In contrast to Project 1, the first governance layer of Project 2 was formed purely with members of Medcab’s executive team, Senior Staff. This governance layer acted coherently and provided the overall governance and direction for the program. The second layer of Project 2 did not exist until four months before the launch of the eleven new products. Each product team (the third layer) had its own core or management team and reported its progress directly to Senior Staff (first governance layer). As Project 2 proceeded and encountered the unknowns of the functional integration required by the massive product launch, Senior Staff decided to form the Leadership Team, the second layer of the governance structure for Project 2. This team was composed of vice presidents and directors of most functions in the company. The Leadership Team became responsible for the execution of the product launch across all functional disciplines (similar charter to Project 1’s Core Team).
Sue Hines is Associate Professor in Educational Leadership and Director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. She has served as a professional in program development, educational development, program accreditation, educational consultation, and clinical training. She has over 30 years of combined teaching experience at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral level, as well as teaching in a variety of delivery formats. Her teaching career has included various disciplines, including organizational and educational leadership, educational assessment, instructional design, adult education, interdisciplinary studies, and veterinary technology. Dr. Hines started out her academic career in veterinary technology education and went on to complete her B.A. in Educational Psychology at Metro State University and received her M.A. in Education and Ed.D. in Leadership with a focus on higher education from Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. Dr. Hines has over 10 years of research experience and scholarship focused on the evaluation of teaching and learning center programs, resulting in several publications, EDUCAUSE and Magna Publication webinars, and conference presentations.
Douglas McGregor in 1960 saw the merit in the relationship between motivation and behavior. According to him, managers motivate employees by one of the two basic approaches, which he termed Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is the traditional view which suggests that managers must coerce, force, and threaten the employees in order to motivate them. The alternative philosophy of human nature believes that human beings are responsible by nature. They need not be coerced or controlled by the managers to get the best out of them. While some experts consider McGregor’s work as a basic theory of motivation, others feel it is a philosophy of human nature that is more suited to explain leadership rather than basic motivation theories (Montana and Charnov, p.252).
A critical part of any OD change intervention is ensuring that everyone who needs to be part of the process is included. While certainly part of the process, the OD practitioner is best served by realizing that he or she is not the change "owner" but rather a vehicle for the change that organizational leaders create and own. Warrick and Thompson (1980) point out that, "as practitioners we need to view OD as a process and to change our practices to reflect this view ... by developing "internal change agents" that can carry on the process, and by making planned disengagement and follow-up one of the most important phases of the effort" (p. 98).
While the function of change preoccupied many of the great Western philosophers, it was not until the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the first comprehensive change theories were articulated. During this time social philosophers sought to make a science out of history and began more systematic analyses of social change. Among the foremost, if more conjectural, of these was Arnold Toynbee's . Based on exhaustive studies of some thirty civilizations, Toynbee postulated that the genesis of a civilization consists of a transition from a static condition to one of dynamic activity. This transition may occur spontaneously, through the influence of some civilization that is already in existence, or through the disintegration of one or more civilizations of an older generation.
Organizations are resistant to change for reasons such as : due to pursuit of stability , avoidance of uncertainity , reluctance to deviate from programmed activities, inability to innovate, for economies of stability etc, Yet this resistance is advantageous to certain firms that are loosely structured, orga...
Change as defined by Thompson (2010) is “a process through which people and organizations move as they gradually come to understand and become skilled and competent in the use of new ways.” Change is not a process that happens in just one day.
Lichtenstein, B. M. (1997). Grace, magic and miracles: A “chaotic logic” of organizational transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(5), 393-411.
Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Mezirow, J., & Associates. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henderson, G. M. (2002). Transformative learning as a condition for transformational change in organizations. Human Resource Development Review, 1(2), 186-214
Integration of Applicable Change Model Methods The change process is a complex combination of identifying the need, defining the goal, and designing the process to reach that goal....
Edwards, M. G. (2005). The integral holon: A holonomic approach to organisational change and transformation. Journal or Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 269-288.
Cacioppe, R. & Edwards, M. G. (2005b). Seeking the Holy Grail of organisational development: A synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and action inquiry. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 86-105.
These two models are Kotter’s Leading Change model, and the related Brinnovation model, with Brinnovation being the more directly applicable of these two choices.
Cacioppe, R. & Edwards, M. G. (2005a). Adjusting blurred visions: A typology of integral approaches to organisations. Journal or Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 230-246.