Journals week 2 406 & 401

FOR JOURNAL FOR 406

Do the journal for 406 and 401 each. I have attached the template of what the journals are supposed to look like.

The term change agent refers to those individuals whose work involves trans- forming a system from its present state to some desired future state in a sus- tainable manner. Although there are many theories and models for how systems—at the group, organization, and societal level—experience change and progress through the change cycle, in reality we are typically confronted with change that takes place on multiple levels and in multiple systems. The model presented in this chapter focuses specifically on change agents who work simultaneously with multiple systems, faced with the challenge of draw- ing from numerous and varied system theories, grounding those concepts in project-specific data and desired outcomes. Based on nearly two decades as a project manager and change agent in the biopharmaceutical industry, I often searched—without success—for direction, a compass if you will, to guide my actions, behaviors, intentions, and impact on the client system. In order to further my own effectiveness, I have developed a compass to guide such sys- tem transformation, with hope that this approach will resonate with change agents and support their day to day work, reflection, and personal growth.

The change process itself is often described in terms of a continuum, from the Gestalt Flow of Continuous Experience (Nevis, 1987) and Transitions Model (Bridges, 2004) to Theory U (Scharmer, 2007). These models are useful as a guide for change and transformation at a macro-level, but they also recognize that various people in an organization or societal system will often be at different places on the change curve. In fact, the same person can be on different parts of the change curve at the same time. An underly- ing challenge concerns how change agents can address such complexity and diversity of perspectives when managing a transformation project that involves multiple stakeholders, often across different groups, regions, and cultures. Moreover, the very presence of a change agent within the system can readily impact people’s attitudes, behaviors, and willingness to change. As a result, with so many factors to monitor and manage, it is easy to see why so many change efforts fall short of their desired outcomes.

Figure 9.1 is intended as a reference point for change agents—from project managers and OD practitioners, to HR partners and beyond—to assist their work within a client system while also providing guidance for managing one’s own presence and impact. Never intended to be static, the model represents an ongoing opportunity for self-reflection, learning, and growth. The chapter explores the challenge of transforming systems, draw- ing on examples from a project with a large global pharmaceutical com- pany to provide context and guidance for application.

The Change Agent Compass consists of four dimensions and three guid- ing principles. Chosen deliberately, the compass metaphor likens a change agent to a hiker who has set off in the wilderness for an adventure. Even with the best preparation and planning, the change agent often encoun- ters unexpected challenges, surprises, and risks that can result in a minor change of direction (e.g., slight refinements of a meeting agenda) or a major detour to a new destination (e.g., full revision of project scope and objectives). The compass seeks to organize foundational organization de- velopment (OD) theory and values into a framework that is practical and useful for those navigating the wilderness of system transformation. Con- tinuing with the compass metaphor, the guiding principles serve as the di- rectional needle that should always be top of mind for the change agent in every interaction with a client organization. The four dimensions of the model are similar to directional markers, which help guide the ideas, be- haviors, and actions of the change agent based on the situation. One will often have to operate in two or more dimensions at a time, and an artistic management of presence occurs when a change agent balances these key considerations within and across dimensions and achieves a desired impact in service of client objectives.

EBSCOhost - printed on 7/13/2024 5:08 PM via . All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Figure 9.1 The Change Agent Compass.

A Change Agent Compass for System Transformation  173

EBSCOhost - printed on 7/13/2024 5:08 PM via . All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

174  A. HACOBIAN

Orgl 401 Use this information for Journal #2

Making Money and Social Responsibility

Yes, it is possible to make money and still be socially responsible. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility by Carroll applies a step-by-step approach on how social responsibility can be incorporated in corporate management without affecting the profitability. Thus, the pyramid implies that economic responsibilities occupy the primary levels, yet legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities are also essential. Organizations like Patagonia or Ben & Jerry’s perfectly illustrate this notion as they operate profit-oriented while being an activist for the climate and equality, respectively. It can help to increase people’s confidence in brands and attract those who care about the choice of products and their impact on society, which will positively affect financial performance.

Choosing Brands

In my capacity as the consumer, I have many choices with regards to the brands I purchase thus I based my decision on my beliefs, product quality, and company honesty. This process of decision making is highly influenced by social responsibility. The communities, environmental sustainability, and the ethical standards of a company are important to me. For example, I like when products are from TOMS Shoes that distributes one pair of shoes for every pair bought or companies that put organic packaging. It must be noted that genuineness of their social responsibility appeals to me and thus influences my buying decisions in favor of brands that I perceive to be committed positively to society.

Impact of Moral vs. Immoral Management

Ethical standards in products I buy are directly affected by a company’s moral management approach. As it has been established, Figure 6 from the Carroll’s framework differentiates moral, amoral, and immoral management. Organizations that adopt moral philosophy are ought to consider it as a top management imperative, where ethical practice is the main focus and stakeholders’ welfare is taken into consideration. On the other hand, immoral management fails to factor ethics in its management for the sake of making profit out of the organization. Customers care about the honesty and integrity of organizations and industries and companies that operate with the highest moral standards tend to be rewarded with the loyalty of the customers and a favorable brand image. On the other hand, the organizations with wrongdoings, for instance, scandals, or unethical strategies of operation to include employment, are likely to have their customers’ trust drained, resulting in the companies being boycotted; thus, having a negative influence on their future success.

References

Retrieved  https://doublethedonation.com/pyramid-of-corporate-social-responsibility/#:~:text=The%20pyramid%20of%20corporate%20social%20responsibility%20is%20a%20framework%20depicting,four%2Dpart%20definition%20of%20CSR

Retrieved from 

Play Video

Reply

1 reply

FOR JOURNAL FOR 406

Do the journal for 406 and 401 each. I have attached the template of what the journals are supposed to look like.

The term change agent refers to those individuals whose work involves trans- forming a system from its present state to some desired future state in a sus- tainable manner. Although there are many theories and models for how systems—at the group, organization, and societal level—experience change and progress through the change cycle, in reality we are typically confronted with change that takes place on multiple levels and in multiple systems. The model presented in this chapter focuses specifically on change agents who work simultaneously with multiple systems, faced with the challenge of draw- ing from numerous and varied system theories, grounding those concepts in project-specific data and desired outcomes. Based on nearly two decades as a project manager and change agent in the biopharmaceutical industry, I often searched—without success—for direction, a compass if you will, to guide my actions, behaviors, intentions, and impact on the client system. In order to further my own effectiveness, I have developed a compass to guide such sys- tem transformation, with hope that this approach will resonate with change agents and support their day to day work, reflection, and personal growth.

The change process itself is often described in terms of a continuum, from the Gestalt Flow of Continuous Experience (Nevis, 1987) and Transitions Model (Bridges, 2004) to Theory U (Scharmer, 2007). These models are useful as a guide for change and transformation at a macro-level, but they also recognize that various people in an organization or societal system will often be at different places on the change curve. In fact, the same person can be on different parts of the change curve at the same time. An underly- ing challenge concerns how change agents can address such complexity and diversity of perspectives when managing a transformation project that involves multiple stakeholders, often across different groups, regions, and cultures. Moreover, the very presence of a change agent within the system can readily impact people’s attitudes, behaviors, and willingness to change. As a result, with so many factors to monitor and manage, it is easy to see why so many change efforts fall short of their desired outcomes.

Figure 9.1 is intended as a reference point for change agents—from project managers and OD practitioners, to HR partners and beyond—to assist their work within a client system while also providing guidance for managing one’s own presence and impact. Never intended to be static, the model represents an ongoing opportunity for self-reflection, learning, and growth. The chapter explores the challenge of transforming systems, draw- ing on examples from a project with a large global pharmaceutical com- pany to provide context and guidance for application.

The Change Agent Compass consists of four dimensions and three guid- ing principles. Chosen deliberately, the compass metaphor likens a change agent to a hiker who has set off in the wilderness for an adventure. Even with the best preparation and planning, the change agent often encoun- ters unexpected challenges, surprises, and risks that can result in a minor change of direction (e.g., slight refinements of a meeting agenda) or a major detour to a new destination (e.g., full revision of project scope and objectives). The compass seeks to organize foundational organization de- velopment (OD) theory and values into a framework that is practical and useful for those navigating the wilderness of system transformation. Con- tinuing with the compass metaphor, the guiding principles serve as the di- rectional needle that should always be top of mind for the change agent in every interaction with a client organization. The four dimensions of the model are similar to directional markers, which help guide the ideas, be- haviors, and actions of the change agent based on the situation. One will often have to operate in two or more dimensions at a time, and an artistic management of presence occurs when a change agent balances these key considerations within and across dimensions and achieves a desired impact in service of client objectives.

EBSCOhost - printed on 7/13/2024 5:08 PM via . All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Figure 9.1 The Change Agent Compass.

A Change Agent Compass for System Transformation  173

EBSCOhost - printed on 7/13/2024 5:08 PM via . All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

174  A. HACOBIAN