9-1 Final Project Part One: Change Readiness/Needs Assessment Audit Report
Ariel Dorsey
Southern New Hampshire University
MBA 687: Leading Organizational Change
Dr. Ricotta, Tony
The CEO of the Singaporean headquarters wants to open new markets in the U.S. gain
access to new customers, diversify risk, leverage resources, and increase profits. As a result of
the CEO’s vision of successfully furthering the expansion into the U.S. market being unfulfilled,
the internal issues require a performance review of the change readiness/needs assessment audit
for the U.S. branch. The report may identify the readiness of the U.S. branch employees to adopt
change plans. The change readiness of the workforce and leadership, willingness and capabilities
for change, and any historical barriers to change from past planned or unplanned change
management experiences will be addressed through created visuals that illustrate areas in need of
change at the U.S. branch. Based on the Employee Engagement Surveys data, the visuals will
include the following information: A justification of your selection of data points from the
Employee Engagement Survey results; Appraisal, job-role stagnation, and promotion or
recognition; Apathy or disinterest regarding the vision, mission, and values of the organization;
Lack of trust in managers, especially senior leaders; Impressions about the organization’s
attitude to inclusion and diversity.
The participation rate for the Employee Engagement Survey is calculated based on the
response rate. Out of 140 employees, only 40 participated in the survey, resulting in a 28.5%
participation rating (response rate). Considering that a comfortable margin is between 40% and
50% to determine whether the employees are willing to put trust in the organization, 28.5%
proves that they may have trust issues, lack of faith, or reluctance towards the commitment to the
change of the organization. This can also be a good indicator of the lack of trust the employees
have in the management and leadership, especially senior leaders, and the impressions about the
organization’s attitude to inclusion and diversity.
Having most of the employees not participating in the survey creates a barrier to the
applicable data. It also indicates disinterest regarding the vision, mission, and values of the
organization. By contrasting the Employees Engagement Questions “I am familiar with the
company’s vision and values.” (26% agreed), “I have a clear understanding of the organization’s
direction.” (36% agreed), and “The organization is changing for the better.” (26% agreed) in
Figure 1.1, the data shows that even with a small percentage of participants involved, the
knowledge of the organization’s mission, vision, values are significantly low.
(Figure 1.1)
Apathy or disinterest regarding the vision, mission, and values of the organization: This
could be an effect of more than half of the employees (52.5%) having years of service less than
one year. There is a need for change in this area because these are the personnel that should’ve
been assigned employment handbooks and briefings that were sent out by the senior leadership
to clarify what the vision, mission, and values are and represent. This creates an environment
where the leadership and managers can be trusted, and the employees could express their
opinions or concerns about their work as well. This is also a valuable resource manager for
introducing and implementing any change initiatives. Managers will introduce an intervention of
some sort, observe whether outcomes improve by some standard, and then draw conclusions
about whether what they did “worked” or not (Lewis, 2021). This data justifies the selection of
data points from the Employee Engagement Survey results.
Employees’ confidence in change management practices is low compared to the average
organization. This can also be a good indicator of the lack of trust the employees have in the
management and leadership, especially senior leaders, and the impressions about the
organization’s attitude to inclusion and diversity. The data applicable for this information from
the Employee Engagement Surveys and Leaders’ Self-Evaluations is displayed in Figure 2.1.
(Figure 2.1)
This chart shows that employees have a low degree of confidence in the company’s
leadership. When considering the Senior Leaders/Middle Managers sector of the survey
questions in the Employee Engagement Surveys, only 36% of the respondents think the “senior
leaders are open, honest, and transparent” while 70% agreed that the “middle managers are open,
honest, and transparent”. Communication problems between the Singaporean headquarters and
the U.S. branch are resulting in low employee morale. To increase employee morale and
confidence in the change management practices the employees need to have an effective line of
communication with their leaders and managers to decrease the amount of undefined information
and resources. An estimate of how many employees have been given the opportunity for any
additional time to review the change management practices or be informed of any changes in the
organization would be useful. An open-door policy could increase the employees’ confidence
level in change management. The urgency for change at the employee and leadership levels is
high and may result in immediate effects.
The middle managers’ (team leads’) role in creating an adoption mindset is crucial to the
success of the change. They serve as a bridge between the senior leaders and the frontline staff
because the employees have more trust in the middle managers than the senior leadership (refer
to Figure 3.1). Creating an adoption mindset during the change can lead to more effective use
throughout the transition. There are sophisticated ways of communicating change that middle
managers can utilize in their daily tasks such as structured implementation activities that may
increase the likelihood of successful communication during change. Structured implementation
activities (SIAs) are defined as a set of actions purposefully designed and carried out to introduce
users to the innovation and to encourage intended usage (Lewis and Seibold, 1993). These
activities are designed for the efficient integration of change and the development of the system
leadership styles and power distribution that impact change readiness. Leadership styles and
power distribution impact change readiness by reflecting bad imagery upon the organization
because of the negligence of development from the senior leadership. According to the Leaders
Self-Evaluations, the Vice President of the organization admitted to being somewhat skilled at
change management skills, marking “I have some experience demonstrating this competency but
still need guidance”. Beginning the leadership with poor or mediocre knowledge of change
management could lead to a lack of demonstration of a clear commitment to change. Power
distribution impacts change readiness if there is not a well-balanced level of leadership like the
power within the organization. This means that the power distribution system must align with the
vision, mission, and values of the organization. Power relations can be reciprocal: one individual
may hold resources of importance to another in one area but be dependent on the same person
because of resources held by the latter in a different area. And just as the degree of individual
dependence may vary by situation, so may the degree of mutual dependence or interdependence
(Scott 1987, p. 283). Appraisal, job-role stagnation, and promotion or recognition are displayed
in Figure 3.1.
(Figure 3.1)
Opportunities to increase change readiness/trust at the U.S. branch may be presented by
individuals with the ability to alternate between the course of actionable changes and leading by
example to coherently implement the change. These individuals may be usefully selected for
specific tasks that they can perform well in. These increases change readiness/trust based upon
the overall performance of everyone. These individuals are more likely to be middle managers or
employees labeled as micromanagers who are assigned to specific tasks. Some employees more
accepting of change while others might be more reluctant because each person has a different
perspective on the situation of change or what the change means for them. Resistance to change
begins with uncertainty. The Forms of Resistance Grid explains the common reasons for
resistance to change. The reasons are as follows: ambivalence, peer-focused dissent, upward
dissent, sabotage, and refusal/exit. Referring to the Exit Interviews and exploring the Forms of
Resistance Grid to discuss the forms of resistance also provided insight into why some
employees are more accepting of change while others might be more reluctant. One of the
resistances to change reasons, ambivalence, is the most subtle form of resistance at the beginning
of the continuum. It is also possible that ambivalence stems from a struggle between two or more
desirable, yet contradictory alternatives (Lewis, 2021). For example, to introduce a change from
one philosophy of organizing (based on excellence) to another (based on experience) (pg. 208).
This form of resistance to change is also described by the Form of Resistance Grid as the
personnel who “vocalize a move toward change and also vocalize a struggle against change”.
Moving forward with the continuum, sabotage is the second most forceful form of resistance to
change. Sabotage is the personnel “try to stop change and slow down change momentum”
(Forms of Resistance Grid). It describes the process of threats, work slowdowns, feigning
ignorance, or subtle neglect that can cause serious damage to the change initiatives. Normative
pressures will occur in standard operating procedures, but identification of threats can present
opportunities to increase change readiness/trust at the U.S. branch.
Cultural considerations that may create difficulties for the employees of the U.S. branch
to adjust to the Singaporean headquarters' SOPs have been identified about Hofstede's cultural
dimension model and the Exit Interviews, Employee Engagement Surveys, and Leaders’ Self-
Evaluations. The cultural considerations include being able to work with a large variety of
people from different countries and cultural backgrounds to create an inclusive environment for
all cultural groups. In addition to providing a wide array of cultures in the workplace, cultural
considerations are also diagrammed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model. The importance of
cultural considerations using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model in the context of the U.S.
branch and the Singaporean headquarters is understanding the cultural similarities and
differences. Hofstede’s cultural dimension model led to six cultural dimensions on which
cultures can be ranked: Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-term/Short-term Orientation, and Restraint/Indulgence. Hofstede's
model helps analyze cultural differences based on specific evidence and not on preconceived
notions about different cultures. A requirement for the use of cultural identity from beliefs
through the personnel participation analysis and diagnosis before any change has occurred is
standardized in the results of progress. Differences in specific dimensions of Hofstede's model
may result in misunderstanding and change management frustration or failure. This may be
avoidable if most of the personnel share the same basic understanding of the system as it applies
to the entire change. Individualism and power distance may impact the cross-cultural
communication and business practice differences among American and Singaporean employees
if they encounter differences in their leadership. However, the individualism and power gap are
also important for both cultures to develop change awareness and understanding of the best
business practices for cross-cultural communication.
Resources
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., and Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations 46 (3): 681–703.
Leonard‐Barton, D. and Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of
new technology. Management Science 34: 1252–1265.
Lewis, L.K. and Seibold, D.R. (1993). Innovation modification during Intra organizational
adoption. Academy of Management Review 18 (2): 322–354.
Lewis, L., Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2021). Leading Organizational Change for Southern
New Hampshire University. Wiley Global Education US.
https://wileyplus.vitalsource.com/books/9781119832591
Scott, W.R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 2e. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
SNHU. (2022). Module Three Introduction. Leading Organizational Change. Southern New
Hampshire University. https://learn.snhu.edu/d2l/le/content/1202876/viewContent/21551207/
View
Yuan, Y., Fulk, J., Shumate, M. et al. (2005). Individual participation in organizational
information commons: the impact of team level social influence and technology‐specific
competence. Human Communication Research 31 (2): 212–240.
Supporting Materials
1.OCase for Change Guide: This document will provide you with instructions on what to include
in the change readiness report.
2.OEmployee Engagement Surveys: This document presents the results of the most recent
employee engagement survey.
3.OExit Interviews: This document presents the views of employees who voluntarily left the
company.
4.OForms of Resistance Grid: The infographic presents the forms of resistance that learners can
use as a reference to identify forms of resistance in the change readiness report.
5.OLeaders’ Self-Evaluations: This document includes self-evaluations drafted by managers,
which is part of the performance management process.
6.OU.S. Branch Overview: This document provides data regarding the U.S. branch’s financial
position and structure.
7.OVision, Mission, and Strategic Goals: This will include the CEO’s compelling vision as
translated by the VP.
Website:&OHofstede's Cultural Dimension ModelOallows the single reproduction of limited parts
for use in a thesis or academic articles
