Fluent Essays

I have been attached chapter 6 to know the context. Managing Dynamic Environment (Power Dynamics and Change Management Plans) Regulations:  · GRADING EXPECTATIONS : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product (Attached).   2. With respect to grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things:  citations and substance . I encourage you to include cites and information from scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources in addition to the course text (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN-13: 9781544351407). Otherwise, my potential for points is reduced. It  indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts to address the issue at hand.  I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. Convert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes . This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.  In addition to scholarly citations, a substantive assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected. · The writer must apply APA style guidelines  And avoid plagiarism by using your own words · Support your submission with: 1. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN-13: 9781544351407) 2.  At least Four scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles such as: 2.1 Sava, I. (2020). Change management and organizational culture. Gaps to be bridged in bureaucratic organizations. Journal of Defense Resources Management, 11(2), 40-59. 2.2 Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941. · Be 4 completed pages in length, which does not include the title and reference pages, which are never a part of the content minimum requirements. Organize your paper with section headers related to the Critical thinking prompts Power Dynamics and Change Management Plans Not all changes are positive nor well received. Change agents need to explore how various factors can impact the change initiative and must recognize the impact that certain changes have on individuals, teams, and organizations as a whole. Due to economic turbulence, and the impact of external factors, many organizations have needed to make tough decisions throughout the past two years. Globally, we have seen companies make changes that are positive, in order to remain afloat, and also changes that have resulted in scrutiny, loss of productivity, etc. Consider the following scenario: Throughout 2019, until the onset of the pandemic, a large national clothing brand was performing the best it had in 20 years. Unfortunately, when COVID-19 hit, many consumers were unwilling to visit local shopping malls, which resulted in massive profit losses. The large clothing brand was no exception to this phenomenon. The majority of individuals who shop at this retailer are 45 years of age and older and have no desire to frequent the mall anytime soon. As an external change agent for this organization, you have been asked to sit with members of the C-suite (i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Human Resource Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, and the Chief Technological Officer) and discuss the proposed change initiative. Specifically, leadership is proposing that 25\% of all retail locations are closed within the next six months and that the retail organization focuses on enhancing its e-platform, thereby resulting in increased online sales. After meeting with members of the C-suite, you were asked to meet with 10 senior-level employees. These employees expressed their concerns and frustration about the rumors that the company was shutting down select retail locations. Using Table 6.3(attached): · Explain the consequences that might occur if the decision to shut down 25\% of stores occurs. Specifically, explain likely concerns that employees will express. · Then, justify the impact associated with closing 25\% of stores in terms of the organization’s reputation. · Finally, given the fact that the organization may experience pushback from the workforce when shutting down 25\% of stores, is it possible to please C-Suite leaders and senior employees? If so, how? If not, why? Explain and justify your rationale. Very important Note: To move to exceed standards, I recommend providing research and/or evidence or examples to show your point here. Managing Dynamic Environment ( Power Dynamics and Change Management Plans ) Regulations : · GRADING EXPECTATIONS   : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product ( Attached ).    2. With respect to   grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things:   citations   and substance . I encourage you to include cites and information from   scholarly and/or peer - reviewed sources in addition to the course text ( Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action - oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN - 13: 9781544351407). Otherwise , my potential for points is reduced. It   indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts   to address the issue at hand.   I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. C onvert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes . This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.   In addition to   scholarly citations, a substantive assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected. · The writer must apply APA style guidelines And avoid plagiarism by using your own words · Support your submission with : 1. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action - oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN - 13: 978 1544351407) 2.   A t least Four scholarly, peer - reviewed journal articles such as: 2.1 Sava, I. (2020). Change management and organizational culture. Gaps to be bridged in bureaucratic organizations. Journal of Defense Resources Management, 11(2), 40 - 59. 2.2 Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941. · Be 4 completed pages in length, which does not include the title and reference pages, which are never a part of the content minimum requirements. Organize your paper with section headers related to the Critical thinking prompts Managing Dynamic Environment (Power Dynamics and Change Management Plans) Regulations:  GRADING EXPECTATIONS : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product (Attached).   2. With respect to grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things: citations and substance. I encourage you to include cites and information from scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources in addition to the course text (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN-13: 9781544351407). Otherwise, my potential for points is reduced. It  indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts to address the issue at hand. I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. Convert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes. This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.  In addition to scholarly citations, a substantive assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected.  The writer must apply APA style guidelines And avoid plagiarism by using your own words  Support your submission with: 1. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN-13: 9781544351407) 2.  At least Four scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles such as: 2.1 Sava, I. (2020). Change management and organizational culture. Gaps to be bridged in bureaucratic organizations. Journal of Defense Resources Management, 11(2), 40-59. 2.2 Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941.  Be 4 completed pages in length, which does not include the title and reference pages, which are never a part of the content minimum requirements. Organize your paper with section headers related to the Critical thinking prompts MGT521 Critical Thinking Writing Rubric - Module 05 Exceeds Expectation Meets Expectation Below Expectation Limited Evidence Content, Research, and Analysis 21-25 Points 16-20 Points 11-15 Points 6-10 Points Requirements Includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment. Includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment. Includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment. Includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 21-25 Points 16-20 Points 11-15 Points 6-10 Points Content Demonstrates substantial and extensive knowledge of the materials, with no errors or major omissions. Demonstrates adequate knowledge of the materials; may include some minor errors or omissions. Demonstrates fair knowledge of the materials and/or includes some major errors or omissions. Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials and/or includes many major errors or omissions. 25-30 Points 19-24 Points 13-18 Points 7-12 Points Analysis Provides strong thought, insight, and analysis of concepts and applications. Provides adequate thought, insight, and analysis of concepts and applications. Provides poor though, insight, and analysis of concepts and applications. Provides little or no thought, insight, and analysis of concepts and applications. 13-15 Points 10-12 Points 7-9 Points 4-6 Points Sources Sources go above and beyond required criteria and are well chosen to provide effective substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. Sources meet required criteria and are adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. Sources meet required criteria but are poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. Source selection and integration of knowledge from the course is clearly deficient. Mechanics and Writing 5 Points 4 Points 3 Points 1-2 Points Demonstrates college-level proficiency in organization, grammar and style. Project is clearly organized, well written, and in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure, contains no errors in grammar, spelling, Project is fairly well organized and written and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure, may include a few Project is poorly organized and written and may not follow proper format as outlined in the assignment. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development, Project is not organized or well written and is not in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar, spelling, APA style, MGT521 Critical Thinking Writing Rubric - Module 05 APA style, or APA citations and references. minor errors in grammar, spelling, APA style, or APA citations and references. and/or includes numerous or major errors in grammar, spelling, APA style or APA citations and references. and APA citations and references. Total points possible = 100 392 In addition to considering the direct impact of a change on a person, individuals will also think about and be influenced by the effects of the change on their coworkers and teammates. The strength of interpersonal bonds, including the shared values, goals, and norms within an organization, can have a significant impact on attitudes and actions. The traditions of how work is divided, how people and departments interact or do not, and simply the way of doing business create a culture within an organization. The desire to maintain the organization’s traditions, even if there is a mutual understanding for a need to move on, can hinder the acceptance of changes. This challenge is greater if there are shifts in roles and responsibilities and therefore a shift in power. A change leader needs to understand and respect individuals’ and organizational history and the individual members’ perceptions of that history to effectively negotiate the change process and appropriately engage stakeholders. Table 6.3 Organizational and Individual Consequences and the Support for Change Table 6.3 Organizational and Individual Consequences and the Support for Change Perceived Impact of the Change on the Organization Perceived Impact of the Change on the Individual Direction of Support of the Change Positive consequences for the organization Positive outcome for the individual (e.g., less work, better work) Strong support for change Positive consequences for the organization Negative outcome for the individual (e.g., more work, worse work) Indeterminate support for change but very possibly resistance Neutral consequences for the organization Positive outcome for the individual (e.g., less work, better work) Positive support for change 393 Perceived Impact of the Change on the Organization Perceived Impact of the Change on the Individual Direction of Support of the Change Neutral consequences for the organization Negative outcome for the individual (e.g., more work, worse work) Resistance to change Negative consequences for the organization Positive outcome for the individual (e.g., less work, better work) Indeterminate support for change Negative consequences for the organization Negative outcome for the individual (e.g., more work, worse work) Resistance to change Change agents need to think of the impact on individuals—particularly people critical to the change. When doing so, consider also the people who will actually have to change and how they will view the change equation and assess the benefits, costs, and risks. A general manager may decide that new systems are needed, but it is the individual who will be operating the systems who will have to learn how to work with them and change his or her behavior. To consider the perceived impact of change see Toolkit Exercise 6.3. Chapter 6: Navigating Organizational Politics and Culture Chapter Overview Change leaders need to understand the informal components of organizations—culture and power Understanding the cultural and power dynamics in an organization is critical to a successful change Force Field Analysis and Stakeholder Analysis are two key tools to analyze the informal organizational system and how to change it Change leaders need to know themselves. They are both stakeholder and key actors in the process .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 2 The Change Path Model Navigating Organizational Politics and Culture Power Dynamics Perception of change and the change equation Force field analysis Stakeholder analysis .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 3 3 Awakening Chapter 4 Acceleration Chapter 9 Institutionalization Chapter 10 Mobilization Chapters 5 through 8 Power Dynamics: Sources of Individual Power Position or authority power Network power Knowledge power Expert power Information power Personality power .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 4 Power Dynamics: Other Sources of Power Ability to cope with and absorb environmental uncertainty Low Substitutability What you have to offer is scarce and not easy substituted for Centrality to decision making, resources critical to strategy or survival, or to work that others rely on .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 5 Resource, Process & Meaning Power Resource Power The access to valued resources in an organization Process Power The control over formal decision making arenas and agendas Meaning Power The ability to define the meaning of things. Thus, the meaning of symbols and rituals and the use of language provide meaning power .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 6 Usage Frequency of Different Power Tactics When Managers Influence Superiors When Managers Influence Subordinates Most Popular Tactic Least Popular Tactic Using & Giving Reasons Using & Giving Reasons Developing Coalitions Being Assertive Friendliness Friendliness Bargaining Developing Coalitions Being Assertive Bargaining Referring to Higher Authority Referring to Higher Authority Applying Sanctions .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 7 Toolkit Exercise 6.2 Assessing Your Power What sources of power are you comfortable with and which do you have access to? Consider a particular context that you regularly find yourself in. What could you do to increase the power you have available? What types of power are involved? How do the key players, structures, and systems in the particular context influence the types and amount of power available to you? How could you change this? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 8 Toolkit Exercise 6.2 Where Does Power Lie in Your Organization? Pick an organization you know well: What factors lead to power? Which departments carry more weight? What behaviors are associated with having power? Think of a change situation it faced. What types of power were at play? In Hardy’s terms, who controlled resources? Who had process power? Meaning power? Who had “yea-saying” and “nay-saying” power? On what issues? If you examine Table 6.1 in the book, what types of power were used most often? What types are you most comfortable using when you are attempting to influence others? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 9 When Does Change Occur? Change Occurs When: Perceived Benefits of Change Perceived Cost of Change .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 10 Modified Change Equation 11 Perception of Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo Perception of the Benefits of Change Perception of the Probability of Success Perceived Cost of Change Change Occurs When: .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. Reactions to Change People react to change for many reasons Don’t equate support with friends and resistance with enemies It may be ambivalence and not resistance you’re seeing People experience ambivalence and/or resist for many reasons. Listen carefully so you can learn and refine initiatives Don’t be blind to learning opportunities to refine analysis, avoid problems areas, and strengthen initiatives The prospects of moving someone from resistance to support increase when they feel their concerns and insights have been understood and received .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 12 Resistance to Change Resistance to change is normal and there are often good reasons for it Don’t assume resistance is “bad” or “negative”. It might be helpful Resistance usually contains information that is useful—people have reasons that they resist change .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 13 Reasons for Resistance Self-interest Misunderstanding and lack of trust Different assessments of the consequences Low tolerance for change .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 14 Organizational / Individual Consequences & Support for Change Perceived Impact of the Change on the Organization Perceived Impact of the Change on the Individual Direction of Support of the Change Positive Positive Strong support for change Positive Negative Indeterminate, with possible resistance Neutral Positive Support for change Neutral Negative Resistance to change Negative Positive Indeterminate support for change Negative Negative Strong resistance to change .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 15 Perceived Impact of Change Consider the impact of a change on an organization you know and consider the impact on the individuals concerned. Were the impacts on the organization and affected individuals both positive? Were they perceived that way? What were the perceived costs of change? Were the perceptions accurate? How could they be influenced? What were the perceived benefits? What was the probability of achieving these benefits? Were people dissatisfied with the present state? What were the costs of not changing? Were significant costs incurred prior to gaining benefits? Why did they take the risk (incurring definite costs but indefinite benefits)? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 16 Force Field Analysis Desired State Current State Restraining Forces Driving Forces .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 17 Forces For and Against Change No change Strong Strong Weak Weak R E S I S T A N C E F O R C E S CHANGE FORCE No Change Sporadic Change Discontinuous Change (Breakpoints) Continuous Change Status Quo Dominates Change Dominates .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 18 Stakeholder Analysis A stakeholder is… Anyone who is influenced or could influence the change you wish to make happen. A stakeholder analysis is… The process of understanding of the motives, power base, alliances, goals, etc. of all crucial stakeholders. .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 19 Stakeholder Analysis (cont.) Who are the stakeholders? What do they want? Do they support you? Why? Why not? What prevents them from supporting you? Who influences these stakeholders? Can you influence the influencers? Can stakeholders be co-opted or involved in a positive way? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 20 Stakeholder Management: Savage et al. High High Low Low Stakeholder Potential Threat Stakeholder Potential For Cooperation Mixed Blessing: Collaborate Supportive: Involved Non-Supportive: Defend Marginal: Monitor .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 21 Stakeholder Map Stakeholder # 1 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 2 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 3 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 4 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 5 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 6 (issues, needs, etc.) Stakeholder # 7 Stakeholder # 8 Change Agent .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 22 22 Stakeholder Roles in Networks Central Connectors People who link most people in an informal network with each other Boundary Spanners Who connect an informal network with other parts of the organization or other organizations Information Brokers Who join the different sub-groups together (and prevent fragmentation) Peripheral Specialists Who have specialized expertise (and need freedom from connections to maintain that expertise) .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 23 Dimensions of Networks Source of information Inside or outside of the functional area Social restrictions Tenure, hierarchy, and location determining the network Source of connections Planned interactions or happenstance hallway encounters Quality of the connections Relationship quality (short vs. long term, level of trust and confidence in the information, etc.) .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 24 Stages in the Change Process .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 25 Initial Awareness Interested in the Change Wanting the Change to Happen Ready to Take Action General Orientation Towards Change Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Late Adopters Non-adopters Similar to consumer adaptation profiles in marketing, except you are urging the adoption of a change, not a product or service .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 26 Type of Commitment Exhibited Opposed to the change Let it happen Help it happen Make it happen .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 27 Managing the Strategic Consensus High Understanding of the Change Low Understanding of the Change High, Positive Commitment to the Change Strong Consensus Blind Devotion Low, Positive Commitment to the Change Informed Sceptics Weak Consensus Negative Commitment to the Change Informed Opponents Fanatical Opponents .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 28 Analysis of the Stakeholders’ Readiness to Take Action Jones Smith Douglas Green Etc. Stakeholder’s Name Aware Interested Desiring Change Taking Action Predisposition to Change: innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, laggard Current Commitment Profile: resistant, ambivalent, neutral, supportive or committed .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 29 Toolkit Exercise 6.3 Force Field Analysis Consider an organization change situation you are familiar with: What are the forces for change? Who is championing the change? How strong and committed are these forces (Who will let it happen; who will help it happen; who will make it happen)? How could these forces be augmented or increased? What forces could be added to those that exist? What are the forces that oppose change? How could these forces be weakened or removed? What things might create major resentment in these forces? Can you identify any points of leverage you could employ to advance the change? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 30 Stakeholder Analysis Checklist Who are the key stakeholders? Is there a formal decision-maker with authority to authorize or deny the change project? What are his/her attitudes to the project? What is the commitment profile of stakeholders? Do a commitment analysis for each stakeholder. Are they typically initiators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, or laggards when it comes to change? Why do stakeholders respond as they do? Does the reward system drive them to support or oppose your proposal? What consequences does your change have on each stakeholder? Do the stakeholders perceive these as positive, neutral or negative? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 31 Stakeholder Analysis Checklist (cont.) What would change the stakeholders’ views? Can the reward system be altered? Would information or education help? Who influences the stakeholders? Can you influence the influencers? How might this help? What coalitions might be formed amongst stakeholders? What alliances might you form? What ones might form to prevent the change you wish? By altering your position, can you keep the essentials of your change and yet satisfy some of the needs of those opposing change? Can you appeal to higher order values and/or goals which will make others view their opposition to the change as petty or selfish? .Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 32 Chapter 7: Managing Recipients of Change and Influencing Internal Stakeholders Chapter Overview This chapter deals with those on the receiving end of change View recipients as stakeholders and revisit assumptions and approaches to ambivalence and resistance if or when it occurs Changes that alter people’s sense of their psychological contract need to be approached with care When disruptive change occurs, recipient stakeholders go through a predictable series of reactions to change Recipients often respond emotionally to change and their view of change are influenced by their personalities, experiences, their peers, and by the change leaders The present-day challenge is to make change the norm and encourage recipients to be change leaders and implementers Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 34 34 The Change Path Model Recipients and Internal Stakeholders Responses to change: +ve, ambivalence, and –ve Psychological contract Stages of reaction to change Impact of personality, experience on change Managing forward with recipients and internal stakeholders Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 35 Awakening Chapter 4 Acceleration Chapter 9 Institutionalization Chapter 10 Mobilization Chapters 5 through 8 Recipients Reactions vary from positive to negative, and ambivalence often comes first Recipients do not always react negatively—it depends on how they perceive the change Recipients will have questions and concerns, as they attempt to make sense of the change Resistance is not inevitable—listen, work to understand and respond in ways that build understanding and support Do this early and often—don’t wait for ambivalence to become resistance Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 36 Channeling Feelings for the Change Channel energy in positive ways, not letting enthusiasm overwhelm legitimate concerns Recognize mixed feelings and seek to understand them Use respected, positively oriented individuals in positions of influence concerning the change Pace the change. Remember that going too slow can lose enthusiastic support and going too fast will choke those who are doubtful. Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 37 Ambivalence to Change Is No Surprise Mixed feelings are common as recipients try to make sense of the change Ambivalence generates discomfort as they seek to resolve a multitude of issues about the change: People find it easier to voice concerns about conflicting beliefs than about conflicting emotions Once they resolve their ambivalence, feelings solidify and subsequent change to attitudes become more difficult to change again Invest the time needed at the front end of the change to respond to ambivalence positively—or prepare to face a more difficult task later, when it turns to resistance Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 38 Responding to Mixed Feelings About the Change Focus on helping people make sense of the proposed organizational change Listen for information that may be helpful in achieving the change Constructively reconcile their ambivalence Sort out what actions are now needed Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 39 Common Causes of Negative Reactions Negative consequences perceived to outweigh the benefits Flawed communication process Concern that the change has been ill conceived Lack of experience with change or locked into old habits Prior negative experience with a similar change Prior negative experience with those advocating change The negative reactions of others that recipients trust and/or with whom they will have to work in the future The change process seen to lack procedural or distributive justice and breaching their “contract” Fear that they lack skills they’ll need to perform well Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 40 40 Perceptions of Fairness & Justice Perceptions of Fairness & Justice Will influence how recipients view and react to the change Procedural Justice Was the process managed in a fair and equitable way? Distributive Justice Was the end decision a fair one? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 41 Is It Resistance... or Is Something Else Going On? We often misinterpret impediments to change as caused by resistant recipients Impediments are much more likely to come from problems related to the misalignment of structures and systems than from individuals engaged in resistance Blaming individuals rather than addressing misaligned structures and systems will worsen the situation Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 42 Managers as Recipients Recipients of change are not just those in front-line roles Supervisors, middle, and even senior managers are often recipients of the organizational change Managers often try to manage up, down, and laterally to cope with change; they try to shape it and deal with implementation on their own terms Coping with change while trying to link, influence, and implement is difficult If you are a change recipient in these middle roles, be aware of how this can affect your judgment Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 43 43 Toolkit Exercise 7.3 Personal Reactions to Change Think about times when you have been a recipient of change: What was the change and how was it introduced? What was the impact on you? What was your initial reaction? Did your attitudes change over time? Why or why not? Was there a pattern to your response? Under what circumstances did you support the change? When did you resist? What can you generalize from your reactions? If you experienced ambivalence, how did you resolve it and what happened to your attitudes toward the change? Have your experiences with change been largely positive, negative, or mixed? Have they colored your expectations about the future? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 44 Psychological Contract The psychological contract represents the sum of the implicit and explicit agreements we believe we have with our organization It defines our perceptions of the terms of our employment relationship and includes our expectations for ourselves and for the organization, including organizational norms, rights, rewards, and obligations Changes often disrupt recipients’ psychological contracts When unilateral changes are made to psychological contracts, negative reactions can be expected Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 45 Toolkit Exercise 7.5—Disruption of the Psychological Contract Think about a change initiative that you are aware of: What was the psychological contract? How did the change disrupt the psychological contract? What were the reactions to these disruptions to the contract? What steps could have reduced the negative effects stemming from the disruption? How should a new psychological contract have been developed with affected individuals? If you were a recipient, what steps could you take to better manage your way through the development of a new contract? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 46 Stages of Reaction to Change Before the Change During the Change After the Change Anticipation & Anxiety Phase Shock, Denial, & Retreat Phase Acceptance Phase Issues: Coping with uncertainty and rumors Pre-change Anxiety Issues: Coping with the announcement and associated fallout, reacting to the new “reality” Shock Defensive Retreat Bargaining Depression, Guilt, and/or Alienation Issues: Putting effects of change behind you, acknowledging the change, achieving closure, and moving on to new beginnings— adaptation and change Acknowledgment Adaptation & Change Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 47 In the Midst of Change, Change Is About... Ambiguity Risk Denial Anger Fear Resentment Excitement Exploration Determination & Commitment Tension Satisfaction Pride Lots of Other Potentially Conflicting Emotions Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 48 Toolkit Exercise 7.4—Your Normal Reaction to Innovation & Change When you find yourself dealing with matters of innovation and change, how do you typically react? Do you fall into the category of innovator or early adopter? Or do you generally fit into the early majority category? If the experiences of early adopters are positive, you take the risk. Or are you in the category of the late majority? You wait until the innovation has been tried and tested by many before adopting. Or do you avoid adopting until the vast majority have done so? In other words are you a late adopter or even a non-adopter, until forced to do so? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 49 Recipient’s Past Experience with Change & Perceived Risk Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 50 Personality and the Change Experience Change Experience Little Some Frequent Chaos Individuals with High Tolerance for Ambiguity and Change Individuals with Low Tolerance for Ambiguity and Change Boredom Energized Negative Stress Effects Comfort Stress Discomfort Rises Severe Distress Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 51 Personality & Change PERFORMANCE Low AMOUNT OF CHANGE High High Need for Change Individuals Low Need for Change Individuals Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 52 52 What Is Your Tolerance for Change? What is your tolerance for change? What level of turbulence and ambiguity at work do you find most stimulating and satisfying? How do you react when the rate of change is likely to remain quite low? How do you react when the rate of change is moderate? What constitutes a moderate for you? Are your tolerance levels lower or higher than others you know? What price do you find you pay when the rate of turbulence and ambiguity exceed what you are comfortable with? Have you had to cope with prolonged periods of serious upheaval? Have these affected your acceptance of change? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 53 Influence of Coworkers on Change Recipients Coworkers and Work Teams will greatly influence Change Recipients’ views toward the organizational change. Coworkers who are trusted will have greater influence. Cohesive teams will tend to become more cohesive when threatened. Cohesive teams will be influential. Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 54 How Trusted Peers Influence Recipients Opinions of Those Trusted by Recipients* Recipients Initial Attitude to the Change Possible Implication Positive Toward the Change Positive Toward the Change Very motivated to support Negative Toward the Change Initially opposed but may move to support due to new information from trusted others + peer pressure Negative Toward the Change Positive Toward the Change Support of the change may be weakened or silenced due to information offered by trusted peers + peer pressure Negative Toward the Change Opposition to the change is reinforced by the views of trusted peers * As the cohesion of coworkers increases, so too does their influence Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 55 Feelings About Change Leaders Matter How people react to change is also influenced by their perceptions of the change leader They are more likely to respond positively to the change if: they trust and respect these leaders they believe their perspectives and interests are recognized Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 56 Minimizing Cynicism Toward Change Meaningful engagement of recipients with decisions that affect them Emphasize and reward supervisors who foster two-way communications, good working relationships, and show consideration and respect for employees Timely, authentic communications—keep people informed and include honest appraisals of risks, costs, benefits, and consequences Keep surprises to a minimum via regular communications about changes, anticipating questions and concerns Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 57 Minimizing Cynicism Toward Change (cont..) Enhance credibility by: using credible spokespersons who are liked and trusted using positive messages that appeal to logic and consistency using multiple channels and repetition Acknowledge mistakes and make amends Publicize successful changes and progress Use 2-way communications to see change from employees’ perspective—this will aid planning & future communications Provide opportunities for employees to express feelings, receive validation and reassurance. Address their concerns Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 58 Toolkit Exercise 7.6—Leadership & Change Recipients Think of an example of change leadership: How was leadership exercised? Was the leader trusted? Did he/she deserve the trust given? What kind of power did the leader use? How were change messages conveyed? Were they believable? Deszca, Ingols & Cawsey, Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit, 4th ed.. © 2020 SAGE Pub. 59 Toolkit Exercise 7.6—Leadership & Change Recipients (cont..) Did systems and processes support, or at minimum, not impair the change leader’s messages? Was there a sense of continuity between the past and anticipated future? How was this developed and communicated? Impact? What can you learn about the impact of the leader on people and stakeholders as a result of your responses to the above? What can you learn about the … 373 Chapter Six Navigating Organizational Politics and Culture Chapter Overview Change leaders recognize the importance of observing and analyzing the informal components of an organization—power and culture— which are key forces at play within an organization, impacting all stakeholders in the change situation. Identifying the power dynamics in an organization is critical to a successful change process. Different sources of power are described, allowing change agents to assess the potential of their power and influence and gain leverage in their organizations, if needed. Force field analysis and stakeholder analysis are two tools to advance your understanding of the informal organizational system and how to change it. Know yourself as a change leader and stakeholder in the process. Change leaders’ understanding of both the present and desired future state of organizations depends on an analysis of multiple dynamics within organizations. Chapter 5 looked at the formal structures and systems, noting how they impact change initiatives. Chapters 7 and 8 will examine the impact of key individuals in the organization on the change process. This chapter provides the background on the less tangible but no less real aspects of organizations: political dynamics and culture (see Figure 6.1). It is important to note that in evaluating stakeholders in your organization, you, too, are a stakeholder. To get a full picture of the informal organization, it is important to use these political and cultural concepts to evaluate yourself as a part of the system. Be sure to ask yourself how your personality impacts you as a stakeholder and change agent. Evaluate your motivations and understand how you deal with power and how you view your organization’s culture. Figure 6.1 The Change Path Model 374 If corporate mergers are the ultimate in change-management challenges, then the arrival of a new CEO may also challenge embedded power dynamics and cultural patterns. In December 2000, CEO Jim McNerney arrived at 3M’s 28-building, 430-acre, suburban Maplewood, Minnesota campus. Interestingly, McNerney was the first outsider to lead 3M in all of its 98-year history. 3M’s CEOs usually rise from within, after being steeped in the corporation’s culture and philosophy. However, 3M employees found that the new CEO was able to work with those around him. 375 Yahoo-Tumblr Merger: Power and Cultural Differences It was 2007. High-school dropout David Karp founded Tumblr, a blogging service where users own their own pages. It quickly grew due to several factors: young individuals found their voices on the social networking site; like-minded people developed into strong communities; creatives launched Internet memes; and bloggers were offered and accepted numerous book deals. By spring, 2013, when the aging Web pioneer Yahoo bought Tumblr for $1.1 billion in cash, Tumblr had over 108 million blogs and reached 44 million people in the United States and 134 million worldwide. For Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, buying the social media site was her approach to changing the aging giant Yahoo and bringing in a much-needed young demographic to the company. Skeptics of the purchase immediately talked about potential problems. Many analysts wondered how Yahoo would be transformed when it was not clear how Tumblr would ever become profitable. Karp had disliked and distrusted advertising and he and other Tumblr executives had not figured out how to monetize its bloggers. In 2012 he had burned through $25 million in cash, and by 2013 investors were not rushing in with additional money at an acceptable valuation. Karp, in other words, needed a savior and in May, 2013, CEO Mayer looked like a potential rescuer for Karp and Tumblr’s investors. At the announcement of the purchase for $1.1 billion, Mayer promised not to “screw it up” for Tumblr’s users. The young demographic that Yahoo wanted, however, brought with them a particular culture: an acceptance of sexually explicit content on Tumblr. Advertisers, on the other hand, would not have their ads run on pages that featured pornography. Yahoo needed to figure out a policy that would keep young users on Tumblr while not offending advertisers and Yahoo customers. They never did figure out this cultural clash. At first California-based Mayer and Yahoo executives had a hands-off approach to Tumblr and its 175 employees in New York City. By 2015, however, Mayer set a very aggressive target of $100 million in revenue for Tumblr; but, she set this goal with little input from its executives. A year later when the revenue target had not been hit, Mayer abruptly merged Tumblr’s ad sales team with Yahoo’s under an executive who had little experience or rapport with Tumblr employees. Quickly, Tumblr employees headed for the exit doors. The next year Mayer again reorganized the ad sales teams into two separate groups with chaos and anger following in the wake of the separation. More employees headed for the door. By spring, 2016, Yahoo and Mayer hinted that the $1.1 billion Tumblr acquisition was a waste of money. At that time Yahoo reduced its overall workforce by 15\%, closed offices around the world, and began its search for a private equity or corporate buyer, such as Verizon. Finally, in June, 2017, Verizon announced that it had bought Yahoo and, with it, Tumblr. 376 A tangle of issues—as many as five to seven—undid this merger. No one figured out how to make money at Tumblr. While Mayer’s hands-off policy with a continent between the two companies seemed appropriate at first, it also meant that employees kept their own assumptions and ways of the seeing the world rather than finding useful common ground in a shared culture. When Mayer did step in, people said that it was too little, too late, and too aggressive, particularly around the supersized revenue goal. Mayer’s appointed leaders did not connect with Tumblr’s employees who bolted when they did not like Yahoo’s actions. There was conflict between Yahoo’s leaders and Tumblr’s employees who reported being confused at the mixed signals which came from Sunnyvale, California. In short, Mayer and her team never did the hard work of bringing together two diverse workplaces and workforces into a common culture. Nor did they deal effectively with issues of power and influence.1 Mcnerney Enters 3M Jim McNerney’s style has let employees to feel that they, not McNerney, are driving the changes. He was able to introduce data-driven change without forcing his ideas from General Electric onto the organization. McNerney was able to rely on existing 3M management rather than importing other GE executives. “I think the story here is rejuvenation of a talented group of people rather than replacement of a mediocre group of people,” he says. As part of his change plan, he avoids giving orders and reinforces the 3M culture whenever he can. “This is a fundamentally strong company. The inventiveness of the people here is in contrast with any other place I’ve seen. Everybody wakes up in the morning trying to figure out how to grow. They really do.” This diplomacy generally played well with the 3M faithful. “He’s delivered a very consistent message,” says Althea Rupert, outgoing chair of Technical Forum, an internal society for all 3M technical people. “There’s a sense of speed and a sense of urgency.”2 In the 3M case, McNerney shows a clear understanding of the players, their perspectives, and their needs, and this made the implementation much easier to accomplish. Perhaps McNerney had no choice. But he did act in ways that involved people, focused their attention and interest, and brought them along rather than attempting to impose an outside set of views. While the stories of the Yahoo-Tumblr merger and the installation of a new leader within a fully functional 3M are quite different, they demonstrate the impact of power dynamics and the influence of an organization’s culture. How change leaders deal with power and 377 behavioral organizational norms and the difficult-to-define, amorphous organizational culture will affect the speed and nature of the change. When assessing possible responses to change initiatives, leaders need to recognize the impact that individual and organizational history can have. Employees may have had significant experience with change that leads them to be wary. They may have also worked with the existing approaches and have their own perspectives on what change is needed, so ambivalence and concern are natural— particularly in individuals who have demonstrated commitment to the organization and the quality of the outcomes achieved.3 Some change projects are downsizings in disguise and yet change leaders somehow expect employees to welcome such initiatives with open arms. Surely, such optimism is naïve! 378 Power Dynamics in Organizations Mention the words “organizational politics,” and many people roll their eyes, throw up their hands, and say, “I don’t want to have anything to do with politics!” The assumption is that organizational politics is inherently dirty, mean-spirited, destructive, and that organizations and their members would be better off without “politics.” Bolman and Deal make a persuasive argument that organizational “politics is the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent issues. This view puts politics at the heart of decision making.”4 Negotiating, according to Bolman and Deal, is the key process in organizational politics. The marketing department, for example, wants to redesign the organization’s website, while the technology folks push back saying, “Not now! We have our hands full as we install the XYZ platform!” In short, organizational politics is the push-and-pull between and among individuals and departments and who gets what resources. There is nothing inherently good or bad about power. Rather, it is the application and purposeful use of power and its consequences that will determine whether it is “good” or “bad.” In fact, the power to do things in organizations is critical to achieving change. Power is a crucial resource used by change agents to influence the actions and reactions of others. The knowledgeable change agent asks multiple power-related questions, such as, What power do I have and what are the sources of my power? What am I authorized to do by virtue of my title and position? What signatory authority and what dollar limits of expenditure does my position have? For example, can I hire someone based on my signature alone, or do I need to obtain approval for the hiring from HR? These questions help change agents to diagnose their formal authority and power. 379 Individual Power While organizations confer specific authority and power on particular positions, change agents also need to be perceived as influential. Change agents need to articulate positive beliefs about power—and to be aware of others’ perception of their power. There are both internal psychological and external, reality-based roadblocks to exercising power. Clearly, power can be real—one can influence people with knowledge, persuade them by strength of personality and integrity, or use rewards and punishments to direct people’s behaviors. But the perception of power is just as important, if not more important, than the actual resources that a manager holds. If others do not believe that a person is influential, then the facts will have little impact until those perceptions are changed. The rookie manager has the same formal power as the experienced one. However, the perception of their power and influence are generally very different. Often the perception that an individual has power to act is all employees need. When individuals have the trust of their CEOs, for instance, they want to maintain that trust and are therefore not likely to use inappropriate influence tactics on their boss.5 What gives people power in organizations? Individuals have power because of the position they hold, who they are (character and reputation), and who and what they know. When position, reputation, and expertise combine in one individual, that individual is likely to be powerful. These individual sources of power are classified in Table 6.1.6 380 Departmental Power In addition to personal influence, departments within an organization may have different levels of power. This power is dependent on the centrality of the work the department does, the availability of people to accomplish important organizational tasks, and the ability of the department to handle the organization’s environment. These can be categorized as follows: Table 6.1 Types of Individual Power Table 6.1 Types of Individual Power Positional Power This is the legitimate authority of the title and position; it includes control and access to resources and the ability to formally make decisions and allocate resources. The formal authority to make decisions is a major source of power.∗ Network Power Power in this area comes from the quality of the informal and formal network of connections that permits a person to access and pass on valuable information. People with large networks of colleagues across organizational levels and boundaries have access to more information and are often perceived to be more influential. Knowledge Power Expertise and knowledge is particularly important in some organizations; it is particularly important in such organizations as pharmaceutical and consulting firms. Expert power is the possession of a body of knowledge essential to the organization; credentials provide independent certification of expertise and increase one’s ability to influence. Information power is clout gained through the flow of facts and data: by creating, framing, 381 redirecting, or distorting information and by controlling who receives the information. Knowledge power also relates to a person’s depth of understanding of how things work in the organization in order to get things done. This relates to both the formal (e.g., how the formal approval process works) and the informal processes (e.g., how power and influence really manifest themselves in the organization) that influence how the organization operates. Personality Power The ability to inspire trust and enthusiasm from others provides many leaders with significant individual power. Sometimes leaders have charisma, a special charm that pulls people to them. Reputation, which comes from people’s experiences with the person, includes reports of success (or failure), and influences personal power. Treatment of these power related concepts can be found in: Whetten, D.A., & K.S. Cameron, Developing Management Skills, 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 2010. ∗ Another way of looking at this type of power is in terms of “yea- saying” or “nay-saying” power. Yea-saying means that a person can make it happen. For example, he or she could decide who would be hired. Nay-saying power means that a person could prevent something from happening. Thus, nay-saying power would mean that someone could prevent a particular person from being hired but could not decide who would be hired. Ability to cope with environmental uncertainty: Departments gain power if they are seen to make the environment appear certain. Thus, marketing and sales departments gain power by bringing in future orders, diminishing the impact of competitors’ actions, and providing greater certainty about the organization’s future vitality in the marketplace. During times of economic turbulence, finance departments gain power through their ability to help the firm navigate its way. Likewise, other departments and functions either 382 enhance or diminish their power based upon their ability to absorb uncertainty and make the world more predictable and manageable for the organization. Low substitutability: Whenever a function is essential and no one else can do it, the department has power. Think, for example, of the power of human resources departments when no one else can authorize hiring of new personnel or the power of technology departments that often gets to decide what kind of hard- and software a firm will buy and use. Centrality: Power flows to those departments whose activities are central to the survival and strategy of the organization or when other departments depend on the department for the completion of work. In most large white-collar organizations, systems people have power because of our dependence on the computer and the information derived from it. Close the management information systems and you shut down the organization. Highly regarded and well-developed information systems anchor the success of firms such as Federal Express, Walmart, and Statistics Canada. Hardy added to our understanding of the sources of power with her classification.7 She described three dimensions of power: 1. Resource power—the access to valued resources in an organization. These include rewards, sanctions, coercion, authority, credibility, expertise, information, political affiliations, and group power. Resource power is very similar to the individual power listed above. 2. Process power—the control over formal decision-making arenas and agendas. Examples of process power would be the power to include or exclude an item on a discussion agenda. Nominating committees have significant process power as they determine who gets to sit on committees that make decisions. 3. Meaning power—the ability to define the meaning of things. Thus, the meaning of symbols and rituals and the use of language provide meaning power. For example, a shift from reserved parking and large corner offices for executives to first-come parking and common office space can symbolize a significant move away from the reliance on hierarchical power. Hardy’s introduction of process and meaning power adds significantly to the understanding of how one might influence a change situation. Anyone who has tried to get an item added to a busy agenda will understand the frustration of not having process power. 383 While many sources of power exist, the type of power used by managers can have different effects. Some types of influence are used more frequently than others. One research study found that managers used different influence tactics depending on whether they were attempting to influence superiors or subordinates. Table 6.2 outlines the usage of these power tactics. It shows that managers claim they use rational methods in persuading others. The use of overt power, either by referring something to a higher authority or by applying sanctions, is not a popular tactic. Change agents, like all managers, need to think of themselves as “politicians.”8 Defining oneself as an organizational “politician” will suggest the need to negotiate, develop coalitions, build and use alliances, deal with the personality of the decision maker, and use contacts and relationships to obtain vital information. Savvy change leaders do not underestimate the need for power and influence in their determination to make something happen. See Toolkit Exercise 6.2 to assess different kinds of power. Table 6.2 Usage Frequency of Different Power Tactics Table 6.2 Usage Frequency of Different Power Tactics When Managers Influence Superiors When Managers Influence Subordinates Most Popular Tactic ↕ Least Popular Tactic Use and give reasons Develop coalitions Act friendly Negotiate Be assertive Refer to a higher authority Use and give reasons Be assertive Act friendly Develop coalitions Bargain Refer to higher authority Apply sanctions Source: Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I. (1984, Winter). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 12(3), 56–67. 384 Organizational Culture and Change Organizational culture: What does it mean? The concept of organizational culture is fairly new. While psychologists talked about group “norms” and social climates in organizations as early as 1939,9 the concept of “culture” only began to attract organizational behavior researchers in the 1980s and 1990s.10 Now, the idea is widely used among academics and practitioners alike: A 2014 search on Amazon books by the words “organization culture” yielded a listing of over 47,000 plus books.11 The widespread use of the term has not, unfortunately, created a standard definition. However, Ed Schein’s definition, which has been published in five editions of his book Organization Culture and Leadership (1992, 1996, 2004, 2010, and 2016), dominates the field and is quite useful in thinking about the phenomenon. Schein defined culture as follows: 1. a pattern of shared basic assumptions 2. that was learned by a group 3. as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration 4. that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, 5. therefore, is taught to new members 6. as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems [numbers were added by the authors]. Note the complexity of this definition with its six sub-parts. Schein is concerned with a group and its learning; with how an organization adjusts to the external environment’s ever-evolving demands and how internal players respond coherently and in alignment to those challenges; the fact that these ways of behaving are taught to new members “in a socialization process that is itself a reflection of (the) culture”; and that the culture promotes a particular way of thinking and feeling about problems. 385 How to Analyze a Culture To assess a culture, Schein identified three levels for analysis. The first level is the visible aspect—or artifacts—of the organization. These include everything from how employees dress and the design of an organization’s buildings to its structures and processes. While artifacts are easy to see, their meaning can be difficult to decipher and an observer needs to be careful to ascribe meaning to a single artifact or observation. The second level is an organization’s “espoused beliefs and values”; this second level includes an organization’s articulated mission, values, and strategy. Most change agents begin to change an organization by starting at this level of culture. The third level is the “basic underlying assumptions” that have become so ingrained and so much a part of a group’s thinking and perspective on the world that they are not questioned. Since these assumptions remain largely unarticulated, they are also non-debatable, making them extremely difficult to change. For example, a university faculty may see itself as caring passionately about the quality of the classroom experience, and protect its beliefs by actions that serve to silence anyone who raises questions in this area. Many founders of organizations explicitly set out to establish a culture that is compatible with their beliefs about how organizations operate best and the values that should be embedded in the organization. For example, Gretchen Fox, founder and former CEO of FOX Relocation Management Corp., Boston, had worked in excessively hierarchical law firms before she started her relocation firm. At law firms she had observed large, physically fit men who were senior partners in the firm and whereby held high-level positions in the organization’s hierarchy. These men would ignore low-level women staff as they lifted and carried heavy boxes and bottles of water. For Fox, the human thing for the men to do would have been to help with the heavy lifting. Fox decided then and there that when she built her business, she would establish a flat, non-hierarchical firm. This belief was embedded in the layout of offices (Fox’s office was a regular-sized office in a row of offices, leaving the light-filled sunny corner spaces for employees); in the minimal use of titles; in a collective, decision-making process for hiring new employees; and in a rational approach to work that did not involve status in the hierarchy. As FOX Relocation grew, some of the observable artifacts—such as titles—needed to change to accommodate folks in the external world’s 386 understanding of who did what inside the firm. The question became this: What else, if anything, needed to change inside the firm to adapt to its growth and to the external environment while maintaining the integrity of its culture? 387 Tips for Change Agents to Assess a Culture A change agent, then, needs to assess a culture at three levels. Such an analysis may lead to innovative ways to change a culture. 1. Observe the artifacts: How do people dress? How are offices arranged? What is the space differential for offices between top-level executives and other people who work in the organization? How are parking lots and spaces assigned, and who pays and does not pay for a space? How do members of the organization interact and relate to one another? Where and how are meals eaten? Is there an executive dining room and separate food for executives? 2. Read documents and talk to people to gain an understanding of an organization’s espoused beliefs and values: What does the organization say about itself on its website and social media platforms? What are the articulated mission, values, and strategy statements? What does it brag about in its press releases? Ask five to ten people: What does this organization value and believe in? What, if any, of its documents have changed in the past five years? How have they changed, and are these changes in alignment with changes in the artifacts of the organization? 3. Observe and ask people about underlying assumptions: Since these are often unarticulated and their origins developed years before, it may be difficult for people to express the organization’s fundamental suppositions. Observers need to look for clues on fundamental issues: What is the basic orientation to time in terms of past, present, and future? What time units are most relevant for the conduct of the organization’s business? For example, colleges and universities orient around the quarter or semesters, units of time that are not relevant to most businesses but would be to bookstores that serve universities and landlords who rent to students. A second example would be the nature of human beings: “Are humans basically good, neutral, or evil, and is human nature perfectible or fixed?” (p. 429).12 It is important to consider these fundamental issues, and then search for and develop hypotheses about what needs to change to improve the outcomes experienced and how to go about it. Clashing Workplace Cultures* 388 Training & Careers, Inc. (TCI), a small nonprofit agency, focused on job training and placement for low-income residents included programs in culinary arts, janitorial work, and hotel and hospitality training. Due to financial issues, TCI merged with Careers, Inc. (CI), a national nonprofit that had a similar mission and programs. TCI, headquartered in Boston, had a relaxed and autonomous work culture. Careers, Inc. (CI), headquartered in New York City, had a regimented and tightly supervised workforce. As the organizations began to merge their operations, they neglected to address the differences in their workforce cultures. TCI was made up of white-collar staff, 25\% of whom held a master’s degree in social work. TCI was able to attract this talent by offering flexible work schedules, three weeks of paid vacation, and letting the staff out early most Fridays. CI’s workforce, on the other hand, attracted largely blue- collar workers who led the janitorial training programs. This workforce had strict time reporting guidelines and few vacation incentives, as their compensation was commensurate with their high school or associate’s level education. As the organizations attempted to merge, TCI experienced significant pushback from its employees as CI eliminated early-release Fridays and proposed cutting vacations. TCI moved away from staff autonomy by adopting CI’s time clock system, which required employees to punch in and out each day. Because the leaders of the two organizations did not sufficiently understand the cultural differences and take these into account during the merger, TCI experienced a 43\% turnover of frontline staff following the merger. Remaining staff were disgruntled and openly sought other job opportunities outside the organization. * The names and locations of the organizations are disguised. This vignette suggests three levels of organizational culture. The time clock system, requiring employees to punch in and out each day, is an artifact that was present in one of the organizations, but not the other. The espoused beliefs and values were discernable in the comparable missions and programs of the two organizations and pointed to potential friction points. Further, the underlying assumptions of who to hire and how to manage them suggests differences at the third level of culture. At Careers Inc., executives believed that staff needed to be tightly controlled and supervised to make sure that they …