Luna Community College Kodak Life Cycle Research Paper Basic Instructions Your final paper should be formatted using the American Psychological Associatio

Luna Community College Kodak Life Cycle Research Paper Basic Instructions

Your final paper should be formatted using the American Psychological Association (APA) style and must have an APA formatted cover page, an APA formatted abstract page, a Table of Contents, and an APA formatted list of references. All published work incorporated into the paper must be properly cited using the APA style. For help with the APA style, visit the Purdue Owl website (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_style_introduction.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.). Your paper should be no less than 10 double-spaced typed pages of text. The 10 pages does not include the cover page, abstract page, table of contents and reference pages. I expect a minimum of 6 sources for this paper. Your textbook may be one of your sources.

Potential Topics

Below, I have listed some general topical ideas that may be of interest to you. You may elect to develop your own topic but if you do I want to know what that is and approve your work on that topic.

1. What are some ways a company can design its formal structures and processes to develop AND encourage innovative behavior AND to have such behavior become part of its own organizational culture?

2. The life cycle of a formal organization, such as a business, is often conceptualized to reflect three stages: growth, maturation, and decline/death. Conduct a case study of an actual organization or company (you choose the organization you want to study) that went through the life cycle and is no longer an actual organization or company. Looking carefully at this actual organization and what happened to it, what should organizational leaders have done differently to preserve the life of the organization? Focus your attention on such things as innovation, making and leading change, combating resistance to change, and/or defining what types of change should have been applied. I am giving you some direction here on what to focus on but the direction you take will be heavily influenced by the case study you select and examine.

3. How does a complex organization make “tuning” part of its everyday vocabulary and practices? Conduct a case study of an organization where change leadership has successfully implemented tuning (i.e., where it has become part of the ordinary daily workflow of the organization). Discuss what they did, how they produced such change in their organization, and why you think what they did produced success. Chapter 9 – Action Planning and Implementation
Introduction
Relative to our authors’ Change Path Model, the organization and its change leaders (i.e., people that
get others to change by conveying to them an effective change vision and a strategy to close the gap
between where the organization is and where the organization needs to be) are now “accelerating” the
change process. This means they are “doing” the change discussed and planned during the awakening
and mobilization stages.
But, “doing the change” requires action. Actions effectively taken must “increase the likelihood of
positive change” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 297). Therefore, this chapter aims to provide
“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” (Cawsey, Deszca, and
Ingols, 2016, p. 298).
Without a “Do It” Orientation. Things Won’t Happen
For good or bad, change very often comes from the C-suites (i.e., a location within a formal organization
defined as the “heads of a company” within their respective organizational location [e.g., a CEO or COO
or CFO] but change does not always come from there as we have not spent time talking about the
informal organizational structure for nothing.
The do it orientation involves a willingness to engage in organizational analysis, see what needs to be
done, and take the initiative to move the change forward” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 330).
Chapter 9 Notes – 1
If you have the vision, if you can articulate it, you and/or your change team area ready to make it
happen. It does not matter if you are at the top, middle or bottom of the organization. All people can
initiate and certainly contribute to change. This is what acceleration is all about.
(Source: http://www.dannemillertyson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Accelerating-StrategicChange-Article-pdf.pdf)
Prelude to Action: Selecting the Correct Path
What needs to be achieved? This is a basic starting point question that should drive the next question
which is “what action needs to be taken?”
Three approaches to decision-making and action taking are offered by Mintzberg and Westley (2001) to
help one address these questions:
Thinking first strategy – “an approach used when the issue is clear, data are reliable, the context is well
structured, thoughts can be pinned down, and discipline can be established, as in many production
processes” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 330).
Most managers follow roughly the same formalized process in decision-making. First they diagnose
(figure out what the problem is), next they design (identify possible solutions), then they decide
(evaluate each, and choose the best), and finally they do (carry that choice into action). The four D’S:
Diagnose, Design, Decide, and Do. In other words, they think in order to act: Mintzberg calls this
thinking first (Mintzberg and Westley, 2001).
Chapter 9 Notes – 2
Seeing first strategy – “an approach that works best when many elements have to be combined into
creative solutions, commitment to those solutions is key, and communication across boundaries is
essential, as in new product development. People need to see the whole before becoming committed”
(Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 330).
Not all decisions are made following such a formal process as discussed in the ‘thinking first strategy’.
To take an example from everyday life – you may stop for a pastry or coffee based on an advertisement
in the shop window. There is not a lot of formal analysis that goes into that decision but seeing the ad
triggered either hunger pangs or simply the desire for something sweet.
Mintzberg calls this seeing first. Even some rather formal decisions happen this way—for example,
deciding to hire someone two seconds into the interview, or buying a company because you like the
looks of the place. These are not necessarily whims; they can be insights (Mintzberg and Westley,
2001).
Doing first strategy – “an approach that 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. An example would be when a manager is testing an approach and wants feedback about
what works” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 330).
Finally, there is also a slower and sometimes more sensible way to make decisions which Mintzberg calls
‘doing first’. When you are not sure how to proceed—often the case in making decisions big and
small—then you will just have to do, in order to think, instead of thinking – you need to act. You try
something in a limited way to see if it might work, and if it does not work, you try something else until
you find what does work (Mintzberg and Westley, 2001).
Nohria and Khurana (1993) offer a different approach to decision-making and action taking. Their
approach highlights the change type, defines the characteristics of that change, discusses common
implementation behaviors, and presents common issues/risks/concerns.
To their typology, I have added adaptive strategies that could be employed to address issues or
concerns that may develop given the change type being employed.
Chapter 9 Notes – 3
Three Generic Change Strategies (Nohria and Khurana, 1993 see also p. 303 of
your text)
Change Type
Programmatic
change
Characteristics
The change
situation is
clear with
equally clear
solutions.
Change is
incremental
Implementation
Training can be
accomplished,
timelines can be
identified and
followed
Discontinuous
change
The change
situation is
dramatic likely
involving
substantial
change in
processes.
Very often
change is
ordered from
the top of the
organization
Grows out of
incremental
change, can be
ambiguous,
and represents
a challenge to
employees
Implementation
by decree/order,
structural
changes within
the organization
will likely be
necessary
Emergent
change
Experimentation
is needed and
extremely likely,
risk-taking is
inevitable to
figure out what
actions work
Issues or Concerns
Proper focus may
not be given to
actual behavioral
change, inflexible in
the sense that the
change action will fit
everything well (this
is not always the
case with organizational change)
The change action
will be disruptive to
coalitions may form
to derail the change,
weak control to
enforce the change
may exist, and stress
is produced
Adaptive Strategies
Get employees
engaged and providing
feedback, learn from
experience, and
decentralize decisionmaking to improve
adaptation to change
This type of change
often produces
confusion,
uncertainty and
slows down
Express an attitude of
experimentation and
practice regular
assessment to advance
learning and feeback
Use cross-functional
teams (i.e., a group of
people with different
functional expertise
working toward a
common goal)
A third approach to change strategies “is found in the unilateral versus participative approaches to
change” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 303).
These two approaches to the “do it” orientation are fairly interesting as they reveal two very different
philosophies about change strategies and action taking.
The unilateral approach to change is largely top-down. “Change requirements are specified and
implemented—required behavioral changes are spelled out, and it is anticipated that attitude changes
will follow once people acclimatize themselves to the change” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p.
331).
The participative approach to change is largely bottom-up. Participation “in the change initiative
focuses on attitudinal changes that will support the needed behavioral changes required by the
organization change” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 331).
Chapter 9 Notes – 4
Plan the Work
The simple point here is this: As a promising or successful change agent, you have a vision and a plan to
make the change a reality. You want to accomplish that change as effectively as possible.
Let us review a six-step model presented by Michael Beer, Russell Eisenstat, and Bert Spector. This
model aims to help the change agent/leader focus on “task alignment” associated with programmatic
change. Task alignment involved “reorganizing employee roles, responsibilities, and relationships to
solve specific business problems. Task alignment is easiest in small units—a plant, department, or
business unit—where goals and tasks are clearly defined” (Eisenstat, Spector and Beer, 1990, para. 21).
1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of the organization’s problems. As the
term task alignment suggests, the starting point of any effective change effort is a clearly defined
business problem. By helping people develop a shared diagnosis of what is wrong in an organization
and what can and must be improved, a general manager mobilizes the initial commitment that is
necessary to begin the change process.
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness. When the change
agent has developed a group committed to the vision and change, a more task-specific orientation can
be put into effect relative to the new organizational roles. It will redefine how information is directed
from one level of the organization to another and from one functional center to another. If this can be
accomplished without changing formal organizational structures, the change action will likely be more
successful (i.e., less resistance to change).
3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move it along. Simply
letting employees help develop a new vision is not enough to overcome resistance to change—or to
foster the skills needed to make the new organization work. Not everyone can help in the design, and
even those who do participate often do not fully appreciate what renewal will require until the new
organization is actually in place. This is when strong leadership from the general manager is crucial.
Commitment to change is always uneven. Some managers are enthusiastic; others are neutral or even
antagonistic.
Once an organization has defined new roles and responsibilities, people need to develop the
competencies to make the new setup work. Actually, the very existence of the teams with their new
goals and accountabilities will force learning. The changes in roles, responsibilities, and relationships
foster new skills and attitudes. Changed patterns of coordination will also increase employee
participation, collaboration, and information sharing.
Some people, of course, just cannot or will not change, despite all the direction and support in the
world. Step three is the appropriate time to replace managers who cannot function in the new
organization—after they have had a chance to prove themselves. Such decisions are rarely easy, and
sometimes those people who have difficulty working in a participatory organization have extremely
valuable specialized skills. Replacing them early in the change process, before they have worked in the
new organization, is not only unfair to individuals; it can be demoralizing to the entire organization and
can disrupt the change process. People’s understanding of what kind of manager and worker the new
organization demands grows slowly and only from the experience of seeing some individuals succeed
and others fail.
Chapter 9 Notes – 5
Once employees have bought into a vision of what’s necessary and have some understanding of what
the new organization requires, they can accept the necessity of replacing or moving people who don’t
make the transition to the new way of working. Sometimes people are transferred to other parts of the
company where technical expertise rather than the new competencies is the main requirement. When
no alternatives exist, sometimes they leave the company through early retirement programs. The act of
replacing people can actually reinforce the organization’s commitment to change by visibly
demonstrating the general manager’s commitment to the new way.
4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top. With the new ad hoc
organization for the unit in place, it is time to turn to the functional and staff departments that must
interact with it. Members of teams cannot be effective unless the department from which they come is
organized and managed in a way that supports their roles as full-fledged participants in team decisions.
What this often means is that these departments will have to rethink their roles and authority in the
organization.
5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems, and structures. There comes a point
where general managers have to consider how to institutionalize change so that the process continues
even after they have moved on to other responsibilities.
Step five is the time: the new approach has become entrenched, the right people are in place, and the
team organization is up and running. Enacting changes in structures and systems any earlier tends to
backfire.
Take information systems as an example. Creating a team structure means new information
requirements. Why not have the MIS department create new systems that cut across traditional
functional and departmental lines early in the change process? The problem is that without a welldeveloped understanding of information requirements, which can best be obtained by placing people on
task-aligned teams, managers are likely to resist new systems as an imposition by the MIS department.
Newly formed teams can often pull together enough information to get their work done without fancy
new systems. It is better to hold off until everyone understands what the team’s information needs are.
What is true for information systems is even more true for other formal structures and systems. Any
formal system is going to have some disadvantages; none is perfect. These imperfections can be
minimized, however, once people have worked in an ad hoc team structure and learned what
interdependencies are necessary. Then employees will commit to them too.
6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process. The purpose of
change is to create an asset that did not exist before—a learning organization capable of adapting to a
changing competitive environment. The organization has to know how to continually monitor its
behavior—in effect, to learn how to learn.
Some might say that this is the general manager’s responsibility. But monitoring the change process
needs to be shared, just as analyzing the organization’s key business problem does.
Chapter 9 Notes – 6
For example, a general manager might introduce several mechanisms to allow key constituents to help
monitor the organization or unit’s revitalization. An oversight team—composed of some crucial
managers, a union leader, a secretary, an engineer, and an analyst from finance—could keep continual
watch over the process. Regular employee attitude surveys could be conducted to monitor
behavior/attitudinal patterns. Planning teams could also be formed and reformed in response to new
challenges. All these mechanisms should create a long-term capacity for continual adaptation and
learning.
The six-step process provides a way to for change agents to take change action with such being received
as an imposition. When stakeholders become committed to a vision, they are willing to accept a new
pattern of management—here the ad hoc team structure—that demands changes in their behavior.
As the employees discover that the new approach is more effective (which will happen only if the vision
aligns with the core task), they have to grapple with personal and organizational changes they might
otherwise resist.
Finally, as improved coordination helps solve relevant problems, it will reinforce team behavior and
produce a desire to learn new skills. This learning enhances effectiveness even further and results in an
even stronger commitment to change. This mutually reinforcing cycle of improvements in commitment,
coordination, and competence creates a growing sense of efficacy. It can continue as long as the ad hoc
team structure is allowed to expand its role in running the business.
I have, with the above notes, described the Six Step Model for Change expressed by Beer, Eisenstat, and
Spector (1990). Other model exist of course and I encourage you to review them. The following
presents a few additional models offered by Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols (2016, pp. 305-306).
Chapter 9 Notes – 7
All the above are variations around similar conceptual themes that direct change actions. Study them
and, where applicable, apply them to you change actions.
Action Planning Tools
Here we will be exploring actual action planning tools. Some of the idea present in these tools are selfevident while other are novel and perhaps not as immediately intuitive.
1. A to-do list. This is simply a checklist of things that need to be done. Relative simply change
processes can likely be accomplished with only this tool.
2. Responsibility Charting. It must evident who will do what, when, where, why, and how.
Chapter 9 Notes – 8
3. Contingency Planning. Consideration of what should be done when things do not work as planned on
critical issues. Contingency planning can be carried out using decision tree analysis and scenario
planning.
A decision tree is a decision support tool that uses a tree-like model of decisions and their possible
consequences, including chance event outcomes, resource costs, and utility. Decision trees are
commonly used in operations research, specifically in decision analysis, to help identify a strategy most
likely to reach a goal.
The decision tree shows Decision Points, represented by squares, are the alternative actions along with
the investment outlays, that can be undertaken for the experimentation. These decisions are followed
by the chance points, represented by circles, are the uncertain points, where the outcomes are
dependent on the chance process. Thus, the probability of occurrence is assigned to each chance point.
Scenario planning refers to a change strategy “formed by first developing a limited number of scenarios
or stories about how the future may unfold and then assessing what the implications of each of these
would be to the organization” (Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, 2016, p. 331).
Different approaches can be taken here. Schnaars and Ziamou (2001) suggest the following:
•
Optimistic vs. best guess vs. pessimistic scenarios. This approach looks at the most likely future
situation based on current information. It introduces question as to what things would or could
happen to result in a better than anticipated outcome and how can the organization make those
things happen? The pessimistic scenario looks at many of the things that could go wrong and
tries to help decision makers plan responses to deal with these problems should they happen.
•
Good vs. bad scenarios. This approach avoids the tendency to focus on the most likely
alternative of the “best guess” and forces managers to give more attention to both extremes.
•
Arrayed scenarios. These scenarios look at alternatives associated with a continuum along a
single criterion or dimension (e.g., firms could plan their response to a change in the price of an
Chapter 9 Notes – 9
important resource.
•
Independently themed scenarios. This approach looks at different aspects of the future. One
scenario could look at possible technological breakthroughs, another at environmental
concerns, and a third at potential market changes. Each scenario is conceptually independent of
the others.
After scenarios are created, strategies are developed by first determining the direction in which the…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment