Deborah Edge, and Yao Li; the effect was that 1 person entered the awareness stage, 2 people entered the interest stage, and 1 person entered the trial stage. The rationale for this decision was that it would demonstrate the project’s feasibility and begin the steps to establish the innovation. In week 12 progress reports were posted; this was targeted at the entire organization and had no noticeable effect. Again the intention was to advance the project and further demonstrate its feasibility to individuals opposed. The week 13 level was to provide internal skill building to Walt James, Diane McNatt, and Sam Puffer; 4 people entered the awareness stage. The rationale was that this would both gain support for the project and begin to establish the necessary intellectual infrastructure. Week 15 built on these earlier elements through attempting to build a coalition of support; still there was no noticeable impact on the project. Week 19 used the recognize an adopter lever on Henry Adams, again noticeable effect occurred. Week 22 implemented the ‘walk the talk’ level; this had a significant impact 3 people entered the interest stage and two people entered the trial stage. The rational was that this decision would demonstrate to the organization the plan’s action. In week 22 progress reports were posted again simply as a means of moving the project along. In week 25 an e-mail notice was issued and 2 people entered the interest stage. In week 26 the goals and deadline were accounted; 6 people entered the awareness stage, 1 person entered the interest stage, and 2 people entered the trial stage. The rationale for this was both to gain support, both also for the pure functional aspect of moving the project along. Week 30 implemented the ‘revise reward system’ level; 6 people entered the interest stage, 6 the trial, and 5 the adoption. Rewards are recognized as a prominent aspect of effective leadership and motivation. Week 42 implemented ‘walk the talk’ as a means of gaining further support; 4 people entered the trial stage. Week 46 conducted private interviews with four people as a means of gaining further development insight on the project; 3 people entered the trial stage, 1 person the adoption. Week 47 goals and deadlines were announced and 2 people entered the adoption stage. Week 51 further worked towards advancing the new aspects of the project by building a coalition of support; this had no noticeable effect. The rationale between week 62 and week 64 was to gain the organization’s complete support, as a result week 62 told a success story, week 63 conducted private interviews, and week 64 told another success story. During this period the final 7 people entered the adoption stage. Between week 65 and week 94 there was no noticeable effect in the organization. The rationale for the actions during this period was to advance the project forward in a way that retained the support that had already been gained. Week 65 announced goals and deadlines. Week 69 revised the reward system. Week 81 walked the talked. Week 83 conducted private interviews. Week 84 posted progress reports. Week 85 gained the consultant’s support. Week 87 held town hall meetings. Week 89 issue e-mail notices. Week 90 got the CEO’s public support. Week 92 conducted private interviews. Week 93 told a success story. And Week 94 built a coalition of support. B. In total I believe my efforts in managing organization change were highly successful. The strategy I implemented in large part conformed to pervading critical perceptions on organizational change. It’s noted that, “The first question we ask is, ‘What would you like to see changed at work, so that you could be more effective or so that work would be more satisfying?’” (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, p. 87). Such notions of organizational change are reflected in the personal interviews that were conducted at the beginning of the process, specifically with individuals that voiced objections to the project. Kotter (1995, p. 61) notes that the second major step in managing organizational change is “forming a powerful guiding coalition.” Notably, this involved, “assembling a group with enough power to lead the change effort” and “encouraging the group to work together as a team” (Kotter, 1995, p. 61). Through the process such coalitions were frequently implemented as a means of gaining and retaining organizational support for the project. Perhaps the most successful part was gaining employee adoption of the program from an early stage. Still, it’s noted that, “the toughest challenge faced by leaders during a turnaround is to avoid backsliding into dysfunctional routines – habitual patterns of negative behavior of individuals and groups that are triggered automatically and unconsciously” (Garvin & Roberto 2009, p. 111). From week 65 on then levers were implemented purely as a means of maintaining organizational focus. C. There were many things I learned during about organizational change. One of the most notable is the impetus for change. It’s noted that, “most of the changes can be traced directly to external factors, such as new sources of competition, new technology, or deregulation” (Nadler 1989, p. 194). In the context of this specific study the change was externally motivated out of a vendor’s desire for sustainable sunglasses. Additionally, I learned about the specific structural elements that affect change through the process. These elements are reflected in theory that notes, “three factors affect what an organization can and cannot do: its resources, its processes, and its values” (Christensen 2000, p. 68). The simulation provided me with a better means of understanding these elements in action. D. In terms of things I would do different, I am influenced by the perspective that “Change initiatives often backfire because managers apply one-size-fits-all approaches” (Kotter & Schlesinger 2008, p. 131). Within the context of the simulation, while I attempted to implement a variety of organizational change elements, I recognize that it may have been possible to incorporate an even larger variety of perspectives in the process. References Christensen, C. (2000). ‘Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change.’ Harvard Business Review. Garvin, D. Roberto, M. (2009). Change Through Persuasion. Harvard Business Review. Kegan, R. Lahey, L. (2001) The Real Reason People Won’t Change. Kotter, J. (1995). ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.’ Harvard Business Review. Kotter, J. Schlesinger, L. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. Nadler, D. (1989) ‘Organizational Frame Bending.’ Columbia Graduate School of Business. Vol. 3, No. 3. Read More