HRM 587 Week 7 DQ 2 Cracking the Code of Change: HBR Article
Locate and read the HBR article, “Cracking the Code of Change,” in the Online Library. It can be found through a general search in EBSCOhost, in the Harvard Business Review collection, May-June 2000 issue.
The article identifies two primary types of change that are most prevalent in today’s organizational world. Which type (E Change or O Change) do you think is most prevalent and what factors in our society influence that predominance? How can a leader best work toward a synthesis of both types to maximize the effectiveness of each for a successful change initiative?
This section lists options that can be used to view responses.
Responses are listed below in the following order: response, author and the date and time the response is posted.
|(an instructor response) Cracking the Code Professor Crews 2/14/2015 9:18:24 AM Class: Be sure to download the “Cracking the Code of Change” article and read it prior to posting in this discussion. The article discusses the hard and soft elements of change, referred to in the article as Theory E and Theory O. Let’s start off with a discussion of the pros and cons of each of these theories. What are the benefits of each approach? What are the risks and costs associated with each? RE: Cracking the Code Nicole Roberson 2/16/2015 10:54:28 AM Hello:|
Theory E has to do with visible organizational changes such as layoffs, downsizing and restructuring. Theory O has to with less visible organizational changes such as changes to the organizational culture or employee learning.
The main pro of Theory E is immediate financial rewards because of the decrease in expenses. The main pro of Theory O is that there is more paticipation in the process and leadership.
The main con of Theory E is that it is a short term focus. The main con of Theory O is that the results are less immediate.
Nicole RE: Cracking the Code Steven Speelman 2/16/2015 3:33:42 PM Theory O change strategies are focused on building up the corporate culture, employee behavior, attitudes, capabilities and commitment. The organization can learn from past and present experiences and develop an internal benchmark. The Theory E change strategies focus on the economic incentives, employee cuts, rightsizing and restructuring. Pressure from shareholders to increases legitimacy in providing such solutions. Employees tend to distrust management and leadership to who alternate between the 2 Theories. Not many employees will believe leaders who display a nurturing environment only to find cutthroat tactics. RE: Cracking the Code Bernnadette Lewis 2/16/2015 9:28:14 PM Theory E emphasizes economic value – as measured only by shareholder returns. This “hard” approach boosts returns through economic incentives, drastic layoffs, and restructuring. Theory O a” softer” focuses on developing corporate culture and human capability, patiently building trust and emotional commitment to the company through teamwork and communication.
Employees distrust leaders who alternate between nurturing and cutthroat behavior , because of the sense of betrayal that would involve. RE: Cracking the Code Daniel Ribbentrop 2/17/2015 4:38:43 PM I believe that the most common method is the “theory E”. I am sure that most of us who read the news can think of numbers of times where the headlines detailed a new executive coming into to save a company and does so through firing, and other various economic factors. The pros of the E theory is that a majority of the changes are very quick and have very immediate results. A con of this theory is that the underlying causes of the problems are likely not addressed. On the flip side of this coin theory O is basically the exact opposite, there are fundamental changes that address the root of the problems that are affecting the company but the results are often not seen until a significant period of time has passed. RE: Cracking the Code Patrick Mbi 2/21/2015 9:38:35 PM Modified:2/21/2015 9:39 PM
Theory O change strategies is quite fascinating.I’m pretty sure this happens when a company CEO is being fired because the company is going backcrupt.A new CEO comes in for a complete overhawl. Usually his intent is to build up the corporate culture, employee behavior, attitudes, capabilities and commitment. The organization can learn from past and present experiences and develop an internal benchmark.
Theory O change strategies are focused on building up the corporate culture, employee behavior, attitudes, capabilities and commitment. The organization can learn from past and present experiences and develop an internal benchmark. Theory O change strategies are focused on building up the corporate culture, employee behavior, attitudes, capabilities and commitment. The organization can learn from past and present experiences and develop an internal benchmark. RE: Cracking the Code Silvio Kennedy 2/17/2015 4:51:34 PM I think that the E change is more predominant in our society as people want fast and tangible results and such tangible results are often seen in stock prices, financial reports, and total revenues. We see new information about stock prices on the news every day and so this has become the common basis for gauging a company’s success. Moreover, the perspective where the employees are considered assets that a company should care for is quite new and considered revolutionary. For example, very few companies offer competitive compensations and benefits packages, as most companies would consider these as expenses rather than as investments. Also, most companies don’t offer training and career development programs for their employees as they don’t accord as much value in their employees’ contributions. In addition, it will take a longer time for a company to realize the returns from implementing the O change rather than the E change, and with the economic downturns experienced globally; the priorities of companies would be to regain financial stability as quickly as possible RE: Cracking the Code Elisha Lewis 2/18/2015 12:11:18 PM Hello Silvio I couldn’t agree with your post more. It so very true. Many companies have decided to do away with benefits, or have elected not even to make it an option. It is horrible to see. They would much rather make as much money as they can instead of making sure their employees are taken care of. RE: Cracking the Code Rolando Valenzuela 2/18/2015 11:00:47 PM so very true guys, business, at the end of the day is out to make a profit. best way to do that is to cut cost in the form of benefits, and state side employees. RE: Cracking the Code Glenn Hacker 2/21/2015 9:56:29 PM The world is a different place. In the old days a company relied a lot on its employees. There was a lot of entrepreneur businesses for even bigger companies to compete with. As people have began to settle the need for benefit jobs is almost non-existent. There is also the aspect of employee jumping or the lack of loyalty on the other side. As cost in the household increase, so does the need to make more money. Sometimes benefits can be sacrificed to make more money. Once the trend is established, businesses see benefits as a non-factor in having a job. RE: Cracking the Code Isabel Martinez 2/17/2015 7:04:06 PM I believe that money talks with most companies. Likely so, profitability is important, however longevity and an established work environment is crucial as well. I also believe that even when the type of organization is a service industry, Theory E tends to prevail higher. Companies like GE and HP, who make quality efforts, are obviously Theory O companies. Like the article mentions, the combination and collaboration of both theories is required to be ultimately successful, with profit and with the staff. Beer, M., &Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141. RE: Cracking the Code Elisha Lewis 2/19/2015 7:14:59 AM Hello Isabel, so true the all mighty dollar is what it boils down too. Many companies are only focused on the green. Some are so foused that they lost sight of the employees are the company as a whole. Instead of treating the employee like people they are treated like numbers, number pushers to make the more money. RE: Cracking the Code Elisha Lewis 2/17/2015 7:36:28 PM Pros of Theory E change is there will be fast results, in the financial realm as well as the culture realm. Like Dunlap did at Scott paper their profits went from 3 million to 9 million is less than 2 years Cons of Theory O many people lose the jobs while the company is trying to make money. Also people will start to distrust the company and upper management they will be looked at as cutthroat. With Theory E the company may gain a lot of profit, but they may loose trusted clients and stakeholders. Pros of Theory O change is down from the bottom up. The employees are involved. It promotes a rich culture. Cons of Theory O it may take a longer to see results. If you don’t have a plan then it will fail. With Theory O change mabe slow, so people may be afraid to take interest in the company. RE: Cracking the Code Bernnadette Lewis 2/20/2015 11:27:13 PM Theory E-economic value – verse theory o – organizational capability will dictate the dimensions of change in terms of goals, leadership, focus, process, reward systems, ant the use of consultants. For example, if the organization’s goal is near-term economic and profitability improvement, change is likely to be managed from the top, structure and systems will be emphasised , and the focus will be on cost-cutting and downsizing. RE: Cracking the Code AngelleRozier 2/22/2015 11:29:05 PM Theory E focused more on economic value. It measured it success based on the return from the shareholders. This theory also involved using employee cuts and rightsizing. This approach is more drastic, and can cause a more “harder” outlook on organizational change within an organization. The second approach, Theory O, really focuses on coming up with a long lasting strategy to change the culture of an organization. This is done through changing the code of conduct (employee outlook and behavior in the workplace), and re-defining the goals and mission of the company – in a way that sparks commitment to the core values of the company. This approach seems to be more rational, and in most cases, prove to be more long-lasting and powerful in creating a new working environment that will have positive effects on stakeholders, employees, and consumers. (an instructor response) The Pike Syndrome Professor Crews 2/16/2015 8:28:03 AM Class: In the first part of this course, we were discussing aspects of managing change primarily from an organizational perspective. Then we made a transition to discussing more of the “human side of change” as we explore how individuals respond to change. The HBR article “Cracking the Code of Change” brings both topics together. With that in mind, I have uploaded a document in doc sharing, titled “The Pike Syndrome.” Please read this document, and then we can discuss the three discussion questions at the end of the document, which are: 1. What are some of the perceptual constraints that operate in your workplace? 2. Have you ever experienced the pike syndrome? 3. How can we help others (or ourselves) break out of these mental traps? RE: The Pike Syndrome Jose Garcia 2/17/2015 9:24:54 AM Hello,
I have myself been struck by the Pike Syndrome. A few times I have worked so hard to accomplish a task and I continuously fail at accomplishing it, after so many attempts I finally accomplish it but when I do I tend to ignore the success and ignore the reason why that task needed to be accomplished. Also since I have worked so hard in completing the task I have failed to recognize when different situations come along or take alternate routes in completing the task. i believe that many of us have been caught up in the pike syndrome at least once or twice while attempting to complete a task and I believe that frustration is the contributor to the pike syndrome that causes one to lose sight of the visible and focus on the invisible. RE: The Pike Syndrome Patrick Mbi 2/22/2015 5:29:15 PM Good one Jose.I’m not an exception to the pike syndrome.Depending on who you work for and the challenges you face at work everyone has had a moment when they are struck with this syndrome.There are moments at work when i’mflabagasted by the genre of work i’m tasked to do.As a new employee, i expect management to take it easy on me but on the contrary that is not the case.pondering and and thinking outside the box. RE: The Pike Syndrome Adele Simmons 2/17/2015 4:41:48 PM How can we help others (or ourselves) break out of these mental traps?
One way can be by redesigning the role of the individual. In doing so, complacency is minimized from the repetitive nature of the job, and their preconceived constraints are loosened with new assignments that test their abilities for the job. RE: The Pike Syndrome Jose Garcia 2/18/2015 9:03:53 AM Adele Great Post,
I agree one can help oneself and other in breaking out of mental traps described by the Pike Syndrome by being placed outside of one’s element. Being out of one’s element one is forced to think outside of the box and figure out things a different way and maybe have to implement different a approach to things. This outside the box thinking can be useful when going back to one’s element as one will go back to one’s element with a different mindset. (an instructor response) RE: The Pike Syndrome Professor Crews 2/18/2015 3:37:58 PM Good insights Adele and Jose. I think it is important to get a fresh perspective sometimes. Others might be able to see facts, causation, opportunities or solutions that we are missing, and vice versa. RE: The Pike Syndrome Glenn Hacker 2/21/2015 10:01:54 PM I agree, sometimes those outside the circle can see things better than those within the circle, “outside looking in.” The issue though is the one’s inside the circle may even have resistance only because of the effort already put in. One thing we are taught at an early age, especially in specialty classes, is to have someone else look at our work. What is funny is how people loose this as they become individualized in the work place. RE: The Pike Syndrome AngelleRozier 2/22/2015 11:36:35 PM This is a great step Adele. I recently went to a conference where I was in a room of people who were just like me – their job description stated one thing, but they all wore different hats and perform various other task. For me, this has made me a victim of the Pike Syndrome as well. I started my position 6 months behind on work left from the position being vacant. At one point, I began to focus so much on what I had to do, I became “stuck in the past” and did not properly plan for how to get out of it. Since my role involved multiple jobs, I decided to re-define my workflow, and how I could “share the load” with others by empowering them to become a part of the process of updating/redesigning our site and social media. I also found programs to assist me in working “smarter and not harder”, allowing me more time to get the past task off of my plate. RE: The Pike Syndrome Bernnadette Lewis 2/17/2015 6:58:50 PM 2. Have you ever experienced the pike syndrome?
The pike syndrome is all too common in everyday lives. We make assumptions or feel victimized by our environment, and fail to push past our self-imposed barriers of limitation. The real problem is what to do with the problem-solvers after the problems are solved. (an instructor response) RE: The Pike Syndrome Professor Crews 2/18/2015 3:38:21 PM Class: Here is a video about the Pike Syndrome. It’s just a little over 6 minutes long…well worth your time. It is a little dated, and grainy, but still relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyHCOPe8qy RE: The Pike Syndrome Nicole Roberson 2/20/2015 2:54:02 AM Hello:
I really enjoyed the video. It is still relevant today.
The video really illustrated the importance of have a feedback loop in all processes. It gives people the opportunity to recheck what they have done, to make sure the process is still working and to review the problem again.
Nicole RE: The Pike Syndrome Angela Bailey 2/18/2015 10:14:31 PM Interesting article. Either (1) the pike lost interest in the minnows after being disappointed so many times , or (2) the pike thought that catching a minnow seemed too easy – some new barrier probably existed to prevent him from catching a minnow. I can relate to both scenarios. Regarding question #2, my sweet tooth is calling me so I’ll give this example: On my road trips to see family, I liked stopping by a Burger King that was about halfway between home and my destination. I liked getting milkshake with my chicken strips. The last few times I stopped by, I was told the milkshake machine was broken. I expected future disappointment, so I stopped trying. I lost interest in the Burger King milkshake started going to the McDonald’s across the street. Their milkshake machine was never broken. (an instructor response) RE: The Pike Syndrome Professor Crews 2/20/2015 8:23:35 AM Angela: I love the milkshake example! It really illustrates how people get frustrated, and look for ways to eliminate the frustration, e.g., in this case, just find another solution and change your habits! RE: The Pike Syndrome Bernnadette Lewis 2/22/2015 12:38:27 PM Angela (Good Post) In our lives, people are limited by a whole host of barriers, abilities or self-confidence. In addition, this experiment tells, us that it is often difficult to identify the change. The pike was unable to change its mindset when the barrier was removed.
Try to identify case of pike syndrome in life, remove the constraints that limit in life by critically examining the situation and remove any false assumptions that have been previously holding back (an instructor response) Sequencing Change Professor Crews 2/18/2015 3:39:31 PM Class: Is it possible to sequence change (“e to o” or “o to e”)? Which would work better and why? Which would create more difficulties and why? RE: Sequencing Change Steven Speelman 2/18/2015 5:06:24 PM I think it would be less effective to change from a E to O as cuts, riffs, layoffs being the first effect would have most people turned off to then try to shuffle the organizational theory. I think you would lose the credibility of the staff and many would be wondering if they were next and what is my role now. If you have a different opinion then I’d like to hear your viewpoint? RE: Sequencing Change Silvio Kennedy 2/18/2015 5:47:22 PM I would say sequence change to E to O can work if the change process begins with the E Theory because if E follows O a sense of betrayal would be evident. Therefore, Leaders should first implement the E change in order to be successful. They should try to get the employees involved in the change initiatives as possible. This can be accomplished by keeping the communication lines open, emotionally connecting to the employees and gaining their trust, by duly rewarding them for good behavior and performance, and by encouraging them to innovate. By having an open communication with them and by making them feel valued, the employees will be more likely to trust leader’s decisions-including the tough ones-and will be less likely to resist the change. At the same time, though, the organization may remain financially stable and the shareholders’ return on their investment may be higher. Theory O is based on organizational capability and it requires employees’ commitment. The organizations goal is to develop corporate culture and capability through individuals and organizational learning processes. If the objective is to build a company that can adapt, survive and prosper over the years, the common sense would be to combine the E theory with the O theory. However, both theories than must be carefully handled, otherwise combination of these two theories will likely result in the worst of both theories. Therefore, I believe the best way is to sequence these two theories by starting the process with E theory. RE: Sequencing Change Jose Garcia 2/19/2015 9:44:56 AM Silvio I agree,
In order to maintain a business operational it is important to implement the E Theory first because without the economic of a business there is no business. If there is no money to fund it the business will collapse and eliminate all jobs. The O theory should be implemented side by side with the E theory because in order to have a well rounded business one needs to have both the economic and organizational factors in line because neither can operate without each other. The organization needs to be strong to function and needs money to fund the business. (an instructor response) RE: Sequencing Change Professor Crews 2/20/2015 8:26:15 AM Modified:2/20/2015 8:32 AM Jose: I think your comments are spot on. Class: I think it is interesting that whenever I ask this question of a class, there are some who advocate that O to E is the better approach, and some say that E to O is better. So I want to offer another perspective. Is it necessary to sequence the change in this way? Or could E and O be integrated into a holistic approach to change, instead of being sequenced? What I am getting at is that most business people tend to be linear thinkers (and our educational systems tend to reinforce this). But is there a different and perhaps better way to approach change? (As Jose mentioned: implement the E and O side by side). Also, class, you might refer back to the “Dimensions of Change” chart in this weeks lecture, particular the column titled “E and O Combined.” RE: Sequencing Change Rolando Valenzuela 2/21/2015 11:25:07 PM Jose good post, I think that it would benefit an organization for them to use both the E and O theories of change. While doing research it seems that these two theories are the antithesis of each other, but I think that the benefits lie in these two theories being polar opposites. When implementing the two theories they balance each other out. For example, E type leadership uses a top down approach with little involvement from managers and lower-level employees. Uses the approach where all employees emotionally committed and focus on the bottom up. Employing these two leadership styles in one organization can balance things out. https://stevblogs.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/theory-e-o/ RE: Sequencing Change Nicole Roberson 2/18/2015 8:53:44 PM Hello Steven:
What is a company implemented Theory O changes first. The organization could first try to make small changes based on participation from the employees (who know the organization best). These changes, if successful, may negate the need for Theory E changes such as layoffs.
Nicole RE: Sequencing Change Elisha Lewis 2/20/2015 7:38:41 AM I agree with you Steve, there has already been so much done with the Theory E it would be difficult in my opinion to switch gears. The tension and emotions are already high within the workplace, so to all of sudden switch to Theory O after you just completed E people will distrust you and think maybe you have an ulterior motive. RE: Sequencing Change Isabel Martinez 2/21/2015 6:46:32 PM I read a quote by Scott Fitzgerald that the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function is the test of a first rate intelligence. It is obvious that by maximizing economic value and profitability, would then transform into developing organizational capabilities. Theory E is usually focusing on a top down approach, which then leads to participative leadership. Evaluating the structure and systems of theory E would then lead to focusing in on the culture and values.
http://www.humanviewpoint.com/images/Change_-_Theory_E,O_for_website.pdf RE: Sequencing Change Timothy Krueger 2/18/2015 11:27:06 PM IMO O should come first if possible. If O is very succesfull it may eleviate the need for E. However while that is said If E comes then O almost always has to follow because after a drastic E change more subtle O changes are almost always needed RE: Sequencing Change Adele Simmons 2/19/2015 3:59:27 PM It is possible to conduct a sequence change. I do believe, as others have indicated, that going from e to o would be the best method, as it would involve less friction and give the remaining employees confidence that their jobs are more secure. Going from o to e will cause a disruption in the workplace with the fast pace of downsizing and restructuring that is inherent with this type of theory practice. A combination of the two would be in effect at some point during the sequence change, as change doesn’t occur overnight. It will be at this point that I would hope the leaders/managers of this change would see the value of merging the two theories to develop a stronger organization. RE: Sequencing Change Durwin Simmons 2/21/2015 5:12:20 PM It would be easier to change from “e” to “o”, because you would go from not trusting your management to getting to know them and wanting to work for them. I feel that it would be less stressful to make the change that way. Being at a professional calm place to going to a hostile situation will be very stressful to the employees to handle. Cracking the Code of Change: HBR Article Durwin Simmons 2/18/2015 7:35:41 PM I would like The O Theory better because it is embraced by the people in charge and throughout the organization. When change is excepted by everyone the risks of change is dramatically lowered in my opinion. It would be difficult because of The E Theory undermines the employees; this will cause tension and distrust towards management. That situation may cause a turn-over or lack of production. RE: Cracking the Code of Change: HBR Article Bernnadette Lewis 2/18/2015 9:52:45 PM I would like think that Theory O better because soft approach to change, the goal is to develop corporate culture and human capability through individual and organizational learning. This theory is the process of changing, obtaining feedback, reflecting, and making further changes. For example, companies that enact the strategy have a strong, long-held, commitment-based contract with the employees. However, Theory E will difficult because hard approach to change, usually involves heavy use economic incentives, drastic layoffs, downsizing, and restructuring. E change strategies are more common than O change strategies among organizations today’s.
Best of Both Worlds Hardy Collier 2/18/2015 10:47:47 PM Professor and Classmates, I think there is probably more E change in the big business arena and O change in the small to medium sized businesses. I think there is probably a healthy mix of both, because you would not be able to have one without the other. In order for a leader to be successful and maximize the effectiveness of both change initiatives, he or she must look at the aspects both positive and negative. By using “and” and “or” within the constraints of both changes, a leader will be able to conduct a SWOT analysis of sorts and be much better off for it. Respectfully, Hardy RE: Best of Both Worlds Bernnadette Lewis 2/19/2015 7:37:11 PM Hardy (Good Point) I also think instead of using only one theory or sequence both theories, a businesses should implement both Theory e and Theory o at the same time. The simultaneous use both theories is more likely to be the source of sustainable competitive advantage. This should become a balancing act between initiating actions that follow one theory and then contradict that theory. At the same time, the leader should listen at the top who clearly sets and organizes company change.
Theory E and Theory O can be successful when used together at the same time. To do so, requires great skill and will to achieve adequate results. Businesses should not shrink from the challenge. RE: Best of Both Worlds Hardy Collier 2/19/2015 11:05:20 PM Bernnadette, Thank you so much for the response. It is very much appreciated as always, Ma’am. I do believe a company could implement both theories into an organization; whether a small “Mom and Pop Shop” or a large corporation. I also believe it would be a good idea to establish an some sort of exit strategy in case one theory proves more dominantly successful than the other. A good risk assessment would be able to identify vulnerabilities in using either theory. But, either way, the organization should protect themselves. Thank you again! Hardy (an instructor response) RE: Best of Both Worlds Professor Crews 2/20/2015 8:33:32 AM Interesting observation Hardy! Class: Do you agree with Hardy’s theory, that there is more E change in larger organizations, and more O change in smaller ones? If so, what might explain this? RE: Best of Both Worlds Hardy Collier 2/21/2015 5:23:40 AM Professor and Classmates, I have a theory about why smaller businesses may be more of an “O” change and an “E” change in larger businesses. My theory is that smaller businesses rely more on the people aspect in order to generate ideas to make the business successful. For instance, if a family opens a small restaurant with an overall goal of becoming a franchise, the management side of the business may open up to the other employees in hopes of spawning ideas. A larger business has already experienced some degree of success and has funding/resources to explore revenue-generating ideas. However, instead of opening up to employees, a larger business would likely rely on a consulting firm to help make decisions for the future. But, instead of labeling the reason as money or funds to achieve financial goals. I think in this case I would like to humanize the reason. The word that I want to use in this case is confidence. A smaller company may lack confidence which may lead them to seeking ideas through more personalized ways than a larger business might. Confidence in business decisions is everything. I might be off a little, but that was the first thing that came to mind. Respectfully, Hardy RE: Best of Both Worlds Bernnadette Lewis 2/21/2015 10:11:30 PM Hardy, (Once again excellent post) I know I might be off – Today’s fast-paced economy demands that businesses change or die. But few companies manage corporate transformation as well as they would like. Theory E change efforts tend to be top-driven, planned and programmatic, focus mainly on formal structure and systems. Theory O change is emergent, rather than planned, with the emphasis on employee participation and organisational culture. RE: Best of Both Worlds Glenn Hacker 2/22/2015 10:56:59 PM I agree with most of the observations, but not every business has to change or die. In fact most businesses die because they get away from what made them great to begin with. This has a lot to do with change in leadership and ideas. For instance, AT&T changes as new technologies come about but, their working philosophy has pretty much stayed constant. A lot has to do with how they bring in new people. A person that is hired into management is required to work at the bottom end, that would be a line splicer, cable runner, etc. There theory is that it is hard for management to make decisions if they do not know what is involved. RE: Best of Both Worlds Rolando Valenzuela 2/22/2015 10:20:51 PM Hardy, good post.. I think that the theory a company employs depend on the situation and the leadership in place. lets take your example of the smaller business. what if the restaurant business , owner had the mentality where he needs to be in control. in this scenario the O and E theory would be reversed E theory of change would be more prevalent. RE: Best of Both Worlds Adele Simmons 2/21/2015 9:46:10 AM I agree with Hardy’s theory. Smaller companies are generally concerned with satisfying the customer base they have. It is similar to one of the questions posed earlier on in this class regarding the drive up restaurant that was considering selling liquor. Changes to the menu may have cost them a steady stream of revenue in exchange for an uncertain revenue stream. Meeting the people’s needs and not the financial bottom line generally results in a stronger financial bottom line by default. In a class I attended yesterday about satisfying the customer, I learned that if you focus on what you are supposed to do (what’s expected), and are able to provide additional service on top of that (unexpected/wow factor), you will have a satisfied customer who is most likely to be a repeat customer who brings in their friends. This increases the financial bottom line, without being focused on it. (an instructor response) Reality Check Professor Crews 2/20/2015 8:27:54 AM Class: As a former college dean, I used to tell the faculty that they were my “reality check.” In other words, if I had an idea that involved a change, I would bounce it off the faculty. Being the ones on the front lines of the educational process, they were in the best position to tell me if the idea was needed, if it was likely to work, or if I was off my rocker. Check out this link…it contains some interesting checklists:
What do you think? Could this concept be useful for you as a change agent? RE: Reality Check Timothy Krueger 2/20/2015 11:11:21 PM I had a former teacher who also did consulting work. In his job he would put together efficency plans to improve the company. You can imagin this ment change and reistance. One of the things he would say though is he would go to the front line workers to truely understand how things worked. While managment may know how things are suppose to be done the front line actually knows how it works. In the same regards he would also use the front line workers to evaluate new changes. RE: Reality Check Nicole Roberson 2/21/2015 5:10:41 PM Hello:
Yes, I think a checklist would be very helpful in the change process. It is impossible to remember everything. That is why you should write it down. The checklist should be shared with all employees and be a working document where items can be added and deleted.
Nicole RE: Reality Check Angela Bailey 2/21/2015 10:20:14 PM I think checklists can be helpful. As Nicole stated, you can forget important questions in all the excitement of project activities. I liked how the checklist included questions regarding considerations for future enhancements. Sometimes a design is suitable for the current state of the business; however, it does not hold up when the business grows. RE: Reality Check Rachael Dickenson 2/22/2015 10:26:12 PM I think this is absolutely key when considering change. In my current position, I am no longer part of the day to day production, even though I manage it. When upper management seeks to make changes, I always try to stress how important it is that we run it by the production line employees and get their buy in and feedback. Something that sounds great to me in theory may be awful in practice, and may not be feasible at all in practice. As someone who is not “on the front lines,” per se, I may not be able to readily identify when a change isn’t a great idea. My employees, however, are the perfect individuals to identify these issues. RE: Reality Check AngelleRozier 2/22/2015 11:51:59 PM I agree Rachael. Using co-workers/employees to bounce ideas of change off of is a great idea. I think it is also wise to do so, because it can help predict how a particular change/Idea may be perceived organization-wide. It will also give you a better input of the idea from the front line, instead of looking at it from a managing standpoint. (an instructor response) Measuring the Impact of Change Professor Crews 2/21/2015 5:49:29 PM Class: Another topic that we should touch on as we close in on the end of the course has to do with measuring the impact or the results of a change initiative. One tool that we might use to measure the success of a change initiative is the “Balanced Scorecard.” Are you familiar with this approach?
Here is a link to the Balanced Scorecard Institute:
How do you think this approach might be useful in measuring the results of a change? Which is more difficult to measure: E Change or O Change? RE: Measuring the Impact of Change Rachael Dickenson 2/21/2015 8:27:28 PM I think that O Change would be the more difficult to measure. E Change can be tracked through concrete numbers. For example, the company wants to increase their profit margin by 3%. That kind of change would be easy to track. However, if a company wanted to become more “family friendly” toward their employees, this would be more difficult to track as it is a more subjective goal. RE: Measuring the Impact of Change Patrick Mbi 2/22/2015 5:43:50 PM I think the balanced scorecard is a very important tool every organization should aspire to use.It is a strategic planning and management system.that is used extensively in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improve internal and external communications, and monitor organization performance against strategic goals. It was originated by Drs. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and David Norton as a performance measurement framework that added strategic non-financial performance measures to traditional financial metrics to give managers and executives a more ‘balanced’ view of organizational performance. http://balancedscorecard.org/Resources/About-the-Balanced-Scorecard RE: Measuring the Impact of Change Isabel Martinez 2/22/2015 3:08:28 PM Modified:2/22/2015 3:08 PM The Balanced Scorecard Institute is a great tool for organizations. If the company/organization has the resources to tap into this, it can most definitely assist. According to BSI, it can improve strategic processes, build strategic management systems, prioritize projects and initiative, and transform the organization and build buy in to change. Great tool, again, if the resources are available.
In measuring E Change and O Change, is like measuring water to flour. Different tools should be used, both can be defined in a different level of difficulty.