critical thinking The Change Management Process

Chapter Nine Action Planning andImplementation Chapter Overview Change leaders recognize the usefulness of plans and the imperative of action. Prepare, take action, and learn from the results. Change initiators have a “do it” attitude. Action planning and implementation involves planning the work and working the plan. “Right” decisions mean approximately “right” as change agents obtain feedback from action and make adjustments as they act. Change agents learn to specify who does what, when, and how to monitor and track their change initiatives. Agents use a variety of management tools, such as responsibility and project planning charts, surveys and survey feedback, and critical path methods to successfully plan and implement their change programs. Successful change agents develop detailed communications plans and understand how to manage transitions from the present to a future desired state. This book has a philosophical bias for taking action. Rather than passively waiting or complaining from the sidelines, change agents get engaged. However, the goal is not action simply for novelty and excitement. Action must increase the likelihood of positive change. Great ideas don’t generate value until they are effectively executed. One of the ways to improve the quality of action is to use proven tools to execute a change agenda. Tools in Chapter 9 translate plans to action. If this were a political campaign, these tools would be steps that are deployed after the candidate has been selected, the platform finalized, and the election called. The chapter provides advice on implementation tactics and project management tools. It addresses communication and influence tactics during the change process. And finally, the management of transition, or the process of keeping the organization operating while implementing the change, is detailed. In terms of the model in Figure 9.1, these are the implementation issues of “getting from here to there”— assessing the present in terms of the future, determining the work that needs to be done, and implementing the change. � Without a “Do It” Orientation, Things Won’t Happen Many major change initiatives start in the C-suite. Boards of directors and executives at the top of organizations have access to all of the data that an organization generates, and from this perspective and input they can observe a myriad of organizational problems and envision viable solutions. Two examples of boards who hired strong, change agent CEOs are IBM’s board when they brought in Lou Gerstner in 1993 and the board of New England Medical Center, Boston (now called Tufts Medical Center) when they hired Ellen Zane in 2002 to lead the transformation of the then-foundering nonprofit hospital (see cases on the website for the story about Zane’s turnaround of the medical center). Figure 9.1 The Change Path Model Gerstner and Zane were seasoned executives when they took on the extremely difficult task of pushing change from the top down into the basements of their organizations. Both had a “do it” orientation and both were authorized by their boards and by their titles, jobs, and positions to lead change within their institutions. Having the authority to act makes certain aspects of the job of change agent easier than working from the middle. Gerstner, for instance, when he claimed the title of CEO, quickly changed the reward system for his top executives, focusing their attention on the performance of IBM as a � whole, rather than just their divisions or areas. Such quick structural change is unlikely in a mid-level role. In an ideal world, change leaders located in the middle of the organization will also find support for their projects. They need ready access to supportive executives who provide directional clarity, ensure their organizations are ready for change, approve needed resources, provide other modes of support and oversight, and cultivate broad employee commitment for the change. In some instances, this is not the case. Many executives will have little or no knowledge of the initiative or its value and implications. If they have heard of the idea, they may lack interest because of other priorities and political realities; some may have heard of it and have concerns, while others will simply want to distance themselves from the change in the event it doesn’t work out. Some will fail to understand the important role they have to play in nurturing innovation from within the organization; others will not see it as their role. Organizations are complex systems, and their prospects for successful adaptation are advanced when they can also learn and grow from the bottom up. This is one of the reasons that firms such as 3M, Procter & Gamble, and Deloitte have demonstrated such staying power: They grow from within and from the bottom up. Wise senior managers know how to nurture and leverage employees’ adaptive energy. Wise change agents know how to save short-sighted senior managers from themselves. If you work in an organization such as 3M, then “lucky you!” If you do not, an early task is to seek—and hopefully acquire—senior-level support for your initiative. An e-mail from the CEO or SVP announcing her support for your project will help garner support from other organizational members. Innovation and Change at 3M Front-line freedom to innovate and senior-level support have been critical ingredients to 3M’s success. Technical and marketing employees commit 15% of their time to work on projects of their own choosing, without supervision. The environment is open and informal, input from customers and lead users is sought, and collaboration and inquisitiveness are valued. Social media facilitates front-line collaboration and helps to overcome the communication barriers that organizational size and complexity bring. At the same time, 3M’s culture is demanding, and the process for funding new ideas is highly structured. The degree of management scrutiny and oversight increases as new ideas evolve to require significant resources. Products that are eventually successful in the marketplace are typically rejected several times in management’s funding process before receiving funds, requiring persistence from innovators. Management and employees embrace and learn from failures because innovation won’t happen otherwise. George Buckley, 3M’s CEO from 2005 to 2012, a PhD in engineering, was deeply interested in innovation. He regularly visited the labs to find out what people were exploring, believing that “creativity comes from freedom, not control.”1 As it had in the past, this commitment to innovation has allowed new products and services to percolate and develop from the ground up throughout the years.2 Inge Thulin (2012-18) and Michael Roman (the current CEO) have demonstrated their commitment to sustaining this commitment in more recent years. This spirit is captured in the following statement of 3M’s purpose: “3M captures the spark of new ideas and transforms them into thousands of ingenious products. Our culture of creative collaboration inspires a never-ending stream of powerful technologies that make life better. 3M is the innovation company that never stops inventing.”3 If senior-level support for change is unlikely to develop in the near future, change initiators may feel that abiding by formal organizational protocols and waiting for official � support will slow progress unduly. Faced with this situation, change agents may choose to follow the advice of Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, a pioneering female software engineer in the U.S. Navy, who said, “It is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.”4 Pfeffer and Sutton state “actions count more than elegant plans or concepts” and that “there is no doing without mistakes.” They ask, however, a crucial question: “What is the company’s response?”5 If the organization’s response to reasoned initiatives and honest mistakes is to scapegoat and blame, people quickly learn not to take risks that might lead to mistakes. Or, they learn to cover up mistakes. Either way, the organization suffers.* However, beliefs about likely organizational responses can also become a convenient excuse for inaction and the avoidance of risk taking (e.g., What if my idea really won’t work or what will I do if it does work?). If such beliefs are never challenged, their stability will produce self-fulfilling prophecies. * This does lead to an accountability paradox. Accountability is a needed and useful attribute. However, there needs to be a fine balance between holding change leaders accountable for what they do and encouraging the risk-taking behavior that leads to needed learning and change. Effective executives and managers of change are aware of the consequences of their actions and intuitively test their organizational assumptions by engaging in an action– learning–reaction cycle.6 Sayles recognized this when he wrote, “Working leaders instead of simply waiting for and evaluating results seek to intervene. And the interventions they undertake require a more intimate knowledge of operations, and more involvement in the work than those of traditional middle managers.”7 For employees lower in the hierarchy, action is also key. Instead of being discouraged by lack of authority or reach, one must fully understand the resources and tools they have at their disposal. Dr. Ross Wirth, retired dean of the College of Business, Franklin University, reflected on his 32-year career at Citgo Petroleum with the following wisdom:8 “Traditional thought says that nothing happens without top management’s approval (but) change need not be something that is ‘done to you.’ Here is another way to think of it: empowerment is something you grasp until you find its limits. I tell people that they can constantly test the limits of their empowerment, carefully reading internal politics to see when they are pushing up against a boundary. Too many people think they are not empowered, but actually they have failed to test their limits.” The reality of much organizational life is somewhere between an environment that punishes those who dare to challenge the status quo and one in which all such initiatives are unconditionally embraced and rewarded. When the latter is the case, disciplined development and governance processes help organizations and their members to sort through those ideas, nurture their development, and bring the most viable to life. If such processes are absent, it can lead to the organization running off in all directions. Organizational members who choose not to wait on formal permission and undertake reasonable self-initiated change initiatives may experience some chastisement for not first seeking approval, particularly if the initiative runs into difficulty. However, in many organizations, they are also commended for showing initiative and having a positive impact. The organization’s culture and the personality of a boss (e.g., managerial style and tolerance for ambiguity) will obviously influence what response the initiator receives, but most managers value initiative. What can be done to increase the likelihood that taking action will produce desired results? The following sections address this question by exploring a variety of planning � and implementing tools. The purpose of these tools is to assist change leaders in designing and then managing their initiatives in ways that increase their prospects for success. � Prelude to Action: Selecting the Correct Path Any action plan for change needs to be rooted in a sophisticated understanding of how the organization works and what needs to be achieved. Since there are a variety of action paths available, how do you decide which to take? Mintzberg and Westley provide guidance in this matter by setting out three generic approaches: thinking first, seeing first, and doing first.9 Thinking first strategy works best when the issue is clear, data are reliable, context is structured, thoughts can be pinned down, and discipline can be established as in many routine production processes. The introduction of an initiative such as Six Sigma is an example where management needs to think first. Seeing first strategy works best when many elements have to be combined into creative solutions, commitment to those solutions is key, and communication across boundaries is essential. New product development is an example of the need to see first. Doing first strategy works best when the situation is novel and confusing, complicated specifications would get in the way, and a few simple relationship rules can help people move forward. For example, if a manager is testing a variety of approaches to customer service and wants feedback about what works best under what conditions, then doing first is appropriate. At the macro level, this approach often makes sense for organizations attempting to figure out how to deal with disruptions to their business models—something firms are experiencing with increasing frequency. As complexity and ambiguity rise, Mintzberg and Westley argue that the preferred approach to action shifts. Thinking first fits when the situation is well structured, a manager has the needed data, and there is not much confusion about how to proceed. As ambiguity and complexity rise, though, certainty over how best to proceed becomes less clear. Seeing first approaches the challenge by experimentation, prototyping, and pilot programs so that commitment can be gained by having others see and experience an initiative. Doing first is a response to even more ambiguous situations and takes the process of exploration further in the search for new paths forward. As these paths begin to emerge, the approach can then be altered to seeing first or doing first, depending on what is suitable for the next stage. Nitin Nohria offers a slightly different assessment of the generic change strategies available.10 He identified three strategies, defined their characteristics, explained the typical implementation, and highlighted their risk points. Programmatic change (similar to Mintzberg and Westley’s thinking first change) involves the implementation of straightforward, well-structured solutions. It is best suited to contexts that are clear and well defined and where the magnitude of the change is incremental in nature. Risks with this approach lie in potential problems with inflexibility, overreliance on a “one-size-fits-all” solution, and a lack of focus on behavior. Discontinuous change involves a major break from the past. If the environment is shifting dramatically and a continuation of activities based on existing assumptions will not work, then discontinuous, top-down change may be fitting. Organizational restructuring due to downsizing, rapid growth, or the realignment of markets is an example of this category. Risks with this approach come from political coalitions that may form and derail the change, a lack of sufficient resources and control to support sustain � and enforce (if needed) the changes, and the loss of talented people who become frustrated and quit. Emergent change (similar to Mintzberg and Westley’s doing first change) grows out of incremental initiatives and can create ambiguity and challenge for staff members. An employee-centered change initiative to modify the culture of the organization that emerges from customers’ and staff’s feedback would be an example. If the organization has a talented, knowledgeable workforce that understands the risks and possibilities, utilizing an emergent change approach may be appropriate. Risks with this approach come in the form of confusion over direction, uncertainty as to the impact of the change, and slow progress (see Table 9.1). To counteract the pitfalls of programmatic or “thinking first” change, consider using employee engagement and feedback to connect with those on the receiving end, learn from their experiences, and decentralize decision making to allow for adaptation to local conditions. The pitfalls (including unintended consequences) from change will be lessened by processes that reduce ambiguity, promote feedback and learning, and build support by enhancing member understanding of the change and why it was undertaken. Table 9.1 Three Generic Change Strategies Table 9.1 Three Generic Change Strategies Change Type Characteristic Implementation Issues or Concerns Programmatic change Missions, plans, objectives Training, timelines, steering committees Lack of focus on behavior, one solution for all, inflexible solutions Discontinuous change Initiated from top, clear break, reorientation Decrees, structural change, concurrent implementation Political coalitions derail change, weak controls, stress from the loss of people Emergent change Ambiguous, incremental, challenging Use of metaphors, experimentation, and risk-taking Confusion over direction, uncertainty and possible slow results Source: Adapted from Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (1993, August 24). Executing change: Three generic strategies. Harvard Business School Note. #494–039. The issues related to emergent or “doing first” change may be managed through the use of field experiments, evaluation tools and task forces to provide engagement and feedback on an ongoing basis. These can be used to enhance awareness of what is going on and why, create greater clarity concerning the implications of what is emerging and build understanding and support for the next steps in the change process. In metaphorical terms, this points to a move from “ready—aim—fire” to “ready—fire—aim— re-fire—re-aim”† for an emergent approach to planning. In fast-moving contexts, it is likely that a traditional planning process will be too lengthy and that by the time the planning is finished, the opportunity may have been missed. This metaphor recognizes that significant information can be obtained from action feedback. When a change leader initiates action, reactions will occur that can provide insight into how to respond and take corrective actions. � † The managerial use of this metaphor is usually credited to T. Peters and R. H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence (New York: Harper & Row, 1982). Our understanding is that its presence in its modified form has its roots in missile defense. If you are defending against incoming missiles, you don’t have time to wait and plan a response. You do need to fire before you aim your missile. Then once you have things in motion, you can re-aim your missile based on new, current information. A third approach to thinking about change strategies is found in the unilateral versus participative approaches to change. Advocates of a unilateral approach to change believe that if one first changes systems and structures, forcing behavioral changes, that action will in turn produce changes in attitudes and beliefs over time. Those who promote a participative approach believe the opposite. They argue that you first need to engage and change attitudes and gain acceptance of an initiative before restructuring systems and organizational structures. Waldersee and Griffiths note that change initiatives have been traditionally grouped into two broad categories. Techno–structural change refers to change that is based in structures, systems, and technology. Behavioral–social change is focused on altering established social relationships. After investigating 408 change episodes, they concluded that the unilateral approach was perceived to be more appropriate for techno–structural change, while participative approaches were seen as more appropriate when behavioral– social changes such as cultural change were involved.11 When Australian managers were asked about the perceived effectiveness of these two change approaches, they saw unilateral methods as more effective in bringing about successful change, regardless of the type of change. What does all of this mean for action planning? Waldersee and Griffiths concluded the following: Concrete actions taken by change managers are often superior to the traditional prescriptions of participation.12 Forcing change through top-down actions such as redeploying staff or redesigning jobs may effectively shift employee behavior. With the context and behavior changed, interventions targeting attitudes may then follow. (p. 432) While a unilateral approach may have appeal for those who want to ensure that things are done, such an approach can be risky and needs to be managed with care. When implementation lacks sensitivity, stakeholders may feel that their perspectives and concerns have been ignored. This can result in fallout and resistance that could have been avoided, and missed opportunities for valuable input. What conclusions can be drawn from this material on a “do it” orientation and change strategies? Start a change process rather than waiting to get things perfect. Be willing to take informed risks and learn as you go. Finally, pick your change strategy with care and remember to take steps to manage the risks associated with the adopted approach. Regardless of how difficult change appears to be, Confucius was right—“a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”13 You need to plan your work, work the plan and be prepared to adapt as you go. � Plan the Work If the change leader’s approach to planned change has followed what this book suggests, then much planning will have already been done. In addition, Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector14 offer a prescriptive list of “steps to effective change.” Here are Beer et al.’s steps: 1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems. 2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness. 3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move it along. 4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top. 5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems, and structures. 6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process. For many change situations, this checklist provides valuable guidance in the development of an action plan. However, assuming a “one-size-fits-all” approach to change is risky. For example, the above list assumes a fundamental cooperative orientation. That is, there is sufficient commonality of goals that a shared vision is possible. The list also suggests that change should evolve and not be pushed down by top management. However, change agents will need approaches that allow them to face situations in which cooperation and commonality of goals is weak or absent and where changes are being pushed from the top. Table 9.2 below compares Beer et al.’s steps with the prescriptions of others, which may be helpful in thinking about planning through multiple perspectives.15 As well, the need for contingent thinking needs to be addressed. That is, an action plan depends significantly upon the action-planning context. In complex and ambiguous situations, plans and tactics must be able to adapt as events unfold. As such, it is useful to remember the old saying: “No plan survives first contact.”16 In summary, while careful planning is critical, change leaders must also recognize that planning is a means—not an end in itself. Don’t ignore vital emerging information just because it does not fit with carefully conceived plans. The abilities to think contingently, consider alternative paths forward, and adapt are important contributors to enhanced adaptive capacity.17 Table 9.2 A Comparison of Four Models of Change Table 9.2 A Comparison of Four Models of Change Beer et al.’s Six Steps for Change (1990) Jick’s Ten Commandments (1997) Kotter’s Eight- Stage Process for Successful Organizational Transformation (1996) Lueck’s Seven Steps for Change (2003) � Kotter’s Eight- Beer et al.’s Six Steps for Change (1990) Jick’s Ten Commandments (1997) Stage Process for Successful Organizational Transformation Lueck’s Seven Steps for Change (2003) (1996) Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of problems. Analyze the organization and its need for change. Establish a sense of urgency. Mobilize energy, commitment through joint identification of business problems and their solutions. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness. Create a vision and a common direction. Create a guiding coalition. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to Separate from the past. Develop a vision and strategy. Identify the leadership. move it along. Spread revitalization to all departments Create a sense Empower broad-Focus on results, not without pushing it of urgency. based action. activities. from the top. Institutionalize Start change at the revitalization through formal policies, systems, and Support a strong leader role. Communicate the change vision. periphery, then let it spread to other units, pushing it from structures. the top. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process. Line up political sponsorship. Generate short- term wins. Institutionalize success through formal policies, systems, and structures. Craft an implementation plan. Consolidate gains and produce more change. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the change process. Develop Anchor new enabling approaches in structures. the culture. � Kotter’s Eight- Beer et al.’s Six Steps for Change (1990) Jick’s Ten Commandments (1997) Stage Process for Successful Organizational Transformation Lueck’s Seven Steps for Change (2003) (1996) Communicate, involve people, and be honest. Reinforce and institutionalize change. Source: Based on Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–381; and Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990, November- December). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 1000, 158–166. � Engage Others in Action Planning Occasionally, change planning must be undertaken under a cloak of secrecy, such as when a merger is in the works and the premature release of information would significantly affect the price and the level of competitive risk. In general, though, the active involvement of others and information sharing enhances the quality of action planning for most change strategies. Consider one of the experiences of Barbara Waugh, who spent 25 years as a change agent at Hewlett-Packard: Change at HP Labs Barbara Waugh’s campaign for change at HP Labs began when its director asked her, “Why does no one out there consider HP Labs to be the best industrial research lab in the world?” Rather than propose answers, she and the director began by asking questions through a survey. The inquiry generated 800 single-spaced pages of feedback related to programs (e.g., too many projects and too few priorities), people (e.g., poor performers are not removed quickly enough and researchers lack sufficient freedom to do their jobs well), and processes (e.g., the information infrastructure is inadequate). The feedback, says Waugh, was “800 pages of frustrations, dreams, and insights.” But how could she capture and communicate what she learned? She drew on her experience with street theater and created a play about HP Labs. She worked passages from the surveys into dialogue and then recruited executives to act as staff members and junior people to act as executives. The troupe performed for 30 senior managers. “At the end of the play, the managers were very quiet,” Waugh remembers. “Then they started clapping. It was exciting. They really got it.”18 Waugh’s approach is instructive because it illustrates the power of presenting potentially boring data in an engaging and compelling manner. This was not the first time she nurtured change in an emergent, grassroots fashion. Her approach leveraged listening and questioning, built networks with individuals with complementary ideas, and when needed, arranged for access to financial resources for worthy endeavors.‡ ‡ In planning the work, interviews, surveys, survey feedback, and appreciative inquiry (a rigorous commitment to active listening, feedback, mutual development, and renewal) are powerful action planning tools. They come from the Organizational Development (OD) approach to change. For more information, two good sources are D. L. Cooperrider, D. Whitney, and J. M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change (Brunswick, OH: Crown, 2008); and T. G. Cummings and C. G. Worley, Organization Development and Change (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2009). Underlying planning-through-engagement strategies are assumptions regarding top- down (unilateral) versus bottom-up (participative) methods of change. Although Waldersee and Griffiths’s study19 showed that unilateral implementation methods have much to offer, the success of a change is enhanced when people understand what it entails, why it is being undertaken, what the consequences of success and failure are, and why their help is needed and valued. All too often, techno–structural changes have floundered because of design problems getting tangled up with acceptance and implementation issues that never get sorted out. Regardless of the change strategy preferred, the plan needs to be examined carefully for logic and consistency. The next section highlights a series of questions (contained in Table 9.6) that can help change agents enhance their performance in this area. � Ensure Alignment in Your Action Planning Change agents often understand what needs to be done but get the sequence of activities wrong. They might leave a meeting after a productive discussion but fail to sort out who is responsible for what. Sometimes critical steps in the plan are risky and alternative strategies need to be considered in case things do not go as planned. At other times, change agents may over- or underestimate the available resources and constraints, the time and energy required by various steps, or their own power and competence. Table 9.8 (later in this chapter) provides a checklist of questions to use when reviewing an action plan. This checklist tests the viability of the plan and asks for a rethinking of the connections between the analysis of the situation and the plan itself. Tough-minded thinking can improve the coherence and thoughtfulness of action plans. � Action Planning Tools After all is said and done, more is often said than done! – Aesop or Lou Holz This section explores a selection of action planning tools that change agents find particularly useful (see Table 9.3). Selecting the appropriate tool is both an art and science: An art as the story of Waugh at HP illustrated (see above), and a science as one analyzes data carefully and makes appropriate selections. In addition to the tools listed here, remember to reflect on action planning tools discussed in other chapters such as tools for assessing and/or handling: the need for change (Chapter 3); gap analyses, readiness for change and the framing of the vision for the change (Chapter 4); formal systems and processes (Chapter 5); the political and cultural dimension of change, including stakeholder and force field analyses (Chapter 6); recipients of change (Chapter 7), your own skills and competencies as a change agent (Chapter 8); and the use of measurement in the advancement of change (Chapter 10). Table 9.3 Tools for Action Planning Table 9.3 Tools for Action Planning 1. To-do list—a checklist of things to do 2. Responsibility charting—who will do what, when, where, why, and how 3. Contingency planning—consideration of what should be done when things do not work as planned on critical issues 4. Flow charting—a way of diagramming the nature of the existing process you wish to examine and set out how you propose to change it 5. Design thinking—an approach used to engage others collectively in creative problem solving around what needs to change and the design of the change itself — a tool that can be used in conjunction with visioning initiatives 6. Surveys, survey feedback, and appreciative inquiry—capturing people’s opinions and tracking their responses, observations, and insights over time, to assist in identifying what needs changing, nurturing engagement and support, and in tracking progress 7. Project planning and critical path methods—operations research techniques for scheduling work. These methods provide deadlines and insight as to which activities cannot be delayed to meet those deadlines. 8. Tools that assess forces that affect outcomes and stakeholders—these tools are closely related to force field and stakeholder analysis discussed in Chapter 6: a. Commitment charts—an evaluation of the level of commitment of major players (against, neutral, let it happen, help it happen, make it happen) b. The adoption continuum or awareness, interest, desire, adoption (AIDA) analysis—examination of major players and their position on the AIDA � continuum related to the proposed changes c. Cultural mapping—an approach that provides for a more detailed assessment of the cultural context the change is occurring in; particularly useful when the goal is cultural change 9. Leverage analysis—determination of methods of influencing major groups or players regarding the proposed changes 10. Training and development tools—tools related to the design and delivery of educational initiatives that advance employee knowledge and ability to perform effectively, given the changes 11. Diverse change approaches—a variety of techniques and tools that brings about change and that continues to grow � 1. To-Do Lists When managers engage in action planning, they often begin by outlining in detail the sequence of steps they will take initially to achieve their goals. That is, they make a list. A to-do list, a checklist of things to do, is the simplest and most common planning tool. Sometimes this is all the situation requires. As the action planning becomes more sophisticated, simple to-do lists will not suffice and responsibility charting provides more control. � 2. Responsibility Charting Responsibility charting can be a valuable tool to detail who should do what, when, and how. As well, it can be used to help keep projects on track and provide a basis for record keeping and accountability. Table 9.4 provides an example responsibility chart. The process begins by defining the list of decisions or actions to be taken. Then individuals are assigned responsibility for achieving specific actions at specified deadlines. Table 9.4 Example Responsibility Chart Table 9.4 Example Responsibility Chart Decisions or Actions to Be Taken Responsibilities Susan Ted Sonja Relevant Dates Action 1 R A I For meeting on Jan. 14 Action 2 R I May 24 Action 3 S A A Draft Plan by Feb. 17; action by July 22 Etc. Coding: R = Responsibility (not necessarily authority) A = Approval (right to veto) S = Support (put resources toward) I = Inform (to be consulted before action) Note that if there are a large number of As on your chart, implementation will be difficult. Care must be taken to assign As only when appropriate. Likewise, if there are not enough Rs and Ss, you will need to think about changes needed here and how to bring them about. Source: For a further discussion on responsibility charting, see Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions (p. 104). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. � 3. Contingency Planning Contingency planning is the importance of thinking through what should be done should events not go as planned. Two tools that aid in contingency planning are decision tree analysis and scenario planning.§ § Readers are encouraged to consult standard operations research texts for further information on these tools. Decision tree analysis asks change agents to consider the major choices and the possible consequences of those alternatives. Analysts are then asked to plan for the possible next actions and consider what the consequences of those actions might be. Such alternating action–consequence sequences can be extended as far as reasonable. As well, probabilities can be assigned as to the likelihood of each consequence. For many applications, a simple scale (very likely, likely, possible, unlikely, or very unlikely) is sufficient. This approach helps model the possible consequences to change decisions and assess the benefits and risks associated with the different pathways (see Figure 9.2). A second tool that helps managers with contingency planning is scenario planning. Here a change strategy is formed by first developing a limited number of scenarios about how the future may unfold and then assessing what the implications of each of these would be to the organization.20 Change leaders typically frame these around an issue of strategic and/or tactical importance. For example, if a firm producing paper forms is concerned about the long-term viability of its business model, then management could develop scenarios of what a paperless form producer would look like. Once the scenarios were developed, managers would ask themselves, How likely is this scenario? What would need to happen to make the scenario a reality? And what contingencies might arise that would need to be addressed? If one or more of these future scenarios seemed worth investing in, then management would develop its plans accordingly. To open people’s minds to possibilities and avoid blind spots, external parties are often brought into the process to offer data and insights, challenge assumptions, and stimulate thinking and discussion. Figure 9.2 Example Decision Tree � Scenario planning is different from forecasting. Forecasting starts in the present and uses trend lines and probability estimates to make projections about the future. Scenario planning starts by painting a picture of the future and works backward, asking what would have to happen to make this future scenario a reality and what could be done.21 While most uses of scenario planning are at a strategy level, the principles can be applied to frame possible visions for change and develop the action pathways that will increase the likelihood that the vision will be achieved. Royal Dutch Shell22 was one of the first users of scenario planning. The firm used it as a way to link future uncertainties to today’s decisions. � 4. Flow Charting Flow charting is a technique used to track the sequences in an existing process (including key decision points and who is involved in those decisions) and to assist in the design of the change through setting out an improved or new approach for implementation consideration.** Visual representations of existing processes are typically undertaken early in the change process when change agents are seeking to understand what needs to change. While the visual representation of the future process is also developed early in the change process, it is used in conjunction with the vision for change throughout the change process to help recipients better understand what is being undertaken and why. ** For introductory information on flowcharting, see Lucidchart’s website: https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/what-is-a-flowchart-tutorial; or MindTool’s website: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_97.htm. � 5. Design Thinking Design thinking has its roots in multiple areas including architecture, new product development and the pursuit of processes that will advance creative thinking in the organization. It is used with matters that have proven difficult to effectively address in the past and is used early in the change process. It seeks to engage individuals collectively in context assessment; problem finding and framing; ideation; prototyping and pilot testing; evaluation; and the translation of those designs into actionable initiatives. It is an iterative process so the cycle can be repeated and designs refined several times until the parties are satisfied with the proposed solution. Design thinking seeks to address matters in a less linear and more creative manner. Rather than approach matters through deductive or inductive reasoning (the traditional approaches), it seeks to do so through abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is solution rather than problem focused and involves looking for and exploring plausible solutions, trialing and refining different options, and so on until the desired path forward is selected and committed to. The more traditional deductive approach in organizations typically involves situational analyses, the development of decision criteria, the development and assessment of three to five alternatives, and the selection of the recommended path forward. Because design thinking is based on plausible solutions that have more uncertainty attached to them, they form the basis for the iterative exploration of options in the search for new approaches that can effectively address difficult problems and challenges that have resisted resolution.23 This human-centered, collaborative approach has at its core the interests and perspectives of the users that one is trying to design for. Users are engaged in the process to make sure that their interests and concerns are recognized and attended to. The goal of design thinking is to identify and address problems with creative solutions and create new opportunities. The nature of the process enhances the prospects for buy- in by the recipients of change due to their involvement in the design process. � 6. Surveys and Survey Feedback Change agents may find it is helpful to use surveys to capture people’s attitudes, opinions, and experiences at particular points in time and then track those attitudes over time, including their readiness for change that was discussed in Chapter 4. Tools in this area can provide anonymity to the respondents and make it possible to capture the opinions of a larger proportion of the participants than might otherwise be possible. Political agendas don’t disappear with the use of a survey, but they may make it possible for people to say things that they would not feel comfortable stating publicly. Services such as SurveyMonkey.com and EmployeeSurveys.com have made the design, delivery, and analysis easy to manage. Surveys are used to access the opinions of internal and external stakeholders and assess attitudes and beliefs of relevance to the change. For example, how do customers view the firm’s and its competitor’s service levels, innovativeness, and product performance? What ideas do they have concerning new product offerings or service improvements? Employees can be sampled to assess the organization’s readiness for change, the culture or work climate, their satisfaction and commitment levels, or what is helping or hindering their ability to do their jobs. Sometimes surveys are deployed to develop options and assess opinions on their viability. Later in the change process, surveys may sample understanding and knowledge levels, emerging attitudes and issues, and levels of acceptance and satisfaction with the change. Some organizations go further in this area and adopt approaches to directly and systematically assess actual customer and employee actions in response to change (directly or via software monitoring tools) in order to recognize issues and address them in a timely manner. The possible approaches in this area are restricted only by imagination, people’s willingness to respond, and legal and ethical considerations. Privacy/anonymity considerations, transparency (people know what you are doing and why), and related ethical matters need to be carefully thought through. When this is not the case, the repercussions and potential for reputational damage can be serious, as seen in public reactions to Facebook’s sharing of private user data.24 Ready-made surveys are available on virtually any topic. Some are publicly available at no cost, while others are proprietary and have charges attached to their use. Costs can vary from a few dollars per survey to thousands of dollars when outside consultants are used to design, administer, assess, and report the findings. When it comes to scoring and interpretation, some are straightforward and easy to interpret, while others require the assistance of a skilled practitioner. Some of these instruments have been carefully assessed for reliability and validity, while others have nothing more than face validity. The bottom line with respect to surveys is that they can prove very helpful to change agents but need to be approached with care. Their design, administration, and analysis require the assistance of someone well trained in survey research. Even when a change agent is sampling opinions, the ability to frame good questions is a prerequisite to getting useful information. The same holds true for analysis and interpretation.†† †† For further information on survey research, see L. M. Rea and R. A. Parker, Designing and Conducting Survey Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005). � A powerful use of surveys is an approach called survey feedback.25 It is an action research method developed by organizational development (OD) practitioners as a way to stimulate and advance conversations concerning what is going on in the organization, how members are feeling, and how things could be improved. As the name suggests, it involves the sharing of survey results with the individuals affected by the findings. Those involved in the discussion will have responded to the survey. Skilled facilitators guide work groups through the discussion of the findings. They use this as an opportunity to enrich their interpretation of what the data means, and to more fully explore the implications for action. The process is used to raise awareness and understanding, advance the analysis, and build support and commitment for actions that will benefit both the individuals and the organization. Appreciative inquiry approaches discussed earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 8 can be married effectively with survey feedback to engage and energize participants, learn from them, and set the stage for future actions. � 7. Project Planning and Critical Path Methods Project planning and critical path methods can provide valuable assistance to change managers as they think about what action steps to take.‡‡ These methods have been developed into sophisticated operations research techniques to aid the planning of major projects. Critical path methods ask planners to identify when the project should be completed and to work backward from that point, scheduling all tasks that will require time, effort, and resources. These are arranged in time sequence such that tasks that can occur simultaneously can be identified. These tasks are then plotted on a timeline. Sequential tasks are plotted to determine the needed time to complete the project. ‡‡. Software packages are available in this area. A commonly used one, Microsoft Office Project (http://www.microsoft.com/project/en/us/default.aspx), allows you to track steps, resource requirements, and costs; see the impact of possible changes; trace the source of issues; visually communicate project information to others; and collaborate with them on the plans. With this done, managers can assess potential bottlenecks, resource requirements, points in the process where there appears to be excess resources or idle time (referred to a slack resources) that could be deployed elsewhere, and progression paths. The critical path, the path with the least slack time, can be identified and special attention can be paid to it. If there are concerns about the time to completion, the project manager can add resources to speed up the project, revisit the specifications, look for viable alterations to the implementation path, or increase the amount of time required to complete the project. Likewise, if there are concerns over the cost of the project, the project manager can explore alternatives on this front. The critical path method introduces the notion of parallel initiatives. That is, it recognizes that different things may be able to be worked on simultaneously if the work is properly organized. Phase 1 tasks don’t have to be totally completed before beginning work on Phase 2 tasks. Care and sophistication are required with this approach because it carries the risk of increasing confusion and redundant effort. When properly applied, though, it can shrink the time required to complete the change. This is readily visible in areas such as new product development. Figure 9.3 gives an example of a sequential and a parallel plan for new product development. In the upper half of the figure, the tasks are plotted sequentially. In the lower half of the figure, the tasks overlap. Concept development begins before opportunity identification ends and the cycle time to completion is reduced. In summary, change leaders involved with implementation will find it useful to review the advice found in the project management literature before undertaking major changes as it contains information related to tools and techniques that may prove helpful.§§ §§ Colleges, universities, and organizations such as the Project Management Institute (http://www.pmi.org/Pages/default.aspx) offer professional training in project management. Figure 9.3 Sequential Versus Partly Parallel Process in New Product Development � Source: Shilling, M. A., & Hill, W. L. (1998). Managing the new product development process: Strategic imperatives. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 67–81. � 8. Tools to Assess Forces That Affect Outcomes and Stakeholders Force field analysis asks change agents to specify the forces for and against change. Stakeholder analysis and related maps ask that the key players be identified and the relationships among players and the change initiative be examined. (See Chapter 6 for discussion of these topics.) Three additional tools that are helpful when planning actions related to stakeholders are commitment analysis charts, AIDA (awareness, interest, desiring, action) charts, and cultural mapping tools. A. Commitment Analysis Charts Managers can use commitment charts to analyze the engagement of each stakeholder. Stakeholders can be thought of as being weakly to strongly opposed (against) to your change project, “neutral” (let it happen), slightly positive (help it happen), or strongly positive (make it happen). Change leaders also need to consider the level of understanding that underpins stakeholders’ commitment level and the reasons that underpin their levels of support at the present time. Identifying the existing level of commitment is the first step in planning tactics designed to alter those preexisting patterns. Table 9.5 provides an example commitment chart. (Note that the “X” in the table shows where the person is and the “O” shows where a change agent wants them to be.) Table 9.5 An Example Commitment Chart26 Table 9.5 An Example Commitment Chart26 Level of Commitment Level of Key Opposed Understanding Players Let It Help It Make It Strongly to Neutral (high, med, low) Happen Happen Happen Weakly Person X →O Med 1 Person X →O High 2 Person X →O Low 3 Etc. Source: Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions (p. 95). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. B. The Adoption Continuum or AIDA Stakeholder analysis will have identified the people who are critical to the change process. With this information in hand, change agents need to consider how they propose to encourage those individuals to move along the adoption continuum until the � needed stakeholders are aligned with the change, or at least their opposition and/or potential to disrupt the change initiative has been minimized. As noted in Chapter 6, change agents can think of the process of getting people onside with change as one of first creating awareness and then encouraging them to move from awareness of the issues to interest in the change to desiring action and, finally, to taking actions related to adopting the change. This is called the AIDA or adoption continuum. Table 9.6 provides an example of how a change agent might map people on to the adoption continuum as a method of tracking their change attitudes. Different individuals will be at different points on the AIDA continuum, which makes change strategies complex. For each stage, change agents need to use different tactics. For example, to raise initial awareness, well-designed general communication vehicles such as e-mails, newsletters, reports, and videos can be used. The messages should raise awareness of the need for change, set out the vision for the change, and provide access to thought-provoking information and images that support the initiative. To move people to the interest phase, managers need to outline how the change will affect stakeholders personally and/or why this change should be of interest to them. Discussion groups on the issue, benchmark data, simulations, and test runs showing results can be effective in stimulating interest. Once interest is aroused, specific tactics to demonstrate and reinforce the benefits and build commitment are needed. Change agents might use one-on-one meetings to influence stakeholders, to persuade them to get directly involved with the change, or to connect them with influential supporters of the change. Change agents might reallocate resources or designate rewards in ways that reinforce adoption. Influencing people one at a time or in small groups can be valuable if influential individuals are identified and the right message is communicated to them. Table 9.6 Mapping People on the Adoption Continuum Table 9.6 Mapping People on the Adoption Continuum Persons or Moving to Action or Awareness Interest Desiring Stakeholder Groups Action Adopting the Change Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 . . . C. Cultural Mapping Tools Cultural mapping tools are used to conduct deeper dives into understanding the nature of the cultural context, including subcultures, which influence how and why the organization operates as it does. These tools are also used to help set out the desired culture and assess what needs to change in order to bring it to fruition. Scholars such as Schein, Cameron and Quinn27 have provided change agents with cultural categorization frameworks that can be used to assist them in the above tasks. Cultural mapping approaches seek to understand subcultures (e.g., ones present in marketing, production, quality control, finance, etc.) as well as the dominant culture. It � seeks to understand the outcomes achieved, the knowledge and beliefs nested in cultural norms and artifacts, the behaviors observed and the enablers and blockers that promote those behaviors and outcomes. Given that change typically involves the goal of moving away from certain behaviors and outcomes in order to move toward different behaviors and outcomes, the approach shares similarities with force field analyses. A key question revolves around how enablers and blockers can be worked with in order to help parties to move away from certain cultural practices and move toward those desired practices. Cultural mapping tools can be used at the team level or extended to assess departmental, divisional or the organization level cultural challenges and conflicts. Practices in this area have become increasingly interdisciplinary in nature. Their applications have extended to areas such as the development of products and services, the development of marketing campaigns, urban planning and community development, and a full treatment on this topic is beyond the scope of this book.28 � 9. Leverage Analysis People’s position on the adoption continuum is influenced by their general orientation to change—whether they tend to be an innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, or laggard in matters related to change. One of the action planning challenges for the change leaders is to sort out people’s overall predisposition to change in general and the proposed change in particular. Moving individuals on the adoption continuum is aided by engaging in leverageanalysis. Leverage analysis seeks to identify those actions that will create the greatest change with the least effort. For example, if opinion leaders of a key group of individuals can be identified and persuaded to back the proposed organizational change, the job of the change leader is easier. Likewise, if the task is to persuade senior management, one needs to identify influential individuals in this group who support the change. Identifying high-leverage methods will depend on the quality of your knowledge of the participants and your analysis of the organization and its environment. For example, one successful change agent ensured the adoption of a new software system by persuading the CEO to personally call every regional manager as they were key stakeholders in the change, and ask for their support.29 Gladwell presents an excellent example of the notion of leverage in his book The Tipping Point.30 Gladwell points out how little things can have large consequences if they occur at the right moment and are contagious. If things catch on and momentum builds, eventually a tipping point is reached. This is the point where a critical level of support is reached, the change becomes more firmly rooted, and the rate of acceptance accelerates. As Burke puts it, change agents need to find the critical few individuals that can connect with others in ways that change the context and tip things into a new reality. The vision needs to be sticky (i.e., cast as a story so that it will stay in people’s minds), and change agents need to understand the connectors in the organization who can get the message out.31 Moore notes that one of the biggest challenges to reaching the tipping point is to build sufficient support to allow the acceptance of the change to cross the “chasm” between the early adopters and visionaries and the early majority.32 Once this gap has been bridged, the rate of progress accelerates. As things accelerate, new challenges emerge, such as how to scale your efforts so that momentum is maintained and enthusiasm is not soured due to implementation failures or stalled progress. Tipping Points and the Momentum for Change in the Obama Election Barack Obama’s path to the presidency was dotted with several tipping points during the state primaries and the federal campaign. Some were related to specific things done by the candidate; some related to the actions of others; and some tied to specific situations (e.g., the mortgage/banking crisis). His creative use of social media (e.g., Facebook) is particularly noteworthy. It allowed him to reach out virally to groups of electors and move them along the commitment continuum at speeds not seen before. This generated grassroots financial support and media buzz that legitimized his candidacy very early on. During the primaries, Representative James E. Clyburn, a prominent uncommitted South Carolina Democrat, felt the tipping point occurred around midnight on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. “I could tell the next day, when I got up to the Capitol that this thing was going to start a slide toward Obama. I don’t believe that there is any way that she (Hillary Clinton) can win the nomination.” Contentious remarks by former President Bill Clinton created a rift with African Americans, Obama’s 14-point North Carolina victory exceeded expectations, and Hillary � Clinton’s weaker-than-expected win in the Indiana primary all conspired to take the wind out of her campaign while energizing Obama’s. Superdelegates were still not committing in large numbers to Obama in early May. Clyburn saw this as “the long shadow of the Clintons in the Democratic Party stretching back more than a decade and the reservoir of goodwill.” However, he expected to see a steady and significant movement in the days ahead. “That’s pretty much where everybody knows it’s going to end up.” Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic conference chairman, went further and labeled Obama the presumptive nominee.33 � 10. Employee Training and Development Training and development play critical roles in any change initiative that requires individuals to assess and respond differently to things they are accountable for. Changes in reporting structures, task designs, work flow, team structures, and the technologies deployed will often require the acquisition of new skills, abilities and attitudes to support the initiative. Even supportive individuals will become frustrated if they don’t understand what they are being asked to do, or if they don’t have the skills to perform the new tasks. Well thought through and effectively delivered training initiatives will facilitate change by providing individuals with an opportunity to raise concerns, and develop their competences and confidence with the new work. Change agents would be well advised to explore the training and development literature when considering which initiatives to pursue in this area and how best to structure them.∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ The following provide a good overview: Saks, A., & Haccoun, R. (2015). Managing performance through training and development (5th ed.). Toronto: Nelson; Biech, E. (Editor). (2014). ASTD handbook: The definitive reference for training and development. Danvers, MA: American Society for Training and Development. � 11. Diverse Change Approaches The variety of techniques and tools to bring about change continues to grow. Over the years, Darrell Rigby and Barbara Bilodeau have tracked management’s use of different change tools on a global basis and assessed managerial satisfaction with them (see Table 9.7 and Figure 9.4).34 By tracking usage patterns by region and types of firms, differences in the sorts of change issues seen as most needing attention become apparent. This generic listing of change approaches provides a useful touch point for change leaders when they are considering how to proceed given the needs for change that they have identified. In summary, planning the work asks change leaders to translate the change vision into specific actions that people can take. The plan outlines targets and dates and considers contingencies—what might go wrong (or right), how managers can anticipate those things, and how they can respond. Further, it examines how realistic the chances are for success and how a change agent increases the probabilities for success. Table 9.8 provides you with a checklist of things to think about when developing and assessing your action plan. Figure 9.4 Management Tool Usage Rate and Satisfaction Level Source: Darrell Rigby and Barbara Bilodeau (2018), “Management Tools & Trends”, Bain & Company. Used with permission from Bain & Company, www.bain.com Table 9.7 Usage Patterns of Change Approaches From 1993 to 2017 Table 9.7 Usage Patterns of Change Approaches From 1993 to 2017 1993 2000 2014 2017 � 1993 2000 2014 2017 Customer Strategic Relationship Planning (48%) Mission and Strategic Management Customer Vision Planning (76%) Mission and (46%) Relationship Statements Vision BenchmarkingManagement (88%)Statements (44%) (48%) Customer Employee BenchmarkingSatisfaction (70%)Engagement (46%) (86%)BenchmarkingSurveys (44%) Advanced(69%)Total QualityStrategic Analytics (42%)OutsourcingManagementPlanning (44%) Supply Chain(63%)(72%) Customer Outsourcing Management Competitor Satisfaction (41%) (40%) Profiling (71%) Balanced Customer Benchmarking(60%) Growth Scorecard Satisfaction (70%) (38%) (38%) Pay-for-Strategies Mission and Change Performance (55%) Vision Management (70%) Strategic Statements ProgramsAlliances (53%)Reengineering (38%)(34%)Pay-for( 67%) Performance Supply Chain Total QualityStrategic Management Management(52%)Alliances (62%) Customer (36%) (34%) Cycle Time Change Digital Reduction Segmentation Management Transformation (51%)(55%) Core Programs (32%) Self-Directed (34%) Mission and Teams (55%) Competencies Customer Vision (48%) Segmentation Statements (30%) (32%) Source: Bain Management Tools & Trends survey, 2017 Note: Tool rankings based on usage Table 9.8 Action Planning Checklist Table 9.8 Action Planning Checklist 1. Given your vision statement, what is your overall objective? When must it be accomplished? 2. Is your action plan realistic given the level of organizational support, your influence, both formal and informal, and the resources likely to be available to you? What can you do to address shortfalls? 3. Are you and your team committed to implementing the change and does it have the competences and credibility needed to implement the action steps? If not, how will you address the shortfall? 4. Is your action plan time-sequenced and in a logical order? What would be the first steps in accomplishing your goal? � 5. What is your action plan? Who will do what, when, where, why, and how? Can you do a responsibility chart? 6. What would be milestones along the way that will allow you to determine if you are making progress? What is the probability of success at each step? 7. Have you anticipated possible secondary consequences and lagging effects that your plans may give rise to and adjusted your plans accordingly? 8. Do you have contingency plans for major possible but undesirable occurrences? What things are most likely to go wrong? What things can you not afford to have go wrong? How can you prevent such things from happening? 9. Do you have contingency plans in the event that things go better than anticipated and you need to move more quickly or in somewhat different directions than initially planned, to take advantage of the opportunities? 10. Who does your plan rely on? Are they onside? What would it take to bring them onside? 11. Does your action plan take into account the concerns of stakeholders and the possible coalitions they might form? 12. Who (and what) could seriously obstruct the change? How will you manage them? � Working the Plan Ethically and Adaptively Working the plan requires change agents to focus, develop support and delivery capacity, test their thinking, see things as opportunities, adapt to changes in the environment, and take appropriate risks. At the same time, change agents need to proceed ethically. Otherwise they risk destroying credibility and the trust others have in them. Relationships can and do recover from strong disagreements, but recovery is less likely if people feel they have been lied to. A permanent sense of betrayal tends to ensue when you have been dealt with unethically. Working the plan recognizes the importance of being able to roll with the punches and learn as you go. Chris Argyris warns, “People who rarely experience (and learn from) failure end up not knowing how to deal with it.”35 De Bono echoes this sentiment, saying, “Success is an affirmation but not a learning process.”36 Post-hoc memories of what led to success (or failure) tend to be selective; valuable learning will be lost if steps aren’t taken to actively and objectively reflect on the process as you go. There will be missteps and failures along the way, and a key attribute of a “do it” orientation to working the plan is the capacity to learn and adapt the paths to change along the way. When working the plan, generating stakeholder and decision-maker confidence in the viability of the initiative is critical. However, it is also important not to be deluded by your own rhetoric. Russo and Shoemaker provide us with guidelines for managing under- and overconfidence; in particular, they differentiate the need for confidence when one is an implementer as opposed to a decision maker. Decision makers need to be realistic; implementers can afford to be somewhat overconfident if it provides others with the courage to change.37 � Developing a Communication Plan When implementing a change program, change leaders often find that misinformation and rumors are rampant in their organization. The reasons for change are not clear to employees, and the impact on employees is frequently exaggerated, both positively and negatively. In all organizations, the challenge is to persuade employees to move in a common direction. Good communication programs are essential to minimize the effects of rumors, to mobilize support for the change, and to sustain enthusiasm and commitment.38 In a study on the effectiveness of communications in organizations, Goodman and Truss found that only 27% of employees felt that management was in touch with employees’ concerns, regardless of the fact that the company had a carefully crafted communications strategy.39 Often, much of the confusion over change can be attributed to the different levels of understanding held by different parties. Change agents and senior management may have been considering the change issues for months and have developed a shared understanding of the need for change and what must happen. However, frontline staff and middle managers may not have been focused on the matter. Even if they have been considering these issues, their vantage points will be quite different from those leading the change. Rumors and Reality in Organizational Change In an inbound call center of an insurance firm, employees became convinced that the real purpose of an organizational change initiative was to get rid of staff. Management made public announcements and assurances that the reorganization was designed to align processes and improve service levels, not reduce headcount. However, staff turnover escalated to more than 20% before leaders convinced employees that the rumor was false. The purpose of the communication plan for change centers on four major goals: (1) to infuse the need for change throughout (in particular) the affected portions of the organization; (2) to enable individuals to understand the impact that the change will have on them; (3) to communicate any structural and job changes that will influence how things are done; and (4) to keep people informed about progress along the way. As the change unfolds, the focus of the communication plan shifts. � Timing and Focus of Communications A communication plan has four phases: (a) pre-change approval, (b) developing the need for change, (c) midstream change and milestone communication, and (d) confirming and celebrating the change success. The messages and methods of communication will vary depending upon which phase your change is in. Table 9.9 outlines the communication needs of each phase. Table 9.9 Communication Needs for Different Phases in the Change Process Table 9.9 Communication Needs for Different Phases in the Change Process Pre-change Approval Phase Communication plans to sell top management Developing the Need for Change Phase Communication plans to explain the need for change, provide a rationale, reassure employees, clarify the steps in the change process, and generating enthusiasm and a sense of urgency Midstream Change and Milestone Communication Phase Communication plans to inform people of progress, to obtain and listen to feedback on attitudes and issues; to address any misconceptions; to clarify new organizational roles, structures, and systems; and to continue to nurture enthusiasm and support Confirming and Celebrating the Change Phase Communication plans to inform employees of the success, to celebrate the change, to capture learning from the change process, and to prepare the organization for the next changes Source: Based on Klein, S. M. (1996). A management communications strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change, 9(2). A. Pre-change phase: Change agents need to convince top management that the change is needed. They will target individuals with influence and/or authority to approve a needed change. Dutton and her colleagues suggest that packaging the change proposal into smaller change steps helps success. She found that timing was crucial in that persistence, opportunism, and involvement of others at the right time were positively related to the successful selling of projects. Finally, linking the change to the organization’s goals, plans, and priorities was critical.40 B. Developing the need for the change phase: When creating awareness of the need for change, communication programs need to explain the issues and provide a clear, compelling rationale for the change. If a strong and credible sense of urgency and enthusiasm for the initiative isn’t conveyed, the initiative will not move forward. There are simply too many other priorities available to capture people’s attention.41 Increasing awareness of the need for change can also be aided by the communication of comparative data. For example, concrete benchmark data that demonstrate how competitors are moving ahead can shake up complacent perspectives. Spector demonstrates how sharing of competitive information can overcome potential conflicting views between senior management and other employees.42 The vision for the change needs to be articulated and the specific steps of the plan that will be undertaken need to be clarified. People need to be reassured that they will be � treated fairly and with respect.43 The vision for change can be used to underpin your elevator pitch—that succinct message that helps others to capture the essence of what you have in mind and why it is worth pursuing. Birshin and Kar use the term “sticky messages” to convey the notion that recipients will be more likely to remember messages if they share the following characteristics: simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and tell a story. When it comes to telling the story, they recommend not being constrained by solely the business rationale for the change. In addition, they recommend the stories include why it is important to the individual doing the work, the working team, customers, and society—aspects that are likely to heighten the sense of purpose and meaning surrounding the change.44 C. Midstream change phase and Milestone Communication Phase: As the change unfolds, people will want to have specific information communicated to them about future plans and how things will operate. If the organization is being reorganized, employees will want to understand how this reorganization will affect their jobs. If new systems are being put into place, training needs to happen in order to help employees understand and use the systems properly. If reporting relationships are altered, employees need to know who will do what in the organization. Thus, intentional strategies are needed to communicate this information. In the middle phases of change, people need to understand the progress made in the change program. Management needs to obtain feedback regarding the acceptance of the changes and the attitudes of employees and others (e.g., customers, suppliers) affected by the initiative. Change leaders need to understand any misconceptions that are developing and have the means to combat such misconceptions. During this phase, extensive communications on the content of the change will be important as management and employees begin to understand new roles, structures, and systems.45 As the newness of the initiative wears off, sustaining interest and enthusiasm and remaining sensitive to the personal impact of the change continue to be important. Change leaders need to remain excited about the change and communicate that enthusiasm often. Recognizing and celebrating progress, and milestones all help in this regard.46 The power of small, unexpected rewards to recognize progress should not be underestimated, if they are offered forward with sincerity. In addition, communication approaches that offer individuals the opportunity to participate in exploring ideas, identifying paths forward, and setting targets will enhance the sense of engagement and commitment. The Power of Apple Fritters: The launch of a new MBA class requires the concerted efforts of many people and the day following the launch coincided with one of the days when the local farmers’ market is open in our community and one of the vendors sells freshly made, hot apple fritters. I was relatively new to the MBA director’s role and by chance, while driving into the university, I stopped and picked up two dozen apple fritters, plus coffee and tea for the team. The positive impact was immediate and sustained and instantly reinforced for me the importance of such acts to communicate thanks (personal experience of one of the authors). Unrelated messages, rumors, and gossip will compete with the messages from the change leaders, and the frequency of the latter two rises when the change leader’s credibility declines, ambiguity increases, and setbacks are encountered. Employees tend to believe friends more than they do supervisors and tend to turn to supervisors before relying on the comments of senior executives and outsiders. Change agents have a choice: they can communicate clear, timely, and candid messages about the nature and impact of the change or they can let the rumors fill the void. An effective communications � campaign can reduce the number of rumors by lowering uncertainty, lessening ambivalence and resistance to change, and increasing the involvement and commitment of employees.47 Change websites, electronic bulletin boards, online surveys to sample awareness and opinions, change blogs, and other types of social media can all play useful roles in the communications strategy. The earlier discussion in this chapter of Obama’s campaign points to the value that social media can play in raising awareness and advancing commitment levels. Political parties of all stripes have recognized this and are become increasingly sophisticated in its use. Trump’s sustained use of Twitter to shift the conversations dominating the media on a given day, focus news cycles in directions more favorable to him, and otherwise advance his presidential prospects was readily apparent in 2016. Blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest—the terrain continues to evolve, and change agents need to pay attention to how these technologies can be used to leverage their plans. In their global survey of the corporate deployment of social media tools in change initiatives, McKinsey and Company reports their use has become mainstream and that they are playing significant roles in the success of change initiatives. They are being used to communicate with and inform staff; seek feedback; and engage, energize, and otherwise enhance the sense of front-line ownership in change initiatives.48 However, when uncertainty rises on things of importance, don’t forget the power of faceto- face communications. Positive reactions tend to increase and negative reactions are lessened when people have an opportunity to hear directly from those in authority and ask them questions about the change and its impact.49 D. Confirming and Celebrating the Change Phase: The final phase of a change program needs to communicate and celebrate the success of the program. Celebration is an undervalued activity. Celebrations are needed along the way to mark progress, reinforce commitment, and reduce stress. They are certainly warranted at the conclusion! The final phase also marks the point at which the change experience as a whole should be discussed (more will be said about this in the next section on transition management) and unfinished tasks identified. The organization needs to be positioned for the next change. Change is not over—only this particular phase is. As change agents attend to the different phases in the change process, they need to align the communications challenge with the communications channel selected.50 Channel richness ranges from standard reports and general information e-mails at one end through to personalized letters and e-mails, telephone conversations, videoconferencing, and face-to-face communications at the other end. When the information is routine, memos and blanket e-mails can work well. However, when things become more complex and personally relevant to the recipient, the richness of the communication channel needs to increase. A change agent can follow up with a document that provides detailed information, but face-to-face approaches are valuable when matters are emotionally loaded for stakeholders or when you want to get the recipients’ attention. Goodman and Truss suggest using line managers and opinion leaders as lynchpins in the communications strategy, but this requires that they be properly briefed and engaged in the change process. They also stress that change agents need to recognize communication as a two-way strategy.51 That is, the gathering of information from people down the organizational ladder is as important as delivering the message. � Key Principles in Communicating for Change Klein52 suggests six principles that should underlie a communications strategy: 1. Message and media redundancy are key for message retention. That is, multiple messages using multiple media will increase the chance of people obtaining and retaining the message. Too often, management believes that since the message was sent, their work is done. It is the employee’s fault for not getting the message! As one author pointed out, it takes time for people to hear, understand, and believe a message, especially when they don’t like what they hear.53 Some change agents believe that it takes 15 to 20 repetitions before a message gets communicated effectively. The value of communicating messages in multiple ways to increase retention and meaningfulness that was discussed in Chapter 7 and the use of appropriate social media channels advance change initiatives speak to this.54 2. Face-to-face communication is most effective. While the impact of face-to-face is highest, the cost is also higher. Face-to-face permits two-way communication, which increases the chance of involvement of both parties and decreases the probability of miscommunication. When undertaking change in a larger organization and direct communication is not possible, video conferencing and related technologies can be used to approximate face-to-face. 3. Line authority is effective in communications. Regardless of the level of participative involvement, most employees look to their managers for direction and guidance. If the CEO says it, the message packs a punch and gets attention. 4. The immediate supervisor is key. The level of trust and understanding between an employee and his or her supervisor can make the supervisor a valuable part of a communications strategy. People expect to hear important organizational messages from their bosses. 5. Opinion leaders need to be identified and used. These individuals can be critical in persuading employees to a particular view. 6. Employees pick up and retain personally relevant information more easily thangeneral information. Thus, communication plans should take care to relate general information in terms that resonate with particular employees. The importance of communications in helping recipients deal with change was discussed in Chapter 7. Creating a sense of fairness, trust, and confidence in the leadership, and interest and enthusiasm for the initiative is important to the success of change initiatives. Well-executed communications strategies play an important role here.55 However, change leaders seldom give enough attention to this topic. They intuitively understand the importance of the timely communication of candid, credible change-related information through multiple channels, but they get busy with other matters. As communication shortcomings escalate, so too do downstream implementation difficulties.56 � Influence Strategies Influencing others is a key concern for change leaders when working the plan. It involves consideration of how they can bring various stakeholders onside with the change. The sooner this is addressed, the better. When implementing change, there is a tendency to give insufficient attention to the constructive steps needed to foster employee support and alleviate dysfunctional resistance. When considering your communication plan and use of influence strategies, think about who you are communicating with and never underestimate the importance of the reputation (including their competence and trustworthiness) of those who are the face and voice of the change initiative. Below are seven change strategies for influencing individuals and groups in the organization:57 1. Education and communication: This strategy involves using education and communication to help others develop an understanding of the change initiative, what is required of them, and why it is important. Often people need to see the need for and the logic of the change. Change leaders may fail to adequately communicate their message through the organization because they are under significant time pressure and the rationale “is so obvious” to them they don’t understand why others don’t get it. 2. Participation and involvement: Getting others involved can bring new energy and ideas, and cause people to believe they can be part of the change. This strategy works best when the change agent has time and needs voluntary compliance and active support to bring about the change. Participation fits with many of the norms of today’s flattened organizations, but some managers often feel that it just slows everything down, compromising what needs to be done quickly. 3. Facilitation and support: Here change agents provide access to guidance and other forms of support to aid in adaptation to change. This strategy works best when the issues are related to anxiety and fear of change, or where there are concerns over insufficient access to needed resources. 4. Negotiation and agreement: At times, change leaders can make explicit deals with individuals and groups affected by the change. This strategy can help deal with contexts where the resistance is organized, “what’s in it for me” is unclear, and power is at play. The problem with this strategy is that it may lead to compliance rather than wholehearted support of the change. 5. Manipulation and co-optation: While managers don’t like to admit to applying this tactic, covert attempts to influence others are very common. Engaging those who are neutral or opposed to the change in discussions and engaging in ingratiating behavior will sometimes alter perspectives and cause resistors to change their position on the change. However, trust levels will drop and resistance will increase if people believe they are being manipulated in ways not consistent with their best interests. 6. Explicit and implicit coercion: With this strategy, as with the previous one, there is a negative image associated with it. Nevertheless, managers often have the legitimate right and responsibility to insist that changes be done. This strategy tends to be used when time is of the essence, compliant actions are not forthcoming, and change agents believe other options have been exhausted. Change leaders need to recognize the potential for residual negative feelings and consider how to manage these. � 7. Systemic or system adjustments: Open systems analysis argues that adjustments can be made to formal structures, systems, and processes that reduce resistance while advancing the desired changes. For example, if employee resistance has coalesced in a group of employees who are employed in a particular function, organizational restructuring or the reassignment of group members to other areas may reduce resistance markedly. However, if it is mishandled, it can mobilize and escalate resistance in others. System Adjustments (i.e., closing stores and eliminating jobs) at Walmart Walmart has used systemic adjustments over the years as a change tool to assist in maintaining managerial discretion in employment practices by retaining their non-union status. In 2005, 200 employees at the store in Jonquière, Quebec, Canada, were attempting to negotiate the first- ever union contract with the firm. However, after nine days of meetings, over three months, Walmart announced it was closing the store because of concerns over its profitability. In 2008, the same approach was adopted when six employees in Gatineau, Quebec, won the right to unionize their small operation within Walmart. Walmart employees in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, voted to unionize, but quickly reversed field and voted to decertify in 2010. The unions in both Quebec and Saskatchewan sued the employer for unfair labor practices and took their respective cases all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. After years of litigation, the Quebec suit against Walmart’s store closure met with limited success (some financial restitution was ordered), but the Saskatchewan case was unsuccessful. Currently no Walmart operation in Canada is unionized. The only other time a unionization drive had been close to succeeding was in 2000. Eleven meat cutters in their Jacksonville, Texas, store voted to join the UFCW. Walmart responded by eliminating the meat cutting job companywide.58 See Toolkit Exercise 9.2 to think about influence strategies you’ve experienced. Another way to think about influence strategies is to consider whether they attempt to push people in the desired direction or pull them. Push tactics attempt to move people toward acceptance of change through rational persuasion (the use of facts and logic in a non-emotional way) and/or pressure (the use of guilt or threats). The risk with the use of push tactics is that they can lead to resistance and defensiveness. Recipients may oppose the pressure simply because it is pressure and they feel a need to defend their positions. Alternatively, change leaders can rely on pull tactics: inspirational appeals and consultation. Inspirational appeals can arouse enthusiasm based on shared values or ideals. Consultation (as it is used here) refers to when you seek the participation of others through appeals to the individuals’ self-worth and positive self-concept. Both these approaches are designed to pull individuals in the desired direction.††† ††† These styles are described more fully in Chapter 8. Falbe and Yukl examined the effectiveness of nine different influence tactics. The most effective strategies were two pull tactics: (1) inspirational appeals and (2) consultation (seeking the participation of others). When considering these, never underestimate the importance of the credibility of the change leader. The strategies of intermediate effectiveness were a combination of push and pull strategies: (3) rationale persuasion (facts, data, logic); (4) ingratiation (praise, flattery, friendliness); (5) personal appeals (friendship and loyalty); and (6) exchange tactics (negotiation and other forms of reciprocity). � The three strategies that were least effective were push strategies: (7) direct pressure, (8) legitimating tactics (framing of the request as consistent with policy and/or the influencer’s authority), and (9) coalition building (creation of subgroups or linkages with other groups to exert pressure).59 Nutt categorizes four influence tactics used during implementation: (1) intervention, (2) participation, (3) persuasion, and (4) edict. Intervention is where key executives justify the need for change (often through the use of data) and provide new norms to judge performance. Participation involves engaging stakeholders in the change process. Persuasion is the use of experts to sell a change. And edict is the issuing of directives. Table 9.10 summarizes Nutt’s data on the frequency of use, initial and ultimate adoption rate, and the time to install for each of these tactics. This table demonstrates the value of a well-respected sponsor who acts as a lightning rod and energizes and justifies the need for change. The frequency of the use of participation as a strategy is somewhat higher than intervention and may reflect the challenge of managing change from the middle of the organization. Adoption takes longer, but it has the second-best success rate. Persuasion is attempted more frequently than the other three tactics, but its success rate is significantly lower than participation and the time to adoption slightly longer. Finally, it is difficult to understand the frequency of use of edict as a tactic, given its poor adoption rate and length of time to install. When considering these four strategies, think about the value that a blended approach could bring to advancing change. In many cases a combination of both intervention and participation may make a great deal of sense, with edict only used as a last-ditch strategy with those who continue to resist. When individuals actively resist change, it’s useful to remember that some of them may see themselves as committed change agents who are acting to oppose what they believe is a problematic initiative. Keep that perspective in mind when considering how best to approach and engage them. However, there comes a time in a change initiative when the analysis of alternatives and the assessment of paths forward have been fully vetted and decisions made. At this point, individuals must decide if they are on the bus or off of it. At such times edict (including the option of transferring or removing such individuals) may need to come into play, to prevent resisting individuals from passively or actively obstructing and even sabotaging a change initiative. Enact edict-like approaches only after giving the matter careful consideration. It is tempting to strike out at others, in the face of their opposition, and such temptations may include undertaking a preemptive strike. However, acting on these impulses brings significant risks and often unanticipated consequences that can derail the change and ruin your reputation and relationship with others, so approach with extreme care and careful consideration before taking such action. Table 9.10 Implementation Tactics and Success60 Table 9.10 Implementation Tactics and Success60 Percentage Initial Adoption Ultimate Time to Adopt Tactic Use Rate Adoption Rate (Months) Intervention 16% 100% 82% 11.2 Participation 20% 80.6% 71% 19.0 � Percentage Initial Adoption Ultimate Time to Adopt Tactic Use Rate Adoption Rate (Months) Persuasion 35% 65% 49% 20.0 Edict 29% 51% 35% 21.5 This section has outlined a variety of influence tactics that can be used to build awareness, reduce ambivalence and resistance, and move people to acceptance and adoption of the initiative. In general, it is wise to move as slowly as is practical. This permits people to become accustomed to the idea of the change, adopt the change program, learn new skills, and see the positive sides. It also permits change leaders to adjust their processes, refine the change, improve congruence, and learn as they go. However, if time is of the essence or if going slowly means that resisters will be able to organize in ways that will make change highly unlikely, then change leaders should plan carefully, move quickly, and overwhelm resistance where possible. Just remember, though, that it is far easier to get into a war than it is to build a lasting peace after the fighting ends. Don’t let your impatience and commitment to moving the change forward get the better of your judgment concerning how best to proceed.‡‡‡ See Toolkit Exercise 9.3 to think about push and pull tactics. ‡‡‡ These styles are described more fully in Chapter 8. � Transition Management Change management is about keeping the plane flying while you rebuild it.61 When dealing with an ongoing operation, you typically don’t have the luxury to put everything on hold while making a major change happen. You can’t say, “Sorry, we aren’t able to deliver the product we promised because we are making improvements.” Most organizations have many change projects underway simultaneously. One part of the organization may be reengineering itself. Another might be introducing a quality program while another part focuses on employee empowerment. All of these must be managed concurrently while continuing to produce products and services. Morris and Raben argue for a transition manager (a change agent or implementer in the language of this book) who has resources, structures, and plans.62 The transition manager has the power and authority to facilitate the change and is linked to the CEO or other senior executive. Resources are the people, money, training, and consulting expertise needed to be successful. Transition structures are outside the regular ones— temporary structures that allow normal activities to take place as well as change activities. The transition plan sets out how the organization will operate (including the delivery of goods and services) while undertaking the change and includes clear benchmarks, standards, and responsibilities for the change. Table 9.11 outlines a checklist for transition management. Transition management is making certain that both the change project and the continuing operations are successful. The change leader and the transition manager are responsible for making sure that both occur. The change leader is visibly involved in articulating both the need for change and the new vision, while others involved in implementing the change manage the organization’s structural and system changes and the individuals’ emotional and behavioral issues so that neither is compromised to a danger point.63 Ackerman described the application of a transition management model at Sun Petroleum.64 She addressed the question, “How can these changes be put into place without seriously straining the organization?” Her solution was to create a transition manager who handled the social system requirements. Ackerman also argued for the use of a transition team to create a transition structure that would enable the organization to carry on operating effectively while the major changes take place. Beckhard and Harris focus on the transition details in organizational change.65 They reinforce the importance of specifying midpoint goals and milestones, which help motivate the members of the organization. The longer the span of time required for a change initiative, the more important these midcourse goals become. The goals need to be far enough away to provide direction but close enough to provide a sense of progress and an opportunity for midcourse changes in plans. A second component of transition management is keeping people informed to reduce anxiety. During major reorganizations, many employees are assigned to new roles, new bosses, new departments, or new tasks. Those individuals have a right to know their new work terms and conditions. Transition managers will put systems in place to ensure that answers to questions (such as “how will I, my co-workers, and my customers be affected?” “Who is my new boss?” “Who will I be working with and where will I be � located?” or “What is my new job description?”) can be provided in a timely manner. An example of this need occurred in the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. As the designer of a major change in that organization, Bill Allen commented that the ministry “underestimated the importance of a well thought out transition structure and plan. Employees of the Ministry had hundreds of questions about the organizational change and there was no formal structure to handle these in a consistent and professional manner.”66 The transition manager needs to be authorized and given the capacity to address such matters. The final phase in transition management occurs in and around the same time as the celebrations are occurring in recognition of what has been accomplished. Project completion can be a bittersweet time for participants because they may not be working directly with one another in the future. They’ve worked hard, developed close friendships, and shared emotional highs and lows along the way. The experience can be extremely influential to their future development, and it needs to be processed and brought to closure in ways that do it justice. Table 9.11 A Checklist for Change: Transition Management Table 9.11 A Checklist for Change: Transition Management The following questions can be useful when planning transition management systems and structures. 1. How will the organization continue to operate as it shifts from one state to the next? 2. Who will answer questions about the proposed change? What decision power will this person or team have? Will they provide information only or will they be able to make decisions (such as individual pay levels after the change)? 3. Do the people in charge of the transition have the appropriate amount of authority to make decisions necessary to ease the change? 4. Have people developed ways to reduce the anxiety created by the change and increase the positive excitement over it? 5. Have people worked on developing a problem-solving climate around the change process? 6. Have people thought through the need to communicate the change? Who needs to be seen individually? Which groups need to be seen together? What formal announcement should be made? 7. Have the people handling the transition thought about how they will capture learning throughout the change process and share it? 8. Have they thought about how they will measure and celebrate progress along the way and how they will bring about closure to the project at its end and capture the learning so it is not lost (after-action review)? One way to approach closure (in addition to the celebration) and maximize the learning for all is to conduct an after-action review.67 An after-action review involves reviewing � the change experience as a whole and learning from what transpired along the way. There needs to be a candid assessment from multiple perspectives of the change process and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches used along the way. It asks, (a) what were the intended results, (b) what were the actual results, (c) why did the actual results happen, and (d) what can be done better next time? As the participants explore these questions, the approaches, tools, sources of information, and insights that have the potential to improve performance in the future need to be identified, and the knowledge must be codified in ways that will allow others to access and learn from it. This knowledge is potentially the most significant legacy that those involved with the change can leave for themselves and others who will follow. Summary “Doing it” demands a good plan and a willingness to work that plan. To advance a “do it” orientation, the chapter assesses several strategies for approaching the change and planning the work. The chapter examines various action planning tools and considers how to handle the communications challenges that arise during a change initiative. Finally, transition management is considered, because the delivery of services and products typically needs to continue while the change initiative is underway. See the Toolkit Exercises for critical thinking questions for this chapter. Key Terms “Do it” orientation—a willingness to engage in organizational analysis, see what needs to be done, and take the initiative to move the change forward: Thinking first strategy—an approach used when the issue is clear, data are reliable, the context is well structured, thoughts can be pinned down, and discipline can be established, as in many production processes. Seeing first strategy—an approach that works best when many elements have to be combined into creative solutions, commitment to those solutions is key, and communication across boundaries is essential, as in new product development. People need to see the whole before becoming committed. Doing first strategy—an approach that works best when the situation is novel and confusing, complicated specifications would get in the way, and a few simple relationship rules can help people move forward. An example would be when a manager is testing an approach and wants feedback about what works. Programmatic change—a traditional approach to planned change; starts with mission, plans, and objectives; sets out specific implementation steps, responsibilities, and timelines. Discontinuous change—an approach adopted for a major change that represents a clear break from the previous approach, often involving revolutionary ideas. Emergent change—a change that grows out of incremental change initiatives. It often evolves through the active involvement of internal participants. As it emerges, it can come to challenge existing organizational beliefs about what should be done. Unilateral approach—top-down change. Change requirements are specified and implemented —required behavioral changes are spelled out, and it is anticipated that attitude changes will follow once people acclimatize themselves to the change. Participative approach—bottom-up participation in the change initiative focuses on attitudinal changes that will support the needed behavioral changes required by the organizational change. Techno–structural change—includes change initiatives focused on the formal structures, systems, and technologies employed by the organization. � Behavioral–social change—includes change initiatives focused on altering established social relationships within the organization. � Action Planning Tools To-do list is a checklist of things to do. Responsibility charting is who will do what, when, where, why, and how. Contingency planning is consideration of what should be done when things do not work as planned on critical issues. Decision tree analysis asks change agents to consider the major choices and the possible consequences of those alternatives. Scenario planning is a change strategy formed by first developing a limited number of scenarios or stories about how the future may unfold and then assessing what the implications of each of these would be to the organization. Surveys involve the use of structured questions to collect information from individuals and groups in systematic fashion. Survey feedback is an organizational development technique that involves participants in the review and discussion of survey results. The goal is to actively engage them in the interpretation of the findings, the discussion of their implication, and the identification of how best to proceed. Project planning and critical path methods are operations research techniques for scheduling work. These methods provide deadlines and insight as to which activities cannot be delayed to meet those deadlines. Force field analysis examines the forces for and against change. Stakeholder analysis is the position of the major players and why they behave as they do. Commitment charts is an evaluation of the level of commitment of major players (against, neutral, let it happen, help it happen, make it happen). The adoption continuum is an examination of major players and their position on the awareness, interest, desire, and adoption continuum related to the proposed changes. Leverage analysis determination of methods of influencing major groups or players regarding the proposed changes Purpose of the communication plan for change: (1) to infuse the need for change throughout the organization; (2) to enable individuals to understand the impact that the change will have on them; (3) to communicate any structural and job changes that will influence how things are done; and (4) to keep people informed about progress along the way. Four phases in the communications process during change are outlined: Pre-change phase centers on communicating need and gaining approval for the change; Developing the need for change phase focuses on communicating the need for change more broadly, reassuring recipients, clarifying steps, and generating enthusiasm and a sense of urgency for the change; Midstream phase involves disseminating details of the change and should include obtaining and listening to feedback from employees, addressing any misconceptions and nurturing enthusiasm and support; Confirming the change phase focuses on communicating about and celebrating success, capturing learning from the process and preparing the organization to the next changes. Richness of the communication channel different channels vary in the richness of the information they can carry. Standard reports and general-information e-mails represent the lean end of the continuum. Richness increases as one moves to personalized letters and e-mails, � telephone conversations, video conferencing, and face-to-face communications (the richest channel). Alternatives to reducing negative reactions to change and building support developed by Kotter and Schlesinger: Education and communication is a strategy that helps others develop an understanding of the change initiative, what is required of them, and why it is important; Participation and involvement get others involved and can bring new energy and ideas, and cause people to believe they can be part of the change; Facilitation and support is a strategy that provides access to guidance and other forms of support to aid in adaptation to change; Negotiation and agreement is when change leaders can make explicit deals with individuals and groups affected by the change; Manipulation and co-optation include covert attempts to influence others; Explicit and implicit coercion rests on change leaders’ legitimate right and responsibility to insist that changes be done; and Systemic adjustments are those made to formal systems and processes that reduce resistance while advancing the desired changes. Push tactics attempt to move people in the desired direction through rational persuasion (e.g., the use of facts and logic) and/or direct or indirect pressure (e.g., guilt, threats). Pull tactics attempt to draw people in the desired direction through arousing interests and enthusiasm through inspirational appeals, consultation, and their active participation. Intervention is a strategy of influence identified by Nutt, which involves key executives justifying the need for change and providing new norms to judge performance. Participation is a strategy of influence identified by Nutt, which involves engaging stakeholders in the change process. Persuasion is a strategy of influence identified by Nutt, which involves the use of experts to sell a change. Edict is a strategy of influence identified by Nutt, which is the issuing of directives. Transition management is the process of ensuring that the organization continues to operate effectively while undergoing change After-action review is a final phase of the transition-management process. It seeks to bring closure to the experience and engage participants in a process that will allow the learning gained through the change process to be extracted and codified in some manner for future use. � End-of-Chapter Exercises � Toolkit Exercise 9.1 � Critical Thinking Questions The URLs for the videos listed below can be found in two places. The first spot is next to the exercise and the second spot is on the website at study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e. Consider the questions that follow. 1. Terms of Engagement—3:32 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-kI67mSAE Berrett-Koehler Publishers’s “Change Authors” series focuses on four principles: widening the circle of involvement, connecting people to each other and to ideas, creating communities for action, and embracing democracy. Terms of Engagement: Changing the Ways We Change Organizations is a B-K Business Book by Richard H. Axelrod. Explain the four principles using examples from your own change experience. Brainstorm how you might begin to instill one of these principles in an organization you are familiar with. 2. It Starts With One: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations—26:25 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1klZD0nKOF4 Two professors from INSEAD (Hal Gregersen and Stewart Black) discuss the idea that you can’t change organizations if you don’t focus on change with individuals first. Investigate three barriers: the failure to see, failure to move (developing the capacity of individuals to do something new), and failure to finish (following through with support until capacities are where they need to be; need champions at the front line as well as elsewhere in the organization, as well as signposts that help people understand where they are in terms of implementing the change initiative). This includes helping leaders to understand the changes required within themselves. Which barrier resonated with your experience the most? How do you think these principles might facilitate a successful change project? 3. Appreciative Inquiry—3:53 minutes, https://www.bing.com/videos/search? q=appreciative+inquiry+4%3a50+minutes&&view=detail&mid=C831E9F54B9B6ADF7EF5 C831E9F54B9B6ADF7EF5&&FORM=VDRVRV What is the basic idea of appreciative inquiry? What emotions does this strategy center on? How does an appreciative approach change process? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for access to videos and a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 9.2 � Action Plans for Influencing Reactions to Change 1. What methods have you seen used in organizations to influence people’s reactions to a specific change? Think specifically about a change instance and what was done: a. Education and communication b. Participation and involvement c. Facilitation and support d. Negotiation and agreement e. Manipulation and co-optation f. Explicit and implicit coercion g. Systemic adjustments 2. What were the consequences of each of the methods used? What worked and what did not work? Why? 3. What personal preferences do you have regarding these techniques? That is, which ones do you have the skills to manage and the personality to match? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 9.3 � An Additional Lens on Influence Tactics 1. Think specifically of change situations in an organization you are familiar with. What influence tactics did people use? Describe three situations in which three different tactics were used. a. Inspirational appeals b. Consultation (seeking the participation of others) c. Relying on the informal system (existing norms and relationships) d. Personal appeals (appeals to friendship and loyalty) e. Ingratiation f. Rational persuasion (use of facts, data, logic) g. Exchange or reciprocity h. Coalition building (creation of subgroups or links with other groups to exert pressure) i. Using organizational rules or legitimating tactics (framing of the request as consistent with policy and/or your authority) j. Direct pressure k. Appeals to higher authority and dealing directly with decision makers 2. Which of these would you classify as pull tactics and which would you classify as push tactics? Push tactics attempt to move people toward change through rational persuasion. Pull tactics attempt to move people toward change through inspirational appeals to shared values or ideals that arouse enthusiasm. 3. How successful were each of the tactics? Why did they work or not work? 4. How comfortable are you with each tactic? Which could you use? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Turning Around Cote Construction Company By Cynthia Ingols, Professor of Practice School of Business, Simmons University, Boston, MA Gene Deszca, Professor Emeritus Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, CA Tupper F. Cawsey, Professor Emeritus Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, CA � Introduction When Liam Cote decided to help his cousin Felix Cote turn around his business, he had no idea that things were as bad as they were. Liam knew that the bank’s loan was coming due and the company could not pay it. However, Liam was shocked at the number of other problematic issues there were at Cote Construction. In his mind, the company’s business model was straightforward: renting out specialized heavy construction equipment, either with or without operators, to a relatively easily defined set of customers, that is contractors who needed such equipment. Liam believed that the business had solid prospects that could sustain a solid return on investment. However, it certainly was not doing so now. Perhaps the strategy was clear, mused Liam, but things were a mess! Nevertheless, three weeks earlier, Liam and Felix had signed papers at their local bank and at their lawyer’s office. Based on Liam’s reputation as a successful entrepreneur and his willingness to make a significant investment to improve liquidity, the bank agreed to renegotiate the operating loan and line of credit. This would provide the company with the breathing space needed to execute a turnaround. At their lawyer’s office Felix authorized Liam to take on the role of CEO, while Felix became Head of Equipment and Operations. After they signed the various papers, Liam and Felix enjoyed lunch together and then returned to the workplace to set up Liam’s office. Since Liam was optimistic—and wanted—Felix to be an active partner with him in the areas that Felix found compelling, Liam took the office down the hall from Felix. While the office was slightly smaller, Liam wanted to send a signal that Felix was still an important partner in Cote Construction. About 4 p.m., Liam went to look for Felix and learned that he had left the offices an hour earlier with no word about where he was going or if he would return for the day. Alice Williams, the bookkeeper, said that Felix had stayed in the office later than he usually did and she did not expect that he would return that afternoon. Liam found the supply room and searched for wall-sized flip chart paper to put up on his office wall. At the top of the paper, he wrote, “Problems at Cote Construction.” His first entry was “Felix left the office about 3 pm without communicating to anyone where he was going or what he intended to do.” Liam decided that he would give himself three weeks to diagnose what was wrong at Cote Construction and that he would write down every problem on the flip-chart paper in his office. He debated with himself about how he should manage the flip-chart papers: keep them up for all who entered his office to see; or, take them out each night in private as he added to the list. Liam was still ambivalent as he closed and locked his door at 7 p.m. � Background Felix founded the company in 2003. He had grown it steadily through the first five years, but the Great Recession of 2008 had dramatically slowed construction in the area and Felix’s business had been hit hard. In fact, a key competitor went bankrupt. By 2011-2012 the economy and area businesses had largely recovered, and business at Cote Construction began to boom. From 2013 to 2016 there was unprecedented growth in the area and Cote Construction grew dramatically, too. Staff levels more than doubled during the three years to 57 employees. Fifteen employees worked in the office area, handling administrative, sales, and accounting/finance functions. The remainder were in the repair shop, in the yard, or on the road, dealing with maintenance and delivery of equipment. In the past year, however, sales had begun a modest decline. Other financial indicators showed worrying trends. Margins had gone down by almost 30%, and cash flow was negative. For two years, operating expenses had risen significantly. While Liam wasn’t sure why, he thought that equipment purchases had led to higher interest charges and that labor costs had risen dramatically. It was as if Felix and his fellow managers had lost their capacity to manage the company’s business and its cycles. For the previous six months things had gone from difficult to worse. The company’s bank loan was coming due. Felix had varied his management approach from requesting to pleading and finally to avoiding issues at work. Because Felix was impossible to find to make decisions or ask questions, employees referred to him as Waldo, after the character in the children’s book, Where’s Waldo? When Felix turned over decision-making authority and power to Liam, he agreed to focus on what he knew best: the equipment and operations. He had grown up with a love for heavy equipment, and family members said that the only reason that he was in business was so that he had newer and bigger toys to play with. He had specialized knowledge about which equipment was suitable for which jobs and, prior to the past couple of years, had been adept at developing relationships with customers that generated repeat business. However, the agreement and Liam’s arrival did not reverse Felix’s disappearing act. To his direct reports he seemed depressed and distant, with little appetite for assuming a more active operational role in the business. � Diagnosing and articulating the problems As Liam began to investigate the problems at Cote Construction, he was shaken to find a culture of permissiveness and waste. As he walked through the parts and maintenance areas, he found parts, tools, and equipment scattered about. Grease on the floor made walking a risky proposition. Pizza boxes, pop cans, and bottles were littered around. He thought he smelled liquor on some employees. He observed lateness and absenteeism were problems. No one seemed to be doing anything about these matters. Part of the problem was a tight labor market: supervisors were afraid if they reprimanded employees that they would walk. The housekeeping within the administrative office area was somewhat better than in other parts of the operation, but it still left much to be desired. Some employees smoked in work areas despite no- smoking rules. Dishes often sat in the sink of the small kitchen area and it was only when left-over foods began to smell did someone in the office begin the task of throwing away old foods. While Liam noted problems to address on the flip-chart papers in his office, he took immediate action when necessary. One day, for example, Liam smelled alcohol on the breath of an employee who appeared to be under the influence. He fired him on the spot. On another day Liam entered the workspace of people with dogs and asked, “Are these employees or pets?” The next day the employees—but not the dogs—came to work. After reviewing sales information, Liam also found himself wondering about the source of orders. Most came from brokers rather than directly from customers. Taking into account their fee, he determined that Cote Construction was losing money by relying on brokers. Liam phoned one of their customers who regularly leased their equipment through a broker. After chatting and thanking the customer for doing business with Cote, Liam asked the customer why they did not place orders directly. The customer responded, “Because you never called us before!” Before he ended the conversation, he had a $50,000 work order placed directly. When Liam relayed this conversation and its results to the sales staff, they were at first defensive. Further conversation assured Liam that the sales staff wanted to make money, but they seemed unsure as to how they should change their sales approach. During his third week, Liam noticed that certain pieces of equipment that had been in for repair in week one were still inoperable. He asked, “Why?” He was told that the maintenance supervisor was in a dispute with the field service foreman and sales staff over the allocation of repair and maintenance charges, and as a result, needed repairs had not been undertaken. The argument had been going on for more than a month, and he was told this was not the first time. This resulted, Liam noted, in lost rental sales. He blew up and called an urgent meeting of those involved. He ordered the equipment to be repaired immediately and stated that this was no way to resolve conflict. When Liam went back to his office, he added “unclear lines of authority” to his list of issues on the flip charts. The accounting and finance area had difficulty providing the performance data that Liam requested. When he asked them to calculate the profit margin for each piece of equipment, the initial response was “Why do you want that?” After he explained his rationale to them, they began pulling together the information. But, employees in other departments saw the new cost reporting requirements as more paperwork that might get in the way of sales and servicing. When Liam began to explore equipment repair invoices, he noted that many expensive repairs had been done on-site at their clients’ premises. Much of the work looked routine but was made much more expensive because of the location and because the company had to negotiate with clients over operational losses incurred while the machine was down. Liam wondered why the equipment hadn’t been serviced prior to leaving the shop. When he inquired, he learned that there was no formal preventive maintenance program in place. Back in his office Liam added more problems to his flip chart list: 1. No formal preventive maintenance system 2. Questionable inventory management system; missing parts in some areas and excess inventory in others; and a significant volume of obsolete parts that were held in inventory 3. Missing tools and equipment, including some big-ticket items, such as a $35,000 loader and a $25,000 compressor � 4. Sales relationships not actively managed; clients not phoned in a timely manner; customer complaints not acted upon until threats were invoked 5. Logistics, scheduling, customer delivery and pickups, and on-site servicing of equipment not handled well. Customers complained about downtime and their inability to predict when tasks would be accomplished 6. Lags between order fulfillment and client billing; slow payment of accounts payable 7. Poor relations with suppliers of parts and equipment, due in part to slow payment; disagreements over terms and conditions; and lack of supplier responsiveness to emergency requests In an inspection of the operations Liam found seven new tires and rims stashed behind a building. When he checked purchasing invoices, he learned that nine had been bought the week before. On further investigation, he was told that no new tires had been counted on any equipment. Liam could not locate the missing two tires and rims, worth more than $2,000 each. It was a low point for Liam as he concluded that employees might be stealing from Cote Construction. However, Liam thought that many members of the firm wanted to do a good job. That was the sense that he got as he visited departments, talked with individuals one-on-one, and heard about their frustrations. Still, he did have a few concerns. Some employees resented that others seemed to come and go as they wished. He had listened to one customer complaint about late delivery of equipment and learned that the person delivering the machinery had stopped for three hours on route. The driver’s excuse was lunch and engine problems that had miraculously resolved themselves. Employees’ morale was in the toilet, but turnover had yet to become a problem. � How to begin the turnaround As Liam sat in his office, he stared at the flip-chart sheets on his walls. During his first week, he had put up the sheets and began listing every issue or problem that he or others identified. After three weeks, there were now more than two dozen items. With this substantial list, Liam thought that he had a handle on the magnitude of the problems at Cote Construction. What he needed to do now was come up with a plan to address them. To begin, he had a number of decisions to make: What problems should he tackle first? Which were operational and which were organizational? What timeline should he establish? How should he consider the people in the company? What should he ask them? How should he approach them to solicit their ideas for the turnaround? How should he deal with Felix? Should he allow him to continue as head of Equipment and Operations? Should he sideline Felix and formally reduce his authority at Cote Construction? Would it, in fact, be a relief to employees to know that Felix no longer played a role in the company? � 653 � Chapter Ten Get and Use Data Throughout the Change Process Chapter Overview Measurement and control processes play a critical role in guiding change and integrating the initiatives and efforts of various parties. Though measurement is specifically included in the institutionalization phase of the Change Path Model, it plays an important role throughout the change process. Four types of management control processes are identified: Interactive controls, Boundary systems, Belief systems, and Diagnostic/steering controls. Different types of controls are needed as the change project shifts along the Change Path from Acceleration to Institutionalization. The use of strategy maps as an alignment tool is explored. Three measurement tools are presented: the Balanced Scorecard, the risk exposure calculator, and the DICE model: duration, integrity, commitment, and effort. When British Columbia implemented its carbon tax in 2008, a key element in its climate strategy, there was significant anxiety and commentary in the press that it would kill economic development in this resource-rich province of Canada. However, that has not been the experience. This change initiative, designed to be revenue neutral, has resulted in this province having the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada. Fossil fuel use has been reduced by 16%, while consumption in the rest of Canada has risen by 3%, and BC’s economy has performed slightly better, on average, than the rest of Canada. These results suggest that carefully designed programs such as this can reduce our appetite for fossil fuels while playing a positive role in economic growth. Challenges remain in achieving their carbon reduction targets but progress is being made in BC.1 THis example also shows the importance of measurement and the power it has to dispel commonly held, though inaccurate, beliefs. For British Columbia, despite the fact that the carbon tax worked to improve not only the economy but also sustainability in the province, it took hard measurements to legitimize the change. Measurements matter. What gets measured affects the direction, content, and outcomes achieved by a change initiative. Measurements influence what people pay attention to and what they do.2 When organizational members see particular quantifications as legitimate, believe their actions will affect the outcomes achieved, and think those actions will positively affect them personally, the motivational impact increases. But when the legitimacy or impact of the measures is questioned or when people believe they can’t affect the outcomes, the measurements are seen as interference and can result in cynicism and alienation. Change agents know that measurement is important, but sometimes they need to understand more fully how measures can be used to help frame and guide the change.3 Figure 10.1 The Change Path Model � For a variety of reasons, data collection and measurement are often given less attention than they deserve during change initiatives. The change is seen as complex, requiring multidimensional measurements tools that seem too complex and difficult to track; measures are not viewed as focusing on what is important; the evolution of change initiatives makes end-point measures difficult to quantify; or end-point measures suggest commitment to a line in the sand that is then difficult to modify to match changing conditions.4 In addition, change leaders often explain that they lack time to assess outcomes, that they are too busy making the change happen, and/or that they did not get around to thinking fully about measurement of outcomes. The reality is that measurement and control systems incorporated into change initiatives can clarify expected outcomes and enhance accountability. This leaves some change agents feeling vulnerable. They worry that critics will use the measures to second-guess an initiative and even undermine both the change and the change agent. In spite of these concerns, well-thought-out measurement and control processes provide change leaders with valuable tools. Information from these measurement systems enables change managers to (1) frame the need for change and the implications of the change vision in terms of expected outcomes; (2) monitor the environment; (3) make monitoring and decision criteria more explicit and testable; (4) help protect against biases when measures are wisely selected; (5) help others � involved and/or affected by the change to better understand what is expected of them; (6) guide the change, gauge progress, and make midcourse corrections; and (7) bring the change to a successful conclusion.5 Key change leadership skills include identifying assessment measures, building them into the change process, adapting them as needed, and using them as tools to aid in decision making, communication, and action taking.6 At RE/MAX (described below), the measurement system supported a change to the employment relationship that allowed the firm to attract and retain superior agents. Measurement Systems at RE/MAX For RE/MAX, the Denver, Colorado–based real estate franchise network, a redefinition of customers away from industry norms was crucial. Cofounder and chairman David Liniger noted that the firm’s success came from the simple idea that RE/MAX customers were the real estate agents themselves, not the buyers and sellers of real estate. More specifically, RE/MAX targeted high-performing agents who represented just 20% of the entire pool of real estate agents but accounted for approximately 80% of all sales. RE/MAX’s focus on high-performing agents originally consisted of changing the industry’s traditional 50–50 fee split between broker and agent to a franchise system in which agents kept all commissions after payment of a management fee and expenses. In some cases, that shift changed retention rates of real estate agents as much as 85%. RE/MAX followed the change in the reward system with additional services, including national marketing campaigns, training of agents in sales techniques by satellite, and coordinated administrative support. The results have been impressive: According to CEO Liniger, in 2003, the average RE/MAX agent earned $120,000 per year on 24 transactions versus an industry average of $25,000 on seven transactions. “The customer comes second,” he says, but hastens to add, “If our emphasis is on having the best employees, we’re going to have the best customer service.”7 The real estate sales meltdown in 2007–2008 and the subsequent slow recovery proved very challenging for the industry, but RE/MAX has rebounded. In North America it was recognized as one of the top 50 franchises for minorities in both 2012 and 2014, where it was the only real estate firm on the list.8 It has been named the best real estate franchiser 15 times in the past 19 years and was ranked #10 in the Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 ranking in 2018. It has been named the highest ranked real estate franchise globally for four years in a row in the Franchise Times Top 200 survey. A 2018 assessment of the top brokerages in the industry found that RE/MAX agents averaged almost twice as many transactions when compared with their major competitors, resulting in an average of $4.6 million in sales, or 78% more than that achieved by the average of all other agents in the survey. With over 120,000 agents and 6,000 offices in more than 100 countries and territories in 2018, it is arguably the number one brand in its industry.9 At RE/MAX, management’s strategic realignment was anchored in a change to the reward system from fee-splitting the sales commission to one based on a franchise model. This example demonstrates that what is measured and rewarded will have a major impact on what outcomes are achieved. Sometimes measures are a matter of personal goal setting, as in the case of an athlete who links training metrics to performance goals and then celebrates small steps that lead to the accomplishment of a major milestone. In other situations, assessment grows out of expectations and/or requirements established by others, such as just-in-time measurement and cost reduction systems imposed on suppliers by automobile firms. � Employees’ acceptance or rejection of measurements of a change initiative is important. When employees’ acceptance of such measures increase, people experience less work stress, more job satisfaction, improved job performance, better work/family balance, less absenteeism, less job burnout, and more organizational commitment.10 Because RE/MAX’s executives structured a win–win strategy for the firm and for higher-performing agents, agents accepted the firm’s measures and, in turn, the firm attracted and retained above-average real estate agents.11 RE/MAX believes that the alignment of its strategy with its measurement system, innovative technology and sales approaches, and an ongoing commitment to agent education has been instrumental to its success. This chapter looks at the role of measurement in change management and how assessment influences people’s behavior. Issues over the development, use, and impact of measures are examined. The role of measurement and control in risk management is discussed, as is the question of what to measure at different stages in the life cycle of the change. Finally, strategy maps and balanced scorecards are introduced to demonstrate how to address the alignment of action with the change vision and strategy. Throughout this chapter, the goal remains the same: to learn how to use measurement and control mechanisms to increase the prospects for successful change. Figure 10.1 suggests that measurement and control occur at the end of the change process, but in fact measurement and control aspects of a change need to begin at its inception. Change leaders should use these analytic tools throughout the life of the process. They can assist in helping to define the need for change, quantify what is expected from a change initiative, assess progress at specified intervals, and, at the end of the process, evaluate the change initiative’s impact. Measures can help change agents in five ways: a. clarify expectations, b. assess progress and make mid-course corrections, c. assess the extent to which initiatives are being internalized and institutionalized, d. assess what has been ultimately achieved, and e. set the stage for future change initiatives.12 Many managerial discussions of measurement systems and control processes focus on how they impede progress.13 Though measurement systems can get in the way, well-designed and effectively deployed systems have the potential to overcome organizational barriers and contribute to successful change. The following case example outlines how change agents at Control Production Systems (CPS) approached their deteriorating market position. The example shows how change agents benefited from consultation with key participants14 and collaboration with diverse groups15 and how they used measurement and control processes to frame and reinforce the needed changes. A Case Study in the Value of Realigning Measures Control Production Systems (CPS), a mid-sized firm that designs, manufactures, sells, and services customized production control systems, had noticed an erosion of its market share to competitors. Declining customer loyalty, greater difficulty selling product and service updates, and an increased reliance on price to win the business were shrinking margins and � making competitive life difficult, even though product and service offerings were innovative and of a high quality. The firm possessed a strong, positive culture that reflected the values of innovation, quality, and open communications, but recent setbacks had shaken people’s confidence. As a result of a town hall meeting called to discuss the corporation’s situation, the CEO acted on a suggestion to form a cross-functional change team to assess the firm’s circumstances and recommend a course of action. The team included sales agents and customer support staff and was led by the director of sales and service. The director reported to the senior management team on a monthly basis, and the team was expected to diagnose and analyze the problem and frame recommendations for change within two months, which would be followed by implementation activities. An intranet website facilitated communications about the change, and transparency, candor, and no reprisals were the watchwords for the change team’s approach. As well, the team received sufficient resources to allow it to get on with its task. Prior to the change, sales agents were organized geographically and paid on a salary-pluscommission basis. After a sale, agents handed off responsibility to customer support staff to address order fulfillment and post-sales servicing. The customer support staff was rewarded on the basis of cost control and throughput. If customers never contacted the firm for help, that was considered good because no contact generated no cost and suggested customer satisfaction. Short calls were seen as better than long ones due to cost implications, and standardized responses and online help were preferred over trouble-shooting phone calls for the same cost reasons. The firm kept no systematic record of customer calls and responded to customers on a first-come, first-served basis. Analysis by the change team showed that customers who had minimal contact with the customer support staff were less likely to develop a relationship with the firm, were likely deriving less value from their purchases, and were less likely to be aware of product and service innovations and applications that could benefit them. In other words, the activities that kept short-term costs low hurt customer loyalty and long-term profitability. Benchmark data concerning service models, customer satisfaction, and purchase decisions confirmed that CPS was falling behind key competitors. After the diagnosis, the team concluded that there was a need to change the way the firm dealt with and serviced its major customers. The team determined that the way to increase sales and profitability was to ensure that customers saw CPS as a trusted partner who could find ways to enhance customers’ productivity and quality through improvements in CPS’s control systems. The company realigned how it managed its relationships with customers. The firm integrated sales and customer support services, created sub-teams with portfolios of customer accounts by industry, and assigned the sub-teams to manage customers as ongoing relationships. The vision was a customer-focused partnership in which one-stop shopping, customer intimacy, service excellence, and solution finding would frame the relationship rather than simply selling and servicing in the traditional manner. During the change, the change team measured employees’ understanding and commitment to the new service model, employees’ skill acquisition, and results of pilot projects. Further, the team measured service failures in areas of delivery, response time, quality, and relationship management to identify and deal with problems quickly if they occurred during the transition period. The team searched for systemic problems, developed remedies, encouraged openness and experimentation, and avoided finger pointing. Milestones for the change were established and small victories along the transition path were identified, monitored, and celebrated. Once the team initiated the changes, it aligned performance measures by focusing on customers’ satisfaction with the breadth and depth of services, response time, customers’ referrals, repeat sales, and margins. The reward system shifted from a commission base for sales personnel and salary plus small bonus for customer service staff to a salary-plus-teambased performance incentive that included customers’ satisfaction and retention, share of the � customers’ business in their product and service area, and customers’ profitability over time. In the three years since implementation, there have been significant improvements in all the targeted measures, and feedback from customer service has become an important influencer of product refinement and development. The case above demonstrates how measurements can support a change initiative at each stage of the process. At the beginning, change leaders used measurements in problem identification, in root cause analysis, and in the development of awareness for a new vision and structure. The leaders recognized the misalignment between measures that reinforced cost reductions in servicing clients (first-order effects) and the desired but unrealized long-term outcome of customer loyalty and profitability (second-order or lag effects). As the change leaders and team continued to diagnose their organization’s structure and systems, at each step data were collected, analyzed, and used to fine-tune plans. Employees came to trust using data to make savvy decisions. In the end, clients’ satisfaction with CPS’s products and services (first-order effects) gave rise to customer loyalty and follow-up purchases and profitability (second-order effects) that management had not previously measured or really paid attention to. To make the question of the impact of measures and control processes all the more real, consider a change you are familiar with and complete Toolkit Exercise 10.2. � Selecting and Deploying Measures There is no shortage of possible measurement indicators: cycle time, machine efficiency, waste, sales per call, employee satisfaction, waiting time, market share, profitability per sale, cost of sale, and customer retention, to name a few. If change agents try to measure everything concurrently, they are likely to lose focus. To focus attention, agents need to be clear about the stage of the change process and what dimensions are most important to monitor at a particular stage given the desired end results. Here is a list of six criteria to help change leaders determine which measures to adopt. � 1. Focus on Key Factors An accurate analysis of the change challenges will mean that change leaders will know which factors are key and what levers will move people in the direction of the desired change. Measures influence what people pay attention to and how they act, even when they believe those actions are ill advised.16 Consider the all-too-common practice of trade loading, the inefficient and expensive practice of pushing excess inventory onto distributors and retailers in order to make the manufacturer’s numbers look better in the short term.17 For years, staff at Gillette knew that the practice of trade loading was having a negative effect on pricing, production efficiencies, customer relationships, and profitability. Trade loading meant unsold inventory was hidden from Gillette’s eyes in the distribution channels and price discounting was eroding margins (distributors quickly learned how to time purchases to take advantage of such discounts). In spite of the widespread awareness that this practice was ill advised, it continued until new leadership realigned key measures and practices to support the desired changes and finally brought an end to an unhealthy practice.18 Knowing the critical measures to develop, deploy, and monitor at the different stages of the change process is a complex issue. In the Gillette case, this involved measures that demonstrated the negative consequences of trade loading, showed the positive consequences of the change vision, and assessed progress with the change and performance in ways that aligned with the change vision and targeted outcomes. When considering what to focus on assessing, be cognizant of the role bias can play in your assessment, as noted in Chapter 3. Factors such as confirmation bias (seeking out supportive data), recency bias (expectation that previous events will repeat themselves, loss aversion (losses have a larger psychological affect than gains), herding (we should do it because it’s worked for others), and outcome bias (belief that a successful outcome means our analysis was correct) will cloud your judgement and potentially put you on a risky path. Take steps to buffer the effects of such biases so that you are able to approach the change challenge with your eyes wide open. Daniel Kahneman’s work on decision making provides excellent advice concerning how to avoid these pitfalls.19 � 2. Use Measures That Lead to Challenging but Achievable Goals Employees need to believe that they can achieve challenging goals. Measurements that note small steps to the larger goal and measures within an individual’s control will tap into desired motivations. � 3. Use Measures and Controls That Are Perceived as Fair and Appropriate Employees’ perception of the appropriateness and fairness of the measures and control processes is driven as much by the process used to develop and legitimize them as by the outcomes they deliver.20 Even reasonable measures may not be acceptable if people feel the measures were forced on them. Good processes will reduce resistance through communication, as communication provides opportunities for input and feedback while building trust and support. Avoid applying measures in ways that punish people who take reasonable actions based on their understanding of the change goals and what is expected of them. Measurement and control processes are more likely to be accepted if the process used in developing them is seen as reasonable and fair, even if those measures lead to negative outcomes for those being measured (this matter of fair process was discussed earlier and in more detail in Chapter 7). It is very beneficial if individuals who are responsible for delivering on measures see them as relevant and fair. Participation in the development of goals and how they will be measured is well worth considering because it has been shown to have the potential to increase the level of understanding of what the organization is attempting to do, heighten legitimacy of the targets, and increase commitment to them.21 Be careful when you are assigning incentives to the accomplishment of goals, because excessively high rewards for success or severe sanctions for failure can lead to dysfunctional and unethical behavior (e.g., game playing, falsification of data). Approach financial incentives with care, because, mishandled, they can impair progress and get in the way of the positive role the participants’ sense of autonomy, mastery, and a purpose can play in motivating desired actions.22 � 4. Avoid Sending Mixed Signals Measurement systems related to change often send conflicting signals, and it is not unusual for change leaders to say one thing but signal another through what they measure and reward. For example, an organization may initiate changes aimed at enhancing quality and customer satisfaction but then “wink at” the shipment of flawed products to meet just-in-time delivery metrics and avoid exceeding its internal scrap and rework targets. Managers do this even though they know that substandard products will increase warranty work, require customers to do rework, and put the firm’s reputation with the customer at risk. The fundamental problem in this example is that measures are not aligned with goals. Aligning measurements and avoiding mixed signals is tricky because there are always trade-offs. For example, employees’ acceptance of a particular step (as measured by survey results) and the achievement of a particular performance milestone (e.g., going “live” with a new customer service module) may end up conflicting. The firm may have succeeded in going “live” with the new module, but employees and customers may be unaware of or confused about the advantages associated with the new module versus the costs and benefits of remaining with the existing approach. Change leaders need to address such matters by providing advice on how these trade-offs associated with the change and the potentially conflicting signals generated by different measures should be handled. If this isn’t done, change initiatives may flounder in the subsequent confusion and create cynicism and game playing. The Canadian division of a U.S. auto parts firm initiated a change initiative in the form of a new quality program and reinforced it with a gigantic display board preaching, “Quality is important because General Motors demands it!” However, next to this sign sat pallets of completed parts with supervisory tags that approved shipment, overriding quality control inspection reports that had ordered rework prior to shipment. The firm’s management had not addressed how to resolve conflicts between the new quality initiative and their just-in-time obligations. Supervisors looked at how they were measured and concluded that delivery trumped quality. Employees looked at how their supervisors reversed decisions on substandard quality and concluded the new quality program was a joke and a waste of money. The inability to reconcile the handling of the quality problems with their delivery obligations led to the loss of the GM contract and the closure of the plant approximately 18 months after the display board was first unveiled.23 Employees are aware of such conflicting messages. Confusion, frustration, sarcasm, and eventually alienation are the natural consequences. When such inconsistencies are built into a change initiative and go undetected or unaddressed by the change leader, cynicism about the change increases, and the change process falters. Kerr’s well-known paper, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B,” explores many of the issues around measurement and the production of unintended consequences.24 When establishing such measures, remember to keep your eye on the end goal. If the end goal is cooperation and collaboration, avoid rewarding “A” (incentives for individually oriented, competitive behavior) if you are hoping to motivate “B” (incentives to promote collaborate, cooperate behavior). One common cause of such disconnects is related to what is rewarded by the legacy systems versus what is being promoted by the change initiative. Make sure the actions being nurtured through � challenging but achievable goals in the short term will help you to get to your intermediate and long-term objectives. � 5. Ensure Accurate Data Employees, customers, and others are likely to supply accurate and timely data when they trust the measurement system and believe that data will not be used to harm them. Excessive rewards for success, undue sanctions for missed targets, or a very stressful work environment can lead to flawed information from carefully designed sets of measures.25 These pressures create incentives for individuals to report inaccurately or to shade the reality of the situation. To ensure accurate and timely data from the measurement system, those supplying the data need to trust who it is going to and believe that it is their responsibility to comply fully and honestly. Keep pressure at reasonable levels and avoid excessive rewards for success or excessive consequences for not achieving targets. � 6. Match the Precision of the Measure With the Ability to Measure A measurement motto might read, “Better to be approximately right than precisely wrong!” Change leaders need to match the measures to the environment. If the change is significant, clearly structured, and predictable, leaders can devote time and resources to developing precise, sophisticated measures. However, if the change environment is turbulent and ambiguous, approximate measures are more appropriate.26 Change agents need to make their choices based upon (a) how quickly they need the information, (b) how accurate the information needs to be, and (c) how much it will cost. Information economics point to the fact that designing the needed information for a change initiative inevitably involves trade-offs among these three components.27 The general rule of thumb is to keep the measures as simple and understandable as possible, and make sure that they attend to the important elements of the change in a balanced way. Table 10.1 looks at the nature of the change context and considers what types of measures will be appropriate. Regardless of the measures chosen, change leaders need to be seen as “walking the talk.” When leaders treat the measures as relevant and appropriate, employees will see that they are serious about what they are espousing. Use sound communication practices when dealing with questions related to what to measure, who to engage in discussions about measurement and control, how to deploy the measures, and how to interpret and use the data effectively to manage the change. Change leaders’ behaviors that reinforce perceptions of the fairness and appropriateness of the measures and instill confidence in their proper application are very important in legitimizing measurement as a powerful tool in the change process.28 Table 10.1 The Change Context and the Choice of Measures Table 10.1 The Change Context and the Choice of Measures Change Context Choose More Precise, Explicit, Goal-Focused Measures Choose More Approximate Measures, Focus on Vision and Milestones, and Learn as You Go When complexity and ambiguity are: Low High When time to completion is: Short Long � Measurement Systems and Change Management Robert Simon, an expert in the area of managerial measurement systems (also called management control systems), believes that managers focus too much on traditional diagnostic control systems developed from management accounting. He argues that managers need to think about four types of control levers as constituting the internal control systems when considering change. That is why strategy lies at the center of his model, because what one attempts to do needs to consider the influence of all four of these levers.29 Interactive controls systems—the systems that sense environmental changes crucial to the organization’s strategic concerns. For example, this would be market intelligence data that helps firms better understand and anticipate competitor actions. Boundary systems—the systems that set the limits of authority and action and determine acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For example, these would be limits to spending authority placed on managerial levels. These focus on what is unacceptable and identify both what is prohibited and what is sanctioned. Belief systems—the fundamental values and beliefs of organizational employees that underpin the culture and influence organizational decisions. For example, these are the stated organizational values that often accompany the vision and mission. Diagnostic and steering controls systems—the traditional managerial control systems that focus on key performance variables. For example, these would be sales data based on changed selling efforts. Each of these systems can help in implementing change, but they serve different purposes depending upon where you are in the change process. Interactive control systems help sensitize change leaders to environmental shifts and strategic uncertainties and the relevance of these on the framing of the change initiative. This will allow them to modify change plans in the face of environmental factors and tend to play the biggest role when dealing with issues related to assessing the need for change and vision for the change. Understanding the organization’s boundary system means change leaders know what sorts of actions are appropriate and which are viewed as inappropriate or off limits. The firm’s rules or boundaries need be respected and place limits on what actions are appropriate. If it is believed that such boundaries need to be questioned, change leaders can discuss and debate them explicitly, but they need to do so in an ethical and transparent manner. An understanding of the organization’s belief system informs leaders about the culture and how beliefs and values influence action. This allows change leaders to frame initiatives in ways that are aligned with the core beliefs and the organizations, and the higher-order values of individuals, and use this alignment to help motivate desired actions and overcome resistance to change. Data in this area comes from direct experience with others in the organization, employee surveys, and a systematic evaluation of past decisions, practices, and behaviors. As in the case of boundary systems, change leaders may wish to address the need to modify those beliefs as part of the change, but should again approach the matter in an ethical and transparent � manner. Otherwise they risk being accused of misleading people and acting inappropriately. This will destroy trust in them and the initiative. Finally, a well-developed diagnostic and steering control system helps change agents understand and track critical performance variables and milestones, and modify their approach to encourage desired behaviors and outcomes while discouraging dysfunctional ones. These are the steering controls and metrics they use to help them navigate their way on the change journey. As you can see, these controls and their related measures address the determination of the nature of the desired change, how it will be framed, and how progress will be monitored and assessed along the way (see Figure 10.2). Table 10.2 sets out the different elements of the control system and relates them to the measures used at different stages of the change process. As the change progresses from initial planning to wrap-up and review, the control challenges and measurement issues also shift. The key is to align the controls and measures to the challenges posed at each stage of the change and prepare for the next. This helps to ensure that change leaders have the information and guidance they need to assess matters, make decisions, and manage their way forward.30 Figure 10.2 Strategy and the Four Levers of Control Source: Simons, R. (1995, March-April). Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 85. Table 10.2 Control Systems, Measures, and the Stage of the Change Table 10.2 Control Systems, Measures, and the Stage of the Change Controls When Designing and Planning the Change Controls in Beginning Stages of the Change Project Controls in Middle Stages of the Change Project Controls Toward the End of the Change Project � Controls When Designing and Planning the Change Controls in Beginning Stages of the Change Project Controls in Middle Stages of the Change Project Controls Toward the End of the Change Project Interactive Controls (Environmental scanning; assessing possible paths and targets) Environmental assessment; assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT); consider possibilities. Test the viability of existing vision, mission, and strategy given the environmental situation, and assess the need for change. Affirm that the change project is aligned with environmental trends. Assess how to align the organization to increase the chances of the change’s success and assess what specifically needs to change. Ongoing monitoring. Confirm that environmental assessment continues to support the change. Obtain feedback regarding the success of change initiative relative to the environmental factors. Ongoing environmental scanning and assessment of organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). � Controls When Designing and Planning the Change Controls in Beginning Stages of the Change Project Controls in Middle Stages of the Change Project Controls Toward the End of the Change Project Boundary System (What behaviors are not OK?) Limit the change options to those within the boundary conditions. Test the limits of what is acceptable. If boundary conditions represent issues or challenges that need discussing, bring them forward and assess need for new boundaries. Go/no go guidance as to appropriateness of actions. Go/no-go guidance as to appropriateness of actions. Reassess risks. Reestablish boundaries if needed. Test new boundaries where appropriate. Reevaluate the boundary limits. � Controls When Designing and Planning the Change Controls in Beginning Stages of the Change Project Controls in Middle Stages of the Change Project Controls Toward the End of the Change Project Belief System (What are our beliefs and values? What is our purpose?) Assess congruence between core values of the firm, its mission, and the purpose of the change project. Communicate how the change relates to the core values and mission. Consider implications if change involves Congruence assessment. Appeal to fundamental beliefs to overcome resistance or address need for change in those beliefs. Congruence assessment. Reaffirm core values throughout the change project and/or assess progress in the needed modifications to the belief system. Congruence assessment. Reassess and potentially reaffirm the core values and mission based on learning during the change project. modifications of the belief system and how to facilitate the change. � Controls When Designing and Planning the Change Controls in Beginning Stages of the Change Project Controls in Middle Stages of the Change Project Controls Toward the End of the Change Project Diagnostic and Steering Controls (Focusing resources on targets; measuring progress; taking corrective action and learning as we go) Assess the impact of existing controls on the change project. Consider what diagnostic systems will need to be developed and/or altered to provide guidance for the change. Develop milestones, diagnostic measures, and steering controls for the change initiative. Develop tactics to alter control systems as needed. Monitor progress on an ongoing basis and celebrate the achievement of milestones. Assess whether systems and processes are working as they should. Modify milestones and measures as needed. Determine when the project has been completed. Confirm that new systems, processes, and behaviors established by the change are working appropriately. Evaluate project and pursue learning on how to improve the change process. � Data Used as Guides During Design and Early Stages of the Change Project At the beginning of a major change, mission, and vision (i.e., belief systems), interactive control systems (e.g., environmental assessments), and boundary systems (risks to be avoided) play particularly important roles in clarifying the overall direction, as options and potential courses of action are explored. Data from primary and secondary research, exploratory discussions, internal organizational assessments, and initial experimentation are helpful at this stage because they allow projects and alternatives to be considered in a grounded manner. The organization’s readiness for change (discussed in Chapter 4) can be assessed and steps taken to enhance readiness. Information from multiple sources is used to sort out options, assess what should be done next, and make an initial go/no-go decision on whether to proceed in the development of the initiative. In the early stages, change leaders need to have systems that will identify who to talk to and who will tell them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. Enthusiasm and commitment on the part of change leaders are beneficial to the change but can create serious blind spots if not tempered by the reality checks that control systems can provide. As go/no-go decisions are made, change agents need to develop and refine the directional and steering control measures and specify important milestones. Project planning tools, such as the critical path method, can play a useful role (see Chapter 9). � Data Used as Guides in the Middle of the Change Project Indicators that define the overall purpose, direction, boundary conditions (what actions are acceptable and unacceptable) for the change, and core values and beliefs are still important in clarifying and framing what change is intended. However, diagnostic and steering controls (e.g., budgets and variance reports, project and activity schedules, and tracking of content from e-mails, phone conversations, and tracking of social media feed, if its use and content are relevant to the change) play an increasingly important role in the middle of the change project. At this point, change leaders want to be able to track and receive timely and accurate feedback on progress and people’s reactions to what is going on. Change leaders need to recognize whether the people’s reactions are leading or lagging the desired outcomes at that stage of the change process. As in the example of CPS discussed earlier in this chapter, customer satisfaction was a lead indicator of an improved sales climate, while repeat sales and profitability were lag indicators of the improved situation. If this had not been recognized, initiatives undertaken to improve customer satisfaction may have been discontinued because there was no immediate improvement in sales. Milestones and road markers need to be developed through project planning and goal- and objective-setting activities. These markers can then be used to track progress and reinforce the initiative of others by recognizing their achievement. For example, if a firm were implementing a new performance management system, the completion and sign off on the design of the system, the completion of a training schedule, the achievement of needed levels of understanding and acceptance of the system (as assessed by measures of comprehension and satisfaction with the system), and the completion of the first cycle of performance reviews (with system evaluation data from those using the system) are possible road markers. At important milestones, go/no-go controls once again enter the picture, with conscious decisions made about refinements to the change initiative. Change leaders need to make decisions about the appropriateness and desirability of proceeding to the next stage. If milestones are not being achieved, change leaders need to consider what sorts of actions, if any, should be undertaken or they may need to revisit the timeline or refine the measures used to track progress. In that respect, change leaders also need to consider how measures can help them think about contingencies and adapt to unforeseen situations. � Data Used as Guides Toward the End of the Change Project As the end of a planned change approaches, diagnostic and steering measures are replaced by concrete outcome measures. What was accomplished and what has been the impact? How do the results compare with what change agents expected at the beginning? What can be learned from the change experience? Change leaders need to capture the observations and insights from those who have been involved in the change, as it will help them prepare for future initiatives. Toolkit Exercise 10.3 asks you to apply Simon’s four levers of control model to a change initiative. � Other Measurement Tools Four tools that can assist in planning, deploying, and managing change are discussed in the next section. These are the strategy map, the balanced scorecard, the risk exposure calculator, and the DICE model. They can enhance internal consistency and alignment and aid in assessing risk. � Strategy Maps Once change leaders have framed their vision and strategy for the change, they will need to be able to communicate the end state and the action paths that will get them there. When complex changes are being pursued, change agents may find a visual representation of those end states and the action paths to be useful. This can be undertaken to help others understand what the change is attempting to accomplish and how actions in one area will influence outcomes in another. Further, in can be used to help change agents set out and test their assumptions concerning what they believe needs to be undertaken and aligned, in order to achieve the desired ends. The tool developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton called a strategy map can assist change agents in this regard.31 As can be seen from Figure 10.3, financial outcomes are viewed as driven by customer results, and by contributions that come directly from internal systems and processes in the form of efficiencies. The customer results are viewed as coming from the performance of internal systems and processes, which in turn rest on the nature and quality of the organization’s resources (human, informational, and capital).32 Once the change vision and strategy are defined in a for-profit organization, Kaplan and Norton recommend starting with financial goals and objectives of the change (the financial perspective) and then setting out the objectives, initiatives, and paths needed throughout the organization to generate those outcomes. If the vision for change is achieved, how will it look from the perspective of the financial results achieved? To accomplish these financial outcomes, what initiatives have to be undertaken from a customer perspective to deliver on the value proposition in ways that generate the desired financial results? In addition, will the change produce direct contributions to the bottom line from the internal business processes, in the form of efficiency improvements? To accomplish these customer outcomes and/or generate contributions directly to the financial outcomes through efficiencies, what changes must be tackled from an internal business process perspective? Finally, to attain those internal process goals and objectives, what changes must be undertaken from a learning and growth perspective to increase the organization’s capacity to do what is needed with the internal processes and customers? The learning and growth perspective embodies people, information, and organizational capital (e.g., culture, intellectual property, leadership, internal alignment, and teamwork). For not-for-profit organizations, many advocates for the strategy map recommend placing the customer perspective at the top of the model (some have relabeled it as the stakeholder perspective) since this is the reason for the organization’s existence. Some place the financial perspective parallel with the customer or stakeholder perspective, while others place it below learning and growth or elsewhere. Others have added levels or changed labels on the strategy map.33 However, the goal remains the same: develop a coherent picture that helps people understand how you’ve aligned your change strategy with the organization’s purpose so it generates the desired outcomes. It is all about translating the change vision into a visual representation of the action plan that is designed to support that change vision; � communicating those actions and the change vision to key constituents so that they will better understand the change initiative and the underlying assumptions; testing assumptions so that modifications can be made in a timely manner; and implementing, learning and refining as you go. The assumption underlying strategy maps in for-profit organizations is that financial outcomes are the end goals that they are striving for and that other objectives within the change program should be aligned to produce and support those desired outcomes. If particular activities and the objectives don’t support the changes, they should be seriously questioned and either dropped or reduced in importance. Each of the change initiatives identified by the strategy map will need to be managed as to goals and objectives, success measures, timelines, resource requirements, and an action plan. These, in turn, need to be integrated with the other change initiatives that are embodied in the strategy map. When properly deployed, strategy maps provide change leaders with a powerful organizing and communication tool.34 This visualization helps people understand what is being proposed and why. It clarifies why certain actions are important and how they contribute to other outcomes that are critical to achieving the end goals of the change (i.e., cause–effect relationships). It helps people focus and align their efforts and appropriately measure and report progress. It can assist change leaders to identify gaps in their logic, including missing objectives and measures. When Mobil used strategy maps, it helped them to identify gaps in the plans that had been developed for one of their business units. Objectives and metrics were missing for dealers—a critical component for a strategy map focused on selling more gasoline.35 To give you a concrete example of how a strategy map can be used to help, one is set out in Figure 10.4. It shows the vision and mission for Control Production Systems, Inc. (discussed earlier in this chapter). Then it shows the specific measures used in each category. Figure 10.3 Generic Strategy Map � Source: From Armitage, H. M., & Scholey, C. (2007). Using strategy maps to drive performance. CMA Management, 80(9), 24. The figure sets out Kaplan and Norton’s model discussed earlier in the chapter. Figure 10.4 Strategy Map for Control Production Systems Source: Adapted from: Simon, T. “ How Risky is Your Company?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, #3, 1999, 85–94. � The Balanced Scorecard While the strategy map links capabilities, change strategies, and outcomes, the balanced scorecard integrates measures into a relatively simple way of tracking the critical success factors. Kaplan and Norton argue that four categories of goals and measurement data need to be highlighted in a balanced scorecard: financial, a company’s relationship with its customers, its internal business process, and its learning and growth. In doing so, management can achieve a balanced, integrated, and aligned perspective concerning what needs to be done to produce the desired strategic outcomes.36 Among these four indicators, some will lead while others will lag. For example, improvements in service levels, such as the response time to a customer’s inquiry, could be a lead indicator of improvements in customer satisfaction. However, this may not immediately translate into new sales and increased profitability. Improvements in such measures will often be lag indicators of improvements in service levels because of the length of the purchase cycle. The balanced scorecard recognizes that not all effects are immediate. By setting out assumptions concerning what leads to what, it makes it easier for the change leader to test assumptions, track progress, and make appropriate alternations as necessary. Figure 10.5 Generic Balanced Scorecard for Change Source: Adapted from Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 76. When developing a balanced scorecard for an internal change initiative, remember that the relevant customers may be employees in other departments of the organization, rather than the external customers of the firm. Kaplan and Norton argue � that the use of multiple measures ensure a more balanced perspective on what a successful change will require. The likelihood that multiple measures will inadvertently mislead change leaders about what a successful change will require is much less than if they rely on a single indicator. Figure 10.5 outlines a generic balanced scorecard for a change project. Figure 10.6 outlines the balanced scorecard for Control Production Systems. Figure 10.6 Balanced Scorecard for CPS Toolkit Exercise 10.4 asks you to construct a strategy map and balanced scorecard for an organization that you know and a change you have some knowledge of. Remember that customers can be internal or external to the firm. � Risk Exposure Calculator Robert Simon has developed a risk exposure calculator for use in assessing the level of risk associated with a company’s actions.37 Simon argues that risk is related to the rate of growth of the company, its culture, and how information and data are managed. The tool focuses primarily on internal rather than external environmental risks. Although it was designed for use on the overall organization, it has been modified to assess the risk exposure related to a particular change initiative as well as maintaining the status quo. The first three risk drivers are grouped under change pressure. When the change leader is (a) under significant pressure to produce, (b) there is a great deal of ambiguity, or (c) employees are inexperienced in change, then the risks associated with the change initiative will be higher than if the pressures being experienced were lower for one or more of these three factors. Change culture identifies the second set of risk drivers. If (a) the culture pushes risk- taking, (b) executives resist hearing bad news, or (c) there is internal competition, then risks will be further elevated. The final set of risk drivers is grouped under information management. When (a) the change situation is complex and fast changing, (b) there are gaps in the diagnostic data that change measures, and (c) decision making regarding change is decentralized, then risks will rise once again. These nine risk factors are cumulative in nature. The overall level of change risk rises as the total number of significant risk factors rises. If Simon’s risk calculator had been applied to AIG’s mortgage arm prior to the economic meltdown in 2007–2008, or Lehman Brothers by those knowledgeable about their internal operations, then scores indicating extreme risk in virtually all nine areas would have been recorded. The environments these organizations were operating in were complex, fast moving, and highly ambiguous. Many senior managers lacked knowledge and experience with the high-risk products and services they were responsible for: risk-taking and competition were pushed to the extreme by subordinates, and the bearers of concern and bad news put themselves at risk of being fired. There are also dangers for the organization when risk levels get too low. Little positive change will occur if there is no pressure for change, little cultural support for risk taking, and if people perceive a very stable and predictable environment. If perceptions of low risk are sustained for a long periods of time, the capacity of the organization to be flexible and adapt will tend to atrophy. When low-risk organizational members are then faced with change that can no longer be ignored, their ability to respond will be compromised. There is no optimal risk score that fits all organizations. Optimal risk scores vary, depending on the nature of the environment, the upside and downside consequences of risk-taking, and the ability to take steps to alleviate risks. The risk appetites of change leaders should prudently reflect the needs and opportunities for innovation and change balanced by the needs for appropriate levels of caution and oversight. Of � course, the organization’s resources and capabilities will also determine the degree of risk that is sustainable and desirable. Change leaders can take advantage of the risk calculator by using the information from it to make the risks manageable during the planning and deployment stages. For example, ambiguity can be reduced by emphasizing the change vision or by creating explicit milestones. Risks related to inexperience can be moderated by adding experienced managers to the change team. Further, it can be used to monitor risk levels as the change proceeds, with steps taken along the way to moderate levels up or down, depending on the situation. Toolkit Exercise 10.5 sets out a risk calculator based on Simon’s work and allows you to calculate a risk score indicating whether a project is in a safety zone or not. � The DICE Model A process-oriented approach to assessing and managing the risks associated with change projects is offered by Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson. Based upon empirical data, they have developed a four-factor model for predicting the success of a change initiative. They refer to this as the DICE framework.38 Duration asks about how frequently the change project is formally reviewed. If the frequency of formal review is less than every two months, it receives a score of 1. A score of 2 is awarded when the frequency is from two to four months; a 3 for a frequency of between four and eight months; and a 4 for time intervals in excess of eight months. The message is that the risk of failure increases as the time between formal reviews rises. In other words, “out of sight, out of mind” is a bad idea when it comes to assessing and guiding major changes. Providing timely guidance and assistance requires a rigorous and systematic approach to managing the change— something that won’t happen with a “how’s it going → just fine” form of cursory assessment. Integrity asks about the team leader’s skills and credibility, and the skills, motivation, and focus of members of the change team. A score of 1 is recorded if the team leader has the skills needed and the respect of coworkers, if the team members have the skills and motivation to complete the project on time, and if at least 50% of the team members’ time has been assigned to the initiative. If the change team and leader are lacking on all dimensions, a score of 4 is recorded. If the factors lie somewhere in between, scores of 2 or 3 are allocated. Commitment is a two-stage measure. The first part assesses the commitment of senior management. If the words and deeds of senior managers regularly reinforce the need for change and the importance of the initiative, a score of 1 is given. If senior managers are fairly neutral, scores of 2 or 3 are recorded. When senior managers are perceived to be less than supportive, a score of 4 is applied. Second, the employee or “local level” commitment is evaluated. If employees are very supportive, a score of 1 is given. If they are willing but not overly eager, the score shifts to 2. As reluctance builds, scores shift to 3 and 4. Effort is the final factor in the DICE model and refers to the level of increased effort that employees must make to implement the change. If the incremental effort is less than 10%, it is given a score of 1. Incremental effort of 10% to 20% raises the score to 2. At 20% to 40%, the score moves to 3, while additional effort in excess of 40% raises the score to 4. The overall DICE score is calculated in the following fashion: The Integrity and Senior Management Commitment scores are weighted more heavily in the model, with each being multiplied by 2. This is because the scores on these factors have been found to be more significant drivers of risk. Then the scores of all factors are added together. � Overall Dice Score = Duration + (2 X Integrity of Performance) + (2 X Senior Management Commitment) + Local Level Commitment + Effort The research shows the following about scores: 7–14: high likelihood of success 15–17: worry zone 17+: extremely risky, woe zone, with higher than 19 very unlikely to succeed This model is useful in assessing risk and also in pointing to concrete things that can be done to make the risks manageable during the planning and deployment phases. For example, risks can be reduced by having more frequent formal project reviews and by the staffing of change initiatives with competent and credible team leaders and members. Likewise, increasing local and senior-level commitment and allocating sufficient time to change leaders and others working on the initiative will also help in reducing risks. Toolkit Exercise 10.6 asks you to apply the DICE model to a change you are familiar with. Summary Care taken in the selection of measures and control processes helps clarify what the change is about and focuses energy and effort. It also saves change agents a great deal of time later on because it enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the change process, provides an early warning system of problems, and thus leads to faster attention to appropriate midcourse corrections. It also forces change leaders to be honest with themselves and others about what will be accomplished and what it will take to bring these things to reality. There is an old management adage that makes a lot of sense: It is far better to under promise and over deliver than to overpromise and under deliver. The careful selection and use of data can be used to enhance ownership of the change through how the measures are selected (i.e., who participates in their selection) and through ensuring that those involved receive the credit for what is accomplished. See Toolkit Exercise 10.1 for critical thinking questions for this chapter. Key Terms Measurement and control systems—developed to focus, monitor, and manage what is going on in the organization. Simon’s Four Management Control Systems Interactive control—the systems that sense environmental changes crucial to the organization’s strategic concerns, for example, market intelligence that will determine competitor actions. Boundary systems—the systems that set the limits of authority and action and determine acceptable and unacceptable behavior, for example, limits to spending authority placed on managerial levels. These tend to focus on what is unacceptable and identify not only what is prohibited but also the sanction. Belief systems—the structure of fundamental values that underpin organizational decisions, for example, the stated organizational values that often accompany the vision and mission. � Diagnostic and steering controls—the traditional managerial control systems that focus on key performance variables, for example, sales data responding to changed selling efforts. Strategy map—the visualization of how the vision and strategy can be systematically brought to fruition. Strategy Maps begin by defining the vision and strategy for change. Financial perspective—identifies the financial outcomes that the change will give rise to and define the paths that will produce those outcomes. Customer perspective—focuses on service and customer-oriented goals to achieve financial objectives Internal business process perspective—focuses on operational and process efficiencies that help accomplish financial goals and objectives. Learning and growth perspectives—focuses on the internal staffing, training and development needed to allow staff to reach objectives across the map. This is defined as the human capital component. It also addresses the information capital component (the information systems related elements) and organizational capital components (e.g., structures). Balanced scorecard—an integrated set of measures built around the mission, vision, and strategy. There are four measures: the financial perspective, customer perspective, internal business process perspective, and learning and growth perspective. As such, they provide a balanced perspective on what is required to enact the strategy. Risk exposure calculator—an assessment tool developed by Robert Simon that considers the impact that nine specific factors, noted below, may have on the risk levels faced by a firm. A. Change pressure—when change leaders feel significant pressure to produce and accomplish the change, when there are high levels of ambiguity, and the leaders have little experience with change, risk is increased. B. Change culture—when the rewards for risk taking are high, when senior executives resist hearing bad news, and when there is internal competition between units, risk is increased. C. Information management—necessary when the situation is complex and fast changing, when gaps in diagnosis exist, and if decision making is decentralized, risk is increased. DICE framework—a process-oriented approach to assessing and managing the risks associated with change projects. A. Duration—measures how frequently the change project is formally reviewed. As duration increases, risk increases. B. Integrity—of performance is a two-part measure. The first part asks about the team leader’s skills and credibility and the second part asks about the skills, motivation, and focus of members of the change team. As skills, credibility, and motivation decrease, risk levels increase. C. Commitment is a two-stage measure—The first part assesses senior management commitment. The second part evaluates employee or “local level” commitment. As commitment decreases, risk levels increase. D. Effort—measures the level of increased exertion that employees must make to implement the change. As the amount of incremental effort increases beyond 10%, risk levels increase. � Checklist: Creating a Balanced Scorecard 1. State the mission, vision, and strategy for the change. 2. Consider the mission, vision, and strategy of the organization: Is the proposed change consistent with these? If not, what needs to be done with the change or the existing mission, vision, and strategy to bring them into line? 3. Complete the financial component of the scorecard by answering the following questions: If you succeed with the change vision, how will it appear to the shareholders or those responsible for funding the change? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? Which are leading indicators and which are lagging indicators? 4. Complete the customer component of the scorecard by answering the following questions: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear to your customers? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? What are the leading and lagging indicators? 5. Complete the internal business processes component of the scorecard by answering the following questions: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear in your business processes? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? What are the leading and lagging indicators here? 6. Complete the learning and growth component of the scorecard by answering the following questions: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear to your employees and demonstrate itself in their actions? What about the information and organizational capital? How will you and they know (objectives and metrics)? What are the leading and lagging indicators here? 7. Seek feedback from trusted colleagues on the scorecard you’ve developed. Does it help them to understand the change initiative you have in mind, key data that will indicate progress, and what will need to be done to achieve the desired outcomes? � End-of-Chapter Exercises � Toolkit Exercise 10.1 � Critical Thinking Questions The URLs for the videos listed below can be found in two places. The first spot is next to the exercise and the second spot is on the website at study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e. 1. The Beauty of Data Visualization—18:17 minutes https://www.bing.com/videos/search? q=the+beauty+of+data+visualization&docid=608019685193287796&mid=FA748A7 A9F54F6F67357FA748A7A9F54F6F67357&view=detail&FORM=VIRE This is a TED Talk by David McCandless on the value of visualizing data in order to draw new meaning and insights from complex data in order to better design, innovate, make better decisions, and so on. Can be a useful video prior to discussing the development of information and metrics to help frame change, change views, and guide change initiatives. Give an example of how the reframing of data might bolster the change process in each of the four stages. How might the data presented in the video prompt change? Explain. 2. Susan Colantuono: The Career Advice You Probably Didn’t Get—13:57 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFQLvbVJVMg How do the skills Colantuono talks about matter to measuring and implementing change? How should organizational leaders imbed the skills that Colantuono talks about into the organization in order to create continuous change? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for access to video and a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 10.2 � Reflecting on the Impact of Measures and Control Processes on Change Think of a change initiative that you are familiar with. 1. What measures and control processes were employed in tracking and guiding the change initiative? Were they consistent with the vision and strategy of the change? Were they viewed as legitimate by those who would be using them? 2. How was the measurement information captured and fed back to those who needed to use it? Was it a user-friendly process, and did the information arrive in a useful and timely form? 3. Did the change managers consider how the measures might need to evolve over the life of the change initiative? How was this evolution managed? By whom? 4. Were steps taken to ensure that the measures used during the change would be put to proper use? Were there risks and potential consequences arising from their use that would need to be managed? 5. Were goals and milestones established to plot progress along the way and used to make midcourse corrections if needed? Were the smaller victories celebrated to reinforce the efforts of others when milestones were achieved? 6. What were the end-state measures that were developed for the change? Were they consistent with the vision and strategy? Were they viewed as legitimate by those who would be using them? 7. How was the end-state measurement information captured and fed back to those who would need to use it? Was it a user-friendly process? 8. Were steps taken to ensure that the measures would be put to proper use? Were there risks and potential consequences arising from their use that would need to be managed? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 10.3 � Application of Simon’s Four Levers of Control Model Consider a change you are familiar with. 1. Describe the control processes and measures that were used with the change (i.e., the belief, interactive, boundary, and diagnostic controls). When and how were they used, and what was their impact? a. During the earlier stages of the change initiative b. During the middle stages of the change initiative c. During the latter stages of the change initiative 2. Were there forbidden topics in the organization, such as questions related to strategy or core values? Were those limits appropriate and did anyone test those limits by raising controversial questions or concerns? Were small successes celebrated along the way? 3. What changes could have been made with the control processes and measures that would have assisted in advancing the interests of the change? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 10.4 Aligning the Change With Systems and Building the Balanced Scorecard for the Change Think about a change you are familiar with. 1. State the mission, vision, and strategy for the change. 2. Consider the mission, vision, and strategy of the organization: Is the proposed change consistent with these? If not, what needs to be done with the change or the existing mission, vision, and strategy to bring them into line? 3. Financial component of scorecard: If you succeed with the change vision, how will it appear to the shareholders or those responsible for funding the change? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? Are some of these leading indicators while others are lagging indicators? 4. Customer component of scorecard: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear to your customers? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? Are there leading and lagging indicators here? 5. Internal business processes component of scorecard: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear in your business processes? How will you know (objectives and metrics)? Are there leading and lagging indicators here? 6. Learning and growth component of scorecard: If you succeed with the change, how will it appear to your employees and demonstrate itself in their actions? What about the information and organizational capital? How will you and they know (objectives and metrics)? Are there leading and lagging indicators here? 7. Lay out the scorecard you’ve designed for your change and seek feedback. 8. Show how the different components are connected to each other by developing a strategy map for the change in the space below. Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 10.5 � Using the Risk Exposure Calculator Consider a change initiative that you know is currently being considered for adoption and apply the risk exposure calculator to it. Score Experience with change Pressure to produce Level of ambiguity High* Low Low High Low High Out Change 12345 of 15 Pressure 12345 12345 ___ Score: Score: Score: *Note: High and Low anchors are reversed for this item. Degree to which Degree to which individuals are Level of internal executives resist rewarded for risk competition hearing bad news taking Out Change Low High Low High of 15 Culture Low High 12345 12345 12345 Score: Score: Score: Degree to which Degree to which Level of gaps that change decision situation is complex exist in diagnostic making is and fast changing measures decentralized Out Information Low High Low High of 15 Situation Low High 12345 12345 12345 Score: Score: Score: Total Score = Using scoring criteria consistent with that developed by Simon: If your score is between 9 and 20, you are in the safety zone. Between 21 and 34, you are in the cautionary zone. Between 35 to 45, you are in a danger zone. 1. Does the organization have an appropriate level of risk taking given the nature of the business it is in? Does it play it too safe, about right, or does it take excessive risks? 2. Does the approach help you in thinking about risk and what factors may be contributing to the overall risk levels? 3. Do the findings help you to think about what can be done to make the levels of risk more manageable? Source: Adapted from Simon, R. (1999). How risky is your company? Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 85–94. � Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 10.6 � Applying the DICE Model Consider a change initiative that you know is currently being considered for adoption and apply the DICE model to it. Duration: How frequently is the project formally reviewed? a. Time between project reviews is less than 2 months—1 point b. Time between project reviews is 2–4 months—2 points c. Time between project reviews is 4–8 months—3 points d. Time between project reviews is more than 8 months—4 points Duration Score = _____________________________________ Integrity: How capable is the project team leader? How capable and motivated are team members? Do they have the sufficient time to devote to the change? a. Leader is respected, team is capable and motivated, and members have sufficient time to commit to the project—1 point b. If leader or team is lacking on all these dimensions—4 points c. If leader and team are partially lacking on these dimensions—2 to 3 points Integrity of Performance Score: (Your Initial Score × 2) = Commitment of Senior Management: How committed is senior management to the project? Do they regularly communicate the reasons for the initiative and its importance? Do they convincingly communicate the message and their commitment? Is the commitment to the project shared by senior management? Have they committed sufficient resources to the project? a. If senior management clearly and consistently communicated the need for change and their support—1 point b. If senior management appears neutral—2 to 3 points c. If senior management is reluctant to support the change—4 points Senior Management Commitment Score: (Your Initial Score × 2) = Local Level Commitment: Do those employees most affected by the change understand the need and believe the change is needed? Are they enthusiastic and eager to get involved or concerned and resistant? a. If employees are eager to be engaged in the change initiative—1 point b. If they are willing but not overly keen—2 points c. If they are moderately to strongly reluctant to be engaged in the change—3 to 4 points Local Level Commitment Score = _____________________________________ Effort: What incremental effort is required of employees to implement the change? Will it be added on to an already heavy workload? Have employees expressed strong resistance to additional demands on them in the past? a. If incremental effort is less than 10%—1 point b. If incremental effort is 10% to 20%—2 points c. If incremental effort is 20% to 40%—3 points d. If incremental effort is greater than 40%—4 points Effort Score = _____________________________________________ To calculate your overall DICE score: Add the scores from the above: 1. What score did the change project receive? Was it in the low-risk category (7 to 14), the worry zone (between 14 and 17), or the high-risk area (over 17)? 2. Do the findings help you to think about important sources of risk to the success of the project? 3. Do the findings help you to think about what can be done to make the levels of risk more manageable? Source: Adapted from Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 108–118. � Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Omada Health: Making the Case for Digital Health By Erin E. Sullivan, Research Director, PhD, and Jessica L. Alpert, Researcher Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Adrian James and Sean Duffy’s founded Omada Health (Omada) in 2011 with the initial goal of using digital therapeutics and behavioral health interventions for patients with prediabetes. The data supporting this approach was strong: in 2002, the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomized control study concluded that the most effective treatment for prediabetes is prevention and behavioral intervention. However, James and Duffy observed a problematic gap between a surplus of data that confirmed the efficacy of intensive behavioral health counseling in diabetes, and the 86 million individuals with prediabetes who have not yet completed a DPP type program. James and Duffy believed that Omada’s digital approach to scaling a validated DPP program could resolve a critical need and increase access to DPP for patients with prediabetes. � Pioneering Digital Therapeutics and Digital BehaviorChange Although digital health often refers to health apps and products, James and Duffy were determined to design a service to guide participants through an interactive journey that was integrated into their everyday lives. As James asserted, The day that our participants see us as a health app is the day of obsolescence. In my smartphone I’ve got like 10 different health apps, many of which I never click on. We’re saturated in this world of tracking. If you go out and ask someone, “How meaningful are these apps to you?,” I think many would say that they are something they’re curious about and will try, but that they are not really baked into their lives. Above all, the core mission of the company was to empower people to take ownership over their health and to reduce their risk of disease. In keeping with this philosophy, they named their company, “Omada,” the Greek word for “group,” which was reflective of their desire to bring people together in a journey toward diabetes prevention. Some of the access barriers associated with in-person DPP were the time and expense required to travel to and attend these sessions. James and Duffy sought to mitigate these challenges and also asked themselves how they could engage individuals in a way that was scalable. The Omada DPP approach was a 16-week digital behavioral intervention that featured four core elements: educational modules and an evidence-based curriculum; health coaches; peer support and networking groups; and tools and food and activity trackers, which included a cell-chip enabled scale that automatically transmitted daily weigh-in data to Omada’s health coaches and data scientists. When individuals qualified for and joined the program, they accessed Omada’s platform using either its online web, or a smartphone interface. Omada’s DPP was split into two distinct phases: Foundations and Focus. Foundations: For the first 16 weeks, participants participated in the Foundations Phase. In this stage, participants completed weekly lessons designed to reinforce habits, communicated with their virtual group, led by a professional, full-time health coach. Additionally, participants privately worked with their coach to address individual challenges. In this phase, there were four four-week chapters covering nutrition and healthy eating, physical activity, managing environmental stressors and sleep. These chapters were aimed at reinforcing lifelong habits. Focus: After the Foundations Phase, participants entered the eight-month Focus Phase, during which they had continued access to their health coach, initial cohort, and weekly lessons. Participant groups were then merged into larger cohorts so that individuals could have access to a wider range of support and experiences. � Using Data to Drive Healthy Outcomes Omada aimed to collect measures in a way that was simplistic and effortless for participants, but also maintained clinical integrity and monitored clinically meaningful outcomes while doing so. The digital scale was easy for patients to use and served as a program integrity safeguard given that health coaches and data scientists instantly knew whether or not participants were weighing in. Consequently, Omada data scientists and health coaches were able to closely monitor any spikes in weight and then determine if the observed weight gain was an outlier or a sign that further intervention and health coaching was required. The health coach served as the “human touch” between the data scientists and participants, helping the scientists better understand user patterns and the nuances of the large data set they collected. To symbolically capture the dedication to outcomes and data, the Omada office featured a live map of patient weigh-ins from across the country. As of June 2017, the map amassed a cumulative total of 18 million weigh-ins. By thoughtfully collecting these measurements, the company increased compliance and therefore facilitated a more effective data collection process. Consistent with their evidence-driven beginnings, Omada was paid by their clients based on their outcomes. James and Duffy believed that this outcomes-based pricing model demonstrated their commitment to delivering results for participants and a return on investment for their clients, namely self-insured employers and a small number of health plans. As part of the program, Omada kept clients up to date on process via real-time, de-identified, aggregate reports. Furthermore, Omada published outcomes data to demonstrate program replicability. One study indicated that after 16 weeks, Omada participants lost 4–5% of their body weight and kept most of the weight off years after completing the program, thereby preventing the progression from prediabetes to diabetes over time. � The Challenge in Going to Scale In the summer of 2017, Omada was eagerly waiting for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to release the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule which would include the final rules for the Medicare Diabetes Prevention benefit. James and Duffy were hopeful for a favorable outcome, which would include telehealth and digital delivery of DPP programs. If CMS added these programs to the fee schedule, Omada planned to deliver their program to Medicare beneficiaries starting January 1, 2018. Ruminating on the possibilities, Duffy added that “it was an amazing moment because Medicare had the potential to influence private medical policies,” which would provoke others to say, “If Medicare is doing it, why don’t we?” Essentially, if Medicare started to pay for diabetes prevention, it would help catalyze activity and growth for Omada. In November 2017 the CMS revealed that it would reimburse for in-person DPP programs, but that it would not yet reimburse for telehealth and digital delivery of DPP programs. CMS asserted the reason was a lack of compelling evidence regarding clinical efficacy. This was not the decision that James and Duffy were hoping for and they had to quickly decide how to move the company forward. If you were James and Duffy, what are your next steps following CMS’s decision not to reimburse? What are the viable options or strategies for addressing CMS’s concerns regarding clinical efficacy? � 707 � Chapter Eleven The Future of Organizations and the Future ofChange Chapter Overview Individuals wishing to become organizational change agents need to recognize that two main routes exist: sophisticated technical specialists and strategic generalists with the former often leading to the latter. Several paradoxes in the field of organizational change are summarized. The chapter ends with a summary checklist of lessons in organizational change. Change is both normal and pervasive, and the capacity to lead and implement organizational change, denotes a skill set all managers need to possess. In summarizing the practical and theoretical approaches to organizational change, it is important to reiterate that the change process is rarely a straight path. You may begin the process of organizational change aiming at a particular vision and end up at some variation of the original goal. Change processes require adapting, compromising, reevaluating, and having an open mind, while at the same time remaining committed to the vision and persevering to see the change through. The process contains inherent paradoxes that must be managed, and the journey can be confusing and frustrating for both those trying to implement changes and those whose lives are affected by the changes. However, it also has the potential to energize and excite, provide focus and hope. It represents the path through which revitalization and renewal occurs, from smaller incremental modifications to those larger-scale transformational changes that need to be undertaken from time to time. � Change management is not something you simply deal with, then can ignore. Rather, it is a continuing process of seeking to understand what is going on and what is needed, undertaking initiatives with others, and learning from the experiences and outcomes achieved. The completion of one change sets the stage for the changes that lie ahead. In essence, change is the normal state and if an organization is not attempting to challenge the status quo, adapt, and improve, it’s likely undergoing less desirable forms of change—stagnation, atrophy, and decline. Developing your capacities to lead and manage this process increases your ability to add value and will enhance your career prospects. The search for talented individuals who can help make positive things happen will only intensify in the years ahead. The paces of change and rates of disruption are accelerating across virtually every sector. Bricks and mortar (i.e., retail) businesses such as Sears, Radio Shack, and Toys “R” Us provide vivid examples of what happens when you do not effectively adapt. However, no one is immune. That is why firms as successful as Unilever, IBM, GM, Walmart, McDonald’s, Scotiabank, and Facebook are aggressively pursuing initiatives that they hope will allow them to rapidly adapt, innovate, and scale successful new initiatives. They do not want to find themselves left behind, watching others eat their lunch. No organization—public, private or not-for-profit—that hopes to remain relevant and viable in the intermediate to long term can turn a blind eye to their emerging challenges and opportunities. Hospitals, government departments and agencies, school boards, universities, and charities are all grappling with these realities. � Putting the Change Path Model IntoPractice The Change Path Model has provided an organizing framework for this book, and it is presented in its summary form in Figure 11.1. This model argues that change agents move systematically from analyses that stimulate interest in change and awaken the organization, through to mobilization, acceleration, and institutionalization of the change. A summary checklist for change is presented at the end of this chapter. An important modification has been made to this final presentation of the model. An arrow has been added that links the fourth phase back to the first to reflect that the enactment of one set of changes sets the stage for the next ones. It’s an ongoing process whose intensity will vary, depending upon the situation, the people, and the magnitude of what is being undertaken. There is no question that we need to rest and reenergize from time to time, celebrate what we’ve accomplished, and become fully competent in extracting the benefits the changes make possible. But then it’s on to the next challenges. We can’t change the past, but what we choose to do (or not do) now can change the future. If we choose to do nothing but more of the same—you get the picture! � Future Organizations and TheirImpact Barkema argues that in the future all organizations will need to be global in orientation.1 Small- and medium-sized firms will access global markets through the Internet in low-cost/high-informationtransmission ways. Others will form organizational networks, partnering with others to complete the value chain. Some will be large, focused global firms with worldwide activities. Barkema states that organizations will have autonomous, dislocated teams. That is, organizations, large or small, will require motivated teams to coordinate their activities across borders and cultures. At the same time, structures will be “digitally enabled.” They will have the electronic systems to facilitate coordination. Scanning systems will transmit sales data from stores and warehouses anywhere to manufacturing facilities in real time and will be used to determine future production levels. Personal communications devices such as the iPhone and other smartphones will mean that people can communicate any time, all the time. Such dispersed systems facilitated by almost instantaneous communications will make it easy for competitors to respond to each other’s actions. The world will move fast. We can readily see signs of this increased speed. Figure 11.1 The Change Path Model � Such changes will mean that organizations will need loose/tight controls both within and between firms. Inside organizations, critical strategic variables should be closely monitored and controlled. Visions will be articulated and adhered to. At the same time, rapid environmental shifts will demand local responses that will vary by region as well as responses that are broad in their geographic reach. What works in one country won’t necessarily work in another. Think of the regional differences in the formulation of branded products such as Coke and McDonald’s and this reality becomes clear. Maharaja burgers and separate � vegetarian and non-vegetarian kitchens are found in McDonald’s restaurants in India, but not the U.S. Managers will need to have the autonomy and the capacity (skills, abilities, and resources) to effectively recognize and respond to local needs and conditions, but they will need to do so within the boundaries that are acceptable to the firm. Between organizations, networks of firms will be linked to allow for needed information exchange. What is shared will vary from the purely transactional to the strategic, depending on the levels of trust and intimacy existing between firms. At the same time, these firms will maintain their independence on key strategic dimensions viewed as proprietary and/or sources of competitive advantage critical to their long-term success. Galbraith suggests that strategy and structure of organizations will continue to be closely tied.2 Organizations will come in an enormous variety of forms and complexities. AI (artificial intelligence systems) and robots are taking over straightforward work that is repetitive and easily understood and these systems will become more sophisticated and capable over time. The key management tasks will involve innovation and the mastering of complexity. Galbraith classifies potential strategies and suggests matching structures. According to Galbraith, organizations in the 21st century will become increasingly customer oriented and focused. In the customer-oriented organization, organizations will have three major organizational parts: business units, international regions, and customer accounts. These parts will be linked with lateral processes: teams and networks. Focused organizations will have subunits focused on different key criteria: costs, products, or customers. Malone argues that tomorrow’s organizations will have the benefits of both large and small organizations.3 Digital technologies will enable economics of scale and knowledge creation while preserving the freedom, creativity, motivation, and flexibility of small organizations. There will be a shift from � traditional centralized hierarchies to organizations of loose hierarchies, democracies, and markets—like organizations. Loose hierarchy example: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anybody can edit and when errors occur, others will spot and correct them Democracy examples: W. L. Gore, where you become a manager by finding people who want to work for you, or Mondragon, where employees elect a board of directors to make decisions Market example: An Intel proposal where plant managers propose to sell futures on what they produce and salespeople buy futures for products they want to sell. Prices fluctuate and will determine what products get produced at what plants and who gets to sell the products. The above is suggestive of how organizations will evolve in the future. As a result of these and other trends, organizational change and change agents will need to shift as well. Table 11.1 summarizes these potential changes. The table suggests that change agents will need both a set of generalist capabilities providing basic competencies as well as change skills oriented around critical technical competencies. Table 11.1 The Impact of Organizational Trends on Organizational Change and Change Agents Table 11.1 The Impact of Organizational Trends on Organizational Change and Change Agents Organizational Trends Organizational Change Change Agent Globalization —be big, or specialized, otherwise be acquired, Strategic global perspective for both large firms and niche SMEs Pattern finder Vision developer and framer � Organizational Trends Organizational Change Change Agent squeezed, or Knowledge of Organizational analyst eliminated networks and emergent and aligner Virtual and organizational Mobilizer, empowerment networked forms specialist, enabler, organizations increasingly important enactor Loose/tight Disintegrator and controls Knowledge and risk integrator 24/7 response management: Corporate gadfly and requirement ability to use trend surfer Cost and quality focus, outsourcing and supply chain rationalization Crowd sourcing for crowd sourcing, online communities, and big data to enhance knowledge creation, innovation, and risk management Generalist capacities: facilitation, influencing, negotiating and visioning skills; project management expertise Specialist roles, related to expertise needed for specific change capital, innovation, and talent Use of big data, algorithms, and artificial Web-enabled communication, change-related blogs, fast response capacity with a human face initiatives. For example, software system integration, customer relationship management, flexible manufacturing, organizational integration followingintelligence (AI) to inform decision making Shorten product life Negotiation and the development and leveraging of networks to enhance quality, cost leadership, acquisition Capacity to develop and sustain the trust and confidence of multiple stakeholders cycles and � Organizational Trends Organizational Change Change Agent increase in customer expectations Influential online communities spreading information access Increasing focus on integrated customer services and knowledge management Rapid technological change fundamentally alters industry structures, in terms of both the “what” and the “how” Changing demographic, social, and cultural environment Political changes and/or customer focus Creativity, innovation, and rapid deployment capacity Increased importance of agility, empowerment, teams, community engagement, and a strong process focus Increased importance of AI, robotics, new materials, new processes and the internet of things (IOT) in the creation of goods and services. � Organizational Trends Organizational Change Change Agent realign international alliances and the competitive environment In summary, those involved with organizational change need to develop a strong strategic and global perspective; knowledge of networks and emergent organizational forms and how they work; skills in risk management and knowledge management; understanding of the impact of Web-enabled communication, the use of social media in advancing external and internal change, and fast response capacity; the ability to communicate worldwide while maintaining a human face; perceptiveness of different cultures and norms, and how these factors affect organizational change; and the capacity to create, deploy, and work with empowered teams with the right mix of skills and abilities, operating with a focused vision. The teams’ boundaries come from the vision and agreed-to expectations concerning performance, modes of operation, and other predefined standards and shared commitments. These capacities will apply to both co-located and virtual teams. � Becoming an Organizational ChangeAgent: Specialists and Generalists For many change agents, their initial involvement begins when they are asked to participate in a change initiative—often as a member of a team—due to their particular technical skills, past performance, and interest they have demonstrated in change initiatives. If the change involves the deployment of new sales support software, for example, individuals with appropriate technical competencies concerning both the software’s implementation and the nature of the sales process will need to be involved with the project. Over time, though, the careers of change agents tend to evolve in two different ways: those who are technically oriented in their change skills, and those who possess more generalist change agent skills. The careers of technically oriented change agents will be characterized by projects of increasing size and complexity in their areas of technical expertise. For instance, if their educational background was in computer programming, their initial involvement could be the provision of training for corporate users of a system upgrade. Over time, as their expertise grows, these change agents will find themselves taking on bigger and more sophisticated technical change challenges. At their peak, individuals who began their careers providing computer training will have become respected change experts in large-scale software system integration projects. Technically oriented change specialists will require some competence in more general change-management skills, such as gap analysis, communication of vision, and interpersonal skills; however, it will be their technical change-management expertise that will be sought after when an initiative lies within their domain —be it software, merger integration, or foreign market development. Individuals pursuing this career path will often be found in consulting firms that specialize in their areas of expertise. � The careers of more general management-oriented change agents are characterized by a shift away from a technically focused path, as they work to develop change-management skills that are appropriate for a wider variety of situations. Those who choose to orient their development around general change- management skills may initially start their careers in technical and functional change management. However, over time, these individuals will develop increasingly sophisticated general change- management competencies associated with the Change Path Model. As a result, they will find themselves undertaking diverse challenges of increasing complexity, from turning around a poorly performing division to ramping up an operation to cope with growth, restructuring and integrating merged operations, or tackling cultural changes needed to increase organizational effectiveness in emerging markets. To be successful, organizations need access to individuals with both technical and more general change-management competencies. At times, certain change skills will be more important than others for obvious reasons, but the management of complex change initiatives benefit from having access to both perspectives and is further aided when the change agents involved respect this need, recognize each other’s skills and abilities, and understand what each of them is able to contribute to the initiative. Figure 11.2 outlines these two broad career paths. An additional complexity to consider in the area of change management was noted in Chapters 1 and 8. Some change agents orient their careers around incremental change initiatives while others orient themselves around the management of more disruptive changes. Once again, it is not a matter of either/or as to which orientation is best. At different points in time, organizations will need access to both of these skill sets. When change agents with different orientations respect and value these differences in approach and recognize what each can contribute, the interests of change are advanced. � Paradoxes in Organizational Change The field of organizational change has a set of underlying paradoxes that change agents struggle with. Just as quantum physics considers an electron as both a particle and a wave,* some aspects of organizational change have two perspectives. Both aspects are important and neither should be rejected. * Under certain circumstances, the electron looks like a particle and has the characteristics of a particle (mass, solidity, etc.). Under other circumstances, the electron seems to be a wave. It has a frequency and other wave characteristics. This paradox is only resolved by accepting an electron as both. First, the management of organizations will become more complex as the strategic focus of organizations develops a global perspective. Organizational change will need tools and processes that encourage the systematic management of a wide number of elements (organizational systems, structures, cultures, leadership, technology, etc.) while maintaining the speed of change. Clearly a challenge will be to handle complexity without being overwhelmed and frozen by it. Organizational change as a field needs to handle the paradox of how to maintain the momentum of change (something that may require simplification) while not dismissing the complexity of an organization’s environment. Figure 11.2 Organizational Change Agents’ Skills � A second paradox involves an organization’s need to be simultaneously centralized and decentralized. Organizations must be centralized to have singularity of strategy, yet also decentralized so that they can remain competitive by responding agilely to changes in the environment. Organizational change agents need to learn how to help organizations understand this paradox and to evolve mechanisms to handle this tension. As organizational leaders become skilled in promoting decentralized initiatives, they will face the challenge of handling multiple change initiatives simultaneously. Change agents need to consider which change initiatives will block or run counter to others and which ones will support and facilitate others. Interaction effects are not always self-apparent, and sometimes initiatives that look like they are supportive of other activities in the short run may have adverse consequences over the long term. How can change leaders help an organization institutionalize one project while continuing multiple other ones, and how can they assist in identifying and managing unintended side effects? Organizational change involves both incremental/continuous and radical/discontinuous change. Depending on how rapidly the � environment is changing, organizations may need to engage in both kinds of change. The challenge for change agents will be to develop adaptive, flexible organizations while simultaneously engaging in radical organizational change when it is needed. Organizational change agents need to develop insights into this paradox. Finally, the digital world and the rise of the knowledge worker may shift the territory of organizational change from a hierarchical frame to a democratic, participative one. But the essence of many change projects is a new direction that, in the end, is mandated, non-democratically, from above. Most change projects need input from rank-and-file employees but also need some degree of central direction and management. The tension between participative involvement of many and the pressure to drive change from the top of an organization creates potential paradoxes.† † Organizational change will need to be prepared to use and respond to various social media platforms that discuss openly the issues surrounding change initiatives. Can change leaders accept and deal positively with open criticism that may show up on such media? Given these paradoxes, change agents must develop a positive orientation to change that permits them to deal with inherent contradictions. � Orienting Yourself to OrganizationalChange Everyone who is a member of an organization will participate in organizational change. Change is a part of living, and opportunities will emerge that involve you in various roles. Sometimes your involvement will be mandated, whereas at other times you may choose to seek it out, or your change roles may evolve naturally over time. Sometimes you will be asked to take on the role of change leader; become a member of a team implementing the change; take on an advisory role; or, you may find yourself a recipient of a change initiative. Sometimes you will be able to exercise choice as to what roles you play in the change initiative, whereas at other times this will not be the case. As you experience organizational change from whatever role you find yourself in, the following advice will help you deal with it more effectively. 1. Gain perspective and insight by recognizing the dynamism and complexity of your organization. What connections exist between parts and how do they work? 2. Recognize that people’s perceptions are critical. The perception of benefits and costs determines a person’s reaction to a change proposal. 3. Understand that your perception is only one of many. Your view is neither right nor wrong. It is just your point of view of how things are. 4. Gather people as you go. There are multiple ways to achieve your change (even when you are starting as a recipient), but the ways that bring others with you are easier and more fun. And remember, people can’t rock the boat when they are busy rowing. 5. Pull people toward you with a powerful change vision. Push people through argument and rewards when you need to, but gain support through their hearts. 6. Get active in pursuit of your vision. If you do something, you will get responses, and you can learn from those. Not doing � anything cuts you off from learning. 7. Have a plan oriented around your vision. Having an explicit plan means your thinking can be discussed and challenged. Know that your plan won’t last and will require modification when you start implementing it, but it will be useful in starting a discussion and gaining commitment. 8. Do things that are positive. Actions that suck energy from you and the system are difficult to sustain. Growing your energy as a change agent is important. 9. To start meaningful change, you need only a few believers. To continue, you need to develop momentum until a critical mass of key participants is onside. Some will never join in, and that’s OK, unless they attempt to sabotage or otherwise disrupt agreed to initiatives. 10. There are many routes to your goal. Find the ones with the least resistance that still allow you to proceed with integrity. Summary That’s it. It’s an evolving list and its further development is up to you. You’ve been reading and thinking about how to develop your skills as an agent of change. It’s time to deploy those ideas; see what works when, where, why, and how; and learn as you go. No excuses. If you want to make things happen, you will have to learn to live with the frustration, excitement, uncertainty, loneliness, and personal development that come with being a change agent. The learning lies in the journey, while joy, a sense of accomplishment, and feelings of fulfillment accompany the completion of milestones and the realization of changes that have a positive impact on the lives of others. See Toolkit Exercise 11.1 for critical thinking questions on this chapter. And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. —Anaïs Nin � End-of-Chapter Exercises � Toolkit Exercise 11.1 1. Choose a recent CNN Hero: think about how they managed to create change. https://www.cnn.com/specials/cnn-heroes How did the person you chose create successful change? What inspired them to take on the change? Imagine in 10 years you become a CNN Hero. What story will they tell about you? 2. Look also at the We Day website. Consider the vision and success of Craig and Marc Kielburger in their various endeavors. How were the Kielburgers able to create such sweeping change at such a young age? What challenges do you think they may have faced, and how did they overcome them? How are the youth involved in “We Day” working to create change? What is it that you want to change? Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � Toolkit Exercise 11.2 � Developing Your Change Plan This toolkit exercise applies the tools from all chapters and asks you to develop a complete change plan for a change you want to make happen. As a first step, develop your statement of the need for change and your vision for the change. Once the need for change and vision has been articulated, your assignment is to begin the development of an action plan for the change. This will be broken into four parts: a. The development of a sequence of action steps and the arrangement of them into a critical path with a clearly defined end goal, intermediate targets, and specific first step. b. The consideration of contingencies—what might go wrong? How will these things be handled? c. A responsibility chart, that is, who will do what, where, when, and how? d. A transition plan including a communications plan. How will the transition be managed? Who will make the innumerable decisions required to handle the details? Who will provide information to those affected? As well, how will the change be communicated to organizational members? � The Action Plan Begin the development of an action plan. What are the critical steps that must be accomplished? Arrange your action steps in sequence. Can some be done simultaneously? What activities cannot begin or should not start until others are completed? What timelines should you observe? Often it is useful to begin at the end of the project and work backward to now. Who needs to become committed to the project? Where are key players at on the adoption continuum? Are they even aware of the change? If aware, are they interested or have they moved beyond that stage to either desiring action or having already adopted? What will it take to move them along the continuum in the direction of adoption? � The AIDA Continuum Key Player Name Aware? Interested? Desires Action? Adopter? What is the commitment to the adoption of those who have reached the adopter stage? That is, are they at the “let it happen” stage, the “help it happen” stage, or the “make it happen” stage? How can the commitment levels of key stakeholders be increased? � Responsibility Charting4 Actions or Decisions Person #1 Person #2 Person #3 Person #? Action #1 Action #2 Decision #1 Action #3 . . . . . Who will do what, where, when, and how? Often a responsibility chart can be useful to track these things. Coding: R = Responsibility (not necessarily authority) A = Approval (right to veto) S = Support (put resources toward) I = Inform (to be consulted before action) Note that if there are a great number of As on your chart, implementation will be difficult. Care must be taken to assign As only when appropriate. Likewise, if there are not enough Rs and Ss, you will need to think about changes needed here and how to bring them about. Formulate a transition plan including a communications plan. How will the transition be managed? Who will make the innumerable decisions required to handle the details? Who will provide information to those affected? As well, how will the change be communicated to organizational members? � The Measurement of Change How will you know that your goal or change project is successfully implemented? (At times, success will be obvious—e.g., a new system in place. At other times, success will be more difficult to measure—e.g., attitudes toward the adoption and acceptance of a new system.) What intermediate signals will indicate that you are making progress? What is the first step or sequence of steps? Your end goal is: You can measure it by: Intermediate measures and milestones are: The first step is: � Contingency Planning Remember O’Brien’s Law‡? Well, it holds, and things will not go as planned. But you can plan for the unexpected. ‡ O’Brien’s Law states Murphy was an optimist. What are the critical decision points? Who makes those decisions? What will you do if the decision or event does not go as planned? What plans can you make to account for these contingencies? If you can, draw a decision tree of the action plan and lay out the decision–event sequence. Please see study.sagepub.com/cawsey4e for a downloadable template of this exercise. � 734 � Notes � Chapter 1 1.Ebner, D. (2018, July 11). Tim Hortons plans 1,500-store China expansion. The Globe and Mail, Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-tim-hortonsplans- 1500-store-china-expansion/. 2.Strauss, M. (2014, February 25). Tim Hortons brewing “bold” changes. Globe Investor, Retrieved from http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/WireFeedRedirect? cf=GlobeInvestor/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=2014 0225&archive=rtgam&slug=escenic_17078297. Press releases from Tim Hortons’ website, retrieved from http://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/about/news_archives.html; Dunkin‘ brands announces strong global growth in 2013. Corporate press release, January 13, 2014. Retrieved from http://investor.dunkinbrands.com/releasedetail.cfm? ReleaseID=818737. Team, T. Examining Dunkin’ Brands growth strategy. (2017, June 22). Forbes. Sourced from https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/06/22/exami ning-duncan-brands-growth-strategy/#55ddb5081c95. 3.A version of this quote can be found on p. 55 in Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler. 4.Miles, R. H. (1997). Leading corporate transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 5.Personal experience of the authors. 6.Appelbaum, S. H., Henson, D., & Knee, K. (1999). Downsizing failures: An examination of convergence/reorientation and antecedents—processes—outcomes. Management Decision, 37(6), 473–490. 7.Sourced from http://www.ziglar.com/quotes/its-how-you-handleit. � 8.The Conference Board of Canada. (2000, November). 2000 change management conference: Increasing change capability. See also Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121–151. Porter O’Grady, T. (2015, June).Through the looking glass: Predictive and adaptive capacity in a time of great change. Nursing Management, 46(6), 22. Bloomberg, J. (2016, June 16). Change as core competency: Transforming the role of enterprise architect. Forbes. Sources from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2016/06/16/changeas- core-competency-transforming-the-role-of-the-enterprisearchitect/# 33d23ff2164a. 9.The 100 best places to work for 2017. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/best-companies/2017. 10.Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). Knowing “what” to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action. California Management Review, 42(1), 83–108. 11.Maynard, M. (2010, April 5). U.S. is seeking a fine of $16.4 million against Toyota. New York Times. 12.GM ignition switch recall lawsuits. (2014, April 1). About Lawsuits.com. Retrieved from http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/gmrecall/; GM seeks immunity for ignition lawsuits before 2009. (2014, April 22). Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gm-seeks-immunity-for-ignitionlawsuits- before-2009–1.2617417; Bellon, T. (January 19, 2018). GM ignition switch lawsuit. Judge throws out $1 billion settlement. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.autoblog.com/2018/01/19/gm-ignition-switch-lawsuitjudge- settlement/ 13.How to play chicken and lose. (2009, January 22). The Economist. 14.Meltdown warnings ignored, analysis shows. (2008, December 1). CBS News. Retrieved from � http://www.cbsnews.com/news/meltdown-warnings-ignoredanalysis- shows/. 15.Demography: China’s Achilles heel. (2012, April 12). The Economist; Germany’s demographic challenge. (2013, May 28). The Economist; Demography, growth and inequality: Age invaders. (2014, April 26). The Economist; Japan’s economy: The incredible shrinking country. (2014, May 31). The Economist; Age invaders. (2014, April 26). The Economist. 16.Sovereign creditworthiness could be undermined by age- related spending trends. (2006, June 5). Standard & Poor’s. Retrieved from http://www.standardandpoors.com. 17.Global Aging 2016: 58 Shades of Gray.(2016, April 28). Standard and Poor’s. Retrieved from http://www.agefiactifs.com/sites/agefiactifs.com/file/fichiers/2016__ 58_shades_of_grey_28_april_16.pdf. 18.Chapter 2, Aging in the U.S. and other countries, 2010 to 2050. (2014, January 30). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://ww.pewglobal.org/2014/01/30/chapter-2-aging-in-the-u-sand- other-countries-2010-to-2050/. Half a billion Americans? (2002, August 22). The Economist. 19.Mounting medical care spending could be harmful to the G20’ s credit health. (2012, January 26). Standard & Poor’s. Retrieved from http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/eu/? articleType=HTML&assetID=1245328578642; Sovereign credit worthiness could be undermined by age-related spending trends. (2006, June 5). Standard & Poor’s. Retrieved from http://www.standardandpoors.com. 20.Falling fertility. (2009, October 31). The Economist, pp. 29–32. 21.The gain before the pain: Mexico’s demographic dividend will be short-lived. (2012, November 24). The Economist; China’s concern over population aging and health. (2006, June). Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2006/ChinasConcernOver � PopulationAgingandHealth.aspx; Ranasinghe, D. (2013, September 22).The aging in Asia face a new decade like no other. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/101045746. 22.The dividend delayed: Hopes that Africa’s dramatic population bulge may create prosperity seem to have been overdone. (2014, March 8). The Economist. Falling fertility. (2009, October 31). The Economist, pp. 29–32. 23.Everyday essentials, or emerging consumer? (2018, June 300. BMO Global Asset Management. Retrieved from http://www.bmo.com/gam/us/capaigns/emerging-consumer. 24.Supporting aging populations as demographics shift. (2011, June 10). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/NEW061011A. htm; Davis, I., &Stephenson, E. (2006). Ten trends to watch in 2006. McKinsey Quarterly; The Online Journal. Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_print.aspx? 12=18&L3=30&ar=1734; Drouin, J., Hediger, V., & Henke, N. (2008, June). Health care costs: A market-based view. McKinsey Quarterly. 25.Revell, J. (2002). GM’s slow leak. Fortune, 146(8), 105; Why GM’s plan won’t work—and the ugly road ahead. (2005, May 9). Business Week Online. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001 _mz001.htm; Maynard, M. (2008, March 7). GM to freeze pension plan for salaried workers. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/automobiles/08auto.html. 26.Keenam, G. (2018, May 3). GM still facing huge pension shortfall. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.globeandmail.com/report-on-business-/gm-still-faceshugepension- shortfall/article547942/. Number of GM employeesbetween FY2010 and FY2017.Statistica. Retrieved from http://www.statistia.com/statistics/239843/employees-ofgeneral- motors/. 27.The silver tsunami. (2010, February 4). The Economist. � 28.A billion shades of grey: An ageing economy will be a slower and more unequal one—unless policy starts changing now. (2014, April 26). The Economist. 29.Kelleher, J. B. (2013, June 21). Analysis: As boomers age, Harley hunts for younger riders.Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-harley davidsonboomers- analysis-idUSBRE95K0GU20130621; Marketing to the old. (2002, August 8). The Economist. 30.Haserot, P.W. (2017, April 5). The cost of ignoring older workers. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/04/05/the-cost-ofignoring- p;der-workers/#35d3a1d614e5. Hannon, K. (2013, January 25). Why older workers can’t be ignored. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryhannon/2013/01/25/why-olderworkers- cant-be-ignored/. 31.Sedensky, M. (2013, September 13). Some employers see perks in hiring older workers, AP. Retrieved from Yahoo! News: http://news.yahoo.com/employers-see-perks-hiring-older-workers144536527— finance.html. 32.Krogstad, J.M., & Lopez, M.H. (2015, June 25). Hispanic population reaches record 55 million but growth has cooled. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/facttank/ 2015/06/25/u-s-hispanic-popuation-growth-surge-cools/. Ennis, S. R., Rios-Vargs, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011, May). The Hispanic population in 2010, 2010 census brief. United States Census Bureau, Publication C2010BR-04; Suro, R., & Singer, A. (2002). Latino growth in metropolitan America. Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy and The Pew Hispanic Center, The Brookings Institution; Saenz, R. (2010, December). Population bulletin update: Latinos in the United States 2010. Population Reference Bureau, Update 2010. 33.Suro, R., & Singer, A. (2002). Latino growth in metropolitan America (Table 4, p. 9). Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Pew Hispanic Center, The Brookings Institution. � 34.Haparanda. (2018, June 30). Panic Attack: Confusion over immigration and crime is roiling European politics. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/06/30/confusion-overimmigration- and-crime-is-roiling-european-politics. 35.Erlanger, S. (2011, April 11). France enforces ban on full-face veils in public. New York Times; Seguin, R. (2014, January 21). Quebec Liberals stake out new position on PQ’s secular charter. Globe and Mail. 36.Sam becomes first openly gay player to the drafted. (2014, May 10). Reuters. Retrieved from https://ca.news.yahoo.com/sam-becomes-leagues-first-openlygay- player-ever-225731321—nfl.html?.tsrc=yahoo. 37.Bauder, D. (2018, September 29). More than 20 million people watched Kavanaugh Hearing. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-20-million-people-watched212701544. html. 38.Florida, R. (2012, June 27). Race, gender, and the creative class. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/06/racegender- and-creative-class/2225/; Race, gender and careers: Why “stuffing the pipeline” is not enough. (2012, September 7). Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2012/09/07/race-gender-and-careerswhy- stuffing-the-pipeline-is-not-enough/. 39.Almasy, S. (2014, May 20). NBA charges Donald Sterling, schedules June 3 vote. CNN U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/19/us/donald-sterling-nba/index.html. 40.Meyersohn, N. (2018. July 27). Disneyland agrees to pay its workers $15 an hour. CNN Money. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/news/companies/disneylandworkers- pay-15-an-hour/index.html; Glatter, H. (2018, June 21). Massachusetts Legislature Passes Bill for $15 Minimum Wage. Boston Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2018/06/21/massachusett s-15-minimum-wage/. � 41.Rubin, C. (2010, November 8). Labor board backs workers’ right to bad-mouth bosses online. Inc. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/11/NLRB-backsemployees- right-to-gripe-about-bosses-online.html; Bacon, J. (2013, December 5). Fast-food worker strike, protest for higher pay. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/fastfood- strike-wages/3877023/. 42.Young, C. (2014, March 27). Food firm disgusted by employee’s racist posting. Bradford News. Retrieved from http://m.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11107456.Police_probe _racist_Facebook_posting_after_mum_s_suicide_at_Shipley_sup er market/. 43.See TD’s corporate responsibility section of their website: http://www.td.com/corporate-responsibility/diversity/diversity.jsp. 44.Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 98–109. 45.Mendoza, M. (2014, May 29). Google admits its work force is mostly white, male and must change. Associated Press via the Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.the globeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/usbusiness/ google-says-work-force-must-diversify-as-tally-showsmost- are-white-male/article18903708/#dashboard/follows/. McGirt, E. (2017, February 1, 2017). Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/google-diversity/. 46.Gabrielsson, M., & Manek Kirpalani, V. H. (2014). Handbook of research on born globals. Edward Elgar Pub.; Friedrich, J., Noam, A., & Ofek, E. (2014, May). Right up the middle: How Israeli firms go global. Harvard Business Review. 47.Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2006). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—and how you can too. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. � 48.Flavelle, C. (2018, October 6). Miami will be underwater soon. Its drinking water could go first. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/miami-will-be-underwatersoon- its-drinking-water-could-go-first/ar-BBO16VR? ocid=spartandhp. 49.Kurucz, E., Colbert, B., & Wheeler, D. (2013). Reconstructing value: Leadership skills for a sustainable world. Rotman-Utp Publishing; Rea, M. H. (2013). Kim, B-J., Nurunnabi, M., Kim, TH.& Jung, S-J. (2018, 10) 2208. The influence of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: The sequential mediating effect of meaningfulness of work and perceived organizational support. Sustainability. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2208. Review of sustainability reporting in South Africa 2013. IRAS Integrated Reporting and Assurance Services; Deszca, G. (2014, May 2). Lessons from South Africa on sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and strategy. LeadingIndicator. Retrieved from http://www.leadingindicator.ca/article/478074/lessons-from-southafrica- on-sustainability-corporate-social-responsibility-and. 50.Volkswagen emissions scandal. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal. 51.The data deluge. (2010, February 25). The Economist; Gantz, J., & Reinsel, D. (2012, December). The digital universe in 2020: Big data, bigger digital shadows, and biggest growth in the far east. IDC IVEW. Retrieved from http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-the-digitaluniverse- in-2020.pdf. 52.Tynan, D. (2012, March 19). How to get a hot job in big data. InfoWorld. Retrieved from http://www.infoworld.com/t/it-jobs/howget- hot-job-in-big-data-188629?page=0,0. 53.The next disrupters. (2007, September). Business 2.0. 54.Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., & Marrs, A. (2013, May). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from � http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive _technologies. 55.2016 international air travel soared to 3.7 billion passengers, a new record. (2012, December 18). US Global ETFs. Retrieved from http://www.usglobaletfs.com/insights/2016-international-airtravel- soared-to-3-7billion-passengersa-new-record. 56.Yergin, D., & Stanislaw, J. (2002). The commanding heights: The battle for the world economy. New York: Touchstone, 405. 57.List of countries by number of mobile phones in use. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobi le_phones_in_use. 58.Number of smart phone users worldwide from 2014–2020. Statista. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com.330695/numberof- smartphone-users-worldwide/. Lomas, N. (2014, February 13). Gartner: Smartphones sales finally beat out dumb phone sales globally in 2013. TC (TechCrunch). Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/smartphones-outsell-dumbphones- globally/. 59.Morse, J. (2018, September 28). Facebook: 50 million accounts “directly affected” by hack. Yahoo! News. Retrieved from https://ca.news.yahoo.com/facebook-50-milion-accounts-could172938933. html. 60.(2017, June 30). Online fraudcosts public billions but is still not a police priority, says watchdog. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://the guardian.com/uk-news/2017/june/30/online-costs-publicbillions- but-is-still-not-a-police-priority-says-watchdog. Pagliery, J. (2014, May 28). Half of American adults hacked this year. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/28/technology/security/hack-databreach/ index.html?hpt=hp_t3; Ponemon Institute releases 2014 cost of data breach: Global analysis (2014, May 5). Retrieved from http://www.ponemon.org/blog/ponemon-institute-releases2014- cost-of-data-breach-global-analysis; Skimming off the top. (2014, February 15). The Economist. Retrieved from � http://www.economist.com/news/finance-andeconomics/ 21596547-why-america-has-such-high-rate-paymentcard- fraud-skimming-top. 61.Finkle, J. (2014, May 22). Hackers raid eBay in historic breach, access 145 million records. Reuters. Retrieved from http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/uk-ebay-passwordidUKKBN0E10ZL20140522; Isadore, C. (2014, January 11).Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers.CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/targethacking/ index.html; Mullen, R. (2005, March 11). Security issues lurking beyond VOIP’s cost saving promise. Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/03/14/s mallb3.html; Foster, P., & Moore, M. (2014, May 19). US charges Chinese officers with hacking and opens new front in cyberespionage war. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10842484/ US-charges-Chinese-officers-with-hacking-and-opens-new-frontin- cyber-espionage-war.html. 62.Violino, B. (2004, July). Fortifying supply chains. Optimize, pp. 73–75. Retrieved from http://www.optimizemag.com/article/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=22101759. 63.Daigle, K. (2011, October 6). India unveils $35 tablet computer for the rural poor. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/india-unveils35- tablet-computer-for-rural-poor-20111005–11aao.html. 64.Melore,.C. (2017, November 15). Online dating the most common way newlyweds met in 2017, survey says. CBS Pittsburg. Retrieved from http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/online-datingnewlyweds. 2017/. Sleep texting is on the rise, experts suggest. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/sleep-texting-on-therise_ n_2677739.html. � 65.La Monica, P.R. (2018, September 28). Blackberry’s comeback continues. CNN Tech. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2018/09/28/technology/blackberry-earningsjohn- chen/index.html. Silcoff, S., McNish, J., & Ladurantaye, S. (2013, September 27). How BlackBerry blew it: The inside story. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-insidestory- of-why-blackberry-isfailing/ article14563602/#dashboard/follows/. 66.(2016, June 15). 10 million self-driving cars will be on the road by 2020. Business Insider Intelligence, BI Intelligence. Retrieved from http://businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-driving-carswill- be-on-the-road-by-2020-2015-5-6. Markoff, J. (2014, May 27). Google’s next phase in driverless cars: No steering wheel or brake pedals. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/technology/googles-nextphase- in-driverless-cars-no-brakes-or-steering-wheel.html? ref=technology&_r=0. 67.Others believe otherwise. Note the protests whenever the WTO meets, for example. 68.False heaven. (1999, July 29). The Economist. 69.Farrell, D., Khanna, T., Sinha, J., & Woetzel, J. R. (2004). China and India: The race to growth. McKinsey Quarterly, Special Edition, 110–119. 70.(2017) Chapter III: World trade and GDP growth in 2016 and early 2017. World Trade Organization. Retrieved from http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/stats_e/wts2017_e/WTO_03_e.p df. 71.Speed is not everything. (2013, January 2). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2013/01/fastestgrowing- economies-2013. 72.Transparency International Secretariat. (2002). Transparency international corruption perceptions index 2002. 10585 Berlin, � Germany: Ott-Suhr-Allee, 97–99. 73.Transparency International Secretariat. (2002). Bribe payers’ index. 10585 Berlin, Germany: Otto-Suhr-Allee, 97–99; Wawro, L. (2014, March 31). Arms deals in the dark: Secret contracts in the defense sector. Transparency International. Retrieved from http://blog.transparency.org/2014/03/31/arms-deals-in-the-darksecret- contracts-in-the-defence-sector/; Corruption perceptions index 2013. (2013, December 3). Transparency International. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/cpi_2013. 74.Lawrence, A. (2007, Winter). Hewlett-Packard and a common supplier code of conduct. Case Research Journal; Siegle, L. (2013, October 6). How ethical are high-street clothes? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/06/ethical-highstreet- clothes-supply-chain-bangladesh; Strauss, M. (2013, April 25). Loblaw moves to improve safety at Bangladeshi factories. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/loblawmoves- to-improve-safety-at-bangladeshifactories/ article11563889/#dashboard/follows/. 75.Siemens sees green tech driving economic growth. (2009, August). Industry Week. 76.Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2010). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Crown (a division of Random House); Senge, P., & Carstedt, G. (2001). Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution. Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 24–38. 77.For an example of these arguments, see Wooldridge, A. A future imperfect: Why globalization went wrong. (2017, June 30). TEDxLondonBusinssSchool. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agjGFwpTFaM. 78.Where have all your savings gone? (2008, December 4). The Economist. � 79.Personal communication with one author. 80.Amadeo, K. National debt by year, compared to GDP and major events. (2019, April 6). The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-togdp- and-major-events-3306287. 81.When giants slow down. (2013, July 27). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582257-mostdramatic- and-disruptive-period-emerging-market-growth-worldhas- ever-seen; The hard slog ahead. The world in 2010. (2009, December). The Economist. 82.What is Cbina’s one belt and one road initiative? (2017, May 15) The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/the-economistexplains/ 2017/05/14/what-is-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative. China goes to Africa. (2017, July 20). The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-andafrica/ 2017/07/20/china-goes-to-africa. China has designs on Europe. Here is how Europe should respond. (2018, October 4). The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/10/04/china-hasdesigns- on-europe-here-is-how-europe-should-respond. Not so fast. The world in 2010. (2009, December). The Economist. 83.Inman, P. (2018, October 3). World economy at risk of another financial crash, says IMF. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/03/worldeconomy- at-risk-of-another-financial-crash-says-imf. 84.Stein, J. (2018, June 26). The federal debt is headed for the highest levels since World War II, CBO says. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/26/thefederal- debt-is-headed-for-the-highest-levels-since-world-war-iicbo- says/?utm_term=.3d5de9641a64. 85.Are Airbnb and Uber changing the world? (2014, July 5) The Globe and Mail online. Retrieved from � http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-airbnb-anduber- changing-the-world/article19453855/? utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium-Email:+ Newsletters+/+EBlasts+/+ etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links. 86.Barkema, H. G., Baum, J. A. C., & Mannix, E. A. (2002). Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 916–930. 87.Abbosh, O., Savic, V. & Moore, M. (2018, January 28). How likely is your industry to be disrupted? Harvard Business Review Webinar. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-likely-isyour- industry-to-be-disrupted-this-2x2-matrix-will-tell-you. 88.Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. 89.Thomas, D. (2008, September). The digital company 2013: Freedom to collaborate. Economist Intelligence Unit, The Economist. Retrieved from http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/portal/Digital_company_2013_WP2 _WEB.pdf. 90.Savyas, A. (2005, March 8). Intel points to convergence. Computer Weekly, p. 12. 91.Lam, J. (2005, March 1). Continental sets tentative accords for cutting costs. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), p. A2. 92.Eastburn, R.W. & Sharland, A. (2017). Risk management and managerial mindset. Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 18, 1, 21-47. Aggarwal, V.A., Hart, E., & Workiewicz, H.E. (2017). Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 6, 1212-1231. 93.Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Changing the culture at British Airways and British Airways Update, 1991–2000. In T. Jick & M. Peiperl, Managing change (pp. 26–44). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. � 94.One strike and you’re out: British Airways. (2003, August 2). The Economist, p. 64. 95.Flight plans: BA and Iberia take a step closer to becoming one of the world’s biggest airlines. (2010, April 8). The Economist online. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/15872745; and Maintaining altitude: BA’s cabin staff appear to be fighting a losing battle. (2010, March 25). The Economist; BA united (2011, May 12). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/05/british_airways; British Airways: One giant step for BA. (2013, July 5). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/07/british-airways? zid=303&ah=27090cf03414b8c5065d64ed0dad813d. 96.Kirka, D. (2017, May 30). British Airways IT debacle puts spotlight on technological systems. Star Business Journal. Retrieved from http://thestar.com/business/2017/05/30/shares-inbritish- airways-parent-company-fall-after-it-failure-strandspassengers. html. Haines, G. (2017, November 7). British Airways to “bring back the glory days” with more free meals, better WiFi and 72 new planes. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/british-airways-announcesbold- new-vision-for-future/. 97.An interesting comparison of TQM and employee involvement is contained in Lawler, E. E. III. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: Are they compatible? Academy of Management Executive, 8(1), 68–76. 98.Drawn from Morgan, G. (1994, June 28). Quantum leaps, step by step. Globe and Mail, B22. 99.Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators—Why new initiatives get blocked. Long Range Planning, 17(2), 137–143; Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. 100.Girod, S.J.G., & Whittington. R. (2015). Change escalation processes and complex adaptive systems: From incremental � reconfigurations to discontinuous restructuring. Organizational Science, 26(5), 1520. 101.The life cycle of interventions is readily apparent in the management literature. First comes the concept, accompanied or followed closely by examples of successful implementation. Next are cautionary notes, examples of failure, and remedies. As the luster fades, new approaches emerge in the literature and the process recurs, hopefully building upon earlier learning. For example, see Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review, 34(4), 53–72. 102.Helyar, J. (1998, August 10). Solo flight. Wall Street Journal. Quoted in T. Jick, Managing change (p. 503). New York: McGraw- Hill Higher Education. 103.Hamel, G., & Prahalad, D. K. (1994, October). Lean, mean and muddled. Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazine, 54– 58. 104.Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Streb, C. (n.d.). The innovation meme: Managing innovation replicators for organizational fitness. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 57–69. 105.Hamel, G., & Prahalad, D. K. (1994, October). Lean, mean and muddled. Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazine, 54– 58. 106.McComb, W. L. (2014, April 1). Transformation is an era, not an event. Harvard Business Review; White, M. (2013, November 1). The reinvention imperative. Harvard Business Review. 107.An American revival: A Canadian manufacturer’s quest to rebuild itself. (2014, July 7). The Globe and Mail online. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/anamerican- revival-a-canadian-manufacturers-quest-to-rebuilditself/ article19476053/? utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=Email:+ Newsletters+/+EBlasts+/+ etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links. � 108.The future of jobs: The onrushing wave. (2014, January 18). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previoustechnological- innovation-has-always-delivered-more-long-runemployment- not-less; The New “New Economy.” (2003, September 13). The Economist, p. 62. Eastburn, R.W. & Sharland, A. (2017). Risk management and managerial mindset. Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 18, 1, 21-47. Aggarwal, V.A., Hart, E., & Workiewicz, H.E. (2017). Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 6, 1212–1231. 109.Aghina, W., De Smet, A., Lackey, G, Lurie, M., & Murarka, M. (Report, January, 2018). The five trademarks of agile organizations. McKinsey and Company. 110.Van Yperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout: The moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 29–33. 111.Gordon, J. (1989, February 13). Employee alignment? Maybe just a brake job would do. Wall Street Journal. As reported in T. Jick. (1993). Managing change. Homewood, IL: Irwin. 112.Pfeffer, J. (1995). Managing with power: Politics and influence [video]. Executive Briefings. Stanford, CA: Stanford Videos. 113.Ricc, R., & Guerci, M. (2014, March 15). Diversity challenge: An integrated process to bridge the “implementation gap.” Business Horizons, 57, 235–245. 114.Oshry, B. (1990). Finding and using a manager’s power to improve productivity. National Productivity Review, 10(1), 19–33. 115.Russo, J. E., & Shoemaker, P. J. H. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), 7–18. 116.Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 83–95. � 117.Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 118.CNNHEROES. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/specials/cnn-heroes. 119.Vogelgesang, G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Sland, J. (2014, May). The relationship between positive psychological capital and global mindset in the context of global leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(2); Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012, October). Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612; Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Richard, D. (2011, December). Taking stock of the past decade of research. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107; Shapiro, E. C. (1996). Fad surfing in the boardroom: Managing in the age of instant answers. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. 120.Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121–151. 121.Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012, October). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 572. 122.Holt, K., & Kyoko, S. (2012, June). Global leadership: A developmental shift for everyone. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(2), 196– 215; Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2012, June). Leadership skills for managing paradoxes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(2), 227– 231. � Chapter 2 1.Arnoff, M. (2009, September 14). The challenges for McDonald’s top chef. Business Week. 2.McDonald’s corporate social responsibility and sustainability report 2012–2013. Retrieved from http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/2. 0/pdfs/2012_ 2013_csr_report.pdf; Schwartz, A. (2009, July 6). First “green” McDonald’s to offer ChargePoint EV charging stations. Fast Company; California McDonald’s adds electric vehicle fast charge station. (2013, April 24). QSR Web.com. Retrieved from http://www.qsrweb.com/news/californiamcdonalds- adds-electric-vehicle-fast-charge-station/. 3.Retrieved from http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/amazing_stor ies/food/catering_to_local_tastes.html. 4.Cullers, R. (2010, July 23). McDonald’s goes local. AdWeek. 5.Bayley, R. (April 12, 2017). How has McDonald’s been so successful for so long. Franchise Direct. Retrieved from http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/about-us/our-businessmodel. html 6.Schull, D. (1999). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 42–52. 7.Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 8.Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. 9.A recent discussion of Lewin’s contribution can be found in Rosch, E. (2002). Lewin’s field theory as situated action in organizational change. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 8–14. � 10.Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School. 11.Kotter, J.P. (November 2012). Accelerate! Harvard Business Review. 12.Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press. To receive the B case and the Faculty-Only Teaching Notes, please contact Mary Gentile at [email protected] 13.Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., & Gentile, M. (2011). Helen Drinan: Giving voice to her values. Case Research Journal, 31(2). 14.Duck, J. D. (2001). The change monster: The human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York: Crown Business. 15.Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. 16.Beckhard and Harris, Organizational transitions. 17.Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 18.Duck, The change monster. � Chapter 3 1.Seigworth, G. (n.d.). A brief history of bloodletting. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory.html. 2.Bruch, H., & Gerber, P. (2005). Strategic change decisions: Doing the right change right. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 99. 3.Bruch, H., & Gerber, P. (2005). Strategic change decisions: Doing the right change right. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 98. 4.Ho, S. (2016, January 15). In surprise move, Target exits Canada and takes a $5.4 billion loss. Reuters Business News. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-targetcanada/ in-surprise-move-target-exits-canada-and-takes-5-4billion- loss-idUSKBN0KO1HR20150115. 5.Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management of organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 6.See Holling, C. S. (1987). Simplifying the complex: The paradigms of ecological function and structure. European Journal of Operations Research, 30, 139–146; Hurst, D. K. (1995). Crisis and renewal: Meeting the challenge of organizational change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. 7.Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row. 8.Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1977). A diagnostic model for organizational behavior. In J. R. Hackman, E. E. Lawler, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Perspectives in behavior in organizations (pp. 85– 100). New York: McGraw-Hill. 9.Nadler, D. (1987). The effective management of organizational change. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational � behavior (pp. 358–369). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 10.Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (Summer, 1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 45–60. 11.McManamy, R. (1995). Fourth quarterly cost report: South America—Hyperinflation dying off. ENR, 235(26), 43–45. 12.Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(12), 35–51. 13.Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row. 14.Material for the Dell story was drawn from Dell’s do-over. (2009, October 26). Business Week, 4152, 36; and from Take two: Michael Dell pioneered a new business model at the firm that bears his name. Now he wants to overhaul it. (2008, May 1). The Economist. Retrieved February 2010 from the Dell website, http://content.dell.com/ca/en/corp/about-dell-investor-info.aspx. 15.Edwards, C. (October 15, 2009). Dell’s extreme makeover. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-10-15/dellsextreme- makeover. 16.Datamonitor. (2011, June). Computer & Peripherals Industry Profile: Global, p. 18. 17.Madway, G. (2009, October 15). Dell CEO forecasts “powerful” computer hardware refresh. 18.Guglielmo, C. (2013, November 18). You won’t have Michael Dell to kick around anymore. Forbes, 192(7), p. 1. 19.Dell captures top position in worldwide PC monitors in the second quarter, moves ahead of Samsung for the first time since 2007. (2013, September 19). IDC. Retrieved from � https://web.archive.org/web/20131019112049/http://www.idc.com/ getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24322313. Gartner says worldwide PC shipments declines 8.3% in fourth quarter of 2015 (2016, January 12). Gartner Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3185224. 20.Braithwaite, T. (2015, October 13). Dell-EMC deal: why VMware is falling. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/1ca62047-4ca7-35cb-9fccc74b0b317fde. 21.O’Donnell, C., & Vengattil, M. (2018, July 2). Dell moves to go public, spurns IPO. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dell-vmware/dell-moves-to-gopublic- spurns-ipo-idUSKBN1JS11X. 22.Grant, R. M., Shani, R., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQM’s challenge to management theory and practice. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 25–36. 23.Gates, R. (2003, September 3). How not to reform intelligence. Wall Street Journal, p. A16. See also Flynn, S., & Kirkpatrick, J. J. (2005). The Department of Homeland Security: The way ahead after a rocky start. Written testimony before a hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 24.Milstead, D. (2014, June 27). GM’s bad news hangs over everything but its stock. Globe and Mail; GM fires 15 executives over deadly ignition switch. (2014, June 6). ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/general-motorsfires- 15-exeutives-over-deadly-ignition-scandal/5504320. 25.Sahadi, J. (2018, October 11). What GM’s Mary Bara learned early on: Speak up and stop saying sorry. CNN Business. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/success/marybarra- gm/index.html. 26.Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice (p. 191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. � 27.Sterman, J. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25. 28.Shane, D. (October 4, 2018). How the trade war could make China even stronger. CNN Business. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/business/us-trade-war-impactchina- economy/index.html. 29.Adapted from Sterman, J. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 13. 30.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 31.Senge, P. (1990). The strategy. London: Doubleday/Century Business. 32.Adapted from Gogoi, P., & Arndt, M. (2003, March 3). McDonald’s hamburger hell. Business Week. 33.Rao, A. R., Bergen, M. E., & Davis, S. (2000). How to fight a price war. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 107–116. 34.Boosting productivity on the shop floor. (2003, September 12). The Economist, p. 62. 35.Quinn, R. E. (1991). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 36.See Quinn, R. E., et al. (1990). Becoming a master manager. New York: Wiley. 37.Rhodes, D. (March 23, 2018). Why are so many ICOs failing. Coincentral. Retrieved from https://coincentral.com/why-are-somany- icos-failing/. Marr, B. (December 10, 2018). Is this the end of blockchain? Forbes. Retrieved from https://forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/12/10/is-this-the-endof- blockchain/#5ab82aa83ede. � 38.For a detailed treatment of this topic, see Weick, K. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology; Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 1141–1166; Gersick, C. G. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10–36. 39.Strebel, L. (1994, Winter). Choosing the right change path. California Management Review, 29–51. 40.Greiner, L. (1998, May–June). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 55–67. 41.Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addisson- Wesley. 42.Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). The principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives of organisations: The application of Stacey’s Complexity Theory to organisations. London: London School of Economics Complexity and Organisational Learning Research Programme, Elsevier. 43.Stacey, R. D. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). London: Pittman. 44.Noori, H., Deszca, G., Munro, H., & McWilliams, B. (1999). Developing the right breakthrough product/service: An application of the umbrella methodology, Parts A & B. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 544–579. 45.Letterman, E. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2010 from http://thinkexist.com/quotation/luck_is_what_happens_when_prep aration_meets/11990.html. � Chapter 4 1.Ten people who predicted the financial meltdown. (2008, October 12). Times Online, Money. Retrieved May 2010 from http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2008/10/10people- who-p/comments/page/2/. 2.Schmitt, R. B. (2008, August 25). FBI saw threat of loan crisis: A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere. Los Angeles Times. 3.The new role of risk management: Rebuilding the model. (2009, June 24). Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-new-role-of-riskmanagement- rebuilding-the-model/; How to play chicken and lose. (2009, January 22). The Economist. 4.Critics say WHO overstated H1N1 threat. (2010, January 14). China Daily Science and Health. 5.Ebola virus disease, West Africa–update. (2014, May 30). World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/csr/don/2014_05_30_ebola/en/; WHO/MERS update from WHO. (2014, May 14). Unifeed. Retrieved from http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2014/05/who-mers/. 6.Stoll, J. D., & Terlep, S. G. M. (2009, May 22). UAW reach crucial cost-cutting pact—agreement to modify work rules, trim cash obligation helps ease way for quick bankruptcy filing. Wall Street Journal, p. B1. 7.Lanes, W. J. III, & Logan, J. W. (2004, November). A technique for assessing an organization’s ability to change. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 51(4), 483. 8.Keeton, K. B., & Mengistu, B. (1992, Winter). The perception of organizational culture by management level: Implications for training and development. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 205–213. � 9.Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. 10.Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. 11.Sull, D. N. (1999, July–August). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 42–52; Charan, R., & Useem, J. (2002). Why companies fail. Fortune, 145(11), 50–62; Schreiber, E. (2002). Why do many otherwise smart CEOs mismanage the reputation asset of their company? Journal of Communication Management, 6(3), 209–219. 12.Hamel, G. (2002). Leading the revolution. New York: Penguin. 13.Kotter, J. P. (2002). The heart of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 14.Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 39–59. 15.Stapenhurst, T. (2009). The benchmarking book: A how-to guide to best practice for managers and practitioners. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 16.Sull, D. N. (1999, July). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 42–52. 17.Vakola, M. (2014). What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact of organizational change. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 35(3), 195–209. 18.Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2005). Faster, shorter, cheaper may be simple; it’s never easy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(1), 70–82. 19.Gene Deszca, personal communication. � 20.Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 4. 21.T. Cawsey, personal communication. 22.Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins; Jennings, J. (2005). Think big, act small. New York: Penguin. 23.Corner office—Tony Hsieh of Zappos.com. (2010, January 10). New York Times. 24.Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last (p. 94). New York: HarperCollins. 25.Confidence trumps accuracy in pundit popularity. (2013, May 28). Washington State University News. Retrieved from https://news.wsu.edu/2013/05/28/confidence-trumps-accuracy-inpundit- popularity/#.U44wT2dOWUk; Ariely, D. (2008). Predictable irrationality. New York: HarperCollins; Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. 26.Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011, June). Before you make the big decision. Harvard Business Review, 51–60. 27.Barsh, J., & Lavoie, J. (2014, April). Lead at your best. McKinsey Quarterly; Anderson, D., & Ackerman Anderson, L. (2011, Fall). Conscious change leadership: Achieving breakthrough results. Executive Forum. 28.Anders, G. (2014, May 26). Nadella’s bid to fix Microsoft: What Ballmer didn’t dare. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/05/07/nadellasbid- to-fix-microsoft-what-ballmer-didnt-dare/; Metz, C. (2014, April 4). Why Microsoft got it right with new CEO Satya Nadella. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2014/02/microsoft-ceosatya- nadella/. 29.Cited in Tunzelmann, A. V. (2007). Indian summer (p. 105). London: Simon and Schuster. � 30.Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. 31.Spector, B. (1993). From bogged down to fired up. In T. D. Jick (Ed.), Managing change: Cases and concepts (pp. 121–128). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. 32.Wallace, E. (2009, May 5). Why Chrysler failed. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090 55 _922626.htm. 33.Target launch leaves retailers wary of coming to Canada. (2014, June 2). CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/target-launch-leaves-retailerswary- of-coming-to-canada-1.2662155; Lewis, K. (2003, November 10). Kmart’s ten deadly sins. Book review in Forbes.com. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/10/1010kmartreview.html. 34.Wessel, M. (2011, September 7). The failure of Yahoo’s board. Hbr Blog Network. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/09/failure-yahoo-board/; Silcoff, S., McNish, J., & Ladurantaye, S. (2013, September 27). How BlackBerry blew it: The inside story. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/theinside- story-of-why-blackberry-isfailing/ article14563602/#dashboard/follows/. 35.Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning from failure: Organizational mortality and the resource-based view. Research Paper, Statistics Canada. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2003202eng. pdf. 36.Verdú, A. J., & Gómez-Gras, J. M. (2009). Measuring the organizational responsiveness through managerial flexibility. Journal of Organizational Change, 22(6), 668–690; Santos, V., & García, T. (2007). The complexity of the organizational renewal � decision: The managerial role. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 28(4), 336–355. 37.Trahant, B., & Burke, W. W. (1996). Creating a change reaction: How understanding organizational dynamics can ease reengineering. National Productivity Review, 15(4), 37–46; Lannes, W. J. III, & Logan, J. W. (2004). A technique for assessing an organization’s ability to change. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 51(4), 483. 38.Ratterty, A., & Simons, R. (2002). The influence of attitudes to change on adoption of an integrated IT system. Organization Development Abstracts, Academy of Management Proceedings; Mitchell, N., et al. Program commitment in the implementation of strategic change. Organization Development Abstracts, Academy of Management Proceedings. 39.Hyde, A., & Paterson, J. (2002). Leadership development as a vehicle for change during merger. Journal of Change Management, 2(3), 266–271. 40.Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73–85. 41.Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. Passmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 42.Holt, D. (2002). Readiness for change: The development of a scale. Organization Development Abstracts, Academy of Management Proceedings. 43.Judge, W., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational change capacity: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 635–649. 44.Stewart, T. A. (1994, February 7). Rate your readiness to change. Fortune, 106–110. � 45.Castellano, J. F., Rosenzweig, K., & Roehm, H. A. (2004, Summer). How corporate culture impacts unethical distortion of financial numbers. Management Accounting Quarterly; Gellerman, S. W. (1989, Winter). Managing ethics from the top down. Sloan Management Review. 46.Lazaric, N., & Raybaut, A. (2014, January). Do incentive systems spur work motivation of inventors in high tech firms? A group based perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(1), 135–157; Proenca, E. J. (2007, December). Team dynamics and team empowerment in health care organizations. Health Care Management Review; Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002, Summer). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64–76. 47.Klarner, P., Probst, G., & Soparnot, R. (2005). Organizational change capacity in the public service: The case of the World Health Organization. Journal of Change Management, 8(1), 57– 72. 48.Willey, D. (2008, February 28). Naples battles with rubbish mountain. BBC News. Retrieved May 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7266755.stm; Quattrone, A. M. (2009, November 20). Garbage crisis and organized crime. Naples Politics. Retrieved May 2010 from http://naplespolitics.com/2009/11/20/garbage-crisis-andorganized- crime/; Italy slammed by EU court over Naples garbage. (2010, March 4). EUbusiness. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/court-italy-waste.3h2/; Harrell, E. (2011, May 9). This stinks: Italy sends troops to handle trash crisis. Time. Retrieved from http://science.time.com/2011/05/09/this-stinks-italy-sends-troopsto- handle-trash-crisis/. 49.Mesco, M. (2013, November 25). Naples’s garbage crisis piles up on city outskirts. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230446560 4579218014071052296. � 50.Havman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 48–75. 51.Barnett, C. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2000). From threat-rigidity to flexibility: Toward a learning model of autogenic crisis in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 74–88. 52.Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89. 53.Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67. 54.Leadership tips, New York style: Lessons from the NYC MTA. (2012, November 14). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2012/11/14/leadership-tipsnew- york-style-lessons-from-the-nyc-mta/; Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103–111. 55.Lee, C. C., & Rodgers, R. A. (2009, Summer). Counselor advocacy: Affecting systemic change in the public arena. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(3), 284–287. 56.Akgun, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Bryne, J. C. (2006, January). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 73–88. 57.Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103–111. 58.Naughton, K. (2002). The perk wars. Newsweek, 140(14), 44. � 59.Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002, Fall). Beyond selfishness. Sloan Management Review, 67–74; Collins, J. (2001). From good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don’t. New York: HarperBusiness; De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. Harvard Business Review, 75(2), 51–59 60.Wall, S. J. (2005). The protean organization: Learning to love change. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 37. 61.Enderle, R. (2014, March 5). Meg Whitman’s amazing turnaround at HP. IT Business Edge. Retrieved from http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/unfiltered-opinion/megwhitmans- amazing-turnaround-of-hp.html; Hough, J. (2014, April 5). Meg Whitman’s turnaround at HP. Barron’s. Retrieved from http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB5000142405311190369 8104579473470353264720; Coyle, E. (2013, October 10). Meg Whitman’s 6 steps to an HP turnaround. Wall St, CheatSheet. Retrieved from http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/meg-whitmans6- steps-to-an-hp-turnaround.html/?a=viewall; Canada’s top 100 employers. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cana dastop100.com/national/. 62.Enderle, R. (November, 2018).The secret of HP’s success: A new standard emerges. IT Business Edge. Retrieved from https://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/unfiltered-opinion/thesecrets- of-hps-success-a-new-standard-emerges.html. HP share price retrieved from Yahoo Finance at https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HPQ. 63.Higgins, J. M., & McAllister, C. (2004). If you want strategic change, don’t forget to change your culture artifacts. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 63–73. 64.Helyar, J. (2004, October 4). Why is this man smiling? Continental’s Gordon Bethune turned the airline around, guided it through 9/11, and became a great CEO. Now he’s being forced out. How can this be? Fortune. Retrieved May 2010 from http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/homahelpsite/webhelp/Airlines__ Why_s_Bethune_Smiling__Fortune_11-18-04.htm. � 65.Higgins, J. M., & McAllister, C. (2004). If you want strategic change, don’t forget to change your culture artifacts. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 63–73. 66.World’s most admired companies. (2009, March 16). Fortune. Retrieved from http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2009/s napshots/2065.html; World Airline Awards for 2009. (2009). World Airline Awards. Retrieved from http://worldairlineawards.com/Awards_2009/AirlineYear-2009.htm. 67.The legacy that got left on the shelf—Unilever and emerging markets. (2008, February). The Economist, 386(8565), 76. 68.Unilever stock performance chart. Retrieved from http://ycharts.com/companies/UN. 69.Sull, D. N. (1999, July–August). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review. 70.Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learn from their mistakes. New York: Penguin. 71.Eaton, J. (2001). Management communication: The threat of groupthink. Corporate Communications, 6(4), 183–192; Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011, June). Before you make the big decision. Harvard Business Review, 51–60. 72.Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14, 40–56; Neck, C. P., & Moorhead, G. (1992). Jury deliberations in the trial of U.S. v. John DeLorean: A case analysis of groupthink avoidance and enhanced framework. Human Relations, 45(10), 1077–1091. 73.Charan, R., & Useem, J. (2002, May 22). Why companies fail. Fortune, 50–62. 74.Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27(5), 352–369. � 75.Simons, G. F., et al. (1998). In S. Komives, J. Lucas, & T. R. McMahon, Exploring leadership (p. 54). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. 76.Thornberry, N. (1997). A view about vision. European Management Journal, 15(1), 28–34. 77.Beach, L. R. (1993). Making the right decision (p. 50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 78.Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51. 79.Baum, I. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54. 80.Jick, T. (2003). Managing change (pp. 98–100). Boston: Irwin. 81.Butterworth, C. (2013, November). Leading the way. Occupational Health, 65, 11. 82.Higgins, J. M., & McAllaster, C. (2004). If you want strategic change, don’t forget to change your cultural artifacts. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 63–73. 83.Jick, T. (1993). The vision thing (A). In T. Jick, Managing change (pp. 142–148). Homewood, IL: Irwin. 84.Langeler, G. H. (1992, March–April). The vision trap. Harvard Business Review, 46–55. 85.Deszca, G., & Cawsey, T. (2014). Information contained in this section was collected by the authors when developing the case: Food Banks Canada and Strategic Renewal (case is reprinted in this book). Further information on Food Banks Canada can be � viewed on their website: http://www.foodbankscanada.ca/Learnhttp://www.foodbankscanada.ca/LearnAbout- Hunger/About-Hunger-in-Canada.aspx. 86.Lipton, M. (1996, Summer). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan Management Review, 86. 87.Lipton, M. (1996, Summer). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan Management Review, 89–91. 88.Levin, I. M. (2000). Vision revisited. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), 91–107. 89.Kalogeridis, C. (2005). The Ford/Firestone fiasco: Coming to blows. Radnor, 185(1), 22–24. 90.Healey, J. R., & Irwin, J. (2014, June 18). GM recalls 3.16 million more cars for switches. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/06/16/gm-recallkey- switch/10629373/. 91.The National Business Hall of Fame. (1990, March 12). Fortune, 121(6), 42. 92.Serwer, A. (2001, September 17). P&G’s covert operation. Fortune, 144(5), 42. 93.Searcey, D. (2010, April 19). Toyota agrees to $16.4 million fine. Wall Street Journal Digital Network, Auto Section. Retrieved May 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870450890457519 2873543926804.html. 94.World’s most admired companies. Fortune. Retrieved May 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/index .html. 95.Goss, T., Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1993, November– December). The reinvention roller coaster: Risking the present for a powerful future. Harvard Business Review, 97–108. � 96.McKinnon, N. (2008). We’ve never done it this way before: Prompting organizational change through stories. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 27(2), 16–25. 97.Cranston, S., & Keller, S. (2013, January). Increasing the “meaning quotient” of work. McKinsey Quarterly. 98.Wheatley, M. (1994). Leadership and the new sciences. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 99.Beach, L. R. (1993). Making the right decision (p. 58). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 100.Jørgensen, H., Owen, L., & Nues, A. (2008). Making change work. IBM Global Services. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www935. ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/pdf/gbe03100-usen-03-makingchange- work.pdf; Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic role. Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.improvedexperience. com/doc/02_Leveraging_Employee_Engagement_for_ Competitive_Advantage2.pdf; Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55–75. 101.How to create a powerful vision for change. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/06/07/how-to-createa- powerful-vision-for-change/. 102.Gross, A., & Minot, J. (2008, May). Meeting recruiting and retention challenges in India. SHRM Global Forum. Retrieved from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/10553235/MeetingRecruiting- and-Retention-Challenges-in-India; Personal communication with G. Deszca, when visiting Infosys and Tata Consulting in March 2011. 103.Infosys to add 3,500 more employees. (2014, February 8). The New Indian Express. Retrieved from � http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/Infos ys-to-Add-3500-More-Employees/2014/02/08/article2044683.ece. 104.Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” Speech. The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/addres s_at_march_on_washington.pdf. 105.Sawhill, J. C., & Harmeling, S. S. (2000, March). National campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. Harvard Business School Case Study, 9–300–105. 106.Stohr, G. (2012, December 8). Gay marriage gets supreme court review for the first time. Bloomberg. Retrieved from www.bloomberg.com/news/…/gay-marriage-gets-supreme-courtreview; Williams, P., & McClam, E. (2013, June 26). Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California. NBC News. Retrieved from http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971supreme- court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act-paves-wayfor- gay-marriage-to-resume-in-california?lite. 107.Schneider, G. (2005, March 31). An unlikely meeting of the minds. Washington Post, p. E01. 108.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www03. ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/index.shtml. 109.Govindarajan, V. (2010). Vijay Govindarajan’s Blog: Strategic innovation, industry transformation and global leadership. Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.vijaygovindarajan.com/2009/03/the_tata_nano_product _or_socia.htm; Vision for Nano achieved. (2012, March 10). NDTV. Retrieved from http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/ndtvspecial- ndtv-profit/vision-for-nano-achieved-says-ratantata/ 225972. 110. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano � 111.The Millennium Development Goals Report 2013. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/mdgreport- 2013-english.pdf. 112.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.savethechildren.org/programs/health/childsurvival/ survive-to-5/?WT.mc_id=1109_hp_tab_s25. 113.Retrieved from http://www.globalgiving.org/pfil/2030/projdoc.pdf. 114.Retrieved from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/readingrainbow/bringreading- rainbow-back-for-every-child-everywh. 115.Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. P. (1987). How to set goals. In R. W. Beatty (Ed.), The performance management sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press. 116.Drawn from Jick, T. (1993). The vision thing (A). In T. Jick, Managing change. Homewood, IL: Irwin; Lipton, M. (1996, Summer). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan Management Review, 83–92. � Chapter 5 1.Langton, N., Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, applications (5th Canadian ed., p. 502). Toronto: Pearson Canada. 2.Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed., p. 90). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. 3.Walmart. (2017). Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.corporatereport.com/walmart/2017/ar/associates.php. 4.Kaplan, M. (2018, March 1). Walmart’s ecommerce sales up 23% in fourth quarter 2017. Practical Ecomerce. Retrieved from https://www.practicalecommerce.com/walmarts-ecommerce-sales23- percent-fourth-quarter-2017. 5.Cwinn, S. (2014, September 15). The scoop on Retail Link 2.0. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140915154156-17222406-thescoop- on-retail-link-2-0/. What is retail link for? Competitive advantage lies in systems efficiencies. (2002). Chain Store Age, 78(8), 74. 6.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 7.Langton, N., Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, applications (5th Canadian ed., pp. 500–527). Toronto: Pearson Canada. 8.For a detailed treatment of structural design dimensions, see Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. 9.Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. 10.Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88; Moles, � C., van der Gaag, A., & Fox, J. (2010). The practice of complexity: Review, change and service improvement in NHA department. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 24(2), 127–144; Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 413–452. 11.Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed., p. 152). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. 12.Martínez-León, I. M., & Martínez-García, J. A. (2011, 32.5/6). The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning. International Journal of Manpower, 537–566; Olden, P. C. (2012, October–December). Managing mechanistic and organic structure in health care. The Health Care Manager. 13.Gawande, A.(November 12, 2018). Why doctors hate their computers: Digitization promises to make medical care easier and more efficient, but are screens coming between doctors and patients? The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/12/why-doctorshate- their-computers. 14.Gandhi A., Magar, C., & Roberts, R. (2013, Winter). McKinsey on Busines Technology. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_servic e/bto/pdf/mobt32_02-09_masscustom_r4.ashx. Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. (2004). Measuring modularity-based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability: A customer-driven perspective. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 147–168. 15.Salvador, F., Martin de Holan, P., & Piller, F. (2009, Spring). Cracking the code of mass customization. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://ideaspace. eu:19001/up/e9a1c36ccd5c19227b26c2320bb9d547.pdf. 16.Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. � 17.Daft, R. L. (2003). Organization theory and design (6th ed., pp. 204–211). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. 18.The 9–11 Commission. (2004). 9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 19.Keller, S., Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2013, November). Organizing for change: McKinsey global survey results. McKinsey and Company; Cross, R. L., Parise, S., & Weiss, L. M. (2007, April). The role of networks in organizational change. McKinsey Quarterly. 20.Langton, N., Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, applications (5th Canadian ed., p. 512). Toronto: Pearson Canada. 21.Goran, J.L., LaBerge, L., & Srinivansan, R. (2017, July). Culture in a digital age, McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digitalmckinsey/ our-insights/culture-for-a-digital-age. De Snett, A., Lackey, G., &Weill, M. (2017, June). Untangling your organization’s decision-making. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/ organization/our-insights/untangling-your-organizationsdecision- making. How to create an agile organization (2017). McKinsey and Co. https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/ organization/our-insights/how-to-create-an-agileorganization. Beinhocker, E. (2006, April). The adaptable organization. McKinsey Quarterly, 77-87. 22.McGregor, J. (2008, January 28). Case study: To adapt, ITT lets go of unpopular ratings. Business Week, 4068, 46. 23.Colvin, G. (2015, October 29). Microsoft and Dell are ditching employee performance reviews. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/10/29/microsoft-dell-performancereviews/. Zillman, C. (2016, February 1), IBM is blowing up its annual performance review. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/02/01/ibm-employee-performancereviews/. � 24.Neilson, G., Martin, K.L., & Powers, E. (2008, June). The secrets to successful strategy execution. Harvard Business Review. 25.Survey: Partners in wealth. (2006, January 21). The Economist, 378(8461), 18. 26.Farrier, T. (2013, August 29). How do the challenges with Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner compare to the introductions of other aircraft? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com./sites/quora/2013/08/29/how-do-thechallenges- with-boeings-787-dreamliner-compare-to-theintroductions- of-other-aircraft/; Kingsley-Jones, M. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Flightglobal. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.flightglobal.com/feature/787dreamlines/market/; Boeing‘s partnership for success strains supplier relationships. (2014, February 16). Leeham News and Comment. Retrieved from http://leehamnews.com.2014/02/16/boeing-partnership-forsuccess- strains-strains-supplier-relationship/; Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner. Updated. 27.Bhaskara, V. (2016, October 5). The Boeing 787 at five (part 1): The Dreamliner effect. Airways. Retrieved from https://airwaysmag.com/industry/the-boeing-787-at-five-one/. Bhaskara, V. (2016, October 5). The Boeing 787 at five (part 2): The Dreamliner effect. Airways. Retrieved from https://airwaysmag.com/industry/the-boeing-787-at-five-two/. 28.Boeing and the 787: Not so dreamy. (2009, June 24). The Economist online. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm? story_id=E1_TPRJQQDQ. 29.Wetzel, D. K., & Buch, K. (2009, Winter). Using a structural model to diagnose organizations and develop congruent interventions. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 9–19. 30.Outsourcing main cause for Boeing 787 Dreamliner problems. (2013, January 22). Consultancy.uk. Retrieved from � https://www.consultancy.uk/news/297/outsourcing-main-cause-forboeing- 787-dreamliner-problems. 31.Yi, E. I., & Zhu, P. F. (2009, February 24). Faced with budget cuts, Harvard College Library consolidates. Harvard Crimson. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/2/24/faced-with-budgetcuts- harvard-college/. 32.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. 33.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed., p. 73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 34.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed., p. 73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 35.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed., p. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 36.Wischnevsky, J., & Damanpour, F. (2009). Radical strategic and structural change: Occurrence, antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Technology Management, 44(1/2), 53. 37.LifeSpring Hospitals. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeSpring_Hospitals. 38.Masters, H., & Katrandjian, O. (2010, December 23). LifeSpring Hospitals: Bringing Maternity Care to Poor Mothers in India. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lifespring-hospitals-bring-maternitycare- to-poor-mothers-in-india/story?id=12459083; LifeSpring Maternity Hospital website. Retrieved from http://www.lifespring.in/; LifeSpring Hospitals. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeSpring_Hospitals; � the Acumen Funds’ website’s description of LifeSpring was retrieved from http://acumen.org./investment/lifespring/. 39.Former ChevronTexaco executive tapped in special Labor Day board meeting. (2002, September 3). Retrieved May 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/2002/09/02/news/companies/ual/index.htm. 40.Air Canada seeking more labour concessions from unions. (2003, May 1). CBC News. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2003/05/01/aircanada_030501.htm l. 41.Sackcloth and ashes: An entrenched dispute takes the shine off a proud airline. (2010, May 20). The Economist. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.economist.com/node/16171321. 42.Roth, D. (2002, January 22). How to cut pay, lay off 8,000 people and still have workers who love you: It’s easy: Just follow the Agilent way. Fortune. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.danielroth.net/archive/2002/01/how_to_cut_pay_.html. 43.Agilent Technologies named 2017 company of the year by IBO (2018, January 16). Bioinformatics. Retrieved from https://globenewswire.com/newsrelease/ 2018/01/16/1290148/0/en/Agilent-Technologies-Named2017- Company-of-the-Year-by-IBO.html. 44.Agilent Technologies. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agilent_Technologies. Keysight Technologies. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keysight 45.Nadler, D., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., & Associates. (1994). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 46.Simons, R. (1995, March–April). Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 80–88; Simons, R. (1998, May–June). How risky is your company? Harvard Business Review, 85–94. � 47.Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding and supporting champions of technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, 19(1), 40–55. 48.Tight, G. (1998). From experience: Securing sponsors and funding for new product development projects—the human side of enterprise. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(1), 75– 81; Harrold, D. (1999). How to get control and automation projects approved. Control Engineering, 46(8), 34–37. 49.Harrold, D. (1999). How to get control and automation projects approved. Control Engineering, 46(8), 34–37. 50.Drew, S. A. W. (1996). Accelerating change: Financial industry experiences with BPR. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 14(6), 23–35. 51.Noori, H., Deszca, G., & Munro, H. (1997). Managing the P/SDI process: Best-in-class principles and leading practices. International Journal of Technology Management, 245–268. 52.Dillard, J., Hunter, J., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461– 488. 53.Babak, A.S., & Carol, G. (2017, May). Leading change authentically: How authentic leaders influence follower responses to complex change. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 157-171. 54.Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown. 55.This example is drawn from Meyerson, D. E. (2001, October). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 94–95. 56.Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding and supporting champions of technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, 19(1), 40–55. � 57.Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. (1990). Influence of political action on innovation: Part II. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 11(2), 4–12. 58.Marshak, R. J. (2004). Morphing: The leading edge of organizational change in the twenty-first century. Organizational Development Journal, 22(3), 8–21. 59.Abrahamson, E. (2000, July–August). Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, 75–79. 60.Nusca, A. (2016, November 11). The man who is transforming Microsoft. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/satyanadella- microsoft-ceo/. Bort, J. (2015, February 3). In just one year, Satya Nadella made Microsoft so much better. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/satyanadella- totally-changed-microsoft-2015-2. Nadella, S. (2018, April). Microsoft’s next act. McKinsey Quarterly, Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/ourinsights/ microsofts-next-act. 61.Novel, J. (2018, July 20). Steve Ballmer says he and Bill Gates recommended Nadella as Microsoft’s CEO, praises his performance. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/steve-ballmer-bill-gatesrecommended- nadella-as-microsoft-ceo.html. Stoller, K. (2018, October 10). The world’s best employers 2018: Alphabet leads as U.S. companies dominate list. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinstoller/2018/10/10/the-worldsbest- employers-2018-alphabet-leads-as-u-s-companies-dominatelist/. 62.63% of CRM initiatives fail. (2013, July 17). Direct Marketing News. Retrieved from http://www.dmnews.com/63-of-crminitiatives- fail/article/303470/; Choy, J. (2003, March 17). The Cold Truth about CRM. Asia Computer Weekly. 63.Aiken, C. & S. Keller (April 2009). The irrational side of change management. McKinsey Quarterly. � 64.Prosci Benchmarking Report. (2002). Best practices in change management. Prosci 2000, 2. 65.Tsaparis. P. (2013, February 21). Why is common sense so uncommon? Globe and Mail Report on Business. Retrieved from http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careersleadership/ why-is-common-sense-so-uncommon/article8936634/? service=mobile; Paul Tsaparis: Executive profile and biography. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person. asp?personid=7468530&ticker=HPQ; Canadian merger integration material drawn from Pitts, G. (2002, September 30). Globe and Mail, p. B3. Paul Tsaparis appointed the Chair of York’s Board of Governors. (2018, September 25). York University. Retrieved from http://yfile.news.yorku.ca/2018/09/25/paultsaparis- mba-84-appointed-the-chair-of-york-universitysvolunteer- board-of-governors/. 66.Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (2004). Implementing change: Matching implementation methods and change type. Leadership and Development Journal, 25(5), 424–434. 67.Miller, R., Casey, M., & Konchar, M. (2014, September 29). Change your space, change your culture: How engaging workspaces lead to transformation and growth. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 68.Cameron, K., (2003, March). Organizational transformation through architecture and design: A project with Frank Gehry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 88-92. 69.Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998, Winter). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 83–95. 70.Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998, Winter). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 83–95. 71.Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995, Winter). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan � Management Review, 36(2), 73–85. 72.Beatty, R. W., & Ulrich, D. O. (1991, Summer). Re-energizing the mature organization. Organizational Dynamics, 16–31; Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May–June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 133–142. 73.Bazigos. M., De Smet, A., Gagnon, C., Aronowitz, S., McGinty, D., Weerda, K., Aghina, W., Lund, S. & Schaninger, B. (2016, May). McKinsey on organization: Agility and organization design. McKinsey and Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functio ns/organization/our%20insights/mckinsey%20on%20organization/ mckinsey%20on%20organization%20agility%20and%20organizati on%20design.ashx. Hoyte, D. S., & Greenwood, R. A. (2007). Journey to the North Face: A guide to business transformation. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 6, 91–104; Hoogervorst, J. A. P., Koopman, P. L., & van der Flier, H. (2005). Total quality management: The need for an employee-centred, coherent approach. TQM Magazine, 17(1), 92–106. 74.Worley, C., & Lawler, E. (2009). Building a change capacity at Capital One Financial. Organizational Dynamics, 38(4), 245–251. 75.Harris, M., Dopson, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2009). Strategic drift in international non-governmental development organizations— putting strategy in the background of organizational change. Public Administration and Development, 29(5), 415–428. 76.Margonelli, L. (2002, October). How IKEA designs its sexy price tags. Business 2.0, 106. 77.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992, Summer). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review, 34(4), 53–72. 78.Morgan, J. (2012). The collaborate organization: A strategic guide to solving your internal business challenges using emerging social and collaborative tools. New York: McGraw-Hill. � 79.Ellard, C. (2012, November 25). Do collaborative workspaces work? Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-wandering/201211/docollaborative- workspaces-work. 80.The holes is holacracy. (2014, July 5). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21606267-latest-bigidea- management-deserves-some-scepticism-holes-holacracy? frsc=dg%7Ce. 81.Chesbrough, H., & Brunswicker, S. (2013, May). Managing open innovation in large firms: Survey report—Executive survey on open innovation 2013. Stuttgart, Germany: Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering. Norskov, S., Kesting, P., & Parm. J. (2017, Iss. 2). Deliberate change without hierarchical influence? The case for collaborative OSS communities. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 346-374. 82.Keller, S., Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2013, November). Organizing for change: McKinsey global survey results. McKinsey and Company. 83.Martínez-León, I. M., & Martínez-García, J. A. (2011, 32.5/6). The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning. International Journal of Manpower, 537–566. 84.Garcia-Morales, V.J., Martin-Rojas, R., & Lardon-Lopez, M.E. (2018, Iss.3). Influence of social media technologies on organizational performance thorough knowledge and innovation. Baltic Journal of Management, 345-367. Cross, R. L., Parise, S., & Weiss, L. M. (2007, April). The role of networks in organizational change. McKinsey Quarterly. � Chapter 6 1.Fiegerman, S. (2016, June 15). How Yahoo derailed Tumblr after Marissa Mayer promised “not to screw it up.” Mashable.com. 2.Useem, J. (2002, August 12). 3M + GE = ?: Jim McNerney thinks he can turn 3M from a good company into a great one— with a little help from his former employer, General Electric. Fortune. Retrieved December 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/08/ 12/327038/index.htm. 3.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 4(25), 783–794. 4.Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 5.Ringer, R. C., & Boss, R. M. (2000). Hospital professionals’ use of upward tactics. Journal of Management Issues, 12(1), 92–108. 6.Treatment of these power-related concepts can be found in Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2010). Developing management skills (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 7.Hardy, C. (1994, Winter). Power and organizational development: A framework for organizational change. Journal of General Management, 20, 20–42. 8.Bolman & Deal. Reframing organizations. 9.Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299. 10.Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. New York: Penguin Books; Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and � performance. New York: The Free Press; Schein, E. H. (1992). Organization culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 11.Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_14?url=searchalias% 3Dstripbooks&fieldkeywords= organization%20culture&sprefix=organization+c%2Cstr ipbooks%2C152. 12.Shani, A. B., Chandler, D., Coget, J.-F., & Lau, J. B. (2009). Behavior in organizations: An experiential approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 13.Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row; Thomas, J. (1985). Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54– 59. 14.Strebel, P. (1994, Winter). Choosing the right change path. California Management Review, 29–51. 15.More pain, waiting for the gain. (2006, February 11). The Economist, p. 58. 16.Savage, G. T., et al. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75. 17.Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002, June). The people who make organizations go—or stop. Harvard Business Review, 5–12. 18.Luksha, P., personal communication to T. Cawsey. 19.Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Managing the strategic consensus: The foundation of effective implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27–39. 20.Dr. Stacy Blake-Beard’s fictionalized case studies present problems faced by leaders in real companies and offer solutions from experts. This one is based on a composite of incidents collected from several organizations. � Chapter 7 1.Howard; C., & Pierce, K. (eds.). (2014, May 28). The world’s 100 most powerful women: #70 Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/power-women/; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Johnson_Sirleaf; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—biographical. Nobel Peace Prize 2011. Nobelprize.org. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/john son_sirleaf-bio.html. 2.Disney, A. (Producer), & Reticker, G. (Director). (2008). Pray the devil back to hell [Motion picture]. New York: Fork Films. 3.Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Beliefs through emotions. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 43–54). Paris: Oxford University Press. 4.Laumer, S., Maier, C., Adreas, E., & Weitzel, T. (2016, March). User personality and resistance to mandatory information systems in organizations: a theoretical model and empirical test of dispositional resistance to change. Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31, Iss. 1, 67-82. 5.Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Age, resistance to change, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741–760. 6.Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25–41. 7.Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521– 539. 8.Jacobs, B. (2018, October 7). Top-tier candidate: Cory Booker woos Iowa’s Democrats ahead of primaries. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us � news/2018/oct/07/top-tier-candidate-cory-booker-woos-iowasdemocrats- ahead-of-primaries. 9.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. 10.Nelson, J. (2013, Dec. 5). Desjardins Group’s big tent approach. Globe and Mail. 11.Information in this example drawn from Kanter, R. M., & Malone, A. J. (2013). Monique Leroux: Leading change at Desjardins. Harvard Business School. Case 9-313-107; Nelson, J. (2012, October 5). Monique Leroux: A little bit of everything on her plate. Globe and Mail; Rockel, N. (2009, August 23). Monique Leroux mentors women as Desjardins chief. Globe and Mail. 12.Yerema, R., & Leung, K. (2017, November 6). Dejardins Group recognized as one of Canada’s top 100 employers. Mediacorp Canada. Retrieved from https://content.eluta.ca/topemployer- desjardins/. Desjardins is once again recognized by mediacorp as a best employer (2015, November 9). Desjardins. Retrieved from https://www.desjardins.com/ca/aboutus/ newsroom/news-flash/2015110901.jsp. 13.Golob, L. (2018, May 17). Monique Leroux inducted into Canadian Business Hall of Fame. Investment Executive. Retrieved from https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/people/moniqueleroux- inducted-into-canadian-business-hall-of-fame/. 2013 Desjardins Group Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.desjardins.com/ca/about-us/investor-relations/annualquarterly- reports/desjardins-group/2013-annual-report/index.jsp. 14.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. 15.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an � organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 16.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 17.Smith, K. K. (1982). Groups in conflict: Prisons in disguise. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt; Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 237–261. 18.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 19.Avery, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70; Tsirikas, A. N., Katsaros, K. K., & Nicolaidis, C. S. (2012). Employee Relations, 34(2), 344–359. 20.Much of the material on ambivalence and change management is drawn from two excellent articles: Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 8–32; and Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 21.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. 22.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an � organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 23.Sull, D. N. (1999, July–August). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 42–51. 24.Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 25.Hymes, R. W. (1986). Political attitudes as social categories: A new look at selective memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 233–241. 26.Tormala, Z.L, & Rucker, D.D. (2015, September). How certainty transforms persuasion. Harvard Business Review. 27.Simoes, P. M. M., & Esposito, M. (2014). Improving change management: How communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management Development, 33(4), 324–341. 28.Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 15–36; Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1996). The strategic middle manager. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. 29.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. 30.Peus, C., Frey, D., Gerkhardt, M., Fischer, P., & Traut- Mattausch, E. (2009). Leading and managing organizational change initiatives. Management Review, 20(2), 158–175; Giora, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403; Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D. J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment. Organizational Science, 11(2), 235–257; Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. � Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215; and Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in strategic and tactical decisions: An application of path–goal theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 37–47. 31.Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organizational Studies, 26(11), 1596. 32.Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. (2014, June). Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change- related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 269–280; Paula Matos, M. S., & Esposito, M. (2014). Improving change management: How communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management Development, 33(4), 324–341. 33.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 34.Gustafson, B. (2005). Plant closure “devastates” Newfoundland community. National Fisherman, 85(10), 11–12. 35.Gustafson, B. (2005). Plant closure “devastates” Newfoundland community. National Fisherman, 85(10), 11–12. 36.Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63–83. 37.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 38.Russell, R.S., Taylor, B.W., Castillo, I., & Vidyarthi, N. (2014). Operations management: Creating value along the supply chain (Canadian Ed.). Toronto: Wiley. � 39.Reicher, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48–60. 40.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. 41.Peus, C., Frey, D., Gerkhardt, M., Fischer, P., & Traut- Mattausch, E. (2009). Leading and managing organizational change initiatives. Management Review, 20(2), 158–175. 42.Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469–488. 43.Watson, T. J. (1982). Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 259–275. 44.Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. 45.Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7–14. 46.Bareil, C. (2013, Fall). Two paradigms about resistance to change. Organizational Development Journal, 31(3). 47.Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895–922; Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Promises in action: Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 48.Matthijs Bal, P., Chiaburu, D. S., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2010). Psychological contract breach and work performance; Is social exchange a buffer or an intensifier? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 252–273; Richard, O. C., McMillan-Capehart, A., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of psychological contracts: Does organizational � culture really matter? Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 818– 825. 49.Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psychological contract breach: A study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 13; Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2005). The role of perceived violation in determining employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(1), 24–36. 50.Lee, J., and Taylor, M. S. (2014, March). Dual roles in psychological contracts: When managers take both agent and principal roles. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1). 51.Nesterkin, D. A. (2013). Organizational change and psychological reactance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 573–594. 52.Chi-jung, F., and Chin-I, C. (2014). Unfilled expectations and promises, and behavioral outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22(1), 61–75; Chambel, M. J. (2014). Does the fulfillment of supervisor psychological contract make a difference? Attitudes of in-house and temporary agency workers. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 35(1), 20– 37. 53.Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Large-scale change at the WSSC. Harvard Business School, 9–603–056. 54.Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Large-scale change at the WSSC. Harvard Business School, 9–603–056. After leading the Washington Suburban Sanitary commission, John Griffen served as secretary of Maryland’s Department of Resources from 2007– 2013 and was named chief of staff of Maryland’s Governor O’Malley in 2013. See John Griffin named Governor O’Malley’s new chief of staff (2013, April 18). Baltimore News Journal. 55.Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan. � 56.Fink, S. L. (1967). Crisis and motivation: A theoretical model. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 48(11), 592– 597. 57.Jick, T. (2002). The recipients of change. In T. Jick & M. A. Peiperl, Managing change: Cases and concepts (2nd ed., pp. 299 –311). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 58.Perlman, D., & Takacs, G. J. (1990). The ten stages of change. Nursing Management, 21(4), 33–38. 59.Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. 60.Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 96–103. 61.The Prosci ADKAR model. Retrieved from https://www.prosci.com/adkar/adkar-model. 62.Doherty, N., Banks, J., & Vinnicombe, S. (1996). Managing survivors: The experience of survivors in British Telecom and the British financial services sector. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(7), 51–60. 63.Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1998, February). The cesspool syndrome: How dreck floats to the top of declining organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 58–67; Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 83–95. 64.For a detailed treatment of dealing with the survivor syndrome, see Noer, D. M. (1993). Healing the wounds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 65.Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. A. (2002). Managing change: Cases and concepts (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. � 66.Personal conversation with the author. 67.Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. 68.Laumer, S., Maier, C., Adreas, E., & Weitzel, T. (2016, March). User personality and resistance to mandatory information systems in organizations: A theoretical model and empirical test of dispositional resistance to change. Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31, Iss. 1, 67-82. 69.Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K., & Blau, G. (2004). Impact of variable risk preferences on the effectiveness of control of pay. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 63 –80. 70.Oreg, S., Bayazıt, M., Vakola, M., Arciniega, L., Armenakis, A., Barkauskiene, R., … & van Dam, K. (2008). Dispositional resistance to change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 935–944; Steenkamp, L. P., and Wessels, P. L. (2014). An analysis of the tolerance for ambiguity among accounting students. International Business and Research Journal (Online), 13(2). 71.Probst, T. M. (2003). Exploring employee outcomes of organizational restructuring: A Solomon four-group study. Group and Organization Management, 28(3), 416–439. 72.Tremblay, M., & Roger, A. (2004). Career plateauing reactions: The moderating role of job scope, role ambiguity and participation among Canadian managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 996–1017. 73.Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callender, A. (2001). State- trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 317–326. 74.Park, D., & Krishnan, H. A. (2003). Understanding the stability- change paradox: Insights for the evolutionary, adaptation, and � institutional perspectives. International Journal of Management, 20(3), 265–270. 75.Barnett, W. P., & Sorenson, O. (2002). The Red Queen in organizational creation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 289–325. 76.Kolbert, E. (2017, February 27). Why facts don’t change our minds. New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dontchange- our-minds. 77.Kelly, P., & Amburgey, T. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 591–612; Huff, J., Huff, J., & Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55–75. 78.Kovoor-Misra, S., & Nathan, M. (2000). Timing is everything: The optimal time to learn from crises. Review of Business, 21(3/4), 31–36. 79.Geller, E. S. (2002). Leadership to overcome resistance to change: It takes more than consequence control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 29; and Brown, J., & Quarter, J. (1994). Resistance to change: The influence of social networks on the conversion of a privately-owned unionized business to a worker cooperative. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 15(2), 259–283. 80.Loi, R., and Lai, J. Y. M., & Lam, L. W. (2012, June). Working under a committed boss: A test of the relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ affective commitment. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 466–475. 81.Kane-Frieder, R. E., Hochwarter, W. A., Hampton, H. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2014). Supervisor political support as a buffer to subordinates’ reactions to politics perceptions: A three-sample investigation. Career Development International, 19(1), 27–48; Sales, M. (2002, July/August). Futures thinking by middle managers: A neglected necessity. Systems Research and � Behavioral Science, 19(4), 367; Oshry, B. (1990). Finding and using a manager’s power to improve productivity. National Productivity Review, 10(1), 19–33. 82.Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381. 83.Johnson, L. (2008). Helping employees cope with change in an anxious era. Harvard Management Update, 13(12), 1–5. 84.Cranston, S., & Keller, S. (2015, January). Increasing the “meaning quotient” at work. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/ourinsights/ increasing-the-meaning-quotient-of-work. Barash, J., Mogelof, J., & Webb, C. (2010, October). How centered leaders achieve extraordinary results. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/howcentered- leaders-achieve-extraordinary-results. 85.Brenneman, G. (1998). Right away and all at once: How we saved Continental. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 162–173. 86.Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 529–545. 87.Sherman, W. S., & Garland, G. E. (2007). Where to bury the survivors? Exploring possible ex post effects of resistance to change. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 72(1), 52–63. 88.Arthur, C. (2013, November 4). BlackBerry fires CEO Thorsten Heins as $4.7bn Fairfax rescue bid collapses. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/04/blackberryfires- ceo-thorsten-heins-fairfax-bid-collapses. 89.Pachner, J. (2018,March 31). The incredible shrinking company. Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on � business/rob-magazine/has-john-chen-savedblackberryyet/ article38350881/. 90.Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48–60. 91.Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 50–51. 92.Munduate, L., & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M. (2003). Power dynamics and organisational change: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), 1–13; Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386; Peus, C., Frey, D., Gerkhardt, M., Fischer, P., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2009). Leading and managing organizational change initiatives. Management Review, 20(2), 158–175. 93.Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 667–686. 94.Personal communication, 2004. 95.Kramer, R. M. (2006). The great intimidators. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 88–96. 96.Sherman, W. S., & Garland, G. E. (2007). Where to bury the survivors? Exploring possible ex post effects of resistance to change. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 72(1), 52–63. 97.Source unknown. 98.Stimson, W. A. (2005). A Deming inspired management code of ethics. Quality Progress, 38(2), 67–75; Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). The failure-tolerant leader. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 64; Casio, J. (2002). Scare tactics. Incentive, 176(9), 56– 62. � 99.Collins, J. C. (2001). From good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don’t. New York: Harper Business. 100.Werther, W. B., Jr. (1987). Loyalty: Cross-organizational comparisons and patterns. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 8(2), 3–6. 101.Deming, W. E. (1986). Drastic changes for western management. Madison, WI: Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement. 102.Challagalla, G. N., & Shervgani, T. A. (1996). Dimensions and types of supervisory control: Effects on salesperson performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60, 89–105. 103.Appelbaum, S. H., Bregman, M., & Moroz, P. (1998). Fear as a strategy: Effects and impact within the organization. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(3), 113–127. 104.Usman, A., Maqadas, F., Muhammad, K.I., & Saboor, A. (2018, Vol. 31, Iss.5). Emerging organizational parameters in implementation of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1084-1104. 105.Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: HarperCollins. 106.Kolb, D. G. (2002). Continuity, not change: The next organizational challenge. University of Auckland Business Review, 4(2), 1–11. 107.Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organizational Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601. 108.Cranston, S., and Keller, S. (2013, January). Increasing the meaning quotient at work. McKinsey Quarterly. 109.Evans, C., Hammersley, G. O., & Robertson, M. (2001). Assessing the role and efficacy of communication strategies in � times of crisis. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(6), 297 –309; Ashkenas, R. N., DeMonaco, L. J., & Francis, S. C. (1998). Making the deal real: How GE Capital integrates acquisitions. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 165–176. 110.Difonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3–4), 295–304. 111.Bringselius, L. (2014, Spring). Employee objections to organizational change: A framework for addressing management responses. Organizational Development Journal, 41-54. 112.Cunha, M.P.E., Clegg, S.R., Rego, A., & Story, J. (2013, Vol. 13, No. 3). From the physics of change to realpolitik: Improvisational relations of power and resistance. Journal of Change Management. 460–476. 113.Tersine, R., Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. (1997). Shifting organizational paradigms: Transitional management. European Management Journal, 15(1), 45–57. 114.Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 6–18. 115.Abrahamson, E. (2000, July–August). Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, 75–79. Driver, L. (2018, October 14). How Indra Nooyi changed the face of PepsiCo. World Finance. Retrieved from https://www.worldfinance.com/special-reports/howindra- nooyi-changed-the-face-of-pepsico. 116.Burke, R. J. (2002). The ripple effect. Nursing Management, 33(2), 41–43; Weakland, J. H. (2001). Human resources holistic approach to healing downsizing survivors. Organizational Development Journal, 19(2), 59–69; Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 83–95. 117.McCann, J., Selsky, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Building agility, resilience and performance in turbulent environments. People and � Strategy, 32(3), 44–51. Denning, S. (2018, April 24). How McKinsey embraces agile as key to managing talent. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/04/24/howmckinsey- embraces-agile-as-key-to-managingtalent/# 4eb7fdc9cb4c. 118.Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. T. (1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 45–60. 119.Meyerson, D. E. (2001, October). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 92–100. 120.Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (1990). Influence without authority. New York: Wiley; Keys, B., & Case, T. (1990). How to become an influential manager. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 38–49. 121.Pink, D.H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books. See also Pink’s YouTube video based on the book. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=u6XAPnuFjJc&list=PLOs0lcCMEHfKWAfRRmVNhb0jEMBz2i2a _. 122.Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 53. 123.Adapted from Reicher, A. E., et al. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 53. � Chapter 8 1.Dover, P. A. (2003). Change agents at work: Lessons from Siemens Nixdorf. Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 243–257. 2.Lattman, P. (2005). Rebound. Forbes, 175(6), 58. 3.Jac the Knife new chairman of BHP. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.smh.com.au/business/jac-the-knife-new-chairman-ofbhp- 20090804-e8mx.html. 4.Hamel, G. (2002). Leading the revolution: How to thrive in turbulent times by making innovation a way of life. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 5.Mass, J. (2000). Leading the revolution. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 95. 6.Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 367–380. 7.Huey, J. (1994). The new post-heroic leadership. Fortune, 129(4), 42. Retrieved December 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1994/02/ 21/78995/index.htm. 8.Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases and concepts (p. 362). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 9.Tandon, N. (2003). The young change agents. In T. Jick & M. Peiperl, Managing change: Cases and concepts (p. 428). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 10.Kanter, R. M. (2003). The enduring skills of change leaders. In T. Jick & M. Peiperl, Managing change: Cases and concepts (p. 429). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 11.Hammonds, K. (2001, November). Change agents: Michael J. Fox & Deborah Brooks. Fast Company, (52), 106. � 12.Branson, C. M. (2009). Achieving organizational change through values alignment. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 376–395. 13.Frank, J. N. (2004). Newman’s Own serves up a down-home public image. PRweek, 7(5), 10. 14.Dickout, R. (1997). All I ever needed to know about change management I learned at engineering school. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 114–121. 15.Dickout, R. (1997). All I ever needed to know about change management I learned at engineering school. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 114–121. 16.Francis, H. (2003). Teamworking and change: Managing the contradictions. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 71– 90. 17.Chilton, S. (2004). Book review of Creating leaderful organisations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 110. 18.Katzenbach, J. R. (1996). Real change. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 148–163. 19.Doyle, M. (2003). From change novice to change expert. Personnel Review, 31(4), 465–481. 20.Appelbaum, S., Bethune, M., & Tannenbaum, R. (1999). Downsizing and the emergence of self-managed teams. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal, 7(5), 109–130. 21.Kramer, R. M. (2006, February). The great intimidators. Harvard Business Review, 88–96. 22.Collins, J. (2001). From good to great. New York: HarperCollins. � 23.Rubin, R., Dierdorff, E., Boomer, W., & Baldwin, T. (2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 680–688. 24.McCall, M., & Lombardo, M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. 25.Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 165–178. 26.Francis, H. (2003). Teamworking and change: Managing the contradictions. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 71– 90. 27.Much of this is drawn from Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases and concepts (p. 362). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 28.Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 207. 29.Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(7/8), 554. 30.Caldwell, R. (2003). Change leaders and change managers: Different or complementary? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 285–293. 31.Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121–151. 32.Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 147. � 33.Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 34.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/index.aspx. 35.Criswell, C., & Martin, A. (2007). 10 trends: A study of senior executives’ views on the future. Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved December 10 from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/TenTrends.pdf. 36.Duck, J. D. (2001). The change monster: The human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York: Crown Business. 37.Bennis (1989), as reported in Komives, S., et al. (1998). Exploring leadership (p. 109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 38.Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (1998). Collaborating for change: Appreciative Inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Communications. 39.Miller, D. (2002). Successful change leaders: What makes them? What do they do that is different? Journal of Change Management, 2(4), 383. 40.Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 367–380. 41.Patton, J. R. (2003). Intuition in decisions. Management Decision, 41(10), 989–996. 42.Personal communication with the authors. 43.Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1989). Organizational frame bending. Academy of Management Executive, 3(3), 194–204. 44.Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 366. � 45.McAdam, R., McLean, J., & Henderson, J. (2003). The strategic “pull” and operational “push” of total quality management in UK regional electricity service companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(4/5), 436–457. 46.Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators—Why new initiatives get blocked. Long Range Planning, 17(2), 137–143; Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. 47.Saka, A. (2003). Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 480–497. 48.Hunsaker, P. (1982, September–October). Strategies for organizational change: The role of the inside change agent. Personnel, 18–28. 49.Wright, C. (2009). Inside out? Organizational membership, ambiguity and the ambivalent identity of the internal consultant. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 309–322. 50.Personal experience of the authors. 51.Saka, A. (2003). Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 489. 52.Personal experience of the authors. 53.Pitts, G. (2010, January 4). The fine art of managing change. Globe and Mail. 54.Jarrett, M. (2004). Tuning into the emotional drama of change: Extending the consultant’s bandwidth. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 247–258; Kilman, R. H. (1979, Spring). Problem defining and the consulting/intervention process. California Management Review, 26–33; Simon, A., & Kumar, V. (2001). Client’s view on strategic capabilities which lead to � management consulting success. Management Decisions, 39(5/6), 362–373. 55.Prosci Benchmarking Report. Best Practices in Change Management. (2000). 56.Adapted from Prosci Benchmarking Report. Best Practices in Change Management. (2000). 57.Worren, N., et al. (1999, September). From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 277. 58.Worren, N. et al. (1999, September). From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 277, Table 2. 59.Appelbaum, S., Bethune, M., & Tannenbaum, R. (1999). Downsizing and the emergence of self-managed teams. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal, 7(5), 109–130. 60.Prosci Benchmarking Report. Best Practices in Change Management. (2000). 61.Kahn, W. A. (2004). Facilitating and undermining organizational change: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(1), 7–30. 62.Rooney, P. (2001, November 12). Bill Gates, chairman and chief software architect. Microsoft. CNR. 63.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www. newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2006/15/c4768. html. 64.H. Sheppard, personal communication with T. Cawsey. 65.Webber, A. M. (1999). Learning for change (an interview with Peter Senge). Fast Company, 24. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/24/senge.html. � 66.Senge, P. M. (1996). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. In K. Starkey (Ed.), How organisations learn (pp. 288–315). London: International Thompson Business Press. 67.Gilley, A., McMillan, H., & Gilley, J. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(1), 38–47. 68.Banutu-Gomez, M. B., & Banutu-Gomez, S. M. T. (2007). Leadership and organizational change in a competitive environment. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(2), 69–90. 69.Wageman, R. (1997, Summer). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 49–61. 70.Johnston Smith International (2000, November 22). 2000 Change Management Conference, The Change Institute, Toronto. 71.Gerstner, L. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance?: Inside IBM’s historic turnaround. New York: HarperCollins. 72.Sheppard, P. (2003, February). Leading the Turnaround: Lou Gerstner of IBM. Wharton Leadership Digest, 7(5). 73.Lambert, T. (2006). Insight. MENAFN.com. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.menafn.com/qn_print.asp? StroyID=129531&subl=true. 74.Katzenbach, J. (1996, July/August). From middle manager to real change leader. Strategy and Leadership, 34. 75.Oshry, B. (1993). Converting middle powerlessness to middle power: A systems approach. In T. Jick, Managing change: Cases and concepts. Homewood, IL: Irwin. 76.Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990, Summer). Champions of change. Organizational Dynamics, 40–55. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Insights/Browse-byContent- Type/Case-Studies/index.htm. � 77.The sage of Quiznos: The skills of Greg Brenneman, a corporate-turnaround specialist, are in demand. (2008, August 28). Economist. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.economist.com/node/12001911. 78.Shepard, H. (1975, November). Rules of thumb for change agents. Organization Development Practitioner, 1–5; Ransdell, E. (1997). Rules for Radicals. Fast Company, 11, 190–191; Hamel, G. (2000, July). How to start an insurrection. Ideas@Work, Harvard Business Review Press. 79.Prosci Benchmarking Report. Best Practices in Change Management. (2000). � Chapter 9 1.Mattioli, D., & Maher, K. (2010, March 1). At 3M, innovation comes in tweaks and snips. Wall Street Journal (Digital Network). Retrieved May 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870378730457507 5590963046162.html. 2.Swanborg, R. (2010, April 30). Social networks in the enterprise: 3M’s innovation process. CIO. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.cio.com.au/article/344909/social_networks_enterprise_ 3m_innovation_process/; From Post-its to Face-bras: How 3M puts innovation into practice. (2010, April 1). Knowledge@SMU. Retrieved May 2010 from http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/article.cfm?articleid=1281. 3.Many 3-M press releases contain this phase. Retrieved from http://investors.3m.com/news/press-release-details/2017/3MReinvents- Scouring-Pad-with-New-Scotch-Brite-Dual-PurposeScour- Pad-96Hex/default.aspx. 4.Retrieved May 2010 from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper; or http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/hopper.htm; or http://www.inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Grace_Hopper .htm. 5.Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). Knowing “what” to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action. California Management Review, 42(1), 83–110. 6.O’Hara, S., Murphy, L., & Reeve, S. (2007). Action learning as leverage for strategic transformation: A case study reflection. Strategic Change, 16(4), 177–190. 7.Sayles, L. (1993, Spring). Doing things right: A new imperative for middle managers. Organizational Dynamics, 10. � 8.Kahan, S. (2008, October 13). Personal empowerment in difficult times. Fast Company. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/seth-kahan/leadingchange/ personal-empowerment-difficult-times. 9.Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (2001). Decision making: It’s not what you think. Sloan Management Review, 42, 89–93. 10.Nohria, N. (1993). Executing change: Three generic strategies. Harvard Business School Press #9–494–039. 11.Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (2004). Implementing change: Matching implementation methods and change type. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 424–434. 12.Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990, November– December). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 158–166. 13.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.everydaytaichi. com/confucius-saying.html. 14.Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990, November– December). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 158–166. 15.Rune, T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 375. 16.Source unknown. 17.Welbourne, T. M. (2009). Extreme strategy. Leader to Leader, 2009(2), 42–48. 18.Adapted from Mieszkowski, K. (1998). Change—Barbara Waugh. Fast Company, 20, 146. 19.Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (2004). Implementing change: Matching implementation methods and change type. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 424–434. � 20.Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_scenario_planni ng.html. 21.Noori, H., Munro, H., Deszca, G., & McWilliams, B. (1999). Developing the right breakthrough product/service: An application of the umbrella methodology. Parts A and B. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 544–579. 22.Wylie, I. (2002, July). There is no alternative to …Fast Company, 106–110. 23.Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: HarperCollins. 24.Hern, A. (Dec. 19, 2018). Facebook shared private user messages with Netflix and Spotify. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/19/facebookuser- data-private-messages-netflix-spotify-amazon-microsoftsony. 25.Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western. 26.Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions (p. 95). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 27.Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. 28.Duxbury, N., Garett-Petts, W.F., & MacLennan, D. (editors) (2015). Cultural mapping as cultural inquiry. Oxfordshire: Routledge. Cultural mapping toolkit: A partnership between 2010 legacies now and creative city network of Canada (2010). Retrieved from http://www.creativecity.ca/database/files/library/cultural_mappingtoolkit. pdf. 29.Personal communication with author. � 30.Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. New York: First Back Bay. 31.Burke, W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice (pp. 274–280). London: Sage. 32.Moore, G. (1999). Crossing the chasm. New York: HarperBusiness. 33.Lui, M. (2008, May 9). Clyburn sees “tipping point” to Obama. New York Times. Retrieved May 2010 from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/clyburn-seestipping- point-to-obama/; Balz, D. (2008, January 8). Obama’s tipping point. Washington Post. Retrieved May 2010 from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/01/obamas-tippingpoint- 1.html; Stanton, J. (2009, April 20). The man behind Obama’s online election campaign. Web 2.0 Convergence Blogs. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/web_20_convergence/20 09/04/the-man-behind-obamas-online-e.php. 34.Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2018). Management tools and trends. Bain and Company. Retrieved from https://www.bain.com/contentassets/f8361c5cd99e4f40bbbf83c17 d6a91b9/bain_brief-management_tools_and_trends.pdf. 35.Argyris, C. (1991, May–June). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 104. 36.De Bono, E. (1984). Tactics: The art and science of success (p. 41). Toronto: Little, Brown. 37.Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1992, Winter). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 7–17. 38.Isern, J., & Pung, C. (2007). Harnessing energy to drive organizational change. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 16–19. 39.Goodman, J., & Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: Communicating effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 234. � 40.Dutton, J., et al. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736. 41.Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. 42.Spector, B. (1989, Summer). From bogged down to fired up: Inspiring organizational change. Sloan Management Review, 29– 34. 43.Klein, S. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), 37. 44.Birshin, M., & Kar, J. (July, 2012). Becoming more strategic: Three tips for any executive. McKinsey Quarterly. 45.Klein, S. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), 37. 46.Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2007). How to really shake things up: Transforming a company requires total commitment and serious stamina. Business Week, 4061(84), 84. 47.Goodman, J., & Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: Communicating effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 234; Nelissen, P., & van Selm, M. (2008). Surviving organizational change: How management communication helps balance mixed feelings. Corporate Communications, 13(3), 306–318. 48.Keller, S., Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2013, November). Organizing for change through social technologies: McKinsey global survey results. McKinsey & Company. 49.Daft, D., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B. Staw & R. Cummings, Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. � 50.Daft, D., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B. Staw & R. Cummings, Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 51.Goodman, J., & Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: Communicating effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 218. 52.Klein, S. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), 34. 53.Duck, J. D. (1993, November–December). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review, 4. 54.Cranston, S., & Keller, S. (2013, January). Increasing the meaning quotient at work. McKinsey Quarterly; Keller, S., Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2013, November). Organizing for change through social technologies: McKinsey global survey results. McKinsey & Company. 55.Peus, C., Frey, D., Gerkhardt, M., Fishcher, P., & Traut- Mattausch, E. (2009). Leading and managing organizational change initiatives. Management Review, 20(2), 158–175. 56.Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. 57.The first six highlighted points are drawn from Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1982). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106–114. 58.Geller, A. (2005, February 10). As union nears win, Wal-Mart closes store. Associated Press. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-13.htm; Wal- Mart shutters Quebec auto shop after union win. (2008, October 16). Montreal Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/finance/moneylibrary/story.html? id=01e454a4-b613-47d6-b0fa-ead56e06ec1d; Canadian Press. (2013, August 16). Only Walmart union in Canada votes to decertify. Huff-Post Canada. Retrieved from � http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/16/walmart-canada-uniondecertifies_ n_3769807.html; Blackwell, R. (2014, June 22). Supreme Court rules Walmart broke Quebec labour codes by closing store. Global News (2014, June 27). Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/1420291/supreme-court-rules-walmartbroke- quebec-labour-code-by-closing-store/. 59.Falbe, C., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638–652. 60.Source unknown. 61.Nutt, P. (1992). Managing planned change (p. 153). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada. 62.Morris, K. F., & Raben, C. S. (1999). The fundamentals of change management. In D. Nadler et al., Discontinuous change (pp. 57–58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 63.Duck, J. D. (1993, November–December). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review, 9. 64.Ackerman, L. (1982, Summer). Transition management: An in- depth look at managing complex change. Organizational Dynamics, 46–66. 65.Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions (p. 95). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 66.Personal correspondence with W. Allen, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario Government. 67.For information on how to conduct an After-Action Review, see After-action review technical guidance. (2006). Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, PN-ADF-360. Electronic version available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADF360.pdf. � Chapter 10 1.Porter, E. (2016, March 1) Does a carbon tax work? Ask British Columbia. The New York Times, retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-taxwork- ask-british-columbia.html. Beaty, R., Lipsey, R., & Elgie, S. (2014, July 9). The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truthabout- bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/? utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=Email:+ Newsletters+/+EBlasts+/+ etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links. 2.Fred, E. (2004). Transition in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 23(10), 962–964. 3.Ford, M. W., & Greer, B. M. (2005). The relationship between management control system usage and planner change achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 29–46. 4.Ford, M. W., & Greer, B. M. (2005). The relationship between management control system usage and planner change achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 29–46; Schreyogg, G., & Steinmann, H. (1987). Strategic control: A new perspective. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 91–103; Preble, J. F. (1992). Towards a comprehensive system of strategic control. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 391–409. 5.Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7–8), 130–139; Lorange, P. M., Morton, S., & Goshal, S. (1986). Strategic control. St. Paul, MN: West; Simons, R. (1995). Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 80–88. 6.Kennerley, M., Neely, A., & Adams, C. (2003). Survival of the fittest: Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(4), 37–43. � 7.Brant, J. R. (2003). Dare to be different. Chief Executive, 188, 36. 8.Bond, R., Barbarika, A., & Fan, Y. (2014, October 27). Top 50 franchises for Minorities (2014). WorldFranchising.com. Retrieved from http://www.worldfranchising.com/articles/top-50-franchisesfor- minorities-2014. 9.(2018, March 29). RE/MAX outsold competitors by more than 2:1 in Survey. RE/MAX, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/remax-agents-onaverage- outsold-competitors-by-more-than-21-in-survey300621284. html. (2018, May 15). RE/MAX tops 120,000 agents in its first quarter. Elite Agent epm. Retrived from https://eliteagent.com/re-max-tops-120000-agents-in-its-firstquarter/. 10.Szamosi, L. T., & Duxbury, L. (2002). Development of a measure to assess organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 184–201. 11.Harkins, P., & Hollihan, K. (2004). Everybody wins: The story and lessons behind RE/MAX. New York: Wiley. 12.Miller, D. (2002). Successful change leaders: What makes them? What do they do that is different? Journal of Change Management, 2(4), 356–368. 13.Grasso, L. P. (2006). Barriers to lean accounting. Cost Management, 20(2), 6–19. 14.Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(5/6), 291–300. 15.Nauta, A., & Sanders, K. (2001). Causes and consequences of perceived goal differences between departments within manufacturing organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(Pt. 3), 321–342; Cooke, J. A. (2003). Want real collaboration? Change your measures. Logistics Management, 42(1), 37–41. � 16.Denton, D. K. (2002). Learning how to keep score. Industrial Management, 44(2), 28–33; Anonymous. (2002). Materials management benchmarks easy to find, but often measure wrong things. Hospital Materials Management, 27(3), 3–4. 17.Sellers, P. (1992). The dumbest marketing ploy. Fortune, 126(7), 88–92. 18.Kanter, R. M. (2003). Leadership and the psychology of turnarounds. Harvard Business Review, 81(6), 58–67. 19.Kahneman, P. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrer, Straus & Giroux. Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011, June). Before you make that big decision… Harvard Business Review. 51–60. 20.Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Management in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 127–139. 21.Favero, N., Meier, K., & O’Tool, L.J. (2016, April). Goals, trust, participation, and feedback: Linking internal management with performance outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Vol. 26, Iss. 2. Patterson, M., Woods, S., Carroll, C., & Balain, C. (2010, October). Systematic review of the links between human resource management practices and performance. Health Technology Assessment, 14(51). 22.Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books. 23.Cawsey, T., & Deszca, G. Personal experience. 24.Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7–14. 25.Higgins, J. M., & Currie, D. M. (2004). It’s time to rebalance the scorecard. Business and Society Review, 109(3), 297–309. 26.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 106–116. � 27.Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1441–1478. 28.Lawson, E., & Price, C. (2003). The psychology of change management. McKinsey Quarterly, Special Edition: Organization, 2003. 29.Simons, R. (1995). Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 80–88. 30.Hoque, Z., & Chia, M. (2012). Competitive forces and the levers of control framework in a manufacturing setting. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 9(2), 123–145; Tero- Seppo, T. (2005, September). The interplay of different levers of control: A case study of introducing a new performance measurement system. Management Accounting Research, 16(3), 293–320. 31.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176. 32.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). The strategy map: Guide to aligning intangible assets. Strategy and Leadership, 32(5), 10–17. 33.Interesting examples of the not-for-profit application of strategy maps in the health care sector can be found in Lee- Ching, L.C. (2009). How strategy map works for Ontario’s health system. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(4), 349-363. 34.Cheng, M. M., & Humphreys, K. A. (2012, May). The differential improvement effects of the strategy map and scorecard perspectives on managers’ strategic judgments. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 899–924; González, J. J. H., Calderón, M. A., & González, J. (2012). The alignment of managers’ mental models with the balanced scorecard strategy map. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 23(5–6), 613. � 35.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176. 36.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85. 37.Simon, R. (1999). How risky is your company? Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 85–94. 38.Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 108–118. � Chapter 11 1.Barkema, H. G., et al. (2002). Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 916. 2.Galbraith, J. R. (2005, August). Organizing for the future: Designing the 21st-century organization. Strategy and structure. The process will continue. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Hawaii. 3.Malone, T. (2005, August). Inventing organizations. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Hawaii. 4.Refer to Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change (p. 104). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, for a further discussion on responsibility charting. � 824 � Index Abrahamson, E., 174, 256 Acceleration stage, 53, 54 (figure), 56–57 Acceptance of change, 170, 176–181 Accountability, 326n Ackerman, L., 358 Action planning adapting plans, 331 alignment, 334 checklist, 348 (table) communication plans, 349–353, 350 (table) engaging others, 333–334 ethical issues, 348–349 influence strategies, 354–357, 357 (table) path selection, 327–330, 329 (table) reviewing plans, 334 Action planning tools, 334–335 (table), 334–346 contingency planning, 336–338 design thinking, 338–339 employee training, 345–346 flow charting, 338 force field analysis, 209–212, 341–342 leverage analysis, 344–345 project planning methods, 340–341, 341 (figure) responsibility charting, 335, 336 (table) stakeholder analysis, 341–343 surveys, 339–340 to-do lists, 335 usage and satisfaction, 346, 346 (figure), 347 (table) Adapting, 21–22 ADKAR model, 243 Adoption continuum, 216–217, 342–343, 343 (table) After-action reviews, 359 Agilent, 166–167 Aging populations, 7–9 AI. See Appreciative inquiry AIDA (adoption continuum), 342–343, 343 (table) � AIG, 391 Airbus, 159–160, 161 Air Canada, 165, 166 Alliance for a Healthier Generation, 38 Amazon, 81 Apple Computer, 17, 71, 78, 128, 256 Appreciative inquiry (AI), 290, 340 Argyris, C., 83–84, 348 Armenakis, A. A., 112 Athos, A., 129 Austin, J. T., 251 Awakening stage, 52, 54 (figure), 55, 103 BA. See British Airways Balanced scorecard, 389 (figure), 389–390, 390 (figure) Ballmer, Steve, 109 Balogun, J., 236–237 Banks, 7, 48 Barkema, H. G., 19–20, 408 Barra, Mary, 6, 82, 128–129 Bauer, Gary L., 132 Baum, J. A. C., 19–20 Beach, L. R., 125, 130 Beckhard, R., 51, 110, 358 Beckhard-Harris process model, 51 Beer, M., 330 Beer et al.’s Six Steps for Change, 330–331 Behavioral–social change, 330 Belief systems, 381, 382 Bennis, W., 289 Bethune, Gordon, 121 BHP Billiton, 280 Bilodeau, B., 346 Birshin, M., 350–351 BlackBerry, 15, 71, 251 Bloodletting, 69 Boeing, 159–162 Boies, David, 132 Bolman, L., 152–153, 162–163, 200 Booker, Cory, 231 � Boston Children’s Hospital, 128 Boundary spanners, 214 Boundary systems, 381 BP, 12 Breakpoint change, 211 Brenneman, Greg, 121, 305 Bringselius, L., 254 British Airways (BA), 23, 165, 166 British Columbia, carbon tax, 371 Bruch, H., 69 Buch, K., 161 Buckley, George, 326 Burke, W., 344 Burton, LeVar, 134 Bush administration, 101 Caldwell, R., 287 Cameron, K. S., 343 Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), 102 Careers of change agents, 412–413, 414 (figure) Case Western Reserve University, 300, 302 Catalysts, 295 CAW. See Canadian Auto Workers Center for Creative Leadership, 288 Central connectors, 214 Champions, 301 See also Change initiators Change. See Organizational change Change agents. See Change leaders Change culture, 391 Change Curve, 50–51 Change equation, 207 Change facilitators, 26, 27–28 Change implementers, 26–27, 28 See also Action planning Change initiative approvals approaches, 170–173 bypassing formal, 172–173 coalition building, 172 creeping commitment, 172 � enhancing prospects, 168–171 formal processes, 167–172, 169 (figure) Change initiators, 26, 28 Change leaders (agents) advice for, 415–416 becoming, 257, 280–281, 283–284, 288–290, 304–305, 412 careers, 412–413, 414 (figure) characteristics, 29–31, 284–288, 287 (table) developmental stages, 290, 291 (table) effective, 29–31, 282–284 external, 296–299 followers’ feelings about, 249–251 generalists, 413 individual power, 200, 201 (table) integrity, 250–251, 392 internal, 295–296 organizational trends and, 411 (table), 411–412 personal concerns and perspectives, 108–110 roles, 26 rules of thumb, 305–306 specialists, 412–413 successes and failures, 279–280 transition managers, 358 types, 290–296, 293 (table) Change management communication, 252–253, 254 minimizing negative effects, 253–257, 255 (table) as ongoing process, 407–408 Change management skills acquiring, 288–289 communication, 285 future needs, 411 (table), 411–412 of generalists, 413 importance, 5, 281 leadership, 29–31 technical, 412–413 Change managers compared to change leaders, 287, 287 (table) project managers, 301 � Change Path Model application, 55–57, 408 description, 51–55 stages, 52–57, 54 (figure) Change pressure, 391 Change project managers, 301 Change recipients becoming stakeholders, 227–228 as change agents, 257, 304–305 coercion, 251–252, 354–355, 356–357 coping strategies, 255, 255 (table) defined, 26, 28–29 impact of change, 206–209, 208 (table) influence strategies, 354–357, 357 (table) See also Reactions to change Change strategies, 327–330, 329 (table) Change teams, 299–304, 302 (table) Charan, R., 123 Chen, John, 251 Cheney, Dick, 109 Chief executive officers (CEOs), 197–199, 280, 282, 324–325 Churchill, Winston, 283, 285 Citigroup, 7 Cleveland Clinic, 128 Climate change, 12 Closed-loop learning, 105 Clyburn, James E., 345 CNN, 29 Coalition building, 172 Coercion, 251–252, 354–355, 356–357 Collins, J., 108, 252, 253, 285 Commitment charts, 342, 342 (table) measuring, 392 profiles, 218 Communication channels, 352 focus, 349–350 importance, 354 key principles, 353 � plans, 349–352, 350 (table) skills, 285 timing, 349–350 in transition management, 358 See also Social media Communications technology, 14–15, 408–409 Competency trap, 245 Competing values model, 70, 85–87, 86 (figure) Complacency trap, 245 Complexity theory, 70, 90–92 Confirmation bias, 245, 378 Congruence model, 69, 71–82, 73 (figure) Consultants external, 296–299 internal, 295–296 Continental Airlines, 121, 250 Contingency planning, 336–338 Continuous change, 21, 23–24, 174, 211, 292, 413, 414 Continuous improvement, 256 Continuous improvers, 294 Cooperrider, D. L., 290 Corruption, 16 Coworkers, 246–249 Cranston, S., 130, 249 Creeping commitment, 172 Crises financial (2008), 7, 17–18, 23, 101, 391 need for change and, 100, 106, 116, 117 Criswell, C., 288 Critical path methods, 340–341 CRM. See Customer relationship management Cross, R., 214 Cuban Missile Crisis, 108 Cultural mapping tools, 343–344 Culture. See Organizational culture Customer perspective, 385–386 Customer relationship management (CRM), 176 Cynicism, 30, 50, 111, 117, 118, 251, 379 Data collection � accuracy, 380 in change initiatives, 373, 384–385 external data, 105–106, 112, 119 internal data, 108, 119 See also Measurement and control systems Deal, T., 152–153, 162–163, 200 De Bono, E., 348 Decision tree analysis, 336, 337 (figure) Dell, Michael, 78, 79, 82 Dell Computers, 77–81, 82, 87, 89–90, 155 Deming, W. E., 24, 252 Demographics aging populations, 7–9 diversity, 10–12 Departmental power, 200–202 Department of Homeland Security, 81 Design and implementation teams, 301 Design thinking, 338–339 Desjardins Group, 231–234, 252 Developmental stages of change leaders, 290, 291 (table) Developmental strategists, 293–294 Diagnostic and steering controls systems, 381, 382 DICE framework, 392–393 Dickout, R., 284 Discontinuous/radical changes, 21, 24, 292, 328, 413, 414 Doing first strategy, 328, 329 “Do it” orientation, 324–327 Douglas, T., 112 Doyle, M., 285 Duck, Jeanie Daniel, 50–51, 56, 289 Duck’s five-stage change curve, 50–51 Dunkin’ Donuts, 2 Early adopters, 216–217 Early majority, 216 eBay, 120, 282 Economic environment, 16, 17–19 See also Financial crisis Edwards, Blake, 254 Effort, 392 � Egri, C. P., 173 Eigen, Peter, 16 Eisenstat, R., 330 Emergent change, 328, 329 Emotional champions, 292–293 Emotional stages, 50–51 Employees. See Workers Empowerment, 327 Endothermic change, 284 Environment. See External environment Environmental issues, 12–13, 102, 132 Ethics, 16–17, 348–349 Ethiopian Airlines, 161–162 Ethnic diversity, 10 Exothermic change, 284 External change agents, 296–299 External consultants, 296–299 External environment demographics, 7–12 drivers of change, 5–19 economic, 16, 17–19 future changes, 408–410, 413 macro changes, 19–21, 20 (table) organizational structure aligned with, 158–159 PESTEL factors, 5–7 physical, 12–13 political, 16–17 scanning, 112 technology, 13–16, 408–409, 410, 415 External stakeholders, 106–107 Facebook, 14, 29, 408 Falbe, C., 356 FedEx, 81, 124–125, 303 Financial crisis (2008), 7, 17–18, 23, 101, 391 Financial perspective, 385 Fink, S. L., 242 Fiorina, Carly, 120 Flip-flop changes, 211–212 Flow charting, 338 � Floyd, S., 217 Food Banks Canada, 126 Force field analysis, 209–212, 210 (figure), 212 (figure), 341– Ford Motor Company, 128, 280 Formal structures and systems advancing change with, 165–167, 252–253 centralized or decentralized, 153, 414 change acceptance and, 176–181 change implementation and, 174–176 change project approvals, 167–173 complexity, 151 defined, 150–151 design issues, 162–165 environmental alignment, 158–159 future of, 410 information-processing perspective, 155–158, 156 (figure) mechanistic and organic typology, 154 (table), 154–155, 163–164 networks, 180 obstacles, 326 purposes, 74 restructuring, 159–162, 180, 355 strategic alignment, 158, 165 understanding, 151, 152–155 Fox, Gretchen, 204 Fox, Michael J., 283 FOX Relocation Management Corp., 204–205 Frost, P. J., 173 Future organizations, 408–412, 411 (table) Galbraith, J. R., 155–156, 157, 159, 161, 410 Gap analysis, 51, 53, 55–56 Garriques, Ron, 78 Gates, Bill, 109, 282, 300 Gaudet, Serge, 18 Gawande, A., 155 General Electric (GE), 118, 199, 211, 282 � General Motors (GM), 6, 9, 22, 82, 102, 128–129, 211, 379, Gentile, M. C., 48, 49 Gerber, P., 69 Gerstner, Lou, 302–303, 325 Gillette, 377–378 Giving Voice to Values (GVV), 48–50 Gladden, Brian, 78 Gladwell, M., 344 GM. See General Motors Goodman, J., 349, 352 Google, 12, 14, 29, 71, 128 Goss, T., 129 Grant, Peter, 172–173, 174 Grant, R. M., 81 Greiner, L., 88–90 Greiner’s organizational growth model, 70, 87–90, 89 (figure) Griffiths, A., 330, 333 Groupthink, 122–123, 234 GVV. See Giving Voice to Values H1N1 flu pandemic, 101 Hamel, G., 25, 29, 280, 306 Handy, C., 41 Handy-Dandy Vision Crafter, 127, 127 (table) Hannon, Kerry, 9 Hardy, C., 202 Harley-Davidson, 9 Harris, R. T., 51, 110, 358 Heins, Thorsten, 251 Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd., 177 Hewlett-Packard (HP), 17, 78, 120–121, 122, 282, 333 Higgins, C., 170, 172, 173 Higgs, M., 285–286, 288 Holt, D., 112 Hopper, Grace, 326 Hotel complaint example, 39–41, 44–45, 55–57 Howell, J., 170, 172, 173 HP. See Hewlett-Packard Hunsaker, P., 295 � IBM, 78, 133, 302–303, 325, 408 Immigration, 10 Implementation. See Action planning; Change implementers Incremental/continuous changes, 21, 23–24, 174, 211, 292, 413, 414 Individual readiness for change, 111 Influence strategies, 354–357, 357 (table) Informal organization, 74–75, 76, 196 See also Organizational culture; Organizational politics Information brokers, 214 Information management, 391 See also Data collection Information-processing view of organizations, 155–158, 156 (figure) Information sharing and knowledge development, 301 Infosys, 131 Innovators, 216–217 Institutionalization stage, 54, 54 (figure), 57 Integrity, 250–251, 392 Intel, 21, 410 Interactive controls systems, 381 Internal business process perspective, 386 Internal consultants, 295–296 Internal stakeholders, 106–107 Intervention, 356 Intuitive adopters, 294 ITT, 158 Jackson, A., 392 Jaguar, 128 Jick, T., 23, 125, 131, 242, 244, 255, 281 Johnson, G., 236–237 Johnson & Johnson, 129 Johnson-Sirleaf, Ellen, 228 Judge, W., 112 Kahneman, D., 109, 378 Kanter, R. M., 281 Kaplan, R. S., 385, 389, 390 Kar, J., 350–351 � Karp, David, 198 Katzenbach, J. R., 284–285, 304 Keenan, P., 392 Keller, S., 130, 249 Kennedy, John F., 108 Keysight Technologies, 167 Kidder, Rushworth, 48 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 131 Kirton, M. J., 295 Klein, S., 353 Kotter, J. P., 46–48, 56, 239, 242–243 Kotter’s eight-stage model, 46–48 Kouzes, J. M., 288 KPMG, 9 Kramer, R. M., 251–252, 285 Krishnan, R., 81 Kübler-Ross, E., 51, 241–242 Laggards, 216 Lampert, Eddie, 119 Langmack, Scott, 300 Lao Tzu, 130 Late adopters, 216 Late majority, 216 Latinos, 10 Leader, Joseph, 117 Leader-developed visions, 125 Leaders. See Change leaders Leader-senior team-developed visions, 125 Leadership, transformational, 118 Learning closed-loop, 105 employee training, 345–346 experiential, 288 organizational, 84, 179 Learning and growth perspective, 386 Lego, 128 Lehman Brothers, 7, 391 Leroux, Monique, 231–233, 252 Leverage analysis, 344–345 � Lewin, K., 44 Lewin’s stage theory, 44–46 Liberia, 227–228 LifeSpring Hospitals, 164–165 Liniger, David, 373, 374 Lion Air, 162 Lipton, M., 126–127 Lombardo, M., 285 Lufthansa, 69 Macro changes, 19–21, 20 (table) Malone, T., 410 Management support of change, 111–112, 280, 301, 325–326 Managers, challenges, 28, 28 (table) Mannix, E. Q., 19–20 Martell, Katherine, 296–297 Martin, A., 288 Mayer, Marissa, 198 McCall, M., 285 McDonald’s, 38, 84, 408, 410 McKinsey and Company, 158, 352 McNerney, Jim, 197–199, 211 Measurement and control systems in change initiatives, 373–377, 382–385, 383 (table) control levers, 381–382, 382 (figure) fairness, 378 importance, 371–373 types, 381–382 Measurement tools balanced scorecard, 389 (figure), 389–390, 390 (figure) DICE framework, 392–393 risk exposure calculator, 391–392 strategy maps, 385–386, 387–388 (figures) Measures conflicting signals, 379–380 selecting, 377–382, 380 (table) Mechanistic organizations, 154 (table), 154–155, 163–164 Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), 117 Microsoft, 109, 119, 175, 282, 300 Middle powerlessness, 304 � Miller, D., 290 Mintzberg, H., 327–328 Mistry, Cyrus, 133 Mobil, 386 Mobilization stage, 52–53, 54 (figure), 55–56 Mondragon, 410 Moore, G., 344–345 Morgan, G., 24 Morris, K. F., 358 Motorola, 92 MTA. See Metropolitan Transit Authority Muilenburg, Dennis, 162 Nadella, Satya, 109, 119, 175 Nadler, D. A., 21, 23, 71–77 Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model, 69, 71–82, 73 (figure) Nasser, Jacques, 280 National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 131–132 Need for change assessing, 104–110, 105 (figure) awareness of, 100–104, 115–119, 350, 408 change leader perspectives, 108–110 crises and, 100, 106, 116, 117 external data, 105–106, 112, 119 factors blocking recognition, 120–124 internal data, 108, 119 readiness for change and, 110–113 sense of urgency, 116–118 stakeholder perspectives, 106–108 Nehru, Jawaharlal, 110 Nesterkin, D. A., 241 Networks, 180 Nevis, E. C., 179 New England Medical Center, Boston, 325 Nohria, N., 328 Nokia, 71 Non-adopters, 216 Norton, D. P., 385, 389, 390 Nutt, P., 356 � Obama, Barack, 285, 345, 352 OD. See Organizational Development Olson, Ted, 132 One Equity Partners, 280 Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture, 358 Open systems perspective, 71, 106 Organic organizations, 155 Organizational analysis frameworks competing values, 70, 85–87, 86 (figure) complexity theory, 70, 90–92 congruence model, 69, 71–82, 73 (figure) gap analysis, 51, 53, 55–56 open systems perspective, 71, 106 organizational growth phases, 70, 87–90, 89 (figure) systems dynamics, 69–70, 83–85, 84 (figure) Organizational change challenges, 41–42, 407 defining, 2–4 failed efforts, 24–25, 119, 176, 280 future of, 408–412, 411 (table), 413–415 how and what, 39–41, 69, 70 as ongoing process, 407–408 paradoxes, 30, 413–415 roles, 25–29, 27 (table), 415–416 types, 21–24, 22 (table), 211–212 Organizational change models, 42–44 Beckhard-Harris process model, 51 Beer et al.’s Six Steps for Change, 330–331 Change Path Model, 51–57, 54 (figure), 408 comparison, 331–332 (table) Duck’s five-stage change curve, 50–51 Giving Voice to Values, 48–50 Kotter’s eight-stage model, 46–48 Lewin’s stage theory, 44–46 Organizational culture analysis, 204–206 artifacts, 121, 204, 205–206 clashes, 205–206 defined, 203–204 factors blocking change, 121–122 � informal organization, 74–75, 76, 196 mapping tools, 343–344 psychological contracts, 240–241 Organizational Development (OD), 333n, 340 Organizational growth phases, 70, 87–90, 89 (figure) Organizational politics, 199–203 Organizational readiness for change, 110–113 Organizational structures. See Formal structures and systems Organizational visions. See Visions Organizations complexity, 90–92 fit, 76–77, 80, 81, 82 in future, 408–412, 411 (table) growth stages, 87–90 Oshry, B., 27, 304 Overhauling, 22 Participation, 356 Participative approach, 330, 333 Pascale, R., 129 Peiperl, M., 244, 255 Peripheral specialists, 214 Perlman, D., 242 Personalities, 244–245, 248 (table) Persuasion, 356 PESTEL factors, 5–7 See also External environment Pfeffer, J., 5, 27, 326 Phases of organizational growth model, 70, 87–90, 89 (figure) Piderit, S. K., 235 Planning. See Action planning Polaroid, 280 Political environment, 16–17 Ponemon Institute, 14 Porras, J. I., 108, 253 Posner, B. Z., 288 Power dynamics, 199–203 tactics, 202–203, 203 (table) � Prahalad, D. K., 25 Predispositions to change, 244–245 Prince, Chuck, 7 Process helpers, 295 Procter & Gamble, 129 Programmatic change, 328–329 Project planning methods, 340–341, 341 (figure) Prosci, 299 Prusak, L., 214 Psychological contracts, 240–241 Pull actions/tactics, 292, 293 (table), 355–356 Push actions/tactics, 292, 293 (table), 355 Quinn, R., 343 Quinn, R. E., 292 Quinn’s competing values model, 70, 85–87, 86 (figure) Raben, C. S., 358 Radical changes. See Discontinuous/radical changes Reactions to change ambivalence, 233–234, 235–237 evolution, 234 feelings about change leaders and, 249–251 managing, 253–257, 255 (table) mixed, 229–230, 235–237 negative, 237 (table), 237–240 peer influences, 246–249, 249 (table) personality differences, 244–245, 248 (table) positive, 228, 229, 233, 234–235 previous experiences and, 245–246, 247 (figure), 248 (table) psychological factors, 240–241 skepticism, 215, 217, 239, 247, 250–251 stages, 241–243, 243 (table) of supervisors, 247 survivor syndrome, 243–244 See also Resistance to change Readiness for change assessing, 110–113 dimensions related to, 112–113 � questionnaire, 113, 113–115 (table) of stakeholders, 215–218, 216 (table), 217 (table), 218 (table) Reading Rainbow, 134 Recipients of change. See Change recipients Re-creation, 22 Red Cross, 128 Redirecting, 22 Reflection, 289–290 Refreezing, 44, 45–46 Reichers, A. E., 251 RE/MAX, 373–374 Renegade approach, 173 Reorienting, 22 Resistance to change change types and, 211–212 conflicts with other goals, 131 factors in, 229–231, 233, 234, 237–239 overcoming, 30, 206–209, 240, 243, 356–357 perceived, 229 See also Reactions to change Resource linkers, 295 Responsibility charting, 335, 336 (table) Responsibility diffusion, 102 Rigby, D., 346 Risk exposure calculator, 391–392 Risk of change, 246 Roman, Michael, 326 Rowland, D., 288 Rules of thumb for change agents, 305–306 Rumors, 349, 351 Rupert, Althea, 199 Russo, J. E., 349 Sam, Michael, 10–11 Same-sex marriage, 132 Samsung, 128 Savage, G. T., 213 Sayles, L., 326 Scenario planning, 336–338 � Schein, E., 203–204, 343 Schön, D., 83–84 Schumpeter, J., 71 Scotiabank, 408 Sears, 119, 408 Sedentary activation, 231 Seeing first strategy, 327, 328 Self-efficacy and agency, 250, 255, 257 Seligman, Martin, 48 Senge, P., 17, 84, 240 Shani, R., 81 Shoemaker, P. J. H., 349 Siemens, 17 Sigmoid curve, 41–42, 43 (figure) Silver, Adam, 11 Simmons University, 296–297 Simons, G. F., 124 Simons, R., 381, 391 Sirkin, H., 392 Six Steps for Change model, 330–331 Skepticism, 215, 217, 239, 247, 250–251 Social media, 11, 15, 158, 181, 252, 352 Solution givers, 295 Spector, B., 110, 330, 350 Sponsors, 301 Stacey, R. D., 90 Stacey’s complexity theory, 70, 90–92 Stage theory of change, 44–46 Stakeholder maps, 213–214, 215 (figure) Stakeholders adoption continuum, 216–217, 342–343, 343 (table) analysis, 209, 212–218, 341–343 on change continuum, 215–216 change recipients as, 227–228 commitment profiles, 218 customers, 385–386 engaging, 253, 356 feelings, 234–240, 243–244 identification, 212, 213 influence strategies, 354–357, 357 (table) � management, 212 need for change, 106–108 personalities, 244–245, 248 (table) readiness for change, 215–218, 216 (table), 217 (table), 218 (table) types, 214 understanding and commitment, 217 See also Reactions to change; Workers Standard & Poor’s, 7 Steering teams, 301 Sterling, Donald, 11 Sterman’s systems dynamics model, 69–70, 83–85, 84 (figure) Storytelling, 129–130, 350–351 Strategic alignment, 158, 165, 173–174 Strategic frames, 122 Strategies for change, 327–330, 329 (table) developing, 72–73 Strategy maps, 385–386, 387–388 (figures) Strebel, P., 211 Stumpf, John, 48 Sull, D. N., 122 Sun Petroleum, 358 Supervisors, reactions to change, 247 Survey feedback, 340 Surveys, 339–340 Survive to 5 campaign, 133–134 Survivor syndrome, 243–244 Sutton, R., 5, 326 Systems dynamics model, 69–70, 83–85, 84 (figure) Takacs, G. J., 242 Target, 70 Tata, Ratan, 133 Tata Group, 133 Taylor, Charles, 227 TD Bank, 11 Teams, change, 299–304, 302 (table) Technological innovations, 13–16, 41–42, 408–409, 410, 415 � Techno–structural change, 330, 333–334 Thinking first strategy, 327, 328–329 Thompson, J. D., 154 3M, 72, 197–199, 211, 325–326 Thulin, Inge, 326 Tim Hortons, 2 Tipping points, 344–345 To-do lists, 335 Tolerance for turbulence and ambiguity, 245 Total quality management (TQM), 81 Toyota, 6, 129 TQM. See Total quality management Training and development, 345–346 Transformational leadership, 118 Transformational visions, 118 Transformation process, 73 Transition management, 357–359, 359 (table) Transparency International, 16 Trump, Donald J., 352 Truss, C., 349, 352 Tsaparis, P., 177 Tumblr, 198 Tuning, 21 Tushman, M. L., 21, 23, 71–77 UAW. See United Auto Workers Uncertainty, 155–156, 159 Unfreezing, 44–45, 100–102, 292 Unilateral approach, 329, 330, 333 Unilever, 122, 408 United Airlines, 165, 166 United Auto Workers (UAW), 102, 211 United Nations, Survive to 5 campaign, 133–134 Usage and satisfaction, 346, 346 (figure), 347 (table) Useem, J., 123 Values belief systems, 381, 382 competing values model, 70, 85–87, 86 (figure) corporate, 121, 204, 205 � Giving Voice to Values, 48–50 Verizon, 198 Visible sponsorship, 301 Visions bottom-up, 125 boundaries, 131–132 communicating, 350 defined, 124 developing, 124–129 enacting, 129–130 example, 126 examples, 132–135 Handy-Dandy Vision Crafter, 127, 127 (table) leader-developed, 125 leader-senior team-developed, 125 sub- and overall, 124–125, 130–131 transformational, 118 Wageman, R., 302 Wagh, Girish, 133 Waldersee, R., 330, 333 Walmart, 128, 151, 355, 408 Wanous, J. P., 251 Waugh, Barbara, 333 Weick,K. E., 292 Welch, Jack, 118, 282 Wells Fargo, 48 Westley, F., 327–328 Wetzel, D. K., 161 Wheatley, M., 130 Whitman, Meg, 120, 282 WHO. See World Health Organization Wikipedia, 410 Wirth, Ross, 327 W. L. Gore, 410 Wooldridge, B., 217 Workers diversity, 11–12 older, 9 roles in organizational change, 26–29, 415–416 � supervisors, 247 training and development, 345–346 See also Change recipients; Stakeholders World Health Organization (WHO), 101, 133 Wright, C., 295 Yahoo, 198 Yukl, G., 356 Zane, Ellen, 325 Zappos.com, 180 Ziglar, Zig, 5 � 848 � About the Authors Gene Deszca is professor emeritus of business administration and a former MBA director and associate director in the Lazaridis School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University. He played a variety of leadership roles at Laurier, including the development and launch of the full-time, one-year MBA program, the executive MBA program, and the undergraduate international business concentration. He was instrumental in the development of the post-university professional accreditation programs for one of Canada’s major accounting bodies and was a member of its national board of directors for several years. Gene loves working with students and the excitement of the classroom and continues to teach graduate and executive courses, both nationally and internationally, in organizational behavior, leading organizational change, and international business. His consulting work follows similar themes for clients in both the public and private sectors, with a focus on framing and navigating organizational change and the development and delivery of executive programs to facilitate transition management. He is involved in two entrepreneurial initiatives which are in the process of scaling. The first involves software that simulates organizational disruption, for use in executive/management education (see changebydesign.com). The second organization focuses on the development and deployment of bundled hardware and software solutions (including blockchains), for use across a wide array of internet of things (IoT) applications, from smart factories to smart cities (see terepac.com). Gene is the author or coauthor of over 100 journals, conference publications/presentations, books, monographs, cases, and technical papers. These include the books Canadian Cases in Human Resource Management, Cases in Organizational Behaviour, Toolkit for Organizational Change (1st ed.) and the articles Driving Loyalty Through Time-to- Value and Managing the New Product Development Process: � Best-in-Class Principles and Leading Practices. He is an active case writer, and his current research focuses on organizational change and the development of high- performance enterprises. Cynthia Ingolsis a Professor of Practice, School of Business, Simmons University, Boston, Massachusetts. At the School of Business, she is the director of undergraduate programs, leads the internship program for undergraduate students, and teaches courses in organizational change, career management, and leadership. Cynthia works extensively in the business school’s executive education programs where she leads Strategic Leadership for Women, a program with a global reach that strengthens the leadership skills and self- confidence of its international participants. In addition, she coaches women executives who seek interpretation of feedback from bosses, colleagues, and subordinates and then helps executives determine the actions that they might take to strengthen their leadership presence and effectiveness. Cynthia received her doctorate from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in organization behavior and a master’s degree in political science from the University of Wisconsin– Madison. She taught management communication at the Harvard Business School (HBS), managed the 65-person case writing and research staff at HBS, and taught qualitative methods courses at several Boston-area universities. She serves as an editorial member of the Case Research Journal. She has served on corporate boards for several organizations, including FOX RPM and Biosymposia. Cynthia focuses her consulting work in three areas: conducting diagnostic work to promote change in organizations; developing and teaching interactive executive education programs, particularly using cases and simulations; and coaching executives to enhance their leadership capacity and careers. Cynthia’s research and publications follow similar lines. Her research on executive education programs has been published in leading journals, such as Harvard Business Review, Organizational Dynamics, and Training. � Her research work on creating innovative organizational structures and change was published in the Design Management Journal. She has published numerous articles about careers in journals such as the Journal of Career Development and Human Resource Development Quarterly. She coauthored two books on career management: Take Charge of Your Career (2005) and A Smart, Easy Guide to Interviewing (2003). Cynthia joined the Tupper-Gene team to publish the second and third editions of Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit (2012 and 2016). Tupper F. Cawseywas professor emeritus of business, Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University. He served as editor, Case Research Journal, for the North American Case Research Association. He served on several boards of directors and was chair of Lutherwood’s board from 2003 to 2008. Tupper was recognized nationally in 2001 as one of Canada’s top five business professors by receiving the Leaders in Management Education award, sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Post. He was also the 1994 recipient of the David Bradford Educator Award, presented by the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society, and the 1990 Wilfrid Laurier University “Outstanding Teacher Award.” Tupper created the Case Track for the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, a peer review process for cases. He is author or coauthor of over six books and monographs including Toolkit for Organizational Change—1st Edition, Canadian Cases in Human Resource Management, Cases in Organizational Behaviour, and several monographs including Control Systems in Excellent Canadian Companies and the Career Management Guide. Tupper has over 50 refereed journal and conference publications. In 2005, he received the Christiansen Award from the Kaufman Foundation and the North American Case Research Association (NACRA), and in 2007 his case “Board Games at Lutherwood” won the Directors College Corporate Governance Award and the Bronze Case Award at the NACRA Conference. In 2009, his case “NuComm � International” won the Gold Case Award at the NACRA Conference. Tupper passed away on August 17, 2015. �