MU-0018

Q:1 Describe Kotters Eight Step Change Model

Ans: The 8-Step Process for Leading Change
To successfully react to windows of opportunity, regardless of the focus innovation, growth, culture, cost structure,
technology a new methodology of change leadership is required.
STEP 1: Create a Sense of Urgency
Help others feel a gut -level determination to move and win, now
In their rush to make a plan and take action, most companies ignore this step indeed close to 50% of the companies
that fail to make needed change make their mistakes at the very beginning. Leaders may underestimate how hard it is to
drive people out of their comfort zones, or overestimate how successfully they have already done so, or simply lack the
patience necessary to develop appropriate urgency.
Leaders who understand the importance of a sense of urgency are good at taking the pulse of their company and
determining whether the state of the organization is:
STEP 2: Creating the Guiding Coalition
Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change
No one person, no matter how competent, is capable of single-handedly:
developing the right vision,
communicating it to vast numbers of people,
eliminating all of the key obstacles,
generating short term wins,
leading and managing dozens of change projects, and
anchoring new approaches deep in an organizations culture.
Putting together the right coalition of people to lead a change initiative is critical to its success. That coalition must have
the right composition, a significant level of trust, and a shared objective.
STEP 3: Developing a Change Vision
Clarify how the future will be different from the past
A clear vision serves three important purposes. First, it simplifies hundreds or thousands of more detailed decisions.
Second, it motivates people to take action in the right direction even if the first steps are painful. Third, it helps to
coordinate the actions of different people in a remarkably fast and efficient way. A clear and powerful vision will do far
more than an authoritarian decree or micromanagement can ever hope to accomplish.
A vision must provide real guidance. It must be focused, flexible and easy to communicate. It must both inspire action and
guide that action. It should be a touchstone for making relevant decisions, but not be so constricting as to reduce the
possibility of empowering action. Finally, it must be communicable. If it cannot be explained quickly in a way that makes
intuitive sense, it becomes useless.
STEP 4: Communicating the Vision for Buy-in
Ensuring that as many people as possible understand and accept the vision
Gaining an understanding and commitment to a new direction is never an easy task, especially in complex organizations.
Undercommunication and inconsistency are rampant. Both create stalled transformations.
Most companies undercommunciate their visions by at least a factor of 10. A single memo announcing the transformation
or even a series of speeches by the CEO and the executive team are never enough. To be effective, the vision must be
communicated in hour-by-hour activities. The vision will be referred to in emails, in meetings, in presentations it will be
communicated anywhere and everywhere.
Executives will use every effective communication channel possible to broadcast the vision. They turn boring and unread
company newsletters into lively articles about the vision. Ritualistic and tedious quarterly meetings are turned into exciting
discussions about transformation. Generic education programs are thrown out and replaced with sessions that focus on
business problems and the new vision.
STEP 5: Empowering Broad-Based Action
Removing as many barriers as possible and unleashing people to do their best work
Structural Barriers
Many times the internal structures of companies are at odds with the change vision. An organization that claims to want to
be customer focused finds its structures fragment resources and responsibilities for products and services. Companies
that claim to want to create more local responsiveness have layers of management that second guess and criticize
regional decisions. Companies that claim to want to increase productivity and become a low-cost producer have huge
staff groups that constantly initiate costly procedures and programs. The list is endless.
Many times, these are the most difficult barriers to get past because they are part of the internal structure of the company.
Realigning incentives and performance appraisals to reflect the change vision can have a profound effect on the ability to
accomplish the change vision.
Management information systems can also have a big impact on the successful implementation of a change vision. Up-to-
date competitive information and market analysis, and the ability to communicate powerfully and effectivel y throughout the
company in a cost effective way can speed up feedback loops and provide information necessary for people to do their
jobs more efficiently.
Troublesome Supervisors
Another barrier to effective change can be troublesome supervisors. Often these managers have dozens of interrelated
habits that add up to a style of management that inhibits change. They may not actively undermine the effort, but they are
simply not wired to go along with what the change requires. Often enthusiastic change agents refuse to confront these
people. While that approach can work in the early stages of a change initiative, by Step 5 it becomes a real problem.
Easy solutions to this problem dont exist. Sometimes managers will concoct elaborate strategies or attempt manipulation
to deal with these people. If done skillfully this only slows the process and, if exposed, looks terrible sleazy, cruel and
unfair and undermines the entire effort. Typically, the best solution is honest dialogue.
STEP 6: Generating Short-term Wins
Creating visible, unambiguous success as soon as possible
For leaders in the middle of a long-term change effort, short-term wins are essential. Running a change effort without
attention to short-term performance is extremely risky. The Guiding Coalition becomes a critical force in identifying
significant improvements that can happen between six and 18 months. Getting these wins helps ensure the overall
change initiatives success. Research shows that companies that experience significant short-term wins by fourteen and
twenty-six months after the change initiative begins are much more likely to complete the transformation.
Realizing these improvements is a challenge. In any change initiative, agendas get delayed, there is a desire to ensure
that customers are not affected, political forces are at work all of which slow the ability to perform as promised.
However, short-term wins are essential.
To ensure success, short term wins must be both visible and unambiguous. The wins must also be clearly related to the
change effort. Such wins provide evidence that the sacrifices that people are making are paying off. This increases the
sense of urgency and the optimism of those who are making the effort to change. These wins also serve to reward the
change agents by providing positive feedback that boosts morale and motivation. The wins also serve the practical
purpose of helping to fine tune the vision and the strategies. The guiding coalition gets important information that allows
them to course-correct.
Short-term wins also tend to undermine the credibility of cynics and self-serving resistors. Clear improvements in
performance make it difficult for people to block the needed change. Likewise, these wins will garner critical support from
those higher than the folks leading the change (bosses, board, and shareholders). Finally, short-term wins have a way of
building momentum that turns neutral people into supporters, and reluctant supporters into active helpers.
Planning not Praying
Short-term wins rarely simply happen. They are usually the result of careful planning and effort. Why dont people plan for
these? Often they are overwhelmed with the tasks of the change effort and simply take their eye off this particular ball. In
other cases, people dont even try because they believe that you cant produce major change and short-term performance
results. Finally, the lack of short-term wins can often be traced back to insufficient management expertise on the Guiding
Coalition or a lack of commitment by key managers to the change initiative.
Pressure to Perform
Clearly the need to get short-term wins adds a great deal of pressure to an organization in the midst of a transformation
effort. However, when done skillfully, the need to create short-wins can actually increase the sense of true urgency and
actually accomplishing these goals does much to cement the change initiative.
Q;2 Explain the various steps at which control takes place in a Change Management Process
Ans: There is considerable overlap and confusion between change management, configuration management and change
control. The definition below is not yet integrated with definitions of the others.
Certain experts describe change control as a set of six steps
[who?]
:
1. Record / Classify
2. Assess
3. Plan
4. Build / Test
5. Implement
6. Close / Gain Acceptance
Record/classify
The client initiates change by making a formal request for something to be changed. The change control team then
records and categorizes that request. This categorization would include estimates of importance, impact, and complexity..
Assess
The impact assessor or assessors then make their risk analysis typically by answering a set of questions concerning risk,
both to the business and to the process, and follow this by making a judgment on who should carry out the change. If the
change requires more than one type of assessment, the head of the change control team will consolidate these. Everyone
with a stake in the change then must meet to determine whether there is a business or technical justification for the
change. The change is then sent to the delivery team for planning.
Plan
Management will assign the change to a specific delivery team, usually one with the specific role of carrying out this
particular type of change. The team's first job is to plan the change in detail as well as construct a regression plan in case
the change needs to be backed out.
Build/test
If all stakeholders agree with the plan, the delivery team will build the solution, which will then be tested. They will then
seek approval and request a time and date to carry out the implementation phase.
Implement[
All stakeholders must agree to a time, date and cost of implementation. Following implementation, it is usual to carry out a
post-implementation review which would take place at another stakeholder meeting.
Close/gain acceptance
When the client agrees that the change was implemented correctly, the change can be closed.

Q:3 Discuss the various factors affecting the choice of a change Strategy
Ans: The various factors affecting the choice of a change Strategy
Strategic management is the systematic process of analyzing, coordinating and implementing decisions and action plans
to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Factors influencing changes in strategic management may be internal or
external to the business organization. Some of these factors include management functions, structural transformations,
competition, socio-economic factors, laws and technology.
Management Functions
Changes in the composition of the board of directors or exit of chief executive officers influence changes in strategy. The
incoming members of the management team may seek to review the existing strategies with the view of injecting new
ideas to take the business to the next level.
Structural Transformations
Structural transformations, such as mergers acquisitions and expansion to international markets, necessitate strategic
realignment. Such transformations alter the management, capital, ownership and market structures of your organization,
making changes in strategic management inevitable. Your company must adjust existing strategies and develop new ones
to reconcile and realign the missions and objectives of the organization.
Competition
Rising competition in target markets triggers urgent reviews of strategies in efforts to enhance competitive advantage.
Businesses employ strategic tools such as a SWOT analysis to examine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
and change the existing strategies. For example, challenges such as product imitations by competitors pose threats to
your competitive advantage. Changing strategies will enable you to change course by addressing the inherent
weaknesses and threats.
Socio-Cultural Factors
The social and cultural profiles of your the target markets may prompt changes in strategic management. You want to
make sure that the strategic orientation of your business is realigned to account for demographic and cultural sensitivities,
especially when entering new markets or designing new products for specific market segments.
Laws
Changes in laws, such as tax, environment and healthcare laws, influence changes in strategic management. You must
adjust the existing strategies of your business to incorporate the requirements of the new laws. For example, a law
requiring you to reduce your carbon footprint may necessitate the review of your production or supply chain management
strategies in order to comply with the new requirements.
Technology
Your company may change strategies due to the availability or lack thereof of adequate technological capabilities. The
acquisition of capital resources, such as automated equipment and advanced machinery, may prompt your organization to
increase production volumes and adjust the supply chain functions. Information technology trends also influence changes
in strategic management. For example, the growing influence of e-commerce may prompt your business to abandon
brick-and-mortar distribution strategies and embrace online distribution strategies.

Q4: What do you mean by Organizational Effectiveness? Explain the approaches involved in achieving Organizational
Effectiveness
Ans: Organizational effectiveness is the concept of how effective an organization is in achieving the outcomes the
organization intends to produce.

The idea of organizational effectiveness is especially important for non-profit
organizations as most people who donate money to nonprofit organizations and charities are interested in knowing
whether the organization is effective in accomplishing its goals.
However, scholars of nonprofit organizational effectiveness acknowledge that the concept has multiple dimensions
[2]
and
multiple definitions. For example, while most nonprofit leaders define organizational effectiveness as 'outcome
accountability,' or the extent to which an organization achieves specified levels of progress toward its own goals, a
minority of nonprofit leaders define effectiveness as 'overhead minimization,' or the minimization of fundraising and
administrative costs.
According to Richard et al. (2009) organizational effectiveness captures organizational performance plus the myriad
internal performance outcomes normally associated with more efficient or effective operations and other external
measures that relate to considerations that are broader than those simply associated with economic valuation (either by
shareholders, managers, or customers), such as corporate social responsibility.
Four Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness
Goal Approach The Goal Approach is also called rational-goal or goal-attainment approach,
it has its origins in the mechanistic view of the organization. This approach assumes that organisations are planned,
logical, goal-seeking entities and they are meant to accomplish one or more predetermined goals. Goal approach is
worried with the output side and whether or not the organization attains its goals with respect to preferred levels of output.
It sees effectiveness with respect to its internal organisational objectives and performance. Typical goal-attainment factors
include profit and efficiency maximization. The key constraint of this approach pertains to the content comparability of
organizational goals. The dependable identification of comparable and practically appropriate goals within groups of
organizations is thus a serious problem. What a company declares as its formal goals dont always echo the organisations
actual goals. Therefore, an organisations formal goals are typically dependent upon its standards of social desirability. As
goals are dynamic, hence they will probably change as time passes, simply because of the political make-up of an
organisation. An organisations short-term goals are usually not the same as their long term goals. The utilization of goals
as a standard for assessing Organizational Effectiveness is challenging. The goal approach presumes consensus on
goals. Considering the fact that there are numerous goals and varied interests inside an organisation, consensus, is
probably not possible.
System Resource Approach
This approach to Organizational Effectiveness was developed in response to the goal approach. The System Resource
Approach sees an organisation as an open system. The organisation obtains inputs, participates in transformation
processes, and generates outputs. This approach emphasizes inputs over output. It sees most organizations as entities
which function in order to survive, at the same time rivaling for scarce and valued resources. It assumes that the
organisation consists of interrelated subsystems. If any sub-system functions inefficiently, it is going to influence the
performance of the whole system. The disadvantages of this approach relate to its measurement of means. An issue with
this approach is that a higher amount of obtained resources is not going to promise effective usage. In addition, it is tough
to define an ideal degree of resource acquisition across distinct organizations.
Internal-Process Approach
This approach has been developed in response to a fixed output view of the goal approach. It looks at the internal
activities. Organizational effectiveness is assessed as internal organizational health and effectiveness. According to
Internal-Process Approach effectiveness is the capability to get better at internal efficiency, co-ordination, commitment
and staff satisfaction. This approach assesses effort as opposed to the attained effect. Some experts have criticized the
internal-process approach, like the system-resource approach, cannot lead to legitimate indicators of organizational
effectiveness itself. Rather, it is accepted as an approach for studying its assumed predictors. Similar to the system-
resource approach, the internal-process approach could possibly be applied only where comparable organizational
outcomes can hardly be assessed accurately.
Strategic Constituencies Approach
This approach suggests that an efficient organisation is one which fulfills the demands of those constituencies in its
environment from whom it needs support for its survival. It assesses the effectiveness to satisfy multiple strategic
constituencies both internal and external to the organization. Strategic Constituencies Approach is ideal for organizations
which rely highly on response to demands. The Strategic-constituencies approach takes explicitly into consideration that
organizations fulfill multiple goals: each kind of organizational constituency (like proprietors, workers, consumers, the local
community, etc.) is supposed to have distinct interests vis--vis the corporation, and will thus use different evaluation
criteria. However, the job of isolating the strategic constituencies from their environment within which they function is a
challenging and tricky task. Because the environment swiftly changes, what was a crucial goal today might not be so
tomorrow. Individual constituents may create significantly diverse ratings of an organisations effectiveness. These
constituents may use diverse factors or weight the same criteria in a different way
Q 5:What do you mean by Change Agent? Describe the characteristics of successful Change Agents.
Ans: A change agent is an event, organisation, material thing or, more usually, a person that acts as a catalyst
for change. In business terms, a change agent is a person chosen to bring about organisational change.
Corporations often hire senior managers or even chief executives because of their ability to effect change.
Five Characteristics of an Effective Change Agent
As part of her research on organizational change, Kanter studied leaders who had a track record of success implementing change. She
considered numerous innovators from a variety of organizations, at various levels, who implemented different kinds of changes. In each
case, she found a set of common traits that distinguished these leaders from less successful innovators.
1) Successful innovators are comfortable with change. They understand that change is a fact of organizational life, are not
threatened by it, and even enjoy the stimulation associated with change. They know change is required for personal and organi zational
growth. They also have a high degree of self-confidence and see themselves as being able to cope with change.
2) The leaders Kanter studied set clear goals and direction for themselves and those involved in the change
effort. They knew the key indicators of success in their areas of responsibility and managed against those measures. They set difficult
but attainable goals for themselves and their co-workers but used their optimism and self-confidence to build positive expectations in
others. They let people know how changes or innovations would help them succeed and incorporated this into their visions for future
success.
3) Successful innovators prepare thoroughly. They invest the time and effort to do their homework and get the facts regarding
changes or innovations. The leaders Kanter studied analyzed who the important stakeholders were in their situations and how to get
their acceptance. These leaders considered how the change would impact people and empathized with their concerns. They thought
through the innovation and were prepared to answer what if questions from various constituencies.
4) It isnt surprising that successful innovators use a participative management style. Successful organizational
change requires involving others to improve the idea, secure cooperation, build trust, and deal with fears and concerns. Kanters
leaders were willing to talk to others about the change and listen to their ideas. They involved others and were willing to give people
important jobs to do in support of the change. They were careful to give people credit for their contributions and recognized groups
often for their achievements.
5) Successful innovators are persistent. A leader must overcome skepticism, complaints, criticism, politics, resistance and foot
dragging. They run a gauntlet of nay-sayers and sometimes have to wait months, if not years, before seeing their ideas implemented.
However, they wont take no for an answer and find ways over or around obstacles. They are willing to modify the innovation to address
peoples concerns and deal with resistance and criticism in a positive, problem-solving fashion. They are thick-skinned and dont take
negative comments as personal attacks.

Q: 6.Write a brief note on the following:
a)Kolbs Learning Cycle
David A. Kolb's model is based on the Experiential learning Theory, as explained in his book Experiential
Learning.
[4]
The ELT model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: Concrete
Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches toward transforming
experience: Reflective Observation andActive Experimentation. According to Kolb's model, the ideal learning
process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands. In order for learning to be effective, all
four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, however, they
tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach. The
resulting learning styles are combinations of the individual's preferred approaches. These learning styles are as
follows:
1. Accommodators: Concrete Experience + Active Experiment
2. Converger: Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment
3. Diverger: Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation
4. Assimilator: Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation
Kolb's model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual's
learning style. An individual may exhibit a preference for one of the four stylesAccommodating, Converging,
Diverging and Assimilatingdepending on their approach to learning via the experiential learning theory model.
[4]

Although Kolb's model is the most widely accepted with substantial empirical support, recent studies suggest the
Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is seriously flawed

b)Peter Senges framework on Organizational Learning
A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and
continuously transforms itself.
[1]
Learning organizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern
organizations and enables them to remain competitive in the business environment.
[2]
A learning organization has
five main features; systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team
learning.
[3]
The Learning organization concept was coined through the work and research of Peter Senge and his
colleagues
[4]
. It encourages organizations to shift to a more interconnected way of thinking. Organizations should
become more like communities that employees can feel a commitment to.
[5]
They will work harder for an
organization they are committed to
According to Senge 'learning organizations' are those organizations where people continually expand their capacity
to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together."
[6]
He argues that only
those organizations that are able to adapt quickly and effectively will be able to excel in their field or market. In order
to be a learning organization there must be two conditions present at all times. The first is the ability to design the
organization to match the intended or desired outcomes and second, the ability to recognize when the initial
direction of the organization is different from the desired outcome and follow the necessary steps to correct this
mismatch. Organizations that are able to do this are exemplary.
Senge also believed in the theory of systems thinking which has sometimes been referred to as the 'Cornerstone' of
the learning organization. Systems thinking focuses on how the individual that is being studied interacts with the
other constituents of the system.
[8]
Rather than focusing on the individuals within an organization it prefers to look at
a larger number of interactions within the organization and in between organizations as a whole.