W6D2 Wald - Management
Post a cohesive response based on your analysis of the Learning Resources and your professional experience. Be sure to discuss the following: See attachment for details
* No plagiarism
* APA citing
* 3-4 paragraphs
Discussion 2: The Rational Approach Model vs. Other Change Management Models
We have focused on the Rational Approach Model for planning and implementing change. For this Discussion, focus on other change management models and think about how they can be used to strengthen your change plan. Are there any areas where the Rational Approach Model might fall short? Are there other change models you could use to achieve sustained change?
To prepare for this Discussion:
As you prepare for this Discussion, you will need to objectively critique your planned change through the lens of other change models. You will begin by categorizing the type of change that you have proposed from Mathur (2013). Next, you will use the Graetz & Smith (2010) article to identify which 2–3 philosophies of change most match your perspective of change. Then, you will compare these different change models to the Rational Approach Model. Finally, you will apply these new philosophies to your proposed change plan and conclude how they may enhance or hinder your plan.
· Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
· Employee Motivation, Adjustment – See attachment
· Collaborating for Systemic Change - See attachment
· Graetz, (2010), Managing organizational Change - See attachment
·
Assignment:
Post
a cohesive response based on your analysis of the Learning Resources and your professional experience. Be sure to discuss the following:
· Categorize the type of change that you have proposed for your organization and provide evidence for this categorization using the Mathur (2013) article.
· Identify which of the Graetz & Smith (2010) philosophies of change match your perspective of change.
· Compare how these different approaches to change relate to or differ from the Rational Approach Model within the context of your proposed change.
· Apply the identified philosophies to your proposed change. Analyze how well they “fit” the type of change that is being proposed, and identify any areas of weakness you have found within your proposed change.
· Conclude whether an approach, other than the Rational Approach Model, might better fit your organization and your proposed change. If not, explain how the Rational Approach Model is most appropriate in this instance.
· 3 – 4 paragraphs
· No plagiarism
· APA citing
Managing Organizational Change:
A Philosophies of Change Approach
FIONA GRAETZ∗ & AARON C.T. SMITH∗∗
∗Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, ∗∗RMIT Business, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT The underlying assumption of the classical, linear approach to organizational change
is that it involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that enable senior management to establish
a new work order and routines. This article confronts the conventional assumption that change is a
finite, one-off phenomenon, representing the exception rather than the rule. Beginning with the
rational change model as an exemplar, and subsequently by examining 10 organizational change
philosophies, this article reviews the fundamental assumptions governing different change
management approaches. In revealing the biases and uni-dimensional nature of theoretical
philosophies of organizational change, this article argues for a multi-philosophy approach that
applies an interactive mix of continuity and change. Managing the continuity-change continuum
helps to guard against complacency and inertia, and underpins an organization’s capacity both
to exploit and explore.
KEY WORDS: Continuity-change dilemma, complementary-competing, paradox, ambiguity,
duality
Introduction
Traditional approaches to organizational change generally follow a linear, rational
model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong
leader or ‘guiding coalition’. The underlying assumption of this classical
approach, ever popular among change consultants, is that organizational change
involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that can be planned and
managed (Collins, 1998). The evidence from case studies of failed change
implementations indicates, however, that this uni-dimensional, rational focus is
Journal of Change Management
Vol. 10, No. 2, 135–154, June 2010
Correspondence Address: Fiona Graetz, Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC
3086 Australia. Tel.: + 61 3 9479 3109; Email: [email protected]
1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/10/020135 – 20 # 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14697011003795602
limited because it treats change as a single, momentary disturbance that must be
stabilized and controlled. Such a view fails not only to appreciate that change is a
natural phenomenon which is intimately entwined with continuity but, also, that
the change-continuity continuum is what defines organizations and their ability
both to exploit and explore. Change and continuity represent competing but comp-
lementary narratives, bringing in ambiguity and novelty to destabilize as well as
validate existing organizational routines.
Our argument is that understanding change as part of a continuing work in pro-
gress calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing voices, and works
with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of messy reality. We
advocate a multi-philosophy approach because continuity depends on change as
much as change depends on continuity. They are both essential for organizational
growth and survival. Continuity underpins the search for new meaning and new
understandings. As Evans (1992: 256 – 257) argued, ‘almost all qualities of an
organization have a complementary opposite quality, and excessive focus on
one pole of a duality ultimately leads an organization into stagnation and
decline (undue continuity), while the corrective swing to the opposite pole leads
to disruptive and discontinuous crisis (excessive change)’.
As an exemplar, this article looks firstly at the context for the traditional,
rational approach to organizational change. It subsequently illustrates how rational
change is depicted and deployed with reference to three different organizational
cases on leadership and change. The following section explores a range of organ-
izational change philosophies and considers how these might provide a broader
frame of reference in understanding the change process and its undeniable,
though sometimes tense, partnership with continuity. Based on this discussion,
the conclusion considers how an appreciation of the philosophies of change
may help to turn around the way organizations and, in particular, senior manage-
ment, view the process of change. It, therefore, puts forward the case for a multi-
perspectives approach in managing the continuity-change dilemma and offers
advice for practitioners attempting to navigate the turbulent waters of organiz-
ational change.
The Traditional Change Agenda
Recognizing changing forms of organizing as a ‘fuzzy, deeply ambiguous process’
(Collins, 2003: v) with no obvious ending calls into question the snake oil sales
pitch used to promote popular change models. Consider, for example, Grundy’s
(1992) ‘power tools for change’, Kanter et al.’s (1992) ‘Ten commandments’,
Kotter’s (1995) ‘Eight steps to transforming your organization’, and Hammer
and Champy’s (1993) ‘Business process re-engineering’. The nomenclature
assigned to these popular 1990s offerings typifies a formulaic approach which pre-
supposes that organizational change can and should be a controlled and orderly
affair, a simple case of ‘unfreezing’, ‘moving’ and ‘refreezing’. Central to suc-
cessful implementation is the key role the ‘magic’ leader plays (Nadler and
Tushman, 1989; Kotter, 1990). The implication is that his or her charismatic
qualities in communicating the new vision are all it takes to inspire and win
over the masses. These factors expose a number of critical flaws in the purely
136 F. Graetz & A.C.T. Smith
rational perspective. Firstly, it begs the question as to whether organizations are
‘as amenable to control as a block of ice’ (Grey, 2003). Secondly, it ignores the
not-so rational wild card – the human factor – treating individuals as automatons
rather than active agents (Giddens, 1981: 224) in the change process. An inherent
assumption in rational models is that organizational actors will respond enthusias-
tically and uniformly to their leader’s call to arms. With stability and control the
end goals, rational models represent a singular, partial story told by senior man-
agement and consequently ignore the many other distinctive stories unfolding
around them in the organizational narrative (Buchanan, 2003). As a result, the
principal response is not to listen to, but to silence, dissident voices.
Despite the limitations of n-step (Collins, 1998), goal-directed models of change,
the management penchant for these types of tools continues unsated. They are, of
course, seductively simple and the labels attached (power tools, transforming, com-
mandments, magic) imply that success is guaranteed if they are followed to the
letter. In addition, n-step models ensure that the change process is controlled
‘from the top’. Management texts and business magazine ‘case studies’ tend to per-
petuate and legitimize a rational, leader-centered model of organizational change.
Take, for example, the report in AFRBoss (Hughes, 2008) on ‘turnaround’ change
at the Reader’s Digest Association, instigated by incoming CEO, Mary Berner.
Berner is variously referred to as the new ‘chief’, ‘straight shooting’, and, more sig-
nificantly, ‘Cyclone Mary’. Propounding the notion that ‘turnover is actually good
for an organization’, Berner undertook a massive cost-cutting exercise with the aim
of creating ‘a new “FACE” (fast, accountable, candid and engaged)’. In presenting
Berner’s story and her prescription for change, the article pays homage to the key
elements of a rational perspective: the magic leader principle, the focus on account-
ability and control, and the need to eliminate contradiction, dissent and uncertainty
in order to move forward and ‘grow the business’.
Other change management cases in business magazines paint a more humanistic
picture. Here, one sees the new twenty first century leader as a people person,
adopting a more participatory, inclusive style. This observes a shift from autocrat
to democrat, the leader who recognizes that organizational knowledge and exper-
tise does not reside solely within the senior management cadre. The role of the
twenty first century leader is to energize and revive the creativity lying dormant
at all levels of the organization. The emphasis here is on teamwork, as highlighted
in articles on Marius Kloppers, the head of BHP Billiton (Gray, 2008; Williams,
2008). Kloppers is described as a ‘detail person’ who actively seeks out infor-
mation from people ‘conducting the nuts and bolts operations’. During an interview,
Kloppers himself draws a parallel between organizational strategy-making and test
cricket. What he likes about the game of cricket is the power of the captain and the
team. It is not about an omniscient coach but about ‘11 men planning, performing
and enduring as best they can themselves.’ Similarly, discussion of turnaround
change at the Melbourne arm of advertising agency, Clemenger BBDO, under
the direction of new chief, Peter Biggs, highlights his team-centric leadership
style (Gettler, 2008). Through his open door, hands-on approach, Biggs sought to
unlock creativity by ‘opening up’ the agency and encouraging people ‘to interact
and show their personality.’ He wanted to transform the self-focused, individualistic
culture into one which prized generosity and collegiality.
A Philosophies of Change Approach 137
These expressed aims are laudable and undoubtedly sincere. They demonstrate
a clear desire among organizational leaders to challenge the status quo, increase
risk-taking and creativity, and open up organizational boundaries through infor-
mation sharing and collaborative teamwork. Yet the methods adopted to
achieve these new ways of working and organizing remain, by and large,
embedded in rational, analytical orthodoxy about organizational change and
change leadership. And, the problem with rational orthodoxy is its inability to
understand, let alone cope with, the centrality of paradox in organizations; that
is, the ‘simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states’ (Eisenhardt, 2000:
703). Rational orthodoxy in contrast presupposes the importance of discipline,
order and control. The possibility of implementing change by simultaneously
maintaining divergent dual states does not enter the frame. Managerial
decision-making is therefore based on either – or choices, or some sort of bland
compromise between assumed opposites that define change and continuity, such
as innovation and efficiency, collaboration and competition, freedom and account-
ability, empowerment and leadership, or economic and social goals.
Both Kloppers (BHP Billiton) and Biggs (Clemenger) appear to have some
sense of these continuity-change tensions. In Kloppers case, he combines an
analytical mind and an eye for detail with the need for adaptive strategy-
making to cope with sudden, unforeseen circumstances. He also looks to key
players for information and ideas. Representing a blend of economic and social
goals, the focus for Biggs is on increasing competition through a collaborative,
collegial and ‘generous’ workplace. There is a clear leadership – commander
‘presence’ bound up with the aim to empower and foster creativity through the
rank and file. Biggs’ advocacy of a ‘culture of discontent’ also implies a view
of change as having no finite end, thereby rejecting the classical ‘unfreeze-
move-refreeze’ model.
In the end, however, the indelible impression from all of these change cases is
the classic model of top-down, change in the hands of a strong, forceful and char-
ismatic leader. Kloppers is ‘the big South African’, and Clemenger BBDO is ‘born
again’ under the guidance of Biggs. The predominant focus is on increasing
competition through economic discipline and accountability under strong ‘take-
no-prisoners’ leadership. While input and involvement are actively sought and
encouraged, the underlying message is not about managing paradox but about
maintaining control. There is an assumption that the leader’s vision is the right
one or that everyone is on the same wavelength. Leana and Barry (2000) noted
that while new forms of organizing are seen as less hierarchical and centralized,
these new forms in fact enable senior managers to ‘consolidate power and
control’ without the need for centralization. It is control by stealth as managers
‘set performance targets rather than impose direction’ (Leana and Barry, 2000:
754). In this environment there is little tolerance for ambiguity or dissent. At
Clemenger, for example, Biggs recruited ‘six or seven core people that make
the soul of the agency and keep it true to what its purpose is.’ The implication
from Biggs’ statement is that existing employees were not appreciative of his
vision for a new soul and it was necessary to bring in some proselytizing
muscle to ‘guide’ employees to the light. At Readers Digest, Berner declared ‘It
matters that people are aligned with what we are trying to do and people are
138 F. Graetz & A.C.T. Smith
paid for performance. There’s no more paying for trying’ (author emphasis in
italics).
Lewin and Volberda (1999) counseled that progress requires combining and
recombining multiple theoretical lenses to improve the integration of theories
and avoid increasing fragmentation. They argued that change is neither an
outcome of managerial adaptation nor of environmental selection, but rather is
a co-evolutionary outcome of strategic intentionality and environmental impera-
tives. For Lewin and Volberda, the management of change means accepting
that adaptation and selection are interrelated rather than opposing forces. In prac-
tice, their position emphasizes that a single, linear commitment to change theory
will fail to account for the non-linear, recursive and multi-level nature of change
reality. As Morgan (1997: 350) advised, ‘reality has a tendency to reveal itself in
accordance with the perspectives through which it is engaged’. Therefore, tapping
into a range of different perspectives provides the scope to understand a situation
from many angles and create different modes of engagement (Morgan, 1997).
The following section of this article explores a range of organizational change
philosophies and comments upon their impact on the tools and techniques typi-
cally employed in change interventions. The complementary and competing
insights they offer also demonstrate that complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty
are part of the organizational dynamic and do not respond well to a rational,
leader-centric approach bent on establishing certainty and control.
Change Philosophies
We note that a philosophy of change is a general way of looking at organizational
change, or what might be considered a paradigm: a structured set of assumptions,
premises and beliefs about the way change works in organizations. Philosophies of
change are important because they reveal the deep suppositions that are being
made about organizations and the ways that change operates within and around
them. In the forthcoming section we take an in depth look at 10 philosophies, sum-
marizing their methods and approach to change. A philosophy’s method for
change is expressed in terms of its inferences about the mechanisms through
which a change intervention can be brought about. Typically, these are expressed
as theories, which in turn generate hypotheses and predictions about organiz-
ational change. Any given philosophy may have generated numerous theories,
but it is not always clear what they have to do with each other, and in some
cases, what they have to do with theories emanating from other philosophies.
Nevertheless, philosophies are advantageous because they offer both description
and prescription. Regarding the former, philosophies provide a metaphorical
and theoretical explanation of assumptions and, therefore, of methods for
change. While the usefulness of metaphors for explaining change is well sup-
ported (Palmer and Dunford, 1996; Oztel and Hinz, 2001; Wood, 2002), the
way metaphors can offer prescriptive guidance is less well articulated.
However, a general consensus would suggest that they are effective as change
management heuristics under certain conditions because they liberate observers
from entrenched thinking, encourage creativity by suggesting new interpretations
of old circumstances, stimulate emotional engagement, and fuel action by probing
A Philosophies of Change Approach 139
the unconscious mind (Green and Ruhleder, 1995; Palmer and Dunford, 1996;
Wood, 2002).
As with many complex aspects of organizational life, metaphors are useful in
conveying the range of paradigms from which change can be viewed. Paradigms
describe the fundamentally different event sequences and generative mechanisms,
or what can be thought of as motors of change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
While it is not possible to consider every metaphor or paradigm conceived, we
have re-conceptualized a range of divergent approaches for change into 10 the-
matic philosophies. Each of the philosophies is explained in turn, with emphasis
on their respective interpretations of change. We also comment on the influence
each has upon the tools and techniques typically employed for change interven-
tions. The aim is to show that the underpinning philosophical assumptions associ-
ated with various change interventions not only help to map the terrain of change
options, but also reveal why change is so difficult to introduce successfully when a
single approach is overlaid upon a complex and ambiguous organizational
scenario.
The Biological Philosophy
The most long held change philosophy has been commandeered from biology. In
fact, biology has been used in several different ways as a metaphor for organiz-
ational change (Witt, 2004). The first is appropriated from evolution itself. It
refers to the adaptations experienced by a species – or in this case, a population
of organizations – during its evolution. This application of biology, pioneered by
Hannan and Freeman (1977) under the terminology of population ecology, focuses
on incremental change within industries rather than individual organizations.
Population ecologists (McKelvey and Aldrich, 1983) subsequently began to
take a biological view of industrial behavior. They suggested that change comes
about as a consequence of Darwinian-like natural selection where industries
gradually evolve to match the constraints of their environmental context. Ulti-
mately, population ecologists seek to determine why there are so many different
kinds of organizations within a population when the biological imperative for effi-
ciency and a best fit would suggest that there should be an ideal configuration that
has evolved into dominance (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
The second biological sub-philosophy refers to the individual experiences of
members of a species (organizations within an industry) and is summarized by
reference to its life cycle. The contrast is, therefore, between the Darwinian
concept of natural selection and the developmental life cycle of individual organ-
izations. Life cycle theory (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Kezar, 2000) explains
change in organizations from start-up to divestment. Birth, growth, maturity,
decline and death are all natural parts of an organization’s development (Levy
and Merry, 1986). The philosophy is developmental in nature, comparing the
ongoing stages of progress and change in organizations to organic processes of
growth and reproduction. These can be analogous to child, human, organic,
moral, or even financial development. The life cycle philosophy implicitly
assumes that change is imminent and progressive. The biological philosophy
can get confusing because it is not uncommon for theorists to write about
140 F. Graetz & A.C.T. Smith
organizations seeking to adapt to their respective environments (Chakravarthy,
1982). While correct in practical application, this is a technically inaccurate
view of evolution which is concerned with species (industries), not individual
organisms (organizations).
Change from a biological perspective must be viewed as dynamic. In addition,
the evolutionary and life cycle sub-philosophies, as opposed to punctuated-
equilibrium, reflect a slow and incremental pace of change, moderately affected
by the environment, moderately controllable, and tending toward certainty.
The Rational Philosophy
The rational philosophy (also referred to as strategic) concerns the alignment
between an organization’s composition, competencies and state over time, and
its environmental context (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Sometimes also
known as teleological theories (because the final destination of the organization
is its guiding logic) or planned change, the rational philosophy assumes that
organizations are purposeful and adaptive (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Kezar,
2000). As highlighted in an earlier discussion of the rational perspective,
change occurs simply because senior managers and other change agents deem it
necessary. The process for change is rational and linear, like in evolutionary
and life cycle approaches, but with managers as the pivotal instigators of
change (Carnall, 1995; Carr et al., 1996).
Strategic choice theorists (Child, 1972; Smith and Berg, 1987) belong to the
rational philosophy and maintain that leaders and managers have ultimate
control of their organizations. The proliferation of management ‘gurus’ such as
Kotter (1995), Huber and Glick (1995) and Kanter et al. (1992), who each
propose their own ‘holy grail’ of change interventions, fit into this conceptual
classification. They argue that any events outside the organization are exogenous;
successful change is firmly in the hands of managers. The corollary of this argu-
ment, of course, is that unsuccessful change is also the responsibility of managers,
although sometimes there is the acceptance that the actors cannot override the
environment and resource limitations. In other words, when change goes well it
is because leaders and managers were insightful and prescient, but when change
goes badly it is because something happened that could never have been foreseen.
The rational philosophy assumes that change can be brought about at any pace
and on any scale deemed suitable. Similarly, change is internally directed,
controlled and certain. Approaches consistent with the rational philosophy give
precedence to strategic decision-making and careful planning towards
organizational goals. It is therefore the most popular philosophy for leaders
seeking to impose a direction upon an organization.
The Institutional Philosophy
The institutional philosophy makes some fundamentally evolutionary assump-
tions, but does so in the context of a strong belief in the sensitivity of organizations
to the external environments in which they are placed. Like population ecologists,
institutionalists expect organizations to increase homogeneity within their
A Philosophies of Change Approach 141
industrial sector over time, but view the shaping mechanism to be the pressure of
the institutional environment rather than competition for resources. It is less the
strategy in place or even the competition for scarce resources that stimulates
organizational change, but rather the pressures in the wider institutional context.
These might come in the form of new regulatory, financial or legal conditions
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, 1991). Irrespective of the specific forces, change
is largely a function of a shifting industrial landscape. The implication is that suc-
cessful organizations are successful because their set-up neatly accommodates the
industrial pressures to which they are obligated to respond. The key to this philo-
sophical standpoint is that organizations are coerced into change by pressures
from within their institutional environment. Clever strategy cannot out-manoeuvre
the rules set by an institutional context. Since organizational form is instrumental
to the institutional philosophy, it remains essential to study how similarities are
driven by external forces that coerce companies into set patterns and structures
(Meyer and Rowan, 2006).
One of the strengths of the institutional philosophy is that it explains similarities
between organizations and stability of organizational arrangements within an
industry. For example, institutional advocates would point to legal firms as an
exemplar of institutional compliance where most are configured in the same
way simply because they have hit on the best approach for success. Institutional
theory is, therefore, valuable in explaining the way in which social, economic
and legal pressures influence organizational structures and practices, and how
an organization’s ability to adapt to these play a part in determining organizational
survival and prosperity. On the other hand, the institutional philosophy tends to
downplay internal forces and the impact that organizational actors can have on
their own predicament.
The institutional philosophy tends to view change as slow and small in scale,
although institutional pressures can encourage a more rapid pace and magnitude
of change. The stimulus for change is external, control is mostly undirected,
and certainty is moderate.
The Resource Philosophy
An instructive starting point is to contrast the resource philosophy with the insti-
tutional philosophy. Where the latter explains the industry-specific pressures
encouraging organizations to conform, or at least move toward some greater orga-
nizing homogeneity, the resource philosophy helps to explain deviance. Accord-
ing to what is typically called the resource-dependence theory, any given
organization does not possess all the resources it needs in a competitive environ-
ment. Acquisition of these resources is therefore the critical activity for both
survival and prosperity (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Thus, successful organi-
zations over time are the ones which are the best at acquiring, developing and
deploying scarce resources and skills. Moreover, the most valuable resources to
acquire are either unique in themselves or in the ways in which they can be
combined with other assets (Connor, 2002).
From a resource philosophy standpoint, organizational change begins by iden-
tifying needed resources, which can be traced back to sources of availability and
142 F. Graetz & A.C.T. Smith
evaluated in terms of criticality and scarcity. Understanding that a dependence on
resources increases uncertainty for organizations, is particularly useful to change
attempts because it encourages an awareness of critical threats and obstacles to
performance. While resource dependency creates uncertainty, theorists note
that the direction of uncertainty is generally predictable even if its magnitude is
not.
As core competencies are seen as assets that will generate an ongoing set of new
products and services, the focus of organizational change from a resource perspec-
tive is on the strategic capabilities of the organization, rather than on its fit with the
environment. In this sense, the only limitation to an organization’s success is its
management of resources. Change can, therefore, be fast or slow as well as
small or large. The stimulus for change comes principally from within – as organ-
izations seek the resources they require – while control is directed and compara-
tively certain.
The Contingency Perspective
The contingency philosophy is based on the proposition that organizational per-
formance is a consequence of the fit between two or more factors, such as an
organization’s environment, use of technology, strategy, structure, systems,
style or culture (Pfeffer, 1982). However, variables such as inertia, inflexibility,
resource immobility and industry pressure make the fit between factors difficult
to predict. This fact explains why researchers have noted different levels of organ-
izational performance, with performance reflecting degree of fit (Van de Ven and
Drazin, 1985). Contingency philosophy advocates suggest that over the long-term,
managers in competitive markets are forced to adjust their practices and their
organization’s configurations so that they are consistent with efficiency
demands (McLoughlin and Clark, 1988; Alder, 1992). However, the search for
best fit is limited by the impossibility of modeling all the contingent variables
and the difficulty of predicting their connections and causal relations.
The strength of the contingency philosophy is that it explains organizational
change from a behavioral viewpoint where managers should make decisions
that account for specific circumstances, focusing on those which are the most
directly relevant, and intervening with the most appropriate actions. The best
actions to initiate change come back to two words: ‘it depends’. In fact, the
best course of action is one that is fundamentally situational, matched to the
needs of the circumstances. For example, although introducing …
W I N T E R 2 0 0 7 V O L . 4 8 N O . 2
R E P R I N T N U M B E R 4 8 2 1 1
Peter M. Senge, Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Katrin Kaeufer,
Hilary Bradbury and John S. Carroll
P l e a s e n o t e t h a t g ra y a re a s re f l e c t a r t w o rk t h a t h a s
b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y re m o v e d . T h e s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t
o f t h e a r t i c l e a p p e a rs a s o ri g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d .
Collaborating For
Systemic Change
Meeting the sustainability
challenge will require
the kind of cross-sector
collaboration for which
there is still no real
precedent. It must be
co-created by various
stakeholders by
interweaving work in
three realms: the
conceptual, the relational
and the action-driven.
Peter M. Senge,
Benyamin B. Lichtenstein,
Katrin Kaeufer,
Hilary Bradbury and
John S. Carroll
or more than a century and a half, industrial growth has been weaving an ever-
thickening web of interdependence around the world. Today, consumer
choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the
other side. Complex supply chains span the globe; for example, the average
pound of food travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles before it reaches an American con-
sumer.1 But these developments do not alter biological or social realities that have taken
shape over thousands and millions of years. Consequently, businesses operating within this
growing web are facing a host of “sustainability” problems: social and ecological imbalances
created by this globalization, such as a widening social divide between haves and have-nots,
global climate change, exponentially growing chemical and material waste and loss of
habitat and species.
Traditionally, businesses have thought such problems to be the result of economic exter-
nalities that require governments’ attention. But while governments are a crucial part of
lasting change, relying on governmental leadership to effectively deal with sustainability is
questionable for many reasons. The first limitation is geography. Even the largest govern-
mental institutions are limited by their borders and can’t attack sustainability problems that
are global in nature. The second limitation is time. Elected officials are limited by their elec-
tion cycles and struggle to deal with problems that develop over decades and don’t align
with their time in office. Moreover, due to increased fragmentation in democratic societies,
problems that transcend those of specialized interests tend to fall by the wayside.
For these and many more reasons, businesses are finding themselves compelled to ex-
ercise leadership around a host of sustainability issues. In particular, recognizing the
limitations of what can be done in isolation, many business leaders have already formed
collaborative initiatives like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies and Societies and the Global Re-
porting Initiative. In spite of such initiatives, however, there are challenges we are just
beginning to recognize. (See “About the Research,” p. 46.)
For example, in 1991, Unilever — the consumer products giant based in London — ini-
tiated a worldwide collaborative effort toward creating a global certification regime for
sustainable fishing involving fishing companies, distributors, retailers, local governments
Collaborating For
Systemic Change
Peter M. Senge is the founding chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning and a senior lec-
turer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Benyamin B. Lichtenstein is assistant professor of
management and entrepreneurship at the College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Katrin Kaeufer is research director of the Presencing Institute and founding research member of SoL.
Hilary Bradbury is the director of Sustainable Business Programs at the Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California. John S. Carroll is a professor of behavioral and policy sciences, MIT
Sloan School of Management. Contact them respectively at [email protected], [email protected]
edu, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
F
44 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW WINTER 2007
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
and nongovernmental organizations. Unfortunately, as soon as
this Marine Stewardship Council was formed, it was immersed in
controversy.2 Environmental NGOs interpreted aggressive goals
to certify major fisheries as a corporate drive to certify “business-
as-usual” overfishing.3 Conversely, NGO efforts to contest
certification were criticized by the multinational corporations as
stalling progress toward sustainability. One of the first projects of
the MSC — to certify the Alaskan pollock fishery (the largest
white fish fishery in the world) — became a multiyear legal bat-
tle. Similar difficulties have plagued other efforts to establish
certification mechanisms in forestry, organic and nongenetically
modified foods.
Two conclusions stand out from efforts like the MSC. First,
recognition of the need for such collaboration is growing. Second,
it is exceedingly difficult to engage a diverse group of partners in
successful collaborative systemic change. Although some relevant
research exists,4 cross-sector collaboration at this scale is largely
unexplored. The need is great, but the challenge is equally great.
The Society For Organizational Learning
Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the Soci-
ety for Organizational Learning began several initiatives focusing
on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues.5 The
group’s goals have included the application of systems thinking,
working with mental models and fostering personal and shared
vision to face these complex sustainability issues.6
Through its work, SoL has learned that successful collabora-
tive efforts embrace three interconnected types of work
— conceptual, relational and action driven — that together build
a healthy “learning ecology” for systemic change. Failing to ap-
preciate the importance of each is likely to frustrate otherwise
serious and well-funded attempts at collaboration on complex
problems. What follows are examples from particular projects in
which this learning ecology provided an important foundation
for substantive progress.
Conceptual Work: Framing Complex Issues
Making sense of complex issues like sustainability requires sys-
tems-thinking skills that are not widely shared. When effective
collaboration is the aim, developing a shared conceptual “systems
sense” is even more important.
Illustrative Conceptual Projects: Integrating Sustainability Frameworks
A dozen SoL organization members including Shell, Harley Da-
vidson, HP, Xerox and Nike formed the SoL Sustainability
Consortium in 1999 to gain a better understanding of how learn-
ing tools could support their efforts to integrate sustainability
concerns into their business practices.7 One of the first concep-
tual projects that emerged in the consortium grew from the
confusion of members about the many different sustainability
frameworks and tools they encountered,8 including the Natural
Step,9 Natural Capitalism,10 ISO 14001,11 Zero Emissions Re-
search Initiative,12 biomimicry,13 WBCSD Indicators,14 ecological
footprints,15 life-cycle analysis,16 and cradle to cradle.17 (See “De-
scribing Different Sustainability Frameworks,” p. 48.)
This confusion became an issue because the proliferation of
frameworks and tools was actually slowing progress toward sus-
tainability rather than assisting it, especially because people were
spending their time arguing about which framework was “right.”
In response the consortium frameworks group emerged — a
WINTER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 45
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
subgroup of the consortium that included members from BP,
Harley-Davidson, Plug Power, Visteon, MIT and U.S. Natural
Step — that came up with two key ideas for integrating and relat-
ing different sustainability approaches.18
1. There are three different worldviews that inform the notion of
sustainability.19 These are rationalism, which recognizes the need
for efficient utilization of resources through “meeting the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs;”20 naturalism, which recognizes the need
to bring industrial systems into harmony with nature21 by not de-
pleting resources beyond their rates of regeneration; and humanism,
which recognizes that sustainability depends on an intrinsic human
desire to be part of healthy communities that preserve life for our-
selves, other species and future generations.22
Each worldview provides a vital
counterbalance to the others. For
example, popular rationalistic con-
cepts like eco-efficiency can help
businesses waste less, but a growing
economy can have an increasingly
adverse environmental impact, even
as it becomes more efficient in using
natural resources. By contrast, natu-
ralism addresses the total impact of
industrial activity on nature, but
unless it evokes a deep human de-
sire to live within those limits, it
doesn’t necessarily motivate change.
Similarly, humanism addresses the
deeper motivations for sustainabil-
ity but does not, by itself, lead to the
practical tools and metrics for con-
necting business operations to
sustainability outcomes.23
2. Different sustainability frame-
works relate to different levels in
the management system. Many
frameworks focus on metrics. This
is useful but narrow. Equally im-
portant is defining overall outcomes
and having guidelines for shaping
strategies. Organizational practices
that include or go beyond metrics
mediate between strategy and out-
comes and constitute a critical
aspect of any business.
Seeing different sustainability
frameworks as working at different
management levels clarifies their interdependency and potential
complementarity. (See “Integrating Frameworks Across Levels,”
p. 49.) It also reminds us that management systems must be
homegrown. Strategic guidelines and organizational metrics and
practices must be tailored to the specific people, culture, market,
technology and history of any enterprise. For example, NIKE Inc.,
a company that prides itself on innovation for vitality and more
healthy personal life styles, naturally gravitated to biomimicry —
innovation inspired by nature. Today, led by hundreds of
independent designers who are part of Nike’s larger network, the
company is introducing a range of “biomimetic” innovations such
as compostable cloth, shoes that are put together with biodegrad-
able adhesives and an entire line of organic cotton athletic apparel.
(Nike even helped to launch the Organic Cotton Exchange to
bring more organic cotton onto the world market.) Translating
46 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW WINTER 2007
Data for this research were collected and analyzed by a team of four researchers who, over
a six-year period, participated in more than a dozen meetings of the SoL Sustainability Con-
sortium as well as being participant observers in all the collaborative projects. Using
traditional ethnomethodology, researchers took extensive field notes of each of the con-
sortium meetings and discussed these in post hoc research teleconferences. In addition, 42
semi-structured interviews with participants were conducted, recorded and transcribed
over a two-year period. Participants were asked about specific collaborative experiences,
as well as their personal and business aspirations for the consortium as a whole. In order to
gain a diversity of views, the research team chose individuals representing a range of orga-
nizational ranks (senior, mid-level, and junior) and attendance levels (core, frequent, and
recent). Data were analyzed and coded for emergent themes, using inductive qualitative
methods appropriate for exploratory research.i At the same time, individual case studies of
collaborative projects were developed and compared in order to identify emergent rou-
tines and practices being transferred across projects.ii We analyzed all these data for the
presence of drivers and interaction patterns within the consortium as a whole, eventually
developing a single system map that identified the three domains discussed here.iii
The study has been guided by the principles of participatory action researchiv and com-
munity action research,v aiming to build a community that builds knowledge in a way that
binds together the community. Thus, the researchers actively participated in meetings and
projects and, in addition, they periodically presented interpretations from their research en-
gaging participants, facilitators and organizers in regular dialogues on its implications.
i. J.M. Corbin and A.L. Strauss, “The Articulation of Work Through Interaction,” Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 1 (March 1993): 71-
83; and M.B. Miles and A.M. Huberman, “Qualitative Data Analysis” (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1994).
ii. R.K. Yin, “Case Study Research: Design and Methods” (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1984); and K.M. Eisenhardt and L.
J. Bourgeois, III, “Building Theories From Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4 (October 1989): 532-550.
iii. H. Bradbury, D. Good and L. Robson, “What Keeps It Together: Relational Bases for Organizing,” in “Creating Collaborative Cul-
tures,” ed. S. Shuman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, in press).
iv. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, “Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration,” in
“Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice,” ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage Publications,
2001), 1-14; and C.D. Argyris, B. Smith and B. Putnam, “Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills For Research and Interven-
tion” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985).
v. C.O. Scharmer and P. Senge, “Community Action Research,” in “Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Prac-
tice,” ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage Publications, 2001), 238-249.
About the Research
WINTER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 47
general ideas into specific organizational strategies, practices and
objectives takes imagination, courage, persistence, patience and
passion. In its final report, the consortium subgroup concluded,
“The sustainability challenge is fundamentally a learning chal-
lenge, a process that requires both ‘outer changes’ like new metrics
and ‘inner changes’ in taken-for-granted assumptions and ways of
operating.”24
Lessons From the Conceptual Work The learnings from conceptual
work done on particular projects suggest the need for collectively
built frameworks that create clarity without denying complexity.
Build community through thinking together and sharing.
When faced with difficult conceptual tasks, it is faster and easier
to leave the work to small groups of experts or to outsource it to
consultants or academics. But doing so bypasses the collective
intelligence embedded in diverse organizations and industries
and can result in output for which there is neither deep under-
standing nor commitment. In contrast, when conceptual
frameworks are developed collaboratively, the process builds
community and fosters more extended application and testing.
As one member reflected, “Working together to make sense of the
different sustainability frameworks showed us that we were not
the only company who was confused about sustainability and
helped us communicate what sustainability meant in terms of
outcomes and strategies in a way that worked in our culture.”25
Achieve simplicity without reduction.26 Clarity must not come
at the expense of oversimplification and trivialization of com-
plex issues. Conceptual working groups can sometimes produce
rousing action agendas that include little penetrating insight;
similarly, turgid analyses of complex issues can leave people
better informed but no more able to take action. Nevertheless,
tools like system dynamics27 and stock-flow diagrams (see
“Naturalism and Sustainability,” p. 50) can help in digesting the
complexity of a problem while communicating key features that
guide action. Simple system models highlight key variables and
key interrelationships.
Relational Work: Dialogue and Collaborative Inquiry
Success in any collaboration between organizations rests on the
quality of relationships that shape cooperation, trust, mutuality
and joint learning.28 But supporting relationship building is not
easy, given the competitive culture and transactional relationships
typical in organizational life. Only rarely do groups move beyond
“politeness” or win-lose debates into more authentic and reflective
interactions characterized by candor, openness and vulnerability.
From its inception, members of the SoL Sustainability Con-
sortium were committed to skills of reflective conversation and
working with mental models as a way to build more productive
relationships. As part of bringing new members into the com-
munity, a half-day, premeeting workshop introduced basic
tools of organizational learning; specific ground rules for ef-
fective conversation were made explicit, including such things
as confidentiality, radical respect for each other, the imperative
to “listen, listen, listen” and inquiry balanced with advocacy.
These steps were especially useful in ongoing projects in which
people deepened their understanding of one another through
genuine dialogue.
Illustrative Relational Projects: Women Leading Sustainability The
first Women Leading Sustainability dialogue was held in 2001 to
explore the distinctive nature of women’s leadership in sustain-
ability initiatives. Over the years, participants developed a
repository of the group’s experiences, including stories about
leading sustainability initiatives, reflections on personal chal-
lenges and lessons learned through the eyes of their children. In
these ways, the group has lived the consortium’s dedication to
candor and cooperation.
The relational work of WLS has had tangible effects. For ex-
ample, Simone Amber, founder of a corporate-funded, global
Internet-based educational project called SEED, said that the
honest dialogue of WLS helped her see how far sustainability ef-
forts go toward helping others, especially those in developing
countries. In WLS, participants’ motivation for working on sus-
tainability goes beyond business benefits by integrating work,
family and self; and the members have developed a sense of pur-
pose, fueled by a desire for their work to benefit others. These
successes are embodied in the group’s description of itself: “What
matters most about this group is that we assert the importance of
taking time for reflection so that our learning evolves through
integrating action and reflection.” Action and reflection are nec-
essary for good decision making, yet in today’s “just do it” culture,
time for learning is rarely practiced or valued.
Clarity must not come at the expense of oversimplification and trivialization of complex issues. Conceptual
working groups can sometimes produce rousing action agendas that include little penetrating insight.
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
Lessons From the Relational Work The learnings from relational
work done on particular projects suggest that the work must
begin with far-reaching and unorchestrated dialogue that in turn
sets the tone for systematic initiatives and practices.
Dialogue groups emerge from deep questions and longings. Al-
though it is easy to focus on formal strategies and the mechanics of
change, we shape our collective futures in “conversations that mat-
ter.”29 For example, the Women Leading Sustainability group
explored how to connect their “inner” and “outer” lives, how to
develop a career path that can provide leadership within the corpo-
ration while also being consistent with their core values and how
best to engage stakeholders far beyond their organizations. Such
conversations help clarify important issues and provide a “lived
experience of how we naturally self-organize to think together,
strengthen community, share knowledge and ignite innovation.”30
Identifying powerful questions cannot be orchestrated or
planned. They emerge over time with shifts in strategic context.
The key is to recognize and engage them seriously in a spirit of
dialogue and joint exploration. For example, John Browne, chief
48 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW WINTER 2007
When the Society for Organizational Learning first organized in 1999, one of its first conceptual projects was to find a way to
integrate and relate the existing sustainability tools and frameworks.
Describing Different Sustainability Frameworks
The Natural Step was founded by the
Swedish researcher Karl-Hènrik Robèrt
in 1989, who developed the following
scientifically based consensus defini-
tion of sustainability: In a sustainable
society, nature is not subject to system-
atically increasing (1) concentrations of
substances extracted from the earth’s
crust; (2) concentrations of substances
produced by society; and (3) degrada-
tion by physical means; and in that
society, people are not subject to condi-
tions that systematically undermine
their capacity to meet their needs.
Natural capitalism is a strategic frame-
work based on four precepts: (1) radically
increase the productivity of resource use;
(2) shift to biologically inspired produc-
tion (for example, biomimicry) with
closed loops, no waste and no toxicity; (3)
shift business models away from the mak-
ing and selling of “things” to providing
the service that the “thing” delivers
(thereby retaining ownership of products
for recycling and remanufacturing); and
(4) reinvest in natural and human capital.
ISO 14001 was first published in 1996
and specifies the operational require-
ments for an environmental manage-
ment system, providing generalizable
objectives and goals with measurable
metrics that can guide the environmen-
tal activities of organizations in most
industries.
Zero Emissions Research Initiative was
launched by the United Nations Univer-
sity/Institute of Advanced Studies in 1994
and was renamed Zero Emissions Forum
in 1999. ZERI promoted the concept that
all industrial inputs can be completely
converted into a final product and that
waste products can be converted into
value-added inputs for another chain of
production. In this context, the manufac-
turing line can be viewed as a series of
production cycles and recycling systems.
Biomimicry studies nature’s models and
imitates or takes inspiration from these
designs and processes to create products
and human processes. Based on research
from multiple disciplines, biomimicry
provides a framework for valuing not
what we can extract from the natural
world but what we can learn from it.
The World Business Council for Sustain-
able Development brings together 180
international companies in a shared
commitment to sustainable develop-
ment through economic growth,
ecological balance and social progress.
The WBCSD has developed a set of eco-
efficiency indicators to help measure
progress toward economic and environ-
mental sustainability in business.
“Ecological footprints” was first
coined in 1992 by the Canadian ecolo-
gist William Rees, and is used to
manage the use of resources through-
out the economy by measuring the
total environmental impact of business.
Life-cycle analysis enables a manufac-
turer to quantify how much energy and
raw materials are used and how much
solid, liquid and gaseous waste is gener-
ated at each stage of a product’s life
from creation up to and including the
end of its period of use.
Cradle to cradle articulates a set of
principles that seek to transform manu-
facturing design from being purely
opportunistic to focusing on the service
that products provide. One key princi-
ple is the total elimination of waste
in manufacturing; all components of
manufactured goods would be recycled
or reused, thus reversing the “cradle-
to-grave” model that governs existing
industry.
executive officer of BP p.l.c., has arguably done as much to legiti-
mize the importance of climate change in the business world as
anyone over the last decade. This started with a day-long meeting
of climate scientists and a handful of BP top executives in 1996.
“The very fact that we took a whole day on this issue was signifi-
cant,” says former BP chief scientist Bernie Bulkin. “Prior to that,
this was a subject that might have gotten 20 minutes on a manage-
ment team meeting agenda. But, I remember Brown saying that,
‘We are grownups. We can think these things through on our own
and find out what we really believe. Maybe we come to the same
conclusion as the industry association, or maybe we come to a
different conclusion.’” This “thinking together” eventually resulted
in a historic speech Browne gave at Stanford University, in Stan-
ford, California, in 1997, in which for the first time in public a
CEO of a major oil company broke ranks with peers. He declared
that it was sufficiently likely that climate change actually was oc-
curring to warrant serious action, and he announced a series of
initial commitments that BP would make unilaterally to reduce its
emissions and begin investing in alternative technologies.
Nurturing relational space can be systematic and purposeful.
Although the deep questions that drive dialogue cannot be overly
planned, there are ways to encourage a relational ecology out of
which initiatives will self-organize. For example, many of the
founders of Women Leading Sustainability brought specific
methods to the group, like personal check-ins and basic princi-
ples of dialogue and learning. The provision of free space is a
must — and perhaps is the most challenging. Although it sounds
simple, free space to simply explore what emerges is virtually
nonexistent for today’s busy managers.
Once it is recognized and legitimized, deepening relational
space also infuses results-oriented work. Effective relational
work encourages diverging conversations, asks difficult questions
and helps confront dysfunctional practices and attitudes in our
organizations and ourselves. Such capacities also benefit action-
oriented change initiatives.
Action-Driven Work: Building Collaborative Change Initiatives
Conceptual and relational work are important for effective col-
laboration, but they are especially important as they come
together to enable whole new levels of action. Effectively weaving
together all three dimensions requires a new approach that is
more personal and more systemic than traditional planned-
change approaches.
Illustrative Action-Oriented Projects: Collaborating For Innovation in
Food Systems Although most consumers in wealthier countries
are unaware of problems with global food systems, these are the
largest drivers of poverty, social and political instability and local
environmental deterioration worldwide. For example, falling
prices for coffee have created a “crisis for 25 million coffee pro-
ducers around the world, [many of whom] now sell their coffee
beans for much less than they cost to produce.”31 Long-term
trends of falling prices for major agricultural commodities —
40\%–90\% declines over the past 50 years for wheat, soy, maize,
potatoes, dry beans and cotton — relentlessly drive down farmer
incomes.31 Whereas wealthy countries like the United States buf-
fer farmers with over $500 billion in annual agricultural subsidies,
developing countries do not have that luxury. As a result, the in-
creasing production needed to meet demand and offset falling
incomes leads to vast environmental degradation (for example,
over 1.2 billion hectares of topsoil has been lost in the past 50
years — more than the area of China and India combined) as
well as increasing worldwide water shortages, since 70\% of water
use is for agriculture. And yet, despite increases in production,
800 million people remain chronically underfed.
The Sustainable Food Lab project was organized around an
innovative approach to weaving together conceptual, relational
and action space and included about 40 upper-middle and senior
WINTER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 49
Different sustainability frameworks relate to different levels
in the management system. Companies often develop cus-
tomized or home-grown …
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
35
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
Employee Motivation, Adjustment and Values
as Correlates of Organizational Change
Anurakti Mathur
Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied Sciences, Amity University, Noida
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Change is inevitable in any organization. Every one fears the unknown before the change
takes place, however after the change event there is a severe problems that the
employees may face with regards to adjustment to the disturbances that the change has
created. The present research sets out with an aim to understand the effect of
organizational change on Employee Motivation, Adjustment and Values in an organization
that has recently undergone massive organizational change. This research was conducted
on a sample of 50 employees who are working in an organization which has experienced a
major change in the recent past. Data was obtained through questionnaires devised for
the purpose of this research keeping in mind the above mentioned variables. The findings
show that the respondents have revealed the tendency to try and maintain moderate
levels of motivation after the change. They also try to make the desired adjustments that
are required in order to cope with the multiple roles in the organization. The values shift
from achievement to personal survival ones to maintain ones existence in the
organization and to function as a well-balanced individual.
Keywords: Motivation, Values, Organizational Change
Introduction
Changing organisations involves building a network of relationships between
organisational entities that are defined and shaped (against various resistances) to
contribute towards some particular goal of change (Law, 2000). Or, as Brunsson and
Sahlin-Andersson (2000) suggest, the construction of entities so that they come to
resemble some general or abstract concept of organisation – perhaps one that is
perceived to be somehow more “complete”. In the context of recent public sector reform
in a number of Western countries, much organisational change can be seen as
representing attempts to reconstruct public sector organisations as more consistent with
popular notions of “modern management” taken from the private sector.
mailto:[email protected]
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
36
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
An operational definition of ‘organisational change’
While the phrase ‘organisational change’ is much used in management discourse it is a
phrase, like the word ‘management’, that is rarely defined at a conceptual level. It is
clearly not a unitary concept as organisational change can be implemented using a variety
of instruments either in series or, as our data show, more often in parallel. Change may
be further explained in terms of its various types that the researchers have divided it into.
Planned versus emergent change
Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions. This type
of change is called planned change. In contrast, change sometimes unfolds in an
apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as emergent
change. An important (arguably the central) message of recent high-quality management
of change literature is that organisation-level change is not fixed or linear in nature but
contains an important emergent element.
Episodic versus continuous change
Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change,
according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is ‘infrequent, discontinuous and intentional’.
Sometimes termed ‘radical’ or ‘second order’ change, episodic change often involves
replacement of one strategy or programme with another.
Continuous change, in contrast, is ‘ongoing, evolving and cumulative’ (Weick and Quinn,
1999). Also referred to as ‘first order’ or ‘incremental’ change, continuous change is
characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different
sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across
units can create substantial change.
The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an
organisation’s future development and evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Few
organisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively
continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the principles
of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and experiment with
everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and unintended
consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996).
Developmental, transitional and transformational change
Change can also be understood in relation to its extent and scope. Ackerman (1997) has
distinguished between three types of change: developmental, transitional and
transformational.
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
37
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
1. Developmental change may be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or
incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation,
often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process.
2. Transitional change seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the
existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical. The model of transitional
change is the basis of much of the organizational change literature (see for example
Kanter, 1983; Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler and Tushman, 1989). It has its
foundations in the work of Lewin (1951) who conceptualised change as a three-stage
process involving:
• unfreezing the existing organisational equilibrium
• moving to a new position
• refreezing in a new equilibrium position.
3. Transformational change is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in
assumptions made by the organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an
organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and
strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that operates in
developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.
Systems thinking and change
Many of the approaches to organisational change found in the literature give the
impression that change is (or can be) a rational, controlled, and orderly process. In
practice, however, organisational change is chaotic, often involving shifting goals,
discontinuous activities, surprising events, and unexpected combinations of changes and
outcomes (Cummings et al., 1985; Dawson, 1996). Accordingly, change can be understood
in relation to the complex dynamic systems within which change takes place.
Systems are described as closed or open. Closed systems are completely autonomous and
independent of what is going on around them. Open systems exchange materials, energy
and information with their environment. The systems of interest in managing change can
all be characterised as open systems. In terms of understanding organisations, systems
thinking suggest that issues, events, forces and incidents should not be viewed as isolated
phenomena but seen as interconnected, interdependent components of a complex entity.
Areas of Change
Organizations typically respond to the challenges of new technologies, new competitors,
new markets, and demands for greater performance with various programs, each
designed to overcome obstacles and enhance business performance. Generally, these
programs fall into one of the following categories:
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
38
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
• Structural change.–These programs treat the organization as a set of functional parts—
the “machine” model. During structural change, top management, aided by consultants,
attempts to reconfigure these parts to achieve greater overall performance. Mergers,
acquisitions, consolidations, and divestiture of operating units are all examples of
attempts at structural change.
• Cost cutting.–Programs such as these focuses on the elimination of nonessential
activities or on other methods for squeezing costs out of operations. Activities and
operations that get little scrutiny during profitable years draw the attention of cost
cutters when times are tough.
• Process change.–These programs focus on altering how things get done. Examples
include reengineering a loan approval process, the company’s approach to handling
customer warranty claims, or even how decisions are made. Process change typically aims
to make processes faster, more effective, more reliable, and/or less costly.
• Cultural change.–These programs focus on the “human” side of the organization, such
as a company’s general approach to doing business or the relationship between its
management and employees. A shift from command-and-control management to
participative management is an example of cultural change.
Two Different Approaches to Change
While there are many types of change programs, two very different goals typically drive a
change initiative: near-term economic improvement or an improvement in organizational
capabilities. Harvard Business School professors Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria coined the
terms “Theory E” and “Theory O” to describe these two basic goals.
Theory E: An Economic Approach
The explicit goal of Theory E change is to dramatically and rapidly increase shareholder
value, as measured by improved cash flow and share price. Popular notions of employee
participation and the “learning organization” take a back seat to this overarching goal.
Financial crisis is usually the trigger for this approach to change. Driven to increase
shareholder value, Theory E proponents rely heavily on mechanisms likely to increase
short-term cash flow and share price: performance bonuses, headcount reductions, asset
sales, and strategic reordering of business units. According to Theory E, all implicit
contracts between the company and its employees, such as lifetime employment, are
suspended during the change effort. Individuals and units whose activities fail to
demonstrate tangible value creation The CEO and the executive team drive Theory E
change from the top
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
39
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
Theory O: An Organizational Capabilities Approach
The goal of Theory O change is to develop an organizational culture that supports learning
and a high performance employee base. Companies that follow this approach attempt to
invigorate their cultures and capabilities through individual and organizational learning.
And that requires high levels of employee participation, flatter organizational structure,
and strong bonds between the organization and its people. Because employee
commitment to change and improvement are vital for Theory O change to work, implicit
contracts with employees are considered too important to break. The leaders of Theory O
change are less interested in driving the success themselves than in encouraging
participation within the ranks, and in fostering employee behaviors and attitudes that will
sustain such change.
Employee Psychological Dynamics during Organisational Change
A debate exists over the reactions that individual employees have towards change. While
there has been a long tradition of researchers who argue that employees tend to resist
organisational change in general (e.g. Judson 1991; Odiorne 1981; Strebel 1996), Dent
and Goldberg (1999) argue that the term ‘resistance’ should be removed from the
literature as it does not reflect the complex interactions that occur during change. Piderit
(2000) takes a more conciliatory view suggesting that the ambivalence that employees
feel towards change does not always produce resistance, but generally produces
confusion. Regardless of what term is used, there is a wealth of literature that shows that
employee ambivalence to management change initiatives is often linked to dysfunctional
conflict during organizational change and associated with negative outcomes such as job
dissatisfaction and expressed grievances (Kirkman, Jones & Shapiro 2000). Employees
who are expending their energy on these types of reactions to change have less energy
for participating or contributing to that change. Therefore, identifying factors that
moderate this change resistance would be beneficial to both the individuals involved in
the change process and the organisation. Examining organisational behaviour,
researchers have identified change as having the potential to elicit a broad range of
emotion whether the transformation is a major restructure or minor re-organisation
(Mossholder et al., 2000).
Change can be perceived as a challenge or an opportunity and triggers positive emotions
such as excitement, enthusiasm and creativity (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee 2002).
Change can also, however, be threatening and create negative emotions such as anger,
fear, anxiety, cynicism, resentment, and withdrawal (French 2001). Clearly change poses
significant challenges, both to those who implement and those who are affected by the
change (O’Neill & Lenn 1995). Management theory, however, tends to focus on cognitive
issues such as cognitive dissonance during change (Bacharach, Bamberger & Sonnenstuhl
1996). The result of this focus is consideration of solutions in dealing with attitudes to
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
40
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
change, rather than emotional reactions (e.g. Brockner 1988; Brockner, Grover, Reed &
DeWitt 1992). A small body of research that has examined the role of emotion during
organisational change has largely focused on emotional responses such as stress (Terry &
Jimmieson 2003), and behaviours such as withdrawal and low organisational commitment
(Begley & Czajka 1993), thereby ignoring the emotive/cognitive processes that engender
such outcomes (O’Neill & Lenn 1995).
Work Motivation
Work motivation may be defined as the internal or external force that compels an
individual to perform optimally in the organization where he is employed. Work
motivation has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction, performance and
organizational commitment. The motives may be extrinsic or intrinsic in nature.
Extrinsic motives are tangible or visible to others. They are distributed by other people. In
the workplace extrinsic motives include pay, benefits, promotions etc. extrinsic motives
also include the drive to avoid punishment, such as termination or being transferred. In
each situation an external agent distributes these items. Furthermore, extrinsic rewards
are usually contingency based. That is, the extrinsic motivator is contingent on improved
performance, or performance that is superior to others in the same workplace. Extrinsic
motivators are necessary to attract people into the organization and keep them on the
job. They are also used to inspire workers to achieve at higher levels or to reach new
goals, as additional payoffs are contingent on improved performance. They do not,
however, explain every effort made by an individual employee.
Intrinsic motives are internally generated. In other words, they are motivators that the
person associates with the task or job itself. Intrinsic reward include feeling of
responsibility, achievement, accomplishment, that something was learned from
experience, feeling of being challenged or competitive, or that something was an
engaging task or goal. Performing meaningful work has also been associated with intrinsic
motivation.
The two types of motivators are not completely distinct from one another. Many
motivators have both extrinsic and intrinsic components. Cognitive Evaluation Theory
suggests a more complicated relationship. This theory says that a task may be intrinsically
motivating, but when an extrinsic motivator becomes associated with that task, the actual
level of motivation may decrease. In other words, extrinsic motivation may actually
undermine intrinsic motivation. But there is considerable research evidence that extrinsic
reward may not detract from intrinsic motivation and at least for interesting, challenging
tasks, extrinsic reward may increase the level of intrinsic motivation.
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
41
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
According to David McClelland there are three major types work motivators need for
achievement (n-ach), need for power (n power) and the need for affiliation (n aff). These
set of needs are said to guide and direct employee motivation in the organizational
setting.
The Power Motive: Winter (1973) has defined social power as “the ability or capacity of a
person to produce (consciously or unconsciously) intended effects on the behaviour and
emotions of another person”. The goal of power motivation are to influence, control,
cajole, persuade, lead, charm others and to enhance ones own reputation in the eyes of
other people. People with strong power motivation derive satisfaction from achieving
these goals.
The leading advocate of the power motive was the psychologist, Alfred Adler. To explain
the need for power- the need to manipulate others or drive for being in charge of others-
Adler developed the concept of inferiority complex and compensation. He felt that every
small child experiences a sense of inferiority. When this feeling of inferiority is combined
with what he sensed as an innate need for superiority, the two rule all behaviour. The
person’s lifestyle is characterized by striving for compensation for the feeling of
inferiority, which are combined with the innate need for power.
Power motivation varies in strength from person to person and situation to situation in
the same person. It may be expressed in many ways; the manner of expression depends
greatly on the person’s socioeconomic status, sex, level of maturity, and the degree to
which the individual fears his or her own power motivation.
There are five categories of power:
Reward Power: This source of power is based on a person’s ability to control
resources and reward others. In addition, the target of this power must value
these rewards. If the managers offer their people what they think are rewards, but
the people do not value them, then managers do not really have reward power. By
the same token, the managers may not think that they are giving rewards to their
people, but if they perceive this to be rewarding, the managers nevertheless have
reward power. Also managers may not really have the rewards to dispense, but as
long as people think they have it, they do indeed have reward power.
Coercive Power: This source of power depends on fear. The person with coercive
power has the ability to inflict punishment or aversive consequences on another
person or, at least make threats that the other person believes will result in
punishment or undesirable outcomes. Managers frequently have coercive power
in that they can fire or demote people who work for them or dock their pay. A
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
42
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
manager can also directly or indirectly threaten an employee with these punishing
consequences.
Legitimate Power: This power source, identified by French and Raven, stems from
the internalized values of the other person that give the legitimate right to the
agent to influence them. The others feel that they have the obligation to accept
this power. It is closely aligned with both reward and coercive power because the
person with legitimacy is also in a position to reward and punish. But unlike
reward and coercive power it does not depend on the relationships with others
rather on the position or role that the person holds. Managers generally have
legitimate power because employees believe in the value of private property laws
and in the hierarchy where higher positions have been designated to have power
over lower positions. People can obtain legitimate power from accepted social
structure or from being designated as the agent or representative of a powerful
person or a group.
Referent Power: This type of power comes from the desire on the part of the
other person to identify with the agent wielding power. They want to identify with
the powerful person, regardless of the outcome. The others grant the person
power because he or she is attractive and has desirable resources or personal
characteristics. Managers with referent power must be attractive to their people
so that they will want to identify with them, regardless of whether the managers
later have the ability to reward or punish or whether they have legitimacy. The
manager who depends on referent power must be personally attractive to the
subordinates.
Expert Power: This source of power is based on the extent to which others attribute
knowledge and expertise to the power holder. Experts are perceived to have knowledge
or understanding only in certain well defined areas. The target must perceive the agent to
be credible, trustworthy, and relevant before expert power is granted. Staff specialists
have expert power in their functional areas but not outside them. Expert power is highly
selective, and, besides credibility the agent must also have trustworthiness and relevance.
Managers and staff specialists, who seldom have the other sources of power available to
them, often have to depend on their expertise as their only source of power. As
organizations become increasingly technologically complex and specialized, the expert
power of the organization members at all levels has become more and more important.
This is formally recognized by some companies that deliberately include lower level staff
members with expert power in top level decision making
Research Objectives
The research has been conducted with an objective of understanding the psychological
after-effects of organisational change on the employees of that organisation. For this
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
43
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
purpose few aspects of the human psyche such as motivation (extrinsic and intrinsic),
adjustment(personal and professional), and values have been incorporated, though many
other aspects have been left out due to the constraints faced by the researcher and in
order to narrow down the scope of the study.
Thus the research has been carried out keeping the following aims in mind:
To study the level of professional adjustment of employees after a change event.
To study the personal adjustments that the employees make to fit into their
organisations after change has occurred.
To study the level of motivation in employees after a change event with respect
to need for power, affiliation and achievement.
To study the job related value system in-place in the employees after the change
process.
Review of Literature
The present research is aimed to develop a theoretical understanding of psychological
dynamics of the employee during the organisational change, informed by a perspective
on employee work values, motivation and adjustment. This chapter provides a literature
review that introduces the issue of employee’s psychological aspect during organisational
change. The review draws primarily on the psychological literature focusing on aspects of
the human psyche like motivation, values and adjustment.
Research on Nature of Organisational Change
The increasing pace of global, economic and technological development makes change an
inevitable feature of organisational life (Cummings & Worley, 1997). Organisations are
often ineffective at managing the psychological components of organisational change
(Bennett & Durkin, 2000) and it has been noted that there is considerable room for
improving the effectiveness of change efforts (Porras & Robertson, 1992). Kotter (1995)
noted that as many as 90\% of initiatives fail to achieve their strategic objectives mainly
due to human factors such as change related responses, attitudes and behaviours.
Organisations cannot achieve their strategic change objective until a critical mass of
employees has successfully completed their individual transitions (St Amour, 2001).
Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) argued that employee attitude towards
organisational change affect not only the success of the change process but other
important organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, morale,
absenteeism and turnover (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000). The costs involved with
such consequences may be directly attributable to the distress that is created when an
organisation’s employees encounter constant change (Mack, Nelson & Quick, 1998).
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
44
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
Large scale organisational change is defined as change that encompasses the entire
organisation, has occurred over a number of years, and involves fundamental
modifications in ways of thinking about the business, the organisation, and how the
organisation is managed (Nadler, 1988). This type of change has important and often
underestimated psychological implications for the employees. The necessary adjustments
can foster enthusiasm and opportunities for learning and growth or, alternatively, can
lead to frustration and alienation (Thompson & Van de Ven, 2001).
Judge, Thoresen and Welbourne (1999) argued that organisational change research has
been dominated largely by macro systems oriented focus and that a limited number of
studies of organisational have taken a micro level, psychological approach. Hence
assessing the impact of organisational change on employee attitudes and behaviours is
identified as an important research direction.
Despite widespread research on why and how organisations change, what constitutes
change is often taken for granted. Its definition is avoided. Studies based on individuals
rational choice imply that change flows from purposive actions in accordance with an
objective, external reality whereas contextualism argues that change results from
institutional pressures, isomorphism, and routines. But both depict change as the passage
of an entity, whether an organisation or accounting practices, from one identifiable and
unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether reality is independent,
concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that actors (or researchers)
can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes. This reflects modernist
beliefs that organisational space and time are unique and linear.
Many organisations are implementing major changes in the way they do business in
response to growing international competition, a significantly changing workforce,
increasingly complex and changing work environments, and other pressures (Lawler,
1986, Manz, 1992). As an organisation strives to maintain their competitive edge they are
reorganising, downsizing and implementing new technology. Ultimately, new and
additional job demands are placed on individuals within these organisations. These
changes are inevitable inn today’s work environment. Also inevitable is the fact that
employees must adapt to these constantly changing environments in order to survive and
prosper. Development of a body of knowledge about managing change is an important
body of knowledge for both academics and for general managers (Beer, 1987). The need
for adaptive workers has become increasingly important due to the fact that today’s
organisations are characterised by changing, dynamic environments (Pulakos, Arad,
Donovan, & Palmondon, 2000, Ilgen &Pulakos, 1999). In a recent article stressing the
attributes graduates need to enter the workforce, adaptability to the changing work
environment was at the top of the list (Gow & Mc Donald, 2000).
Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
45
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management, NCHRM 2013
In todays turbulent, often chaotic, environment, commercial success depends on
employees using their full talents. Yet in spite of the myriad of available theories and
practices, managers often view motivation as something of a mystery. In part this is
because individuals are motivated by different things and in different ways. In addition,
these are times when delayering and the flattening of hierarchies can create insecurity
and lower staff morale. Moreover, more staff than ever …
CATEGORIES
Economics
Nursing
Applied Sciences
Psychology
Science
Management
Computer Science
Human Resource Management
Accounting
Information Systems
English
Anatomy
Operations Management
Sociology
Literature
Education
Business & Finance
Marketing
Engineering
Statistics
Biology
Political Science
Reading
History
Financial markets
Philosophy
Mathematics
Law
Criminal
Architecture and Design
Government
Social Science
World history
Chemistry
Humanities
Business Finance
Writing
Programming
Telecommunications Engineering
Geography
Physics
Spanish
ach
e. Embedded Entrepreneurship
f. Three Social Entrepreneurship Models
g. Social-Founder Identity
h. Micros-enterprise Development
Outcomes
Subset 2. Indigenous Entrepreneurship Approaches (Outside of Canada)
a. Indigenous Australian Entrepreneurs Exami
Calculus
(people influence of
others) processes that you perceived occurs in this specific Institution Select one of the forms of stratification highlighted (focus on inter the intersectionalities
of these three) to reflect and analyze the potential ways these (
American history
Pharmacology
Ancient history
. Also
Numerical analysis
Environmental science
Electrical Engineering
Precalculus
Physiology
Civil Engineering
Electronic Engineering
ness Horizons
Algebra
Geology
Physical chemistry
nt
When considering both O
lassrooms
Civil
Probability
ions
Identify a specific consumer product that you or your family have used for quite some time. This might be a branded smartphone (if you have used several versions over the years)
or the court to consider in its deliberations. Locard’s exchange principle argues that during the commission of a crime
Chemical Engineering
Ecology
aragraphs (meaning 25 sentences or more). Your assignment may be more than 5 paragraphs but not less.
INSTRUCTIONS:
To access the FNU Online Library for journals and articles you can go the FNU library link here:
https://www.fnu.edu/library/
In order to
n that draws upon the theoretical reading to explain and contextualize the design choices. Be sure to directly quote or paraphrase the reading
ce to the vaccine. Your campaign must educate and inform the audience on the benefits but also create for safe and open dialogue. A key metric of your campaign will be the direct increase in numbers.
Key outcomes: The approach that you take must be clear
Mechanical Engineering
Organic chemistry
Geometry
nment
Topic
You will need to pick one topic for your project (5 pts)
Literature search
You will need to perform a literature search for your topic
Geophysics
you been involved with a company doing a redesign of business processes
Communication on Customer Relations. Discuss how two-way communication on social media channels impacts businesses both positively and negatively. Provide any personal examples from your experience
od pressure and hypertension via a community-wide intervention that targets the problem across the lifespan (i.e. includes all ages).
Develop a community-wide intervention to reduce elevated blood pressure and hypertension in the State of Alabama that in
in body of the report
Conclusions
References (8 References Minimum)
*** Words count = 2000 words.
*** In-Text Citations and References using Harvard style.
*** In Task section I’ve chose (Economic issues in overseas contracting)"
Electromagnetism
w or quality improvement; it was just all part of good nursing care. The goal for quality improvement is to monitor patient outcomes using statistics for comparison to standards of care for different diseases
e a 1 to 2 slide Microsoft PowerPoint presentation on the different models of case management. Include speaker notes... .....Describe three different models of case management.
visual representations of information. They can include numbers
SSAY
ame workbook for all 3 milestones. You do not need to download a new copy for Milestones 2 or 3. When you submit Milestone 3
pages):
Provide a description of an existing intervention in Canada
making the appropriate buying decisions in an ethical and professional manner.
Topic: Purchasing and Technology
You read about blockchain ledger technology. Now do some additional research out on the Internet and share your URL with the rest of the class
be aware of which features their competitors are opting to include so the product development teams can design similar or enhanced features to attract more of the market. The more unique
low (The Top Health Industry Trends to Watch in 2015) to assist you with this discussion.
https://youtu.be/fRym_jyuBc0
Next year the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry will finally begin to look and feel more like the rest of the business wo
evidence-based primary care curriculum. Throughout your nurse practitioner program
Vignette
Understanding Gender Fluidity
Providing Inclusive Quality Care
Affirming Clinical Encounters
Conclusion
References
Nurse Practitioner Knowledge
Mechanics
and word limit is unit as a guide only.
The assessment may be re-attempted on two further occasions (maximum three attempts in total). All assessments must be resubmitted 3 days within receiving your unsatisfactory grade. You must clearly indicate “Re-su
Trigonometry
Article writing
Other
5. June 29
After the components sending to the manufacturing house
1. In 1972 the Furman v. Georgia case resulted in a decision that would put action into motion. Furman was originally sentenced to death because of a murder he committed in Georgia but the court debated whether or not this was a violation of his 8th amend
One of the first conflicts that would need to be investigated would be whether the human service professional followed the responsibility to client ethical standard. While developing a relationship with client it is important to clarify that if danger or
Ethical behavior is a critical topic in the workplace because the impact of it can make or break a business
No matter which type of health care organization
With a direct sale
During the pandemic
Computers are being used to monitor the spread of outbreaks in different areas of the world and with this record
3. Furman v. Georgia is a U.S Supreme Court case that resolves around the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unsual punishment in death penalty cases. The Furman v. Georgia case was based on Furman being convicted of murder in Georgia. Furman was caught i
One major ethical conflict that may arise in my investigation is the Responsibility to Client in both Standard 3 and Standard 4 of the Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals (2015). Making sure we do not disclose information without consent ev
4. Identify two examples of real world problems that you have observed in your personal
Summary & Evaluation: Reference & 188. Academic Search Ultimate
Ethics
We can mention at least one example of how the violation of ethical standards can be prevented. Many organizations promote ethical self-regulation by creating moral codes to help direct their business activities
*DDB is used for the first three years
For example
The inbound logistics for William Instrument refer to purchase components from various electronic firms. During the purchase process William need to consider the quality and price of the components. In this case
4. A U.S. Supreme Court case known as Furman v. Georgia (1972) is a landmark case that involved Eighth Amendment’s ban of unusual and cruel punishment in death penalty cases (Furman v. Georgia (1972)
With covid coming into place
In my opinion
with
Not necessarily all home buyers are the same! When you choose to work with we buy ugly houses Baltimore & nationwide USA
The ability to view ourselves from an unbiased perspective allows us to critically assess our personal strengths and weaknesses. This is an important step in the process of finding the right resources for our personal learning style. Ego and pride can be
· By Day 1 of this week
While you must form your answers to the questions below from our assigned reading material
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (2013)
5 The family dynamic is awkward at first since the most outgoing and straight forward person in the family in Linda
Urien
The most important benefit of my statistical analysis would be the accuracy with which I interpret the data. The greatest obstacle
From a similar but larger point of view
4 In order to get the entire family to come back for another session I would suggest coming in on a day the restaurant is not open
When seeking to identify a patient’s health condition
After viewing the you tube videos on prayer
Your paper must be at least two pages in length (not counting the title and reference pages)
The word assimilate is negative to me. I believe everyone should learn about a country that they are going to live in. It doesnt mean that they have to believe that everything in America is better than where they came from. It means that they care enough
Data collection
Single Subject Chris is a social worker in a geriatric case management program located in a midsize Northeastern town. She has an MSW and is part of a team of case managers that likes to continuously improve on its practice. The team is currently using an
I would start off with Linda on repeating her options for the child and going over what she is feeling with each option. I would want to find out what she is afraid of. I would avoid asking her any “why” questions because I want her to be in the here an
Summarize the advantages and disadvantages of using an Internet site as means of collecting data for psychological research (Comp 2.1) 25.0\% Summarization of the advantages and disadvantages of using an Internet site as means of collecting data for psych
Identify the type of research used in a chosen study
Compose a 1
Optics
effect relationship becomes more difficult—as the researcher cannot enact total control of another person even in an experimental environment. Social workers serve clients in highly complex real-world environments. Clients often implement recommended inte
I think knowing more about you will allow you to be able to choose the right resources
Be 4 pages in length
soft MB-920 dumps review and documentation and high-quality listing pdf MB-920 braindumps also recommended and approved by Microsoft experts. The practical test
g
One thing you will need to do in college is learn how to find and use references. References support your ideas. College-level work must be supported by research. You are expected to do that for this paper. You will research
Elaborate on any potential confounds or ethical concerns while participating in the psychological study 20.0\% Elaboration on any potential confounds or ethical concerns while participating in the psychological study is missing. Elaboration on any potenti
3 The first thing I would do in the family’s first session is develop a genogram of the family to get an idea of all the individuals who play a major role in Linda’s life. After establishing where each member is in relation to the family
A Health in All Policies approach
Note: The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide. At a minimum
Chen
Read Connecting Communities and Complexity: A Case Study in Creating the Conditions for Transformational Change
Read Reflections on Cultural Humility
Read A Basic Guide to ABCD Community Organizing
Use the bolded black section and sub-section titles below to organize your paper. For each section
Losinski forwarded the article on a priority basis to Mary Scott
Losinksi wanted details on use of the ED at CGH. He asked the administrative resident