REF

Running head: GUIDED IMAGERY AND PROGRESSIVE MUSCLE RELAXATION

2

2

Leading Organizational Transformation: A Comparative Reflection on the Change Management Simulation

Leading major change in any company isn’t simple. You must understand people, office politics, and how the organization works. In the Spectrum Sunglasses Company change management simulation, I led a major sustainability project. The simulation presented four situations, each with its own challenges (Hill & Judge, 2020). Spectrum planned to achieve three major goals in two years: cut manufacturing waste by 25%, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15%, and launch a new product line made entirely from eco-friendly materials.

My objective in each scenario was to build critical mass by securing at least 18 of 19 or 20 key organizational stakeholders, guide the firm through the Mobilize, Movement, and Sustain phases of adoption, and maintain a credibility score of 10/10. However, the contextual constraints governing each run varied significantly based on positional power and situational urgency:

Scenario 4: High Urgency / High Authority (Role: CEO)

Scenario 3: High Urgency / Low Authority (Role: Director of Product Innovation)

Scenario 2: Low Urgency / High Authority (Role: CEO)

Scenario 1: Low Urgency / Low Authority (Role: Director of Product Innovation)

This paper reflects on my simulation results by explaining how I diagnosed the organization, selected change levers, compared scenario outcomes, and connected the experience to change leadership theory. The central lesson is that successful transformation requires more than authority or urgency; it requires careful sequencing, credibility, stakeholder trust, and attention to the human side of change.

Preparation of Diagnosis and Change Plan

Scenario 4 created pressure to act quickly because Big Mart threatened to cancel contracts representing 30% of Spectrum’s annual revenue unless the company created a green manufacturing plan within three months. At first, I assumed that formal authority and external urgency would be enough to move stakeholders. This led me to use public announcements and deadlines too quickly, which increased anxiety and resistance. After recognizing this mistake, I used Burke and Litwin’s (1992) organizational model to separate transformational pressures, such as market expectations and executive strategy, from transactional barriers, such as cost concerns, production routines, and managerial incentives.

This diagnosis helped me understand that employees were not simply resisting sustainability. They were reacting to financial uncertainty, operational risk, and possible loss of control. Paul Diaz’s concerns reflected financial accountability, while Aisha Farook’s hesitation reflected production and quality concerns. As a result, I shifted from a forceful approach to a phased plan: first building credibility through private interviews and visible commitment, then using pilot projects and skill-building, and finally reinforcing adoption through rewards and recognition.

Effective Strategies Versus Ineffective Approaches

Across the simulation runs, the most effective strategies matched the organization’s readiness level. Private interviews, informal coalition building, pilot projects, and success stories helped stakeholders move from awareness to trial and adoption. These actions worked because they reduced uncertainty and gave managers evidence that the sustainability initiative could succeed without damaging operations.

The least effective strategies were those used too early or without enough stakeholder preparation. Broad public announcements, premature structural changes, and overly formal top-down actions triggered defensiveness because many employees had not yet accepted the need for change. The simulation showed that strong levers are not always effective when the timing is wrong. Leaders must first listen, diagnose, and build confidence before institutionalizing change.

Comparison of Scenario Performance: Highest Versus Lowest Outcomes

My results showed that change moved fastest when urgency and authority were both high. Scenario 4 produced the strongest outcome because the CEO role provided formal power, while Big Mart’s pressure created a clear external reason for action. Scenario 1 was the slowest because I had low authority and operated in a low-urgency environment. In that situation, progress depended on patience, informal influence, and careful relationship building.

Theoretical Framework: Bridges’ Transition Model

Bridges’ Transition Model was the most useful theory for interpreting the human side of the simulation. Bridges (2009) distinguishes external change from internal transition, explaining that people must let go of old assumptions before they can fully commit to new ways of working. In the simulation, employees needed time to move through uncertainty before accepting sustainability as part of Spectrum’s identity. The model helped me see resistance as a normal response to loss, ambiguity, and adjustment rather than as simple opposition.

The Roots of Employee Resistance and the Leader’s Role

Research on organizational change supports the simulation’s lesson that resistance usually reflects loss, uncertainty, or misalignment rather than irrational opposition. Employees may fear reduced control, threats to status, financial consequences, or the burden of learning new routines (Agócs, 1997; Dent & Goldberg, 1999). In Spectrum’s case, financial and operational concerns were reasonable; therefore, they needed to be addressed through listening, explanation, and capability building rather than pressure.

The leader’s role is to create conditions where employees can understand the purpose of change, voice concerns, and gain the confidence to act differently. Psychological safety matters because employees are more likely to raise concerns when they believe questions and dissent will not be punished (Edmondson, 1999). Capability building also matters because people are more willing to adopt new practices when they believe they have the skills to succeed (Bandura, 1997).

Personal and Professional Application of Knowledge

The simulation gave me practical lessons I can apply in future leadership roles. Before launching major initiatives, I will conduct stakeholder assessments, identify high-influence supporters and resistors, and avoid making broad announcements before I understand the political and emotional landscape. I will also use one-on-one conversations to uncover concerns and create space for honest feedback.

Professionally, I will use a phased approach to change: mobilizing commitment first, testing ideas through pilots second, and reinforcing adoption only after employees have begun to accept the new direction. This approach will help me balance strategic goals with trust, credibility, and employee readiness.

Ethical Leadership Failure: The Boeing 737 MAX Crisis

A recent ethical leadership failure that connects to change management is the Boeing 737 MAX crisis. Two crashes in 2018 and 2019 led to the worldwide grounding of the aircraft and raised serious questions about Boeing’s safety culture, decision-making, and transparency. Herkert et al. (2020) explain that contributing factors included design flaws in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, competitive pressure to keep pace with Airbus, lack of transparency about the software, and insufficient regulatory oversight. These issues suggest that ethical failure was not simply a technical mistake; it reflected a leadership environment where schedule, cost, and market pressure appeared to outweigh open communication and safety-centered judgment.

The Boeing 737 MAX case also shows why leaders must create systems where employees can raise concerns without fear and where technical expertise is respected. The U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2020) identified production pressure, faulty assumptions, lack of transparency, and oversight failures as major themes in the crisis. From a change leadership perspective, this case demonstrates the danger of organizational cultures that silence dissent or normalize risk. Ethical leaders must protect psychological safety, encourage moral courage, and prioritize stakeholder well-being over short-term performance goals.

Suggestions for Future Classes

For future classes, I would suggest giving students a short practice round before completing the graded simulation. A practice round would help students understand how levers, credibility, and stakeholder adoption interact before they make final decisions. I would also recommend adding a comparison worksheet so students can record which levers they used, when they used them, and how each choice affected results. This would make the reflection process more specific and help connect the simulation to course theories.

Conclusion

The four simulation scenarios showed that effective change leadership depends on matching actions to organizational readiness, urgency, and authority. My early mistakes came from assuming that urgency and formal power would automatically create commitment. Improved outcomes came from diagnosis, private listening, pilot testing, coalition building, and reinforcement after adoption began. The simulation also showed that resistance can be useful information when leaders treat concerns as diagnostic data rather than disobedience. By applying transition theory, psychological safety, self-efficacy, and ethical leadership principles, I learned that sustainable change requires both strategic planning and human support. Moving forward, I will approach organizational transformation as both a technical process and a psychological transition that requires credibility, patience, responsibility, and trust.

References

Agócs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017939404578

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (3rd ed.). Da Capo Press.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Herkert, J. R., Borenstein, J., & Miller, K. (2020). The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 2957–2974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00252-y

Hill, L. A., & Judge, W. Q. (2020). Change management simulation: Power and influence V3 [Simulation]. Harvard Business Publishing Education. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/7611-HTM-ENG

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886399351003

U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (2020, September). The design, development, and certification of the Boeing 737 MAX (Majority staff report). U.S. House of Representatives. https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.09.15%20FINAL%20737%20MAX%20Report%20for%20Public%20Release.pdf