ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROCESS - GMD …€¦ · Web viewORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES: REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF SELECTED CHANGE MODELS November 2004 Thomas C. Tuttle, Ph.D. Tuttle

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES: REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF SELECTED CHANGE MODELS

November 2004

Thomas C. Tuttle, Ph.D.Tuttle Group International

3133 Catrina LaneAnnapolis, Maryland 21403

(410) [email protected]

The Tuttle Group International, 2004 1

Introduction

Change is complex. Seldom will any one model adequately deal with the necessary extent of complexity, no matter how broad the scope of the model used. What is required for capable management of change is an explicit understanding of multiple views of change, including the related governing principles.

----- T. L. Carter

In the spirit of the comments of Tom Carter cited above, this paper presents an overview of a number of models of organizational change. It also provides a simple framework for classifying and analyzing these models. The change model that is developed by the Hagerstown Powertrain Operations Change Process Team to help guide its activity will necessarily draw on elements of a number of models.

One of the many philosophical issues running through the change literature is the issue of whether change can be managed. Is change management an oxymoron? If change cannot be managed, how can organizations adjust to a rapidly changing environment? Some would argue that the effort should be spent on building an organization that is adaptive and that can sense the environment and make rapid adjustments. So what is it – change management or change adaptation?

Like most either-or arguments, the answer is “both”. Organizations like people are purposive systems. They have aspirations, visions and goals. Can they expect to follow a linear path to those goals? Certainly not. However, this does not mean that visions and goals are futile. It does mean that leaders of global organizations can expect many obstacles and challenges as they move toward their vision. It is the premise of this paper that success will require a transformation from the traditional model to a “new” organizational form. This “new” form has different names. Kotter calls it the 21st century organization, and Meyer and Davis call it the “Adaptive Organization.” Others might refer to the “Sustainable Enterprise”.

The purpose of this paper then is to provide a description and critique of models that will assist organizations in making this transformation. The paper has three parts. Part One provides an introduction to the models and describes the framework used to classify the models. Part Two provides an overview of the models. Part Three provides a discussion and critique of the models and attempts to draw implications for organizations in the transition.


PART ONE

The Organizational Change Process – Chalking the Field.

What do we know about managing change? What models have been proposed to guide our efforts? What are some examples of successful change? What are some future directions for change management thinking?

These are a few of the questions that organizations and their leaders should be asking as they attempt to navigate the business landscape in the first decade of the 21st century. This paper has several objectives. (1) It will present a simple framework that can be used to classify and organize change process models and will be used to describe a number of models that have been proposed. (2) It will describe 11 change management models (3) it will review these models with respect to the following themes:

Leadership of Change Change and Business Strategy Knowledge Management and Change Lessons Learned from Practitioners and Researchers Tools That Support and Enable the Change Process The Role of the Individual in Organizational Change

(4) Finally the paper will draw some implications for the change process underway in Hagerstown.

Change Process Models

Models can be categorized as descriptive or prescriptive. Descriptive models attempt to explain reality while prescriptive models attempt to lay out a set of principles to adopt or a step by step approach to implementation. In the change literature there are examples of both types of models.

In addition to the prescriptive/descriptive dimension, models might be characterized in terms of where they fall on the more subjective dimension of “traditional vs. non-traditional”. This dimension addresses the extent to which the model comes from a “world view” that is traditional, top-down, hierarchical, linear vs. non-traditional, non-linear, horizontal, etc. This dimension is significant because many organizations profess to be moving from the more traditional forms of organization toward new forms that fit today’s global business environment more effectively. In the present classification we posit three categories, traditional, transitional and non-traditional.

Using this two dimensional classification scheme, we can sort the various models considered into this 2 X 3 matrix. This is shown in Table 1.


Table 1 Classification Scheme for Change Process Models

Traditional Transitional Non-Traditional

Prescriptive Models

Alcoa – Tom Carter

Good to Great-Collins

Eight Step Process for Major Change – Kotter

Business Transformation Model – Gouillart and Kelly

Adaptive Management – Meyer and Davis

Sustainable Enterprise/Sustainable Growth – Holliday, et al.; Elkington; Hawken, Lovins & Lovins; McDonough and Braungart.

Descriptive Models

Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze – Lewin

Coopers and Lybrand – Carr, Hard, and Trahant

Strategic Six Sigma Deployment Trajectories – Smith and Blakeslee

Phase-In Model –Shiba,Graham,&Walden

Values Map – Hall

Values Map – Hall


PART TWO

Traditional Models

Two models have been classified as Traditional – Descriptive. The first of these is the classic model proposed by Lewin (1951) which argues that the process of change involves three stages (1) unfreezing, (2) change and (3) refreezing. This model was valuable in recognizing the importance of not only new learning, but also “unlearning” old attitudes, habits and behavior patterns. However, few would support the model’s suggestion that it is helpful to “refreeze” if this implies a resistance to future change. On the other hand, if refreeze means to consolidate the change (e.g. incorporate it into existing processes and policies) in order to “hold the gain,” then the concept of refreezing has considerable merit.

The Coopers and Lybrand model is focused on implementing organization wide change and incorporates many of the traditional suggestions for top-down leader-driven or consultant driven change. A high-level view of this model is captured by the following formula:

SC = V + N + M + R + Fwhere : SC = successful change

V = a shared vision of the desired change developed, articulated and communicated by the change leaders.

N = a compelling need for change has been developed and shared and shared by all employees;

M = the practical means to achieve the vision has been planned, designed and implemented;

R = the reward systems of the organization have been aligned to identify and encourage appropriate behaviors compatible with the vision;

F = feedback is given at each stage of the process to monitor progress and provide information for continuous improvement.

Transitional Models

As we move from traditional models to the transitional models, the world view changes from one in which “some people at the top of the organization know the answers or develop the vision” and then they essentially “push” that change through the organization to a different world view. The new world view is that individuals in the organization take charge of their own lives and therefore they must “choose to change”. The role of senior leadership is to create the conditions and the enabling structures that will assist all employees have the information, education, and environment that will encourage them to change in ways that support the organization’s ability to meet its customer’s requirements. In other words, the transitional models refer to those models that help


organizations that are attempting to move from top down-leader driven change a world view that is based more on employee trust and on encouraging, supporting and enabling people’s choice to change.

Prescriptive – Transitional Models

a. Alcoa – Tom Carter Model . The model attributed to Tom Carter, formerly the Vice President of Engineering and later Vice-President of Quality and Executive Development for Alcoa was based in large part on Tom’s research and work at Alcoa – the major global aluminum producer. Actually this is a family of models that relate to different aspects of change.

An overview of the Carter model is captured in Table 2. This Table indicates what can happen if one of the key elements of the change model is missing or overlooked. For example, the model for achieving the potential change requires vision, values, strategy, resources, capability, motivation and feedback. If the vision is missing, there is confusion. If the values are missing there is corruption. If the strategy is missing, there is diffusion – that is, there is a lack of focused etc.

Table 2

The Tuttle Group International, 2004

Vision PotentialChangeValues Strategy Resources Capability Motivation Feedback

Confusion

Corruption

Diffusion

Frustration

Fatigue

Crawl

Doubt

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Source: T.L. Carter,1992

Managing Complex Change

6

In particular, Carter emphasizes leadership responsibilities for change and he presents an enlightening view of empowerment. In his model, leadership must support change by doing four things:

Surveying the situation and determining needs Sharing the vision and developing commitment Clarifying values and rules and Encouraging others.

The first responsibility is to accurately assess the situation through developing a hunger and openness for honest feedback. Senior management must be extremely careful to avoid receiving filtered feedback – information that is filtered by lower levels or by hired consultants that tell the top leadership what they want to hear.

Based on an accurate assessment of the situation, in this model the senior leadership develops a vision and articulates that vision to various constituencies in the organization in a effort to explain it and to build support. Leadership must demonstrate a commitment to the vision by setting an example of behavior that is a higher standard of support that that required for others in the organization.

The third requirement of leadership is to establish the rules and standards of behavior and to be a visible, personal role model for these behavior standards. Part of the approach to promoting these rules is to capture and spread stories from the organization’s culture and experience that demonstrate how the desire behaviors have been lived in various parts of the organization to create success.

Finally, leadership must be a source of encouragement through words, caring, recognition and by leading celebrations of accomplishments. Change is hard, and therefore achievements must be acknowledged and celebrated.

From his considerable experience as an organizational change agent, Carter captures some of his personal lessons learned:

Top management understanding of the critical concepts being deployed is critical;

Each individual must know where the organization is headed and understand his or her role in that journey;

Rate of change is important and must be driven by capable leadership; Values become increasingly important as the rate of change increases; Assumptions can be real barriers to progress; Measurement and feedback are ESSENTIAL; Increasing participation is hard work; Concepts being deployed must be integrated with managing the business

and incorporated into an explicit management system;


A common vocabulary is more enabling that anyone forecasts. (Source: Carter, T.L. February 1999)

Carter presents some thoughts on empowerment in the context of his broader model of people performance. Carter defines people performance as follows:

People performance = (empowerment X (enabling + motivation) X (1 + commitment and ownership))

The performance of people is bounded by limits that depend on the extent to which they know and understand the vision, values and strategy of the business and they understand how they can link to and contribute to the vision, values and strategy. Before proceeding with efforts to enhance people performance, actions must be taken to raise this upper boundary or else the investment in people performance improvement will be wasted.

In Carter’s people performance model, he borrows the empowerment model proposed by Peter Koestenbaum in his book, the Inner Side of Greatness. Empowerment is then:

E = F x D x S

Where, E = empowerment – process to release and focus potential energy and creativity in employees;

F = Level of freedom to set boundaries; D = Direction, i.e. goals;

S = Support.

Consistent with the transition “world view” this model points out that empowerment does not mean that an organization has less control. In fact, control can be increased, however the difference is that the shift is in the type of control. The shift is from “authoritarian” control to “self control” enabled and supported by process controls.

b. Good to Great – Jim Collins

The second transition model we will explore is the Good to Great model popularized by Jim Collins in his best selling business book. Good to Great is based on a detailed analysis of 11 pairs of companies. One company in each pair, e.g. Abbot, achieved sustained, high level, business results and the other company in the pair, UpJohn achieved only sustained mediocre results.

The model is summarized in Figure 1. As depicted, there are six principal concepts organized into three stages. Stage 1 and the first part of Stage 2 are the buildup stage. In


the latter part of Stage 2 and continuing in Stage 3 there is the breakthrough stage where the “Good to Great Companies” differentiated themselves from the Comparison companies.

Collins describes each of the six concepts in great detail. However for our purposes the brief description of each concept is presented below.

Disciplined Peoplea. Level 5 Leadership – The leadership style of the Good to Great companies was

characterized by a style the author called Level 5 . Level 5 leaders were self-effacing, quiet, reserved – even shy, with a paradoxical blend of personal humility and personal will. They were very different from the high profile individuals with big personalities who become celebrities. As described by Collins, they were more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.

b. First who…..then what – Rather than start by setting a new vision and strategy, the good to great leaders started by getting the right people on the team and the wrong people off the team – then with the new team on board they figured out where to “drive the bus.” People are not the most important asset, the “right people” are the most important asset.

Disciplined Thoughtc. Confront the brutal facts (yet never lose faith). The good to great companies

were willing to confront the most brutal facts about their current reality and never lose faith that they will prevail in the end.

d. The Hedgehog Concept – Good to great companies were able to articulate simply the truths that lay at the intersection of three independent circles. These circles represented (1) What you are capable of being best in the world at doing (and conversely what you are not best in the world at doing); (2) What drives your economic engine – that is what you can be well paid to do; and (3) What you are passionate about doing. The “space” where these three circles converge defines the hedgehog concept. Hedgehogs can simplify a complex world and integrate it into a single organizing principle that guides everything.

Disciplined Actione. Culture of discipline – With disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. With

disciplined thought you don’t need bureaucracy. With disciplined action, there is no need for excessive controls. The good to great companies were able to combine a disciplined culture with an ethic of entrepreneurship.

f. Technology accelerators – Good to great companies never see technology as the igniter of transformation. However, they are pioneers in the adoption and integration of carefully selected technologies. Technology itself is never a cause of greatness or decline, however good to great companies utilized technology effectively to accelerate their breakthrough.


Figure 1 Good to Great Model


c. Kotter 8 Step Model

One of the leading academic researchers and writers on the topic of change leadership is John Kotter at the Harvard Business School. Kotter’s book (1996) based on his research provides an action plan for organizations in how to implement change.

Kotter’s research has identified 8 errors that organizations tend to make in their efforts to implement change. These are:

Allowing too much complacency Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition Underestimating the power of vision Undercommunicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000) Permitting obstacles to block the new vision Failing to create short-term wins Declaring victory too soon Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture.

The consequences of these errors show up in terms of : New strategies that are not implemented well; Acquisitions that do not achieve the expected synergies; Reengineering takes too long and costs too much; Downsizing doesn’t get costs under control; Quality programs do not deliver the hoped for results.

Kotter then lays out his 8-step process to help organizations increase their odds for success in implementing change. This process could be viewed as traditional or transitional depending on the world view of the “implementers.” I have chosen to characterize this as transitional based on a discussion at the end of Kotter’s book that characterizes the differences between 20th and 21st century organizations (Table 3). In our taxonomy, this would be analogous to the differences between traditional and adaptive organizations.

Kotter’s 8-step model shown in Table 4 is grounded in the understanding from research findings that there are many ways that change efforts can fail to achieve their objectives. The steps in the model are designed to “defrost” the organization (steps 1-4); then introduce new practices (steps 5-7); followed by step 8 which attempts to ground the change in the corporate culture and make it sustainable.


Table 3Comparison of Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Organizations (Kotter, 1996

p.172-173)

20th Century Organizations 21st Century Organizations

Structure StructureBureaucratic Non bureaucratic with fewer rules and

employeesMultileveled Fewer levelsOrganized with the expectation that senior management will manage

Organized with the expectation that management will lead, lower-level employees will manage

Characterized by policies and procedures that create many complicated internal interdependencies

Characterized by policies and procedures that produce the minimal internal interdependence needed to serve customers.

Systems SystemsDepend on few performance information systems

Depend on many performance information systems, providing data on customers especially.

Distribute performance data to executives only

Distribute performance data widely

Offer management training and support systems to senior people only

Offer management training and support systems to many people

Culture CultureInwardly focused Externally orientedCentralized EmpoweringSlow to make decisions Quick to make decisionsPolitical Open and candidRisk averse More risk tolerant


Table 4 Kotter’s 8 Step Model for Leading Change (Kotter, 1996, p. 21).


1. ESTABLISHING A SENSE OF URGENCY• Examining the market and competitive realities

• Identifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities

2. CREATING THE GUIDING COALITION•Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change

•Getting the group to work together like a team

3.DEVELOPING A VISION AND STRATEGY•Creating a vision to help direct the change effort•Developing strategies for achieving that vision

4. COMMUNICATING THE CHANGE VISION•Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies

•Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees

5. EMPOWERING BROAD-BASED ACTION•Getting rid of obstacles

•Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision•Encouraging risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions

6. GENERATING SHORT TERM WINS•Planning for visible improvements in performance, or “wins”

•Creating those “wins”•Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who make the wins possible

7. CONSOLIDATING GAINS AND PRODUCING MORE CHANGE•Using increased credibility to change all systems, structures and policies that don’t fit together and don’t fit the transformation vision

•Hiring, promoting, and developing people who can implement the change vision•Reinvigorating the process with new projects,themes and change agents

8. ANCHORING NEW APPROACHES IN THE CULTURE•Creating better performance through customer and productivity oriented behavior, more and better leadership and more effective management

•Articulating the connections between the new behaviors and oranizational success•Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession

DEFROST

NEWACTIONS

MAKEITSTICK

d. Gouillart and Kelly – Transforming the Organization Model

Gouillart and Kelly provide a comprehensive model for total organizational transformation. This model makes use of a biological metaphor. The human genetic code is contained in 23 sets of chromosomes. They argue that this metaphor can also be applied to organizations and their model contains four “therapies” each of which consists of three chromosomes. Further, Gouillart and Kelly argue that organizational transformation must be viewed in a total system framework. “Companies are living organisms. Like people, they need holistic medicine, not organ-by-organ treatments”.(Gouillart and Kelly, 1995, p.8).

Continuing this metaphor, the CEO and the leadership team are viewed as the “genetic architects of the corporation”. (Ibid, p.8) Viewed from this perspective, the authors argue that each of the 12 chromosomes in their model constitute a task of leadership.

This biological model is particularly interesting as it is a forerunner of the adaptive organization model proposed by Myer and Davis (2003) that will be considered below.

A high level overview of the Gouillart and Kelly model is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Transforming the Organization (Gouillart and Kelly, 1995)

Therapy 1 – Reframe Achieve Mobilization Create the Vision Build the Measures

Therapy 2 – Restructure Construct an Economic Model Align Physical Infrastructure Redesign Work Architecture

Therapy 3 – Revitalize Achieve Market Focus Invent New Businesses Change Rules Through Information Technology

Therapy 4 – Renew Create Reward Structure Build Individual Learning Develop the Organization


Descriptive – Transitional Models

This section will describe three descriptive models that provide a framework for thinking about what organizations do as they proceed through the transition from “traditional” to “Non-traditional”. These models are descriptive, in that they do not propose to lay out an action plan to follow to make this transition. Instead, they attempt to provide a way to make sense out of the actions that organizations engage in as they change. In particular, these models attempt to categorize and describe actions that tend to be associated with organizational improvement and success. That is, they attempt to describe what successful organizations do.

a. Strategic Six Sigma Deployment Trajectories – “Six Sigma” has emerged as one of the most influential organizational change and improvement strategies during the past decade. The concepts underlying this approach are not new and are grounded in Statistical Process Control and Total Quality Management approaches that were popularized in the United States in the late 70’s and early 80’s. However, many of underlying concepts and methods go back much further (e.g. Walter A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, 1931, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.)

What is six sigma? There are two basic perspectives on this term – operational and strategic. At the operational or process level, six sigma is a statistical concept that refers to the number of data points generated by a process that can be expected to fall outside of defined limits(e.g. customer specifications). Achieving six sigma performance means that no more than 3.4 times out of a million attempts will fall outside of the acceptable boundaries that define a quality product. The operational six sigma perspective provides specific tools and methodologies to measure, analyze and improve work processes in order to reduce variability of output and reduce “defects.”

At the strategic level six sigma has become a broad, encompassing term for a range of organizational improvement efforts designed to help organizations reduce costs, improve customer satisfaction and improve competitiveness. Smith and Blakeslee define Strategic Six Sigma as follows: “……the goal of Six Sigma is to align an organization keenly to its marketplace and deliver real improvements (and dollars) to the bottom line. Strategic Six Sigma approaches provide a framework that potentially can be used to bring about large-scale integration of a company’s strategies, processes, culture, and customers to achieve and sustain breakaway business results” (2002 p.xvi)

These authors, are consultants who have participated in and observed a number of Six Sigma implementation efforts in a range of organizations. Based on these observations, they have defined four “Deployment Trajectories” that characterize


the range of implementation efforts they have studied. These trajectories are diagrammed in Figure 2.

Figure 2Strategic Six Sigma Trajectories

Figure 2 shows that there is a critical period at the beginning of a Six Sigma deployment where leadership commitment is very critical. In this early stage, there is cost associated with the planning and initial implementation efforts (e.g. staffing, training, consultant costs, etc.). Following this initial implementation period Smith and Blakeslee identify 4 potential paths or “trajectories” that the implementation effort can take. These are labeled A, B, C and D.

Trajectory D depicts an implementation in which the effort is generally localized rather than being enterprise wide. Such efforts are generally implemented by a


single visionary leader who launches an effort at a single business unit, division, plant, etc. There may be example of individual projects that are successful, however there is insufficient scale to gain the attention necessary for an organization-wide implementation effort. At the same time, they do not lead to a sufficient infrastructure (e.g. communication, training, incentives, coalition of sponsors/champions) to sustain a longer term effort. According to the authors the worst case here is when leaders outside the process don’t support the effort and wait patiently for it to die.

Trajectory C depicts a more successful path. This example is characterized by significant implementation efforts across the enterprise or one of its most significant business units. A cadre of full-time “black belts (i.e. internal consultants who are trained extensively in process improvement, problem solving, group process and organizational change methods) approaching 1% of the employee population are engaged in address significant organizational problems (e.g. reducing costs, improving quality, improving response times, etc.). While C trajectory implementation efforts have significant internal support, they approach the point of diminishing returns over time. This is due to the fact that they address internally focused projects that do not lead to clear benefits to customers and therefore produce little marketplace impact.

Trajectory B efforts do focus on meeting customer or marketplace requirements. They too are concerned with improvements in cost and quality, the efficiency of the company’s existing business model and the processes that comprise it. The leaders of the Trajectory B implementation efforts, according to Smith and Blakeslee, typically possess an “outside-in” orientation rather than an “inside-out” orientation. That is, they focus project efforts on a solid understanding of their customer’s requirements rather than on internal priorities. They may engage in joint team projects with customers and suppliers. They understand and focus on the entire value chain from customer back through the organization to its suppliers. Trajectory C implementation efforts typically have a great deal of visibility and support from top leadership. Trajectory B efforts provide continuing value to the organization as long as the focus on the customer and marketplace is maintained.

Trajectory A companies “have succeeded in both improving the existing business model and creating a new one. They are using Six Sigma business improvement to grow the business – to nurture new ideas, develop new products and services, to undertake new acquisitions, or to acquire new customers. Ultimately their focus on these areas generates top-line business growth and revenue.” (Smith and Blakeslee, 2002, p.43). Essentially the authors point out that the Trajectory A companies effectively institutionalize the change to create a supportive culture and they utilize the improvement methodologies at the Board and Senior Management levels to drive organizational renewal and new business model creation. Those organizations that are in trajectories B, C, and D do not migrate the thought process and methodologies into the daily work of executive leadership while the Trajectory A companies do so.


While Smith and Blakeslee focus their effort on Six Sigma, their “lessons learned” could be applied to any organization change effort. The benefits of the change process grow significantly as the change process moves from an operational and transactional focus to the strategic level where it is fully institutionalized, led, and modeled by senior management.

b. Phase-In Model - One of the most comprehensive publications to emerge from the wave of Total Quality Management literature was a book by Shoji Shiba and his colleagues at MIT. In this book, Shiba provides a three-phase model for TQM phase- in. Shiba prefers the term “phase-in” over “implementation” because phase in implies a continuous process without a clear ending. Implementation implies a beginning and ending when in fact, implementation never really ends.

The Shiba model is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3Shiba Three Phase Model

This model depicts the phase in of an improvement initiative as a three phase process : Orientation, Empowerment, and Alignment. The orientation phase has two elements Goal Setting and Organization Setting. The goal setting process involves the planning and goal setting efforts – what do you want the process to


accomplish and why it must be phased-in. The organization setting activity involves creating an organizational unit concerned with the planning and facilitation of the initiative (i.e. TQM, etc.). In Phase one the activities necessary to set goals and do the organization setting involve senior management learning and middle management exploration and piloting. For example, Motorola and Xerox set goals by benchmarking competitors. Corning set goals in response to being outperformed in quality and cost. Motorola executives conducted regular customer visits.

The next Phase is the Empowerment Phase. This consists of giving employees the “tools” and “permission” to take charge of their work area to apply the tools to create improvements. The training and management promotion of the effort constitutes the “push” required to overcome organizational inertia that serves to resist change. There are various models for the training, however Shiba describes the cascade approach in which senior managers are the first trainees. Then the trainees become the trainers as they train their direct reports and so on throughout the organization. This model is successful when training creates more training and success creates more success. Shiba call this the “snowball” model as it picks up momentum as the training cascades down the organization. Once the process is underway, it is important to identify and spread success stories. This evidence of success will help move from the “push” stage to a “pull” stage where the initiative begins to build its on momentum because it “works” and because employees prefer this way of working.

Shiba contrasts the “snowball” training model with the “Sisyphus model.” Sisyphus was the Greek mythological figure who was condemned with pushing a large rock uphill forever. Applied to training, the Sisyphus model involves hiring trainers or sending people to outside trainers to develop the skills for the process. Shiba points out “These strategies are expensive and don’t build on success.” (1993, p.381.)

The next Phase is the Alignment Phase. The alignment phase is a continuing process of monitoring and diagnosing based on results to continually create more and more alignment between the actual output and the desired output. In this phase the business goals and the practices of the company are synchronized both cross functionally and hierarchically. In the alignment phase the nature of the improvement activities changes. With most of the “low hanging fruit” attained, the focus shifts to integration, standardization, and customization of efforts. This is achieved by integrating individual and team efforts and by getting people to work toward common, shared goals. There is a search for synergies across functions. Planning processes are improved and aligned.

Shiba points out that few organizations carry out these phases in a strict one-two-three order. Phase one is the beginning of the change process. However, phase two and phase three operate together in a back and forth manner. It is not possible to wait for full empowerment before alignment efforts begin. This cycling back and forth even between phases 1, 2 and 3 may go on for several years as the phase-in effort moves to maturity.


c. Values Map – The final descriptive – transitional model is the Values Map developed by Brian Hall and Benjamin Tonna. As the reader can determine from Figure 1, this model is classified as both a transitional model and as a non-traditional model. This is because the values map which is the basic descriptive element of the Hall and Tonna model contains 4 phases of development which span the evolutionary development spectrum from what might be called “Pre-Traditional” to Traditional to Transitional to Non-Traditional. In Hall and Tonna’s language this spectrum incorporates a transition from Phase 1 to Phase 4. Each phase represents a different world view and a different set of values. In the taxonomy of change models depicted in Table 1, Traditional would roughly correspond to Phase 2 , Transitional would refer to the shift from Phase 2 to Phase 3 and Non-Traditional would refer to the shift from Phase 3 to Phase 4.

In the Hall and Tonna model, values are defined as: The ideals that give significance to our lives, that are reflected

through the priorities that we choose, and that we act on consistently and repeatedly. (Hall, 1995, p.21)

Hall and Tonna have defined 125 values and developed instruments to measure the relative priority of these values as expressed by individuals. These 125 values and their universally standardized definitions can be viewed as the building blocks of human nature and they bridge genders and cultures. Through group analysis software, these values can be defined for organizations as well as organizational subgroups. In addition, using special scoring programs, the methodology can determine the underlying values inherent in documents (e.g. written documents, speeches, etc.). In this way, the model and the measuring instruments that support the model enable values measurement to be used as a tool of human and organizational development.

In a pamphlet designed to translate the Hall-Tonna model for a business audience Tom Carter provides an illustration that demonstrates the power and relevance of the Hall-Tonna values framework.

Using Integrity as an example, individuals will know what is meant by integrity but will not be able to put it into operation until it is broken down into its component parts (what Hall and Tonna call basic values.) Integrity could be defined as:

Living by the rules established by the legal system (a value called Law/Rule)

Exercising personal power in a straightforward and truthful expression of feelings and thoughts (Authority/Honesty), and

Acting on moral principles even when faced with pressure to do otherwise (Accountability/Ethics).


With such a definition (i.e. Integrity the “principle” defined by the three basic values that comprise the principle), the organization has provided sufficient clarity to allow the individual “meaning making” process to translate and internalize for his/her situation, and then actualize what is meant.

Dividing Corporate Values into basic values that individuals can connect with is crucial to successfully deploying broader corporate values. (Carter, 2002, p. 38)

As Carter points out, the organization may espouse the value, which is really a principle, called Integrity. However, if individuals in the organization do not place priority on the basic values that comprise the corporate value, it is unlikely that the organization will be successful in sustaining the value-based behaviors (e.g. behaviors that are necessary to achieve “Integrity”) that value it espouses.

Carter goes on to point out how the values are significant in the context of organizational change management.

Corporate or organizational values actually change over time. If this change is not actively managed the actual values in an organization can deteriorate, undoing what took significant effort to accomplish. As the organization matures, each of the Corporate Values can (and should) grow by adding higher level basic values. An example for Integrity could be to add the basic value “Law/Guide” to “Law/Rule”. Law/Guide empowers the individual to use rules and regulations as guidelines, rather than directives for decision making. This allows the individual to extend the concepts to broader applications. Such growth requires the requisite set of starting basic values to ensure intent.

Knowing the values of individuals in the organization (a values audit) facilitates defining the corporate values or principles in a manner that promotes the personal connection between individuals and the organization. By knowing the values of its individuals, a company or organization can appropriately structure corporate values and deploy them in a manner that builds on compatible existing cultural strengths. (Carter, 2002, p.39)

The Hall Tonna Values Map provides the descriptive structure of the model. The Map is complex, as it was based on a consideration and synthesis of over 47 different theoretical approaches to human and organizational development (Values Technology, 1995, p.2-4. ) In this discussion, we will not attempt to discuss all of the elements of the Values Map but will limit the discussion to the Four Phases, the 8 Stages, and the Leadership Styles.

The Four Phases of the Values Map are depicted in Table 6. The map is viewed as developmental both from and individual perspective and from an organizational perspective. The world view represented by each of the four phases is reflected by the fact that the 125 values are distributed across these phases. Examples of the values are shown in the third line of the table.


Table 6 Four Phases and World Views of the Hall-Tonna Values Map

PHASES Phase 1Surviving

Phase 2Belonging

Phase 3Self-Initiating

Phase 4Interdependent

How the Individual

Perceives the World

A mystery over which I have no

control.

A problem with which I must

cope.

A project in which I want to

participate.

A mystery for which we care

on a global scale.

Individual Perception in

the Organization

Self is the center of an

alien and oppressive

environment.

Self seeks to belong by seeking

approval of significant

others and by succeeding.

Self acts and initiates

creatively, independently

and with a conscience.

Self acts as “we” with others to

enhance the quality of life

globally.

Types of Values

Self Preservation

Safety

Self-Worth

Education

Self-Actualization

Independence

Truth/Wisdom

Ecority

Convivial Technology

The values associated with Phase 1 deal with protecting oneself from physical harm or danger. The values in Phase 2 shift to a focus on demonstrating one’s value and improving one’s capability to succeed. In Phase 3, the values focus on one’s ability to maximize his or her potential, not to gain favor from others but to allow the individual to experience personal fulfillment. Phase 3 also places an emphasis on the individual’s ability to make independent judgments and to act without external constraints. However, one’s choices in Phase 3 are guided by their conscience, i.e.. internal controls, rather than by an external authority. In Phase 4 the values pertain to understanding truth and ultimate reality, enhancing the global ecological balance, and the application of technology to improve standards of living across the world.

The premise of Brian Hall, is that many organizations in our economy are in the midst of a values shift. In 1995, when he wrote his most recent book, the major focus was from Phase 2 to Phase 3. This can be further understood if we add to the Values Map another dimension which is the Leadership and Management Styles (Table 7).

Table 7


Values Map With Phases and Leadership Styles

PHASES Phase 1Surviving

Phase 2Belonging

Phase 3Self-Initiating

Phase 4Interdependent

How the Individual

Perceives the World

A mystery over which I have no

control.

A problem with which I must

cope.

A project in which I want to

participate.

A mystery for which we care

on a global scale.

Individual Perception in

the Organization

Self is the center of an

alien and oppressive

environment.

Self seeks to belong by seeking

approval of significant

others and by succeeding.

Self acts and initiates

creatively, independently

and with a conscience.

Self acts as “we” with others to

enhance the quality of life

globally.

Types of Values

Self Preservation

Safety

Self-Worth

Education

Self-Actualization

Independence

Truth/Wisdom

Ecority

Convivial Technology

Leadership and

Management Styles

Autocratic

Top down use of power

Hierarchy

Linear Power

Bureaucratic Systems

Collaborative Leadership

Intergroup Emphasis

Interdependent Leadership

Global

As Table 7 points out, the leadership and management styles flow directly from the world view underlying the Phases. Many of the management innovations in the last 50 years can be seen in the context of the transition from a phase 2 to a phase 3 shift. Innovations such as Job Enrichment, Total Quality Management, Re-engineering, Six Sigma, relate to structural reforms and methodologies that would propel this shift. Today, we are seeing increasing evidence of organizations attempting to move toward a Phase 4 world view. With the emergence of global teaming, emphasis on sustainable business practices, and the increased focus on corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line (e.g. economic performance, environmental performance and social performance) there is increasing evidence that Phase 4 organizational forms are envisioned and, in some cases, realized. Evidence such as that from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index may propel this evolution. This index tracks the “most sustainable” global companies within a range of industry segments and has found that these businesses outperform their counterparts in the Dow-Jones Global Index in terms of a 5 year annualized return between 09/96 and 09/01 by 12.61% to 9.12%. This does not mean that all companies in this index are Phase 4 companies. However,


the criteria used to select companies for this index suggests that they are closer to phase 4 than their competitors in the industries they represent.

The question many organizations face in this shift is whether they are attempting to move to a Phase 4 world view without having completed the shift from Phase 2 to Phase 3. Each of these shifts involves different values and different skills and competencies needed to put the values into action. If there are gaps in the skills and competencies at any of the Phases, the organization or individual will have difficulty make these values shifts successfully.

When Mack- Hagerstown Manufacturing Operations began this values-based organizational change process, the plant was operating at a Phase 2 level. The values based transformation utilized the steps shown in Figure 4

Figure 4. Process Used by Manufacturing in Hagerstown to Develop its Values and Principles


As demonstrated in Figure 4, the Manufacturing Union and Management Leadership each completed and individual values survey and receive feedback on their individual values. This group was then facilitated through a full day session to determine the “joint consensus values” that would be utilized by the Union and Management Leadership to operate this facility. This process led the group to select a set of consensus values from the set of 125. This process involved discussion, advocacy, and debate until consensus was reached regarding the values to be included.

Once these consensus values were selected it was then necessary to create a set of principles i.e. statements reflecting clusters of values, that would provide a small number of concepts that could provide guidance to people in the Hagerstown facility with respect to what they stood for and what values and principles they would utilize to guide their behavior and decisions. The first draft of these principles showing the value titles underlying the principles is presented in Figure 5.

Once defined, the deployment process involves putting the values and principles into action in the workplace. This is a never ending process that involves assessment, feedback, skill development, and dialog. Both managers and non-managers need to develop new skills and patterns of behavior to live the values. Policies need to be reviewed, and new policy proposals and decisions need to be “audited” against the values and principles. In a subsequent development process, all manufacturing managers and supervisors went through a similar values assessment with individual feedback to help them see the similarities and differences between their personal values and the consensus values that had been agreed upon as the way to manage the facility. This was not done to “coerce” managers to accept the values. It was done in the spirit of feedback and development to allow the managers to be able to make choices with knowledge of the values of the company in mind. It was also used to identify opportunities for personal development to help the managers improve their skills to operate in accordance with the new culture (e.g. a Phase 3 culture.)

The power of this process lies in the fact that the values are empirically derived and the set of values includes both “organizational values” those that are lived in organizational settings and “personal values” those that are played out privately and personally. It is this latter set of values, the personal values, that provide the strong emotional connection which underlies organizational commitment. Often organizations will define a set of company values that will be espoused for the company or facility. When analyzed, these values tend to be all “organizational” statements that lack the personal values component. As a result people do not connect emotionally to the statements and the values do not gain “traction” in the organization. They are nice words, but they do not serve to guide day to day behavior in the workplace. This gap between the espoused values and the values in practice which is in effect the absence of values is what Tom Carter has labeled as “corruption” (Table 2).


Mack-UAW Hagerstown

We commit to these principles and their underlying values to enable us to “Be the Best”

1. Individual Dignity – We will create an environment that actively supports the basic rights of each person to be respected. We will assure that each person is given the opportunity to be successful through valuing them as a person, through providing an opportunity to develop their skills, through providing timely and accurate information, and providing honest and open communication. We will honestly acknowledge our limitations, encourage and accept constructive feedback and learn from our mistakes. (Values included: security, self-worth, rights/respect, competence/confidence, communication/information, self-actualization, authority/honesty, limitation/acceptance, sharing/listening/trust, human dignity, limitation/celebration).

2. Continuous Improvement – We will actively stimulate the continuous improvement of the performance capability of all individuals and the organization. Our security comes from our ability to be the best engine and transmission plant in the world. Our design of jobs and work processes will provide meaningful work that will stimulate employee development and allow each person to see how they contribute to the mission of the plant. This requires all of us to take responsibility for and to continuously improve our ability to perform. As individuals and as an organization we will continually develop and apply our knowledge and skills, using reason and logic rather than emotion, to enable us to better solve problems, increase value to customers and shareholders and gain confidence from our increased contribution. We will create structures and systems that reward people for improving their capabilities and knowledge and for sharing this knowledge to enable others to improve. (Values included: security, economics/profit, self-worth, rights/respect, competence/confidence, communication/information, reason, self-actualization, search/meaning/hope, knowledge/insight, limitation/celebration).

3. Mutual Responsibility and Collaboration – In order to “be the best” members of the Mack-UAW team understand that their future is linked to the success of their partners in Mack, in Renault and in the customer community. This interdependence requires high levels of joint activity and mutual accountability focused on the mission of the Hagerstown plant. We will create a community that encourages initiative and risk-taking within a framework of shared values and trust developed through honest dialog and a shared purpose. We will honor our duties and obligations, be loyal to the “tradition” of Mack Trucks and the UAW and will take ownership and responsibility of the processes, tasks and relationships required to assure the continued success of the plant. (Values included – security, economics/profit, self-worth, control/order/discipline, rights, respect, belief/philosophy, communication/information, duty/obligation, loyalty/fidelity, ownership, responsibility, service/vocation, authority/honesty, decision/initiation, sharing/listening/trust, faith/risk/vision, accountability/ethics, collaboration, limitation/celebration, mission/objectives, mutual accountability, interdependence.)

4. Performance Excellence –The ultimate success of a business is determined by its ability to provide sustained value to customers and sustained profitability to shareholders. We will adopt, implement and improve business practices that assure continually improving processes and minimal variability in products. We will accurately appraise and evaluate our results and the processes we use to create those results and use this data to help us


improve. We will minimize waste of any resource which we can control or influence, thereby minimizing our costs. By assuring alignment with the mission of the corporation and the requirements of our customers we will work to improve customer satisfaction and profitability and thereby enhance our own employment security and our ability to create a positive future for our families. (Values included- Economics/profit, control/order/discipline, work/labor, achievement/success, efficiency/planning, productivity, reason, unity/uniformity, quality/evaluation, accountability/ethics, mission/objectives, mutual accountability)

* NOTE: Values that are italicized were added to the original list of consensus values to fill gaps or to include values that were originally selected by at least 15 out of 18 respondents in the measured values group report.

Figure 5 Principles and Values - First Draft


Non Traditional Models

The final set of change models to be addressed are models that we have labeled “Non-Traditional” Models. We have classified the Hall – Tonna Values Map as a non traditional descriptive model since its Phase 4 embraces much of what we would consider to be Non-Traditional. However the Hall-Tonna framework provides a way to describe some of the elements of Phase – 4 organizations but does not provide a methodology to move in this direction other than the process described above.

Therefore, this discussion will center on two prescriptive models. One is the somewhat futuristic Adaptive Management model proposed by Meyer and Davis (2003). The other is the “Sustainable Organization” model that is still coming into focus and is articulated by various authors such as Capra(1996), Hawken, Lovins and Lovins (1999), Holliday, Schmidheiny and Watts(2002), Mitsuhashi (2000), McDonough and Braungart (2002), and Elkington (2001).

The Adaptive Enterprise Model

The Adaptive Enterprise Model (Meyer and Davis, 2003) represents the authors’ interpretation of the organizational consequences resulting from the intersection two powerful economic forces. The first is the “connected economy” – the result of vast investments and advancements in autonomous software and the increased interconnectedness resulting from the networking technologies. The second major force is the rise of molecular technologies – biotechnology, nanotechnology and materials science. The authors see molecular technologies as a paradigm shift as great or greater as the shift from the industrial economy to the information economy. It will lead to “gales of creative destruction” and tremendous opportunity.

As a result of the intersection of these two economic forces, the pace of change will continue to escalate and its direction will be increasingly unpredictable. Just as we cannot predict precisely where a hurricane will strike land, managers will no longer be able to predict and control change. Successful organizations will be those that no longer attempt to control change but that develop great skill at sensing and responding to change. This is what Meyer and Davis refer to as the Adaptive Enterprise.

To understand the radical shift in thinking that underlies this model it is helpful to consider some examples.

John Deere has a factory that makes seed planters. The problem facing all manufacturing plants is developing the optimum schedule for sequencing products to be produced. At this Deere plant, the planning begins with engineers creating a few random schedules that express the sequence of planters to be made the next day. Each schedule is expressed as a set of 1’s and 0’s – a set of digital instructions – not unlike DNA expresses a genetic code. Each of the random schedules is evaluated in a simulator. This is analogous to selecting the best race horse by letting the horses grow up and racing them to see who is best. Next the engineers evaluate and select the “winning” sequences from the simulation


run and then combine them into a next generation set of schedules. “ Forty thousand new schedules run simulated races every night, and the winner is the schedule that runs tomorrow’s real-life production derby on the John Deere factory floor.” (Meyer and Davis, 2003, p. 4). Essentially, this process utilizes the biological process of evolution, with time accelerated through simulation, to select the best scheduling solution.

The second example comes from IBM. “In July 2002, for example IBM opened a $2.5 billing chip factory in East

Fishkill, New York, the company’s largest capital expenditure ever. This flies in the face of the current trend of relying on the assets of other. Why didn’t IBM just buy chips from a fabricator in Asia? “To play to win in technology, you innovate and lead, “ IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano told the New York Times. “What we call lab-to-fab time should be as close to zero as possible,” according to John Kelly, senior vice president in charge of IBM’s technology group. The closer the fabrication’s cycle time gets to zero, the less disruptive is the market’s unpredictability. This doesn’t mean that volatility is made irrelevant. Quite the contrary: Market change is so relevant that it becomes the natural environment, the water to the fish. Kelly continued , “The core of our strategy is to lead in technology….if our strategy were anything but to be on the leading edge, we’d have put the plant in Asia.”

IBM is spending extra money on the plant itself, and thus raising the unit cost of each chip it will produce, in order to have a better chance of being faster to market. Given a strategy of technological leadership, as well as the volatility of the chip business, the benefit in time of being close to the company’s labs in Westchester County is worth paying for. ……..

IBM has devised a solution to the impossibility of forecasting demand. The new approach is to stop guessing about the future, and to build so as to adapt to it by creating a diverse set of capabilities. The intent is to deal with a volatile market, protect IBM from flux in demand, and build an adaptive factory, one that can build a diverse portfolio of chips for everything from mainframes to cell phones to video game consoles. The previous generation of manufacturing stressed the “focused factory”, designed to minimize unit cost by doing just one thing superbly. Presumably forever.’’ (Meyer and Davis, 203, p 17-18).

The economic force that Meyer and Davis call the “molecular economy” is really three forces. One is a greater understanding at the molecular level of chemical and biological functions. The second is the super-miniaturization of manufacturing. The third is the field of research that enables us to manipulate matter that is measured in terms of nanometers – one billionth of a meter. The field of nanotechnology offers the promise of revolutionizing work in pharmaceuticals, health care, materials science, electronics and manufacturing. The convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science at the molecular level will combine to produce the next wave of economic activity.

Central to Meyer and Davis’s thesis is that the lessons of biology will be increasingly merged into our thinking about organizations. Perhaps no lesson from


biology is more powerful than the concept of evolution. If we return to the John Deere example cited above, consider how Meyer and Davis interpret this example using a biological and evolutionary point of view.

“ The story of John Deere’s planter-factory, breeding schedules moves our discussion from analogy to algorithm. The simulated throughput of each schedule is a quantitative measure of its fitness, and the later generations of schedule represent the evolution of the best schedules toward greater fitness.

John Deere’s genetic algorithm leads us to another essential point. In “breeding” its production schedules, Deere has taken information about a physical process – the assembly of seed planters – and applied two evolutionary concepts – sexual recombination and selective pressure – to solve a manufacturing problem. Essential to this process are (1) the ability to represent the scheduling problem as information, coded into ones and zeros, and (2) the ability to “improve the breed” by treating this digital information the way biology treats coded information in the sequence of G’s,T’s,A’s and C’s that make up DNA, and finally (3) the ability to use the resulting information to drive the real-world process. In this way, business, information, and biology all contribute to the solution. “ (Meyer and Davis, 2003, p. 29-30.)

This provides only a brief look at the profound changes that are well underway as a result of the forces described by Meyer and Davis. However, for our purposes, what are the implications of this next economic wave for organizations that will operate in this new era? The IBM and John Deer examples provide a glimpse of what this may mean - using biological processes to solve real world problems and building factories that reduce the time to develop a new product to approach zero as closely as possible. However if we are to think in more general terms what are the elements of the Adaptive Enterprise as seen by Meyer and Davis?

The question raised by the authors which is both intriguing and scary is whether individual organizations can evolve or whether only industries evolve. For example, in biology a single organism is built with its own genetic code. At least prior to gene therapy, individual organisms could only adapt within the constraints of their genetic coding. Species, on the other hand can evolve through the principles of breeding and natural selection so that over time, individual organisms within the species have improved capabilities through taking advantage of the principle of evolution.

Can a single organization evolve? This is equivalent to asking if an organization can reprogram its organizational DNA? Can U.S. Airways emerge from its bankruptcy proceedings as a different organization capable of operating in a fundamentally different way? It is not enough simply to change its cost structure and be a less costly operator. It must radically change the way people in the organization think, make decisions, and behave on a daily basis. This is the challenge facing organizations that attempt to evolve.


An even bigger challenge is for organizations to transform themselves without having to experience the trauma of declaring Chapter 11 or be swallowed by a competitor.

Principles of the Adaptive Enterprise - Meyer and Davis (2003) present six principles that help define the elements of an Adaptive Enterprise. The authors suggest that this does not require a massive “change” program. “One advantage of the adaptive-enterprise approach is that it doesn’t require some kind of massive, sudden change program. If leaders in an organization start embodying the memes of Adaptive Enterprise, they will spread, and over time they will change the organization’s behavior.” (2003, p.100).

Of course, the authors are practicing the art of understatement here. The fundamental premise of all change programs is to encourage senior leadership to behave differently. If they do, the organization will change. If they do not, any changes introduced will be short-lived. So, following the admonition of Meyer and Davis, if the organization is to transform, it is necessary to “reprogram” the DNA of the senior leadership. This will in turn and over time lead to reprogramming the organizational DNA. A primary reason so many consultant-driven change programs fail, is the failure to change the behavior of senior leaders.

The six principles of the Adaptive Enterprise are presented in Figure 6.

1. Self-Organize – Manage your organization from the bottom up. Influence the rules that affect individual choices rather than the overall behavior of the organization.

2. Recombine - Proliferating connections make recombination – of software code, product attributes, people, and markets – easier. Turn your business into an open system to capture the value and innovation of diversity.

3. Sense and Respond – Networks make real-time information cheap. Sensors help us filter and act on new information and even abandon forecasting altogether. Equip your business to sense changes and to respond immediately, accurately and appropriately.

4. Learn and Adapt – After getting feedback on what happened when you “sensed and responded”, learn from that experience and incorporate the new information into your repertoire of responses.

5. Seed, Select, and Amplify – Test many diverse options, and reinforce the winners. Experiment, don’t plan.

6. Destabilize – The rate of environmental change demands internal instability for survival. Disrupt the static elements in your organization. (Meyer and Davis, 2003, p.101)

The authors go on to present three case examples of organizations as disparate as the U.S. Marines, BP, and Maxygen have incorporated some or all of these principles as they attempt to become Adaptive Organizations.

Consider some of the examples from BP.


Building on the U.S. Air Force concept of OODA, Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, John Browne, CEO of BP, is attempting to build the company’s capacity to respond by creating the shortest OODA loop in the industry, and then create instability that BP can handle but that the others in the oil industry cannot.

For example, Browne went on the offensive about “being green.” When California was set to impose new standards for sulfur emissions from diesel fuel BP urged the state to set more stringent regulations than they were planning. This was because BP had already developed a low-sulfur diesel product that no competitor could match. This illustrated his strategy of using their speed of adaptation as a competitive advantage.

BP has declared BP’s support for both sustainable development and ethical conduct. As a result they banned political contributions in the U.S. and “facilitation payments” in developing countries.

It changed its name from British Petroleum to BP and rolled out the “tag line” as Beyond Petroleum to symbolize its emphasis on energy sources other than petroleum. This sparked a backlash from securities analysts suggesting that Browne should focus instead on improving ROE which was 13.1 and trailed Exxon-Mobil’s at 17.5. Browne lowered the volume on his promotion but stuck to his strategic direction. BP’s stock price grew 141% compared to Exxon Mobil’s 127% and pretax earnings grew 217 % vs. 135% for Exxon Mobil. BP has grown from 53% of Exxon’s size in 1995 to 93% today.

“By adding adaptation to business, BP is adding biology to physics, evolution to efficiency, and extending the analysis that informs judgment.” (Ibid,p.165)

The “Beyond Petroleum” positioning is, among other things, a message to the people of BP that excellent management of today’s concerns is not the whole job. They must also have an eye on creating the capacity to respond tomorrow.

BP has created an atomic structure for the company or the business unit. By getting people to work in smaller units they can have the atomic structure and at the same time gain the benefit of having people be part of “one” organization. This places the business unit in the role of “agent” and the rules for their behavior are determined in significant part by the goal-negotiation process.

The separate business units have a “corporate” responsibility to share knowledge across business units.

The company has established four BP values : green, innovative, progressive and performance.

BP’s actions show a leader “managing rules, not people” at the level of the business unit and the individual. By articulating the behaviors that will make a person successful at BP (e.g. ask for help, share your knowledge, etc.) and the achievements that will be rewarded (e.g. green, innovative, progressive, performance) Browne is creating individuals who will self –organize themselves and the business to achieve the company’s objectives.

The company has created three structured team-oriented innovations to foster and organize horizontal communication and promote self-organization. These are HIVE – cross functional teams focused on solving problems; DELTA – (Dialog Enabled Learning and Team Alignment) – an assessment tool to enable bottom-up decision making and self alignment. ALERT – (Asset & Opportunity Leverage


Through Early Risk Mitigation in Teams) – this is a tool for development of risk management plans and making early value-based trade off decisions utilizing the principle of peer challenge and critique. The goal is to build a “portfolio” rather than a parochial “project” perspective. “ALERT” also helps build up risk correlations so that with the right leadership, the project team is equipped to treat the fifth or sixth project in China, for example, differently from the first entry into a new country.”

John Browne emphasizes feedback loops that guide the behavior of managers. “Much of what is happening at a business unit level need not be touched so long as it’s within certain levels. But there are some things which, if they begin to trend out, are indicators of something happening – bad or good – and we are trying harder and harder to identify the few things that actually make a difference, without taking away the wherewithal of the business unit leader to…manage. ….. “ In other words, if leaders can stop asking questions about things that don’t really govern success, managers can stop wasting their efforts on unproductive issues.” ( Ibid, p. 176, bold and italics added).

With strategic management, as with operations, it is not enough to be excellent at doing. BP wants to be excellent at changing, too.

BP has set a plan to reduce emissions with goals that are twice as ambitious as those required under the Kyoto protocol. One BP chemicals plant in Korea cut costs by $4.5 million and CO2 emissions by 49,000 tons. (Ibid, p.177)

What is the payoff? “The adaptive BP should reap two streams of benefits. First as the industry inevitably changes in an increasingly volatile world, the costs of change – extraordinary items, restructuring charges, disposition of business units at distressed prices, inability to attract first rate talent – should be lower for BP than for its less adaptable competitors. Second, because of its greater agility, BP should be the leader in seizing the opportunities presented by change. The “capacity to respond” has both upside – faster growth and downside – lower cost to change – benefits. “ (Ibid, p. 179)

The BP case illustrates some of the elements of the adaptive organization. “Browne fits the role of an adaptive CEO. He directs the evolution of BP rather than its actions. He improves performance by enabling self-organization among people and business units, by increasing the connectivity throughout the enterprise, by explicitly managing diversity and recombination, and by paying careful attention to the feedback loops that create selective pressure in the organization, whether imposed by management or the market, by destabilizing his company and his industry. “ (Ibid, p. 179).

The data on BP are consistent with the Adaptive Enterprise hypothesis: faster growth and more rapid response to regulation than its peers, but lower on measures of current profitability. This has produced excellent results for shareholders and has made the company a great place to work for 110,000 people. The company is also providing leadership in the world’s discussion of growth and the environment. Whether this will become the model for how to manage large organizations is still unknown. Time will tell.


However, Browne is consistent in his twin emphases on today and the capacity to respond tomorrow. He is quoted by the authors as follows : “……. You have to think about the company today, because you have made commitments, you have set expectations. But that’s only part of the story, because you’re actually thinking about the company over a period of years. And by definition, over a period of years, you will evolve. You must. Otherwise you will die. “ (Ibid p. 180)

Sustainable Organization / Sustainable Growth Model.

In many ways the case example of BP cited above is both an example of the Adaptive Enterprise and the “Sustainable Organization.” The term Sustainable Organization stems from the global movement towards “Sustainable Development.” This term was coined by a 1987 report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). This Commission’s work led to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent “World Summit on Sustainable Development” in South Africa in 2002.

The term sustainable development grew out of concerns by the WCED for the environment. However, in defining sustainable development the WCED coupled this concern with concerns for meeting human needs.

“Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future. Far from requiring the cessation of economic growth, it recognizes that the problems of poverty and underdevelopment cannot be solved unless we have a new era of growth in which developing countries play a large role and reap large benefits” (WCED, 1987)

In 1997, the WCED went on to say :“Yet in the end, sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but

rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs….. Painful choices have to be made. This in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will. “

If we move this thinking from the global system to an organization or enterprise level system, we then ask questions about what does it mean for an organization to be sustainable. Some organizations, have opted for the term “sustainable growth” as a more acceptable concept. Paul Tebo, the former VP for safety, health and environment for DuPont described his challenge in getting business unit managers to accept the message:

“….Growth was very important. I tried sustainability and the business leaders saw it as status quo. I tried sustainable development and they viewed it as environmental sustainability. I tried sustainable business(but) growth is what organizations want –


either you’re growing or you’re not and not growing is not a very good sit” (Holliday, et al. 2002, p. 15.

Unlike the other models reviewed, there is no single model for the Sustainable Organization or Sustainable Growth. In personal communication with Paul Tebo (2003), he has pointed out that the “tool kit” for an organization that desires to become a sustainable organization does not exist. Therefore, in this section, we will briefly review some of the range of ideas that could be considered by an organization moving in this direction.

One of the characteristics of the sustainable organization is how the definition of performance changes. John Elkington (2001) has proposed what is called the Triple Bottom Line as a way to capture this notion of a new definition of organizational performance. The elements of the triple bottom line are : economic performance, environmental performance and social performance. Success for an organization lies in simultaneously achieving excellence in all three areas. Unlike the Balanced Scorecard, the Triple Bottom Line does not view these three areas as hierarchical. Rather they are independent dimensions of performance, and one cannot be sacrificed for the other.

The notion that performance criteria must change in order for an organization to move toward sustainable growth is also illustrated by DuPont. Chad Holliday, DuPont’s CEO describes DuPont’s approach.

“…Like most companies in our industry we measured success by how much stuff we produced and sold, Revenues and profits were directly tied to throughput of energy an raw materials and output of product. To increase one you had to increase the other.

As we approached the 21st century, however, we recognized that such an approach could not lead a company toward sustainability. One reason was the obvious: global industry does not have unlimited supplies of non-renewable raw materials, and the Earth’s ecosystems have limited capacity to absorb waste and emissions. But, more fundamentally, if we wanted our businesses to be sustainable, we had to find a way to create business growth as measured by revenue and earnings while minimizing the pounds of product necessary to do so. Our solution was to devise a new metric to measure performance improvement. We call it “shareholder value added (SVA) per pound of production” where SVA is earnings generated above the cost of capital.

Companies can increase the numerator (the SVA) by doing more of what they have always done – selling more products and services. However, with pounds weight as the denominator, then real improvement can be made only by delivering more value to your customer without increasing the pounds produced. “ (Holliday, et. al., 2002, p. 24)

Changing corporate metrics along with changing the performance incentives for executives, can create behavior change in the organization. However, DuPont is not relying on this alone to drive change. The second prong of their strategy is eco-efficiency. Their major engine to accelerate efficiency improvement is their six-sigma program. One


of DuPont’s business units estimates that 70% of its six-sigma projects result in environmental footprint reductions such as reduced energy, water, waste and emissions. The third prong of their strategy is integrated science. For years, DuPont made products by combining inputs from chemistry and physics. Consistent with the message from Meyer and Davis, DuPont is now attempting to integrate chemistry and physics with biology and information technology.

DuPont is one of the companies that moved beyond sustainability as a public relations campaign or as some would say as a “smokescreen for business as usual.” For DuPont, sustainable growth has become an integral art of their business strategy. They are exiting businesses that are petroleum based and have purchased a seed company as an example of moving from chemistry and physics to biology and from unsustainable business to sustainable ones. Holliday points out that: “… For us at DuPont the question of whether sustainability improves the bottom line is not asked anymore. We are committed to sustainable growth. That is how we will get our bottom line, and that is how we will create value for our shareholders and for society. “ (2002, p. 24).

There is an extensive and growing literature that is addressing the issue of the sustainable enterprise. At this point, the literature at the firm or enterprise level is, with some exceptions, collections of anecdotal examples describing case examples. Much of the focus has been on business and public policy and how the policy environment can shape business behavior. There is less systematic literature on how an enterprise, like DuPont or BP that has chosen this strategic can evolve their enterprise in this direction. Some guidance can be obtained from The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD and their publication (Holliday, Schmidheiny, and Watts, 2002). This focus has been underway in Japan for some time as evidenced by the fact that Toyota has introduced its 4th generation hybrid vehicle while the U.S. auto industry is moving into its 1st generation. In 2000 a translation of a book that was originally only in Japanese was published which contained 18 chapters, each by a different Japanese CEO, describing how “Green” would become the basis for the revitalization of Japanese industry. The concept preferred by the Japanese is Zero Emissions. This book lays out a very comprehensive and integrated strategy for “Japan’s Green Comeback”. It addresses how banks are basing loan strategies on company’s sustainability track record, it discusses “green” strategies in industries as diverse as construction, railroads, utilities, cosmetics, autos, finance, breweries, and business products.

Consider the path taken by Toyota. In 1992, the company launched its Global Environment Charter. This was followed the next year by the Plan for the Environment at Toyota – a mid-term plan with 22 action items. In 1994 a development team was formed to commercialize the two key terms selected as the basis for its long term planning “global environment” and “social environment” as it designed a new car for the new century. The goal was set for a 100% increase in fuel efficiency. This goal led to the decision to pursue the hybrid system. In 1998, Toyota began to speak publicly about its “Intelligent Transport Systems” a key concept for future mobility that integrates cars, roads and cities. (Mitsuhashi, 2000, p. 140).


In one of the most significant books from the environmental community, Hawken, Lovins and Lovins (1999) argues for a new industrial revolution based on a shift from traditional capitalism to “natural capitalism” which is a new paradigm based on different assumptions (Figure 7).

Conventional Capitalism Natural CapitalismEconomic progress can best occur in free-market systems of production and distribution where reinvested profits make labor and capital increasingly productive.

The environment is not a minor factor of production but rather is “an envelope containing, provisioning, and sustaining the entire economy. “

Competitive advantage is gained when bigger, more efficient plants manufacture more products for sale to expanding markets.

The limiting factor to future economic development is the availability and functionality of natural capital, in particular, life-supporting services that have no substitute and currently have no market value.

Growth in total output (GDP) maximizes human well-being.

Misconceived or badly designed business systems, population growth, and wasteful patterns of consumption are the primary causes of the loss of natural capital, and all three must be addressed to achieve a sustainable economy.

Any resource shortages that do occur will elicit the development of substitutes.

Future economic progress can best take place in democratic, market-based systems of production and distribution in which all forms of capital are fully valued, including human, manufactured, financial, and natural capital.

Concerns for a healthy environment are important but must be balanced against the requirements of economic growth, if a high standard of living is to be maintained.

One of the keys to the most beneficial employment of people, money, and the environment is radical increases in resource productivity.

Free enterprise and market forces will allocate people and resources to their highest and best uses.

Human welfare is best served by improving the quality and flow of desired services delivered, rather than by merely increasing the total dollar flow. Economic and environmental sustainability depends on redressing global inequities of income and material well-being. The best long-term environment for commerce is provided by true democratic systems of governance that are based on the needs of people rather than business.


It is not the intent of the authors of Natural Capitalism to define a change strategy for individual firms. However, from their broad discussion, with many case examples it is clear that they would argue for at least three strategies for a firm. These would very closely mirror the three strategies articulated by Chad Holliday, CEO of DuPont. They are :

(1) Resource efficiency (reduce all forms of waste, lean thinking and lean manufacturing, improve resource productivity, etc.)

(2) New business models (consider models like service leasing, life cycle product responsibility, achieving value from knowledge, etc.)

(3) Make sustainability a focus of design (sustainable product development, choice of materials, new material development, plan for reuse, recycling, remanufacturing or downcycling, etc.)

The final perspective we will consider with respect to the sustainable enterprise/ sustainable growth topic is the work of William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002). McDonough is an architect and Braungart is a chemist. Their focus is on design of eco-effective buildings, products, processes, organizations and societies. These authors argue that design needs to move from a “cradle to grave” paradigm to a paradigm that mirrors natural metabolic flow from “cradle to cradle.” In cradle to grave design, products that end their useful life go to their “grave” which is a landfill or other disposal site. In cradle to cradle design, products that end their useful life become “food” or inputs to another process. These authors advocate not minimizing waste, but designing things to eliminate the concept of waste. “To eliminate the concept of waste means to design things – products, packaging, and systems – from the very beginning on the understanding that waste does not exist.” (McDonough and Braungart, 2002).

McDonough and Braungart point out that products should be conceived as part of one of two cycles. Products that go back to the biological cycle following their use are called products of consumption, e.g. a carpet made of materials that are not harmful can become mulch for the garden. Other products that contain harmful substances are considered products of service. In this case, the “customer” does not need to own the product (e.g. the TV or the car) but simply needs the service of the product for a period of time. At the end of that time, the products go back to the “technical cycle” and upcycled into new products or maintained in a closed system (as in the case of industrial chemicals). This is how they are able to avoid the concept of waste.

The authors have been retained by the Ford Motor Company to redesign the River Rouge plant. This is an ongoing process however they have begun with a redesign of the plants storm water system that makes use of a “grass roof” for the plant along with other features and is expected to save the company approximately $35 million in fees and fines. Their ideas are also being applied to the production processes and to product design. The design team formed to work with the consultants is attempting to approach problems in a new way. Rather than “deny and comply” strategies Ford’s team said, let’s assume the worst with regard to contamination at the plant site. “…Ford negotiated with the government to experiment with treating its soil in a new way. It would remove and bury


only the top layer of soil, then clean the deeper layers. It has been exploring innovative cleanup methods such as phytoremediation, a process that uses green plants to remove toxins from soil, and mycoremediation or cleaning soil with mushrooms and fungi. From Rouge Room (the design’s team control center) conception to implementation, the approach is framed in positive, proactive terms – not “clean up” but “create healthy soil,” for example. ………… The work is governed by a compelling goal: creating a factory site where Ford employees’ own children could safely play.”(McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p. 162)

In applying their design principles, McDonough and Braungart outline 5 principles that should be followed in attempting to create eco-effective designs.

1. Get “free” of known culprits – Identify the “X” lists of substances that are bio-accumulative and clearly harmful – e.g. PVC, lead, mercury, cadmium. Volvo has been a leader in this area for years and has eliminated mercury switches in cars and has a plan for eliminating PVC’s as well.

2. Follow informed personal preferences – “The truth is we are standing in the middle of an enormous marketplace filled with ingredients that are largely undefined: we know little about what they are made of, and how. And based on what we do know, for the most part the news is not good: most of the products we have analyzed do not meet truly eco-effective design criteria. Yet decisions have to be made today, fording upon the designer the difficult question of which materials are sound enough to use. …… (so what is the designer to do?)

a. Prefer ecological intelligence – be as sure as you can that a product or substance does not contain or support substances and practices that are blatantly harmful to human and environmental health.

b. Prefer respect – “…respect for those who make the product, for the communities near where it is made, for those who handle and transport the product and ultimately for the customer.

c. Prefer delight, celebration and fun – choose products that are at the forefront of human expression, express the best of design creativity, and add pleasure and delight to life.

3. Create a “passive positive” list – Going beyond readily available information as to the contents of a given product, conduct a detailed inventory of the palette of materials used in a given product and the substances it may give off in the course of its manufacture and use. Then create three lists :

a. X – list – those that are clearly harmful and should not be used;b. Gray list – those that are potentially problematic but not quite so urgently

in need of being phased out as the X list;c. P list – the preferred list that includes substances actively defined as

healthy and safe for use. 4. Activate the positive list – This is where the design actively tries to be “good”

rather than “less bad.” For example, if we are choosing new material for an automobile we give thought as to how they can enter biological and technical cycles safely and prosperously. For example, we might be choosing materials for the brake pads and rubber for the tires that can abrade safely and become products


of consumption. We might be upholstering the seats in “edible” fabric. We might be using biodegradable paints……. . We might be designing the car for disassembly, so that the steel, plastic, and other technical nutrients can once again be available to industry…….. (Ibid, p.178)

5. Reinvent - In this stage, we are doing more than designing for biological and technical cycles. Here we are recasting the design assignment : not design a car but “design a nutrivehicle.” Instead of aiming to create cars with minimal or zero negative emissions, imagine cars designed to release positive emissions and generate other nutritious effects on the environment. (Note: this concept bears some resemblance to the thinking that was discussed above as Toyota focused on its Intelligent Transport System not just designing better cars.)

This brief discussion does not do justice the ideas of McDonough and Braungart or the ideas of Hawken, Lovins and Lovins. However, the discussion sketches the outline of a new paradigm that is evolving for creating sustainable organizations. It is clear that these approaches involve a radical shift in thinking for most organizations. In the U.S. it is fair to say that many, if not most, organizations are still in denial that there is an environmental problem. However, there are a growing number of organizations who have adopted a strategy of sustainability as the best way to remain competitive and to deliver sustained value to shareholders and to society. They, along with a new breed of academics and consultants are helping to define the operational “tool kit” that will help leaders accelerate the evolution to becoming sustainable organizations.

PART THREE

Models of Change : What Have We Learned?

Part two of this paper has reviewed 11 different change models. This section will discuss these models in terms of the five themes listed below.

Leadership of Change Change and Business Strategy Knowledge Management and Change Tools That Support and Enable the Change Process The Role of the Individual in Organizational Change

Table 8 provides an analysis of the 11 models in relation to the 5 themes.



Table 8Analysis of the 11 Change Models

Model Leadership of Change

Change and Business Strategy

Knowledge Management and Change

Tools that Support and Enable Change

Role of the Individual

Lewin Leader “unfreezes”, changes, maintains change

Leader “unfreezes”, changes, maintains change

Coopers and Lybrand

Defines vision, Creates dissatisfaction with status quo, Defines means to create new vision, aligns reward system, provides feedback to shape behavior

Communication, reward system

Follow directions

Alcoa Defines, vision and values, realistic

Clear link to strategy

Communication, training, Values assessment,

Build capability, understand


assessment of needs, define link to strategy, allocates resources, define metrics and provide feedback, be role model, provide support and encouragement.

performance measurement, measurement of rate of change, recognition, common vocabulary, employee empowerment.

strategy, find ways to improve.

Good to Great Level 5 leadership, get right people on the bus, confront brutal facts,

Disciplined culture, technology as accelerator.

Kotter Create sense of urgency, establish guiding coalition, develop vision and strategy, role model new behaviors, identify short

Clear link to strategy.

Communication, empowerment, recognition and reward systems, document processes,


term wins, identify/remove barriers, encourage risk taking.

Business Transformation

Achieve mobilization, create vision, build measures, build economic model, align physical infrastructure, redesign work architecture, achieve market focus, invent new businesses,

Information technology, reward systems, training and competency development.

Strategic Six Sigma

New business model, Use of six sigma tools at top management level, Role model change,

Strategy aligned with customer requirements

Training in six sigma tools, black belt training,

Shiba Model Set goals, Management

Strategy defined

Sharing of improvement

Training, Communication,

Participate in improvement


promotion of change, identification of success stories,

ideas. organizational diagnosis, performance measurement, recognition, organizational unit dedicated to planning change implementation.

actions,

Values Map Promoting organizational values, defining behaviors that support values, Role modeling the values.

Using values as basis for strategy development.

Consensus values enable trust and trust enables knowledge sharing.

Values survey, consensus values process, values provide common vocabulary,

Participating in survey, understanding one’s own and organizational values, taking action to align behavior with organizational values.

Adaptive Management

Define the “rules” that allow employees to self-organize (e.g. , mission, goals, values, behaviors that support values, etc.) understanding

Define strategy,

Learning from experience, freely sharing of lessons learned, make organizational boundaries permeable to permit

Cross-functional teams, networked organization, ability to sense change, promotion of diversity in all forms, robust processes that

Understanding of strategy and organizational purpose, ability to sense the environment, capability to self –organize,


the vital few control points that create results, encourage experimentation, Create instability, focus on building capacity to respond, reduce the cost of change.

sharing of information with customers, suppliers, etc.

increase behavioral repertoire, ongoing skill and capability development

Sustainable Enterprise

Clear commitment of senior leadership to the values and principles of organizational sustainability. Reinvent the business model to support sustainability.

Sustainable enterprise as a business strategy.

Change in performance metrics to triple bottom line. Create a new set of rules for product development that embraces eco-efficiency. Focus on resource productivity.


References

Argyris, Chris, Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. 1993. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Behm, Forrest, Saving a great company: The story of how Corning, Incorporated made radical changes. 2001.Reddington Shores, Fl:PPC Books.

Bossidy, Larry & Ram Charan. Execution: The discipline of getting things done. 2002. New York: Crown Business.

Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.1996. New York: Anchor Books.

Carter, T.L. Notes on Change and Empowerment.1999( Published by the author who is the former VP of Quality and Executive Development for Alcoa.)

Carter, T.L. Values: A Brief Overview. 2002. ( Published by the author who is the former VP of Quality and Executive Development for Alcoa.)

Carr, David K., Kelvin J. Hard, and William J. Trahant, Managing the Change Process: A field book for change agents, consultants, team leaders and reengineering managers.1996.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Christensen, Clayton M. & Michael E. Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. 2003. Boston, Ma.: Harvard Business School Press.

Cole, Robert E. (Ed.), California Management Review, Special Issue on Knowledge and the firm, Spring 1998, Vol.40, No.3.

Collins, Jim, Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ….. and others don’t. 2001, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Davis, Stan & Christopher Meyer, Blur: The speed of change in the connected economy. 1998. New York: Warner Books.

George, Bill, Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.2003. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gouillart, F. J. & James N. Kelly, Transforming the organization: Reframing corporate direction, restructuring the organization, revitalizing the enterprise, renewing people. 1995. New York: McGraw- Hill.


Hall, Brian P., Values Shift: A Guide to Personal and Organizational Transformation, 1995,Rockport, Ma: Twin Lights Publishers.

Hawken, P., A. Lovins & L. H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. 1999. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company.

Holliday,Jr., C.O., S. Schmidheiny & P. Watts. Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development.2002. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Kaplan, R.S. and David P. Norton, The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. 2001. Boston, Ma. : Harvard Business School Press.

Koestenbaum, Peter. Leadership: The inner side of greatness. 1991. San Francisco, Ca. :Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kotter, John P., Leading Change,1996,Boston, Ma.: The Harvard Business School Press.

McDonough, William & Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things.2002.New York :North Point Press.

Meyer, Christopher & Stan Davis, It’s Alive: The coming convergence of information, biology and business. 2003. New York: Crown Business.

Mitsuhashi, Tadahiro, Japan’s Green Comeback: Future Visions of the men who made Japan.2000. Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia:Pelanduk Publications.

Shiba, Shoji, Alan Graham, and David Walden. A new American TQM: Four practical revolutions in management. 1993. Portland Oregon: Productivity Press.

Values Technology. Values-Based Organizational Alignment: Workshop Manual. May, 1996. Santa Clara, California: Author.

Von Krogh, Georg , Kazuo Ichijo & Ikujiro Nonaka. Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. 2000. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weekly, Thomas L. & Jay C. Wilber, United we stand: The unprecedented story of the GM-UAW quality partnership. 1996. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Welch, Jack, Jack: Straight from the gut. 2001. New York:Warner Books.


Documents

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROCESS - GMD …€¦ · Web viewORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES: REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF SELECTED CHANGE MODELS November 2004 Thomas C. Tuttle, Ph.D. Tuttle