2. Introduction
Mission: Through the appropriate use of
change levers, persuade a critical mass of
Spectrum employees to adopt a new initiative
Approach: Demonstrate change management
skills in an online simulation as the director of
product innovation at Spectrum Sunglass
Company
2
3. Learning Objectives
There is no
right or
wrong way
to manage
change
Practice diagnostic and action-
planning skills
Gain insight into change
resistance, learn to overcome
Identify key contextual
contingencies
How and when to choose
change strategies and tactics
Identifying common missteps of
change agents
3
4. Types of Change
Radical/re-creation
Game-changing
Short amount of time
Upheaval across
departments
Critical for long term
survival of company
Change in approach to
corporate social
responsibility
Incremental/adaptive
React to change in
industry trend and
customer demand
Changing market
conditions
Critical to remain
competitive
Organizational
restructuring
Adaptation of
manufacturing process
General approach
4
5. Managing Change
Radical vs. Incremental
Change Agent
Upper level Mandate
• New Product Development /
Product Innovation
• Supply Chain Issues
• Modify Production Processes
• Accelerate Marketing and
Sales
• Existing organic structure was
optimal
• Ideas “bubble upward from
lower-and middle-level
employees” (Daft, 2013, p.
453)
Middle management: Poor
position for top-down
strategy implemented in
radical changes
Middle management:
Empowered by CEO and
given aggressive timelines
Radical Incremental
5
8. Applying our Levers
Utilizing Frames
HR
• External skill
building
• Email notice
• Reward
system
Symbolic
• Walk the Talk
• Get CEO’s
Support
• Hold Town
Meetings
Structural
• Goals/deadline
s
• Reorganization
• Pilot project
Political
• Build critical
mass
• Public support
• Private
meetings
• Build a
coalition
8
9. Lever Summary
Team Results
Levers
Incremental
Results
Net Sum of
Changesin
Credibility
Sum of No. of
WeeksEngaged
in Lever
Ratio of
effectiveness
(Result to
Weeks) Leadership Frame
Conduct Private Interviews 68 0 18 3.8 Political, Human Resources
Hold Town Hall meeting 43 -1 15 2.9 Political, Human Resources
Walk the Talk 40 12 21 1.9 Symbolic
Announce goals& deadlines 22 -1 16 1.4 Symbolic, Structural
Get consultant'ssupport 17 5 15 1.1 Political, Symbolic
Conduct pilot project 15 0 36 0.4 Symbolic, Structural
Recognize an adopter 14 -1 21 0.7 Political
Tell a successstory 14 -4 12 1.2 Symbolic
Restructure organization 12 0 16 0.8 Structural
Provide external skill building 10 0 24 0.4 Human Resources
Revise reward system 9 -1 36 0.3 Human Resources
Build a coaltion of support 9 -4 30 0.3 Political, Structural
Get CEO'spublic support 8 14 20 0.4 Political, Symbolic
Privately confront resister 6 -3 7 0.9 Political, Human Resources
Issue e-mail notice 5 -2 5 1.0 Human Resources
Provide internal skill building 4 0 12 0.3 Human Resources
Post ProgressReports 0 -6 6 0.0 Symbolic
Grand Total 296 8 310 1.0
9
10. Coping with Resistance
Decision Result Factor
Failure Success
Lever
1
Lever
3
Lever
2
Time
Choices
Leve
r 1
Failur
e
Leve
r 2
Succe
ss
Leve
r 3
Failur
e
10
11. Pro Forma Model
Common Missteps
SituationalAwareness
• Incorrectly
diagnosing the
situation
• Mistaking the
situational
power of the
change agent
• Miscalculating
organizational
awareness and
appetite for
change
Speed
• Employing
radical change
levers for a
situation where
incremental is
better
• Utilizing
incremental
change levers
when a more
radical catalyst
is needed
Timing
• Incorrectly
applying a
change lever at
the wrong stage
11
12. Change Models
Information
Personal
Implementation
Impact
Collaboration
Refinement
Organization
Frame Bending
Heroism vs.
Stewardship
Six Changes of
Concern
The 8 Steps to
Transforming
your organization
A range of
Uniform and
Differentiated
Approaches
12
13. Recommendations for Leading
Change
• Making mistakes is
good if you learn from
them
Decision
Learning
• Change is not
formulaic
• There is more than
one way to drive
change
No Magic
Button
• Organizations are like
complex organisms
• Change in one area
will often affect others
in another area
Complexity
• Change happens
One Person at a Time
• Use the power
network to your
advantage
Incremental
• Reframing is
essential
• Try to color the
assessment using
more than one frame
Four
Frames
• Change Levers don’t
always work in each
stage
• Time the catalysts
appropriately
Timing
13
14. Final Thoughts
There is no right or wrong way to manage change
Utilize levers that enhance political power
Know what stage each employee is at in the change
process
Change happens one employee at a time
Respond to the needs of each employee as they pass
through the stages of concern
Strategic utilization of leadership frames in
conjunction with change levers can prevent common
missteps and ensure the success of the change
process
14
15. References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (n.d.). The power of reframing: Reframing leadership. In Reframing Organizations (Third ed., pp. 107-
129). Retrieved October 25, 2014, from https://quinnipiac.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1191757-dt-content-rid-
6257611_1/courses/MBA625DE_14FA/The%20power%20of%20reframing%20leadership_bolman%20and%20deal.pdf
Daft, R. L. (2013). Organization Theory & Design. Mason, Ohio: South-Western : Cengage Learning.
Harvard Business School Publishing. (n.d.). Change management: Power and influence Online Simulation. Harvard Business School
Publishing. Retrieved December 4, 2014
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005, June). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of
Change Management, 5(2), 121-151.
Kotter, J. (1996). 8 steps to transforming your organization summary png image. In J. Kotter, Laeding Changes. Retrieved December
5, 2014, from
https://quinnipiac.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fe
xecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_37839_1%26url%3D
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of
Management Executive, 3(3), 194-204.
Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.
The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2008). Leadership strategies for making change stick. Perspectives, pp. 1-8.
Watkins, M. D. (2009, January). Picking the right transition strategy. Harvard Business Review, 1-9.
15
16. Appendix
16
The following four slides consist of personal examples of change each of our
group members has experienced within our own work history.
These examples demonstrate a synthesis of the concepts we learned in this
class through the assignment of change levers that were involved in our own
change efforts and the recognition of the Four Frames of Leadership as they
were dynamically applied.
These personal examples clearly show the relevance of the course material.
We now have new tools at our disposal to more effectively lead our respective
organizations.
17. Change Management Example- Brittany Auerbach
Travelers Insurance
Situation: Open VP position at my company.
Actions: Interviews took place with current senior leadership team,
candidates met with all potential peers, research was conducted on past
performance of all candidates, debriefs with all interviews, and finally the
decision was made.
Levers: Individual Interviews were conducted, meetings held with all senior
leaders, discussion 1x1 with each leader about transition, announcement
of January 1st transition (goals and deadlines), town hall meeting with VP’s
new organization to introduce new leader, email from CIO was sent to the
whole organization announcing transition
Learning: For me, it was really interesting to see change levers applied in
class through a real and recent example at work. To me, this example also
ties closely with the political frame and shows the importance of
communication and conversations up front with all impacted individuals.
The timing of the town hall and email was also critical to ensure that all
employees of the organization would be comfortable with the change in
leadership.
17
18. Change Management Example - Joshuaine Toth
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutical
Situation: New Global Head of Research + budget shortfall =
“Resetting the Baseline”
Actions: New research strategy introduced in order to meet the
demands of the market while keeping up with our competitors
Levers: (1) Informative email introducing the idea of a new research
strategy (2) Town hall meeting announcing more specifics with
interactive Q&A (4) Reorg that consolidated groups based on
overlapping research focus (3) creation of middle management led
work-streams that will design new components of the organization
(5) Continued updates from our new leader via email and site visits
Learning: This new guy is good. I am on the Research
Communication Committee. Based on feedback from our most
recent survey, people are pleased with our new guy and his
dedication to communication. Not only is he using levers that seem
to be working (we all love the idea, we’re all on board), but he is
friendly, approachable, and most importantly, he is visible.
18
19. Change Management Example – Matthew S. Urdan
Nantahala Outdoor Center
Situation: Conduct a Corporate CSR and Environmental Stewardship Benchmark Assessment
per CEO Directive to Begin the Process of Culture Change by Aligning Company Decision
Making with Corporate Mission and Strategy
Actions: Data Compilation, Analysis and Reporting
Levers: 1) Issue Email Notice Explaining the Data Gathering Project and the Need for
Department Head Input. 2) Announce Goals of the Project and Deadlines for Employee Survey
Completion and Collection. 3) Get CEO’s Public Support. 4) Hold Town Hall Meetings to
Explain the Project. 5) Conduct Private Interviews and 6) Walk the Talk to Continually Explain
how Data Collection Can Improve Processes and Benefit Employees, the Community and the
Environment through adding Corporate Benefits Employees want, Supporting Volunteerism and
Increasing Local Community Involvement and Charitable Giving, and Reducing the Company’s
Environmental Impact through Smart Energy Utilization and Conservation, Recycling, and Carbon
and Pollution Offsets. Not only would employees, the community and the environment benefit,
but the company would also benefit from the differentiator of improved reputation among
consumers that would result in greater market share and increased business revenue.
Learning: The project was assigned to me by the CEO without any preparatory work in
ascertaining a problem or perceived need within the company for a CSR or Environmental
Assessment, let alone a culture change. Thus I was met initially with significant resistance and a
lot of questions. After informing the CEO of the issues, he sent out an email to department heads
to give me the support and access I needed, and then together, we held Town Hall Meetings
explaining the scope of the project and why it was being undertaken.
What I learned from the process was how important it was to obtain a coalition of support and
informational awareness prior to beginning any company wide change project with comparable
scope and magnitude. What I learned looking back at the process after completing the change
simulation was how important symbolic leadership played in the process. Achieving cultural
change is difficult and complex—even an act of aligning the culture more closely with the
company mission and strategy is a shift in cultural interpretation. Therefore it was critical to share
a vision of change, tell stories, relate examples from other companies and even share other
19
20. Change Management Example – Heather Stewart
Blount Inc.
Situation: Build and Global Procurement Organization through process and functional reporting
centralization of activities with geographically separated teams.
Actions: Information Gathering: World Tours for Interviews, World Tours to “Sell” the Concept,
Restructuring, Recruitment, Legal Entity Formations, Workshops, External Consultants, Multiple
Board Meetings, Board Announcements and Approvals
Levers: 1) Personal Interviews for all affected stakeholders in global Blount locations 2) After
identifying pain and resistance points, developing “Walk the Talk” presentation 3) World tour to
“Walk the Talk” and gain support from all global stakeholders 4) Incremental Board
Announcements of Change 5) Hiring External Consultants to provide support and unbiased
reviews of current organization 6) Restructuring of organization including legal entity formations in
China and Europe 7) Redesigned award and promotion system 8) Internal and external training
on new processes 9) Iterative public announcements of support from Board 10) Displays of
progress in visible areas 11) Recognition of adopter by public announcement from those adopters
Learning: I was recruited to the position with the intent that Procurement needed to be
restructured to a shared service concept across the global organization to capitalize on
economies of scale, best practices and ensure seamless post M&A transitions. Although there
was a considerable amount of resistance because I was an “outsider”, adoption was quite rapid.
The implementation, however, was quite lengthy as I had underestimated the competitive
employment market in the area and recruitment proved to be difficult. Timing of bringing in
external consultants was very key; had I brought them in earlier, the “outsider” view may have
been amplified as there was certainly some displays of resistance. Symbolic platforms helped
immensely; once the structures started to take shape, these displays created healthy competition
that drove the organizational acceptance and learning forward.
20
Editor's Notes
Hi, my name is Brittany Auerbach. On behalf of my groupmates, Heather Stewart, Josh-a-win Toth, and Matthew Urdan, I will be walking you through our presentation on the results of our change management simulation and discussing the building of a pro forma model to lead change.
To begin, we will first discuss the purpose of the change management simulation from Harvard Business School Publishing. The simulation was to help us develop the critical skill of leading change. In the simulation, we assumed the role of a change agent, the Director of Product Innovation, in Spectrum Sunglass Company. Our task was to influence and convince a critical mass of key Spectrum personnel to adopt our new initiative, focused on sustainability. Throughout the simulation, it was important for us to plan and time the use of Change Levers to gain the most adopters and supporters.
Next, we will discuss the specific learning objectives from the change management simulation. These five objectives highlighted here include providing us with an opportunity to practice action-planning in regard to leading strategic change, understanding why there may be resistance to change and how to develop change implementation strategies to avoid it, appreciate key contextual contingencies, determine how and when to use effective change strategies, and lastly how to identify common missteps people often use to implement change.
One of our biggest takeaways as a group was that we all approached the simulation in different ways. Yet, we all were able to influence the critical mass to adopt the new initiative. Therefore, this presentation will illustrate the general lessons our group learned about managing change as a result of our differing approaches to the change management simulation.
There are many types of change. Determining the type of change impacts the change strategy adopted and the change management process. There are four types of strategic change: technology, products and services, strategy and structure, and culture (Daft, 2013). Our group differed in opinion over the type of change that was called for in the simulation, thus our strategies differed. Some of us felt that the change needed was radical restructuring due to the game-changing nature of introducing a green product line and focused change management strategies on company restructuring and new reward systems. Others felt that the change was more incremental and adaptive to changing market conditions in that customers vocally expressed a desire for more green products. This group did not change the company structure.
Interestingly, both approaches worked and achieved critical mass in the change simulation. Radical restructuring change achieved a critical mass in as low as 61 weeks in one simulation and incremental adaptive change achieved a critical mass in as low as 66 weeks in another simulation. Both simulations achieved high change efficiency ratios of 0.3 and 0.29 respectively. The question that needs to be asked, however, is radical change that results in corporate restructuring necessary when incremental change may be less disruptive to the organization and may suffice?
While it cannot be determined based on the simulation results which approach was preferable based upon the type of change as only one simulation utilized the restructuring lever; consideration in determining the type of change necessary and the change process should include thought concerning the positional nature of the change agent and whether the direction of change needs to be top down from the Management Core or bottom-up from the Technical Core.
The entire group did significantly consider the positional power of the change agent. Since throughout the simulation, we had the role of Product Director, we really had to rely on boosting credibility in order to increase our power. Our change agent had to earn credibility and utilize political frame skills (Bolman and Deal, 2008) to obtain support for all the corporate executives above him, but also for key personnel in other departments. Political frame skills were used to great advantage in Private Interviews, which was by far the most effective lever in each of our simulations. Further, our choices in selecting personnel for private interviews and coalition building sessions were highly influenced by the social networks of our interview targets. Targeting those with more expansive social networks, such as the V.P. of Human Resources, netted greater progress in moving through the adoption stages than those with limited social networks. It was critically important to confront a person resisting the change at the right time; failing to do this effectively caused adverse circumstances. Finally, we all used the “Recognize Adopter” lever for the political frame advantages of increased credibility, power and influence this tactic afforded.
The environment contingency factor was also greatly considered. Spectrum was faced with a rapidly changing external environment that “called for a more flexible, organic structure, with strong horizontal coordination and collaboration” (Daft, 2013, p. 70). Therefore, each of us in our simulations utilized private interviews, town hall meetings, consultants, external skill building and coalition building attempts across departments to maximize horizontal coordination efforts.
As our change agent was a mid-level management employee, we utilized levers that would enhance our political power (credibility), build coalitions and horizontal structural teams (especially through the launch of pilot projects), assuage fears, establish a new vision and correct misconceptions to develop a critical mass of supporters for the change needed. Private meetings at all stages were critical to success, and used initially in getting early supporters onboard. Holding Town Meetings were necessary to provide information and answer questions. Holding External Skill Building for those in Manufacturing and Finance was also strategic with the realization that their resistance may have just stemmed from not knowing how to implement the change or being unaware of how moving to sustainability is profitable for an organization. Additionally, the timing of the use of the change lever was critical to its effectiveness. Some levers were more effective in the beginning of the change process, such as Town Hall Meetings and Conducting Private Interviews when Informational and Personal Concerns factored into employee interest and moved employees towards adoption of the change. Other levers like Corporate Restructuring and Revising the Reward System were effective in the middle of the change process to continue momentum towards critical mass adoption, while the same levers were ineffective in the final stages when most had already committed to the change process. A symbolic lever, like Walk the Talk was effective at every stage of the process, except the very beginning. This most likely has to do with awareness of the change within the organization. Early on when Walk the Talk is practiced, employees may be mostly unaware of the change so they have no context to interpret the pro-change lever, so there would likely be no effect from the lever’s use at first. However, in the symbolic frame, communication of vision, telling stories, history and sharing successes all have cumulative effects. Finally, while we were greatly unaware of the conscious application of the four leadership frames during the simulation, associating frames with each lever demonstrates that levers were also chosen as an effective blend of all leadership frames in the change management process.
This table shows the incremental and net impacts of effectiveness of all the levers used in the group’s change simulations; as well as the leadership frame associated with each lever. Incremental results are a summary calculation of all step changes by each lever used; net changes in credibility captured the gains and losses of each lever; and Ratio and effectiveness identifies the impact to time consumed in weeks using the particular lever. Although it is clear that many different levers proved effective, we consistently found personal contact through private interviews and town hall meetings were highly effective, especially if the process was iterative.
Other configurations and combinations of lever use could also be just as effective depending on the credibility of the change agent. This lever analysis illustrates that using symbolic and political leadership significantly drives the change process.
When change levers did not work, the strategy we used the most was to go back to what did work, and to try using different levers. Ultimately, every lever worked at least once in at least one of the simulations in our group. As we progressed through the simulation we realized that some levers were overwhelming unlikely to work. However, most of the other levers were effective at particular stages of the simulation. While some levers were ineffective at the very beginning of the simulation, such as Walk the Talk, they became more effective as the simulation progressed and advanced to different stages with increasing levels of adoption. In many cases, such as using the lever to confront a resister, the timing was critical. Those that were most effective were used best iteratively.
Based on the insights gained from this experiential activity, there are three common missteps in managing change that are displayed here. Situation awareness can be a common misstep- this includes not understanding the situation, incorrectly assuming the power of the change agent, and lastly employing change levers at the wrong time. These common missteps can be avoided through the utilization of a number of effective change management modules. It is important to keep in mind that according to Daft, “organizations are interdependent systems, and changing one part often has implications for other parts of the organization” (Daft, 2013, p. 436). This was reflected in our simulation and we found that it was necessary for every department, and multiple management levels within each department, to agree to support the change effort. Therefore, no matter which model of change a change agent utilizes, he needs to keep in mind that the entire organization needs to be prepared for and involved in the change process.
While there are many change management models available with similar steps, processes or phases: the 8 Steps to Transforming Your Organization (Kotter, 1996); Heroism vs. Stewardship (Watkins, 2009), Leading People Through the Change Model featuring the Six Stages of Concern (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2008), Organizational Frame Bending (Nadler and Tushman, 1989) and a range of Uniform and Differentiated Approaches (Higgs and Rowland, 2005); change happens one person at a time. Therefore the change agent needs to keep track of what stage each employee is at in the change process: the awareness stage, the interest stage, the trial stage or the adoption stage to employ change levers at the right time for maximum efficacy. For example, The Ken Blanchard Companies illustrates the change process each person goes through with the Six Stages of Concern. In any given change process, an individual will have information concerns, personal concerns, implementation concerns, impact concerns, collaboration concerns and refinement concerns. Once information has been presented, employees move into the next stage with personal concerns of how the change will affect them. During implementation, concerns may arise about processes, skillsets, and knowledge. Therefore appropriate change levers to address these concerns include skill development, utilization of consultants, cross-functional teams conducting pilot programs and announcing goals and deadlines to provide structure to the implementation. Next, collaboration concerns arise so change levers that build coalitions of support can be most effective. Finally, as the change process moves along, pilot programs near completion and implementation issues arise, new refinement concerns emerge that can again best be handled by conducting private interviews.
The Six Stages of Concern provide one framework for using change levers at the right time in an iterative process. The Frame Bending Principles of Nadler and Tushman offer another framework focusing on principles of Initiating Change, the Content of Change, Leading Change and Achieving Change that correspond to the simulation stages of Awareness, Interest, Trial and Adoption as shown in the following slide. But the key take-away in building a pro forma model to lead change successfully is that the change process, no matter how brilliant the plan design may be, has to be responsive to the needs of each employee as they pass through the stages of concern.
In addition to this, for new managers, or anyone leading change for that matter, it is important to learn from mistakes, know there are multiple ways to lead change, understand what other areas you may impact with your change, focus on one person at a time, leverage the four frames, and ensure the timing is appropriate.
Finally, as we conclude our presentation, each change lever corresponds with at least one of the four leadership frames, it is important to be cognizant of and to utilize each leadership frame effectively when executing a change lever that is associated with one of the frames. For example, when a change agent Walks the Talk, in addition to leading by example he should also share a vision, tell a success story, relate the change to company history and other elements of the symbolic frame. Change levers need to be used carefully, strategically, and purposely. Utilizing the leadership frames in this way in conjunction with change levers at the right time strategically in the change process can certainly help one avoid common missteps and ensure the success of the change process.
