Turning Around Cote Construction Company Case Study 2

Chapter Nine Action Planning and
Implementation
Chapter Overview
Change leaders recognize the usefulness of plans and the imperative of action. Prepare,
take action, and learn from the results. Change initiators have a “do it” attitude.
Action planning and implementation involves planning the work and working the plan.
“Right” decisions mean approximately “right” as change agents obtain feedback from action
and make adjustments as they act.
Change agents learn to specify who does what, when, and how to monitor and track their
change initiatives. Agents use a variety of management tools, such as responsibility and
project planning charts, surveys and survey feedback, and critical path methods to
successfully plan and implement their change programs.
Successful change agents develop detailed communications plans and understand how to
manage transitions from the present to a future desired state.

This book has a philosophical bias for taking action. Rather than passively waiting or
complaining from the sidelines, change agents get engaged. However, the goal is not
action simply for novelty and excitement. Action must increase the likelihood of positive
change. Great ideas don’t generate value until they are effectively executed. One of the
ways to improve the quality of action is to use proven tools to execute a change agenda.
Tools in Chapter 9 translate plans to action. If this were a political campaign, these tools
would be steps that are deployed after the candidate has been selected, the platform
finalized, and the election called. The chapter provides advice on implementation tactics
and project management tools. It addresses communication and influence tactics during
the change process. And finally, the management of transition, or the process of keeping
the organization operating while implementing the change, is detailed. In terms of the
model in Figure 9.1, these are the implementation issues of “getting from here to there”—
assessing the present in terms of the future, determining the work that needs to be done,
and implementing the change.

590

Without a “Do It” Orientation, Things Won’t
Happen
Many major change initiatives start in the C-suite. Boards of directors and executives at
the top of organizations have access to all of the data that an organization generates,
and from this perspective and input they can observe a myriad of organizational
problems and envision viable solutions. Two examples of boards who hired strong,
change agent CEOs are IBM’s board when they brought in Lou Gerstner in 1993 and the
board of New England Medical Center, Boston (now called Tufts Medical Center) when
they hired Ellen Zane in 2002 to lead the transformation of the then-foundering nonprofit
hospital (see cases on the website for the story about Zane’s turnaround of the medical
center).
Figure 9.1 The Change Path Model

Gerstner and Zane were seasoned executives when they took on the extremely difficult
task of pushing change from the top down into the basements of their organizations. Both
had a “do it” orientation and both were authorized by their boards and by their titles,
jobs, and positions to lead change within their institutions. Having the authority to act
makes certain aspects of the job of change agent easier than working from the middle.
Gerstner, for instance, when he claimed the title of CEO, quickly changed the reward
system for his top executives, focusing their attention on the performance of IBM as a

591

whole, rather than just their divisions or areas. Such quick structural change is unlikely in
a mid-level role.
In an ideal world, change leaders located in the middle of the organization will also find
support for their projects. They need ready access to supportive executives who provide
directional clarity, ensure their organizations are ready for change, approve needed
resources, provide other modes of support and oversight, and cultivate broad employee
commitment for the change. In some instances, this is not the case. Many executives will
have little or no knowledge of the initiative or its value and implications. If they have
heard of the idea, they may lack interest because of other priorities and political realities;
some may have heard of it and have concerns, while others will simply want to distance
themselves from the change in the event it doesn’t work out. Some will fail to understand
the important role they have to play in nurturing innovation from within the organization;
others will not see it as their role.
Organizations are complex systems, and their prospects for successful adaptation are
advanced when they can also learn and grow from the bottom up. This is one of the
reasons that firms such as 3M, Procter & Gamble, and Deloitte have demonstrated such
staying power: They grow from within and from the bottom up. Wise senior managers
know how to nurture and leverage employees’ adaptive energy.
Wise change agents know how to save short-sighted senior managers from themselves.
If you work in an organization such as 3M, then “lucky you!” If you do not, an early task is
to seek—and hopefully acquire—senior-level support for your initiative. An e-mail from
the CEO or SVP announcing her support for your project will help garner support from
other organizational members.
Innovation and Change at 3M
Front-line freedom to innovate and senior-level support have been critical ingredients to 3M’s
success. Technical and marketing employees commit 15% of their time to work on projects of
their own choosing, without supervision. The environment is open and informal, input from
customers and lead users is sought, and collaboration and inquisitiveness are valued. Social
media facilitates front-line collaboration and helps to overcome the communication barriers that
organizational size and complexity bring. At the same time, 3M’s culture is demanding, and the
process for funding new ideas is highly structured.
The degree of management scrutiny and oversight increases as new ideas evolve to require
significant resources. Products that are eventually successful in the marketplace are typically
rejected several times in management’s funding process before receiving funds, requiring
persistence from innovators. Management and employees embrace and learn from failures
because innovation won’t happen otherwise. George Buckley, 3M’s CEO from 2005 to 2012, a
PhD in engineering, was deeply interested in innovation. He regularly visited the labs to find out
what people were exploring, believing that “creativity comes from freedom, not control.”1
As it had in the past, this commitment to innovation has allowed new products and services to
percolate and develop from the ground up throughout the years.2 Inge Thulin (2012-18) and
Michael Roman (the current CEO) have demonstrated their commitment to sustaining this
commitment in more recent years. This spirit is captured in the following statement of 3M’s
purpose:
“3M captures the spark of new ideas and transforms them into thousands of ingenious products.
Our culture of creative collaboration inspires a never-ending stream of powerful technologies that
make life better. 3M is the innovation company that never stops inventing.”3

If senior-level support for change is unlikely to develop in the near future, change
initiators may feel that abiding by formal organizational protocols and waiting for official

592

support will slow progress unduly. Faced with this situation, change agents may choose
to follow the advice of Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, a pioneering female software
engineer in the U.S. Navy, who said, “It is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.”4
Pfeffer and Sutton state “actions count more than elegant plans or concepts” and that
“there is no doing without mistakes.” They ask, however, a crucial question: “What is the
company’s response?”5 If the organization’s response to reasoned initiatives and honest
mistakes is to scapegoat and blame, people quickly learn not to take risks that might lead
to mistakes. Or, they learn to cover up mistakes. Either way, the organization suffers.*
However, beliefs about likely organizational responses can also become a convenient
excuse for inaction and the avoidance of risk taking (e.g., What if my idea really won’t
work or what will I do if it does work?). If such beliefs are never challenged, their stability
will produce self-fulfilling prophecies.
* This does lead to an accountability paradox. Accountability is a needed and useful

attribute. However, there needs to be a fine balance between holding change leaders
accountable for what they do and encouraging the risk-taking behavior that leads to
needed learning and change.
Effective executives and managers of change are aware of the consequences of their
actions and intuitively test their organizational assumptions by engaging in an action–
learning–reaction cycle.6 Sayles recognized this when he wrote, “Working leaders
instead of simply waiting for and evaluating results seek to intervene. And the
interventions they undertake require a more intimate knowledge of operations, and more
involvement in the work than those of traditional middle managers.”7
For employees lower in the hierarchy, action is also key. Instead of being discouraged by
lack of authority or reach, one must fully understand the resources and tools they have at
their disposal. Dr. Ross Wirth, retired dean of the College of Business, Franklin
University, reflected on his 32-year career at Citgo Petroleum with the following wisdom:8
“Traditional thought says that nothing happens without top management’s approval (but)
change need not be something that is ‘done to you.’ Here is another way to think of it:
empowerment is something you grasp until you find its limits. I tell people that they can
constantly test the limits of their empowerment, carefully reading internal politics to see
when they are pushing up against a boundary. Too many people think they are not
empowered, but actually they have failed to test their limits.”
The reality of much organizational life is somewhere between an environment that
punishes those who dare to challenge the status quo and one in which all such initiatives
are unconditionally embraced and rewarded. When the latter is the case, disciplined
development and governance processes help organizations and their members to sort
through those ideas, nurture their development, and bring the most viable to life. If such
processes are absent, it can lead to the organization running off in all directions.
Organizational members who choose not to wait on formal permission and undertake
reasonable self-initiated change initiatives may experience some chastisement for not
first seeking approval, particularly if the initiative runs into difficulty. However, in many
organizations, they are also commended for showing initiative and having a positive
impact. The organization’s culture and the personality of a boss (e.g., managerial style
and tolerance for ambiguity) will obviously influence what response the initiator receives,
but most managers value initiative.
What can be done to increase the likelihood that taking action will produce desired
results? The following sections address this question by exploring a variety of planning

593

and implementing tools. The purpose of these tools is to assist change leaders in
designing and then managing their initiatives in ways that increase their prospects for
success.

594

Prelude to Action: Selecting the Correct Path
Any action plan for change needs to be rooted in a sophisticated understanding of how
the organization works and what needs to be achieved. Since there are a variety of
action paths available, how do you decide which to take? Mintzberg and Westley provide
guidance in this matter by setting out three generic approaches: thinking first, seeing first,
and doing first.9
Thinking first strategy works best when the issue is clear, data are reliable, context
is structured, thoughts can be pinned down, and discipline can be established as in
many routine production processes. The introduction of an initiative such as Six
Sigma is an example where management needs to think first.
Seeing first strategy works best when many elements have to be combined into
creative solutions, commitment to those solutions is key, and communication across
boundaries is essential. New product development is an example of the need to see
first.
Doing first strategy works best when the situation is novel and confusing,
complicated specifications would get in the way, and a few simple relationship rules
can help people move forward. For example, if a manager is testing a variety of
approaches to customer service and wants feedback about what works best under
what conditions, then doing first is appropriate. At the macro level, this approach
often makes sense for organizations attempting to figure out how to deal with
disruptions to their business models—something firms are experiencing with
increasing frequency.
As complexity and ambiguity rise, Mintzberg and Westley argue that the preferred
approach to action shifts. Thinking first fits when the situation is well structured, a
manager has the needed data, and there is not much confusion about how to proceed.
As ambiguity and complexity rise, though, certainty over how best to proceed becomes
less clear. Seeing first approaches the challenge by experimentation, prototyping, and
pilot programs so that commitment can be gained by having others see and experience
an initiative. Doing first is a response to even more ambiguous situations and takes the
process of exploration further in the search for new paths forward. As these paths begin
to emerge, the approach can then be altered to seeing first or doing first, depending on
what is suitable for the next stage.
Nitin Nohria offers a slightly different assessment of the generic change strategies
available.10 He identified three strategies, defined their characteristics, explained the
typical implementation, and highlighted their risk points. Programmatic change (similar
to Mintzberg and Westley’s thinking first change) involves the implementation of
straightforward, well-structured solutions. It is best suited to contexts that are clear and
well defined and where the magnitude of the change is incremental in nature. Risks with
this approach lie in potential problems with inflexibility, overreliance on a “one-size-fits-all”
solution, and a lack of focus on behavior.
Discontinuous change involves a major break from the past. If the environment is
shifting dramatically and a continuation of activities based on existing assumptions will
not work, then discontinuous, top-down change may be fitting. Organizational
restructuring due to downsizing, rapid growth, or the realignment of markets is an
example of this category. Risks with this approach come from political coalitions that may
form and derail the change, a lack of sufficient resources and control to support sustain

595

and enforce (if needed) the changes, and the loss of talented people who become
frustrated and quit.
Emergent change (similar to Mintzberg and Westley’s doing first change) grows out of
incremental initiatives and can create ambiguity and challenge for staff members. An
employee-centered change initiative to modify the culture of the organization that
emerges from customers’ and staff’s feedback would be an example. If the organization
has a talented, knowledgeable workforce that understands the risks and possibilities,
utilizing an emergent change approach may be appropriate. Risks with this approach
come in the form of confusion over direction, uncertainty as to the impact of the change,
and slow progress (see Table 9.1).
To counteract the pitfalls of programmatic or “thinking first” change, consider using
employee engagement and feedback to connect with those on the receiving end, learn
from their experiences, and decentralize decision making to allow for adaptation to local
conditions. The pitfalls (including unintended consequences) from change will be
lessened by processes that reduce ambiguity, promote feedback and learning, and build
support by enhancing member understanding of the change and why it was undertaken.

Table 9.1 Three Generic Change Strategies
Table 9.1 Three Generic Change Strategies
Change Type

Implementation

Issues or Concerns

Missions,
Programmatic
plans,
change
objectives

Training, timelines,
steering
committees

Lack of focus on behavior,
one solution for all, inflexible
solutions

Initiated from
Discontinuous top, clear
change
break,
reorientation

Political coalitions derail
Decrees, structural
change, weak controls,
change, concurrent
stress from the loss of
implementation
people

Emergent
change

Characteristic

Ambiguous,
incremental,
challenging

Use of metaphors,
experimentation,
and risk-taking

Confusion over direction,
uncertainty and possible
slow results

Source: Adapted from Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (1993, August 24). Executing change: Three generic
strategies. Harvard Business School Note. #494–039.

The issues related to emergent or “doing first” change may be managed through the use
of field experiments, evaluation tools and task forces to provide engagement and
feedback on an ongoing basis. These can be used to enhance awareness of what is
going on and why, create greater clarity concerning the implications of what is emerging
and build understanding and support for the next steps in the change process. In
metaphorical terms, this points to a move from “ready—aim—fire” to “ready—fire—aim—
re-fire—re-aim”† for an emergent approach to planning. In fast-moving contexts, it is
likely that a traditional planning process will be too lengthy and that by the time the
planning is finished, the opportunity may have been missed. This metaphor recognizes
that significant information can be obtained from action feedback. When a change leader
initiates action, reactions will occur that can provide insight into how to respond and take
corrective actions.

596

† The managerial use of this metaphor is usually credited to T. Peters and R. H.

Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence (New York: Harper & Row, 1982). Our
understanding is that its presence in its modified form has its roots in missile defense. If
you are defending against incoming missiles, you don’t have time to wait and plan a
response. You do need to fire before you aim your missile. Then once you have things in
motion, you can re-aim your missile based on new, current information.
A third approach to thinking about change strategies is found in the unilateral versus
participative approaches to change. Advocates of a unilateral approach to change
believe that if one first changes systems and structures, forcing behavioral changes, that
action will in turn produce changes in attitudes and beliefs over time. Those who promote
a participative approach believe the opposite. They argue that you first need to engage
and change attitudes and gain acceptance of an initiative before restructuring systems
and organizational structures.
Waldersee and Griffiths note that change initiatives have been traditionally grouped into
two broad categories. Techno–structural change refers to change that is based in
structures, systems, and technology. Behavioral–social change is focused on altering
established social relationships. After investigating 408 change episodes, they concluded
that the unilateral approach was perceived to be more appropriate for techno–structural
change, while participative approaches were seen as more appropriate when behavioral–
social changes such as cultural change were involved.11 When Australian managers
were asked about the perceived effectiveness of these two change approaches, they saw
unilateral methods as more effective in bringing about successful change, regardless of
the type of change. What does all of this mean for action planning? Waldersee and
Griffiths concluded the following:
Concrete actions taken by change managers are often superior to the traditional
prescriptions of participation.12 Forcing change through top-down actions such
as redeploying staff or redesigning jobs may effectively shift employee behavior.
With the context and behavior changed, interventions targeting attitudes may
then follow. (p. 432)
While a unilateral approach may have appeal for those who want to ensure that things
are done, such an approach can be risky and needs to be managed with care. When
implementation lacks sensitivity, stakeholders may feel that their perspectives and
concerns have been ignored. This can result in fallout and resistance that could have
been avoided, and missed opportunities for valuable input.
What conclusions can be drawn from this material on a “do it” orientation and change
strategies? Start a change process rather than waiting to get things perfect. Be willing to
take informed risks and learn as you go. Finally, pick your change strategy with care and
remember to take steps to manage the risks associated with the adopted approach.
Regardless of how difficult change appears to be, Confucius was right—“a journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step.”13 You need to plan your work, work the plan
and be prepared to adapt as you go.

597

Plan the Work
If the change leader’s approach to planned change has followed what this book
suggests, then much planning will have already been done. In addition, Beer, Eisenstat,
and Spector14 offer a prescriptive list of “steps to effective change.” Here are Beer et al.’s
steps:
1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems.
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness.
3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move
it along.
4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top.
5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems, and structures.
6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process.
For many change situations, this checklist provides valuable guidance in the
development of an action plan. However, assuming a “one-size-fits-all” approach to
change is risky. For example, the above list assumes a fundamental cooperative
orientation. That is, there is sufficient commonality of goals that a shared vision is
possible. The list also suggests that change should evolve and not be pushed down by
top management. However, change agents will need approaches that allow them to face
situations in which cooperation and commonality of goals is weak or absent and where
changes are being pushed from the top. Table 9.2 below compares Beer et al.’s steps
with the prescriptions of others, which may be helpful in thinking about planning through
multiple perspectives.15
As well, the need for contingent thinking needs to be addressed. That is, an action plan
depends significantly upon the action-planning context. In complex and ambiguous
situations, plans and tactics must be able to adapt as events unfold. As such, it is useful
to remember the old saying: “No plan survives first contact.”16
In summary, while careful planning is critical, change leaders must also recognize that
planning is a means—not an end in itself. Don’t ignore vital emerging information just
because it does not fit with carefully conceived plans. The abilities to think contingently,
consider alternative paths forward, and adapt are important contributors to enhanced
adaptive capacity.17

Table 9.2 A Comparison of Four Models of Change
Table 9.2 A Comparison of Four Models of Change
Kotter’s EightStage Process
Jick’s Ten
Beer et al.’s Six Steps
for Successful
Commandments
for Change (1990)
Organizational
(1997)
Transformation
(1996)

598

Lueck’s Seven Steps
for Change (2003)

Kotter’s EightStage Process
Jick’s Ten
Beer et al.’s Six Steps
for Successful
Commandments
for Change (1990)
Organizational
(1997)
Transformation
(1996)
Mobilize commitment
to change through
joint diagnosis of
problems.

Analyze the
organization
and its need for
change.

Lueck’s Seven Steps
for Change (2003)

Mobilize energy,
commitment through
Establish a sense
joint identification of
of urgency.
business problems
and their solutions.

Develop a shared
Create a vision
vision of how to
and a common
organize and manage
direction.
for competitiveness.

Create a guiding
coalition.

Develop a shared
vision of how to
organize and
manage for
competitiveness.

Foster consensus for
the new vision,
competence to enact
it, and cohesion to
move it along.

Separate from
the past.

Develop a vision
and strategy.

Identify the
leadership.

Spread revitalization
to all departments
without pushing it
from the top.

Create a sense
of urgency.

Empower broadbased action.

Focus on results, not
activities.

Institutionalize
revitalization through
formal policies,
systems, and
structures.

Support a
strong leader
role.

Start change at the
periphery, then let it
Communicate the
spread to other
change vision.
units, pushing it from
the top.

Generate shortterm wins.

Institutionalize
success through
formal policies,
systems, and
structures.

Craft an
implementation
plan.

Consolidate
gains and
produce more
change.

Monitor and adjust
strategies in
response to
problems in the
change process.

Develop
enabling
structures.

Anchor new
approaches in
the culture.

Monitor and adjust
strategies in response Line up political
to problems in the
sponsorship.
revitalization process.

599

Kotter’s EightStage Process
Jick’s Ten
Beer et al.’s Six Steps
for Successful
Commandments
for Change (1990)
Organizational
(1997)
Transformation
(1996)

Lueck’s Seven Steps
for Change (2003)

Communicate,
involve people,
and be honest.
Reinforce and
institutionalize
change.
Source: Based on Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal
of Change Management, 5(4), 369–381; and Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990, NovemberDecember). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 1000, 158–166.

600

Engage Others in Action Planning
Occasionally, change planning must be undertaken under a cloak of secrecy, such as
when a merger is in the works and the premature release of information would
significantly affect the price and the level of competitive risk. In general, though, the
active involvement of others and information sharing enhances the quality of action
planning for most change strategies. Consider one of the experiences of Barbara Waugh,
who spent 25 years as a change agent at Hewlett-Packard:
Change at HP Labs
Barbara Waugh’s campaign for change at HP Labs began when its director asked her, “Why
does no one out there consider HP Labs to be the best industrial research lab in the world?”
Rather than propose answers, she and the director began by asking questions through a survey.
The inquiry generated 800 single-spaced pages of feedback related to programs (e.g., too many
projects and too few priorities), people (e.g., poor performers are not removed quickly enough
and researchers lack sufficient freedom to do their jobs well), and processes (e.g., the
information infrastructure is inadequate).
The feedback, says Waugh, was “800 pages of frustrations, dreams, and insights.” But how
could she capture and communicate what she learned? She drew on her experience with street
theater and created a play about HP Labs. She worked passages from the surveys into dialogue
and then recruited executives to act as staff members and junior people to act as executives.
The troupe performed for 30 senior managers. “At the end of the play, the managers were very
quiet,” Waugh remembers. “Then they started clapping. It was exciting. They really got it.”18

Waugh’s approach is instructive because it illustrates the power of presenting potentially
boring data in an engaging and compelling manner. This was not the first time she
nurtured change in an emergent, grassroots fashion. Her approach leveraged listening
and questioning, built networks with individuals with complementary ideas, and when
needed, arranged for access to financial resources for worthy endeavors.‡
‡ In planning the work, interviews, surveys, survey feedback, and appreciative inquiry (a

rigorous commitment to active listening, feedback, mutual development, and renewal) are
powerful action planning tools. They come from the Organizational Development (OD)
approach to change. For more information, two good sources are D. L. Cooperrider, D.
Whitney, and J. M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change
(Brunswick, OH: Crown, 2008); and T. G. Cummings and C. G. Worley, Organization
Development and Change (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2009).
Underlying planning-through-engagement strategies are assumptions regarding topdown (unilateral) versus bottom-up (participative) methods of change. Although
Waldersee and Griffiths’s study19 showed that unilateral implementation methods have
much to offer, the success of a change is enhanced when people understand what it
entails, why it is being undertaken, what the consequences of success and failure are,
and why their help is needed and valued. All too often, techno–structural changes have
floundered because of design problems getting tangled up with acceptance and
implementation issues that never get sorted out.
Regardless of the change strategy preferred, the plan needs to be examined carefully for
logic and consistency. The next section highlights a series of questions (contained in
Table 9.6) that can help change agents enhance their performance in this area.

601

Ensure Alignment in Your Action Planning
Change agents often understand what needs to be done but get the sequence of
activities wrong. They might leave a meeting after a productive discussion but fail to sort
out who is responsible for what. Sometimes critical steps in the plan are risky and
alternative strategies need to be considered in case things do not go as planned. At other
times, change agents may over- or underestimate the available resources and
constraints, the time and energy required by various steps, or their own power and
competence. Table 9.8 (later in this chapter) provides a checklist of questions to use
when reviewing an action plan. This checklist tests the viability of the plan and asks for a
rethinking of the connections between the analysis of the situation and the plan itself.
Tough-minded thinking can improve the coherence and thoughtfulness of action plans.

602

Action Planning Tools
After all is said and done, more is often said than done! – Aesop or Lou Holz
This section explores a selection of action planning tools that change agents find
particularly useful (see Table 9.3). Selecting the appropriate tool is both an art and
science: An art as the story of Waugh at HP illustrated (see above), and a science as one
analyzes data carefully and makes appropriate selections. In addition to the tools listed
here, remember to reflect on action planning tools discussed in other chapters such as
tools for assessing and/or handling: the need for change (Chapter 3); gap analyses,
readiness for change and the framing of the vision for the change (Chapter 4); formal
systems and processes (Chapter 5); the political and cultural dimension of change,
including stakeholder and force field analyses (Chapter 6); recipients of change (Chapter
7), your own skills and competencies as a change agent (Chapter 8); and the use of
measurement in the advancement of change (Chapter 10).

Table 9.3 Tools for Action Planning
Table 9.3 Tools for Action Planning
1. To-do list—a checklist of things to do
2. Responsibility charting—who will do what, when, where, why, and how
3. Contingency planning—consideration of what should be done when things do
not work as planned on critical issues
4. Flow charting—a way of diagramming the nature of the existing process you
wish to examine and set out how you propose to change it
5. Design thinking—an approach used to engage others collectively in creative
problem solving around what needs to change and the design of the change itself
— a tool that can be used in conjunction with visioning initiatives
6. Surveys, survey feedback, and appreciative inquiry—capturing people’s
opinions and tracking their responses, observations, and insights over time, to
assist in identifying what needs changing, nurturing engagement and support, and
in tracking progress
7. Project planning and critical path methods—operations research techniques for
scheduling work. These methods provide deadlines and insight as to which
activities cannot be delayed to meet those deadlines.
8. Tools that assess forces that affect outcomes and stakeholders—these
tools are closely related to force field and stakeholder analysis discussed in
Chapter 6:
a. Commitment charts—an evaluation of the level of commitment of major
players (against, neutral, let it happen, help it happen, make it happen)
b. The adoption continuum or awareness, interest, desire, adoption (AIDA)
analysis—examination of major players and their position on the AIDA

603

continuum related to the proposed changes
c. Cultural mapping—an approach that provides for a more detailed
assessment of the cultural context the change is occurring in; particularly
useful when the goal is cultural change
9. Leverage analysis—determination of methods of influencing major groups or
players regarding the proposed changes
10. Training and development tools—tools related to the design and delivery of
educational initiatives that advance employee knowledge and ability to perform
effectively, given the changes
11. Diverse change approaches—a variety of techniques and tools that brings
about change and that continues to grow

604

1. To-Do Lists
When managers engage in action planning, they often begin by outlining in detail the
sequence of steps they will take initially to achieve their goals. That is, they make a list. A
to-do list, a checklist of things to do, is the simplest and most common planning tool.
Sometimes this is all the situation requires. As the action planning becomes more
sophisticated, simple to-do lists will not suffice and responsibility charting provides more
control.

605

2. Responsibility Charting
Responsibility charting can be a valuable tool to detail who should do what, when, and
how. As well, it can be used to help keep projects on track and provide a basis for record
keeping and accountability. Table 9.4 provides an example responsibility chart. The
process begins by defining the list of decisions or actions to be taken. Then individuals
are assigned responsibility for achieving specific actions at specified deadlines.

Table 9.4 Example Responsibility Chart
Table 9.4 Example Responsibility Chart
Decisions or Actions to Be
Taken

Responsibilities
Susan Ted Sonja Relevant Dates

Action 1

R

Action 2
Action 3

S

A

I

For meeting on Jan. 14

R

I

May 24

A

A

Draft Plan by Feb. 17; action
by July 22

Etc.
Coding:
R = Responsibility (not necessarily authority)
A = Approval (right to veto)
S = Support (put resources toward)
I = Inform (to be consulted before action)
Note that if there are a large number of As on your chart, implementation will be
difficult. Care must be taken to assign As only when appropriate. Likewise, if there
are not enough Rs and Ss, you will need to think about changes needed here and
how to bring them about.
Source: For a further discussion on responsibility charting, see Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987).
Organizational transitions (p. 104). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

606

3. Contingency Planning
Contingency planning is the importance of thinking through what should be done
should events not go as planned. Two tools that aid in contingency planning are decision
tree analysis and scenario planning.§
§ Readers are encouraged to consult standard operations research texts for further

information on these tools.
Decision tree analysis asks change agents to consider the major choices and the
possible consequences of those alternatives. Analysts are then asked to plan for the
possible next actions and consider what the consequences of those actions might be.
Such alternating action–consequence sequences can be extended as far as reasonable.
As well, probabilities can be assigned as to the likelihood of each consequence. For
many applications, a simple scale (very likely, likely, possible, unlikely, or very unlikely) is
sufficient. This approach helps model the possible consequences to change decisions
and assess the benefits and risks associated with the different pathways (see Figure
9.2).
A second tool that helps managers with contingency planning is scenario planning.
Here a change strategy is formed by first developing a limited number of scenarios about
how the future may unfold and then assessing what the implications of each of these
would be to the organization.20 Change leaders typically frame these around an issue of
strategic and/or tactical importance. For example, if a firm producing paper forms is
concerned about the long-term viability of its business model, then management could
develop scenarios of what a paperless form producer would look like. Once the scenarios
were developed, managers would ask themselves, How likely is this scenario? What
would need to happen to make the scenario a reality? And what contingencies might
arise that would need to be addressed? If one or more of these future scenarios seemed
worth investing in, then management would develop its plans accordingly. To open
people’s minds to possibilities and avoid blind spots, external parties are often brought
into the process to offer data and insights, challenge assumptions, and stimulate thinking
and discussion.
Figure 9.2 Example Decision Tree

607

Scenario planning is different from forecasting. Forecasting starts in the present and uses
trend lines and probability estimates to make projections about the future. Scenario
planning starts by painting a picture of the future and works backward, asking what would
have to happen to make this future scenario a reality and what could be done.21
While most uses of scenario planning are at a strategy level, the principles can be
applied to frame possible visions for change and develop the action pathways that will
increase the likelihood that the vision will be achieved. Royal Dutch Shell22 was one of
the first users of scenario planning. The firm used it as a way to link future uncertainties
to today’s decisions.

608

4. Flow Charting
Flow charting is a technique used to track the sequences in an existing process
(including key decision points and who is involved in those decisions) and to assist in the
design of the change through setting out an improved or new approach for
implementation consideration.** Visual representations of existing processes are typically
undertaken early in the change process when change agents are seeking to understand
what needs to change. While the visual representation of the future process is also
developed early in the change process, it is used in conjunction with the vision for
change throughout the change process to help recipients better understand what is being
undertaken and why.
** For introductory information on flowcharting, see Lucidchart’s website:

or MindTool’s website:

609

5. Design Thinking
Design thinking has its roots in multiple areas including architecture, new product
development and the pursuit of processes that will advance creative thinking in the
organization. It is used with matters that have proven difficult to effectively address in the
past and is used early in the change process. It seeks to engage individuals collectively
in context assessment; problem finding and framing; ideation; prototyping and pilot
testing; evaluation; and the translation of those designs into actionable initiatives. It is an
iterative process so the cycle can be repeated and designs refined several times until the
parties are satisfied with the proposed solution.
Design thinking seeks to address matters in a less linear and more creative manner.
Rather than approach matters through deductive or inductive reasoning (the traditional
approaches), it seeks to do so through abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is
solution rather than problem focused and involves looking for and exploring plausible
solutions, trialing and refining different options, and so on until the desired path forward is
selected and committed to. The more traditional deductive approach in organizations
typically involves situational analyses, the development of decision criteria, the
development and assessment of three to five alternatives, and the selection of the
recommended path forward. Because design thinking is based on plausible solutions that
have more uncertainty attached to them, they form the basis for the iterative exploration
of options in the search for new approaches that can effectively address difficult
problems and challenges that have resisted resolution.23
This human-centered, collaborative approach has at its core the interests and
perspectives of the users that one is trying to design for. Users are engaged in the
process to make sure that their interests and concerns are recognized and attended to.
The goal of design thinking is to identify and address problems with creative solutions
and create new opportunities. The nature of the process enhances the prospects for buyin by the recipients of change due to their involvement in the design process.

610

6. Surveys and Survey Feedback
Change agents may find it is helpful to use surveys to capture people’s attitudes,
opinions, and experiences at particular points in time and then track those attitudes over
time, including their readiness for change that was discussed in Chapter 4. Tools in this
area can provide anonymity to the respondents and make it possible to capture the
opinions of a larger proportion of the participants than might otherwise be possible.
Political agendas don’t disappear with the use of a survey, but they may make it possible
for people to say things that they would not feel comfortable stating publicly. Services
such as SurveyMonkey.com and EmployeeSurveys.com have made the design, delivery,
and analysis easy to manage.
Surveys are used to access the opinions of internal and external stakeholders and
assess attitudes and beliefs of relevance to the change. For example, how do customers
view the firm’s and its competitor’s service levels, innovativeness, and product
performance? What ideas do they have concerning new product offerings or service
improvements? Employees can be sampled to assess the organization’s readiness for
change, the culture or work climate, their satisfaction and commitment levels, or what is
helping or hindering their ability to do their jobs. Sometimes surveys are deployed to
develop options and assess opinions on their viability. Later in the change process,
surveys may sample understanding and knowledge levels, emerging attitudes and
issues, and levels of acceptance and satisfaction with the change.
Some organizations go further in this area and adopt approaches to directly and
systematically assess actual customer and employee actions in response to change
(directly or via software monitoring tools) in order to recognize issues and address them
in a timely manner.
The possible approaches in this area are restricted only by imagination, people’s
willingness to respond, and legal and ethical considerations. Privacy/anonymity
considerations, transparency (people know what you are doing and why), and related
ethical matters need to be carefully thought through. When this is not the case, the
repercussions and potential for reputational damage can be serious, as seen in public
reactions to Facebook’s sharing of private user data.24
Ready-made surveys are available on virtually any topic. Some are publicly available at
no cost, while others are proprietary and have charges attached to their use. Costs can
vary from a few dollars per survey to thousands of dollars when outside consultants are
used to design, administer, assess, and report the findings. When it comes to scoring and
interpretation, some are straightforward and easy to interpret, while others require the
assistance of a skilled practitioner. Some of these instruments have been carefully
assessed for reliability and validity, while others have nothing more than face validity.
The bottom line with respect to surveys is that they can prove very helpful to change
agents but need to be approached with care. Their design, administration, and analysis
require the assistance of someone well trained in survey research. Even when a change
agent is sampling opinions, the ability to frame good questions is a prerequisite to getting
useful information. The same holds true for analysis and interpretation.††
†† For further information on survey research, see L. M. Rea and R. A. Parker, Designing

and Conducting Survey Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).

611

A powerful use of surveys is an approach called survey feedback.25 It is an action
research method developed by organizational development (OD) practitioners as a way
to stimulate and advance conversations concerning what is going on in the organization,
how members are feeling, and how things could be improved. As the name suggests, it
involves the sharing of survey results with the individuals affected by the findings. Those
involved in the discussion will have responded to the survey.
Skilled facilitators guide work groups through the discussion of the findings. They use this
as an opportunity to enrich their interpretation of what the data means, and to more fully
explore the implications for action. The process is used to raise awareness and
understanding, advance the analysis, and build support and commitment for actions that
will benefit both the individuals and the organization. Appreciative inquiry approaches
discussed earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 8 can be married effectively with survey
feedback to engage and energize participants, learn from them, and set the stage for
future actions.

612

7. Project Planning and Critical Path Methods
Project planning and critical path methods can provide valuable assistance to change
managers as they think about what action steps to take.‡‡ These methods have been
developed into sophisticated operations research techniques to aid the planning of major
projects. Critical path methods ask planners to identify when the project should be
completed and to work backward from that point, scheduling all tasks that will require
time, effort, and resources. These are arranged in time sequence such that tasks that
can occur simultaneously can be identified. These tasks are then plotted on a timeline.
Sequential tasks are plotted to determine the needed time to complete the project.
‡‡. Software packages are available in this area. A commonly used one, Microsoft Office

Project ( allows you to track steps,
resource requirements, and costs; see the impact of possible changes; trace the source
of issues; visually communicate project information to others; and collaborate with them
on the plans.
With this done, managers can assess potential bottlenecks, resource requirements,
points in the process where there appears to be excess resources or idle time (referred
to a slack resources) that could be deployed elsewhere, and progression paths. The
critical path, the path with the least slack time, can be identified and special attention can
be paid to it. If there are concerns about the time to completion, the project manager can
add resources to speed up the project, revisit the specifications, look for viable alterations
to the implementation path, or increase the amount of time required to complete the
project. Likewise, if there are concerns over the cost of the project, the project manager
can explore alternatives on this front.
The critical path method introduces the notion of parallel initiatives. That is, it recognizes
that different things may be able to be worked on simultaneously if the work is properly
organized. Phase 1 tasks don’t have to be totally completed before beginning work on
Phase 2 tasks. Care and sophistication are required with this approach because it carries
the risk of increasing confusion and redundant effort. When properly applied, though, it
can shrink the time required to complete the change. This is readily visible in areas such
as new product development. Figure 9.3 gives an example of a sequential and a parallel
plan for new product development. In the upper half of the figure, the tasks are plotted
sequentially. In the lower half of the figure, the tasks overlap. Concept development
begins before opportunity identification ends and the cycle time to completion is reduced.
In summary, change leaders involved with implementation will find it useful to review the
advice found in the project management literature before undertaking major changes as it
contains information related to tools and techniques that may prove helpful.§§
§§ Colleges, universities, and organizations such as the Project Management Institute

( offer professional training in project
management.
Figure 9.3 Sequential Versus Partly Parallel Process in New Product Development

613

Source: Shilling, M. A., & Hill, W. L. (1998). Managing the new product development
process: Strategic imperatives. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 67–81.

614

8. Tools to Assess Forces That Affect Outcomes and
Stakeholders
Force field analysis asks change agents to specify the forces for and against change.
Stakeholder analysis and related maps ask that the key players be identified and the
relationships among players and the change initiative be examined. (See Chapter 6 for
discussion of these topics.) Three additional tools that are helpful when planning actions
related to stakeholders are commitment analysis charts, AIDA (awareness, interest,
desiring, action) charts, and cultural mapping tools.

A. Commitment Analysis Charts
Managers can use commitment charts to analyze the engagement of each stakeholder.
Stakeholders can be thought of as being weakly to strongly opposed (against) to your
change project, “neutral” (let it happen), slightly positive (help it happen), or strongly
positive (make it happen). Change leaders also need to consider the level of
understanding that underpins stakeholders’ commitment level and the reasons that
underpin their levels of support at the present time. Identifying the existing level of
commitment is the first step in planning tactics designed to alter those preexisting
patterns. Table 9.5 provides an example commitment chart. (Note that the “X” in the table
shows where the person is and the “O” shows where a change agent wants them to be.)

Table 9.5 An Example Commitment Chart26
Table 9.5 An Example Commitment Chart26
Level of Commitment
Key
Players Opposed
Strongly to
Weakly

Neutral

Let It
Help It Make It
Happen Happen Happen

Person
1

X

→O

Person
2
Person
3

Med
X

X

Level of
Understanding
(high, med, low)

→O

→O

High
Low

Etc.
Source: Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions (p. 95). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

B. The Adoption Continuum or AIDA
Stakeholder analysis will have identified the people who are critical to the change
process. With this information in hand, change agents need to consider how they
propose to encourage those individuals to move along the adoption continuum until the

615

needed stakeholders are aligned with the change, or at least their opposition and/or
potential to disrupt the change initiative has been minimized.
As noted in Chapter 6, change agents can think of the process of getting people onside
with change as one of first creating awareness and then encouraging them to move from
awareness of the issues to interest in the change to desiring action and, finally, to taking
actions related to adopting the change. This is called the AIDA or adoption continuum.
Table 9.6 provides an example of how a change agent might map people on to the
adoption continuum as a method of tracking their change attitudes.
Different individuals will be at different points on the AIDA continuum, which makes
change strategies complex. For each stage, change agents need to use different tactics.
For example, to raise initial awareness, well-designed general communication vehicles
such as e-mails, newsletters, reports, and videos can be used. The messages should
raise awareness of the need for change, set out the vision for the change, and provide
access to thought-provoking information and images that support the initiative.
To move people to the interest phase, managers need to outline how the change will
affect stakeholders personally and/or why this change should be of interest to them.
Discussion groups on the issue, benchmark data, simulations, and test runs showing
results can be effective in stimulating interest. Once interest is aroused, specific tactics to
demonstrate and reinforce the benefits and build commitment are needed. Change
agents might use one-on-one meetings to influence stakeholders, to persuade them to
get directly involved with the change, or to connect them with influential supporters of the
change. Change agents might reallocate resources or designate rewards in ways that
reinforce adoption. Influencing people one at a time or in small groups can be valuable if
influential individuals are identified and the right message is communicated to them.

Table 9.6 Mapping People on the Adoption Continuum
Table 9.6 Mapping People on the Adoption Continuum
Persons or
Stakeholder Groups

Awareness Interest

Desiring
Action

Moving to Action or
Adopting the Change

Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
…

C. Cultural Mapping Tools
Cultural mapping tools are used to conduct deeper dives into understanding the nature of
the cultural context, including subcultures, which influence how and why the organization
operates as it does. These tools are also used to help set out the desired culture and
assess what needs to change in order to bring it to fruition. Scholars such as Schein,
Cameron and Quinn27 have provided change agents with cultural categorization
frameworks that can be used to assist them in the above tasks.
Cultural mapping approaches seek to understand subcultures (e.g., ones present in
marketing, production, quality control, finance, etc.) as well as the dominant culture. It

616

seeks to understand the outcomes achieved, the knowledge and beliefs nested in cultural
norms and artifacts, the behaviors observed and the enablers and blockers that promote
those behaviors and outcomes. Given that change typically involves the goal of moving
away from certain behaviors and outcomes in order to move toward different behaviors
and outcomes, the approach shares similarities with force field analyses. A key question
revolves around how enablers and blockers can be worked with in order to help parties to
move away from certain cultural practices and move toward those desired practices.
Cultural mapping tools can be used at the team level or extended to assess
departmental, divisional or the organization level cultural challenges and conflicts.
Practices in this area have become increasingly interdisciplinary in nature. Their
applications have extended to areas such as the development of products and services,
the development of marketing campaigns, urban planning and community development,
and a full treatment on this topic is beyond the scope of this book.28

617

9. Leverage Analysis
People’s position on the adoption continuum is influenced by their general orientation to
change—whether they tend to be an innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority,
or laggard in matters related to change. One of the action planning challenges for the
change leaders is to sort out people’s overall predisposition to change in general and the
proposed change in particular.
Moving individuals on the adoption continuum is aided by engaging in leverage
analysis. Leverage analysis seeks to identify those actions that will create the greatest
change with the least effort. For example, if opinion leaders of a key group of individuals
can be identified and persuaded to back the proposed organizational change, the job of
the change leader is easier. Likewise, if the task is to persuade senior management, one
needs to identify influential individuals in this group who support the change. Identifying
high-leverage methods will depend on the quality of your knowledge of the participants
and your analysis of the organization and its environment. For example, one successful
change agent ensured the adoption of a new software system by persuading the CEO to
personally call every regional manager as they were key stakeholders in the change, and
ask for their support.29
Gladwell presents an excellent example of the notion of leverage in his book The Tipping
Point.30 Gladwell points out how little things can have large consequences if they occur
at the right moment and are contagious. If things catch on and momentum builds,
eventually a tipping point is reached. This is the point where a critical level of support is
reached, the change becomes more firmly rooted, and the rate of acceptance
accelerates. As Burke puts it, change agents need to find the critical few individuals that
can connect with others in ways that change the context and tip things into a new reality.
The vision needs to be sticky (i.e., cast as a story so that it will stay in people’s minds),
and change agents need to understand the connectors in the organization who can get
the message out.31
Moore notes that one of the biggest challenges to reaching the tipping point is to build
sufficient support to allow the acceptance of the change to cross the “chasm” between
the early adopters and visionaries and the early majority.32 Once this gap has been
bridged, the rate of progress accelerates. As things accelerate, new challenges emerge,
such as how to scale your efforts so that momentum is maintained and enthusiasm is not
soured due to implementation failures or stalled progress.
Tipping Points and the Momentum for Change in the Obama Election
Barack Obama’s path to the presidency was dotted with several tipping points during the state
primaries and the federal campaign. Some were related to specific things done by the candidate;
some related to the actions of others; and some tied to specific situations (e.g., the
mortgage/banking crisis). His creative use of social media (e.g., Facebook) is particularly
noteworthy. It allowed him to reach out virally to groups of electors and move them along the
commitment continuum at speeds not seen before. This generated grassroots financial support
and media buzz that legitimized his candidacy very early on.
During the primaries, Representative James E. Clyburn, a prominent uncommitted South
Carolina Democrat, felt the tipping point occurred around midnight on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. “I
could tell the next day, when I got up to the Capitol that this thing was going to start a slide
toward Obama. I don’t believe that there is any way that she (Hillary Clinton) can win the
nomination.” Contentious remarks by former President Bill Clinton created a rift with African
Americans, Obama’s 14-point North Carolina victory exceeded expectations, and Hillary

618

Clinton’s weaker-than-expected win in the Indiana primary all conspired to take the wind out of
her campaign while energizing Obama’s.
Superdelegates were still not committing in large numbers to Obama in early May. Clyburn saw
this as “the long shadow of the Clintons in the Democratic Party stretching back more than a
decade and the reservoir of goodwill.” However, he expected to see a steady and significant
movement in the days ahead. “That’s pretty much where everybody knows it’s going to end up.”
Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic conference chairman, went further and labeled
Obama the presumptive nominee.33

619

10. Employee Training and Development
Training and development play critical roles in any change initiative that requires
individuals to assess and respond differently to things they are accountable for. Changes
in reporting structures, task designs, work flow, team structures, and the technologies
deployed will often require the acquisition of new skills, abilities and attitudes to support
the initiative. Even supportive individuals will become frustrated if they don’t understand
what they are being asked to do, or if they don’t have the skills to perform the new tasks.
Well thought through and effectively delivered training initiatives will facilitate change by
providing individuals with an opportunity to raise concerns, and develop their
competences and confidence with the new work. Change agents would be well advised
to explore the training and development literature when considering which initiatives to
pursue in this area and how best to structure them.∗∗∗
∗∗∗ The following provide a good overview: Saks, A., & Haccoun, R. (2015). Managing

performance through training and development (5th ed.). Toronto: Nelson; Biech, E.
(Editor). (2014). ASTD handbook: The definitive reference for training and development.
Danvers, MA: American Society for Training and Development.

620

11. Diverse Change Approaches
The variety of techniques and tools to bring about change continues to grow. Over the
years, Darrell Rigby and Barbara Bilodeau have tracked management’s use of different
change tools on a global basis and assessed managerial satisfaction with them (see
Table 9.7 and Figure 9.4).34 By tracking usage patterns by region and types of firms,
differences in the sorts of change issues seen as most needing attention become
apparent. This generic listing of change approaches provides a useful touch point for
change leaders when they are considering how to proceed given the needs for change
that they have identified.
In summary, planning the work asks change leaders to translate the change vision into
specific actions that people can take. The plan outlines targets and dates and considers
contingencies—what might go wrong (or right), how managers can anticipate those
things, and how they can respond. Further, it examines how realistic the chances are for
success and how a change agent increases the probabilities for success.
Table 9.8 provides you with a checklist of things to think about when developing and
assessing your action plan.
Figure 9.4 Management Tool Usage Rate and Satisfaction Level

Source: Darrell Rigby and Barbara Bilodeau (2018), “Management Tools & Trends”,
Bain & Company. Used with permission from Bain & Company, www.bain.com

Table 9.7 Usage Patterns of Change Approaches From 1993 to
2017
Table 9.7 Usage Patterns of Change Approaches From 1993 to 2017
1993

2000

2014

621

2017

1993

Mission and
Vision
Statements
(88%)
Customer
Satisfaction
(86%)
Total Quality
Management
(72%)
Competitor
Profiling (71%)
Benchmarking
(70%)
Pay-forPerformance
(70%)
Reengineering
(67%)
Strategic
Alliances (62%)
Cycle Time
Reduction
(55%)
Self-Directed
Teams (55%)

2000

2014

Strategic
Planning (76%)
Mission and
Vision
Statements
(70%)
Benchmarking
(69%)
Outsourcing
(63%)
Customer
Satisfaction
(60%)
Growth
Strategies
(55%)
Strategic
Alliances (53%)
Pay-forPerformance
(52%)
Customer
Segmentation
(51%)
Core
Competencies
(48%)

Customer
Relationship
Management
(46%)
Benchmarking
(44%)
Employee
Engagement
Surveys (44%)
Strategic
Planning (44%)
Outsourcing
(41%)
Balanced
Scorecard
(38%)
Mission and
Vision
Statements
(38%)
Supply Chain
Management
(36%)
Change
Management
Programs
(34%)
Customer
Segmentation
(30%)

2017
Strategic
Planning (48%)
Customer
Relationship
Management
(48%)
Benchmarking
(46%)
Advanced
Analytics (42%)
Supply Chain
Management
(40%)
Customer
Satisfaction
(38%)
Change
Management
Programs
(34%)
Total Quality
Management
(34%)
Digital
Transformation
(32%)
Mission and
Vision
Statements
(32%)

Source: Bain Management Tools & Trends survey, 2017
Note: Tool rankings based on usage

Table 9.8 Action Planning Checklist
Table 9.8 Action Planning Checklist
1. Given your vision statement, what is your overall objective? When must it be
accomplished?
2. Is your action plan realistic given the level of organizational support, your
influence, both formal and informal, and the resources likely to be available to you?
What can you do to address shortfalls?
3. Are you and your team committed to implementing the change and does it have
the competences and credibility needed to implement the action steps? If not, how
will you address the shortfall?
4. Is your action plan time-sequenced and in a logical order? What would be the
first steps in accomplishing your goal?

622

5. What is your action plan? Who will do what, when, where, why, and how? Can
you do a responsibility chart?
6. What would be milestones along the way that will allow you to determine if you
are making progress? What is the probability of success at each step?
7. Have you anticipated possible secondary consequences and lagging effects that
your plans may give rise to and adjusted your plans accordingly?
8. Do you have contingency plans for major possible but undesirable occurrences?
What things are most likely to go wrong? What things can you not afford to have
go wrong? How can you prevent such things from happening?
9. Do you have contingency plans in the event that things go better than
anticipated and you need to move more quickly or in somewhat different directions
than initially planned, to take advantage of the opportunities?
10. Who does your plan rely on? Are they onside? What would it take to bring
them onside?
11. Does your action plan take into account the concerns of stakeholders and the
possible coalitions they might form?
12. Who (and what) could seriously obstruct the change? How will you manage
them?

623

Working the Plan Ethically and Adaptively
Working the plan requires change agents to focus, develop support and delivery capacity,
test their thinking, see things as opportunities, adapt to changes in the environment, and
take appropriate risks. At the same time, change agents need to proceed ethically.
Otherwise they risk destroying credibility and the trust others have in them. Relationships
can and do recover from strong disagreements, but recovery is less likely if people feel
they have been lied to. A permanent sense of betrayal tends to ensue when you have
been dealt with unethically.
Working the plan recognizes the importance of being able to roll with the punches and
learn as you go. Chris Argyris warns, “People who rarely experience (and learn from)
failure end up not knowing how to deal with it.”35 De Bono echoes this sentiment, saying,
“Success is an affirmation but not a learning process.”36 Post-hoc memories of what led
to success (or failure) tend to be selective; valuable learning will be lost if steps aren’t
taken to actively and objectively reflect on the process as you go. There will be missteps
and failures along the way, and a key attribute of a “do it” orientation to working the plan
is the capacity to learn and adapt the paths to change along the way.
When working the plan, generating stakeholder and decision-maker confidence in the
viability of the initiative is critical. However, it is also important not to be deluded by your
own rhetoric. Russo and Shoemaker provide us with guidelines for managing under- and
overconfidence; in particular, they differentiate the need for confidence when one is an
implementer as opposed to a decision maker. Decision makers need to be realistic;
implementers can afford to be somewhat overconfident if it provides others with the
courage to change.37

624

Developing a Communication Plan
When implementing a change program, change leaders often find that misinformation
and rumors are rampant in their organization. The reasons for change are not clear to
employees, and the impact on employees is frequently exaggerated, both positively and
negatively. In all organizations, the challenge is to persuade employees to move in a
common direction. Good communication programs are essential to minimize the effects
of rumors, to mobilize support for the change, and to sustain enthusiasm and
commitment.38
In a study on the effectiveness of communications in organizations, Goodman and Truss
found that only 27% of employees felt that management was in touch with employees’
concerns, regardless of the fact that the company had a carefully crafted communications
strategy.39 Often, much of the confusion over change can be attributed to the different
levels of understanding held by different parties. Change agents and senior management
may have been considering the change issues for months and have developed a shared
understanding of the need for change and what must happen. However, frontline staff
and middle managers may not have been focused on the matter. Even if they have been
considering these issues, their vantage points will be quite different from those leading
the change.
Rumors and Reality in Organizational Change
In an inbound call center of an insurance firm, employees became convinced that the real
purpose of an organizational change initiative was to get rid of staff. Management made public
announcements and assurances that the reorganization was designed to align processes and
improve service levels, not reduce headcount. However, staff turnover escalated to more than
20% before leaders convinced employees that the rumor was false.

The purpose of the communication plan for change centers on four major goals: (1)
to infuse the need for change throughout (in particular) the affected portions of the
organization; (2) to enable individuals to understand the impact that the change will have
on them; (3) to communicate any structural and job changes that will influence how
things are done; and (4) to keep people informed about progress along the way. As the
change unfolds, the focus of the communication plan shifts.

625

Timing and Focus of Communications
A communication plan has four phases: (a) pre-change approval, (b) developing the need
for change, (c) midstream change and milestone communication, and (d) confirming and
celebrating the change success. The messages and methods of communication will vary
depending upon which phase your change is in. Table 9.9 outlines the communication
needs of each phase.

Table 9.9 Communication Needs for Different Phases in the
Change Process
Table 9.9 Communication Needs for Different Phases in the Change Process
Pre-change
Approval
Phase

Developing the
Need for Change
Phase

Communication
plans to explain
the need for
change, provide a
rationale,
Communication
reassure
plans to sell top
employees, clarify
management
the steps in the
change process,
and generating
enthusiasm and a
sense of urgency

Midstream Change and
Milestone
Communication Phase

Confirming and
Celebrating the
Change Phase

Communication plans to
inform people of
progress, to obtain and
listen to feedback on
attitudes and issues; to
address any
misconceptions; to clarify
new organizational roles,
structures, and systems;
and to continue to
nurture enthusiasm and
support

Communication
plans to inform
employees of the
success, to
celebrate the
change, to
capture learning
from the change
process, and to
prepare the
organization for
the next changes

Source: Based on Klein, S. M. (1996). A management communications strategy for change. Journal
of Organizational Change, 9(2).

A. Pre-change phase: Change agents need to convince top management that the
change is needed. They will target individuals with influence and/or authority to approve a
needed change. Dutton and her colleagues suggest that packaging the change proposal
into smaller change steps helps success. She found that timing was crucial in that
persistence, opportunism, and involvement of others at the right time were positively
related to the successful selling of projects. Finally, linking the change to the
organization’s goals, plans, and priorities was critical.40
B. Developing the need for the change phase: When creating awareness of the need
for change, communication programs need to explain the issues and provide a clear,
compelling rationale for the change. If a strong and credible sense of urgency and
enthusiasm for the initiative isn’t conveyed, the initiative will not move forward. There are
simply too many other priorities available to capture people’s attention.41 Increasing
awareness of the need for change can also be aided by the communication of
comparative data. For example, concrete benchmark data that demonstrate how
competitors are moving ahead can shake up complacent perspectives. Spector
demonstrates how sharing of competitive information can overcome potential conflicting
views between senior management and other employees.42
The vision for the change needs to be articulated and the specific steps of the plan that
will be undertaken need to be clarified. People need to be reassured that they will be

626

treated fairly and with respect.43 The vision for change can be used to underpin your
elevator pitch—that succinct message that helps others to capture the essence of what
you have in mind and why it is worth pursuing.
Birshin and Kar use the term “sticky messages” to convey the notion that recipients will
be more likely to remember messages if they share the following characteristics: simple,
unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and tell a story. When it comes to telling the
story, they recommend not being constrained by solely the business rationale for the
change. In addition, they recommend the stories include why it is important to the
individual doing the work, the working team, customers, and society—aspects that are
likely to heighten the sense of purpose and meaning surrounding the change.44
C. Midstream change phase and Milestone Communication Phase: As the change
unfolds, people will want to have specific information communicated to them about future
plans and how things will operate. If the organization is being reorganized, employees
will want to understand how this reorganization will affect their jobs. If new systems are
being put into place, training needs to happen in order to help employees understand and
use the systems properly. If reporting relationships are altered, employees need to know
who will do what in the organization. Thus, intentional strategies are needed to
communicate this information.
In the middle phases of change, people need to understand the progress made in the
change program. Management needs to obtain feedback regarding the acceptance of the
changes and the attitudes of employees and others (e.g., customers, suppliers) affected
by the initiative. Change leaders need to understand any misconceptions that are
developing and have the means to combat such misconceptions. During this phase,
extensive communications on the content of the change will be important as
management and employees begin to understand new roles, structures, and systems.45
As the newness of the initiative wears off, sustaining interest and enthusiasm and
remaining sensitive to the personal impact of the change continue to be important.
Change leaders need to remain excited about the change and communicate that
enthusiasm often. Recognizing and celebrating progress, and milestones all help in this
regard.46 The power of small, unexpected rewards to recognize progress should not be
underestimated, if they are offered forward with sincerity. In addition, communication
approaches that offer individuals the opportunity to participate in exploring ideas,
identifying paths forward, and setting targets will enhance the sense of engagement and
commitment.
The Power of Apple Fritters: The launch of a new MBA class requires the concerted efforts of
many people and the day following the launch coincided with one of the days when the local
farmers’ market is open in our community and one of the vendors sells freshly made, hot apple
fritters. I was relatively new to the MBA director’s role and by chance, while driving into the
university, I stopped and picked up two dozen apple fritters, plus coffee and tea for the team. The
positive impact was immediate and sustained and instantly reinforced for me the importance of
such acts to communicate thanks (personal experience of one of the authors).

Unrelated messages, rumors, and gossip will compete with the messages from the
change leaders, and the frequency of the latter two rises when the change leader’s
credibility declines, ambiguity increases, and setbacks are encountered. Employees tend
to believe friends more than they do supervisors and tend to turn to supervisors before
relying on the comments of senior executives and outsiders. Change agents have a
choice: they can communicate clear, timely, and candid messages about the nature and
impact of the change or they can let the rumors fill the void. An effective communications

627

campaign can reduce the number of rumors by lowering uncertainty, lessening
ambivalence and resistance to change, and increasing the involvement and commitment
of employees.47
Change websites, electronic bulletin boards, online surveys to sample awareness and
opinions, change blogs, and other types of social media can all play useful roles in the
communications strategy. The earlier discussion in this chapter of Obama’s campaign
points to the value that social media can play in raising awareness and advancing
commitment levels. Political parties of all stripes have recognized this and are become
increasingly sophisticated in its use. Trump’s sustained use of Twitter to shift the
conversations dominating the media on a given day, focus news cycles in directions more
favorable to him, and otherwise advance his presidential prospects was readily apparent
in 2016.
Blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest—the terrain continues to evolve,
and change agents need to pay attention to how these technologies can be used to
leverage their plans. In their global survey of the corporate deployment of social media
tools in change initiatives, McKinsey and Company reports their use has become
mainstream and that they are playing significant roles in the success of change
initiatives. They are being used to communicate with and inform staff; seek feedback;
and engage, energize, and otherwise enhance the sense of front-line ownership in
change initiatives.48
However, when uncertainty rises on things of importance, don’t forget the power of faceto-face communications. Positive reactions tend to increase and negative reactions are
lessened when people have an opportunity to hear directly from those in authority and
ask them questions about the change and its impact.49
D. Confirming and Celebrating the Change Phase: The final phase of a change
program needs to communicate and celebrate the success of the program. Celebration is
an undervalued activity. Celebrations are needed along the way to mark progress,
reinforce commitment, and reduce stress. They are certainly warranted at the conclusion!
The final phase also marks the point at which the change experience as a whole should
be discussed (more will be said about this in the next section on transition management)
and unfinished tasks identified. The organization needs to be positioned for the next
change. Change is not over—only this particular phase is.
As change agents attend to the different phases in the change process, they need to
align the communications challenge with the communications channel selected.50
Channel richness ranges from standard reports and general information e-mails at one
end through to personalized letters and e-mails, telephone conversations,
videoconferencing, and face-to-face communications at the other end. When the
information is routine, memos and blanket e-mails can work well. However, when things
become more complex and personally relevant to the recipient, the richness of the
communication channel needs to increase. A change agent can follow up with a
document that provides detailed information, but face-to-face approaches are valuable
when matters are emotionally loaded for stakeholders or when you want to get the
recipients’ attention.
Goodman and Truss suggest using line managers and opinion leaders as lynchpins in
the communications strategy, but this requires that they be properly briefed and engaged
in the change process. They also stress that change agents need to recognize
communication as a two-way strategy.51 That is, the gathering of information from people
down the organizational ladder is as important as delivering the message.

628

Key Principles in Communicating for Change
Klein52 suggests six principles that should underlie a communications strategy:
1. Message and media redundancy are key for message retention. That is, multiple
messages using multiple media will increase the chance of people obtaining and
retaining the message. Too often, management believes that since the message was
sent, their work is done. It is the employee’s fault for not getting the message! As
one author pointed out, it takes time for people to hear, understand, and believe a
message, especially when they don’t like what they hear.53 Some change agents
believe that it takes 15 to 20 repetitions before a message gets communicated
effectively. The value of communicating messages in multiple ways to increase
retention and meaningfulness that was discussed in Chapter 7 and the use of
appropriate social media channels advance change initiatives speak to this.54
2. Face-to-face communication is most effective. While the impact of face-to-face is
highest, the cost is also higher. Face-to-face permits two-way communication, which
increases the chance of involvement of both parties and decreases the probability of
miscommunication. When undertaking change in a larger organization and direct
communication is not possible, video conferencing and related technologies can be
used to approximate face-to-face.
3. Line authority is effective in communications. Regardless of the level of
participative involvement, most employees look to their managers for direction and
guidance. If the CEO says it, the message packs a punch and gets attention.
4. The immediate supervisor is key. The level of trust and understanding between an
employee and his or her supervisor can make the supervisor a valuable part of a
communications strategy. People expect to hear important organizational messages
from their bosses.
5. Opinion leaders need to be identified and used. These individuals can be critical
in persuading employees to a particular view.
6. Employees pick up and retain personally relevant information more easily than
general information. Thus, communication plans should take care to relate general
information in terms that resonate with particular employees.
The importance of communications in helping recipients deal with change was discussed
in Chapter 7. Creating a sense of fairness, trust, and confidence in the leadership, and
interest and enthusiasm for the initiative is important to the success of change initiatives.
Well-executed communications strategies play an important role here.55 However,
change leaders seldom give enough attention to this topic. They intuitively understand
the importance of the timely communication of candid, credible change-related
information through multiple channels, but they get busy with other matters. As
communication shortcomings escalate, so too do downstream implementation
difficulties.56

629

Influence Strategies
Influencing others is a key concern for change leaders when working the plan. It involves
consideration of how they can bring various stakeholders onside with the change. The
sooner this is addressed, the better. When implementing change, there is a tendency to
give insufficient attention to the constructive steps needed to foster employee support
and alleviate dysfunctional resistance. When considering your communication plan and
use of influence strategies, think about who you are communicating with and never
underestimate the importance of the reputation (including their competence and
trustworthiness) of those who are the face and voice of the change initiative.
Below are seven change strategies for influencing individuals and groups in the
organization:57
1. Education and communication: This strategy involves using education and
communication to help others develop an understanding of the change initiative, what is
required of them, and why it is important. Often people need to see the need for and the
logic of the change. Change leaders may fail to adequately communicate their message
through the organization because they are under significant time pressure and the
rationale “is so obvious” to them they don’t understand why others don’t get it.
2. Participation and involvement: Getting others involved can bring new energy and
ideas, and cause people to believe they can be part of the change. This strategy works
best when the change agent has time and needs voluntary compliance and active
support to bring about the change. Participation fits with many of the norms of today’s
flattened organizations, but some managers often feel that it just slows everything down,
compromising what needs to be done quickly.
3. Facilitation and support: Here change agents provide access to guidance and other
forms of support to aid in adaptation to change. This strategy works best when the issues
are related to anxiety and fear of change, or where there are concerns over insufficient
access to needed resources.
4. Negotiation and agreement: At times, change leaders can make explicit deals with
individuals and groups affected by the change. This strategy can help deal with contexts
where the resistance is organized, “what’s in it for me” is unclear, and power is at play.
The problem with this strategy is that it may lead to compliance rather than wholehearted
support of the change.
5. Manipulation and co-optation: While managers don’t like to admit to applying this
tactic, covert attempts to influence others are very common. Engaging those who are
neutral or opposed to the change in discussions and engaging in ingratiating behavior will
sometimes alter perspectives and cause resistors to change their position on the change.
However, trust levels will drop and resistance will increase if people believe they are
being manipulated in ways not consistent with their best interests.
6. Explicit and implicit coercion: With this strategy, as with the previous one, there is a
negative image associated with it. Nevertheless, managers often have the legitimate right
and responsibility to insist that changes be done. This strategy tends to be used when
time is of the essence, compliant actions are not forthcoming, and change agents believe
other options have been exhausted. Change leaders need to recognize the potential for
residual negative feelings and consider how to manage these.

630

7. Systemic or system adjustments: Open systems analysis argues that adjustments
can be made to formal structures, systems, and processes that reduce resistance while
advancing the desired changes. For example, if employee resistance has coalesced in a
group of employees who are employed in a particular function, organizational
restructuring or the reassignment of group members to other areas may reduce
resistance markedly. However, if it is mishandled, it can mobilize and escalate resistance
in others.
System Adjustments (i.e., closing stores and eliminating jobs) at Walmart
Walmart has used systemic adjustments over the years as a change tool to assist in maintaining
managerial discretion in employment practices by retaining their non-union status. In 2005, 200
employees at the store in Jonquière, Quebec, Canada, were attempting to negotiate the firstever union contract with the firm. However, after nine days of meetings, over three months,
Walmart announced it was closing the store because of concerns over its profitability. In 2008,
the same approach was adopted when six employees in Gatineau, Quebec, won the right to
unionize their small operation within Walmart. Walmart employees in Weyburn, Saskatchewan,
voted to unionize, but quickly reversed field and voted to decertify in 2010.
The unions in both Quebec and Saskatchewan sued the employer for unfair labor practices and
took their respective cases all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. After years of litigation,
the Quebec suit against Walmart’s store closure met with limited success (some financial
restitution was ordered), but the Saskatchewan case was unsuccessful. Currently no Walmart
operation in Canada is unionized. The only other time a unionization drive had been close to
succeeding was in 2000. Eleven meat cutters in their Jacksonville, Texas, store voted to join the
UFCW. Walmart responded by eliminating the meat cutting job companywide.58

See Toolkit Exercise 9.2 to think about influence strategies you’ve experienced.
Another way to think about influence strategies is to consider whether they attempt to
push people in the desired direction or pull them. Push tactics attempt to move people
toward acceptance of change through rational persuasion (the use of facts and logic in a
non-emotional way) and/or pressure (the use of guilt or threats). The risk with the use of
push tactics is that they can lead to resistance and defensiveness. Recipients may
oppose the pressure simply because it is pressure and they feel a need to defend their
positions.
Alternatively, change leaders can rely on pull tactics: inspirational appeals and
consultation. Inspirational appeals can arouse enthusiasm based on shared values or
ideals. Consultation (as it is used here) refers to when you seek the participation of
others through appeals to the individuals’ self-worth and positive self-concept. Both these
approaches are designed to pull individuals in the desired direction.†††
††† These styles are described more fully in Chapter 8.

Falbe and Yukl examined the effectiveness of nine different influence tactics. The most
effective strategies were two pull tactics: (1) inspirational appeals and (2) consultation
(seeking the participation of others). When considering these, never underestimate the
importance of the credibility of the change leader.
The strategies of intermediate effectiveness were a combination of push and pull
strategies: (3) rationale persuasion (facts, data, logic); (4) ingratiation (praise, flattery,
friendliness); (5) personal appeals (friendship and loyalty); and (6) exchange tactics
(negotiation and other forms of reciprocity).

631

The three strategies that were least effective were push strategies: (7) direct pressure,
(8) legitimating tactics (framing of the request as consistent with policy and/or the
influencer’s authority), and (9) coalition building (creation of subgroups or linkages with
other groups to exert pressure).59
Nutt categorizes four influence tactics used during implementation: (1) intervention, (2)
participation, (3) persuasion, and (4) edict. Intervention is where key executives justify
the need for change (often through the use of data) and provide new norms to judge
performance. Participation involves engaging stakeholders in the change process.
Persuasion is the use of experts to sell a change. And edict is the issuing of directives.
Table 9.10 summarizes Nutt’s data on the frequency of use, initial and ultimate adoption
rate, and the time to install for each of these tactics.
This table demonstrates the value of a well-respected sponsor who acts as a lightning
rod and energizes and justifies the need for change. The frequency of the use of
participation as a strategy is somewhat higher than intervention and may reflect the
challenge of managing change from the middle of the organization. Adoption takes
longer, but it has the second-best success rate. Persuasion is attempted more frequently
than the other three tactics, but its success rate is significantly lower than participation
and the time to adoption slightly longer. Finally, it is difficult to understand the frequency
of use of edict as a tactic, given its poor adoption rate and length of time to install.
When considering these four strategies, think about the value that a blended approach
could bring to advancing change. In many cases a combination of both intervention and
participation may make a great deal of sense, with edict only used as a last-ditch strategy
with those who continue to resist.
When individuals actively resist change, it’s useful to remember that some of them may
see themselves as committed change agents who are acting to oppose what they believe
is a problematic initiative. Keep that perspective in mind when considering how best to
approach and engage them. However, there comes a time in a change initiative when the
analysis of alternatives and the assessment of paths forward have been fully vetted and
decisions made. At this point, individuals must decide if they are on the bus or off of it. At
such times edict (including the option of transferring or removing such individuals) may
need to come into play, to prevent resisting individuals from passively or actively
obstructing and even sabotaging a change initiative.
Enact edict-like approaches only after giving the matter careful consideration. It is
tempting to strike out at others, in the face of their opposition, and such temptations may
include undertaking a preemptive strike. However, acting on these impulses brings
significant risks and often unanticipated consequences that can derail the change and
ruin your reputation and relationship with others, so approach with extreme care and
careful consideration before taking such action.

Table 9.10 Implementation Tactics and Success60
Table 9.10 Implementation Tactics and Success60
Tactic

Percentage
Use

Initial Adoption
Rate

Ultimate
Adoption Rate

Time to Adopt
(Months)

Intervention

16%

100%

82%

11.2

Participation 20%

80.6%

71%

19.0

632

Tactic

Percentage
Use

Initial Adoption
Rate

Ultimate
Adoption Rate

Time to Adopt
(Months)

35%

65%

49%

20.0

29%

51%

35%

21.5

Persuasion

Edict

This section has outlined a variety of influence tactics that can be used to build
awareness, reduce ambivalence and resistance, and move people to acceptance and
adoption of the initiative. In general, it is wise to move as slowly as is practical. This
permits people to become accustomed to the idea of the change, adopt the change
program, learn new skills, and see the positive sides. It also permits change leaders to
adjust their processes, refine the change, improve congruence, and learn as they go.
However, if time is of the essence or if going slowly means that resisters will be able to
organize in ways that will make change highly unlikely, then change leaders should plan
carefully, move quickly, and overwhelm resistance where possible. Just remember,
though, that it is far easier to get into a war than it is to build a lasting peace after the
fighting ends. Don’t let your impatience and commitment to moving the change forward
get the better of your judgment concerning how best to proceed.‡‡‡ See Toolkit Exercise
9.3 to think about push and pull tactics.
‡‡‡ These styles are described more fully in Chapter 8.

633

Transition Management
Change management is about keeping the plane flying while
you rebuild it.61
When dealing with an ongoing operation, you typically don’t have the luxury to put
everything on hold while making a major change happen. You can’t say, “Sorry, we aren’t
able to deliver the product we promised because we are making improvements.” Most
organizations have many change projects underway simultaneously. One part of the
organization may be reengineering itself. Another might be introducing a quality program
while another part focuses on employee empowerment. All of these must be managed
concurrently while continuing to produce products and services.
Morris and Raben argue for a transition manager (a change agent or implementer in the
language of this book) who has resources, structures, and plans.62 The transition
manager has the power and authority to facilitate the change and is linked to the CEO or
other senior executive. Resources are the people, money, training, and consulting
expertise needed to be successful. Transition structures are outside the regular ones—
temporary structures that allow normal activities to take place as well as change
activities. The transition plan sets out how the organization will operate (including the
delivery of goods and services) while undertaking the change and includes clear
benchmarks, standards, and responsibilities for the change. Table 9.11 outlines a
checklist for transition management.
Transition management is making certain that both the change project and the
continuing operations are successful. The change leader and the transition manager are
responsible for making sure that both occur. The change leader is visibly involved in
articulating both the need for change and the new vision, while others involved in
implementing the change manage the organization’s structural and system changes and
the individuals’ emotional and behavioral issues so that neither is compromised to a
danger point.63 Ackerman described the application of a transition management model at
Sun Petroleum.64 She addressed the question, “How can these changes be put into
place without seriously straining the organization?” Her solution was to create a transition
manager who handled the social system requirements. Ackerman also argued for the use
of a transition team to create a transition structure that would enable the organization to
carry on operating effectively while the major changes take place.
Beckhard and Harris focus on the transition details in organizational change.65 They
reinforce the importance of specifying midpoint goals and milestones, which help
motivate the members of the organization. The longer the span of time required for a
change initiative, the more important these midcourse goals become. The goals need to
be far enough away to provide direction but close enough to provide a sense of progress
and an opportunity for midcourse changes in plans.
A second component of transition management is keeping people informed to reduce
anxiety. During major reorganizations, many employees are assigned to new roles, new
bosses, new departments, or new tasks. Those individuals have a right to know their new
work terms and conditions. Transition managers will put systems in place to ensure that
answers to questions (such as “how will I, my co-workers, and my customers be
affected?” “Who is my new boss?” “Who will I be working with and where will I be

634

located?” or “What is my new job description?”) can be provided in a timely manner. An
example of this ne…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment